• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

You cannot love your country only when you win.

No one could have predicted…

Bark louder, little dog.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

We still have time to mess this up!

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

Welcome to day five of every-bit-as-bad-as-you-thought-it-would-be.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Dumb motherfuckers cannot understand a consequence that most 4 year olds have fully sorted out.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is the bland and smiling face of evil.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Popular Culture / “Firebomb These Men’s Houses”

“Firebomb These Men’s Houses”

by John Cole|  February 2, 200611:05 am| 269 Comments

This post is in: Popular Culture, Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

While radical Muslims are threatening to burn down half of Europe because of some cartoon portrayals of Allah, here in the United States, our own fundamentalists have their own bad ideas:

Christian ministers were enthusiastic at the early private screenings of “End of the Spear,” made by Every Tribe Entertainment, an evangelical film company. But days before the film’s premiere, a controversy erupted over the casting of a gay actor that has all but eclipsed the movie and revealed fault lines among evangelicals.

***

“Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint?” Mr. Janz asked in his Jan. 12 Web log entry, referring to one of the characters in the movie. “That would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary.”

***

One Web log, nossobrii.blogspot .com, written by Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, stated in a Jan. 13 entry: “Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.“

You know what- I am just not going to say anything anymore when the left-wing calls these lunatics the America Taliban. They are.

*** Update ***

And this is the kind of dishonest crap that gives these lunatics the cover they need to operate. Jimmie at the Sundries Shack now wants to pretend I am somehow smearing all religious people- I am not. I am merely reacting to the responses of these members of the lunatic fringe.

My father is one of the most deeply religious people I know, born a Southern Baptist, practicing his entire life, and dedicating thousands of hours to the local church. I would never think he or those like him, or my deeply religious friends at Red State, are members of the “American Taliban.” But these lunatics, in particular the ones who have been waging jihad against homosexuals and who would even THINK to firebomb someone’s house because a gay actor appeared in a movie, are precisely as they have been labeled.

If you want to lump yourself in with them- go for it, Jimmie. Br proud that you are providing these idiots with the political cover they need. Even Focus on the Family thinks these people are nutters.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « TO- Team Killer
Next Post: Promotions For Everyone »

Reader Interactions

269Comments

  1. 1.

    salvage

    February 2, 2006 at 11:17 am

    That would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary.

    …

    So the actress would have to be a birth-giving virgin? Have a natural halo of light?

    They do understand that actors aren’t being themselves when they act right?

  2. 2.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Yep. Disgusting, isn’t it?

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Thank you, John. I was waiting for this. It’s the perfect Balloon Juice thread.

    Come on, how can these numbskulls call their movie “The End Of the Spear” and not expect a lot of gay actors to show up at the casting call?

  4. 4.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 11:22 am

    Yes, because they are telling women to wear burkas and outlawing jobs for women. Also, I see they are for passing a law against music, and advocate holding public executions in the sports stadiums. Oh yes, a tasteless remark is equal to the Taliban’s pushing of walls onto homosexuals. And they require that all other religions be stamped out and their statues blown up. Yes, they must be the Taliban. No other group says and does stupid things in America, which last I checked was their right. You don’t have to like it, and you can say what you want, but you have crossed into the lefty fever swamps with this comparison. Very Godwin’s law of you.

  5. 5.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 11:22 am

    Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint?” Mr. Janz asked in his Jan. 12 Web log entry, referring to one of the characters in the movie. “That would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary.”

    That parallel would only work if Chad Allen was a really terrible actor who had seduced a great indie director into shitting out one of the worst movies ever.

  6. 6.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 11:22 am

    They do understand that actors aren’t being themselves when they act right?

    You mean James Caviezel isn’t Jesus? I want my money back.

  7. 7.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Stormy, so you agree that we should light ’em up?

  8. 8.

    srv

    February 2, 2006 at 11:24 am

    And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses.

    I think that should be in bold.

  9. 9.

    Jay C

    February 2, 2006 at 11:26 am

    So let me get this straight (no pun intended) – a “Christian” production company makes a uplifting film about modern-day missionary martyrs – and numbers of “Christian” organizations get wildly bent-out-of-shape because the lead actor is gay?
    Don’t these people have anything else to promote other than their lame sex-obsessed prejudices? Oops, rhetorical question, never mind!

  10. 10.

    stickler

    February 2, 2006 at 11:26 am

    Our host finally agrees that these chumps are the American Taliban? In 2006?

    Hell, John McCain called them the “Mullahs of the Right” six years ago.

    But better late than never, I guess.

  11. 11.

    Davebo

    February 2, 2006 at 11:26 am

    Ouch!

    Obviously a little too close to home for Stormy..

    Careful with those snakes now.

  12. 12.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 11:27 am

    I’m pretty surprised that even Stormy can write this off as just a “tasteless remark.” I mean, this guy is walking right on the edge of criminal conduct.

  13. 13.

    Lines

    February 2, 2006 at 11:28 am

    OMG, Stormy, you’ve really gone over the deep end with that one. Are you that seriously blind and ignorant when it comes to the right wing? Do you think the Afghanistan Taliban started out by mutilating genitalia and forcing women to wear burkhas?

    Your defenses are parody of the highest sort. DougJ can only hope that someday his posts are as wingnutty as yours.

  14. 14.

    Paul L.

    February 2, 2006 at 11:29 am

    Yep, those evangelicals fundamentalists are terrible.
    Remember the riots and killing after the Passion of the Christ was shown in theaters. Happened just as the left and Abe Foxman predicted.

  15. 15.

    Hoodlumman

    February 2, 2006 at 11:29 am

    Great Andrew Sullivan impersonation, John. Did you read the entire article?

  16. 16.

    SeesThroughIt

    February 2, 2006 at 11:30 am

    So let me get this straight (no pun intended) – a “Christian” production company makes a uplifting film about modern-day missionary martyrs – and numbers of “Christian” organizations get wildly bent-out-of-shape because the lead actor is gay?

    Yup. Just don’t call them homophobic, or else you’re a Christian-basher!

  17. 17.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 11:30 am

    Stormy, that comment was more than tasteless. And do you honestly believe that some of the more out-there evangelicals (like this guy seems to be) wouldn’t just loooove to be able to outlaw jobs for women, keep us in the house, barefoot and pregnant, outlaw other religions, and implement life sentences in jail for homosexuality? The only reason they haven’t been able to do this is because they’re on the fringes of society, whereas the Taliban was front-and-center. But if they were given center stage, don’t think that they wouldn’t be just as vicious and as oppressive.

  18. 18.

    Jay C

    February 2, 2006 at 11:31 am

    You don’t have to like it, and you can say what you want, but you have crossed into the lefty fever swamps with this comparison.

    So does this mean you are going to get discouraged from commenting here anymore, Stormy?

    Or is that too much to hope for?

  19. 19.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 11:32 am

    DougJ can only hope that someday his posts are as wingnutty as yours.

    I’m really trying for more a Darrell/Paul L kind of thing.

  20. 20.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2006 at 11:35 am

    Of course I read the entire story. What did I miss, in your estimation?

  21. 21.

    Lines

    February 2, 2006 at 11:35 am

    DougJ, at least Darrell, Paul L and MacDuckets don’t defend people that drag gay men behind their trucks. If you really want to go over the edge into pure wackiness, you need to go Stormy.

  22. 22.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 11:36 am

    Keep calling all Christians the American Taliban, we need more Republican voters. Just ask all the Catholics who jumped out of the sinking Democratic ship in 2004. Trivialize one of the worst regimes in the world by constantly comparing it to religious people you happen to disagree with politically.

    Considering the outright threats of violence on some on the left, I hardly see how you guys can get your panties in a bunch over one more stupid remark by some obscure religious figure.

  23. 23.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 11:37 am

    Stormy just shoots from the hip and let’s the chips fall where they may, if I mix metaphors. Paul L and Darrell are assholes.

    I bet we’ll all like her when we meet her on the Balloon Juice caribbean cruise in 2007.

  24. 24.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 11:38 am

    Considering the outright threats of violence on some on the left,

    Example?

  25. 25.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 11:38 am

    So does this mean you are going to get discouraged from commenting here anymore, Stormy?

    Or is that too much to hope for?

    Why, can’t handle me throwing a kink into your lefty circle jerk everyday?

  26. 26.

    MrSnrub

    February 2, 2006 at 11:40 am

    Clearly, Stormy has never seen Footloose.

  27. 27.

    Anderson

    February 2, 2006 at 11:42 am

    “Yep, it would be *totally wrong* to drive to 123 Pleasant Valley Lane (see link for directions) and toss a firebomb through the master-bedroom window on the northeast corner of the house ….”

    Sweet guys, these fundamentalist Christians.

    And credit where it’s due: the Focus on the Family guy was saying exactly the right things.

    “Has Focus on the Family made a strong statement against homosexuality? Absolutely,” he said. “But what is the message of the product? And do we at Focus feel compelled to check on the sexual history of everyone in a movie? Did they have a D.U.I.? Did they pay their taxes?”

    Mr. Hanon echoed: “If we start measuring the sin of everyone in a movie, we would never be able to make a picture because none of us would be left.”

    That has the unusual merit of sounding like something Jesus would say.

  28. 28.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 11:42 am

    Geez, I hope no one ever says that it’s a bad idea to march all Jews into ovens, or John might post the headline “March All Jews Into Ovens.”

    If you read the guy’s blog (I don’t recommend it — yeesh), you’d realize that line is just a poorly-written attempt at understatement. The guy’s just calling for a PR campaign/boycott, for Chrissakes (literally).

    I know you dislike the Christians, JC, but that Taliban comment says more about you than about them.

  29. 29.

    Lines

    February 2, 2006 at 11:42 am

    Its pretty sad when Darrell, PaulL and MacBuckets are leftists to Stormy

  30. 30.

    Lines

    February 2, 2006 at 11:44 am

    Wow, ok, maybe I expected too much from MacBuckets..

  31. 31.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 11:45 am

    The quote does say that it would be an overreaction to do such a thing. It’s tasteless, but what happened to all of you free speechers out there? This person’s free to make an ass of himself, and we’re free to call his statement idiotic. But to equate him and his ilk to the Taliban?

    Liberal math, John Cole-style.

  32. 32.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 11:45 am

    DougJ, at least Darrell, Paul L and MacDuckets don’t defend people that drag gay men behind their trucks. If you really want to go over the edge into pure wackiness, you need to go Stormy.

    Nice, where am I defending that, or are you saying because I took umbrage over calling Christians the American Taliban, that translates into being pro dragging of gay men behind a truck? This is pretty idiotic coming from someone who is probably against the death penalty that the draggers received in Texas. I don’t defend this guys remarks, but I do think John looks like a full-fledged moonbat with that Taliban remark. Also, how dare you say that when I have constantly reiterated my pro-gay marriage stance on this blog time and again. But I realize reading comp. is a little hard for you. You can’t read a straight statement without tendrils of idiocy starting to creep through your brain, telling you the “deeper meaning” of said statement.

  33. 33.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 11:46 am

    Trivialize one of the worst regimes in the world by constantly comparing it to religious people you happen to disagree with politically.

    This is more than “disagreeing with him politicially”, though. This guy is basically giving a hands-off suggestion to firebomb the homes of everybody involved in the production, because he doesn’t like the sexual orientation of the lead actor. That’s scary, and it’s horrible, and it’s hateful. And there are probably many others who agree with him completely. I don’t think this is trivialization, because these people are scary and insane and hateful enough, without having any real power. But if they DID have power, can we say with 100% certainty, that they wouldn’t give the Taliban a run for their money when it comes to oppression and violence and viciousness?

    We can’t just dismiss people like that as kooks…we can’t afford to. There’s too much to lose.

  34. 34.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2006 at 11:48 am

    The quote does say that it would be an overreaction to do such a thing. It’s tasteless, but what happened to all of you free speechers out there? This person’s free to make an ass of himself, and we’re free to call his statement idiotic. But to equate him and his ilk to the Taliban?

    Liberal math, John Cole-style.

    He is free to say whatever he wants- I am free to respond.

    If the American Taliban bothers you too much, how about if I equate them to the Klan members who firebombed churches?

    Would that offend your delicate sensibilities?

  35. 35.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 11:51 am

    Here is the full blog post in question, since Mac is urging context:

    Jason Janz on SharperIron has published an article documenting that Every Tribe Enterainment has used a homosexual activist to play Nate Saint in End of the Spear, an about-to-be-released film biography of the famous aviator and missionary martyr. The actor and activist is Chad Allen. This is the same Chad Allen who debated John MacArthur on Larry King Live about the legitimacy of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and homosexuals getting legal guarantees for the “right” to adopt children.

    The director who cast him for the role (knowingly, as Janz clearly demonstrates) is Jim Hanon. In order to put Allen in the movie, Hanon secured the blessing of Nate Saint’s son, Steve Saint, who was also aware of Allen’s homosexual activism. Presumably the executives of Every Tribe Entertainment had to approve this decision.

    Who are they? The CEO at Every Tribe Entertainment is Mart Green, who is also the perpetrator of Mardel Christian and Educational Supply, a chain of 21 Christian junk shops. The ETE president and the producer of End of the Spear is Bill Ewing, whose other credits include Charlie’s Angels (how can a Christian not think that Charlie’s Angels is pornographic?).

