I've got to say that looking at the damage the religious right has done to the GOP I can't imagine anything stupider than catering to the religious left for the Demos. About the only way I can think of to guarantee the final destruction of a party that's already teetering on the edge of breaking apart.

Dave

I have to disagree. Reaching out to the religious left in America might be a little trickier for the Democrats. But there is something healthy about pounding on a book and saying "this is wrong!" This should not be a privilege reserved for the Pat Robertsons of the world.

It is a privelege which should be reserved for the marginalized nutcases of the world, regardless of political affiliation.

Dave

The point is exactly that, Dave--countering the damage the religious right has done, reminding people and stressing that there are social justice themes in many different traditions. Moderates particularly of many traditions aren't being "energized" by the far right's coopting of their faith; there's a big opportunity in finding a way to do so.

Incidentally, I just added a paragraph based on some thoughts I intended to include but omitted:

"In a broader sense, these social justice themes often resonate with moderates and progressives of other traditions of faith--Unitarian-Universalists, Jews, Buddhists, even Pagans--as well as many agnostics and atheists. Social justice is something that can bring people together from various religious and non-religious backgrounds, as opposed to driving them apart. Stressing these commonalities may not yield a "machine" as well-oiled as the Republican union with the Christian Right, but it could energize a different segment of the electorate and foster more of a sense of community."

I fail to see how the actions of the left adhere to any social justice themes that might be found in Christianity.

Liberal judges allowing pedophiles to go free...........

Instituting bogus programs under the guise of caring that keep minorites dependent on the governement instead of becoming independent and then villifying any minority that disagrees..........

Glorifying scum like tookie williams and abu-jamal mamia as cultural heroes.........

Resisting tougher penalties for drunk drivers and having the ultra liberal lawyers do whatever they can to get somone out of a DUI.......

HOw is the right co-opting faith JP? John Kerry, being his usual pandering self during the 2004 election claimed to be catholic but also pro-choice. Well being that the Catholic doctrine is pro-life and not pro-choice and that most people on the right are pro-life whereas Kerry isn't, it would seem that people like Kerry are co opting faith and not those on the right.
The same goes for homosexuals who demand that the Catholic church change to accept thier lifestyle. if telling a 2000 year old church that they have to change because they must accept your lifestyle which is contrary to thier beliefs isn't co opting faith I don't know what is.

Arch, the right portrays Christianity as pro life but you also find such "Christians" supporting the death penalty. Jesus advocated turning the other cheek, not responding to violence with violence.

The fact that the Republican party in NC was requesting church membership directories is a little scary to me, also. The coopting of Christianity, to me, is the overboard emphasis of Abortion as the end-all be-all reason for voting, while simultaneously bankrupting these people economically with massive amounts of debt spending; all the while demonizing spending on health care, education, and poverty assistance.

Environmentalists support protecting our planet, which Christians believe was given by God as a gift. Where does the right do anything to help the environment?

Great article JP. One issue i would have is that, whilst it's possible such strategies may help bring Jesus back from under the wheels of that well-oiled machine you describe, most likely such tactics would be viewed for what they would most likely be: shallow and cynical. What that'd be doing is encouraging people to lie to try and garner support from a buncha madmen, instead of focusing on, well, important things. Which is not to say that a democrat with some sort of authentic "social justice christian" or, indeed, "proper christian" outlook wouldn't help, the last thing anyone wants, i'd wager, left or right, is a buncha folks transparently hopping on a bandwagon. Still, desperate times and all that.

The point is exactly that, Dave--countering the damage the religious right has done, reminding people and stressing that there are social justice themes in many different traditions. Moderates particularly of many traditions aren't being "energized" by the far right's coopting of their faith; there's a big opportunity in finding a way to do so.

I think it's a mistake to assume that moderates have any religious affiliation at all, and certainly they are unlikely to have one which lends itself to politicization. The religious element of the left is pretty much mainstream judaism and catholicism. Embracing them isn't likely to be too disastrous. But if they delve too far into religion and start pandering to the same sorts of religious extremist groups that the GOP has pandered to then they are likely to be just as damaged by that relationship as the republican party has been.

Only about a third of the population of the US expresses any specific, strong religious affiliation. Having both parties pander to that minority seems like a terrible mistake.

Dave

Correction--acutally about 79% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Many Americans support legal abortion in the first trimester, and where these groups overlap are people I'd suggest are moderate. The population is larger than you may realize.

