The NY Times reports on the emergence of an interesting coalition:
In their long and frustrated efforts pushing Congress to pass legislation on global warming, environmentalists are gaining a new ally.
With increasing vigor, evangelical groups that are part of the base of conservative support for leading Republicans are campaigning for laws that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists have linked with global warming.
In the latest effort, the National Association of Evangelicals, a nonprofit organization that includes 45,000 churches serving 30 million people across the country, is circulating among its leaders the draft of a policy statement that would encourage lawmakers to pass legislation creating mandatory controls for carbon emissions.
Environmentalists rely on empirical evidence as their rationale for Congressional action, and many evangelicals further believe that protecting the planet from human activities that cause global warming is a values issue that fulfills Biblical teachings asking humans to be good stewards of the earth.
“Genesis 2:15,” said Richard Cizik, the association’s vice president for governmental affairs, citing a passage that serves as the justification for the effort: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.”
“We believe that we have a rightful responsibility for what the Bible itself challenges,” Mr. Cizik said. “Working the land and caring for it go hand in hand. That’s why I think, and say unapologetically, that we ought to be able to bring to the debate a new voice.”
I have never understood why evangelicals and other devout religious sects, while loud and extremely political on issues relating to abortion and gay marriage, remain silent on other issues that you would think would interest them and be just as pressing an issue- torture, the death penalty, animal rights, poverty, etc.
Animal rights and poverty aren’t as sexy as sex is.
I think a large part of it is their profound disappointment with fellow evangelical Christian Jimmy Carter.
Obviously, it is because nobody is putting any money towards them being loud and extremely political on those other issues.
“The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,” Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “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.”
Maybe it’s b/c they’re not good Christians.
This draft has been circulating for awhile. Alas, I’ve known more than a few wackos who connect environmental problems to their End Times beliefs. Sorry, but there are alot more of them reading Revealations than the Sierra Club newsletter.
They’ve decided to toss those other things overboard in pursuit of the big ones. Uniting with Republicans on the abortion and gay things requires it.
The Republican governor in Alabama actually pushed for a tax hike to help the poor, basing it on Jesus’s command to help “the least among us.” It went down to a fiery defeat, but you have to admire the man for trying to stay true to the real message of Christianity, and not the God-hates-fags perversion of the religious right.
The irony, of course, is that he’s now being challenged in the Republican primary by Roy Moore of the Ten Commandments fame. We’ll soon see which kind of religion Alabama Republicans like — New Testament or Old.
Well to join the chorus, I’d say because religion isn’t the motivation for their beliefs, it is the vehicle that provides the transport for them.
So it isn’t that gay sex is anti-biblical, it is that they find it distasteful, and the Bible gives them a good way of expressing that distaste in something other than, “I don’t like it.”
I think it’s because the environment is still considered a Democratic issue, and the Democrats don’t embrace (and use) them like the Republicans do.
One, intellectual integrity is not held in high regard by people who put “faith” above reason. Faith is belief despite evidence to the contrary, or lack of evidence.
Two, gross political manipulation puts politics above all else. Doing the “right thing” means taking political risks. If gay-bashing cost them 5 percent of votes on the national level, they’d stop it immediately. But it doesn’t, so they don’t. Everything they do is calculated, not grounded in some moral paradigm.
John, why are you still a Republican?
Take the answer to that question, and ask why the evangelical right is still alienated from the party which represents its ideals concerning charity, justice, and the other core Christian values.
its hard to cultivate the kind of fear that Republican issues do with environmentalism and liberalism.
Just imagine trying to convince an end-timer that mercury poisoning is important when they believe that homo-sex is going to destroy the world soon anyway. These are people that are purposly trying to get journalists killed in Israel to move the revelations ahead a bit.
71 virgins or superiority above your neighbor who will live in on a hellish earth after you ascend on a beam of light? Who’s nuttier?
Hilarious, true, and sad, all at the same time. One is not sure whether to laugh, or cry, hysterically. These are the people who got our current government elected. It’s going to take a long time to undo the damage.
1) The big-money sellout Pharisees who typically spearhead the political activism of evanagelicals are in the pocket of big business. See, e.g., Reed, Ralph.
2) Liberal activists are too fucking arrogant to lower themselves to cooperating with people they view as a bunch of hillbillies.
Another angle provided by Jim Wallis. He said (and I’m paraphrasing) “They’ve got it backwards. Instead of taking their Scriptural beliefs and building a political movement around them they’ve got a set of beliefs and cherry-pick the Scriptures to support them.” And I’d add that many times they don’t even accurately cherry-pick at that. I’ve had “discussions” with evangelicals over the Scriptural support for their agenda and when they (often) come up short they just fall back on tradition and faith. The biggest problem for right-wing evangelical’s today is Jesus. They’ve got to ignore him to push their version of Christianity.
True as well. But how do liberal activists provide the message in a manner that will reach “a bunch of hillbillies” effectively, without turning them off to due to the mode of the message?
Lines–We could threaten them with hellfire too. Remember, as you do unto the least of them, so you do unto me. Would you want to elimitate Jesus’ health care? Would you vote to cut Jesus’ pre-school funds? Heck, there’s as much biblical precedent for “creation care” as there is for homophobia, if not more. I just think that the Democrats are unwilling or unpracticed in turning it to their advantage.