    That’s a great group of guys behind this film. If you wonder what this is about, the Every Tribe mission statement makes it clear. “We base our film choices on what we hope to inspire rather than what we hope to sell.” Seems pretty straightforward.

    We needed to know what was going on. Attaboy, Jason.

    We also need to respond correctly. Jason recommends sending a letter to Every Tribe Entertainment “with meekness,” expressing “deep disappointment” for the company’s “mistake.”

    Huh?

    I feel a bit as if Jason has run the ball 98 yards, only to be tripped up at the one-yard-line. It was a great run (really great), but I can’t help wishing he’d have gone another step or two.

    Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses.

    But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.

    This is not a private peccadillo. It is a very public scandal.

    It is a scandal because it promotes a man who is working hard to advance one of the most shameful and unnatural of human abuses.

    It is a scandal because this concession to homosexual activism dishonors the memory of a Christian martyr (who himself would certainly have been scandalized by homosexuality) and ultimately brings reproach upon the name of Christ Himself.

    It is a scandal because it panders to the evangelical appetite for amusement, furthering the confused perception that somehow the Christian faith can be turned into a form of entertainment.

    It is a scandal because it exploits evangelical naivety and lack of discernment. Every Tribes Entertainment clearly assumes that American Christians can be induced to ignore moral incongruities and to part with their dollars simply because they are offered an amusing spectacle wrapped around a vaguely Christian theme. The production company is trying to huckster money from evangelicals that they should really be getting from NAMBLA.

    Meekness? Once we have caught our breath, the only ordinate response is deliberate fury.

    If this were a Matthew 18 situation, private pleading would be appropriate. It is not.

    If this were a Galatians 2:11 situation, we would withstand these debasers of the faith to their faces because they are to be blamed.

    If this were a 1 Corinthians 5 situation, we could simply deliver such ones unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, the “ones” including Messrs. Green, Hannon, Ewing, and (Steve) Saint.

    I wonder, however, whether this situation does not fit the parameters of Galatians 1:8-9. Does this kind of confusion actually alter the gospel itself? I am tempted to think that it does—and does it deliberately, “with malice aforethought.” If so, then we know what is required of us.

    Where is Bob Jones, Jr., when you really need him?

    I don’t quite get the full import of his argument, since a lot of this is couched in code words. Galatians 1:8-9 reads:

    But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

    As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

    I also find the closing reference to Bob Jones, Jr. to be a bit cryptic. I’m not sure in what sense they are bringing him up, although I do know he used to openly pray for the deaths of public officials.

    Stormy says that when John Cole attacks someone like this, he’s attacking all Christians. I find that an odd position to take.

  36. 36.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 11:53 am

    The quote does say that it would be an overreaction to do such a thing.

    Brian, why would he even bring it up, if he thought it was the wrong thing to do? And he says it would “probably” be an overreaction. If you were in an argument with someone, and they said, “You know, it would probably be an overreaction to shoot you in the head…”, don’t tell me you wouldn’t start looking for the nearest exit.

  37. 37.

    Hoodlumman

    February 2, 2006 at 11:53 am

    Of course I read the entire story. What did I miss, in your estimation?

    This part…

    He said that Mr. Hanon had told him there would be people on both sides who would be unhappy with the decision but suggested that they talk through the matter and show that they could respect one another’s differences and work together.

    Mr. Allen said: “When he said that, my hair stood on end, and I got up, and said: ‘Absolutely! Yes!’ “

    The part devoid of firebombings, beheadings and stonings.

    For every moron that makes a tasteless, snide, firebombing reference, how many evangelicals, Christians, or religious people, in general, shake their head in frustration?

    How widespread would be the desire to firebomb these folks amongst the religious right be versus… say… the Taliban?

  38. 38.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 2, 2006 at 11:53 am

    I used to worry about an American Taliban, but now find I am much more disturbed by the growing threat of man/animal hybrids. I mean, come on people! Only Bush can save us from the coming Mansquito hoard! Vote GOP!!!!

  39. 39.

    Faux News

    February 2, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Ouch!

    Obviously a little too close to home for Stormy..

    Careful with those snakes now.

    Don’t forget the snake handlers also ingest poison. Let’s hope Stormy does both. Methinks she is too bitter and vile to be harmed by either one. In fact I fear for the snake that bites her, for surely the snake, not Stormy, will perish.

    Footnote: RedState had a wonderful discussion that Ann Coulter’s comment about poisoning Justice Stevens “was just a joke” Ha. Ha. Ha. Hope Stormy can take a joke LOL.

    Or maybe not.

  40. 40.

    Lines

    February 2, 2006 at 11:57 am

    “Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.“

    Stormy: These are the EXACT kind of people that would drag gays behind trucks. His comment is couched in CYA language such as probably and extremist language such as no mistake. This statement is code that basically says “if you don’t follow our suggestions in the future, we’re going to cut out your intestines and choke you with them”.

    This is language that gets people killed, even if you don’t want to believe it.

  41. 41.

    MI

    February 2, 2006 at 11:58 am

    Alright, this is splitting hairs, but I’m not sure how accurate it is when you say, “Even Focus of the Family thinks these people are nutters.” I listen to the local christian talk radio station here, it has Focus on the Family’s fingerprints all over it, and this is the kind of message they’re constantly putting out, or at least the tone they’re putting out.

    I’m glad people are starting to open their eyes to this phenomenon and realize it’s not some lefty paranoia or talking point. Playing off what you said about your dad, this isn’t your father’s Christianity.

    btw, Feingold has a diary at Kos right now entitled “Pre-1776 Mentality.” I haven’t read it yet, but the subject header alone made my day!

  42. 42.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    And here’s something from the comments, that probably speaks for itself:

    Paul said…

    “Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses.”

    I know you would never condone such an action, but given the popular misconceptions of what a Fundamentalist is, and given the fact that some disturbed person who calls himself a “fundamentalist” might, in fact, do such a thing, and given the tone of the rest of your post, I wish you would have found another way of making your point.

    And the blog author responds:

    Kevin T. Bauder said…

    Paul,

    Perhaps I should consider an apology to the firebombers that I may have offended.

  43. 43.

    oopla

    February 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    I see nothing wrong with comparing the Radical Religous Right to the taliban. Both support the death penatly. Both think Homosexuality is evil. Both think that women should know their places. Both think that they have a monopoly on the truth.

    Heck, both Mullah Omar and Jerry Falwell said that the 9-11 attacks were God’s will.

    There is no comparison between Falwell and Christians of Love, like John’s father, or the first born again president (Jimmy Carter)

  44. 44.

    LITBMueller

    February 2, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    …I hardly see how you guys can get your panties in a bunch over one more stupid remark by some obscure religious figure.

    Nah, my panties are fine with this guy. In fact, after reading Galatians 1:8-9 (thanks, Steve), I see that he would never actually firebomb anyone, but would rather see the guy cursed, which is much more pleasant.

    “A pox on all your houses!!!”

    But, hey, in the interest of fairness, I will no longer refer to people like the writer and Pat Robertson as part of the American Taliban.

    I have settled on the American Inquisition.

    “No one suspects the American Inquisition!!!!!”

  45. 45.

    Paul L.

    February 2, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    This is language that gets people killed, even if you don’t want to believe it.

    Oh Hate Speech. Better ban it before some weak-willed person kills someone or worst votes republican.

  46. 46.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    how about if I equate them to the Klan members who firebombed churches?

    No, it would not. This was a small group of nutters saying this, but calling them the American Taliban is like equating some lefty groups with the Nazis. The fringe left is distasteful and some advocate violence, but they still cannot come close to the what the Nazis did. And people making the comparison are rightly ridiculed as taking it too far. What the Taliban did should be preserved as horrific, not to be trivialized by comparing it to just hateful people who say something asinine.

    Of course, all of you don’t listen to Randi Rhodes anymore since she had to apologize for her little “shoot” Bush skit. Or read Kos anymore due to diarists calling for taking up arms against Americans, etc.

    Faux News – You hope I take poison? Why, would you call that being a little “American Talibanish”?
    Why do you think I like Ann Coulter? Do you like the guy who advocating shooting the military officers on the streets of San Fransico?

  47. 47.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Stormy, the poison thing is a joke: Pentacostal people drink poison to prove that God loves them. You don’t know about that? I thought you said you were from Oklahoma.

  48. 48.

    jack

    February 2, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Because of cartoon nations are recalling their ambassadors, demanding apologies and making all sorts of threats. Nations.

    On the other side of the equation, the ‘American Taliban’ side, no nation has made any comment. There is no national outrage over the sniping at the gay actor in the movie. No nationalistic or legal repercussions are called for by any government against the production company.

    See the difference yet?

    Private citizens can say anything they want, makes asses or angels of themselves. When it rises to the ‘Taliban’ level, the government is involved.

    Lines, yes, the religious freaks that became the Taliban DID start out mutilaing genitalia and forcing women to wear burkhas. These things have been part of their faith for centuries, the Taliban didn’t invent them.

    Krista, you’re not making the point you think you’re making. The people cited in the article are on the fringe, as you said. They are there because their ideas are not accepted by the people of this country. Their ideas are not even accepted by the majority of their co-religionists. Far from being anything like the Taliban, which ran a country, these people more closely resemble the Heaven’s Gate or Jonestown cults. Tiny sects with insane ideas that will get them killed sooner or later.

    The fact that so many on the left can’t seem to see the difference between government sanction of atrocity and the mad blatherings of marginalized cultists is frightening.

  49. 49.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Don’t you people get the RNC talking points? Our fundamentalist, theocratic, patriarchal, anti-woman, anti-gay, crazies are nothing at all like their fundamentalist, theocratic, patriarchal, anti-woman, anti-gay crazies.

    In fact, we all know that the fundamentalist, theocratic, patriarchal, anti-woman, anti-gay crazies over there are closely aligned with the secular, feminist, gay-rights liberals of America. I mean, it makes perfect sense.

  50. 50.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    “No one suspects the American Inquisition!!”

    This I have no problem with, because it is funny and gets your point across without having to invoke one of the world’s worst regimes.

    I know you guys are scared of religious nutters, but they weren’t the ones firing their shotguns into election offices in the last election. However, some lone lefty nutters don’t tar the entire left as a powder keg, ready to explode at any minute. I don’t know why you guys think the right fringe will suddenly erupt all over the country.

  51. 51.

    StupidityRules

    February 2, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    About man/animal hybrids… I guess that is what happens when you take a break from writing the SOTU, watch a movie, fall asleep and when you wake up you’re all disoriented, finding yourself being unable to separate reality from fiction. Then without getting your bearings straighten out you countine to add things to the SOTU…

  52. 52.

    db

    February 2, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    I’ve gone back and read the original post:

    No Way!

    I’m not a lawyer (but maybe I should claim to be one so I don’t get flamed away on this one), so take this for what it’s worth.

    He was saying that someone’s plan for a letter writing campaign was not enough to protest this film company. He was asking for people to step it up a notch but said that firebombing was going too far.

    Is this enough for any FBI investigator to do anything about? Was he not urging restraint against violence? (I can hear Johny Cochrane in his grave, “If he talks like MLK, he must be okay.”)

    I do agree with Lines about this, perhaps, being a form of coded language, particularly given the audience it’s being pitched to.

    But I would be very interested if somebody could point me to related free speech cases that would provide any basis for legal action against this person.

    There are some things in this post that I think are quite telling and humorous:

    It is a scandal because it panders to the evangelical appetite for amusement

    It is a scandal because it exploits evangelical naivety and lack of discernment.

    So is he admitting that he and his fellow evangelicals are naive, lack intelligence, and are easily amused?

  53. 53.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    Tu quoque. Rational discourse is for the weak.

  54. 54.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    The fact that so many on the left can’t seem to see the difference between government sanction of atrocity and the mad blatherings of marginalized cultists is frightening.

    You’re right: many see calls for violence against gays and government sanctioning of torture as fruits from the same poisonous tree.

  55. 55.

    kl

    February 2, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    I thought the movie was about Britney’s music career. LOL ROTFL

  56. 56.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    No, it would not.

    I mean comparing them would not bother me.

  57. 57.

    SeesThroughIt

    February 2, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    Stormy says that when John Cole attacks someone like this, he’s attacking all Christians.

    Well, this is symptomatic of a much larger right-wing affliction, and I still can’t find out if it’s a product of willfull ignorance or just plain ignorance, but to the right-wing, if you criticize any religious right-winger, then you are viciously and hatefully smearing everybody right-of-center who believes in religion. John calls out a bunch of wingnutty assholes, and Stormy reinterprets that as “calling all Christians the American Taliban.” It’s either an unwillingness or an inability to think in terms that aren’t the broadest possible.

    I like how the Sundries Shack did the exact thing I predicted various right-wingers would. It’s just that easy to call, folks.

  58. 58.

    Laura

    February 2, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    Keep calling all Christians the American Taliban, we need more Republican voters.

    Who’s calling all Christians the American Taliban? Nothing is more offensive than the arrogance and stupidity of the far right who think they speak for all Christians. Knowing better, I knew that as a Christian, I wasn’t the target the “American Taliban” quip.

    Not all Christians use their faith as an excuse for bigotry and hate. Those that do have earned their Taliban comparisons.

  59. 59.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Oh Hate Speech. Better ban it before some weak-willed person kills someone or worst votes republican.

