Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Minor Rant

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Langley85 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 02:31 PM
Original message
A Minor Rant
After listening to many, many calls from Christian Conservatives, evangelicals, and right-wing Republicans on C-Span, and hearing a lot of these people state with breathakng arrogance and narrow-mindedness that "we consider ourselves a Christian country", "this is a Christian country", "Democrats are evil", "Democrats stand for a culture so evil that it could destroy the very fabric of this country", and the prize-winner, "this is a conservative country, and all those Bush-haters need to find somewhere else to live", I feel compelled to remind these people, at least rhetorically, as they would probably never read the LiveJournal of a gay liberal atheist, of three fundamental facts.

(DISCLAIMER: I want to make clear that this not aimed at all Christians, merely the ones who make arrogant and fanatical statements like those above)

1) Bush does not have a "mandate". A mandate means that the country is united in support of his policies. When slightly over half the country votes for you, and almost just as many people vote against you, that is a slim victory, not a "mandate", and it is silly to describe it as such, as though that other 48% of America just doesn't count, or aren't "real Americans".

2) One of the basic tenets upon which this country was founded was SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. You people say we need to bring prayer back to schools, well exactly what kind of prayer? You assume all of the students would recite a Christian prayer? What if some of the students are Muslims, or Hindus, or atheists like me? Do we just not count? You are not the sole religion or belief system in this country, and you would do well to show some respect to other people's beliefs before you start demanding that we all bow down to your own. You don't seem to think we should have separation of church and state, but how can the churches make governmental decisions when we have so many different religions in this country, even different interpretations of the same religion? To ignore this obvious fact is to give the impression that you do not think beliefs which differ from your own should be taken seriously or granted any acknowledgment or significance, which is frankly an arrogant and not very constructive way of approaching the world.

3) This is a democracy, meaning that just because one half of the country manages to reelect its preferred presidential candidate, the other half does not have to just pack their bags and "go find somewhere else to live". Granted, neither Democrats nor Republicans are perfect, but the incessant demonizing of liberals and the Democratic Party, which seems to be continuing even after the campaign is over, is getting tiresome to say the least. We are all going to have to work together after the campaigns, whether we like it or not, so collectively describing one party as "evil" is certainly not helping the country, and in the end, it is not helping you either, as you are giving an impression of yourselves and the organizations you speak for as being intolerant and insufferably self-righteous.

Please note that I admitted up there that neither party is perfect. I am not going to pretend that the negative campaigning is solely the doing of the Republicans. However, I strongly object to the oft-repeated suggestion that it is solely the doing of the Democrats. Assigning the Democrats 100% of the blame for the extreme negativity of this campaign, ignoring the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and insinuations by conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter and the like that decorated veterans such as John Kerry and Max Cleland inflicted their own wounds is ridiculous, and drains you of any credibility for whatever following statements you may like to make. To even imply that is it Max Cleland's own fault that he lost three limbs is repugnant and totally un-American. These kinds of below-the-belt, vicious comments have no place coming out of the mouth of anyone with the slightest degree of professionalism or self-respect. I thought that honoring veterans was the patriotic, American thing to do. John Kerry is certainly the subject of heavy and continuing criticism for, in the opinion of many, failing to do so after his return from Vietnam. When people like Ann Coulter refer to liberals and Democrats as cowards and traitors, she is including many of the troops in Iraq. Is it assumed that every American soldier is a Republican? Those who talk so much of honoring the troops do not seem to even realize that they are failing to honor those who happen to be Democrats when they make such sweeping statements.

It was recently stated on the Fox News Channel that someone who likes Fahrenheit-9/11 would rather see the terrorists win than have Bush reelected. It was also recently said that Fahenheit-9/11 was one of the most watched films by troops in Iraq, a solid minority of whom found it convincing. I would like to see the people who made such a comment to tell those soldiers in Iraq that they would rather see the terrorists win.

That's all I have to say for the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Applause,,,applause..applause
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idiosyncratic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. You know you can't talk with nut-cases, right?
Ann Coulter should be in a mental facility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. There is something really wrong with that woman. IMHO eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. Jail.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickiWitch Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. *BIG WELCOME HUG*
That was awesome!!! Can I email your rant to a friend? Of course I would give you *full* credit for it. So well done!!

Welcome to DU! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langley85 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Sure
You can e-mail it to whoever you want, and thanks :) Keep the faith!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Hi Langley85!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. "1) Bush does not have a "mandate". " Right --he lost on Nov. 2nd
Kerry won
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langley85 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks
Hell yes Kerry won, stealing doesn't count as winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langley85 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. thanks everyone for your compliments
n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quispquake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great post!
And a welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. Permission?
Can I post this with the link from DU on the Usenet Democrat groups?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langley85 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Sure
Go ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustoff034 Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. A couple of small issues with your rant
Overall a very good, well though out position.

(Here comes the "but")....

But, in 1992 Clinton got 43% of the vote (37.45 for Bush, 18.9 for Perot) and the COVER of Time mag had his picture with "Mandate for change". How come 43% = Mandate but 51% does not?