Aaron, I agree, but I don't think what I'm suggesting requires any sort of insincerity. That would be counterproductive. I simply suggest the Democratic party is operating in a majority Christian country (79%-see previous comment) and by not recognizing and emphasizing commonality of purpose with that large of a group, they're really missing the boat.

Yes, 79% identify themselves as Christian. That's a very vague identifier. If you poll the general public on how often they actually attend religious services you get about half that number who attend more than a couple of times a year. If you look at your own link you'll see that 40% of those responding that they have a vague religious allegiance, admit to never attending church or belonging to any organized church. So they nominally admit to being Christian, while actually not being particularly religious.

Dave

So those 40% are certainly not the right. They're moderate to progressive because they're free thinking, yet they are to some vague degree spiritual; and that's the ones who'd be open to noticing things in common with other traditions. Thanks for helping me make my point.

countering the damage the religious right has done

To go back to my earlier point here, what you don't seem to get is that the main damage the religious right has done is not to the country as a whole, but to the Republican Party. Inviting the religious left to the table as a power block in the same way is inviting them to damage the democratic party in the same way. Just seems insanely stupid for a party which already has too many problems with divisiveness in its ranks.

Dave

So those 40% are certainly not the right. They're moderate to progressive because they're free thinking, yet they are to some vague degree spiritual; and that's the ones who'd be open to noticing things in common with other traditions. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Huh? They could just as easily be on the right or on the left politically. They're just not motivated primarily by religion. Even if they say they're nominally religious they may not want to see a religious agenda influencing a political party they vote for. These are folks who may have been driven away from the GOP because of the religious right, so now you want to amp up the religious element on the left and drive them right back. Crazy.

Dave

Clearly we disagree, Dave. The idea is that even the nonreligious have things in common with the nominally religious, be they moderate or left. Hostility toward any type of religion is one of the factors leading people to characterize Democrats as "out of the mainstream." Becuase of the 80% number, that's a legitimate argument.

Therefore, I assert that expressing the things in common between those groups would be advantageous. Being nonreceptive to people of faith is a prescription for remaining a permanent minority party.

Receptive is one thing. Pandering is another. I imagine GOP leaders thought they were just being 'receptive' when they first encoruaged evangelical Christians to switch over from the Democrats to the Republicans, and look where that got them. BTW, as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to have them back.

Dave

I dislike fudamentalism in general, whether it is Mulsim or Christian. So they can stay Republicans as far as I'm concerned!

You claim that abortion is the end all be all reason for voting among Christians JP. What about the other side. For them the end all be all is also abortion. Witness what happened to Alito and Roberts. If you're not a die hard pro-choice advocate, you're not fit to be on the supreme court int he eyes of most liberals.


Do you dislike fundamentalist secularists as well JP?

and...Witness what happened to Harriet Miers. If you're not a die hard anit-abortion advocate, you're not fit to be on the supreme court in the eyes of most conservatives.

p.s. what the heck is a fundamentalist secularist?

The Democrats need to start nominating better candidates than Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton for crying out loud. The farther they move to the "spiritual left" the farther away I will move from them.

Arch,

I said some Christians, not all - specifically many fundamentalists. What exactly happened to Alito and Roberts? Roberts, admittedly more than Alito, had a pretty smooth ride onto the bench, but they're both seated.

If you mean 'fundamentalist secularist' to refer to those who are unwilling to cede any type of common ground with those of faith, I have a problem with that too. Not that their beliefs should change, but there are goals in common, and to ignore them is foolish.

Dave, I missed your comment "the main damage the religious right has done is not to the country as a whole, but to the Republican Party." I'm not so sure, as they've tainted the reputation of religion--Christianity in particular--evident in discussions such as these. The spiritual left doesn't go about things in as closed-minded a way as the right. Do you honestly believe the Democratic party, to be true to itself, should advance a secularist platflorm?

Paul,

Sounds like you want them to nominate a right wing Christian like Bush. On that, I don't agree. Do you take issue with a platform that considers the poor, healthcare, and peace to be important agenda items? If so, you're most likely not involved in the Democratic primaries anyway.

JP,

It strikes me that you're pushing a broad concept, an approach, rather than a point by point agenda or a specific person's candidacy, though I could be wrong. It also strikes me that a lot of the folks making the comments are going after a point by point agenda or specific individuals.

It strikes me also that you are proposing a social justice platform with a lot more "flexibility" on social issues than Democrats might be willing to tolerate. I'm not sure if anyone has noticed that.

By secular fundamentalists I was referring to people like the ACLU, Freedom from Religion, and AMericans for Separation of Church and State who want to make it illegal for anyone to express religious beliefs in any type of public setting.

