Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Jesus and Hillary

Jesus and Hillary

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

One thing that has fascinated me recently has been the seemingly imperative perogative of the left to somehow invoke Jesus into their side of the debate. This is interesting because many of these “Jesus-thumping” (never would they actually go for the Bible) politicians gladly align themselves with aggressively anti-Christian factions.

Consider Senator Hillary Clinton’s recent injection of Christ into her position on immigration. This is just the latest in a series of Christian allusions by the social left. Former president Clinton did it frequently; Al Gore mentioned scripture in the 2000 presidential debates; John Kerry did the same. Yet all the aforementioned men had one thing in common: they were devout social liberals, considering abortion OK and same-sex marriage as a possibillity. So their conveniently timed sermons clearly don’t match up to what they may claim they believe.

Why the interest from the left in Jesus? It’s very amusing, in light of some really harsh attacks from liberals on the “religious right.” Their sudden piety could be attributed to a possible growing trend in mainstream America that is very pro-Christian. The phenomenal success of Pastor Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life is evidence; so is the recent Gallup poll which reveals that a majority of Americans accept the Biblical account of creation.

So the left realizes that the Christian vote is not to be scoffed at. But if Congressional Democrats want to take advantage of these recently revealed trends, a complete rethinking of their far-left bent is necessary. And that is truly easier said than done.

Powered by

About Sam James

  • Arch Conservative

    I think Jesus would be far more troubled by Hillary Clinton’s views on abortion and especially partial birth abortion than he would those who are anti-illegal immigrant.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Maybe these candidates were trying to make the point that “social liberalism” and “Christianity” are not opposites?

  • Arch Conservative

    NO that’s not it Michael.

    In reality it is just Hillary using Jesus as a political football. She understands that her husband got elected by running as a centrist and this is what she is trying to do now, remake herself into a moderate. Nothing that Hillary says or does between now and November 2008 will truly represent how she feels or what she believes.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Now, Arch Conservative. Be fair. You don’t think the Republicans use Jesus as a political football? Hillary’s not doing anything that her opponents won’t do.

  • zingzing

    oh my. so, you mean… politicians are using a popular opinion in an attempt to swing votes their way? oh, fucking christ… shove a crucifix in my ass… the end is nigh…

    if the “majority of americans accept the biblical account of creation,” we live in a country of fools that will fall for anything, even a christian dem. so… buttons.

    bring on the fools… they’ll elect a donkey.

  • Arch Conservative

    You be fair. Who do you think takes Christianity more seriously Michael, Dems or Repubs?

    Which party and there supporters are apt to belittle the faith when it runs contrary to thier social views?

  • Nancy

    The Republican use (or abuse) of religion – AND patriotism, while we’re at it – to bolster their claim to votes only reveals that like their Dem counterparts, all politicians are amoral whores who will clutch at anything, say anything, do anything in order to get re-elected, entrenched, and remain in power. A pox on BOTH their houses!

  • MCH

    “You be fair. Who do you think takes Christianity more seriously Michael, Dems or Repubs?”

    This argument reminds me of the bullshit fallacy the conservatives created that Republicans are more patriotic, and that Democrats are opposed to the military; when in fact it is alarming how many of the flag-waving, right-wing conservatives actually dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, ie, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, John Ashcroft, Bill Bennett, Dick Armey, Bill O’Reilly, et al…

  • zingzing

    who takes christianity more seriously?

    who takes christianity more often?

    christianity is a drug, it’s a tool, it’s a trick that american politicians, especially republicans, use to sway voters.

    #1-church and state are separate. keep your fucking god away from the laws.

    #2-those coke snorting whore fuckers are not christians.

  • http://samueljames.blogspot.com Samuel James

    zing, if you could stop swearing for a minute and realize that some people actually consider their faith to be effectual in what they do, you might be surprised.

    This move by Hillary and other Dems is really actually predictable when seen in the light of American trends.

  • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    Why do you think Hillary Clinton is insincere? She’s never hid her faith; in fact, for as long as she’s been a public figure she’s been very frank about it. So has Gore. So have a lot of Democrats. They don’t speak about it at every occasion, but neither do Republicans.

    Keep in mind as well that abortion has been a fact of life in this country since the early 1970s, and the Republican Party has largely been in power ever since. It isn’t just Democrats that like Roe vs. Wade; so do a lot of Republicans and so does most of America.

    I received an e-mail this morning titled “Things you have to believe to be a Republican today.”