    Yeah, because no one’s ever killed a doctor because someone suggested it on a website, and no one’s ever killed a judge because someone suggested it on a website.

  60. 60.

    Ancient Purple

    February 2, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Keep calling all Christians the American Taliban, we need more Republican voters.

    I have grown sick of hearing people say that because you attack people like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and the rest of those clowns, you are attacking Christianity. Of course, not surprisingly, Stormy leads the pack in the crocodile tears shed for these people.

    No one is saying that all Christians are the American Taliban, but you have your talking points, so that is all that matters, even if it isn’t the truth.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the condescending lecture about true Christianity from someone who delivers said speech while gunning down Scotch like it is water.

  61. 61.

    Pb

    February 2, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    Stormy70,

    And they require that all other religions be stamped out

    Yeah, they’ve come a long way, baby. Err, maybe.

  62. 62.

    MI

    February 2, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    Oh Hate Speech. Better ban it before some weak-willed person kills someone or worst votes republican.

    Strawman alert! No one, at least no one here among the people you’re talking to, wants to ban this speech. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with calling people out and letting them know that you think what they’re doing/saying is irresponsible. It’s called discourse and discussion, it’s the opposite of wanting to ban language, it’s engaging in language.

    Along those lines I think it’s perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that words have power, both positively and negatively, and still hold firmly to the belief that they shouldn’t be censored or made criminal.

  63. 63.

    Vladi G

    February 2, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    Ya know, if you take the ‘probably’ out of the statement, it doesn’t make it much better. If you need to tell that firebombing someone’s house over this DEFINTELY would be an overreaction, you’re still dealing with some pretty fucked up people.

    Sending letters to the studio wouldn’t be an overreaction. Boycotting the film wouldn’t be an overreaction. Slashing the guy’s tires would be an overreaction. Firebombing their houses? How the hell does that even enter the picture unless you’ve got serious mental problems?

  64. 64.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    The fact that so many on the left can’t seem to see the difference between government sanction of atrocity and the mad blatherings of marginalized cultists is frightening.

    It’s looking more and more like the marginalized cultists are in charge of the government.

  65. 65.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    I don’t know why you guys think the right fringe will suddenly erupt all over the country.

    A lot of reasonable people, like John Cole, saw the Terri Schiavo incident as a wake-up call. A vivid demonstration that the fundamentalists on the fringe are no longer just a joke to be shrugged off, but people with serious political power in this country and the will to use it.

    I understand that you don’t feel the same way, but there’s a rational basis for their reaction.

    If the Democrats took power and suddenly I saw Congress passing bills to encourage troops to frag their superiors, or whatever else the loony left occasionally comes up with, I would be equally horrified.

  66. 66.

    kyle

    February 2, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    For every moron that makes a tasteless, snide, firebombing reference, how many evangelicals, Christians, or religious people, in general, shake their head in frustration?

    Amen to that! I always cringe when peeps trot out the “fundamentalist” label for anyone on the religious fringe (of any faith) without stopping to consider whether or not they are actually representative of the true fundamentals.

  67. 67.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    Dude, I am from Texas. I have lived in OK, and the worse we drank was Keystone Light. I’m not scared of snakes, but I don’t want to dance with them. Those people are nuts, but they will never be able to rise to the level of the Taliban.

    I don’t attend Church, but that is as far as I will decribe my religious beliefs. They are private and not something I want trampled all over by the likes of some on these boards.

    I am against the comparison to anything to Taliban or the Nazis. I think they will start to trivialize the evils done by both regimes. I think this religious guy is a pisser and sets a super-precedent in stupidity for what he said.

    I have seen the Taliban, and he is no Taliban.

  68. 68.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    I don’t think any of you really understand what this guy is saying. He’s saying let’s firebomb the producers there so we don’t have to drag gays behind our trucks here.

  69. 69.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    and the worse we drank was Keystone

    Then you’d have no problem with strychine.

  70. 70.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    John,

    No offense taken. I’m not that sensitive, especially to comments by quivering reactionaries responding to some ill-advised statement from some bozo. People say stupid things, and are taken to task for thsoe stupid statements.

    But, American Taliban?……KKK clones? Not too different from commenters yesterday equating the removal of Sheehan from the Senate gallery as the action of “BushHitler’s Gestapo”.

  71. 71.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    I don’t think any of you really understand what this guy is saying. He’s saying let’s firebomb the producers there so we don’t have to drag gays behind our trucks here.

    Zing!

  72. 72.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    I don’t think any of you really understand what this guy is saying. He’s saying let’s firebomb the producers there so we don’t have to drag gays behind our trucks here.

    Thanks. I’m going to be laughing all day and won’t be able to get any work done now. You righteous bastard.

  73. 73.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    I kinda wish we had a fundamentalist commenter or two, because it’s like trying to learn another language. Still, the advantage of analyzing fundamentalism – or any kind of orthodox religion, really – is that their beliefs are clearly articulated. It’s all written down somewhere and you’re supposed to follow it to the letter.

    I wonder, however, whether this situation does not fit the parameters of Galatians 1:8-9. Does this kind of confusion actually alter the gospel itself? I am tempted to think that it does—and does it deliberately, “with malice aforethought.” If so, then we know what is required of us.

    This sounds kinda vague – “we know what is required of us” – and I wouldn’t blame anyone, in the context of the rest of the post, if they thought it meant something sinister. But with the power of Google (see, I admit when I do it), I can gather some insight into what he really means:

    A better rendering of the word anathema in Galatians 1 is: “let him be accursed” or “let him be under God’s judgment.” Either of those translations allows the English reader to decide for himself whether temporal or eternal judgment is in view.

    That Paul was referring to temporal judgment in Gal 1:8-9 is indicated by the immediate context and supported by the use of the term anathema elsewhere in Scripture…

    Paul’s point is that if we learn of anyone preaching a false gospel, we should treat them like someone with a highly contagious deadly disease. We should stay away from them. Turn a deaf ear toward them. Avoid supporting them in any way. False teachers are carriers of a virus much worse than HIV. It is imperative that we separate ourselves from such people (cf. 2 John 10-11). Otherwise we are likely to become infected with their disease and to spread it to others.

    In this sense, it sounds like more of a (highly coded) call for a boycott or some other type of collective shunning, as opposed to an exhortation that these people deserve death. I still don’t know about the Bob Jones issue, as he was a guy who most definitely prayed for God to smite people. But anyway, this is my attempt to give the dude the benefit of the doubt.

  74. 74.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    Oh, sorry, link for the above.

  75. 75.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    The fact that so many on the left can’t seem to see the difference between government sanction of atrocity and the mad blatherings of marginalized cultists is frightening.

    Two words: “Terri Schiavo”.

  76. 76.

    Ancient Purple

    February 2, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Pb,

    Don’t forget about this little chestnut from Fox’s John Gibson:

    But in the meantime, as long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.

    How big of him.

  77. 77.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Then you’d have no problem with strychine.

    Just squeeze a lime into it, and we’ll see. ;)

    Just for the record, I bet I have been to more drag shows than any of you. I threw that in to show my gay-friendly bonafides.
    (kinda stolen from Jeff Goldsein’s conservative bonafides post.)

  78. 78.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    You go to church with the religion you have, not the religion you want. It’s okay folks. There’s only been one shooting at a gay bar today. Nothing to see. Move along.

  79. 79.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    Don’t know what happened there.

    For the record, I don’t drink until after 6, and only on the weekends. Alcohol can be fattening, and scotch is an after dinner drink. This is me posting on my coffee high. Please change your alcohol jokes accordingly.

    Carry on, peeps.

    One more time for the record, I am against comparing anyone with Nazis or Talibanis. There evil should stand alone, and not be diluted with trivial comparisons to hateful jerks.

  80. 80.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    There is more gay on gay violence than gay bashings. Sad, but very true. And typical of the overall human condition. Domestic violence isn’t just against women.

  81. 81.

    Pb

    February 2, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    Ancient Purple,

    My favorite is probably still Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin‘s comments:

    Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States “because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. … And the enemy is a guy named Satan.”
    […]
    Discussing a U.S. Army battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia in 1993, Boykin told one audience, “I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol.”

  82. 82.

    LITBMueller

    February 2, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    A vivid demonstration that the fundamentalists on the fringe are no longer just a joke to be shrugged off, but people with serious political power in this country and the will to use it.

    That’s a great point, and an incredible example of the American Inquisition in action. With a modern version of an “auto-de-fe” (trial) amd Grand Iquisitor Frist determining Terri was alive by watching a videotape.

    Scared the crap outta me. It was just bizarre…

  83. 83.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    KKK clones?

    You’re right, it may not be fair to the KKK. They haven’t firebombed anyone in a while.

  84. 84.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Tell you what: instead of using the terms “Christian”, “fundamentalist”, “evangelical” or any other such terms to describe Bauder, let’s call him what he is: a hateful, angry religious maniac (HARM). That way, the next time someone like him says something hateful, we can freely condemn them as HARMs, without then being told that we’re Christian-bashing.

    And Jack, the point that I’m making (I’ll thank you to no longer inform me as to what point I’m trying to make), is that people like this fellow are only reduced in power because they are currently fringe, BUT that they are seeking to gain power, and that they have some friends in very high places (Exhibit A: Pat Robertson.) So they don’t have the same kind of power that the Taliban had. But do they have influence? Oh, yes.

  85. 85.

    MI

    February 2, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Steve, I’m not sure it’s complicated at all. Since we’re on a political site, let’s just use a political analogy. There are Republicans like John, and there are Republicans like the folks at Free Republic, the same way there are Christians like John’s dad, and Christians who want to firebomb people and whatnot. The whole thing would be a wash and probably wouldn’t raise much if any concern, if the crazies weren’t the ones who are so influential in American politics. That’s what’s (to me) worrisome.

    It’s the power they have, not their beliefs, that frighten me….not that I like their beliefs, but you know what I’m saying.

  86. 86.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Preaching that certain segments of society are evil does not lead to violence, it leads to Righteous Works. You go to a gay bar with the weapons you have, not the weapons you want.

  87. 87.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    This is me posting on my coffee high. Please change your alcohol jokes accordingly.

    You sure you don’t want to Irish up that coffee, then?

  88. 88.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    For the record, I don’t drink until after 6, and only on the weekends. Alcohol can be fattening, and scotch is an after dinner drink. This is me posting on my coffee high. Please change your alcohol jokes accordingly.

    Good. Besides, it’s all very dehydrating, and then it would defeat the purpose of that fancy new Origins cream.

  89. 89.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    I am against comparing anyone with Nazis or Talibanis. There evil should stand alone, and not be diluted with trivial comparisons to hateful jerks.

    Bullshit. You don’t want your side compare to Nazis or Taliban. You have no problem with the left being compared to anyone.

    The Taliban and the Nazis are examples of movements that took over a country using religion and national pride to oust the opposition. You think the left isn’t going to compare the conservative revolution to either of those? Just because they have a nasty side? I’m sure you’d like that but it isn’t going to stop. Not while the similarities keep popping up.

    Example. Hitler convinced the german people that Poland was a threat and was preparing to invade so a preemptive strike was nescessary, they also denounced the pacifists as traitors for aiding and siding with the enemy.

    The Taliban believes the way to being a happy society involves a strict, literal interpretation of centuries old writings.

    Thats just on the surface. Sound familiar?

  90. 90.

    jack

    February 2, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Getting back on the Carousel….

    Sanctioning torture–while there was much debate on the subject, I believe that the president signed McCain’s bill. (I am in favor of torture–but the government has debated and voted against it)

    “It’s beginning to look as if the maginalized cultists blah blah blah…” How? Has the press leapt on the firebombing bandwagon? Has the Senate passed a bill sanctioning going after those who make films that contradict evangelical dogma? Have all the major Christian denominations endorsed this crusade against ‘End of the Spear’?

    No. And they won’t. Stop hyperventilating, the lack of oxygen is becoming very apparent.

    Terri Schiavo. Dear gods, has that woman not suffered enough? What the government attempted was vile and wrong–despite any ‘best intentions’ prattle. This is a fine example of the government using it’s power wrongly. AND it was done with all manner of fringe freaks attached. BUT it was defeated. All the actions were for naught. The fringe LOST.

    Get it? The fringe lost.

    And that’s exactly what happened with the Taliban. The fringe lost. Of coursem the fringe in that case was calling for better treatment for women, the ability to be something other than muslim, the ‘right’ to listen to music.

    Only the Taliban didn’t debate and vote their points down. They killed them.

    Again, the two are NOT the same. Open your eyes.

  91. 91.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 2, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    You know what- I am just not going to say anything anymore when the left-wing calls these lunatics the America Taliban. They are.

    Been quite an illuminating few weeks, hasn’t it?

  92. 92.

    Sojourner

    February 2, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    Keep in mind that Stormy has a gay brother. So she’s defending people who despise her brother.

    Quaint, huh?

  93. 93.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    It’s not my place to tell anyone anything about commenting etiquette, but…I don’t think people should take so many personal shots at Stormy.

  94. 94.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    Get it? The fringe lost.

    Never give up, never surrender. We are doing God’s work, therefore we are doing Good Works. The government is supporting our faith based initiatives. If you aren’t a God fearing Christian, then you don’t belong in a Christian nation.