What happened to Roberts and Alito? Well Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Leahey and the far left groups that they are beholden to such as Planned Parenthood, Naral, Moveon.org, Code Pink, Answer, NOW, etc.... tried to Bork both candidates. They tried to use Alito's membership in a college group that allowed somebody who was not Sam Alito years after Alito had left Yale, write an editorial that was suposedly racist, to paint Sam Alito as a racist bigot despite the fact that numerous minorities who had had professional relationships with Alito have publicly stated that he is niether a racist nor a bigot.

Platform that considers the poor, healthcare and peace? The Dems had control of congress for forty years and we still have a "poor problem." Not to mention the fact that many of these right wing religious nuts you guys on the left critisize have established countless charities for the sole purpose of helping the poor. In fact if you look at charitable donations in red states versus blue states, red states give more in charitable donations than blue states.

Healthcare? If by that you mean socialized Hillary care AMerica has already said no thank you to that several times.

Peace? So when Clinton invades Bosnia without UN approval that's peace but when Bush invades Iraq without un approval it's a "war for oil."

Well, folks, I don't know what the answers are to your political woes, but I don't think they lie with either the Dems. or the Reps. Your two party system is broken and as long as that's all you have politically, I don't see how it can ever be fixed. It's just way too rigid a structure to deal with most political realities, you need a more fluid system of govt. that better represents the public at large. Alas, I heard there is a move in some states to prevent third parties from being on the ballot. Maybe it's already too late. After all, what's the point in voting for parties that don't deliver on their promises/stand by their principles?? It's just a big charade, it seems to me.

The spiritual left doesn't go about things in as closed-minded a way as the right.

Sorry, I deal with the religious left every day because of volunteer work I'm involved in. They are perhaps even MORE closed-minded than the right. They are dogmatic in their beliefs, fanatical to an extreme and completely unresponsive to alternative ways of looking at things. You mistakenly think that they are open minded because you agree with them on more issues than you do with those on the right. Go to a homeless shelter run by do-gooders from a left-leaning church and try suggesting that with the labor shortage the homeless could easily find employment and see how they respond.

Do you honestly believe the Democratic party, to be true to itself, should advance a secularist platflorm?

I think that a party which has a purely secularist platform is a desirable thing in America. I'd prefer that it were the Republican party, personally. What I think should happen is the emergence of a third party designed to serve religiously motivated voters. A party for Christian Democrats, perhaps. I think that both the Republican and Democratic parties need to be weakened in order to be 'better' parties and the way to do that is with more political diversity. The Republicans need to go back to representing business, small government and individual rights. The Democrats need to either commit to socialism or find some other viable philosophy. The religious need to cleave to their own and stop trying to twist the other two parties to their aims.

Dave

Dave hit the nail on the head. Having the radical religious groups on our side is a liability. It provides a great opportunity for you to bash us and claim that we are all faith and no logic.

It's amazing how you can recognize the Republican divide and conquer strategy but you are totally oblivious to that from the left?

All those talking points about poor and minorities. You wouldn't recognize that as instigating class and race warfare would you? Of course not.

As for the definition of the "secular fundementalists" I might inlude the leaders of 5 or the 6 greatest genocides in the 20th century. Four atheists and one Reich leader who viewed religion as a threat to state power.

Class warfare is already a fact. The very wealthy have been waging it against the general populace for years now, trying their best to reduce them back to the status of serfs without rights. Look at Walmart, Enron, the airline companies, the oil companies, etc.: every single one screws the rank & file workers while loading top management with obscenely rich golden parachutes, and the more they screw their labor, the richer their self-bestowed rewards. IMO there should be a legal limit as to CEO pay, along the lines of 'no CEO may receive in salary & benefits more than 500 x the wages of the lowest-paid worker in the corporation; and for every worker laid off/job eliminated, that CEO shall be docked X amount to a maximum of 100% of their salary & benefits'.

Of course, this will never happen, but I can dream.

And we can now all thank our respective deities that we don't live in the fascist state which Nancy would implement if she were in charge.

Dave

Considering that we all DO live in the fascist, oligarchial system of virtual slavery you favor, Dave, how could the alternative be any worse? Currently, the benefits to the very, very few at the expense of the very, very many vastly outweigh any historic concept of justice & fairness in favor of greed & absolute rapacity whatsoever.

Nancy, your description of our current system bears zero resemblance to reality, so it's hard to find a starting point for any kind of discussion with you. The primary characteristic of our current system is the widespread availability of opportunity to advance and build wealth for anyone who's willing to make any reasonable amount of effort.