    I think it was written with you in mind:

    * Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

    * Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

    * Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

    * The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

    * A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

    * The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

    * If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

    * A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

    * Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs & insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

    * Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

    * A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

    * Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

    * The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

    * Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

    * You support states’ rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

    * What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

  • zingzing

    samuel, i don’t want christianity in politics. it’s dangerous and illegal. i don’t want any religion anywhere near international or domestic policy.

    how would you like it if, say, an islamic politician forced his religious views into the political process? a christian wouldn’t like it. not that christians are evil, or that islam is any worse than christianity, but it’s something that should be private.

    i wouldn’t want to hear about your (or anyone’s) religious beliefs in a private conversation, much less as part of public policy.

    religion and politics should stay at opposite ends of the world. do you see what’s happening in this world because religion and politics collide?! RELIGIOUS WAR! it’s so goddamn stupid.

    so fuck religion. keep it off my lawn, out of voting contention, and don’t load your guns with it.

  • http://samueljames.blogspot.com Samuel James

    Rodney, I think you and Rob Borsellino misunderstand many Christian conservatives.
    Sure, there are some goonies out there who say things that have nothing to do with Scripture and then say it’s what Jesus would do because he’s a conservative republican. There are those kinds of people out there.

    A friend of mine actually asked me the other night what I thought of Bush and how it pertained to Christianity. I said that whether or not you agree with Bush is not a Christian issue. However, the President has several agendas which are clearly Biblical in nature. I agree with, for example, his stance on abortion. I think his is a biblical position.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    You be fair. Who do you think takes Christianity more seriously Michael, Dems or Repubs?

    Do you want an honest answer to that, Arch?

    Okay, then:

    Neither Democrats nor Republicans take Christianity the slightest bit seriously.

    Now, if you want to ask me who does a better job of pretending to take it seriously, that is certainly the Republicans.

    Which party and there supporters are apt to belittle the faith when it runs contrary to their social views?

    Remember this quote about Conservative Christians?

    “The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees. “Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.”

    Do you remember who said it? That’s right: Tom DeLay’s chief of staff.

    Right there, in a single quote, you have a shining example of a powerful and high-ranking Capitol Hill Republican (1) showing that he doesn’t take Christians seriously, and (2) belittling the faith even when it AGREES with his political views.

  • Steve

    zing, everyone has ideas to bring to politics, many based on beliefs, whether they be religious or atheistic or agnostic.

    The thing you have to watch out for is not the expression of these views in govt. by individuals (without that would make America a totalitarian state like China, if practiced), but making govt. an arm of a church/temple etc. of a particular denomination. I think you’ll find people of a variety of different denominations in the White House, Congress & Senate.

    Bottom line is, the founders did not want a denominational state church (like the Anglican Church is in England, though not as powerful now as it once was a century or two ago). I find it frightening how many secularists fail to see the distinction between individual religious expression in govt., and a corporate one. China doesn’t distinguish between the two either, I don’t think any country should follow that example.

    Most political confrontations between countries are about power and the effect it has on people, irregardless of religious or atheistic beliefs. Anyone who misses that must have slept through the 20th century!

  • zingzing

    sam: true. but, those people who fight over power use religion as a tool to fuel those confrontations. religion is dope to the masses. if militants couldn’t use religion, maybe they would use something else, but the fact remains that they use religion to get the people behind their antogonistic ideas. religion “legitimizes” these confrontations, leading us into this crap we’re wading through now.

    i’m a bit out of it today… maybe i should say that a different way… or just repeat myself… hrm… political leaders use religion, whether they care about it or not, to manipulate their people and fill up their armies with people willing to kill and die for an ideal that is really beside the point. it’s not religion’s fault. but, that’s what happens when you mix religion with politics.

    oh, and as to your “I think you’ll find people of a variety of different denominations in the White House, Congress & Senate” comment, i have this to say: yes, you will find all different colors of christians, not religions, but christians. but that doesn’t reflect america, which is not christian. we have a secular government. leave religion out of it.

  • Josh

    Obviously zing doesn’t have any clue what “separation of church and state” actually means. It does *not* mean that there will be no expressions of religion in government. It DOES mean that the state will not endorse any particular religion.

    For example: murder is illegal. Christianity claims murder to be immoral. Is it wrong for government to make murder illegal? Any half-wit can tell you the answer:NO. It would be wrong for the government force its people to do something particular to a religion, such as fasting during Lent or praying five times a day. The difference is something like murder is universal.

    I agree that one should not legislate solely on the grounds of it being an article of faith — but the fact that it is an article of faith does not make it any less true.

  • Josh

    I do agree that religion is oftentimes used as a tool of manipulation, but what I said above still stands.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    You’re right, Josh, that a legislative issue is no less valid if it is also an article of faith.

    But what about when you have an issue where, for example, the Constitution says one thing and the Bible says another?

    It’s important to note that in that case, our legislators are expected to follow the Constitution. Not the Bible.