Not to say that I want them on my team. I see the problems that certain principled conservatives have in defending their idealogical compatriots, and I’m happy to stick with the loonies we already have. Besides, I am always suspect of the motives of people who truly think that they won’t be here tomorrow.
You speak to people in language they understand and appreciate.
I really believe that it’s not a class issue so much as a cultural issue — and that the true resistance to cooperation is on the part of the fundamentalists. I don’t think the folks who make up the Christian Right are stupid or voting against their interests; they’ve just decided that cultural issues are more important to them than economic issues. So language isn’t really going to get the job done for the vast majority of them as long as there remains a divide on attitudes toward sex.
So, in light of the Coburn quote I posted above, how should these people be viewed?
If people go around acting and talking like hillbillies … hillbillies who think they are morally superior to the rest of us …. what is the best way to “cooperate” with them? George Bush doesn’t appear to have a high regard for them, he certainly tries to “cooperate” with them, or appear to. Is this what “liberal activists” should lower themselves to?
Focusing on our differences aids the agenda of Reed, Inhofe, and the rest of the false prophets.
I think you find evangelicals coming down the way they do for a lot of different reasons. I’d like to think of myself as a conservationist. Heck, I ride mass transit as often as I can, and I even have an reel push mower. I believe the Earth is something that we truly do have a charge to care for.
At the same time however, I reject much of the Sierra Club’s environmentalism, as merely, anti-growth, anti-family urban planning. After all it was the Sierra Club who has advocated extreme housing densities, which work okay I guess when you’re just starting out, but who wants to raise 4 kids in 600 sq ft.
Even more so, most of the “environmentalists” I know, have their secret SUVs, and the really big public ones have their private or chartered jets. It’s not about “environmentalism” it’s about control, it’s about keeping ordinary people from the opportunity to purchase a reasonably priced home less than 1.5 hrs away from work (sorry I’m from California). Scratch them even more, and you find, that when it does come to supporting viable mass transit alternatives, they’re poor at actually coming through with the money.
One of the more successful mass transit creations of the past decade was the Altamont Commuter Express, running from San Jose to Stockton Pleasanton and Tracy areas. Basically a wide swath of population and work communities, but Alameda and Santa Clara Counties do very little to support the ACE train, and in fact, instead of perhaps even encouraging ridership their representation on the board is pushing for higher fares. Which how is that supposed to get more people out of their cars? San Joaquin, the exurban county that votes moderately Republican, is the one that’s supporting most of the transit system.
And then they have the gall to say that it’s conservatives who are opposing affordable housing on the like. Affordable housing, is part and parcel with making people’s commutes more manageable.
So look, you can put lipstick on a pig, but liberal environmentalism, is nothing more them simple I got mine, and want to inflate the property value of my house 15 minutes from SF, but hey I’m retired and don’t need to work anymore anyway.
There’s a lot of liberal causes that, I don’t have a problem with and some I agree with, but, as much as another person pointed out much of the vitriol leveled at evangelicals from Liberals, is more than enough to drive probably most of us away from voicing public support of most if any liberal causes.
I wonder if end-timers take out more debt than atheists and liberal Christians?
A new study is in order! Contact the Heritage Foundation!
On this issue you at least have to give the Pope credit. Solidy against abortion? Then you have to be solidy against torture and the death penalty. Deeply Religious? Well then understand the proper role of science and religion, and keep them both in their place, so as not to demean either.
But we’re not talking about mainstream Catholics. We’re talking about people who, as others have pointed out, clearly just using the Bible to justify their own bigotry while convienently ignoring any scripture to the contrary. Morever, outside of social issues, these same people are immune to appeals to vote in any economically rational fashion. Only in the US is there a large segment of poor people that vote for a party that cuts the taxes on the rich and corporations while reducing spending on progreams. Most other countries have “class-based” voting patterns, which is easy to understand, and can be appealed to with nods to people’s self-interest.
In fact, looking at recent polls that show the American public far more in favor of Democratic ideals and convinced that the Republican government is lying to it on any number of issues. With the exception of the proportion of Americans who actually side with James Dobson (as an example) or Grover Norquist, everyone else is basically a Democrat.
People just don’t vote that way, due to a combination of the Republicans’ successful demonization of anything “left-wing” or “liberal” and the Democrats’ inability to effectively market the ideals they already stand for.
Look at our gracious host (John Cole) for example. He votes Republican for historical reasons, apparently (?) still clinging to the ideals the Republican party once stood (mostly) for.
Perhaps when Dobson and Norquist actually succeed in making “Christianity in schools” and “Drown the government in a bathtub” the official platform of the GOP people will wake up? Oh wait, that’s the current Texas GOP platform. Or see how well “tax cuts uber alles) (TABOR) is working out in Colorado or places like Alabama.
Also important, as much as evangelicals are faulted for focusing on “cultural” issues, can any less be said for the Liberals who oppose many of the values evangelicals hold.
Both sides recognize that so much is built on our culture. People would probably be much more willing to live in closer quarters if they knew ahead of time, how much more moral or considerate people were or are going to be, as culture decays, fractionalization occurs.
But Culture is so important, and the fact of the matter is, the idea that public school teachers should be giving sex surveys to 1st graders, is far more repungnant and damaging to the long-term health of our society, and the environment than whatever concerns someone may have about preserving “open space.” Why would liberals be so wedded to this indoctrination so young, if they didn’t know that the development of our culture was key.