Dave

"Look at Walmart, Enron, the airline companies, the oil companies, etc.: every single one screws the rank & file workers while loading top management with obscenely rich golden parachutes"


There's a lot wrong in the corporate world in my opinion as well. We differ only as to our approach to a solution. Those that trade and run public corporations are funneled through a few major players that tend to scratch each others backs no doubt. That exclusive club is protected more than harmed by government red tape.

The current flawed system is codified law. A better system would probably emerge if left to the free market, I'm afraid the SEC wouldn't allow that though.

Nancy.......... no other nationon earth has the opportunity for upward financial and social mobility that the United States has.

The only catch is that you have to work hard and work smart. You can't just bitch and whine and make excuses like you do and expect everyone to enjoy the same lifestyle.

Ruvy, your assessment is correct in #23 ("It strikes me that you're pushing a broad concept, an approach, rather than a point by point agenda or a specific person's candidacy, though I could be wrong.") That's why I'm trying not to get too deep into specific points about specific candidates from either side.

On that note Arch, I think there probably is a compromise some far left groups could move towards, given the example of the ACLU and religious displays in public places. I don't have time to search for examples now, but I can tell you that I choose not to condemn that group because of some of its choices, as it's an advocacy group designed to work on others' behalf. (rather like a lawyer) As for the poor, healthcare, and peace issues--particularly healthcare where your response immediately bashed "Hillarycare"--the scope of my initial post was how to position Democrats, not how to make Democrats identical to Republicans. Therefore it's inappropriate to debate your "arch conservative" solutions for these issues in this thread.

Dave, you've had different experience than I have with the left, apparently, as your hostility to the mere suggestion alludes. As for a secularist party, in a way I agree with you that policy "should" not be intertwined with religion, but that only works if the voters think that way. They do not. Those who have faith often see their daily life as inseparable from their belief system, and I don't think one can force them to make the logical abstraction to think of policy decisions outside of that worldview. I could be wrong, but I don't see that as a realistic idea.

Red, if you think I'm suggesting getting the "Radical" religious groups on our side, you've missed my point. My point is that those on the left or moderates are the target audience. If someone's a fundamentalist, they're too far right for any of the "compromises" I've mentioned to affect, because they aren't the type to move from their position either.

Nancy, interesting point - I'm not sure how to tie economic justice in, if that's an appropriate term to use. I am also offended by the ridiculously high salaries paid to executives, but I think it's more a failure of the stock market--stockholders aren't holding CEOs responsible for their companies' performance. Until that happens, salaries will be way out of kilter, and I don't think a legally mandated ratio would fly.

Arch--Upward mobility, I'll give you that it's probably more common here than elsewhere, but at the same time it's much easier to become wealthy if you start out that way. The Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Bushes, Waltons--these are the people who want the estate tax repealed, and who benefit greatly when capital gains taxes are cut. The tax structure is being shifted more onto income and earnings, less onto capital and wealth; this over time will make upward mobility more difficult.

There is a very perceptive article on the situation in America on the British site Spiked-online.com. (link above, if I didn't mess it up) It discusses the left's "frenzied attacks on religion" as well as the attempts to develop a religious left. The author, who takes obligatory pains to distance himself from the right, nevertheless believes that a religious left movement is infeasible:

"The problem with politically motivated calls for the restoration of a moral dimension to public life is that they are driven by the instrumental purpose of gaining or retaining power. But a morality manufactured in response to the demands of political pragmatism is bound to lack any organic relationship to lived experience, and is thus unlikely to find resonance with the wider public. An unfocused and disconnected oligarchy is unlikely to possess sufficient sensitivity to the day-to-day problems confronting the public. That is why the pragmatic search for a ready-made moral purpose usually turns into an arbitrary exercise in picking and choosing some inoffensive values."

The article is worth reading in its entirety.

I think ultimately the problem with the religious left idea is that the benefits are less than the cost of such a move. An effort to embrace the religious left would probably alienate more people than it would add to the democratic fold. The religious left is mostly already voting with the democrats, so what's the point of pandering to them.

I feel the same way about the religious right, and I think Bush may share my position. Why do anything for the religious right? They're going to vote republican because there's no alternative that will do anything for them, so why go out of the way to pander to them. It's a waste of effort.

Dave

I find myself in agreement with Dave. This is not always the case but he makes sense and a strong case for the sense he makes.