Also, Seperation of church and state was not one of the founding tenants of the country -

(the following from http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pendulum Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. In 1992 all but 37.45% voted for "change"

Almost 63% sounds like a mandate to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustoff034 Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Interesting math
You could also say that 56.4% voted "against" Clinton.

My concern isn't with the math... but with the word Mandate (or lack of mandate).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pendulum Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Addition and subtraction, that's all.

We're discussing the phrase "mandate for change". According to your post, 37.45% voted for Bush=incumbent=not change.

That leaves 62.55% voting for change, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustoff034 Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. yes, but
"Technically" you're correct, but your math doesn't pass the smell test. I think it's a pretty tenuous argument to lump the Perot voters in with the Clinton voters. I would agree that they wanted "change" in the broad sense of the word, but if you had the voters put down who they wanted 1st and 2nd, I doubt that you'd find many Perot voters that would prefer Clinton.

HOWEVER, I think that we're getting wrapped up in semantics. Again, my concern is with the folks making the argument that Bush has no mandate - yet they (generally) supported Clinton's "mandate". This is a very difficult argument to sustain (intellectual honesty), and I believe that there needs to be a more sustainable anti-Bush argument.

I believe that a better argument would be that "I think that big gov't is good and can help people"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Although Jefferson was the first to use the phrase, James Madison
the Father of the Constitiution who "More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment" used the phrase many times later and confirmed that the Separation of Church and State was indeed the purpose.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pendulum Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. Nice post...
I was thinking about your disclaimer. Maybe confusion could be avoided by reserving the word "Christian" for those who subscribe to the teachings (love thy neighbor...) of one Jesus Christ? ;-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmac Donating Member (414 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
21. Great comments, good insight, and
if you can, take some solace in the fact that not every Christian echoes the views of those you mentioned. (I know you know this, but I am suggesting that you try to find some comfort in that knowledge).

Also, there are others making the same rant. Here is one I received in an email:



Subject: Political words of the season

Dr. Robin Meyers Oklahoma University Peace Rally November 14,
2004

As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower
Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and
Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma
City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University.
But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of
the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six
years, and hold the record for the most number of angry
letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have
watched as the faith I love has been taken over by
fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose
actions are anything but Christian. We’ve heard a lot lately
about so-called “moral values” as having swung the election
to President Bush. Well, I’m a great believer in moral
values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this
country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value — I
mean what are we talking about?

Because we don’t get to make them up as we go along,
especially not if we are people of faith. We have an
inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is
as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why
I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are
on their side:

· When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if
your deceptions are justified because you are doing God’s
will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking
in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to
teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not
only not moral, but immoral.

· When you live in a country that has established
international rules for waging a just war, build the United
Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly
break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world,
you are doing something immoral.

· When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet
fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential
teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the
Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for
violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the
sword), you are doing something immoral.

· When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as
important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to
even count them, you are doing something immoral.

· When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then
question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight,
and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.

· When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel,
which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the
ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest
among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will
get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

· When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive
so-called “enemy combatants” of the rules of the Geneva
Convention, which your own country helped to establish and
insists that other countries follow, you are doing something
immoral.

· When you claim that the world can be divided up into the
good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into
those who are with you, or with the terrorists—and then
launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes
control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of
helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something
immoral.

· When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to
pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight,
creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great
millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing
something immoral.

· When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a
country that was once the most loved country in the world,
and act like it doesn’t matter what others think of us, only
what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

· When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn
out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the
Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing
something immoral.

· When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a
follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old
way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something
immoral.

· When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to
protect the earth which is God’s gift to us all, so that the
corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will
make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and
live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The
earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.

· When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and
that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have
begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that
is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

· When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a
“compassionate conservative,” using the word which is the
essence of all religious faith-compassion, and then show no
compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience
with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something
immoral.

· When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of
the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick
can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn’t have a penny in
her pocket, you are doing something immoral.

· When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will
set women back a hundred years, and when you surround
yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you
are doing something immoral.

I’m tired of people thinking that because I’m a Christian, I
must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I
favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of
faith. I’m tired of people saying that I can’t support the
troops but oppose the war—

I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam War was
raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that
this war is wrong—the only question is how many people are
going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed
from power?

This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The
claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And
the only people who can turn things around are people like
you—young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is
happening to them. It’s your country to take back. It’s your
faith to take back. It’s your future to take back.

Don’t be afraid to speak out. Don’t back down when your
friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and
that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the
rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances
for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real
Hindus, and real Buddhists—so do all the faith traditions of
the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious.
Every human being is precious.

Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of
charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is
the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith. And war—war
is the greatest failure of the human race—and thus the
greatest failure of faith.
There’s an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all:
War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. And what is
the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more,
that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears
into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many
wars does it take to know that too many people have died?
What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we
will find out.

Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil
disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to
participate in the madness. My generation finally stopped a
tragic war. You can, too!

current body count in Iraq:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. Obviously parents like mine sent me to Catholic
Schools years ago is because they are mindful of the separation between church and state in the public schools. I don't know why some people fail to realize this. It seems like a no brainer to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC