Jimmie at the Sundries Shack may be a one trick pony, but he is rambling on with a steady gait. He continues to dishonestly pretend that I somehow smeared all Christians as members of the “American Taliban,” in not one, not two, but three more posts. The lowlights, if you will, from Jimmie:
The fact is that he unhesitatingly accepted the left’s definition of “American Taliban”which, as we all know pretty darned well, includes every Christian who as much as makes a public profession of their faith, or attempts to use their faith to help determine their political judgements, or so much as says out loud that it might not be the smartest idea to cast a public gay activist in an overtly Christian movie.
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.
Why? I don’t know, but it is reminiscent of the late Y. Arafat and the type of behavior he would engage in to deflect legitimate criticism of the armed thugs who worked for him. Say something nasty about the militants in Fatah who were murdering innocents, and you were criticizing all Palestinians. It is an old trick, and I am not impressed.
Jimmie also seems to think that because someone is obscure, they are less of a threat:
Tagging obscure representatives of various Christian religions (really, how many Baptists have ever heard of the Central Baptist Seminary, and is Minnesota really going to be the launching point for the New Crusades Against the Heathen?) is an even worse offense against those who are, right now, trying to rid Afghanistan of the deplorable theocrats.
Because someone is obscure does not make them harmless or less of a threat. How many of you heard of Eric Rudolph before the Olympic bombings and the bombings of abortion clinics? Me either. I can’t believe people want to pretend that violent religious extremists don’t exist- go read Dave Neiwert, for goodness sakes. Go check the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Go check out the ADL webpages.
In another post, I am taunted because American Christians have not reacted to a piece of art depicting Osama bin Laden as Christ the same way Muslims have reacted to cartoons of Allah. I would never expect American Christians to behave that way- perhaps Jimmie, down in the muck defending the fringe of the radical Christian right, has lower expectations for them. At any rate, congratulations, Jimmie- your lunatics are less violent and dangerous than their lunatics (and no, I am not talking about all Christians, you halfwit). Sleep tight.
In short, Jimmie has nothing to say, and has now just resorted to cheap taunting– no argument, no case- just fake umbrage that somehow he and other Christians have been smeared. He can continue to play these dishonest games, and continue to give rhetorical and political cover to people he should be speaking out against, and I can start ignoring him, something I should have done from the beginning.
*** Update ***
Pb
Methinks that Jimmie needs a lesson in demographics–the majority of America is Christian, as is the majority of liberals. It makes no sense for liberals to be referring to themselves as “the American taliban”, but it should be pretty clear to anyone who knows anything about the repressive social practices of the taliban what to which they are referring. So–is Jimmie being disingenuous, or just unbelievably stupid?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I think he is being a little bit of both Pb.
I’ve been having a back and forth with him over there and he is in denial about the AT. He thinks that events that take place are completely unrelated and that there are no organized religious wacko groups. So he’s either in denial or being willfully ignorant.
ppGaz
If you thought “inside the beltway” was exciting stuff, just wait until you get a load of “inside the blogosphere.”
Goose bumps. Seriously. This is what I come here for.
Steve
The right-wing seems congenitally incapable of distinguishing between violent, extremist Muslims and the millions of ordinary, peaceful Muslims, so I’m not surprised they get hung up on this problem, either. When they look at John Cole and see a bigot who insulted an entire religious group, they’re really looking at themselves.
Laura
Feigned stupidity is a common tactic.
I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and though I attend a different church as an adult, some of the kindest, most charitable people I’ve ever met met were at my childhood church. Like John’s father, my grandmother was the most deeply religious person I’ve ever met. She was also the least judgemental person I ever knew. She had nothing in common with the people John called American Taliban. So, not being an idiot, I knew he wasn’t smearing her, his own father, or any of the rest of us who are Christian.
It’s this kind of arrogance that from the right that is especially offensive. Contrary to the above statement, many on the left are open about their faith. They might not be as vocal politically as the extreme right wing (though that’s changing), but they’re just as faithful. And while my grandmother could not have been described as liberal (although by today’s standards, she was), she was a life-long Democrat. The overwhelming message of the Bible is serving the poor, and my grandmother believed the Democrats did a better job at that. It was her deep faith that determined her political judgement. And she is hardly unique among people Jimmie would label as the “left.”
ppGaz
You guys don’t get it. There’s no need for a defense against this crap. The entire “bashing christians” meme is a fake, a rhetorical weapon in an arsenal of false characterizations and relentless browbeating.
Simply tell the “accusers” to go fuck themselves. They don’t speak for, or represent, christians, and they don’t have any real beef. They are simply pandering to an extreme demographic and using you (John Cole, or whoever happens to be in the spotlight today) as a whipping boy.
Fuck them. Don’t waste your time on them.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I think Jimmi just banned me, or at least made it so my comments won’t be posted over there until he approves them.
And even though some of you may find this hard to believe, I was completely civil with him the entire time. In fact, I don’t even think I cursed once, or attacked him personally in anyway, other than saying he is giving cover to people in the American Taliban.
Obviously, the guy can’t handle honest debate.
demimondian
No, ppG, it isn’t. That kind of lie is a long-established tradition, whether you refer to all conservatives as “hating the working man” or if you refer to all liberals as “hating our social norms”. As stated, both claims are lies…but they’re close enough to the truth that they can be used to slime, and, if challenged, back away from. (Think about it: the mainstream right believes that we need to balance the rights of the few against the desires of the many, and the mainstream left believes that we need to balance the rights of the few against desires of the many. Far from being appalling, those are good things. But you can’t motivate your base by saying nice things about the opposition — particularly if you wind up saying that it’s all about priorities.)
ppGaz
Eh? I can’t figger your post. Spoof? Serious?
Are you saying that it’s not a lie to say that John is bashing all christians?
Or …..?
ppGaz
Yer funnin’ me now, right?
All administration of rights is a balancing act. I won’t try to speak for the right, but the left’s approach as I understand it is that the rights of the marginalized are the underpinning of the rights of the many. That is to say, if you toss the rights of the weak and powerless, or unpopular, you toss the rights of the many at the same time. The rights of the majority rest on the protection of the rights of the minority.
But …. why am I explaining this to you? Surely you know that and are just having a little fun at our expense ….?
Bob In Pacifica
You didn’t have a picture of Jesus atop an M-1 tank, did you?
ppGaz
New rule: Spoofers have to spoof. Faked, ambiguous or desultory spoofing will not be tolerated.
Pb
You know, when I think back on my time in college, I had a lot of fun arguing with the local itinerant preachers, but the one who really stood out was Gary Birdsong. I can attest that the descriptions on that page are pretty accurate–he’s squarely in the “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen” camp. I remember one time when he was talking about how you should deal with a recalcitrant spouse–“just give her a little ‘love tap'”. Just about everyone who listened to Gary for any length of time was horrified, amused, or embarrassed by what he had to say; some of the more zealous Christians who disagreed with his particular twisted interpretations would get particularly angry at him, arguing that what he was preaching was actually turning people away from Christianity. Jimmie, this is the sort of thing we’re talking about. Maybe you’ve never seen it before, but it’s out there, so now you know–don’t feign ignorance next time.
Otto Man
This is one of my favorite types of right-wing reasoning. Throw out all the evidence, go with an ill-informed gut feeling, and present it as some kind of common-sense everybody-knows-this proposition.
Sort of like the idiots over at the Corner making their Super Bowl picks. You’ll be glad to know they’re almost all going with the Steelers, John, but they’re only going that way because Seattle is the home of latte-loving, Volvo-driving elitists. One of them has discerned Hamas-colors in the Seahawks uniform, too. Christ, what a bunch of morons.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hahaha. What retards.
Dave Ruddell
I knew I recognized that name, but I’m ashamed to say I had to click the link to remember who he was, even after 5 years at UNC. That man is a nut.
stickler
Bullshit. This “Jimmie” knows perfectly well they’re out there. When he pretends not to, he is lying to you. Just like how those good upstanding “Christians” lied in Dover, PA lied to the judge in the recent ID trial.
Fundagelical, Leviticus-based “Christianity” requires its adherents to lie — to themselves about Christ’s message, and to everyone else about their enemies.
Andrew
Gary B. has been preaching this week and dropped a few gems on anal sex and lesbians and frat boys, as per usual, but the kids got him going on animal-human hybrids which was big fun.
Doug
I like to think of these folks as “Christianesque.” They tend to have the outward trappings of Christianity, but one would be hard pressed to discern anything in their behavior that betrays the least knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount. Attacking the Christianesque is entirely different from attacking Christians.
demimondian
Sorry, ppG, I wasn’t clear. By “that kind of lie”, I didn’t mean to imply that you were lying, but rather that we do need to defend against “that kind of crap”. That crap is a lie, but it can’t be allowed to go unrefuted.
(That’s what I meant, but a reasonable reader wouldn’t see that in what I wrote. Sorry.)
neil
Say something nasty about the militants in Fatah who were murdering innocents, and you were criticizing all Palestinians.
Say something nasty about the civilian military commanders and you’re criticizing the troops…
ppGaz
Ah. Well, you almost had me thinking you were spoofing.
But anyway, the way to silence that phony victim-christian thing is to just reject it out of hand. Never try to defend yourself against it or explain it. Give ’em the old two-word ppGaz greeting: “Fuck off.” They’re phonies. Phonies will just take a rational defense and twist it around into more bullshit.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Reminds me of that old saying:
Never argue with fools, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
jg
We’ve been pointing out how the right does this, since well before the last election. Its how they win elections. I’m glad to see you finally see it but what will become of it. This isn’t the first time your side has attacked you for slipping off message or having an independant thought.
Pb
Andrew,
Awesome. Where are you? I went to NCSU.
Ancient Purple
I concur with this. He is lying.
He also knows that John Cole and everyone else is not equating all Christians with the AT. As a member of the United Church of Christ, I can attest that the members of my congregation are some of the most wonderful, Christ-like people you have ever met in your life. They are also proud progressives. In no way, shape or form did I take John’s prior post to mean he was talking about them. Nor was he talking about me.
Jimmie can pretend all he wants that John was smearing all Christians, but the proof is in the pudding. If I printed out John’s original column and showed it to Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, American Baptists, Presbyterians, and other mainline Protestant churches, I doubt you could find a single person who would say that column was smearing them.
But let Jimmie live in his angry, convoluted world. It really is all he has.
Pb
Or, for a similar analogy: say something nasty about any soldiers in the IDF who have murdered innocents, and you were criticizing all Jews everywhere. Not that there isn’t enough blood to go around or anything, but really we’re talking about the fallacy itself here. It is indeed an old trick, and a common one too.
DougJ
The hypocrisy of the left here is stunning. They act like threats of fire bombs never happened under Clinton. Doesn’t anyone here remember Firebombgate? That was when Hillary tried to use the ATF to firebomb rival law firms in Arkansas.
Digital Amish
A pox on ’em all. I don’t think the Rapture can come soon enough. I ran across this Rude Pundit post yesterday. Note that the objectionable material were resources for teen suicide prevention, substance abuse treatment, violence prevention. Fuck them and their Christian values.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ancient Purple
The UCoC is a great group of people. I actually use to be a member of UCoC for 18 years of my life, but then I decided that organized religion just wasn’t for me. But I will always respect that church and it’s members. The reason being that they actually practice Jesus’ message of love, peace, and acceptance.
Sock Puppet
The Republican Taliban won’t like this …
http://nobravery.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
DougJ
Here’s some more conservatives who are angry with John over the American Taliban comment.
John Cole
Stop calling them conservatives, damnit. Republican, or Christian-American, or right-winger- fine. But stop calling them conservatives.
DougJ
I agree with you — they’re not conservatives.
Here’s a question for you: how should we call conservatives? Is George Bush a conservative? How about Chuck Hagel? How about Hillary Clinton? I’m not kidding here. I would call Hagel a conservative and possibly Hillary, personally.
SeesThroughIt
Ha, that scrutator post is a classic. The one commenter actually says, “could you clarify your position?” If it’s not abundantly clear to you what John said in his initial post, then you, sir, are an idiot.
Demento
None of the AT consider any but themselves Christian, and yes, if he had the power, Pat Robertson and his ilk would most definitely be running an Inquisition with televised auto da fe.
Digital Amish
Holy crapola! Is that a parody site, DougJ? Is that where you go for inspiration?
scs
I think the problem from John’s post yesterday was his wording. Like I said previously, he used the word “They”. He wrote “I am not going to defend THEM anymore”. We all know how one word can change the meaning of a sentence, whether the writer wants it to or not. And the word “They” can be a loaded word, depending on how it is used in a sentence.
For instance, if I am just told a story of how a black man committed a random heinous murder of a debutante who walked though a black disctrict and then I replied “I can’t believe those people! That’s it. I am no longer going to defend them anymore from any prejudical remarks ever again!”, a listener might take that not as singling out violent people who commit crimes, but perhaps an indictment and a prejudical statement of the propensity of black people for violent crime as a whole. So I believe someone could perceive, that if after being told of a crazy religious person, John replies “I am not going to defend them anymore.”, that that statement might come across as stereotyping. Perhaps he should have phrased it as, “I am no longer going to defend this religious lunatic fringe anymore”, which would have been clearer to all.
DougJ
I think they’re serious, DA. But I think Stormy and scs are serious, too, so my fake-dar could be way off.
scs
Okay, you all have cow here if I insult lefties in any way, but look at the type of generalizations we get from others here. “The right wing seems incapable of distinguishing violent and extremist muslims?” The fundamentalist churches of the south are the largest givers from this country of charity to domestic and international charities in general, and I believe were the largest donors from this country as a group to the tsumani (Indonesia) and the earthquake in Pakistan as well. A real hatred of Muslims there. I see no evidence of any church engaging in this type of wide scale discrimination. Yes again, there are fringes, and a few people who make unfortunate statements, but you have to draw a line somewhere between the fringe and the mainstream of a movement, and I see no evidence the fundies have crossed any line. And again, I am not even religious, but I am tired of “PC” people thinking they can get away with stereotyping people who don’t always think like they do.
ppGaz
On tv, scs, your part is represented by Randy, the brother of Earl.
scs
Just keep existing in your comfortable world view ppgaz. I don’t want to disturb it, as you may go mental again on us. So carry on.
Paddy O'Shea
The American Taliban aren’t conservatives?
Now that’s a jolly one. Bartender? A round of sour grape for the knuckleheads. On me.
Let’s put it this way: Conservatives weren’t the handmaidens of the American Taliban until they sold them their fat pink asses in exchange for a couple of election victories.
And look what they got. George W. Bush, Ken Lay and the war in Iraq.
Now there’s an oil tanker filled with irony for ya!
ppGaz
Gotta agree with Paddy on this one. Rethugs who want to distance themselves from the AT ….. need to find themselves another party. Another party that can actually make a difference, that is. Not a “statement” party like the Libertarians. A real party with real seats in Congress and a real national candidate.
Or else stop the pretense and the whining … it’s become tiresome.
Steve
Heh, when the churches raise money for tsunami victims, they get praised. When Code Pink raises money for the civilians of Fallujah, every right-winger in sight castigates them as being on the other side. Gee, I have no idea what’s going on here.
Scs has a point, though. Some right-wingers totally know the difference between ordinary Muslims and extremist Muslims, just like they know the difference between the people John calls the American Taliban and ordinary religious folks. It’s just fun for them to pretend like there’s no difference when they have a chance to slam someone.
scs
Well Steve, I guess you have a point as well. When you say something like the “right wing seems congentially incapable of distingishing” good from bad Muslims, I suppose you wouldn’t be offended if I said something like, Jews in Israel seem congenitally incapable of distinguishing violent Palestians from peaceful Palestians, you wouldn’t be offended, right?
Pb
DougJ,
I don’t think scs is any two of (a) serious and (b) sane; either way, there’s no reasoning with her, hence, no point in talking to her. As for Stormy, I think she’s serious, but, there’s still no reasoning with her. :)
DougJisAll
DougJ, I think it’s really weird that I have conversations with myself. Do you think I was abnormally influenced by that 70’s movie Sybil? signed Pb P.S. By the way DJ- love ya big guy, you are HOT!, pb
Pb
Hahah, ‘scrutator’… judging by that post and the comments, that bunch doesn’t appear to be capable of scrutating anything with any degree of accuracy.
Pb
Wow, now scs is spoofing? I take back my ‘unserious’ speculation–definitely insane.
DougJisAll
Pb, what are you talking about? Who is this scs you speak of? We have serious issues to talk about here and you are distracting instead of worrying about your country. Why do you hate America so much?
Steve
As a member of the anti-Semitic Left, I really can’t understand why you think I would be offended.
DougJisAll
Just seeing how your statement sounded applied to other groups. I think if you try that, it will help you see that such stereotypes aren’t acceptable.
scs
I don’t know what DoujisAll is doing pretending to be me. He must be insane.
VidaLoca
I think scs has a point too, and it’s similar to the one that Stormy (and possibly others? Mac or Darrell maybe?) were making the other day when this topic came up: there’s nothing to be lost, and much to be gained, by a clear analysis of who your opponents are reflected in clear language.
I’ve met a lot of decent, upstanding, devout and charitable people of both the Christian and Muslim faith who in no way shape or form I’d characterize as being party to any flavor of Taliban. In fact my Muslim friends are pretty shocked at what’s being done in their name, and it’s reasonable to me that a person of Christian faith could take offense at being lumped with the stuff that pops up over at places like this “Sundries Shack” or Scrutator or whatever. Agreed, scs, that doesn’t represent all Christians.
That said, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to throw around the phrase “American Taliban” to describe a sector of the coalition that rules this country at the moment through the vehicle of the Republican Party. It starts with Pat Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Perkins, and runs down through minor-leaguers like the folks who are criticizing John for thinking outside the box they want to put him in.
Their agenda is to turn the country into as much of a theocracy as they can, as soon as they can do it. Their motive is to leverage themselves into power by doing so. Their tactics are to take advantage of the fears, and the contributions, of their followers to bulid a movement they can ride into power. If they succeed the rest of us can pretty much give up on the idea of a secular society.
Just like the real Taliban.
scs
Ummm, sorry, we have to disagree there. I don’t think supporting politicians through fundraisers, email campaigns, media events, demonstrations and other tactics of mainstream Christian fundamentalists, rise to the level of the Taliban who engaged in mass killings and torture and repression to gain power. A little difference there, and to lump them together is wrong. If you can’t see that, then we have to agree to disagree.
ppGaz
Uh, no.
American politics is entirely about coalitions. Coalition building is honorable and honest only when the coalition … the larger entity …. takes responsibility for its makeup.
You can’t sell your soul to the devil for votes, and then pretend that you have nothing to do with the devil.
Either reject the evil component of the coalition, or wear it around your neck like an anchor. You can’t have it both ways.
ppGaz
What the FUCK is a “mainstream fundamentalist?”
Are you going to assert that there is good, and bad, fundamentalism?
Pb
ppGaz,
See above. She’s looney tunes. Enjoy.
ppGaz
Yes, I am quite aware of that. I just want to see if she can get her feet tangled up in her own rope.
Ancient Purple
This is crap in relation to John’s first post. 100% crap.
Every knew who he was talking about. He wasn’t talking about the Methodist neighbor next door. As a Christian, I knew he wasn’t talking about me. I showed John’s commentary to a friend of mine who is a practicing Catholic and she knew immediately that John was not talking about her either.
There you go, scs. You have two Christians that knew “American Taliban” as used by John did NOT refer to them. So, John’s choice of words being problematic is only in the minds of people looking for a fight.
John never said nor intimated that the AT designation referred to anyone other than the right wing gasbags that demand a hotline to the Oval Office in return for votes.
Go prattle somewhere else.
Digital Amish
So basically the difference in the ATs theocracy will be their subtlety.
VidaLoca
scs,
Right, there are at least two distinctions to be made — the point you’re making here (and I think it was made the other day by Stormy too, again I’m going by memory) that while there are actually “fringe elements” of the fundamentalist movement that talk in code suggesting violent acts, they’re looked upon as embarrassments by the mainstream fundamentalist groups who work within accepted political channels. The second distinction made was around political potential of the movement, and the argument there was that the fundamentalists will never succeed in taking power. The conclusion was that the predominantly peaceful tactics and marginal size of the fundamentalist movement were significant enough reasons that one shouldn’t compare them to the Taliban, and doing so was a violation of Godwin’s Law.
I think a person who was really trying hard to believe in the marginality argument could have succeeded in doing so up to the point of the Terri Schaivo circus. At that point, the major leaders of the fundamentalist movement called in their chips — and the President of the United States came back from vacation ( — from vacation! — ) to make sure they knew he was listening to them. That’s not the mark of a marginal movement. It does operate predominantly through non-violent tactics at the moment (people like Eric Rudolph excepted) but all movements that hope to have any success will have to do that (even the “real” Taliban started out as a movement based in religious boys’ schools — the other way to go is start out violent from the get-go but that’s why I’m comparing them to the Taliban rather than the Weathermen!).
I’m not persuaded by peaceful or legal tactics because you only get violent once you get big enough, and then you always deny it but never disown it. I want some insight into how these people will use the power they want once they get it and to me it does sound like a theocracy.
ppGaz
Bullshit. Fundamentalists do not work within acceptable political channels, except by stealth (by concealing their motives and intentions).
Fundamentalism is basically a form of mental illness, a belief in magic. It is unreasonable, and intolerant by definition.
There are not good and bad forms of fundamentalism, they are all bad, wrt to liberty and liberal democracy. They are not compatible with liberty and liberal democracy.
scs
Okay, that’s the point. “At the moment” means for the last 50 years. They are a collective group of denominations, that have in common a certain point of view, and are organizing within the rules of the game we have for democracy. They try to get votes, they speak out, they fundraise. They have just as much right to organize politically as the next group. And if they win by playing by the rules, and persuading people, and not by violence, then they win. Although they are still a small group, percentage wise in the country, they are a very well organized, tight, well funded group, so as such they wield more power than their size. But so what, that is the game. Other groups can do the same to counteract them. If CodePink or GreenPeace or other such groups can get enough people to sign on with them and give them lots of money, they too will wield as much power. That’s the name of the game, man. Stop whining about it. (or whinging if you are a Brit)
ppGaz
They can win, outside of narrow geographic constraints, only by being dishonest. If they reveal their true motives and intentions, they expose themselves as the radicals that they are.
In the same way, the coalition- seekers who want their votes, who pander to them, and make them promises, must conceal their evil pact from the larger coalition and from the opposition. If gay-bashers look and talk like real, open and honest gay bashers, they expose themselves for the ugly bigots that they really are … and are rejected. Only by couching their ideas in code and euphemisisms like “sanctity of marriage” and “family values” can the intolerant and ugly motives be advanced without stiring up harsh opposition.
The same is true of extremists on the left, of course. Extremists can be brought into a coalition that is on the whole more moderate, but ultimately, only by being dishonest, and by having the coalition-builders be dishonest.
scs
Okay, good last post, ppGaz. I see your point. (and I’m not being sarcastic) But dinner calls now…
ppGaz
{ gulp }
r4d20
“Throw out all the evidence, go with an ill-informed gut feeling,”
Colbert pegged this one at the start. “Truth comes from the gut”.
VidaLoca
scs–
Well, I’m more concerned about the next 50 years. The the fundamentalist movement has a lot of political influence, some political power, and it seems to want more of both. It has the resources to get them. If it succeeds it will push its bizarre belief system down our throats in a way that won’t look much like the rules of the game we have for democracy because it won’t be a democracy any more — except insofar as you accept the beliefs and fall into line behind them. Which is why I think that terms like “theocracy” and “American Taliban” are accurate descriptions.
Anyhow, enjoyed talking with you, have a nice dinner.
Nongeophysical Dennis
Well John, it seems that you’ve now been tarred as a “moonbat.”
I don’t have much to add right now, other than to once again marvel at you for deciding to run a political blog!