  95. 95.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    In Stormy’s defense, she did say that this guy is a hateful, stupid jerk, so I wouldn’t call that “defending”. The disagreement isn’t whether Bauder’s a hateful prick. I think we all agree that he is. The disagreement is whether or not people like him are as evil as the Taliban. I very much think they have the potential to be.

    Just wanted to clarify the debate.

  96. 96.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    BUT it was defeated. All the actions were for naught. The fringe LOST.

    Get it? The fringe lost.

    You’re right that it lost — but that was only because people called the American Taliban what it was. Remember Terri’s Law? How about the “Culture of Life”? The bills all PASSED, dude. The President of the United States flew back from Washington to sign a bill that had be written by the fringe, remember?

    The executive danced to the tune the fringe played, baby. The legislature did the same thing. Only the judiciary stood up, and that was a near thing. The only thing which kept the governor from sending troopers into the hospice was the threat of demonstrations in the streets, for God’s sake.

    Sorry, jack, but the fringe *is* running things.

  97. 97.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    DougJ – yeah, I agree. It’s getting kind of ugly, guys.

  98. 98.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 2, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

    A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation’s oil imports.

    So, while the Republican Party tries to fundraise off its rubes based on the president’s BOLD plan to reduce our energy dependence on the Middle East, he is contradicted in words — by his own administration, in deeds — by his own budget, and by his allies — the rest of the Republican Party and the Saudis.

    Hilarious.

    http://www.dailykos.com/

    And next up John may come to realize why we characterize events like this not as misstatements but deliberate lies & manipulation of the public.

  99. 99.

    jack

    February 2, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    Krista, the point you made is that the fanatics in question were on the fringes of society.

    Fringe factions are ALWAYS trying to gain power.

    Look at….oh, Pat Robertson. Friends in high places, on TV and whatnot. And still he has no real power. He’s taken as a fool more often than not for his asinine comments and close-minded attitude. Pop stars have more influence than this man. He stays on the fringe because America does not share his values–and, given how long he’s been peddling them, it looks as if we are safe from his evengelical grasp.

    MY point, that these people–ALL of them, all the fringe elemebts, be they Fundamentalist Christian fanatics or Fundamentalist Enviromental fanatics–are not the governments. They do not wield governmental power. They can say whatever they want–it’s something that our ACTUAL government DOES enforce–the first amendment. But they have no power to legally practice what they preach.

    People likw me–and you– stop them. By letting them talk and then ridiculing them. They will never be able to become a ‘Taliban’.

  100. 100.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Look at….oh, Pat Robertson. Friends in high places, on TV and whatnot. And still he has no real power.

    See, that’s where I disagree with you. Influence is a definite form of power. And right now, I think he’s a veritable Iago.

  101. 101.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    The disagreement is whether or not people like [Jack Dauber] are as evil as the Taliban. I very much think they have the potential to be.

    Well, putting on my Christian apologist hat, that’s a kind of subtle point.

    The Christian notion of evil revolves as much or more about intent as it does about explicit activity, since, in orthodox theology, the activity is ultimately futile in all ways except one, as a sinful act is an act in opposition of God’s will. The one exception is critical: by sinning, and particularly sinning knowingly, one contaminates one’s own self. But here’s the kicker: just by willing to sin, one has already taken on the contamination. (Remember the line about “sinning in your heart”? That’s from the Gospels.)

    What does this have to do with Dauber? Well, if he honestly believes what he’s writing, then there’s no potential for evil involved here. He’s already deeply damned; the threat he poses is not to himself, now, but to others.

  102. 102.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    They will never be able to become a ‘Taliban’.

    Justice Sunday.

  103. 103.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Jack- I don’t know where you came up with this bizarre conceptualization of what the Taliban is, but the most salient feature of the Taliban is not whether or not they are in control of a government. Right now, the Taliban is not in charge of Afghanistan. Does that mean they are no longer the Taliban? Of course not. The Taliban exists independent of government, but hey truly became a menace when they seized control of the government.

    So stating to me that calling these wingnuts in America the American Taliban is wrong because they are not in power simply makes no sense whatsoever. You may think you have a point- rest assured, you do not.

  104. 104.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 2, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    It’s not my place to tell anyone anything about commenting etiquette, but…I don’t think people should take so many personal shots at Stormy.

    Agreed, she does drive me insane at times — but she does have good taste in TV. And, really, we have more of an impact on what is on TV then we EVER will with happens in DC.

  105. 105.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 2, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Anyway, shouldn’t these kooks go back to fighting the evil menace that is Dungeons and Dragons? I mean aren’t there some Level 31 Elven Wizards that pose a bigger threat the gay actors ( gay actors???? my god, who knew?????? )

  106. 106.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Can we have a Manimal thread too? That was the best part of the SOTU by far.

  107. 107.

    Al Maviva

    February 2, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    Y’know, I’m a practicing Catholic, I’m pretty tolerant, I’m okay with civil unions, and one of my sisters is a self proclaimed dyke, and I haven’t a problem with that.

    But because I go to church more or less regularly I’m a member of the Taliban.

    Okay, cool. I guess it’s still better than being a Nazi, ‘cuz at least the Taliban has a lot of fans on the left.

  108. 108.

    AkaDad

    February 2, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    I think a better term is “Taliban-Lite”

    Same Hate Less Killing

  109. 109.

    Tim F.

    February 2, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    If we have another SOTU thread that doesn’t involve Cindy Sheehan’s t-shirt (that bit never gets old) I could possibly go insane. But I will put up an open science thread shortly.

  110. 110.

    pharniel

    February 2, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    Ever read “A Handmaiden’s Tale”? That’s pretty much the HARM’s ideal vision of America.
    Even the Quakers are being put into camps because they’re not the “Right” kind of christianity.

    The HARMs are all about turning the US into a theocracy, and do consider the Taliban to be a good model.
    Note – FGM is a sub-saharan african thing, and not an Islam thing. MOhammad didn’t snip any bits of his daughters, he just forgot to add anything about that into the Quran.

    In essence the HARMS are the religious verison of the american nazi party.

  111. 111.

    Laura

    February 2, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    Look at….oh, Pat Robertson. Friends in high places, on TV and whatnot. And still he has no real power.

    He has power in that he gets people to the polls. Without the Pat Robertsons of this country, a lot of the wingnuts stay home, and Bush isn’t re-elected (probably never elected in the first place). When Robertson suggested we murder Hugo Chavez and the best the Administration could say was that it was “inappropriate,” you can bet that response because of his power. When he suggested Sharon was smited by God, the Adminstration only responded strongly because it hurt them politically. When he’s helpful to their politics, they love the guy. As long as they’ve got a use for Robertson, he wields power.

  112. 112.

    techson

    February 2, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    Stormy said “There is more gay on gay violence than gay bashings. Sad, but very true. And typical of the overall human condition. Domestic violence isn’t just against women”.

    Fuck you stormy… that is an absolute lie but you are probably too stupid to know it. Until you have been a fag and personally put up with the bashing from heteros you should shut up and stop spreading your vile lies. Stupid twat.

  113. 113.

    Sojourner

    February 2, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    It’s not my place to tell anyone anything about commenting etiquette, but…I don’t think people should take so many personal shots at Stormy.

    Sorry but I just don’t get how someone can blithely support those who hate a family member. It makes me sick to my stomach because I see the pain in the eyes of my gay neighbors. It’s not just disagreeing over a religious or political position. These people hate everything about gays. I would never tolerate, let alone defend, anyone who felt that way about a member of my family.

  114. 114.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Y’know, I’m a practicing Catholic, I’m pretty tolerant, I’m okay with civil unions, and one of my sisters is a self proclaimed dyke, and I haven’t a problem with that.

    But because I go to church more or less regularly I’m a member of the Taliban.

    What a load of horseshit, Al- and particularly so after the update in which I make it explicitly clear I am not talking about religious people, but intolerant and dangerous lunatics like Bauder.

  115. 115.

    jack

    February 2, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    “I very much think they have the potential to be.”

    Potential. That’s the operative word. There are people from all political and religious stripes who have the potential to be just as harmful as the Taliban. But they don’t have it now. And that’s my point.

    They don’t have it now.

    We did come very close with the Shiavo case–but sanity won out. And it was sanity–do you think, if the fringe really had control that threats of ‘massive demostrations’ could have kept Terri off that feeding tube? Sanity won.

    And its something that must be continually fought for–the fringe only has to win once. Then we’re living our lives very differently–in some totalitarian statist nightmare(and, I believe firmly that the left, and the religious fringes, would send us all into that nightmare*)

    The religious fringes in this country are not ‘Talibans’. They’re nuts. Treat them and ridicule them accordingly.

    *I do not believe the actual far right(as opposed to the fiction that the far right is fascist) could ever be unified enough to create any kind of ‘state'(and, since radical individualism seems to be the right side endpoint, I don’t see why they would)

  116. 116.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    But because I go to church more or less regularly I’m a member of the Taliban.

    No. And you’re smarter than that. You know thats not what was said or implied. Why make up shit to rail against?

  117. 117.

    Laura

    February 2, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    But because I go to church more or less regularly I’m a member of the Taliban.

    You have to intentionally misinterpret John to say that. No where did he paint all Christians as the Taliban. Only if you’re a kook who has to told it’s inappropriate to firebomb a filmmaker’s home should you be offended.

  118. 118.

    AkaDad

    February 2, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    And do you honestly believe that some of the more out-there evangelicals (like this guy seems to be) wouldn’t just loooove to be able to outlaw jobs for women, keep us in the house, barefoot and pregnant, outlaw other religions, and implement life sentences in jail for homosexuality?

    Krista thats not fair, they let you wear socks now.

  119. 119.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    Anyway, shouldn’t these kooks go back to fighting the evil menace that is Dungeons and Dragons?

    Magic missile. From human-animal hybrids. President Bush is ahead of the curve on this.

  120. 120.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    You have to intentionally misinterpret John to say that. No where did he paint all Christians as the Taliban. Only if you’re a kook who has to told it’s inappropriate to firebomb a filmmaker’s home should you be offended.

    If John’s comments were an attack on Christianity, then I must’ve missed the day in Sunday School where we were told how Christian it was to firebomb our neighbors.

  121. 121.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    Magic missile. From human-animal hybrids. President Bush is ahead of the curve on this.

    So that’s how they’re going to make the Star Wars system work.

  122. 122.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Magic missile. From human-animal hybrids

    Where do you think the dragons are going to come from in the first place?

  123. 123.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    If John’s comments were an attack on Christianity, then I must’ve missed the day in Sunday School where we were told how Christian it was to firebomb our neighbors.

    Genocide is justified in the Good Book. Fire bombing the Evil Gays is just a hobby.

  124. 124.

    nyrev

    February 2, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Only someone who thinks the Taliban = All Muslims would believe that John is equating All Christians to the Taliban.

    Kind of makes you wonder. Well, not about Stormy.

  125. 125.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    Fuck you stormy… that is an absolute lie but you are probably too stupid to know it. Until you have been a fag and personally put up with the bashing from heteros you should shut up and stop spreading your vile lies. Stupid twat.

    Right. Tell that to the men and women in my sphere, who are gay and have gone through it. You think I would say something like that without seeing it first hand? Because I have seen it first hand, and it should not be brushed under the rug because you don’t like it. Of course, here in Texas alot of gay men are carrying, and the bashers know it. He doesn’t really prefer the fag term, just so you know.

    Here’s some reading materials:
    Austrlia.
    American Bar Assc.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to pull it into this thread. Domestic violence is a pet issue of mine, and I should not have brought it up in this thread.

  126. 126.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    Anyway, shouldn’t these kooks go back to fighting the evil menace that is Dungeons and Dragons? I mean aren’t there some Level 31 Elven Wizards that pose a bigger threat the gay actors ( gay actors???? my god, who knew?????? )

    If you disparage Legolas, I will cut you.
    I am a Super Mario World girl. And I am not ashamed of it, either!

  127. 127.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 2, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    Hate hate hate, hate. Hate hate. Hate hate hate hate hate, hate hate haaaaate. Hate? Hate hate hate? Hate! Hate, hate hate.

    ‘Cause God told me to, in those exact words.

    This is why I’m glad to be Unitarian. Because it lets me be a smartass and get away with it. :)

  128. 128.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Feel the love.

  129. 129.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Krista thats not fair, they let you wear socks now.

    Oh. Well. Never mind, then.

    pharniel – thanks for picking up the term HARM (Hateful Angry Religious Maniac). I think it could go places. C’mon guys…maybe it could make it into Webster’s someday.

  130. 130.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    Mmm…Orlando Bloom as Legolas. That was enjoyable.

  131. 131.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    I know this is hard for you, expect Krista, but nowhere did I say John compared all Christians to the Taliban. Alot of the left say it about Christians on the right, see Air America or Kos, so I threw in the general statement.

    I think noone should compare anything to the Taliban or Nazis, unless they are an actual Talibani or Nazi. I like the HARM designation, then we know who we are talking about. The guy making the statements is a religious moonbat, who practices some form of culty Christianity, which I think is dumber than a box of rocks. But he in no way could be compared to the evil, murdering regime of the Taliban. They have a special place in hell reserved for them. The other guy probably has a Motel 6 hell room reserved for him.

  132. 132.

    jack

    February 2, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    Let’s try it this way shall we. The term ‘American Taliban’ is shorthand fo an American religious movement behaving like Islamist fanatics. Particularly those in charge of countries. A ‘ruling theocracy’ as it were. The ‘Mad Mullahs’ are another such construct, used to describe Irans ruling theocracy.

    It is used to conjure images of American Christians run rampant, establishing a Christian theocracy and imposing all sorts of theocratic laws(particularly those that terrify the left–when undertaken by Christians– they seem to have no problem with the same actions undertaken by Muslims).

    Am I right(probably not, the goalposts are far too easy to move to allow me to be right)?

    What I am pointing out is that NONE of the Christian fringe groups wields enough power or influence to even approach being able to get away with some of their more vile tenets–never mind getting those tenets passed into law.

    John, the most salient feature of the ‘Taliban’, as you used the word, is that they had/have the power to enforce their twisted ideas. The people you have called the ‘American Taliban’ do not now and have never had such power.

  133. 133.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    The guy making the statements is a religious moonbat, who practices some form of culty Christianity, which I think is dumber than a box of rocks.

    Now you’re a Christian hater?

    But he in no way could be compared to the evil, murdering regime of the Taliban.

    All he needs is a chance.

  134. 134.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Mmm…Orlando Bloom as Legolas. That was enjoyable.

    Yes.

    A thousand times yes. Well, really, I liked him only as Legolas. Climbing the Oliphant? Best scene I have ever seen.
    I want a bow and arrow and some leaf jewelry. I still have this site bookmarked. Bow before my geekiness, peasants!

  135. 135.

    SeesThroughIt

    February 2, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    Anyway, shouldn’t these kooks go back to fighting the evil menace that is Dungeons and Dragons?

    On that note, I very strongly recommend Tom Hanks’ tour de force, Mazes & Monsters, which a poster on that IMDB page correctly calls “the Reefer Madness of the D&D era.” Hanks’ portrayal of a guy who gets so sucked into the evil, evil game that he ends up going permanently crazy and unable to tell the difference between the game and real life is pure genius–way better than any of that Oscar crap. And for real, the movie is funny as hell.

    Krista: Great job with HARM. Let’s spread it far and wide! (The acronym, I mean, not the underlying concept.)

  136. 136.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    From the original post

    whose other credits include Charlie’s Angels (how can a Christian not think that Charlie’s Angels is pornographic?).

    That’s an incredible smear on good pr0n everywhere. This aggression shall not stand.

  137. 137.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Ok, I have to go now. I need to watch the latest episode of the Shield (shout out to ppGaz) and get ready for weekend guests. I will try to beat you guys like a drum later.

    Mmmmm. Legolas.

  138. 138.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    I figured it’d be easier to remember than Scary Hateful Inbred Totalitarians Hating Everybody And Doctoring Science. Although that does have a certain ring to it.

  139. 139.

    Pb

    February 2, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Stormy,

    We already know where you stand on this, or at least I do. When Muslims bomb a wedding party, they’re evil terrorists. When America bombs a Muslim wedding party, well, hey, they had it coming, right, ’cause we can do no wrong. USA! USA! I’m not buying it–evil is as evil does, and people need to suck it up and take some responsibility for their actions, whether they’re white or brown, Muslim or Christian, American or foreign, etc.

  140. 140.

    Andrei

    February 2, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    Good lord. Stormy doesn’t even read her own comments. Stomry said:

    I know this is hard for you, expect Krista, but nowhere did I say John compared all Christians to the Taliban

    But Stormy did say in this same thread:

    Keep calling all Christians the American Taliban, we need more Republican voters

    She seemed to repsonding to people’s reactions to her first comment, which also included Cole’s original statement.

    Stormy, this is the reason people pile on you. You make it way too easy.

  141. 141.

    Anderson

    February 2, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    DougJ – yeah, I agree. It’s getting kind of ugly, guys.

    Repressed attraction, is my theory. They want you, Stormy!

  142. 142.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Fuck you stormy… that is an absolute lie but you are probably too stupid to know it. Until you have been a fag and personally put up with the bashing from heteros you should shut up and stop spreading your vile lies. Stupid twat.

    The subtext of liberal politics summed up in 3 little sentences.

  143. 143.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    The subtext of liberal politics summed up in 3 little sentences.

    Could you elaborate on that? I don’t get what you mean.

  144. 144.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    He means that it’s completely unfair to say that this guy who talked about firebombing speaks for the right wing in any way, shape, or form, but some random pissed-off commenter is the authentic voice of the Left. That’s what he means.

  145. 145.

    LITBMueller

    February 2, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    There is only ONE thing to call this: FUCKED UP:

    Man, 18, sought in gay bar attack
    Three patrons hospitalized after being wounded

    From Katy Byron
    CNN
    Thursday, February 2, 2006; Posted: 12:39 p.m. EST (17:39 GMT)

    (CNN) — Police on Thursday are seeking a man in connection with gun and hatchet attacks overnight at a gay bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Three people were wounded.

    This guy’s religion or beliefs are irrlevant. This goes beyond hate speech or intolerance. It is pure evil. And people from each side of the political spectrum, regardless of their religious beliefs, should denounce it. Period.

  146. 146.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    What do I mean?

    Well, it has the obligatory claim that the writer is lying. That’s not subtext, necessarily, but it’s de rigeur for statements from the Left.

    Next, the Left is pro-gay rights, but they tend to betray their own buried prejudices by doing things like calling gays “fags”.

    The Left’s fear of ideas and opposing thought is revealed in the request that the commenter simply “shut up and stop spreading vile lies” (there’s that “lie” word again). Shut the idea spigot down. Can’t hear those ideas.

    Lastly, like with the “fag” comment, the writer is called a “stupid twat”, and betrays the misogynistic tendencies buried underneath the high-minded pro-feminist mask the Left is always parading around with.

  147. 147.

    rilkefan

    February 2, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    I don’t care if he’s the voice of the left or a troll or whatever, I’d be pleased if TPtB banned his ass. That comment was way over the line.

  148. 148.

    rilkefan

    February 2, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Brian‘s trying to say, That was probably a right-wing troll.

    Hey Stormy, I think your comments are about 90% not even wrong, but I admire your equanimity above.

  149. 149.

    DougJ

    February 2, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Feel the love.

    I especially liked “New Bedford is a rough place. Some kind of gang initiation, perhaps?” I love all these urban legends about gang initiations.

  150. 150.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Brian, I have to laugh at your overgeneralizations. So that one comment was emblematic of everybody whose politics could be described as left-wing? Wow.

    Well, it has the obligatory claim that the writer is lying. That’s not subtext, necessarily, but it’s de rigeur for statements from the Left.

    It’s also de rigeur for statements from some on the right. Darrell, where are you, honey? Stand up and wave. Thanks.

    Next, the Left is pro-gay rights, but they tend to betray their own buried prejudices by doing things like calling gays “fags”.

    Yeah…the left is widely known for gay-bashing. Of course.

    The Left’s fear of ideas and opposing thought is revealed in the request that the commenter simply “shut up and stop spreading vile lies” (there’s that “lie” word again). Shut the idea spigot down. Can’t hear those ideas.

    If “the Left” is so scared of ideas and opposing thought, then why is it a running joke that Democrats can’t get a coherent message because they’re trying to express the viewpoints of everybody in the party? And why is it commonly accepted that the Republicans are excellent at making sure that everybody is on message and toes the party line?

    Lastly, like with the “fag” comment, the writer is called a “stupid twat”, and betrays the misogynistic tendencies buried underneath the high-minded pro-feminist mask the Left is always parading around with.

    I don’t use that word, and most of the lefties on here have not impressed me as being particularly misogynistic. Honestly, Brian, as a woman, I have to laugh rather heartily at your taking umbrage at a misogynistic term. From previous discussions that I’ve had with you, you haven’t exactly shown yourself to be Mister Sensitivity when it comes to women.

  151. 151.

    Joey

    February 2, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Okay, I only read about fifty or so of the comment. Stormy, you keep saying that the these people are on the fringe, so we should ignore them. And you are right, about the first part. However, these fringe elements have direct connections with the people running this country. These evangelical, fundamentalist nut-jobs have regular meetings with our president. He fucking takes them seriously. Nobody takes the ultra-left wing seriously. Hell, people don’t take the secular ultra-right wingers seriously. There is no reason too. With the Christian fascists though, there is a very good reason. Powerful people listen to them.

  152. 152.

    JWeidner

    February 2, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    de rigeur for statements from the Left

    I always enjoy it when someone seems to have no problem engaging in sweeping generalizations of “the Left”, as if everyone who is a Democrat can be lumped into such a category.

    Of course, when someone responds in kind and generalizes about “the Right”, same person goes up in arms, denouncing such generalizations.

  153. 153.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    And for the record, I didn’t like techson’s comment, so don’t think I’m defending him. I’m merely saying that you claiming that his attitude represents the left is a false claim.

  154. 154.

    Pb

    February 2, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Brian,

    I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that the word ‘fag’ was being used for emphasis, as in, “I should know because that’s me you’re talking about, honey, and that’s what they call us”. So that’s probably why you didn’t get it, unless you were being deliberately obtuse–I can never tell with you. I’d go into more detail about the etymology and societal forces at work here, but I see no reason to waste my and your time, seeing as how you still seem to be more interested in the cheap shot than in any degree of actual understanding or empathy.

  155. 155.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    FWIW, I’m betting that the commenter is actually gay and trying to ‘own the slur’

    Either that or a RW troll.

  156. 156.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    Basically, the Right favors constitutional amendments to take away the rights of gay people, but hey, someone on the Internet used the term “fag,” so that’s just as bad!

    I also took it to be quite obvious that techson was implying he is gay personally. Of course, that might just be my super-advanced gaydar.

  157. 157.

    W.B. Reeves

    February 2, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    I think Stormy does us a singular service by illustrating the reactionary, as opposed to Conservative, mindset. Reactionaries have no real principles, only prejudices. Stormy sees a reference to so-called Christian, fringe nutters as the American Taliban and simply reacts with previously internalized rhetoric. No thought, just reflex.

    The tip off is that she can’t keep track of what she’s actually said. She clearly accused John, et al, of labeling all Christians as Taliban but denies that reality when it’s pointed out to her. Her rational self knows this is a bogus contention but her bias won’t allow her to accept that she engaged in falsification. After all, she knows that she is one of the “good guys”. It follows that she couldn’t have done anything so unethical. Only those who oppose her are capable of such bad conduct since they are the “bad guys.”

    So she is reduced to increasingly absurd gambits at rewriting her comments. My favorite is her claim that she also opposes comparisons of the fringe left to the Nazis, etc., in order to demonstrate her evenhandedness. Such comparisons are perfectly appropriate where a factual parallel can be demonstrated. There’s even a term for such that is used by people on the Left: Red Fascists.

    Stormy might have been aware of this if she bothered to investigate reality rather than remaining snug in her cozy preconceptions.

  158. 158.

    Faux News

    February 2, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    Faux News – You hope I take poison? Why, would you call that being a little “American Talibanish”?
    Why do you think I like Ann Coulter? Do you like the guy who advocating shooting the military officers on the streets of San Fransico?

    Oh honey it’s just a JOKE! Like the good conservatives on Red State chuckling about Ann Coulter wanting to poison a Justice on the US Supreme Court. Just clowning around. Or as the Mean Girls in Junior High used to say “JK!” (just kidding!). I don’t know WHY you would be offended. Certainly I am not the Taliban. I don’t want to see you in a Burhka. You see if a Liberal says such things then it’s hate speech. If it is a conservative it’s just a joke “and stop being SO SENSITIVE”!

    Now Little Lady don’t get your panties in a twist. Why NO ONE here on BJ would ever want you to take poison or handle a live rattlesnake. Least of all the rattlesnake who would certainly be the one with the adverse reaction to that event.

    :-)

  159. 159.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    Just checking in to say I think all comparisons to Nazis and the Taliban is wrong. It diminishes their evil.

    My second comment was not directed at John, because he is a Republican. Also, John has thrown out that term before, then changed his post when he thought about it. It was to the general left who throw that term around all the time. Sorry it wasn’t as clear to you guys.

    WB – I have no reaction to you calling me reactionary. ;)

    The truth is that I hear quite a bit of American Taliban talk thrown around by liberals. Just like you hear the traitor slur thrown by some on the right. I don’t throw words like traitor around unless the person is an actual traitor. I don’t think the Taliban slur should be used by liberals, either. Of course, they will still use it and most Christians will get pissed off at them.

  160. 160.

    t. jasper parnell

    February 2, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    It might seem to some that the use of Taliban, as a short hand for religious fundamentalists seeking to create a repressive theocracy, is over the top and and unfair analogy. Clearly, however, Mr. Cole’s purpose was to deploy a charged name to expose the very real danger that this evermore vocal and evermore powerful group, who misuse Christianity for their own wretched puroses, represents for a state that has successfully avoided the horrors and violence of religious sectarianism. HARMs seek to over turn this civil prudence in the name of religious freedom, although like many it is a freedom they assert for themselves and deny to others.

    In this specific incident, the HARMs cannot bring themselves to accept that the apparently religious men and women who made the film do not share a belief about the necessity of shunning and sequestering, at the very least, those whose actions the HARMs see as a sin. This is evidence of a narrow-mindedness of a very high order. It ought properly be outed and called what it is. Mr. Cole is in grevious error concerning modes of exercise and the pleasures of snow; however, his consistant rejection of the politicization of religion is a virtue that far outweighs these unfortunate lapses.

  161. 161.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    Faux – This obsession with Ann and me has to stop. We will not be showing you our panties.

  162. 162.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Just checking in to say I think all comparisons to Nazis and the Taliban is wrong. It diminishes their evil.

    It diminishes their evil? What the fuck kind of warped logic is that?

    I’m a christian. Why would I care if fringe nutjob christians are compared to fringe nutjobs from other religions? Why is it wrong to compare fringe nutjobs? Clearly theres a similarity here. Without having it pointed out how fucked up these people are they tend to get worse. Maybe they’re not as bad as the taliban but I’m all for making fun of them if it’ll prevent them from ever getting as bad as the taliban.

  163. 163.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    Faux – This obsession with Ann and me has to stop. We will not be showing you our panties.

    I for one don’t want to see Coulters panties. I bet she wears boxers anyway, to let her balls hang.

  164. 164.

    Nutcase

    February 2, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    From somewhere upthread… “Keep calling all Christians the American Taliban…”

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that ALL Christians are the American Taliban. But that’s not to say there aren’t some that fit that description.

    In the early 80s, after the mullahs took over Iran and began stoning and flogging and fatwa-ing the hell out of everything, I worked with a couple of guys who thought the mullahs had exactly the right idea. The wrong god, of course, but the right idea.

  165. 165.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    I worked with a couple of guys who thought the mullahs had exactly the right idea. The wrong god, of course, but the right idea.

    The wrong god? Are your friends buddhists? I think theres a sizable portion of this country that is under the impression that muslims and christians don’t follow the same god. Different prophets, same man upstairs. Allah is arabic for god, its not a different guy.

  166. 166.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    My second comment was not directed at John, because he is a Republican.

    And thus, clearly incapable of evil. Thank you for the clarification.

    Tangentially how awesome is Forrest Whittaker on the Shield? (and is it me or is Cavanaugh not ‘all there’?)

  167. 167.

    Nutcase

    February 2, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    “Different prophets, same man upstairs. ”

    Whatever.

  168. 168.

    t. jasper parnell

    February 2, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Actually it is not “different prophets,” for Christians Jesus is God (the whole trinity thing) and not a prophet. Muslims reject the notion that Jesus was God, although it is true that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the the God of Abraham, or at least say they do.

  169. 169.

    Bruce Moomaw

    February 2, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    As a New Republic article a few years ago pointed out, Paul Weyrich’s main aide wrote a novel presenting his idea of an American Christian Utopia, in which convicted “heretics” are routinely burned alive on street corners and all women who choose a career rather than marriage must wear a scarlet “C” on their chests. Yes, guys, we do have an American Taliban — the one thing to be said for it is that it’s a lot smaller than the Moslem one, but that’s not for want of its members trying.

  170. 170.

    Bruce Moomaw

    February 2, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    Of course, we musn’t go TOO far. There are plenty of fundamentalists (as shown on this thread) who wouldn’t support actually firebombing someone’s house for casting a gay actor in a religious movie — they just favor throwing people in jail and/or cutting them off from employment because they engage in an action that does absolutely nothing to hurt anybody else.

  171. 171.

    Bruce Moomaw

    February 2, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    Parenthetically, isn’t it time Stormy changed her nom de Web to “Dotty”?

  172. 172.

    Andrei

    February 2, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    My second comment was not directed at John, because he is a Republican.

    Oh please… dig that hole deeper.

    Cole said very clearly in this post:

    You know what – I am just not going to say anything anymore when the left-wing calls these lunatics the America Taliban. They are.

    But you are going to excuse Cole because he votes Republican? That has to be the height of double standards and hypocrisy. Ok everyone! Claim you are a “Republican” and *NOW* call these extremists the American Taliban and you all get a free pass. The only reason it’s offensive or wrong is because you’re one of those lefties when you do it. Ok Heather, you may now take your turn hitting the ball. Why thank you, Heather! Oh my God Heather, bulimia is so ’87.

    Stormy, honestly… You still make it far too easy.

  173. 173.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Actually it is not “different prophets,” for Christians Jesus is God (the whole trinity thing) and not a prophet. Muslims reject the notion that Jesus was God, although it is true that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the the God of Abraham, or at least say they do.

    I’m not talking about how christians see Jesus. I’m talking about how all three (the same) religions are linked. We are not infidels no matter how often OBL says it. That should be a clue to reasonable folks that not all muslims are out to get us. Only the idiots who are perverting their religion for their own gain need to be watched. The koran speaks very highly of Isa (Jesus).

  174. 174.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    FWIW, I’m betting that the commenter is actually gay and trying to ‘own the slur’

    That was my reaction, too. From what I’ve read on many LGBT blogs, this is a standard procedure. I can’t think of anyone on the left who uses “fag” and isn’t themselves gay.

    But I’m told it happens all the time, so I’m sure some examples will be posted soon.

  175. 175.

    Otto Man

    February 2, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Tangentially how awesome is Forrest Whittaker on the Shield? (and is it me or is Cavanaugh not ‘all there’?)

    He is damn good. Not quite as spectacular as Glenn Close from last season, but damn good.

    And yeah, I think he might be a little off his rocker. Which is going to be great if they push the new Aceveda angle more.

  176. 176.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    Of course that could be just us reacting to the fact that noone in the history of the Shield has ever not had an agenda. WHo knows, he could be the first…

  177. 177.

    W.B. Reeves

    February 2, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    But you are going to excuse Cole because he votes Republican? That has to be the height of double standards and hypocrisy.

    Good catch Andrei. You too Pooh. Like I said. No principles, just prejudices.

    WB – I have no reaction to you calling me reactionary. ;)

    Good policy Dotty, I suggest you follow it more often.

  178. 178.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    I am just not going to say anything anymore when the left-wing calls these lunatics the America Taliban. They are.

    I’m not left-wing and I call the fringe of the religious right the American Taliban all the time.

    Glad you’ve finally came around John.

  179. 179.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    You don’t have to like it, and you can say what you want, but you have crossed into the lefty fever swamps with this comparison.

    Bwhahahhahahaha.

  180. 180.

    JWeidner

    February 2, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Ok Heather, you may now take your turn hitting the ball. Why thank you, Heather! Oh my God Heather, bulimia is so ‘87.

    Whoa! “Heathers” alert!

  181. 181.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Tangentially how awesome is Forrest Whittaker on the Shield? (and is it me or is Cavanaugh not ‘all there’?)

    Yeah, but I have been a fan of his for quite a while. His character is pychopath weird. He makes you tense when he is on the screen. Just a dangerous vibe.

    Once again, I was making a general statement directed towards the left side of the aisle, which John is not quite jumped to yet. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough for you nitpickers of anything I say, and when I clarify it, you guys just skip over it. Just the normal operating procedure for some here. I mean really, why would I want to write a treatise on John’s blog? I try to keep it pithy, for the folks.

    See Drudge for the latest in Nazi and Taliban slurs. Julian Bonds, however, is not a part of the fringe, unless by fringe you mean the NAACP. He does have a track record for slurring others with the Taliban label.

  182. 182.

    a guy called larry

    February 2, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    What I am pointing out is that NONE of the Christian fringe groups wields enough power or influence to even approach being able to get away with some of their more vile tenets—never mind getting those tenets passed into law.

    Of course not. They just need more time.

    I think the name of Jason Janz’s blog should be Sharper Irony. How he breezes through his condemnation of the producer’s choice of actor, in a movie which highlights a family forgiving the murderers of their father, is simply amazing. And I don’t mean Amazing Grace.

  183. 183.

    Stormy70

    February 2, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    I have a Great Aunt Dotty, so I would be honored. I know you guys have to resort to the personal since it’s all you know how to do. Lord knows, you can’t win elections.

  184. 184.

    The Other Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    Jimmie at the Sundries Shack now wants to pretend I am somehow smearing all religious people- I am not. I am merely reacting to the responses of these members of the lunatic fringe.

    It’s fascinating how all these American Taliban think they have a right to speak for me and my personal faith.

  185. 185.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    But because I go to church more or less regularly I’m a member of the Taliban.

    Shut the fuck up. Your spewing bullshit from your mouth with that statement.

  186. 186.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that the word ‘fag’ was being used for emphasis, as in, “I should know because that’s me you’re talking about, honey, and that’s what they call us”.

    Absolutely agreed, and I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that the preacher who kicked off this whole thread said “probably be an overreaction to firebomb” for emphasis through understatement, as in “Ummmmm, I think the doctor probably knows a little more about medicine than you do, Grandma, so take your pills.”

    But I see that if some people are predisposed to believe that these people are crazy and violent by nature, they will post headlines like “Firebomb These Men’s Houses” (the opposite of what was said) and call them Taliban, which everyone with a brain would consider a silly equivalence that softens the brutal edge of the Taliban.

  187. 187.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    Krista,
    You don’t understand the meaning of “subtext”. If you did, most of your response to my last comment would not have been necessary. And on the subject of my attitudes toward women, I think my wife and daughters can speak at any time for my sensitivities and sensibilities and demonstrate that I’m nothing close to a misogynist. Then, they’d take you apart limb-from-limb, verbally of course. Show me anywhere I have used the word “twat”, or anything close to it, to describe anyone, let alone a woman.

    Pb,
    As usual, you write, but say nothing.

  188. 188.

    Andrei

    February 2, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Apparently I wasn’t clear enough for you nitpickers of anything I say, and when I clarify it, you guys just skip over it.

    Nitpickers? My God… You say something obviously untrue, I call you on it with obvious factual evidence, then you try to clarify what you said that was in conflict with you first misstatment, and I call you on the hypocrisy of the statement and that’s nitpicking?

    LMAO.

    At some point Stormy, you’re going to look in the mirror and realize the problem isn’t the nitpickers, it’s your sloppy approach to holding any sort of conversation or debate. One would think a person who votes for the “accountability” party would understand such a simple concept.

  189. 189.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    You see guys, the real problem with the American Taliban is that you have members such as Bauder, who adovocate firebombing, and then you have Taliban-sympathizes like Stormy, Brian, and Mac Buckets.

    The problem is, that many on the right don’t actually view them as a threat. For those people I have two words:

    Terri Schiavo.

  190. 190.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    *sympathizers

  191. 191.

    Perry Como

    February 2, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    Lord knows, you can’t win elections.

    Awesome.

  192. 192.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    “…..and call them Taliban, which everyone with a brain would consider a silly equivalence that softens the brutal edge of the Taliban.

    Exactly.

    The John Cole apologists stretch to rationalize an inapt comparison, Statement from a Numbskull = Religious Right = American Taliban = ex Pseudo-Afghan government devoted to the destruction of the West and that was a subset of OBL’s terrorist strategy.

  193. 193.

    Andrei

    February 2, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    The John Cole apologists stretch to rationalize an inapt comparison

    LMAO.

    Hey Cole… I’m now one of your apologists! How fucking funny is that?

  194. 194.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    and call them Taliban, which everyone with a brain would consider a silly equivalence that softens the brutal edge of the Taliban.

    No one with a brain would think it takes the edge off their brutality. Thats ri-goddamn-diculous. You seriously think that comparing fringe nuts in america to the taliban in any way makes the taliban look less crazy? How? No one said these american crackpots makes the taliban look like a choir. You got your comparisons backwards and rather than undrstand whats really being said you try to stop the talking? Is that how the right wing works? Do you not have any independant thought over there? everything has to be an approved message, thought, comparison? Do you realize this is some of the stuff the taliban does or do you think they only do nasty brutal stuff?

  195. 195.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    TDV,

    What about Terri Schiavo? Some of us, who may identify as Republican or conservative, yet don’t align ourselves with fundamentalist Christianity, saw an adulterous man anxious to end his disabled wife’s life over the objections of her relatives, supported by a large and vocal segment of the population that openly cheered him on in his quest.

    It’s this that we were objecting to, not any slavish allegiance to the fundamentalists.

  196. 196.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    an inapt comparison

    How is it inapt? does it lessen the brutality of th etaliban or is it inapt? Is it both? Is it also many other things you can say to keep from giving issues the amount of thought they require?

    I hate when smart people are afriad of learning.

  197. 197.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    Hey Cole… I’m now one of your apologists! How fucking funny is that?

    Why else would you all contort yourself so uncomfortably to support such a ridiculous comparison?

    Call this site The Cole Mine. Always workin’ for Massa John.

  198. 198.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    saw an adulterous man anxious to end his disabled wife’s life over the objections of her relatives

    Is that all you saw? There was more to it than that.

  199. 199.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Call this site The Cole Mine. Always workin’ for Massa John.

    Wow. Most people here are working against John most of the time but whatever newbie.

  200. 200.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    TDV,

    What about Terri Schiavo? Some of us, who may identify as Republican or conservative, yet don’t align ourselves with fundamentalist Christianity, saw an adulterous man anxious to end his disabled wife’s life over the objections of her relatives, supported by a large and vocal segment of the population that openly cheered him on in his quest.

    LOL! Brian, I want to thank you for of all. You just proved my point about being people like you being an American Taliban sympathizer. Now you may not be religious but if you approved of the legistlature and executive’s intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, then you are a friend and supporter of the American Taliban.

  201. 201.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    Taliban-sympathizes like Stormy, Brian, and Mac Buckets.

    You’ve got nothing, as usual, DV. Pathetic.

