John Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister and Big Brass Blog to do netroots outreach for his campaign. Okay, so far so good. He made two very good choices. He chose strong outspoken proponents of women’s rights. He chose the kind of people that you might expect to oppose the Catholic Church’s official policy on abortion and contraception. And he also chose two women known for their salty language. That’s a strong move. That shows John Edwards is committed to reproductive freedom and he isn’t shy about it. That’s a positive.
But wait!! Here is what Bill Donahue, the president of the Catholic League has to say about
Amanda and Melissa:
“John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”
Let’s start out slow here. It can’t be true that anyone that favors reproductive freedom and ready access to contraception is anti-Catholic. Love the church, hate the dogma…right? I mean, is John Kerry anti-Catholic?
So Amanda and Melissa must have said something specific that indicated they actualy dislike Catholics…Catholics as a group.
Let’s see what they dug up.
Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Okay. They don’t give me her exact words here. She made two points. First, the Church’s position on contraception might be influenced by their desire to get more members and thus more money. That’s not some kind of bigoted view. It’s just cynical about the sincerity of the Church’s moral position on contraception. I don’t think it is anti-Catholic; maybe it is anti-Vatican, but that’s an old story within the Catholic community.
Second, she used vulgar language to describe the doctine of the Immaculate Conception. Let’s face it folks, that story is a miracle story. It was added on to the later gospels. Jesus had brothers in the bible. Not half-brothers, brothers. If you believe in miracles and can’t do rudimentary scholarship then you can sustain a belief in the virgin birth and the Virgin Mary. But this is the 21st-century and it isn’t anti-Catholic to mock the story of the immaculate conception as a lot of hooey. I thought Hugh Hefner broke through that wall about fearing sex. Sex ain’t so bad. The mother of God probably enjoyed it. I hope so. If that offends some people, so be it. It isn’t anti-Catholic, it is anti-ancient myth getting taken seriously in modern life.
So, that’s the extent of Amanda’s trespasses. What did Melissa do?
Ms. McEwan referred in her blog to President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base” and repeatedly used profanity in demanding that religious conservatives stop meddling with women’s reproductive and sexual rights. Multiple postings use explicit and inflammatory language on a variety of issues.
Bravo woman!! Bravo. And the issue here is? The anti-Catholic aspect is where? So, you might expect John Edwards’ campaign to respond to demands that he fire his bloggers with some indignation, right? Wrong.
Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
That is bullshit, John. I don’t normally use this lauguage, but in this context I think it is appropriate to say that Palmieri gave a pussy response. No balls. John Edwards needs to start wearing his ovaries on the outside. Show us something here John. You already lost by allowing your spokesperson to let that quote get in the New York Times. You better come out swinging in defense of your women. We’ll be watching.
In order to use a spine Edwards first would have to possess one.
His performance on MTP last weekend was unbelievably weak. At one point he tried to defend himself by saying that ‘things were going on at home’, the politician’s way of saying the dog ate my homework. I actually winced watching it.
Then there was Tweety attacking Elizabeth on Hardball recently and John sat there open mouthed but didn’t defend her. It was another cringe moment, both for the idiot Matthews and for Edwards.
Good luck bloggirls.
and now Edwards has fired both bloggers.
not exactly a surprise for little ole spineless.
Should we start sending Edwards’ campaign emails pointing out that firing either of them would basically destroy his support in the progressive blogosphere? I’m kind of inclined to let him shoot himself in the foot, but then I’m still highly disturbed by the Iran brouhaha.
…is not related to the birth of Jesus to Mary. The Immaculate Conception refers to the doctrine established by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without ‘original sin.’ Frankly, Booman you are the one who could’ve done some rudimentary scholarship and would’ve been able to make your point without the silly rant mocking the virgin birth of Jesus. You actually give fodder to those who want the bloggers fired.
To be specific for those non-Catholics out there, the person considered immaculate at conception is MARY here, not Jesus. The deal here is MARY was born without sin and so was conceived “immaculata”.
It was considered an “article of faith” starting in 1476 but did not become “dogma” (absolute heterodoxy) until 1854 and was then more or less “ratified” by Pius 12 in 1942.