  • Josh

    Mike, you are absolutely correct. Our legislators should act according to the Constitution. However, the Consitution IS subject to change.

  • zingzing

    josh, the murder example was horrible. morals can be separate from religion. in fact… yeah, we know where that is going.

    expressions of a personal religious belief are all fine and good. whatever. i don’t care. but it should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with legislation or policy.

    that’s what i mean by separation of church and state. it shouldn’t even be used during the election process. even if a person’s religious belief does sway their votes… it’s just dangerous.

  • Steve

    I’m with Josh on this one.

  • Josh

    I’m not saying that morals can’t be separate from religion. I’m saying that just because morals may be influenced by religion does not inherently make it incorrect.

    There ARE no perfect politicians; the elimination of religion from politics won’t help anything. It didn’t help Russia under Stalin.

  • zingzing

    there’s no way you can really think i’m saying that “just because morals may be influenced by religion, they are inherently incorrect.” of course i’m not. i’m just saying leave your personal religion out of it. every religion can agree that murder is wrong. it’s a moral that trancends religion.

    that said, if you make a law that specific to your religion, that’s wrong. if you place one religion higher than another, that’s wrong. you see what i’m saying?

    and as for the stalin thing, i’m talking about a secular government, not a secular society. so that doesn’t count either.

  • Earl

    Professing to be wise, they became fools.

  • Josh

    You’re not being very clear. So what exactly fits your idea of “wrong” legislation?

    In a democracy, government and society ALWAYS reflect each other. If a government is secular, it is because the society is secular. Just the same, if a government has a religious leaning, then so do the people. Very seldom is this untrue.

  • Josh

    Earl, I’m assuming you’re on my side. Letter to the Romans, right?

  • lumpy

    the only thing worse than a religiously motivated politician is one who pretends to be religious. at least u know where the zealot is coming from. the hypocrite is just in business to betray whoever they sucked into supporting them. i’d rather know what i’m getting even if it’s a bitter pill.

  • zingzing

    okay, josh, say if there was a jewish senator… what if he proposed legislation that made pork illegal or all slaughter practices kosher? that wouldn’t be fair. or if a bit of legislation contained religion-specific text… or benefited on set of beliefs over another, etc. if a specific relgious belief is set into law, it pretty much establishes that religion as the state-sponsored religion. the establishment clause of the 1st amendment (or its interpretation) is pretty clear about these things.

    democracies also protect the minority from the majority. in american democracy, you cannot have a religious government. it’s against the rules.

    do you favor an islamic government in iraq? or, as bush and the rest of the u.s. government wish to establish, a secular one? why do you think that a secular government would be better for iraq? that’s right, because religious governments persecute and oppress their people.

  • Steve

    I still don’t see where your paranoia is coming from, zing, there are no reverends, rabbis, mullahs or other clerics in the White House to my knowledge. If the govt. were a religious one, all the leaders within it would have some kind of religious title like the above. Now if the White House were full of reverends, like Jesse Jackson, then you’d have a point.

  • sr

    Great blog Samuel.
    Did you expect the foul mouth comments from the likes of zingzang who believes we are a Democracy and not a Republic. Of course he believes he’s some kind of intellectual genius.
    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
    United States of America and to the
    REPUBLIC (not democracy) for which it
    stands, One Nation Under God.
    Think maybe zingzang might like that crucifix if it’s the actual size and shoved where the sun dont shine. Thats zingzangs request, comment #5. Not mine Mr. editor.
    Please Mr. zingszang do me a favor. When you find coins and cash and if you see IN GOD WE TRUST on them feel free to send them to Samuel.

    HAPPY EASTER zingzang.
    sr

  • Josh

    OK, I misinterpreted you, zing. You’re referring to state endorsement of a particular religion, while I thought you opposed morality laws (something like the abortion law in South Dakota) simply because they were overly “religious”. Basically, I thought you were a secular zealot. You may still be, but at least you’re a rational one.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    Funny, I recently wrote about this here on Blogcritics, arguing an opposing viewpoint–that Democrats need to recognize the commonalities that *already exist* between themselves and not only Christians, but those of other faiths (the combination of which I call the “spiritual left”).

    The “Far left,” which to me is anti-war/pro-choice/atheist *without compromise*, won’t agree with me, but those a little closer to center (progressive centrist, as coined in the book titled the ‘Emerging Democratic Majority’, are already speaking in unison with the spiritual left, and just need to harness it.