Wow, quite a rant. Four kids in 600sq ft? Have you seen Chinatown? Sorry, that was too easy to pass up.
But anyway …. speaking as one who has lived in the Bay Area twice, and moved away twice (I lived in San Jose, and later, in San Bruno) and spent a lot of the time in the City ….
I can’t imagine an urban area in the country less representative of typical U.S.-ness than the SF bay area. Especially in terms of politics.
And I don’t consider the Sierra Club to be the official repository of ideology in environmentalism. Only in certain circles of environmental-political acitivism, which is not the same thing.
All of that notwithstanding … if I still lived in San Jose, what would motivate me to get excited about a train that brought day workers in from Stockton? How would that help me, again? Seriously.
As an arrogant, condescending big city liberal, I can admit that our side would be much more effective with a little humility.
Humility? In the face of (a) a total seizure of power by opposing interests, and (b) having had war declared on us by those interests?
Read the Coburn quote I posted above. This guy thinks that the greatest threat to freedom is the sexual preference of other Americans.
I am to be humble in the presence of something like that?
Let me be clear: Fuck him.
In case Sen. Coburn is reading these pages, I use the word “fuck” as a figure of speech.
A few thoughts:
1. It seems a lot of people are using the terms “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” interchangeably. I know a few evangelicals who have a serious problem with this. “Evangelical” does not equate to “biblical literalist.” Nor does “fundamentalist”, per se, though in my experience the fundies are likely to be literalists and “end-timers” than are the evans.
2. I’ve seen a growing movement towards “green Christianity” over the last few years, and interestingly enough its mostly coming from the big suburban churches. I have no data to back it up, by my instinct here is that the environmental movement of christian activists probably splits down the rural/suburban divide (that often describes the evangelical/fundie divide as well.)
3. I doubt an anti-abortion activist would find difficulty in explaining why they’re more concerned with ending abortion than they are with mercury emission regulations. Right or wrong, they tend to see abortion as _child murder_, and there’s a pretty good scriptural notation against that sort of thing.
4. Finally, as a secular humanist with a strong green streak, I welcome the support of evangelicals or anyone else in the fight for a clean world to live in. I can work with a man on this and still disagree with his position on abortion or gay-marriage. Hell, in the process of working with him on a commonly held belief, we might even make some headway on finding some way through the loggerheads of other beliefs.
5. Dick Cheney is still and evil, evil man.
Coburn isn’t the kind of person about whom I’m talking. Not every Evangelical Christian is a hateful asshat.
My point is much not that those, from San Jose might get “excited” about it, but that it does alleviate a lot of pressure on the roads, it also, connects in Pleasanton Fremont, so there are a lot of Alameda Commuters that also use the train, more importantly getting people on the train, takes them off 880, 680, 280, 237, the myriad of just dreadful traffic.
But moreover, it is that it is these preachers of mass transit, and urban planning, who supposedly push and push for mass transit and when the opportunity actually comes to support it, they choose to back away, they choose not to support it, in other words, they were posing.
They speak a good game when it comes to affordable housing and the like, but the fact of the matter is, you can not increase affordable housing without increasing housing supply, and that’s just the cold hard facts, supporting mass transit that people want to ride, is an excellent way to increase affordable housing.
You’re very right in the sense that the S.F. Bay Area, is not at all representative, BUT, my experience is that the S.F. Bay Area has some of the highest concentrations of environmentalist activists in the United States. Marin is especially heavy with environmental activism, but, this is the same city (back to SF) that preaches their enviromentalism, but maintains Hetch Hetchy as though it was the most vital thing to them ever providing water at a rate far below the market rate of water, when they could obtain other sources of water, or develop other reservoirs, (that would be more expensive) but would allow the restoration of Little Yosemite.
one suspects that the Xtian right wants to address the global warming issue because God plans on destroying the earth, but promised not to do it with a flood again.
And since global warming will result not just in flooded coastal areas, but increase rainfall throughout the world, the Xtian right is afraid that all this rain will put out the fires God intends to set to punish us….
The problem with that argument is that most Liberals don’t actively oppose the values of Christianity in the same way that Evangelicals oppose liberal values (or lack thereof, I suppose). Liberals don’t want laws making abortions or gay marriage manditory, they want to be allowed to make their own decisions on it. Evangelicals want to make those decisions for you by outlawing abortion and gay marriage altogether.
I don’t think teachers giving sex surveys to first graders damages the environment in the same sense as what preserving “open space” seeks to limit and I’ve also never heard of teachers giving sex surveys to first graders. That sounds like more Limbaugh-esque demonizing.
Can I make two separate responses?
1) Maybe not, but the people they vote for sure seem to be cut from the same Hateful Asshat cloth.
2) I think that’s what’s called “damning with faint praise.”
Joel B. wrote:
Well why not? That’s how my grandfather was raised, and he was part of the Greatest Generation! He won WWII and defeated the nazi’s single handidly! And he was spanked as child! That’s right! That’s why they were so great. They lived in 600 sq ft log homes and were spanked!
LOL! If that sounded extreme, it is’s actually a play off a Bill O’Reilly argument, just to help lower the quality of debate here by introducing Conservative punditry. :-)
Honestly, I don’t know why you get the idea that the Sierra Club is like that. I find them fairly moderate compared to some of the groups.