As for Jesus being born to a VIRGIN Mary, that is called the “Virgin Birth” doctrine. For Catholics, the official dogma is that Jesus’ brothers were actually his cousins based on an interpretation of a koine Greek word which can (allegedly) mean either brother or cousin.
For Orthodox believers, the brothers are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage to an unnamed woman before Mary.
In other news, somewhere else on the blogosphere they’re talking about the racist vile garbage McCain’s staff has hired that are former (or current) bloggers.
Pax
You must mean “absolute orthodoxy”.
Oops! You are absolutely correct.
Pax
give booman a break. to many folks the questions of immaculate conception, original sin and virgin birth are as relevant as the question of whether peter or ben parker is the original spider-man. it’s not a question someone who isn’t a devoted fan of the character would be an expert on or particularly care about, and i think that’s part of his point.
I agree with your overall point. But, as someone who I generally think of as sensitive to sexist language and gender issues, I have to admit to being pretty shocked you actually wrote this:
Are you trying to start a pie fight? I know you prefaced it with I usually don’t use this kind of language… but I don’t think that excuses it.
Very tacky to use that word, particularly in this situation.
If those bloggers’ comments are so problematic, if they get fired over this, then the political future of Kos and his deputies hangs by a fragile thread.
my opinion of Edwards will drop dramatically.
I want a candidate to hire folks that are competent at their jobs, not because they’ll please one group or another. If Edwards caves in to pressure from the ultra-Catholics and fires Amanda and Melissa, the question in my mind will be: who else will he cave in to in the future?
I personally think the concept of “original sin” is a crock, so the idea of the Immaculate Conception is also a crock…does that make me anti-Catholic? No, that makes me a non-Catholic. I also vehemently disagree with the Church’s teaching on birth control — does that make me anti-Catholic? No, that makes me a non-Catholic. The Church’s teaching is fine if you’re a Catholic…but don’t go forcing your beliefs on those of us who aren’t in your clique…
.does that make me anti-Catholic? No, that makes me a non-Catholic.
That is so simple and true that I think I might cry. Beautiful, Cali. I suggest you send that to the Edwards campaign.
The ultra-Catholics evidently get their rhetoric from the Bushies and the Anti-Defamation League. If I point out Bush’s failings, I hate America; if I think that AIPAC has too much influence over American foreign policy, I’m an anti-Semite.
Cali Scribe, I understand what you’re saying, but with respect, I think you miss the point. You’re making a red herring logical fallacy. Nobody is objecting to someone rejecting revered ideas. The objection is against scornful, mocking attacks on those ideas. There really is a difference, although it’s often hard to draw the line.
I’m very strongly in favor of free speech. But I think that people who deliberately use language that is intended to inflame should expect, and deserve, a counterattack.
I’m not trying to force any beliefs on you. But I’m agreeing, as I almost never do, with the so-called Catholic League, whoever they are, that these bloggers said some really objectionable things. Again, they’re not objectionable because they reject doctrine. They’re objectionable because they are wound the people who hold the doctrine.
You can deny that intention all you want, but I just don’t buy it.
I meant to say: I think they are objectionable because they deliberately aim to wound the people who hold the doctrine.
yeah, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary in what they dug up. If that is all they’ve got that is pretty pathetic.
I never understood the attraction to Edwards. His decision making process is blinded by his own ambition and the zeitgeist of the moment, and he therefore disqualifies himself from receiving my support.
Let’s not forget that Edwards was one of the few Dems on the Intelligence committee pre-war. Let’s not forget that he failed to challenge the quality of that evidence. Or that he co-sponsored a resolution for war. Or that he made extremely bellicose speeches in support of it, trying to look tough. Either he was too stupid or too controlled by the 9/11 ‘unity’ zeitgeist to make good decisions. Either way he’s a creampuff who can’t make good decisions when it REALLY COUNTS.
Love his rhetoric, hate his limited capacities and inexperience.
Got rid of the mole tho. How nice.
Want a candidate who can properly weigh evidence and make reasoned and reasonable conclusions about what is predictable about the future and what is not?
.
Accuracy in reporting is a major concern, not just in MSM, but especially on blogs where most is easily copy catted without use of own thought or learned knowledge.
Driving in circles by listening to MSM and hearing conservative talking points endlessly debated on the blogs. That’s why I appreciate Soj’s writing for doing basic research on his/her topics.