    The keystone of the original post here says “they were devout social liberals, considering abortion OK and same-sex marriage as a possibillity. So their conveniently timed sermons clearly don’t match up to what they may claim they believe.” Pro-choice does NOT run counter to Christianity, at least to Christians. Some 80% of America self-identifies as Christian, and 48% of voters voted for Kerry. So out of the pool of voters, it’s extremely unlikely all 48% were in the 20% of Americans that aren’t Christian. A significant overlap of Christians who voted for Kerry already exists.

    Thankfully many Christians realize abortion is NOT the only issue they’re voting on–Christian Alliance for Progress lists 7 main areas under which progressive values correspond to Jesus’ teachings. Jesus, after all, was NOT conservative. The statement I like most is “Responsibility and Obligation:
    We heed the call to take up our cross – to transform our lives, but also to do more: to move beyond the ‘personal’ and to take responsibility in our communities and country.”

    Democrats who do not run to the far left can win, and win big. Mark Warner did this in Virginia, and may well do it in 2008. The link is to a message about “Why I am a Democrat,” it might be interesting reading for you.

  • Arch Conservative

    Wow this post certainly drew all the Christophobes with no understanding of the First amendment, such as zing, out of the woodwork.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    Yes Arch, I agree with you (mostly) here. Blatant and total aversion to religion or spirituality (not just Christianity) is a far left position, which I think is out of the mainstream.

    The author here implies that any Democrat talking about faith is one of those types of Democrats, which I believe is a fallacy.

  • zingzing

    mmmhmm. ac, explain the first amendment to me then. i thought it said something about congress not making any laws respecting the establishment of any religion. which, as jefferson and others interpreted it, means that since freedom of religion is guaranteed, there shall be no laws made that would elevate one over the other in the state’s eye, because that would just lead to a lack of religious freedom. therefore, the government can’t touch religion. maybe it doesn’t go the other way, but i believe that organized religion is dangerous (kind of like a mob) if it influences governmental policy, as that affects us all, christian or not.

    sr, i’ll only take that crucifix if you let me return the favor with a donkey punch. i’m not zealous enough to care about whether or not “god” is mentioned on coins or in some stupid nationalistic creed i never said after i was 5 years old. it just doesn’t matter enough. that said, you can’t put the 10 commandments in a u.s. courtroom. what, do we all live under your god’s law? hell no, we don’t. you ever seen the second set of 10 commandments? if we lived under those rules, we would all be instructed to “not cook a goat in its mother’s milk.” what the fuck is that? crazy bible…

    the straight fact is that some of your christian beliefs run counter to other widely held beliefs in the american population. i have no problem with religion. you can keep it. but your rights don’t trump anyone else’s. it would be unchristian of you to think that you were more important than your fellow man, convert or not.

    josh–while i think that south dakota is being sneaky, and i hope all the women move away from there, there is nothing overtly religious in the law. maybe covertly… but whatever.

    secular zealot… maybe i am one. i just don’t want any phoney-baloney spirit worship clouding up what is supposed to a government rooted in the real world, not some old book with bad grammar and ghost stories.

  • zingzing

    and blatant and total disregard for another’s religion or spirituality is a christian position.

  • http://samueljames.blogspot.com Samuel James

    “The author here implies that any Democrat talking about faith is one of those types of Democrats, which I believe is a fallacy.”

    Not really. What I mean to say instead is that the aforementioned Democrats are not real Christians, at least in their values.

    There is a woman in my church who voted for John Kerry. Does that make her unsaved? NO. But, from a conservative point of view, it could make her naive or ill-informed.

  • Arch Conservative

    The first amendment also states that there shall be free exercise of religion. This means that if a person wishes to express their Christian faith in public they must be allowed to do so.

    But you and all of the other Christophobes don’t care about the free exercise clause. You only mention the establishment clause which you consistently misinterpret. A private citizen expressing thier Christian faith in public does not constitute the establishemtn of a religion by the state.

  • zingzing

    of course it doesn’t. christ! i don’t care if someone wants to say they are christian… i think that for politicians (or any public figure) to do so is dangerous and manipulative, but there’s nothing that can be done about that. just keep it out of legislation or policy. it’s only fair to the rest of us.

    express your beliefs. don’t make them laws and don’t inject your religion into all of our politics. simple enough?

  • Arch Conservative

    Who is saying we must make laws that follow Christianity?

    I’m pro-life and I am for pro-life laws not because I’m Christian but because I believe killing a baby is wrong.