  202. 202.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    *I want to thank you frist of all

  203. 203.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    ‘frist of all’? I always see frist instead first on ameriblog. Its intentional ain’t it?

  204. 204.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    This bears repeating since many people are missing the point.

    John Cole Says:

    Jack- I don’t know where you came up with this bizarre conceptualization of what the Taliban is, but the most salient feature of the Taliban is not whether or not they are in control of a government. Right now, the Taliban is not in charge of Afghanistan. Does that mean they are no longer the Taliban? Of course not. The Taliban exists independent of government, but hey truly became a menace when they seized control of the government.

    I swear, some of you people would say that it’s unfair to compare a neo-Nazi rally to the Nazis, because the neo-Nazis didn’t kill 6 million Jews.

  205. 205.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    If being a newbie is reading the site for over a year, then sure, call me a newbie, dipshit.

    And why is John’s comparison inapt? Leaders under the Taliban were known for doing things like cutting the ears off children for not reading their religious texts loudly enough. That’s but one small example of them.

    No reasonable person can equate our religious fundamentalists with the Taliban, because the behavior and beliefs are nowhere near comparable.

  206. 206.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    You’ve got nothing, as usual, DV. Pathetic.

    Well Mac, if you call that a rebutal to my statement then I feel bad for you. You disagree with me calling you a Taliban sympathizer? Well how about we look at your own statements:

    I know you dislike the Christians, JC, but that Taliban comment says more about you than about them.

    But I see that if some people are predisposed to believe that these people are crazy and violent by nature, they will post headlines like “Firebomb These Men’s Houses” (the opposite of what was said) and call them Taliban, which everyone with a brain would consider a silly equivalence that softens the brutal edge of the Taliban.

  207. 207.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    ‘frist of all’? I always see frist instead first on ameriblog. Its intentional ain’t it?

    I’m actually banned from AmericaBLOG. It was a typo.

  208. 208.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    I have pretty much said what I wanted to on this issue, but I would like to add this plea- Could I please return my apologists for some new ones who don’t spend most of their time stabbing me in the back?

  209. 209.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    Where did I say that I approved of what Congress did in Schiavo? It was tasteless on both sides, but there was something really distasteful and sad about how the pro-Michael Schiavo group went about cheering on a person’s demise. And I can understand why Congress reacted the way it did, even though it was a misguided use of political power. I’d rather to see people err on the side of life rather than egging on death. Why does that equate me with some “American Taliban”?

    Weren’t some of you advocating the overturning of a California death row inmate last month because he was old and feeble?

  210. 210.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Could I please return my apologists for some new ones who don’t spend most of their time stabbing me in the back?

    They’re more like ankle-biting puppies; pesky, but they do it out of looooove.

  211. 211.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Could I please return my apologists for some new ones who don’t spend most of their time stabbing me in the back?

    Who are you kidding John?

    When I stab you, I stab you in the front.

    Heh.

  212. 212.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    I’d like to see evidence that a large segment of the population was cheering for Terri Schiavo’s death, please. Because it seems like total bullshit to me.

  213. 213.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    You seriously think that comparing fringe nuts in america to the taliban in any way makes the taliban look less crazy? How? No one said these american crackpots makes the taliban look like a choir. You got your comparisons backwards and rather than undrstand whats really being said you try to stop the talking?

    In order: Yes. By bogus equivalence. Of course, no one would be stupid enough tosay it, except maybe ex-NBA forward Larry Johnson (who said that being an NBA player was just like being a slave). Yes, I try and stop the talk linking the Taliban with preachers calling for boycotts, because it’s a stupid equivalence. If I think you are not terribly bright, would it be fair to say you are retarded? Of course not, because there are levels of low intelligence, just like there are levels of religious intolerance.

    Of course, that takes nuanced thought, and some think black-and-white is much more fun.

  214. 214.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    Why does that equate me with some “American Taliban”?

    Because the apologist post you just made above let’s them get away with the bullshit that they do. And spare me the bullshit that people were actually cheering for her death. That’s absolutely ridiculous and shows your irrationality.

    Weren’t some of you advocating the overturning of a California death row inmate last month because he was old and feeble?

    I sure as hell wasn’t. And I’m sure that anyone who did, didn’t do it because he was old and feeble. Some people, who morally disagree with the DP, think all clemecies should be granted.

    Since I disagree with the DP as a policy, I’m not big on clemency.

  215. 215.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Well Mac, if you call that a rebutal to my statement then I feel bad for you.

    DV, The part you unfortunately keep leaving out, because you’ve got nothing, is how anything I said makes me a sympathizer.

  216. 216.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    I suggest you read the examples I posted then. You must have skipped over them.

  217. 217.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    The comment below, said by Steve, gets right to the heart of the issue.

    I swear, some of you people would say that it’s unfair to compare a neo-Nazi rally to the Nazis, because the neo-Nazis didn’t kill 6 million Jews.

  218. 218.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Could I please return my apologists for some new ones who don’t spend most of their time stabbing me in the back?

    I agree with TDV, we stab you in the front so we can look you in the eye when we apologize. So you know we are being sincere.

  219. 219.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    I swear, some of you people would say that it’s unfair to compare a neo-Nazi rally to the Nazis, because the neo-Nazis didn’t kill 6 million Jews.

    Neo-Nazis believe in the principles of the Nazis. The simple, bottom-line fact is the people some would slur with the term “American Taliban” do not believe in the principles of the actual Taliban. Need we go over what the Taliban does/did? Compare that with…calls for letter-writing and boycotts?

    Yeah, that’s the same.

  220. 220.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    Leaders under the Taliban were known for doing things like cutting the ears off children for not reading their religious texts loudly enough. That’s but one small example of them.

    No reasonable person can equate our religious fundamentalists with the Taliban, because the behavior and beliefs are nowhere near comparable.

    Since no one in the american taliban is cutting off ears then there can be no comparisons made between them? You’ve found a distincition, thats all, it doesn’t mean there aren’t similarities between them in other areas. You don’t know if they aren’t comparable until you sit down and compare them. I see two comparable things. I may find more differences than similarities but they’re still comparable.

    If I think you are not terribly bright, would it be fair to say you are retarded?

    No, jackass, you couldn’t say I was retarded but you could still compare a not too terribly bright person to someone who is retarded. And you’ll find similarities and differences. Comparing them doesn’t mean equivalence, doesn’t even imply equivalence.

  221. 221.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    What the hell you want me to do, DV? Call a spade a spade, sure, but we can’t arrest the guy for making a dumb statement. If he firebombs someone’s house, then put him behind bars and make him an example of how that isn’t tolerated ’round here. Until then, he’s not getting away with anything. He’s getting his just desserts by getting exposed, and hopefully flailed.

    It’s the “Bush = Nazi”, “fundamentalist Christians = American Taliban”, “immigration reformists = racist protectionsists”, “Pittsburgh Steelers = Super Bowl XL Champions” shit that makes no sense because it’s not grounded in reality.

  222. 222.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    Need we go over what the Taliban does/did? Compare that with…calls for letter-writing and boycotts?

    Compare it to how the taliban got started, their beginnings as a movement, and maybe you’d be on to something.

    Or continue to be an ignorant ass who doesn’t need to study anything because you’ve already got the amswers.

  223. 223.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    The analogy isn’t perfect, but you don’t see any similarities Mac? Come on.

  224. 224.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Neo-Nazis believe in the principles of the Nazis. The simple, bottom-line fact is the people some would slur with the term “American Taliban” do not believe in the principles of the actual Taliban. Need we go over what the Taliban does/did? Compare that with…calls for letter-writing and boycotts?

    Well, if you believe that the guy was only calling for “letter-writing and boycotts,” then that’s where you differ with John, since obviously he felt there was an implied threat of violence here.

    Do you seriously think that if the guy had said in his blog post “we must boycott these blasphemers, and never buy their products!” then John Cole still would have called them the American Taliban? Obviously, you have a fundamental disagreement about what the guy was saying, and that’s the real issue.

    I’m not sure myself – I’d imagine people would generally be cautious about posting an out-and-out call for violence on the Internet – but recall that the guy ended his blog post by saying, “Where is Bob Jones, Jr. when we need him?” Bob Jones, Jr. used to get off on praying for the deaths of the unrighteous, so I think you shouldn’t take his peaceful intent for granted.

  225. 225.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    “Pittsburgh Steelers = Super Bowl XL Champions” shit that makes no sense because it’s not grounded in reality.

    POTD

  226. 226.

    jg

    February 2, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    It’s the “Bush = Nazi”, “fundamentalist Christians = American Taliban”, “immigration reformists = racist protectionsists”, “Pittsburgh Steelers = Super Bowl XL Champions” shit that makes no sense because it’s not grounded in reality.

    Why do you keep using the equal sign? No one said Bush=Nazi. What was said was you cvan see parallels between the neo-con revolution and the rise of the nazis, not the ideology, the steps taken to gain power. The right will never turn into nazis, never anything close, but that doesn’t mean I can’t compare the rise of the movements.

  227. 227.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    Steve,

    Doesn’t this seem to you as an example of a guy who knows pretty much where the Brandenburg line is, and is getting as close as possible without going over the line? (Sort of like Debs’s “We all know what I’m talking about, but I can’t actually say it.”) Has firebombing historically such been a problem for these guys that they need to make specific instructions not to. (I’d always sort of assumed that firebombing was a Bad Thing) Why even bring ‘firebombing’ into the discussion?

  228. 228.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    POTD

    Agreed, Pooh. Brian caught me completely off-guard with that funny remark.

    And Brian, I’m sorry but saying that the people who call the radical element in the religious right, the American Taliban, is akin to the people who call Bush, Hitler, is pretty outlandish.

  229. 229.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    P.S. Bush could never be Hitler.

    Hitler was smart.

  230. 230.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    Actually, Pooh, I posted an analysis of the Biblical verses at issue earlier on, where I concluded that maybe the guy WAS just urging a boycott. Although I still don’t get the Bob Jones thing.

    But yeah, I agree, it definitely does read like someone who’s deliberately trying to be cute about it. Let’s put it this way, I don’t think he’s committed a crime, but if one of his followers DID firebomb someone’s house as a result, I think he’d look pretty culpable.

  231. 231.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    Glad I could add some levity to the proceedings.

    I worry more about stuff like this than I do about fundamentalists. This is happening, in my back yard. Yeah, it’s an easy target: smokers. But it represents a crackdown on “sin”, under the guise of protecting health, that is opposite of where our laws should be directed.

  232. 232.

    Brian

    February 2, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    P.S. Bush could never be Hitler.

    Hitler was smart.

    Ba-dump…..psshhhh! Thank you everyone, DV will be here all week, headlining for Jackie Mason.

  233. 233.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    But it represents a crackdown on “sin”, under the guise of protecting health, that is opposite of where our laws should be directed.

    I agree with you Brian. Public smoking bans piss me off, and I don’t even smoke.

    If businesses want to ban smoking, let them make their own decision. It’s not for the state to make that decision for a private business.

    However, I do think the radical religious right is much more of a threat.

  234. 234.

    t. jasper parnell

    February 2, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    It is an error to assert that the shared belief in the God of Abraham obviates all theology controversies. From the Muslim perspective to assert that Jesus is God is a form of polytheism and thus a heresy. To wit:
    2.135] And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be on the right course. Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim, the Hanif, and he was not one of the polytheists.
    [2.136] Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
    In otherwords, from the Koran’s perpective to assert that Trinity is a polytheistic heresy. The positive comments about Jesus/Isa in the Koran are provocative from the Christian perspective because they deny His divinity and reduce Him to merely one of a series of prophets, of whom Mohamed is the last and greatest.

    From the Christian perspect to deny Jesus’ divinity is a heresy. Indeed, messing about with Jesus’ divine nature is very nearly the oldest heresy (see arianism) and the most dangerous (see socinianism). To be sure, many have argued, and indeed shown, that the best evidence for the Trinity is an later interpolation (see the Johnine Coma); nonetheless, the belief in and rejection of the Trinity are a rather large sticking points and either of which allows one side to accuse the other of being, you know, wrong in a meaningful way.

    In short, the fact that both Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the God of Abraham does not preclude any of the confessants from accusing the other of being infidels, heretics, and, generally speaking, bums of the first order.

    It would be nice, for those who wish to unite instead of divide, if the opposite were the case.

  235. 235.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 8:01 pm

    Smoking bans are more of a workplace safety issue than a customer issue, as yeah, the customer does have a choice to go to a smoking restaurant or a non-smoking one. But a worker pretty much has a right to a healthy work environment, or at least they did back when it was thought workers were entitled to anything more than what the free market gives them.

  236. 236.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 8:28 pm

    Could I please return my apologists for some new ones who don’t spend most of their time stabbing me in the back?

    Ouch.

    Is it stabbing in the back, John? I think that most of your frequent commenters are more likely to bludgeon you in the head, and then bond with you over football.

  237. 237.

    Pooh

    February 2, 2006 at 8:58 pm

    bludgeon you in the head, and then bond with you over football.

    Where I come from, that’s the same thing…Of course, we play with only 11 a side, so who knows what you people do.

  238. 238.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 9:19 pm

    I was just being rhetorical. I know nothing of football.

  239. 239.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 9:27 pm

    That’s a shame. I have some friends who are big fans of the Manitoba Moose.

  240. 240.