Yes, John Kerry was Swift boated by the far right conservative elements in American Catholic hierarchy, surely not equated to personal views of lay members in the Catholic Church. Contrary to JFK, John Kerry leaned back not to antagonize these groups and failed to strongly express his views. JK shunned a visit to Rome in 2004.
Cardinal Francis Arinze told a Vatican news conference that pro-abortion Catholic politicians such as Mr Kerry were “not fit” to receive communion.
My diary @dKos –
Ratzinger Innuendo – Not Based on Facts!
Perhaps I’m just growing old, seemed only yesterday reading through the issues of 1962 – TIME Man of the Year – Pope John XXIII
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."BooMan writes: “Second, she used vulgar language to describe the doctine of the Immaculate Conception. Let’s face it folks, that story is a miracle story. It was added on to the later gospels. Jesus had brothers in the bible. Not half-brothers, brothers. If you believe in miracles and can’t do rudimentary scholarship then you can sustain a belief in the virgin birth and the Virgin Mary. But this is the 21st-century and it isn’t anti-Catholic to mock the story of the immaculate conception as a lot of hooey. I thought Hugh Hefner broke through that wall about fearing sex. Sex ain’t so bad. The mother of God probably enjoyed it. I hope so. If that offends some people, so be it. It isn’t anti-Catholic, it is anti-ancient myth getting taken seriously in modern life.”
That is easily the most offensive paragraph I’ve ever seen on this blog. I’m going to try my best to follow my rule of no ad hominem attacks. But I strenuously reject this content.
BooMan of course would deny it, but I suspect this nasty anti-Catholic post of his may be related to my diary on militarism in the church and my debate with him last night on the Boston Joe diary. Like all of us, and as Carl Jung would say, he can’t see his own Shadow. But damn he has a nasty, bigoted one.
Blow it out your ear, BooMan.
sorry if I offended you. And I did screw up the distinction between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. So I apologize for that too, although it doesn’t effect my point.
I haven’t read your diary yet. I’m just telling you that not as any kind of slap at you or your diary, but because it is the truth.
And I have no ill feeling towards you for your encouraging words in BostonJoe’s diary. I took them as a compliment and as encouragement.
If you want to define believing in miracles in such a way that anyone that doesn’t believe in miracles and thinks we should be beyond believing in miracles is a bigot, then we are just going to have to disagree.
Respecting Catholic dogma is just not something I can do. What I can do is respect people that believe in Catholic dogma despite the fact that a lot of it seems outdated and beside the point of what I think faith should be about. But I will also mock Catolic dogma when it becomes political.
What people do in their church and in their private life is their business and I am no evangelist for people taking a more empirical approach to the world. I am not out to convince anyone what to believe in matters of theology.
But if you try to get bloggers fired because they think Catholic teachings on the Virgin Mary and contraception should have nothing to do with policy, then you’ve dropped your right to be respected and left alone. At least, IMO.
You’ve entered into the public square of political discourse, and magical/miracle thinking is going to get rebuttted.
Sexual ethics and Vatican teaching are a major issue in the field of feminism. Here you have two feminist women that are being threatened because they oppose, vigorously, the infusion of catholic teaching into public policy. I agree with most of what they say even if I can’t stand by things I have not read.
The politics of this are another matter and on that you are correct.
I appreciate the restraint, the the apologies. And I’m glad to know it has nothing to do with me, my diary, and our debate last night. Of course, I’m sorry you didn’t read the diary.
Just a few days ago I responded to questions of yours by stating that I think vicious ad hominem attacks should be prohibited, but that there should be no limits at all on expressions of disrespect for institutions. Thus, I am rather hoist on my own petard, because I certainly do not like being on the receiving end of such awful disrespect directed at an institution I personally revere.
On the main point of the post, I disagree with you. I often laugh at that William Donahue guy, wondering how it is he thinks he can speak for me. But I think he’s right on this point. Opposing the Catholic Church’s views on contraception and debate is fair game in a public debate. But mocking, indeed going out of one’s way to shit on in the most inflammatory way, key beliefs like the Immaculate Conception, in my opinion, crosses the line. I think Edwards should fire those two bigoted bloggers.
how is the immaculate conception a ‘key belief’?
I ask this in sincerity because my first reaction was to almost spit out my drink. But I am willing to listen to why you think that.
It seems to me like about the most irrelevant belief I can think of. The Virgin Birth could be considered key, although it’s an add-on.
As I was typing that, I was thinking, “key belief” isn’t the right term, but I’m doing little blogging breaks while busy at the office, with assistants running in and out. I should have said “revered belief.”
However, there do exist deep theological reasons why the Immaculate Conception of both Mary and Jesus is regarded as a key belief. This is in a part of theology called “salvation history.” The sinless duo of Mary and Jesus is thought to recapitulate the originally sinless duo of Adam and Eve, in a mysterious way that it crucial to the redemption of humanity. I’m not competent to explain this clearly, because I really don’t understand it very well. But it is indeed an idea that Christian and Muslim theologians and mystics have held to be profoundly important.
And that’s why I love Catholicism. Because it’s just thinly veiled, and poorly translated paganism. The virgin birth predates Christianity by millennia. To the ancient Greeks it was parthenogenesis. (As in Athena-Parthenos — the Virgin Goddess) And Eve (Hawwas) means reptile goddess. (Reptiles are of course capable of reproducing by parthenogenesis.) Now I love my ophidian goddesses as much as the next person, but I have to come down on Booman’s side in this. No place in politics.
You miss the point. The point is the aggressive mocking of the beliefs. I won’t do that with what you’ve said here, although the temptation is pretty strong.
“I won’t do that with what you’ve said here, although the temptation is pretty strong.”
You already have. The implication is clear from your statement that you find the mythological underpinnings of your own religion ludicrous, or the idea that they are the mythological underpinnings, which is quite demonstrable with a bit of research. Mary was a nonentity in Christianity until it came time to convert Roman pagans. Anyway, to say I won’t mock what you say, even though it’s obviously mockable, is a smug, self-satisfied form of mockery. I’ll take the aggressive honesty of Booman or Amanda Marcotte any day of the week; twice on Sundays.
Oh I think that’s mainly silly. I majored in religious philosophy. I don’t find the mythological underpinnings of Christianity to be ludicrous, nor do I deny that there are mythological underpinnings, as you term it. However, you’re wrong about Mary being a “nonentity” until it was time to convert pagans. One can see the error clearly from the first century writings. And Christianity was converting pagans from the very start. Apparently you have been misinformed. Probably by some crafty pagans.
Your next sentence doesn’t make sense to me.
And taking a big dump on somebody’s sacred beliefs is not “aggressive honesty.” It’s just a big dump.
on your last point, that’s open to a vibrant debate, but I note that there is only only one group whose beliefs absolutely disqualifies them from state-wide or higher office, and that is the group that does not profess sacred beliefs. They are lower than a big dump.
Is that right? I assume you mean atheists. Is it true that there are no atheists in Congress or in state-wide office? I’ve never considered that question before.
Incidentally, as I’ve said several times in discussions with Madman in the Marketplace, I have no problems with atheists. Many of my closest lefty allies are atheists. I’d always prefer a fiery atheist to a lukewarm and/or knothead churchgoer, and I suspect God feels the same way.
The atmosphere here is infinitely more adult and tolerant than on DKos, but I still don’t think I could get away with scornful mocking of core beliefs of, say, feminism, that was comparable to this thread’s scornful mocking of Catholic beliefs. It really is a double standard.
Ironically, I’m now analytically in the MilitaryTracy position. However, I’m wishing my adversaries well.
Please don’t equate the two things:
No sacred beliefs=atheist.
There is a large debate about what exactly the word atheist means and people who don’t hold sacred beliefs are not at all in agreement on who is and who is not an atheist. I do not like being called an atheist because people make all kinds of erroneous assumptions about what I believe as a result of their impression of what that label means.
I do not hold any sacred beliefs however. And that means that I must either lie or forego seeking any office above sheriff in this country. There are probably 20 congressional seats I’d have an outside chance of winning, but it would be a struggle. And Senate, Governor, or President are impossible in any state.
I didn’t call you an atheist. I don’t recall you ever defining yourself regarding religion (or the lack thereof). I was just riffing on your note, which was interesting and which I didn’t completely understand.
Here are meanings of “sacred” from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.