The 79% ploy is probably spurious but even 40% means nothing in a representative democracy. Ours was not to be a "Christian nation" but a free country "with justice and liberty for all". Not for Christians alone. As a matter of fact the "founding fathers" were just not that enamoured with Christianity (witness Alexander Hamilton for example). They were not even all agreed on freedom. Hamilton, again, only voted for the Constitution that included checks and balances because he saw no other way to create the nation.

Here we are in the 21st century arguing for the need for a religious left (whatever that is) to counter the religious right (and Archie has kept us informed what that is).

It is time for a change and merely changing one wing of religious zealots for another is hardly the change we need.

It is time for a change and merely changing one wing of religious zealots for another is hardly the change we need.

Ah, but Howard. The religious zealots of the left are 'nicer' than the religious zealots of the right. Rather than wanting to stop abortions they'd like to stop you from watching violent DVDs. See how much nicer that makes them.

Dave

Dave: your continuous sniping at the left is really becoming predictable and ineffective.

Every time you get called on it, you leap to your figleaf of neutrality but you appear to be consistently attacking the left whilst ignoring the far more important acts of the party currently in power in your country and their extremist supporters.

Furthermore, you also seem to delight in distorting or caricaturing views you instinctively dislike without any serious regard for the actual issues.

I don't agree with your political perspective or your slowly emerging partisan agenda but if you go to such extreme lengths and adopt such outlandish postures, you will simply reduce yourself and, possibly more importantly, your interesting and often well-informed or at times impressively detailed knowledge to the level of background noise.

It's generally thought of as a good thing in human discourse and politics to lay out positive scenarios for the future but you seem to do nothing but denigrate those with whom you disagree. Or am I missing something?

Your friend and colleague,

Doubting Thomas

Dave and Howard, I have to call you wrong on this. First, Howard, there's a HUGE difference between the 'Christian left' and the 'Spiritual left'. If you say 'Christian left' you leave out at least 20% of the population who aren't Christian.

I used the word 'spiritual' because there are Buddhists, Unitarians, Muslims, Pagans, New Agers, and many other flavors who share some of the same reverence for life--anti war--as the nonreligious left, just as an example. Why not acknowledge any areas of commonality that can be found, emphasize them, make some attempt at the argument "there IS a party for you" rather than ignoring that element of society?

If you ignore them, they won't just go away, but they may not vote.

Again, a party entirely unopen to the idea of war isn't going to win, there has to be some balance and reason applied, but there isn't anything wrong with a party emphasizing diplomacy first. (people whining "we tried that for 11 years" notwithstanding)

Second, Dave, the spiritual people I know don't believe in censoring violent DVDs. Who on earth are you talking to? My point isn't to "Pander," as you call it, it's simply to recognize areas where there already IS agreement--and treat them with a reasonable yet principle-driven approach.

"Sounds like you want them to nominate a right wing Christian like Bush."

JP, I'm about as far from wanting a right-wing Christian in the White House as anyone, and I'm no Bush fan for sure, but he is certainly better than what the Dems have been serving up. What we need is true third party opportunity and a system that will actually allow good people to get elected. What honest, intellegent person would actually want to go through the process of running for office anymore? Just look at what the Dems and Reps to to each others nominees now. Everything is purely partisan now, with the good of the country secondary.

All this talk about the religious left...whatever that is.....

The Democratic party in this control is beholden to the "secular left." This is the group that is so threatened by displays of Christianity that they are seeking to eradicate the faith from the public square altogether. They wield the establishment cause like some kind of giant secular scalpel, excising every little bit of Christian expression they can find wether or not it actually amounts to state sponsored/endorsement of Christianity (which it usually does not.) These people have no problem with other citizens expressing thier faith in public though.

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Based on this I don't see how a high school student mentioning Jesus in a graduation speech constitutes the state endorsing Chrstianity. I don't see how a 5th grader saying grace at lunch time constitutes state endorsement of Christianity. I don't see how the mere mention of Christianity by citizens in the workplace or school constitutes state endorsement of Christianity. However the ACLU and the rest of the secularist commandos have sued time and time again based on instances like these. It is usually the case that no one or one person may be "offended" by the the expression of Christianity which in no way denigrates thier own religious orr secular beliefs so the secularist watch dogs file suit immediately.


When we have gotten to the point where a citizen cannot even express there Christian beliefs in the most subtle of ways without saying anythign baout the beliefs of another because of the concerns that someone might be "offended" we have truly strayed from what the founding fathers had intended when the first amendment.