But actually I think the problem is exactly the opposite of what you propose. Urban sprawl is becoming less of an issue. With gas prices up, people don’t want to live far away. The new big trend is Re-Urbanization. Or rather taking existing urban structures and repurposing them, or replacing them. Moving to higher densities. It turns out people have realized that lower densities are bad for our social culture, and they don’t like wasting hours of their day driving.
Here in Minneapolis they’ve converted commercial property into condos. They’re also replacing rundown buildings with similar structures.
However, the one which was odd… was a development plan for the Uptown area which involved building like a six story condo complex, with commercial space on the first floors. It was rejected by the local community, because it was too tall. I believe they said nothing more than 4 stories would be allowed, which doesn’t make the project economical. This local community is the most liberal in the state, and is also the group who will constantly complain about urban sprawl. But when they had the opportunity for doing something about it, they said NIMBY.
Well, I can’t argue that point … because I don’t have enough facts in front of me to argue it one way or the other. But off the top of my head, I am not sure that advocacy of mass transit as a means of increasing affordable housing is a viable — or proven — strategy.
Mass transit is muy expensivo. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build housing?
Joshua, sex survey’s to first grader’s is here.
Except, and note I am playing the Devil’s Advocate here, why should murder be voluntary? Why should murdering a child in the womb be any different then murdering a child on the street?
Now personally, I don’t feel that abortion, before a certain point, is murder/killing. However, I can understand quite honestly why someone might be opposed to it. If you equate it to murder, then how can you NOT work stridently to stop it? I, personally, may say you are wrong, but I can’t argue the fact that no one should permit murder to continue.
It is a very interesting thing, Liberals support individual autonomy so greatly when it comes to activities related to traditional morality. On the other side though they tend to oppose individual autonomy greatly when it involves economic activities. Conservatives do much the same, but in the opposite manner.
Either way, those things you speak of, that liberals wish to “allow” is merely a euphanism. We can allow a lot of things, however what we choose to allow, has very real effects on our community. Redefining Marriage affects us all by fundamentally changing the way society as a whole views marriage. “Allowing” abortion is also a wonderful euphanism. Allowing personal choice there, it is ignored as to how it affects the child, where is his or her personal choice? The question, as to the child’s “rights” is being skipped over, now of course, we can have a debate or a discussion on that, but skipping over that question makes debate or discussion useless.
Liberals recognize that individual economic activities affect the community as a whole, if we allow larger and larger corporations and associations people will become more detached from these industries and companies. Yet they fail to accept that individual moral and cultural choices, have profound affects on society as a whole as well. They’re willful blindness to this fact, go right back to why, this coalition is unfortunately so uncommon.
A zygote is not a child just because somebody says it is.
A zygote is not a child just because somebody says it is.
It absolutely would be! It would be vastly preferred, but that seems even less likely to happen. There was an interesting article in the NY Times Magazine an interview with the Toll Brother’s CEO about how the most expensive part of building is becoming the permitting process. More and more communities are becoming aware that slow/no growth policies increase the value of my house, and as a result, they spread like wildfire.
An aside, I should note I’m not opposed to higher density housing at all as an option. I think options are valuable things to have, my wife and I when we first started out lived in a SF high rise (very high density) for our first year in 500 sq. ft. Additionally, there are many appealling condos, but, talk to most people including myself, and when people start thinking about kids, they start thinking about getting a house. Granted…not everyone, but most, people want their kids to have the opportunity to play in they yard an whatever. 600-1000 sq. ft. is much more manageable if you have at least a little yeard for them to run out and play it. Being couped up in a 600 sq. ft. apartment/condo where you wouldn’t be so willing to let your kids go outside an play, is not most’s idea of the childhood they want to provide for their kids.
I grew up that way. It suck-diddly-ucked. I had friends who had larger families in smaller apartments too. Maybe that’s why I live alone in a 1500 sgft house now. Need my space.
A child is not a zygote just because somebody says it is.
Now really did that move this discussion forward much at all….Maybe we could come to agreement, personally, I think it is likely that if this discussion were ever to go to the legislatures the consensus would probably end up at the “quickening” which at about 1/2 between the first and second trimester is the point that most start to feel really queasy about abortion, also, there is solid Biblical, Cultural, and Historical basis for why the point of the “quickening” could be a reasonable compromise. But, as long as compromise is not possible people will be pushed towards the extremes. (Not to excuse it, but it is nevertheless true.)
I’m sorry, but I don’t care one bit how society views marriage. My marriage is a lifelong commitment between myself and my wife, and no one else enters into that arrangment, except for the children we’ll raise. I utterly fail to see how letting other loving committed couples enter into the same kind of lifelong commitment affects in any way my own.
I find it hilarious that the same conservative leaders who led the charge for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s are themselves clear threats to the institution. Congressman Bob Barr? Twice divorced and now on marriage number three. Speaker Newt Gingrich? Twice divorced and now on marriage number three. Good Lord, of all the politicians involved in that farce, it was Bill Clinton who had the best marital record. How sad is that?
Marriage is an institution that we should be encouraging more people to enter, not less. Ultimately, gay marriage should be the most conservative of ideas.
Ok let me see if I’ve gotten this right: It’s ok to redefine “baby” to include zygotes. It’s not ok to redefine “marriage” to include same sex couples.
Boy, being a conservative and having consistency in reasoning is hard work.
A zygote isn’t a child just because somebody say it isn’t.
You can’t argue belief/ideology. Not without something rocking it to the foundation already. Which is why we then get to
It is possible, and in fact, the generally accepted rule in many places. However, there are times when compromise is not acceptable.
I would postulate that IF you consider abortion at any point during gestation (from conception to birth) murder THEN you are morally obligated to stop it by any means which would deem morally acceptable to stop murder on the street.
Not that I agree with that thought, but rationally I believe that the above follows and that it is not an exaggeration of the logic.
The corollary of that is that, for people who do not believe that abortion is murder but rather a private medical decision, then it is only rational for such people to react to any attempt to prevent their access to such a decision with the same disdain that they react to someone telling them that they may not have treatment for cancer or a broken arm. Therefore, we have two groups with intractable moral differences locked in an epic struggle, one to control people, and the other to resist that control.
Realizing this fact only leads to the conclusion that someone is going to be disappointed by the outcome. In the end, a decision must still be made, and this realization is of no help in making that decision.
I would argue it is, for the simple fact that if you allow yourself to understand the logic of the otherside, compromise may be possible. Sure not for the die hards of either side, but not everyone is a die hard. There is generally some give and take, and as Joel noted, a compromise which will make most of the people happy will happen.
But yes, someone will be disappointed. But that is the nature of politics. No one gets all of what they want, but they get at least some of what they want.
At least you’re ready to admit that you don’t care about how society views marriage. This already predisposes you to not to take into account the affect that a changing definition of marriage may have not only on you but the way other or subsequent members of society may view marriage. And again, if you don’t care, then yeah, it would make sense to be indifferent or support Same Sex Marriage.
I don’t worry about your marriage and the affect SSM may have. I’m more worried, about what will my eventual children and grandchildren think of marriage. I fear that they may think of marriage as more “loving committed couples,” the reason the loving committment matters is for the reason for your only qualification “except for the children we’ll raise.”
On the abortion point, by stifling discussion and debate we make the waters much more toxic. Do you think there’s anyway I’m going to take in my conservative church about how even in the old testament law, the quickening was far more relevant than mere conception and the like. One could very much use literal interpretation of the Bible to come out at a point much more conducive to compromise. But as long as one side is going to constantly be demonized by the other, do you really think anyone is going to stick their neck out for the other side in compromise?
Um. This is actually kind of a neat question. I mean, there are two competing things going on, Weber’s ascetic materialism and the eschaton, but I bet some clever statistics could sort it out . . .
not my computer
I can’t understand why Leftist environmentalists who think Darwin was right want to save every species of animal given that some of them must simply be poorly adapted.
Things that make ya go Huh? as Arsenio Hall might say.
Two great posts. the first one:
Since the Republicans do a good job portraying this as bad for Alabamans wallets, they will choose Old. I remember reading about this at the time, and really admiring the Governor and I thought he made as good a case as could be made for his initiative and it still went down in whatever is worse than flames. Basically 90 percent of the state voted against their own interests because the republicans pointed and said “tax hike” or whispered “and it’s going to the blacks.”
And the second:
Yup. There is a real case to be made on this point. It must be just that these assholes are too insecure in their own (third) marriages and can’t handle it.
BJ God Warrior
2) Liberal activists are too fucking arrogant to lower themselves to cooperating with people they view as a bunch of hillbillies.
Where ever DO those elitist Liberals get that idea?
Why don’t you worry about the 60% divorce rate first.
You don’t think I do? I would much rather have No-Fault Divorce eliminated or significantly revamped, but the fact that my position in that battle has been defeated should hardly keep me from being concerned that continuing down the same path that NFD led us down will only serve to undermine marriage more.
You arguments seem to assume that there has always been some concept of “traditional marriage” etched in stone. Marriage was originally a property trade, with one side giving a daughter and the other giving a dowry in return. It then changed to a love-based arrangment, but even then it’s changed plenty. Society used to deem it scandalous for people of different faiths to get married. After that faded away, society deemed it scandalous for people of different races to get married. And now we’re at the point where society, or some of it, deems it scandalous for people of the same sex to get married. Face it, the only thing “traditional” about marriage is a union of a loving and committed couple, regardless of society’s current hang-ups.
Ah, the other argument conservatives love to trot out — gays can’t get married because marriages are meant for the raising of children. Leaving aside the obvious fact that plenty of gay couples already have adopted children and raised them in loving relationships, this misses an obvious point. If child-rearing is the only reason for marriage, then why do we allow seniors to marry when they’re past the point of child bearing? Why do we allow impotent men and sterile women? Why do we not include a clause in the marriage license legaly obligating married couples to procreate?
I’m sorry, but all the arguments against gay marriage boil down to the fact that some people are uncomfortable with it. That doesn’t mean a thing to me.
There’s actually a good Andrew Sullivan piece that makes the case for this.
BJ God Warrior
There’s actually a good Andrew Sullivan piece that makes the case for this.
IT’S DARK SIDED! HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Eh, Jesus is comin’. Little carbon dioxide never hurt anyone, right?
Language depends upon agreement. Without agreed-upon meaning, language doesn’t work.
And while you are a contemplative mood:
“Democracy depends entirely upon the submission of the minority.” — W. F. Buckley
Without agreement, a majority can’t govern. It might attempt to rule, but it will fail.
a guy called larry
It would then follow that any means available for contraception should be encouraged, to prevent the conditions necessary for that murder. How’s that working out with the Fundies?