So you’re correct that the term does not necessarily imply deistic belief, so that “no sacred belief doesn’t necessarily mean atheist.” However, for what it’s worth, I do think the core meaning of the term involves theism, and I suspect most atheists wouldn’t term their deep beliefs “sacred.” But I have no real dog in this fight.
I’m not a theist but then neither are Buddhists and they can run for office and win. The issue is whether or not you hold sacred beliefs or not. If you don’t you better lie about it. The most prominent person to ever run for President that refused to say that they held sacred beliefs was Bill Bradley. I can’t say what he believes because he refuse to say. I respected that. It’s an enormous shame he fell 4,000 votes short in NH. He had more money than Gore and could given him a real run for his money. Instead, we have religious candidates and people pretending to be religious candidates. It is not supposed to matter but it does.
And whenever you are feeling beseiged because your beliefs are being disrespected, I only ask that you consider that you can run for a President as a woman, as an ethnic minority, as a pretty much anything. But if you don’t profess sacred beliefs or you are sexually attracted to your own gender, you might as well not bother. That, my friend, is real discrimination.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I truly had not understood what you meant, and now I do. These points are well taken, and respected by me.
It’s an interesting topic if we can keep it civil, which isn’t easy when we are discussing your belief system. I understand that.
Let me try to explain how I see a couple of things.
First of all, this country was not based on Judeo-Christian values as so many on the right like to assert. It was based on a refusal to fight over Judeo-Christian niceties and differences. Let’s take this Congregationalist state and merge it with this Quaker state, and this Anglican state, and this Presbyterian state, and these Baptist states. And let’s agree that there will be no religious test to serving in the federal government. Otherwise, we’ll just start killing each other like we did in Europe.
Okay. That’s America. Let’s not try to impose our religious view into law. Let’s respect our differences.
Now along come some Catholics that have a very political agenda where they want to take their teaching on contraception and put into law in non-Catholic states. Never mind that all our states are now multi-demoninational, the point still stands. That’s a no-no. Even if it was a good idea, that’s taboo.
Now, if you reason for opposing contraception is being justified by reference to scripture and you are taking that scripture into the public square it isn’t the same thing anymore as when you just talked about in church and on street-corners. Now you are asking for a rebuttal. And what is a non-catholic to do but attack your theology?
The harder you push the harder the counterattack. If you don’t respect the basic premise of American federal government, than we are eventually going to stop respecting you.
If you thought that babies that don’t eat a hunk of blue cheese on the 13th day of their lives are going to go to hell, and you tried to make it a law that even lactose-intolerant babies be fed a hunk of blue cheese, we would mock you.
If you try to pass laws based on rank superstition that suddenly respect for private beliefs is transformed into disrespect for public advocacy positions. That is why disrespect for feminist positions is totally different from ranking on sexually repressed guilt-laden legislation based on antique mythology.
Although you may find it hard to believe, I agree with every word of your post here. I read it twice to make sure that was true.
I’m not a wingnut Catholic. I’m an educated lefty Catholic. I’ve also had my years as a mystic and a poet and a musician, and extreme suffering that taught some compassion.
Among other things, this means I believe abortion should be legal, although I also have a lot of other views on the subject, meaning I take flak from all sides.
I’m a freethinker and my favorite writer is Bertrand Russell. I happen to believe that freethinking leads to Christian piety (viz. Cardinal Newman and C.S. Lewis). An unpopular belief these days. But it has rather respectable foundations (viz. St. Justin Martyr). Further, Christian piety does not lead to trying to control others. It leads to trying to love others.
So I’m stuck on the left taking flak from the progressives. That’s often unpleasant, but I think it’s better than associating with the right. For one thing, the left, for all its faults, has the great monopoly on brains.
What I like about you is your willingness to engage in a debate without making an argument.
If you agree with what I said, then I would hope that would see why these two bloggers have, at times, taken on and disrespected certain Catholic doctrines and positions.
They were reacting to people that do not respect the basic premise this country was built on. They were reacting to having the Pope’s position on something used to push for legislation that affects them directly and takes away their freedoms.
And they had little choice but to take on the undergirdings of the Pope’s reasoning, which unavoidably offended believing Catholics that were minding their own damn business and didn’t ask for their religious views to dragged into the public square.
I think the blame lays squarely with the people that violated the principles this government was founded on and not the people that were forced to respond to it.