  • zingzing

    i guess i had better explain my position a little more clearly, as it is getting a bit confused.

    i think that expressing one’s religion is fine and dandy, as long as it doesn’t get to the point that it actually affects policy or legislation. unfortunately, if you are a representative of the government, expressing your specific religion while acting as a representative is dangerous.

    religion and politics do not mix well. someone is always left out. just because it’s not you doesn’t mean it’s right.

    i’m not saying that the american government is turning christian… but christianity has its claws far too deep in american politics. religion as a whole has a dangerous affect on world politics and i don’t want to see it get any worse. we have laws that protect us from christian tyrrany here in the states, but those laws are bending under christian preassure, and it’s sickening to watch.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    “What I mean to say instead is that the aforementioned Democrats are not real Christians, at least in their values.” So Samuel, Democrats who advocate looking out for the least among us, who prefer to fight abortion through prevention rather than criminalization, are not real Christians? I beg to differ!

    Arch, do you have any positions on other issues besides abortion? Is that the only issue you use when deciding how to vote? If so, you’re brainwashed!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Arch, do you have any positions on other issues besides abortion?

    Hmmmmm.

    Arch Conservative wouldn’t just be Anthony Grande with a new nickname and better spelling, wouldja Arch?

  • zingzing

    i don’t think ac is ag. he may be bing. who really cares? they’re all the same. just a bunch of letters to argue with. a conservative is a conservative is a conservative, especially the further away from planet earth they get.

  • Arch Conservative

    I am brainwashed JP? Do you think the people that support Planned Parenthood, NOW, NAral and the like consider any other issue when they vote?

    Of course there are other issues I have opinions on but since Zing was attacking Christians and most pro-aborts seem to think that all pro-life views come from Christianity, I mentioned it.

    I was bing before I changed my name. i told everyone guess you missed the memo zing.

    Yes a conservative is just a conservative and a liberal is just a christophobic, illegal alien loving, socialist, NAMBLA defending, tax loving, UN ass kissing, racist, Christian bashing, welfare loving, terrorist enabling, race baiting, moonbat living in vaccum of morality and responsibility.

  • http://insidebrain2005.blogspot.com Matthew Milam

    Hillary is trying to stay in the game, and if she has to change to get into it, so be it. That’s how politics works.

    I don’t completely agree with it, but I understand.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    ac: Yes a conservative is just a conservative and a liberal is just a christophobic, illegal alien loving, socialist, NAMBLA defending, tax loving, UN ass kissing, racist, Christian bashing, welfare loving, terrorist enabling, race baiting, moonbat living in vaccum of morality and responsibility.

    you forgot that we also like to eat our own babies.

    unless we abort them…which we like to have parties for. never got an invite? oh it’s cool. we have a pot luck, then the abortion, then we either watch communist instructional videos or play the genus II version of trivial persuit.

  • zingzing

    i don’t believe in christ, i think illegal aliens have a right to live, socialism is a good idea that never works because of human nature, NAMBLA is disturbing and i don’t support it, taxes make the world go round, the UN is a good idea that never quite works because of human nature, i’m not a racist, fuck off christians to your churches, i’d take welfare if i deserved it, i enable no terrorists, i fish with worms and racism is a reality, i don’t know what a moonbat is, but i have my own morality that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with god and i take responsibility for the things i do instead of passing it off as “god’s will.”

  • zingzing

    and babies taste like chicken. i boil them in their mother’s milk.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    Ha Mark, I’ve been left off the last few Evites, can you look into that for me?

    AC, I think liberals who are single-issue voters are also missing the point. Sorry for not clarifying. I, and others like me, do believe in the right to express religious beliefs, within reason.

    Thankfully I’m not fanatically against regulation or government of any kind, because I believe laws are and should be in place to *limit* that expression so that it isn’t violating the establishment clause. (similarly, many ideas fail because of human greed, which is why regulation becomes necessary)

  • Arch Conservative

    Zing…………..you not only don’t believe in Christ but you don’t think anyone else should or should be allowed to say they do, you think illegal aliens should be given all the rights that American citizens have, the groups you support like the ACLU think it is thier duty to defend NAMBLA, higher and higher taxes are a way to create a welfare state in which the lives of the lazy and those who are capable but refuse to work are subsidized by those who actually work hard and contribute to society, socialism…see comment I just made, you are a race baiting racist, most people on welfare don’t deserve it, again your a Christian bashing hypocrite, you are a kool aid drinking moonbat as is Adam Ash, Althenios, Jet, Natalie, Nancy etc…. your lack of morality certainly doesn’t have anything to do with god and your excuses for the ammoral actions of others are a testament to your belief in personal accountability in today’s American society.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    you not only don’t believe in Christ but you don’t think anyone else should or should be allowed to say they do

    Yup, that’s Bing all right. Ready to throw in his pre-formulated conclusions about liberals and their opinions, regardless of whether they’re borne out by the facts or by the points that people are making. Especially if they’re directly contradicted by the points that people are making.

    Glad to have you back, sir.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    he actually kinda sounds like the cussing, furnace-repairing father character in the movie “a christmas story”.

    except for not funny.

    sort of.

  • Arch Conservative

    Michael I based it on the things I have heard zing say

    “fuck off christians to your churches”

    “eligion as a whole has a dangerous affect on world politics and i don’t want to see it get any worse. we have laws that protect us from christian tyrrany here in the states, but those laws are bending under christian preassure, and it’s sickening to watch.”

    “i just don’t want any phoney-baloney spirit worship clouding up what is supposed to a government rooted in the real world, not some old book with bad grammar and ghost stories.”

    I’d say he is pretty anti-christian speech.

  • Johnny

    YOU GO HILLARY!

  • zingzing

    i also said that “i think that expressing one’s religion is fine and dandy, as long as it doesn’t get to the point that it actually affects policy or legislation.”

    i never said anything about giving illegal aliens all the rights of u.s. citizens, but i bet i would want to give them more rights than you.

    i can support the aclu and not support some of the groups they defend… like the KKK. you a member?

    i am a race baiting racist? that’s kind of repeditive. why don’t you quote something of mine that is pantently racist? (and your interpretation of my support of affirmative action as racism doesn’t count.)

    you say most people on welfare don’t deserve it. i said “i would take welfare if i deserved it.” so we agree there. you should get welfare if and only if you really deserve it. or do you want to just get rid of it?

    yeah, i’ll bash a christian if they get out of line. you got me there. i was just trying to wind you up a bit with the fuck off christians and phoney-baloney bits. but, i am not “anti-christian speech.” i don’t talk about politics in church, so don’t talk religion in congress, that’s all i’m saying.

    what the hell do you know about my morals? you judging me? not very christian… my morals are just fine. personal accountability means just that: personal. i am accountable for my actions, not those of others, and i don’t pre-judge people for doing things that i don’t understand.

  • Samuel James

    Seriously though, we need to calm down the personal vitriol.

    It’s not gonna get us anywhere, and it makes both sides look stupid

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Samuel, you know you’re right, and I know you’re right, but…well, you’re new around here, so I should just let you know in advance: the personal vitriol is bigger than all of us.

  • MCH

    “Whenever a liberal can’t debate you with a substantive argument, they always resort to namecalling.”
    – Rush Limbaugh

    “Yes a conservative is just a conservative and a liberal is just a christophobic, illegal alien loving, socialist, NAMBLA defending, tax loving, UN ass kissing, racist, Christian bashing, welfare loving, terrorist enabling, race baiting, moonbat living in vaccum of morality and responsibility.”
    – Archie

  • Arch Conservative

    But isn’t there a reason for the personal vitriol?

    Contrary to what some might blieve or want others to believe, there is in fact a cultural war under way in American society.

    Obviously both sides feel very passionately about it and thus personal vitriol.

    I don’t mind being called names by the people I so strongly disagree with. It lets me know that I am on the right side.

    You just quoted from one of my previous posts MCH. I have no problem with that as it is how I truly feel although I shouldn’t have just said “liberal” but far left liberal. Of course there are reasonable, logical, moral and, sensible liberals and deomcrats. But they are not part of the far left.

    It is the far left that I despise with every fiber of my being and I will never back down from exposing them for the degenrate, hypocritical rabble that they are. I will bring the personal vitriol again and again and agin toward these people until they are rendered completely innefectual by the will of normal Americans.

    If MCH or Jet or Althenios or Zingding or anyone else has a problem with that that’s too damn bad. I will not change who I am or what I believe to satisfy these people nor will I stand idly by why they slander me and other reasonable citizens with thier baseless labels intended to stigmatize.

    The war for the very soul of our nation, the greatest on earth, is on, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit on the sidelines.

  • zingzing

    bing, you are on the sidelines. what are you doing about this war for our nation’s soul? hmm?

    and instead of just hurling insults and defending yourself against rush quotes, why don’t you answer some of my earlier questions and points? (i bet i know why.)

  • Arch Conservative

    For one, I vote, which many MAericans do not.

    Two I donate to certain organizations that are dedicated to adavncing my interests.

    Three as I already stated I am not afraid to voice my opinion for fear that I may anger the gods of political correctness on the left. You might not think this is actually doign naything but it most certainly is as what is our society shaped by more than individuals expressing thier beliefs?

    What are you talking about with the Rush quote? I didn’t say anything to defend rush or his quote.

  • Nancy

    Those that have actual salient points, make them; those that don’t, resort to name-calling & wrapping themselves in the flag & religion. Franklin observed that the first refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, and the second, religion. In which case, BushCo is exposed over & over & over again, since this appears to be their only consistent tactic: when in doubt, throw doubt on others.

  • zingzing

    read, bing: “defending yourself against rush quotes”

    but thanks for taking up the first part of my question. now for the second, eh?