I consider myself to be pro-life, but I can’t stand with the virginity-or-parenthood crowd.
Completely off topic, but I am not seeing it reported or discussed widely, and I wanted to hear thoughts.
At HuffPo, there is a link about the US military using chemical weapons in Fallujah. Apparently the Italian TV is going to be running video tonight, with eyewitness testimony that we used a new form of napalm, as well as white phosphorous that ‘melts human flesh’.
IF THIS IS TRUE, isn’t it sort of a bombshell?
Gratefulcub: There have been pretty credible reports of that for some time now. However, what are you going to do about it? What is this report going to do? Cause another riot in Afghanistan?
I’m sorry, this is just more of George W. Bush eatting babies and getting away with it.
Lines, we are not supposed to comment on the babies George W Bush ate while there is an investigation under way.
Furthemore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton both voted to authorize the president to eat that baby.
And the world is a safer place without that baby, regardless of whether or not that baby constituted an imminent threat.
David Brooks special: Clinton and Reagan both had lower approval ratings during their respective scandals than Bush did after he ate the baby. Clinton and Reagan both had approval ratings in the 20s.
He really said that, didn’t he? I thought I was hearing things.
What came through loud and clear was Mark Shields nearly making him cry.
I think the Scotty McClellanism that would apply here is “We are not going to discuss the eating of babies while there is an ongoing meal.”
Bobo lives in a world all on his own, one where republican’s ride beautiful unicorns and hand out free money to the lower mensch through payrolls and small business loans. Where Christian America is a great place, no one gets murdered and there is no crime to speak of.
Its just sad to see reality pierce his shell now and then. A grown man should never break down like that on TV.
Good thing it was PBS and no one watches that stuff
Yes, but that was among members of the Bush family.
Correct. The Bushism would be, “We’re not going to talk about eating babies. We’re not baby-eating-talker-abouters.”
We don’t talk about not eating babies, that would be the party of “no”.
Baby eaten. Mission Accomplished. He’s a “do’er”, that GW.
Isn’t it interesting that in any substantive debate recently the only way the Republican pundit can win the argument is to lie. See Bobo, Ann “Canada sent troops to Vietnam” Coulter, the WH hiding the true cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc. It all looks good if you believe wishing makes it so.
Git ‘er done!
No doubt I agree, but we are trying to work to agreement on what those words mean. In any event, this is probably a great source of the frusteration related to the SSM debate. People can not come to agreement on what certain words should mean.
Really, unless he can turn a situation into an exciting new “us vs. them” metaphor, Brooks’ isn’t interested. Sad that he has run out of actual data to support his metaphors and now has to make shit up(tm) to create new and exciting ways to divide us all.
I think the reason it matters, is that like Abu Ghraib, there are pictures. Americans don’t respond well to documented atrocities, just those with pictures. And the baby eater is at 35-39% approval.
Lines, I had not seen this story until today. I guess I heard rumors back when we were in the process of desrtoying Fallujeh, but I didn’t take it that seriously. My thoughts were, ‘why would we use napalm when we don’t need to. If we get caught using WMD against the enemy that we invaded because they had WMD, that would be a nightmare.’ It isn’t as if we couldn’t take fallujeh without the stuff, so why bother.
I also think it matters because if light can be shown on various issues at once, that all tie together, they start to matter. The last few days seem to be focusing on ‘secret activities’:
Black sites in Poland and Romania (now we know why W didn’t want us to forget Poland)
Napalm being dropped
Torture is being reported as fact instead of rumor now. Zakaria in Newsweek wrote that if the president wants us to think we don’t torture, then stop torturing. At the same time, the VP is lobbying for the right to torture, and the president is saying we don’t torture. (Actually, read the whole answer from the president at Froomkin’s white house breifing site, because it actually reads like: We will do whatever it takes including torture to protect america, we don’t torture)
That is an large amount of un-american activities that have been hidden, or an attempt has been made to hide the activities from the populace.
Not much of a tin foil hat type, but does anyone remember the Italian reporter who was rescued, and then we filled her car full of bullets? Reading the article in the italian paper, I am 99% sure that it is the same reporter with pictures and eyewitness testimony of the fallujeh attack. I am not drawing any conclusions, but when we ‘accidentally’ shoot allies, that have film footage that we consider dangerous to our national security if it is released…………don’t we at least have to ask some questions?
That should give them pause, then, before legislating their meanings into the lives of other people. Or I should say, other fellow citizens. I don’t really care what someone else thinks about the personhood of zygotes, or the propriety of same sex marriage. I just don’t want them employing the government to shove their views down my throat.
If they’d stop doing that, I’d stop opposing them so agressively.
What you oppose then, is not merely their definition, but the very process by which these definitions are created. In fact, it is very frequently Liberals who have rejected the community idea related to government, and deposing the responsibility that the body politic has to come to find political meaning on its own.
By rejecting all of your fellow citizens concerns and definitions, you are not merely rejecting the definition, you are also rejecting your civic duty.
It is not recognized, that by forbidding some to “force their views down your throat” is that you are forcing your values down their throat. It is only through and by the very democratic process can anyone truly feel as though anyone views were not forced down anyone’s throat, instead, we all swallowed the least bitter pill we could agree to. Which granted isn’t always fun, but it’s part of civic life.