If Edwards fires them he is gutless.
oops…’without making it an argument.
That ommission badly distorts my meaning.
I really do try very hard to be honest. Even though I’m a nut who spends 30 minutes or so most days in prayer.
Carefully I have considered this, and I’ve decided you’re right. This isn’t really a reversal of opinion, I don’t think, because I don’t think I’ve said anything directly about the Edwards controversy.
In any event, I agree with you. Edwards should not fire them over this. I certainly think he should think of some smart way to get the point across that he is not endorsing everything they’ve ever said in the past, and he should also say he doesn’t like being bullied by right wing groups.
This is not complete capitulation. I still think your main post here is objectionable. But I’m sure God forgives you, and I do too! More importantly, I throw my weight, for what it’s worth, behind your main point, although I don’t like how you argued it.
thank you for listening to my argument. I appreciate that.
No, it is fighting for yourself. The Church can’t muck around in my life via politics and then run back to base and call “Safe!”
Big dump is your colorful terminology, and not a fair representation of the statements made, imho. And it looks to me like you have been misinformed by those crafty Catholics who so delight in burying truths, squirreling away dead sea scrolls, covering up for pederast priests, and such.
Booman, you must not have been brought up catholic? All beliefs are ‘key beliefs’. At least that is what I remember from having gone to catholic school(and having to go to mass every damn morning also before school) from kindergarten through one year of catholic high school.
These beliefs no longer work for me but again they are all ‘key beliefs’ to any catholic as far as I remember.
I disagree, because when the Church came out against Kerry and women’s reproductive rights it dove smack dab into the realm of the personal. Yes, they used fighting words, but only because they are fighting for their free lives, for their value as human beings against a more powerful institution trying to limit both. And I don’t think it is bigotry to fight against ideas; bigotry is mindless hatred.
I understand that you may not see things in this light, but as a woman- and one who grew up in the Catholic church- this is how things look from this side of the aisle.
I’ll come to the defense of BooMan in at least item 3, “The mother of God probably enjoyed it.”
The Bible states that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born — it doesn’t say anything about afterwards. And I’m not a Talmud scholar by any sense of the imagination, but sexual pleasure within marriage has typically been part of Jewish teaching from what I’ve heard. So if Mary and Joseph did “know” one another (to use the KJV terminology), she may have enjoyed it. Even the right-wing Christians will admit that sex, in a marital relationship, is vital and can be pleasurable; Tim and Beverly LaHaye even wrote a sex manual called The Act of Marriage (which has been furtively passed around many a church youth group I can assure you).
As for the “brothers” issue, there is one brief mention where Jesus is told, “Your mother and brothers are outside” while He was preaching, and he said something like “My family are those that do the work of my Father in Heaven” (don’t remember the exact wording). And one of the early leaders (outside of the 12 Apostles) was reportedly James, a brother of Jesus; it’s not said though if this was a natural born brother or a stepbrother from a previous marriage (Joseph was reportedly a widower and quite a bit older than Mary, one of the reasons why he died before Jesus reached adulthood.)
Here endeth the sermon…
Does anyone think it is possible to have a secular humanist candidate, or at least one that has the ovaries to admit it?
Or at least one who refuses to make a show of his faith on the grounds that such behavior lacks humility.
This obfuscation of practical debate because of the concerns of this group or that group is most tiresome and only serves to promote the bad side of two party systems: that they eventually require that solvable problems go unattended to promote the appearance of differences between the two parties despite the fact they both serve the same masters’ will.
F all the myths. They are for raising moral children and keeping dumb people from hurting themselves and others. That they should be extrapolated into every aspect of our lives is purely a result of the patriarchal system promoting its control and increasing it’s affluence. If you can think, you know why it is not OK to kill, and you don’t need virgins and archangels and demons and cherubs and child-bearing virgins and afterlifes and all that other malarkey.
No I don’t think it’s even in the realm of possibility for any candidate to say they are a secular humanist..not even for a candidate of any religious persuasion to stick up for such a candidate. The steadily growing rise of the ‘religious right'(an oxymoron if there ever was one)taking over the political landscape is way to scary and sending us back to the dark ages. And I mean that quite literally.