The secularists always get a pass though while every Christian in American gets labeled as a rabid fundamentalist who is just itching to blow up an abortion clinic or shove a bible down your throat. It's always well look at all the abortion clinic bombings...what all 5 or 6 of them that have killed a total number of people that you could count on one hand? it's never look at all the rabid pro-choice supporters who will do anything and everything to insure that they can legally continue to kill innocent babies. While I do not condone the bombing of abortion clinics or the murder of abortionist doctors I do realize that the people that do these things have a long long long way to go to catch up to Planned Parenthood with the amount of blood they ahve on their hands.

Arch Conservative,

You wrote, "I don't see how a 5th grader saying grace at lunch time constitutes state endorsement of Christianity."

Your're right. A fifth grader saying grace over meals before eating does not establish a religion. But when a whole group of Christian 5th graders say grasce at the table - expecting the Jewish and Moslem kids to join in - that does more than "establish a religion." It lets everybody know who "belongs" and who "doesn't."

And if you don't "belong" you're out in the cold.

I moved our family here. So if the day comes when Jews in America suddenly discover that they are indeed out in the cold, it ain't my problem. American Jews have a place to come home to and they all know it. If they don't want to hear that, and usually they don't, their blood is on their own heads.

I dealt with this crap already in America and I swore my kids wouldn't have to. And they won't.

"It's generally thought of as a good thing in human discourse and politics to lay out positive scenarios for the future"

Are you looney, man? The best political strategy is to tell old people how they'll eat dogfood, tell minorities the other party is closet racists, inform the public that radical fundamentalists are around every corner, tell everyone if they don't buy a hybrid and vote a certain way the ocean will rise 400ft and the world will turn into the Gobi desert, if they vote one the government will turn into the Nazis and throw you in a Guantananamo gas chamber if you vote another it will turn into commies and throw you in the Gulag..


I would counter your statement by saying that fear is the basis for politics, hope and a positive future are afterthoughts thrown in once you have someone sufficiently scared. Political strategists have known for at least a century, I'm consistently amazed a the number of partisans on both sides who are too blinded to realize they use fear. It is so effective that even once you consciously realize you are being manipulated through fear it is almost impossible to ignore it's effects.

Sounds like you want them to nominate a right wing Christian like Bush.

Sounds good to me. I'll take all the right wing non church attending, pagan owl worshipping, mammonite Christians we can get.

Dave

Well, RedTard, I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree.

I reject all attempts to manipulate me by fear.

I am not afraid.

Dave: Lol, I'll take your #45 as an answer to my #39!

Ruvy it is mostly the case that these rabid anti Chrisitian secularist commandoes are railing against a single person who has expressed thier Christian beliefs without telling others that they must adhere to these beliefs. Where these lawsuits are concerned, it is never the case that Chrisitans are ganging up on others en masse and purposely making them feel as if there religions are inderior.

A public high school valedictorian is not "leaving anyone out in the cold" by referring to Christ as thier own personal source of strength and motivation in thier valedictorian graduation speech. Nor can this be considered by any reasonable person as the school itself endorsing Christianity. It is merely an individual expressing their personal reliogous beliefs, while not denigrating other religious beliefs, in a public setting. A right that is garenteed under the Free Exercise clause of the first amendment. If someone else has a problem with this expression that's thier problem. Every attempt by the ACLU nd thier ilk to stifle this speech is an attempt to deny the constituion.

You're usually a reasonable person who makes logical arguments so I'm sorry to have to say that your last argument was nothing but bullshit given the evidence.

You know, Arch Conservative, you're talking about the "evidence," about what is "mostly the case," and about what the ACLU and "the rest of the secularist commandoes" have done in lawsuits "time and time again." How about providing some actual, specific examples? I'd very much like to see some of the "evidence" you mention.

Sorry AC,

I'm talking about what I lived through and what other Jews lived through in the States. I'm not talking about single individuals talking about their religion. That never bothers me. I'm talking about groups who, by their behavior, let those not agreeing with them know that they are not welcome.

This was one of the big reasons I joined the Democrats in Minnesota instead of the Republicans. They never said it, but through their behavior, they let it be known that except for good fundraisers like Rudy Boschwitz and vote getters like Norm Coleman (whose wife is Catholic), Jews were not really welcome in the party.

I repeat. The acts of a sigle individual mean nothing to me. The acts of groups do.

"I'm talking about groups who, by their behavior, let those not agreeing with them know that they are not welcome."

You sound like your describing the litigious secularists not the average American chrisitan Rucy.

Michael there are countless examples of secularists singling out Christian individuals as targets of lawsuits. The most recent one that comes ot mind is the case in Jonesboro Arkansas, where a the ACLU is seeking to sue the Jonesboro high school because it allowed a graduating senior, Jessica Reed to discuss her faith in god during her gradutaion speech despite the fact that no one at the ceremony contacted the ACLU or the school saying they were offended.