In fact, perhaps it is this fear, the break down of civic life, that truly is leading to the breakdown in society, if I can’t trust my political opponents to play by the rules, everyone starts cheating.
We want to save these species because they are being destroyed through human intervention. It’s not natural. Humans are artificially altering their environments at a rapid pace, not allowing for natural selection and evolution to take place.
when it came out last year, it was actually asked of the DoD, and they denied the usage at the time. But they didn’t do a very good job denying it, if I remember right.
You can find a lot of phosphorous injury pictures online, I think. Not something I want to go find again, its just not my idea of good reading.
What you oppose then, is not merely their definition, but the very process by which these definitions are created.
What a crock of shit. I said no such thing. I said quite the opposite. They are welcome to their definitions. They are not welcome to define these things for me. Nor to employ the government to force their definitions on me. I will oppose them with all means available to me. You can and should take that to mean whatever you think it might mean.
I don’t usually have to post this twice to the same thread, but in this case, you’ve made it necessary:
Democracy depends entirely upon the submission of the minority. — W.F. Buckley
Governing is not ruling. If the wingnuts on the right want cooperation, then they get it by showing that they can cooperate. If not, screw them. I won’t be governed by them.
Via the 9th’s website, the survey questions:
I chalk outrage about this up to typical American Puritannical notions of the inherent evil of sex, although on first glance I don’t much agree with the 9th’s opinion that parents don’t have the right to control the flow of information to their children.
Kind of a preemptive strike here, if I’m in time: I don’t see that allowing abortion and SSM is harmful to society in any meaningful, qualitative way and I’ve never seen anything close to proof of that, just vague assertions.
Are you telling me that you’re not, at least implicitly, rejecting the body politic. And then you suggest I’m out of line by suggesting that you’re rejecting your civic duty. You’re saying that you’re refusing to submit as a minority in those areas where you’re in the minority. In essence, you are promising rebellion against your fellow citizens in areas where you disagree. That, is a rejecting of one’s civic duty. You refuse to live with those whom you disagree with, well guess what we all live with decisions we disagree with, but not all of us promise rebellion against such decisions. And what makes you think that these “wingnuts” you so deride are not working toward cooperation, we all try to cooperate as much as possible but we cannot also cooperate as much as some would like. That is all part and parcel of the process.
But how can what you say be interpreted in any other way than an utter rejection of the democratic process to things with which you disagree. Is that not what you said?
You said earlier the language depended upon agreed upon meaning. And now you flatly reject that we can come to any agreement in definitional meaning other than yours. Is that not exactly the rejection I speak of? It is! You insist upon agreed upon meaning, but then you insist that the only meaning that can be agreed upon is yours. What is such insistence other than the rejection of democracy, for the establishment of your own tyranny?
Oh yes, if a church has a sermon that can be construed as “anti-war”, they are threatened with their tax-exempt status. Congrats, Falwell and Dobson, you know how to keep your sheep in line.
Oops, I spoke against the Prezeldent”
Let’s get back to talking about how odious Bobo is. That’s something we can all agree on.
Nope. If I were you, I’d move on. You didn’t understand a word I said. My fault or yours, doesn’t matter.
I did not insist upon agreed upon meaning. What I said is essentially what you’ll find out in the first week of a college class on language: Language requires agreed-upon meanings. Without such agreement, language won’t work.
If other people want to make up their own words for things, or use words to mean their own things, fine with me. But don’t try to force me to go along with it, because I won’t.
Taking the agreement theme one step further, you have the necessity for agreement that Buckley cites. Without that, democracy fails. A practical example? A gang of big-heads wins a narrow vicory and then decides that it is going to impose its definitions on the minority. The minority says no.
Take your “civic duty” and shove it, sir. I have no civic duty to be tyrannized by the likes of James Dobson.
Who in the blue hell wants to agree on anything? Fuck you, the Christian Right and fringe environmentalists! Let’s get this party started!
There was no underlying crime in the eating of the baby. The liberals are trying to criminalize baby-eating.
Americans across the board think eating babies is just fine.
noodles on my back
Clinton and Reagan both had approval ratings in the 20s.
…….and for those who might want some relief from the ignorant and/or diengenuous.
The Dems will not be trusted with eating babies for another generation. You can’t even be trusted to eat babies that the majority of your congressmen voted to eat. If it gets tough, you bail.
noodles on my back
if you go all the way back to 93, you will find that Clinton dipped precipitously into the low 30’s. Your link only goes back to 97, all years which polled very well for Clinton.
The reason 93 was bad was an inherited recession, deficit and a few other blunders that came over from Bush Sr.
Noodles, that only goes back to 1997. He had a low approval rating in 1994 — I think it may have bottomed out at 35.
The truth is that 39% is not *that low* for a president, but it is very low for a *second term* president. So the whole debate is disingenuous.
I don’t think it was the low 30s, Lines, I think it bottomed out at 35. It may have gone lower on Zogby, but not on the other major polls.
I was just trying to work with him. I know I saw a couple polls that had him somewhere in the low 30’s, but hell if I know what it was. At least I got the time period correct :)
I dunno, call me crazy.
I have a hard time doing links from here but the Roper center has a complete list of approval ratings for Clinton and Reagan. Neither ever went below 35% in *any* poll there. Neither went below 42% on *any* poll during their second term (Roper doesn’t do Zogby, but pollkatz does). In fact, Clinton never went below 50% on any poll other than Zogby during his second term (for some reason, he did much worse in Zogby than in the others).