Well, it would sure be nice if those of us who would like to get some real work done on fixing our system could throw our support behind such a candidate. The religious and fake religious candidate is bound by his supposed conviction to NOT solve certain important issues as dogma conflicts with practicality. He/she is therefor handicapped in their ability to serve us.
Well I certainly agree on that, it would be nice to see secular humanism truly embraced.
or even (gasp) an atheist, if I agreed with him/her on the vital issues.
Where a person spends his or her Friday night, Saturday, or Sunday morning is immaterial to me…
hey does that mean if I ran for office I’d be assured of at least one vote.
I would so vote for you! :>)
I once used a naughty word, a word that is not politically correct, and this offended some. So, every single time I said anything this grave and cardinal sin was brought up.
This PC crap is done by the left and by the right, and it is somewhat more common in the
LEFT
Even reading over the responses here, we see a whole bunch of totally idiotic responses about words. Words are important but they are not deeds. We need to get beyond our little hobbyhorse naughty words, and get to the meaning and substance.
The left has a log in its eye on this topic.
Thanks for posting this comment full of meaning and substance.
Ding! Ding! Ding! And here is today’s Irony Award! 😉
ALL of my comments are full of meaning and substance. The discerning spot the substance, the superficial idiots focus on the words.
Where do you come down?
The left needs to pay MUCH less attention to words, and MUCH MORE attention to substance. And, no, words are not substance, words are words.
Well, personally I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I have trouble seeing how it is any more meaningful, substantive, or even germane to BooMan’s post to criticize the comments about it than it is to criticize the language used in the post itself.
And it might bear some thought on your part that maybe the reason that people jumped on you at dKos is not that they spend too much time thinking about words, but that you spend too little. Throwing words like ‘idiot’ around is hardly a way to encourage rational and topical discussion.
and repeatedly used profanity in demanding that religious conservatives stop meddling with women’s reproductive and sexual rights. Multiple postings use explicit and inflammatory language on a variety of issues.
What a sanctimonious little prick this guy is; what business is this of his? What do these guys think? That all women owe them deference and submission? Such arrogance. One would think that this fellow was personally threatened by a couple feminist bloggers and the possibility no woman with an ounce of personal dignity likes Amy ‘Doormat’ Sullivan. Get a clue, tens of millions of women wish that religious conservatives would stop meddling with women’s sexual and reproductive rights. Indeed that desire is one of the fundamental reasons many of us are politically involved.
That attitude probably ties into the women should be seen and not heard category, or that it’s ok for men to use profanity but when women do it’s somehow worse.
As far as I’m concerned using profanity is a lot less profane than some stranger mucking about in my personal life and saying they can decide what I can or can’t do with my body.
I was also wondering if the church makes a big a deal when men get vasectomies as they do about birth control pills?
I’m sick of theocracy inserting itself into our political process.
I’m sick of the misogyny that permeates both our theocracies and our politics.
I’m sick of Democrats without spine.
This just makes me sick — in case you couldn’t tell.
makes me sick too. on a non-sickening note, tho, would you mind shooting me an email when you get a chance? it’s listed below. (non-bootrib related topic)
Will do.
Sounds like they can’t make up their mind whether to fire/rehire them, and how to spin this. Isn’t this a bit too early for a campaign to be in this much disarray? It doesn’t sound like the managers are very competent.
better they implode now than later.
is fairly unreliable — I’d like to hear confirmation from some other sources before coming to any conclusions. For one, I might head over to Pandagon and see if Amanda is posting there again…if so, there’s the answer…
I’m already pretty pissed at John E for his middle east bs, so I am truly hoping that he doesn’t cave in to some religious wacko too. All the blogs I’ve seen today are saying they were fired, but they all quote the Salon article as their basis. So, I’m with you, I’m going to wait and have it verified before I go ballistic.
I am a catholic, and I think the second blogger did insult doctrines not directly related to a political issue, but I don’t think either should be fired, since I believe in freedom of speech and I think most religions sound silly to those not raised in them.
Scientology would be an example most can agree on since the believe we are all the reincarnation of souls murdered by some alien evil entity named xenu.
I for one have a very hard time respecting biblical literalists.
Furthermore if you look at the Catholic League it is 100% former Reagan adminstration shills like
Board of Advisors
Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D’Souza
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O’Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Paul Vitz
George Weigel
They aren’t our people!