    Krista

    February 2, 2006 at 9:30 pm

    Steve – the what? :) Sorry guys, I’ve never been one for watching sports. I’m more of a participator than a watcher.

  241. 241.

    Pb

    February 2, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    Brian,

    Here’s a tip: if you don’t understand what the adults are saying, then keep your trap shut and listen–you might learn a thing or two.

  242. 242.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    the guy ended his blog post by saying, “Where is Bob Jones, Jr. when we need him?” Bob Jones, Jr. used to get off on praying for the deaths of the unrighteous, so I think you shouldn’t take his peaceful intent for granted.

    Praying for God to “smite” Alexander Haig’s lungs and hips(IIRC), while wacko if you ask me, is distinct from asking people to it. It seems like Jones left that kind of thing up to The Man Upstairs…who obviously rejected it, as Haig is still with us, while Jones took the dirt nap a few years ago.

  243. 243.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 10:54 pm

    Since no one in the american taliban is cutting off ears then there can be no comparisons made between them? You’ve found a distincition, thats all, it doesn’t mean there aren’t similarities between them in other areas.

    Shorter leftians:

    Equivalences don’t have to be perfect, if we make them, but if a rightie tries to compare Saddam to Hitler or the Iraq War to WWII, we’ll post five hundred times about how the two aren’t the same, so you can’t compare anything about the two ever.

  244. 244.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    Compare it to how the taliban got started, their beginnings as a movement, and maybe you’d be on to something.

    Or continue to be an ignorant ass who doesn’t need to study anything because you’ve already got the amswers.

    jg — Tell me more about those early Taliban letter-writing campaigns and boycotts, Mr. History! I wouldn’t want to stay an ignorant ass, not with your wealth of wisdom so near at hand!

  245. 245.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    The Iraq War and WWII are quite similar. I mean they were both wars.

    The problem with your statement Mac is that both the “Saddam was the new Hitler” and the “Iraq War and WWII are alike” comments are not grounded in reality.

    The American Taliban one is grounded in reality.

    Let me take you back in time for some of the events that occured because of the Schiavo case:

    Police say a man tried to steal gun to `rescue Terri Schiavo’

    SEMINOLE, Fla. Police in Florida have arrested a man they say tried to rob a gun store so he could rescue brain-damaged Terri Schiavo (SHY’-voh).
    Police say the man entered the store yesterday with a box cutter intending to steal a gun so he could “take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo.”

    They say he had driven down from Illinois Wednesday and had visited the hospice that’s been caring for Schiavo.

    The owner of the gun store says the man broke the glass on a couple of display cases and told him, “If I wasn’t on Terri’s side then I wasn’t on God’s side, either.”

    Schiavo case results in threats, prompting calls for calm

    New York Daily News

    TAMPA, Fla. – (KRT) – As Terri Schiavo weakens and legal options peter out, tension here is intensifying.

    Some pro-life activists are making ugly threats, making up “Wanted” posters for lawmakers and handing out the home addresses of judges who rejected legal appeals to keep Schiavo alive.

    “I am afraid,” said state Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami, who has received numerous death threats by phone and mail because she voted against a measure to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tube. “We’re talking about the sanctity of life, and (they’re) threatening my life.”

    The nine Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure showed up on anonymous “Wanted” posters that appeared in the state capitol in Tallahassee. State Sen. Nancy Argenziano said one of the “un-Christian” voice mails she’s received wished stomach cancer on her.

    Gov. Jeb Bush said he was all but out of options for helping the couple.

    “[My powers] are not as expansive as people would want them to be. I understand they are acting on their heart, and I fully appreciate their sentiments and the emotions that go with this,” Bush told the Capitol News Service. “I’ve consistently said that I can’t go beyond what my powers are.”

    The day’s events were capped with an evening hearing in downtown Tampa, where police cordoned off an area around the federal courthouse and brought in a bomb squad when a suspicious package was discovered outside.

    Bomb squad officers eventually exploded the package, and no one was injured.

  246. 246.

    Mac Buckets

    February 2, 2006 at 11:58 pm

    The problem with your statement Mac is that both the “Saddam was the new Hitler” and the “Iraq War and WWII are alike” comments are not grounded in reality.

    The American Taliban one is grounded in reality.

    Oh, well, if you assert it, it must be true! Thanks for proving the point.

  247. 247.

    Pb

    February 3, 2006 at 1:04 am

    Mac Buckets,

    I assert it as well, and raise with the assertion that you are a dishonest idiot. Now, feel free to back up your ‘case’ about how Saddam is Hitler and the Iraq War is WWII, I could use a few laughs.

  248. 248.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 3, 2006 at 1:13 am

    What PB said.

    Personally, I’d love to see your Iraq War is War World II comparisson first.

  249. 249.

    The Other Steve

    February 3, 2006 at 1:30 am

    Some of us, who may identify as Republican or conservative, yet don’t align ourselves with fundamentalist Christianity, saw an adulterous man anxious to end his disabled wife’s life over the objections of her relatives, supported by a large and vocal segment of the population that openly cheered him on in his quest.

    Well then you’re a fucking idiot, if that’s your perception.

    Next question, please.

  250. 250.

    Pb

    February 3, 2006 at 2:40 am

    The Other Steve,

    Man, that’s a tough crowd. Just imagine what they must have thought of Newt Gingrich!

  251. 251.

    Mac Buckets

    February 3, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Personally, I’d love to see your Iraq War is War World II comparisson first.

    When it’s on-topic. It’s almost as hilarious as the American Taliban comparison!

  252. 252.

    Mac Buckets

    February 3, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    Can we call them the “Liberal Taliban”?

    The Capitol police officer who arrested activist Cindy Sheehan went home from work early on Wednesday after receiving death threats.

  253. 253.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 3, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    When it’s on-topic. It’s almost as hilarious as the American Taliban comparison!

    Which translates into: “I got nothing.”

  254. 254.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 3, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Can we call them the “Liberal Taliban”?

    No, as Sheehan and Camp Casey tards aren’t part of a religious movement.

    You can call the liberal extremists if you’d like. Or liberal wackos, etc.

  255. 255.

    DougJ

    February 3, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    You think this wasn’t happening under Clinton? Don’t you remember Firebombgate? When Hillary firebombed the offices of a rival Arkansas law firm? Boy, you guys have short memories.

  256. 256.

    scs

    February 3, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.“
    …You know what- I am just not going to say anything anymore when the left-wing calls these lunatics the America Taliban. They are.

    First of all, I’m not really sure how the speaker meant what he said to be taken. Perhaps he did not phrase what he was saying well, really meaning to say “we should not overreact”. Maybe the best way to ascertain this is to see whether this speaker has advocated violence in the past.

    But even if he did intend a veiled threat by this, I think it’s unfair for John to then say, “They” are the American Taliban. I’m am sure, I know, there are loonies on all sides of the political and religious spectrum. By using the word “They”, John is implying that this is not the words of an isolated loony, but some sort of political movement of significance.

    As far as I am aware, I do not see many examples that occur of firebombing done by American religious groups, or even the loonies, for political causes here in the US. I do not see mass terrorization and violence in an organzied scale to adopt cerain fundamentalist beliefs. And if there are any isolated incidences, they are condemned by any fundamentalist leadership. Instead I see a lot of emails campaigns, fundraising, media appearance, and demonstrating. Hardly the techniques of the real Taliban. So for John to say he won’t defend “them” anymore from being called the American Taliban was unfair. Perhaps he did not express himself in the way he meant to in this case.

  257. 257.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 3, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    Heh, I knew I could count on scs to be an apologist as well.

    Afterall she did make a case for accepting the ID theory…

  258. 258.

    W.B. Reeves

    February 3, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    As far as I am aware, I do not see many examples that occur of firebombing done by American religious groups, or even the loonies, for political causes here in the US. I do not see mass terrorization and violence in an organzied scale to adopt cerain fundamentalist beliefs.

    Does the name Army of God ring a bell with you? Awareness is dependent on knowlege and knowlege is something that has to be sought. If you are unaware of the long string of murders, bombings, assaults and kidnappings carried by folks who believe they are on a mission from God, then I’m afraid you’ve been imitating an ostrich.

  259. 259.

    scs

    February 3, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    Heh, I knew I could count on scs to be an apologist as well.

    SOMEONE has to provide a counter balance to you all.

  260. 260.

    W.B. Reeves

    February 4, 2006 at 4:09 am

    As far as I am aware, I do not see many examples that occur of firebombing done by American religious groups, or even the loonies, for political causes here in the US. I do not see mass terrorization and violence in an organzied scale to adopt cerain fundamentalist beliefs.

    Still waiting for SCS to explain how the extensive, voluminously documented history of terrorism and murder committed in this country under the color of religion escaped her notice.

  261. 261.

    Larry

    February 4, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    gun and hatchet attacks overnight at a gay bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts.

    OMG

    Just catching up here @ BJ, and what pops up, but the city where I was born and raised!

    Remember the pool table rape memorialized in The Accused ? – My little town.

    In The Perfect Storm, author Junger compares Gloucester to New Bedford, (paraphrase) “If Gloucester is the seventeen year old getting in trouble for stealing cars, New Bedford is the older brother doing 25 to life for murder.”

    Also nice to see New Bedford catching up in the always competitive Southeastern MA sharp-edged-tools-used-to-kill-people category.

    Neighboring (and traditional football rival) Fall River dominated the division thanks to the devastating performance of the lovely Lizzie Borden.

    We’re back.
    Go Whalers!

  262. 262.

    TallDave

    February 6, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    John, you blew it on this one. When he talks about firebombing, he is clearly setting it up as a ridiculously over-the-top idea as a contrast to what he fells is a too-tepid response, like saying “Nuking France is probably an overreaction to the bad bottle of French wine I just had, but I still think our group should at least quit buying it.”

    Here is the actual post:

    http://nossobrii.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_nossobrii_archive.html

    Elsewhere on his blog you can find statements on civil disobedience. Sorry, there’s nothing to indicate he seriously advocates any kind of violence, other than one out-of-context quote.

    The NYT tried to smear the guy as a violent religious extremist, and you fell for it.

    I disagree with the guy’s arguments, but he’s nothing like the Taliban.

  263. 263.

    exlibris

    February 7, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    John,

    I’m afraid TallDave is right. Go to the following link and read the apology. You won’t find any of the uptight turbans of the Taliban doing this:

    http://nossobrii.blogspot.com/2006/02/explanation-and-apology.html

    Besides, from what I’ve seen on this blog, you have topped what this guy has done over and over again in this this rambling stream of consciousness.

    FWIIW

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Sundries Shack says:
    February 2, 2006 at 11:35 am

    […] Well, it looks like the insulting and highly inaccurate sobriquet of “American Taliban” has been slapped on the religious once more. This time, by John Cole. This does not take many of us by surprise. Every time a religous person makes a religious statement in protest of anything at all, Cole is there to do his best reverse Cotton Mather. […]

  2. The Sundries Shack says:
    February 3, 2006 at 1:03 am

    […] John Cole has graciously, but a bit disingenuously, responded to my earlier post on his new acceptance of the term “American Taliban”. Here, in part, is what he had to say. And this is the kind of dishonest crap that gives these lunatics the cover they need to operate. Jimmie at the Sundries Shack now wants to pretend I am somehow smearing all religious people- I am not. I am merely reacting to the responses of these members of the lunatic fringe. My father is one of the most deeply religious people I know, born a Southern Baptist, practicing his entire life, and dedicating thousands of hours to the local church. I would never think he or those like him, or my deeply religious friends at Red State, are members of the “American Taliban.” But these lunatics, in particular the ones who have been waging jihad against homosexuals and who would even THINK to firebomb someone’s house because a gay actor appeared in a movie, are precisely as they have been labeled. […]

  3. The Sundries Shack says:
    February 3, 2006 at 10:24 pm

    […] Michelle notes that an American artist is exhibiting a painting of Osama bin Laden as Jesus Christ. Someone might want to alert John Cole so he can go on Code Red American Taliban Watch. No word yet on if any Baptists have issued a fatwa or called for an “international day of anger”, but we can always hope, right? […]

  4. Balloon Juice says:
    February 4, 2006 at 9:26 am

    […] Well, actually, no I didn’t. I even explained in pretty clear detail who I was talking about and he has chosen to intentionally conflate my direct condemnation of the behavior of Bauder and those like him with all Christians. […]

  5. The Sundries Shack says:
    August 12, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    […] That’s important to remember. People like John Cole sling around phrases like “American Taliban” or decry us as “god-soaked sheep” and Andrew Sullivan wails about “Christianists” and gin up fear of a New Puritanism where those who do not hew to the Old Time Religion will be cast into stocks or beaten in the streets. […]

  6. The Sundries Shack says:
    November 2, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    […] I tell you, it’s tough to put together a good American Taliban if you can’t get agreement on the basics. Filed under: […]

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/10.25)

Recent Comments

  • Ruckus on No Data, No Source, More Vibes (May 12, 2025 @ 1:18pm)
  • The Lodger on Blessed Increase! (May 12, 2025 @ 1:07pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on No Data, No Source, More Vibes (May 12, 2025 @ 1:06pm)
  • Jackie on No Data, No Source, More Vibes (May 12, 2025 @ 1:06pm)
  • Rusty on No Data, No Source, More Vibes (May 12, 2025 @ 1:04pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!