  • zingzing

    religion is dangerous because it suggests that it has all the answers. people taking their answers from a 2,000 year old book are going to be behind the times. they cannot grow, as that would go against their beliefs. some, of course, read the bible as it was intended: less a moral rulebook than a moral guide, a metaphorical explanation of that which was not understood at the time. we still don’t know everything, but religion and religious people profess that “all the answers are in this little book.” NO THEY AREN’T! some of the problems are in that little book… it’s an opiate… it tells people not to worry about (as in, think about,) the things they don’t know, that whichever god the book is advertising will be there to protect you. blah. if a question is answered in the bible, it’s going to be a 2,000 year old answer. things have changed.

  • Steve

    zing, you are suggesting that all problems can be solved by secularism without any help from religion. According to your own logic, you must also be dangerous then.

  • zingzing

    possibly you’re right. i just don’t use a 2,000 year old peice of literature as life’s rulebook. it’s absolutely insane. like a said, you can take parts of the bible and come up with some good morals and a stab at mythology.

    religion, all religions, are basically the same. if they aren’t twisted and manipulated and overbaked by the “holy” people, all they do is tell you that you had better be good in this life. (otherwise, the threat of hell, reincarnation as a slug, etc.)

    still, doesn’t the hypocrisy of a preacher condemning homosexuals to hell bother you? doesn’t that asshole know that wrath is a sin? that he is condemning himself? the arrogance! how dare they judge anyone? doesn’t the bible say that you shouldn’t judge? it’s not the religion, it’s the people.

    religion is a gun. in the right hands, it’s… okay… in the wrong hands, it’s a loaded assault rifle with a scope and “god’s will” on the trigger.

  • Steve

    zing, not all religions are created equal. They ALL contradict each other at various points. So they can’t ALL be true. Bottom line is, people can manipulate others lot of ways, not just religion, even through atheism, as the 20th century has proven.

    My question is, zing, if you’re not using a 2,000 year old book, do you know where you get your rules for living from??? I think it’s very important to know the source of one’s information, whatever it happens to be.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I get my rules for living from little fairies that live in my garden.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    all religions are equally valid to their believers. so they contradict each other? that’s because none of them are anything but mythology and fantasy. the bible contradicts itself… that’s because it was written by a bunch of men, and is not the word of god (if it is, then he’s got some memory issues… and i’m screwed*…)

    i get my morals from my parents, who taught me all sorts of things, but mostly to treat others as i would want to be treated. they didn’t use these words, but i think that “do as you will but harm no others” allows for personal freedom and the moral, tolerant treatment of those around you. note that i’m not advocating paganism, which is pretty foolish stuff.

    i also allow for the fact that the world changes, i change, etc. rules are made to be broken. some rules won’t change, but some rules will be expanded, some will be forgotten about. they are not rigid, and are subject to change as life demands it, and i don’t pretend to know the future.

    *actually, fuck that… i’m not screwed. i don’t believe in eternal damnation, and i don’t think that god, should he exist, would be such a vindictive prick so as to throw me in a pit of hellfire just because i had my doubts about him… i lead a pretty good life, and i try not to hurt anyone…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Fairies??? I thought those were birds! Now I’m gonna go home and chase them away from those feeders I put up!

  • Steve

    Thanks for your serious answer, zing.

    No thanks to Dave or Andy though LOL.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Well Steve – you didn’t ask me!!!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    It could be worse. I used to get my moral guidance from my dog, but he kept telling me to skin people alive so I eventually had to look for a different souce for god’s voice.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “I get my rules for living from little fairies that live in my garden.”
    Dave

    Hope they don’t get hit by any stray bullets during one of your wild dog killing sprees…

  • zingzing

    is that that? do i win? (hell no, i don’t.) come on…

  • Arch Conservative

    I get my morals from logic and observations of the real world.

    Example: Illegal aliens coming into this nation, not paying taxes and recieving free healthcare is wrong.

    Example: Raising taxes for bogus social welfare programs so that those who don’t want to work can enjoy the same quality of life as those who work hard is wrong.

    Example: Leftists claiming to be tolerant and then making remarks like zing saying “fuck off christians to your churches” or other lefties calling Colin Powell an uncle tom and then saying republicans are the racists ones is not only wrong but hypocritical.

    See how that works……

  • zingzing

    dude, you are such a broken record. it’s hilarious. why not join the actual conversation instead of rehashing what you said a couple of days ago?