That's just one example.....look it up Michael. there are many more.

It wasn't intended to be a response to #39 - I'd missed that comment. Here's a real response to it.

Every time you get called on it, you leap to your figleaf of neutrality but you appear to be consistently attacking the left whilst ignoring the far more important acts of the party currently in power in your country and their extremist supporters.

I am not neutral and never claimed to be. I'm relatively moderate in my views with the exception of my extreme distaste for the left-wing hate machine and the failed policies of socialism. But I feel the same way about the religious right and the neocons.

Furthermore, you also seem to delight in distorting or caricaturing views you instinctively dislike without any serious regard for the actual issues.

Indeed I do. The issues have often already been discussed to death. All that's left is the scoffing.

I don't agree with your political perspective or your slowly emerging partisan agenda but if you go to such extreme lengths and adopt such outlandish postures, you will simply reduce yourself and, possibly more importantly, your interesting and often well-informed or at times impressively detailed knowledge to the level of background noise.

Christopher, I can't expect to win you over. You're not my target audience. We may agree on some issues, but you're so totally snowed under by the lies and deceptions of socialism that I don't have the wherewithal to dig you out.

It's generally thought of as a good thing in human discourse and politics to lay out positive scenarios for the future but you seem to do nothing but denigrate those with whom you disagree. Or am I missing something?

You must be, because I'm all about positivism. It's the naysayers and doom and gloomers who I'm usually denigrating.

Dave

That is, indeed, just one example, Arch. (An example on which I happen to agree with you. I question Jessica Reed's appropriateness and taste in making those remarks, but not her rights to make them.)

But one example does not equate to "countless." If there are so many more you can surely provide me with some of them. I'm actually looking for other examples in which the ACLU singles out Christians as the targets of lawsuits, but I'm having a hard time finding them.

So can you give me any more examples?

I surely do but I'm at work now when I get home I will provide some more.

Dave, you'll never win me over at all as long as you have completely delusional ideas in your mind that I am any kind of socialist.

The fact that you ignore the fact that I have already pointed that out to you several times now only goes to show how truly blinded you are by your own shining wit and wisdom.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to lay out this positive agenda of yours for, try as I might, I struggle to come up with any memories of your positivity

Dave, you'll never win me over at all as long as you have completely delusional ideas in your mind that I am any kind of socialist.

I can only go based on what I see you saying on BC. I can't read your inner mind. Perhaps it's a function of perspective. What you, surrounded by more extreme socialists, see as a moderate position, appears to those of us isolated from the eurosocialist environment as much more extreme than it does to you.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to lay out this positive agenda of yours for, try as I might, I struggle to come up with any memories of your positivity

Perhaps this is because what I look at as a positive you see as a negative. I look at Iraq and see the positive progress towards freedom and self government. You look at it and see nothing but the violence which is a natural attendant on the birth of freedom, but which you see only as violence. You look at America and see an oppressive would-be empire. I look at America and see a nation going above and beyond any reasonable effort and expense to help others. And these are reactions to the same policies.

Dave

Dave, I don't know if you've taken a course in ignoring what people say to you as you make your carefully constructed remarks that simply ignore other people but it sure seems that way.

I have repeatedly stated on BC that I am not a Socialist and that I don't believe in political or other dogma.

You also don't know anything about who I am surrounded by so once again, your remarks are simply ludicrous and totally lacking in any relevance to anything, particularly the topic under discussion.

How we get from me asking you to lay out a positive agenda rather than attacking other people all the time to details of the war in Iraq is a mystery that, along with your so-called "positive" views, seems entirely confined to the inside of your own marvellous little mind.

The only thing I see coming from you is the certainty that you know best and that everybody else is wrong. If that is so, it only seems reasonable to ask you to come up with positive contributions rather than simply disagreeing so arrogantly.

Please stop embarrassing yourself so regularly by ignoring reality in favour of your own pet delusions, it makes the place look bad as well as being poor politics...

"Dave, I don't know if you've taken a course in ignoring what people say to you"

Haha.

That was actually pretty funny.

AC, I do agree that a spoken prayer in unison, as Ruvy described in #43, would be imposing upon persons of other beliefs. Personally, I have no problem with a moment of silence, as one is free to pray to a deity of choice or not pray during that time. Others may feel differently.