Let’s get back to baby-eating stories.
The sex survey patently violated human subjects guidelines, and I hope that the persons involved in it are invited to find other avenues of employment.
That said, there still is no Constitutional right for your kids not to see anything you personally don’t like.
It’s a classic right-wing misdirection, this assinine sex survey. Right out of the Rove handbook.
Don’t notice president Bush eating baby, there’s a sex survey over there, there’s two men kissing over.
Never mind the torture, here’s the sexploitation.
Your conversion to Republicanism is nearly complete ….
The truth is that 39% is not that low for a president, but it is very low for a second term president. So the whole debate is disingenuous.
its not a question of first term or second term…its a question of the kind of person the President is.
Reagan and Clinton both regained their stride by making significant changes in the way they governed. Reagan got rid of the whole “iran-contra” crew, and brought in the adults from the GOP to run things for him. Reagan also was also what he pretended to be— affable but shallow, and that affability help him immeasurably.
Clinton (whose lowest ratings were due to the health care debacle) disavoweled “big government”, and started pandering on small issues (remember his endorsement of school uniforms?). Clinton was also aided by the over-reaching of Gingrich and the GOP controlled House at the time…
Shrub, on the other hand, is not what he pretends to be — he’s not a competent Commander-in-Chief, he’s an incompetent Delegator-in-Chief, and the majority of Americans have finally caught on to that fact. Bush might rebound into the mid-40s at some point, but mostly because people will be afraid of what could happen with an incompent, unpopular, and apparently unhinged leader with his finger on the button…
Like him or he will bring on armageddon? Well why didn’t you say so! Let the baby eatting contest begin!
I find for the parents.
Really not quite certain how eliminating No-Fault-Divorce would make a difference. The problems are not with the law, the problems are with the attitudes. The law was changed to reflect attitudes towards marriage and divorce, and you don’t change those attitudes by changing the law.
This is the problem I have with conservative thinking in general. They don’t see the correct cause and effect. They see an effect and wish to change it, but their attempts to restrict people are just create further problems.
Like the war on terror, which is doing nothing but creating terror. Or the war on drugs that promotes drug use.
If you want to solve the problem of divorce, you need to start at home. I’m not the only one who notices that nearly every big promoter of elimiating divorce is in fact divorced themselves. Like Limbaugh with his three ex-wives, etc.
Then you look at the liberals who take a different attitude, and by and large they are still married to the first wives.
Even the same is true with children. The children of conservatives are by and large ill-mannered and prone to finding themselves in jail. At least this seems to be true of politicians.
Compare how sweet and respectful Chelsea Clinton is to the Bush daughters. And that’s not even the most egregious example. Senator Gram here in Minnesota during his election campaign spent most of his time tracking down his son who had kidnapped a woman and taken her to Arizona. Gov. Branstad of Iowa spent much of his time in office looking after his son who was convicted of DUI and manslaughter.
Osama would never eat a baby. You either eat babies or you’re with the terrorists.
The right-wingers have no interest in solving the problems they claim to care about. Their only interest is forcing their morality on everyone else. It has been proven in nearly every industrialized country that comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy, abortions and STDs. It has also been proven that increased sex education does not increase the rate of teen sex. And we have good evidence showing that abstinence only programs do nearly the opposite.
Yet, despite that evidence, the right-wingers refuse to change their tune. So you see, the only conclusion is that it’s more important to portray the situation as black & white (no sex before marriage is OK) than it is to actually work towards solving it.
You can see this pattern repeated in the “War on Drugs” (Want to reduce drug usage? hint, increasing jail time doesn’t work) and other right-wing favorites.
Seriously, the whole Brooks thing. Even 31% != “In the 20s”. Bobo is just flat-out wrong, and this isn’t anywhere near the first time. For Brooks even the most basic statistics are totally fungible if it helps you prove a point.
Like in his last book, he cites that the fastest growing counties are very Republican-leaning. He uses this fact (alone) to state that there’s a a massive shift in voting demographics. When really it merely reflects a shift in the location of existing Republicans – farther out of the city into areas with very low population. Oh, and acreage doesn’t vote. There are people doing honest demographic research. Brooks isn’t one of them.
But they weren’t even close to 30%! They bottomed out at 35%. And Reagan bottomed out at 45% during Iran-Contra when Brooks said he was lower than Bush. It was a Scooter Libby-like stream of outright lies. The best he can say for himself is that there was no underlying crime.
Geek nails it
Exactly, religious conservatives are backward idiots who don’t deserve the time of day
I agree with you again, Darrell. It is starting to scare me how often I agree with you. Okay, I’ll admit it: you’re a pretty thoughtul commenter when you’re not insulting people.
But DougJ deserves a big GFY, don’t you think?
Nice echo chamber. Echo chamber. Echo chamber.
I see a group calling itself BEYOND PETROLIUM are putting on false and misleading TV ads claiming gl;obal warming is true someone should remind the FTC of this fruadulent ad
You are just politizing the baby-eating issue. Why Clinton was in office for 8 years and he never said anything against baby eating, I’m sure if Clinton eat a baby you’d be right near by cheering him on. In addition just look at the Democratic Party platform, you won’t find a single mention about no baby eating.
Finally as usual you are taking the negative view, why aren’t you talking about all the babies Bush hasn’t eaten?