  • Josh

    Zing’s right, in a way. Times and social constructs HAVE changed. But, HUMAN NATURE HAS NOT! People are no different than 2,000 years ago, and what was bad for people then is still bad for people now. Most people nowadays have the mistaken concept that we’ve somehow “evolved”, like our minds have somehow expanded since then. That’s completely wrong. Whatever progress we’ve gained is from accumulation, not because people are somehow more capable.

    What I’m trying to say is that what was morally wrong 2,000 years ago is still morally wrong now. Despite changing social acceptance, what’s right is right and what’s wrong remains wrong.

  • zingzing

    that may be so, josh, but just because the bible says something is wrong doesn’t make it so. in the spots where the bible was right, it remains right, and in the spots where it was wrong, it remains wrong.

  • zingzing

    whoops. bing, attack me.

  • Steve

    You took the words right out of my mouth Josh, thanks.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    Steve and Josh, with no offense intended to Jews here, I question the ban on pork in the Old Testament – possibly due to the spread of disease, though I recognize other rationale is sometimes offered. It’s no longer a public health issue, however, where it may well have been in Biblical times.

    Killing humans is still morally wrong. Eating beef is no longer a public health concern. So I’d say if you’re going to put “faith” in the 2,000 year old book, it needs to be interpreted in context. Zing, I think that’s where you’re coming from.

    And Arch, the point of what you call “bogus social programs” is that people have a minimum level of sustenance, not the “same quality of life as those who work hard.” Execution can be flawed, but that doesn’t mean the idea is faulty.

  • Arch Conservative

    “That may be so, josh, but just because the bible says something is wrong doesn’t make it so. in the spots where the bible was right, it remains right, and in the spots where it was wrong, it remains wrong.”

    So only you zing, who is not a chrisitain is allowed to interpret the bible and say what in it is right or wrong? You’re allowed to make judgements as to what the bible says but Chrsitians aren’t? Is that what you meant by that comment?

    Josh I think you are mostly right in saying what was wrong 2000 years ago is still wrong today. This may be true for most things such as murder, rape and stealing but there are other things which were considered moral 2000 years ago but not today such as slavery. The other thing is that different socities have different views of what is right and wrong. Contrast europe with the USA. Most European nations are much more socialistic than the USA and they see the individualism and the more capitalist society we have here as somewhat ammoral and vice versa as to how most Americans view them.

    JP the idea has in fact proved to be faulty because many who have been on welfare do not seek to become independent and support themselves but rather remain on welfare indefinitely or as long as the state will allow them to because they are lazy and it’s easier for them to do so. Why should those who work have to pay for those who would do this?

    There is nothing wrong with a welfare system that temporarily provides for those who would otherwise not be able to secure the basic necessities of life for themselves but that is not what our welfare system was or is. It was and still is a system abused by the people I was talking about and the state lets this abuse occur.

  • Jet in Columbus

    As usual, the entire world is wrong and the High and Mighty Arch the Con man is right.

    When will you people ever learn?

    … but of course that’s only his opinion

  • zingzing

    arch conservative: “So only you zing, who is not a chrisitain is allowed to interpret the bible and say what in it is right or wrong? You’re allowed to make judgements as to what the bible says but Chrsitians aren’t? Is that what you meant by that comment?”

    nope. we all are free to interpret that book. my interpretation is as good as a christian’s (and will never be clouded by fundamentalism, so it is a better interpretation than some christians would make, not all, but some).

  • Jet in Columbus

    Ohhhhh Zing,

    To quote a loonie toons cartoon, “HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO TELL YOU???? DON’T POKE THE BEAR WITH A STICK WHEN IT’S SLEEPING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

  • zingzing

    a.c./bing and i are the same… the yin and the yang… (i’m not saying i’m him, arguing with myself, but…)

    there is nothing that he would say that could really upset me… because it’s so different, it’s the same exact thing…

  • Steve

    Seeing as we’re in such a serious mood today…

    Bing wouldn’t happen to be any relation to Mr. Crosby, would he???

  • zingzing

    certainly not, although i did see him commenting about hitting women once… or did crosby just hit his kids? i dunno…

    a.c. can’t dance, being as he is soooo damn white.

  • Jet in Columbus

    Oh Christ Zing, I’ve still got that picture of Ted Kennedy stuck in my head!!!!
    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  • zingzing

    i do what i can. i don’t see it as a picture… i see it as a video.

  • sr

    One of the best comments on another blog I remember but do not recall the name or even subject matter went something like this. Im just sitting here eating my bag of popcorn enjoying this thread. Please continue. Well if your still out there Mr. Popcorn and reading this thread, please chime in. At least you could recommend a good popcorn. Samuel, you sure are giving some great intertainment with your blog. Now I cant remember what the blog is about. Dam this demon rum. Dam these cigarets too. Now I remember. The Hillderbeast. Will comment to you later zangzing.