Dave, good summary of why the opposing sides find the world so polarized--we cannot agree on a simple set of facts to work from. I'm including myself here, I recognize my bias; but your paragraph is insightful:

"Perhaps this is because what I look at as a positive you see as a negative. I look at Iraq and see the positive progress towards freedom and self government. You look at it and see nothing but the violence which is a natural attendant on the birth of freedom, but which you see only as violence. You look at America and see an oppressive would-be empire. I look at America and see a nation going above and beyond any reasonable effort and expense to help others. And these are reactions to the same policies."

Dave, I don't know if you've taken a course in ignoring what people say to you as you make your carefully constructed remarks that simply ignore other people but it sure seems that way.

I'm taking it right now in the classroom of Professor Christopher Rose.

I have repeatedly stated on BC that I am not a Socialist and that I don't believe in political or other dogma.

And I just said, not 5 posts ago, that I'm drawing conclusions based on your expressed beliefs, not having access to the inner workings of your mind or your personal manifesto. You can SAY you're not a socialist all you want, but if you repeatedly promote socialistic assumptions, what am I to conclude?

You also don't know anything about who I am surrounded by so once again, your remarks are simply ludicrous and totally lacking in any relevance to anything, particularly the topic under discussion.

Again, I am merely trying to understand you in context, based on a very limited amount of information. Atrributing your obtuseness to your environment was intended to be charitable.

How we get from me asking you to lay out a positive agenda rather than attacking other people all the time to details of the war in Iraq is a mystery that, along with your so-called "positive" views, seems entirely confined to the inside of your own marvellous little mind.

I guess I didn't latch on to the 'positive agenda' thing. I don't have an 'agenda' at all, merely a viewpoint. What I was responding to was the second part of that statement where you commented that you "struggle to come up with any memories of your positivity", which is particularly bizarre since most of my statements are based in a positive view of the world, which is what I tried to illustrate with a couple of concrete examples.

The only thing I see coming from you is the certainty that you know best and that everybody else is wrong. If that is so, it only seems reasonable to ask you to come up with positive contributions rather than simply disagreeing so arrogantly.

You seem to have reached this conclusion solely because I disagree with YOU, and therefore am arrogant, because only an arrogant person could have the temerity to disagree with you. There are plenty of people on BC and elsewhere who I agree with, but I generally don't spend a lot of time patting them on the back and saying 'huzzah'. That's a pointless waste of time. You think I disagree all the time because I respond to things I disagree with (duh). Believe me, it would be boring and pointless if all of our discussions took the opposite route.

Dave

Aah, Comment #59, in which our dear Mr Nalle proves the very point of my remark about him not drawing conclusions (if only) but simply re-iterating his mostly negative prejudices.

Nice of you to display them so clearly though, Dave. Thanks for removing any lingering ambiguity.

It would seem to me that we get what we deserve. The only block of voters that at the moment, seems to be motivated to get to the voting booths in droves ARE right-wing church-going Southern-Baptist White-conservative voters. Though that group is considerably a minority, they have and claim the right to call themselves the "majority" as did Jerry Falwell's moral "majority" because the WENT to the polls.

Unfortunately, a three party system would never work in our country because of one simple fact...
In a close election the President/ruling party would be elected by only one third of the population, meaning two-thirds DIDN'T vote for him.

As you can see by the poll numbers over the last few months, we already HAVE that system, as the only people still supporting Bush are his core rabid, foaming at the mouth supporters of around 30%-less than a third! I'd dare say they're hanging on to him by their fingernails, simply because they don't want to admit they were wrong.

Kinda sad isn't it, especially since the Democratic Party is now fighting to sound like
the Republicans, and the Republicans are now sounding like the Democrats.

Personally I hope Hillary Clinton gets elected... after it'd be a shame if Rush Limbaugh couldn't continue his comedy show...

Being loud and obnoxious as the far right does not make a group the majority, no matter how much it wants to be.

Has anyone seen the new TV series "Commander in Chief" on ABC??? What do you all think of having an Independent president???

Steve - I haven't really watched it, honestly, but I'm not opposed to a woman, and I'm certainly not opposed to an Independent! Probably a better idea in some ways than the schmucks we usually have to decide between.

Yeah, JP, I'm really curious as to whether and how she runs in the next election two years down the road on the show, be interesting to see if anyone tries to follow her lead in real life.

CR, one man's 'negative prejudices' are apparently another man's 'positive outlook'. Go figure.

Dave

I can see why you'd think that, Dave, doesn't take a lot of figurin'.

Chris;

Give up, my man. He's an enigma wrapped in an illusion.

Now I'M offended. One of my favorite musical groups was Enigma!!