Perry Como
I’d say he’s more of a wingbat, the unholy offspring of a wingnut and a moonbat.
VidaLoca
This is so good…. it’s like a deep vein of high-quality material over there…
Pb
Perry Como,
Sure beats being a moonnut.
VidaLoca,
That last bit is *so* over the top, that I hope it was parody.
The Other Steve
I would once again like to refer people to Representative Andrew Volstead, Republican of Minnesota.
Most well known for…
The Volstead Act which began Prohibition.
We’ve done it before, we shall rise up and do it again!
VidaLoca
Pb —
Well, if that was parody, some of those guys are good. I think it was totally serious.
They’re not quite ready to issue a fatwa on John though, provided some true believers can be called upon to step up and save his soul:
John as a Trotskyite… I can’t get over it. Too good…
Tim F.
That would just make him a neocon.
The Disenfranchised Voter
scs–
You’re analogy is a false one however. You see, John made it clear he was talking about the “lunatics” of the religious right, therefore anyone who took it as an attack on all Christians must have a complex about them all being lunatics.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Considering that a majority of the Jews in Israel do hate all the Palestians, I sure as hell am not offended. What you just said, for the most part, is true.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Maybe hate was too strong of a word. Disdain is a better one.
Pooh
I’m not really sure how I feel about the Israel situation, but how do you suggest they make that determination? It’s not like bad people wear horns. Except in Danish cartoons.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m fairly certain the horns are suppose to represent the Debil (no that’s not a typo), as in Muhammed is Lucifer…
stickler
Y’all overlooked the best part of scs’s bullshit above:
This is a baldfaced lie. No evidence to back it up. None. The fundamentalist churches of the South are the largest body of “christians” who believe that slavery wasn’t all that bad and that the Confederacy wasn’t TREASON, it was just a states’ rights lark.
Those bastards didn’t raise a tenth the money for tsunami relief that the mainstream Protestant denominations did. What money they did raise, was disbursed to the ignorant heathen in South Asia on the condition that they Come To Jesus. Fucking Pharisees.
Don’t believe me? Then find evidence to prove me wrong.
Ancient Purple
Interesting factoid:
A quick Google search showed the following denominations and their giving of tsunami aid. These figures are through December, 2005.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest denomination in the U.S. hands down. Since their purge of moderates in the 90s, the SBC is firmly a fundamentalist denomination due to their statement of faith that requires belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and its literal interpretation thereof.
The format is Name (ranking of size in US) – Dollars given for tsunami aid:
SBC (1) – $17 million
Catholic Churches in U.S. (2) – $66 million
United Methodist Church (3) – $32.4 million
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (4) – $20 million
United Church of Christ (8) – $5 million
Greek Orthodox Church in America (6) – $4 million
$127.4 million given by the last five on the list. $17 million given by the largest denomination in the U.S, which happens to be fundamentalist.
I doubt the fundamentalist churches in the south could ever even come close to raising a third of that amount.
Sal
Suck it up, John. Duncan doesn’t whine about every obscure nutcase blogger attacking him.
Kathy K
Here is your actual American Taliban. And more here.
I’d like to quote from the first link. “Gary North claims that ‘the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.’ North describes the ‘three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement [as] the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system’.”
North is a peculiar* type of optimist, so I suspect the rot isn’t as deep as he hopes. But it does exist.
*By peculiar, I mean that I ran across him when doing some work on Y2K – he expected, and was looking forward to, a national (or even worldwide) collapse as a result of the “Y2K bug” and was fully expecting that his theocrats would then take over. I wasn’t the only one who responded: “Over my dead body.”
Perry Como
Good thing those folks never bank rolled Diebold and ES&S.
Sam Hutcheson
John, all those guys see are all of the hits coming out of your links. It’s traffic-ego, nothing more, nothing less. Stop feeding them and they will go away.
a guy called larry
In 1999, Gary North was offering 1, 2, and 3 year subscriptions to his Y2K-the-world-will-end newsletter. Classic.
W.B. Reeves
Don’t be surprised when SCS does a quick fade from this thread only to pop up elsewhere with the same discredited arguments. On the previous thread on the topic of AT she proclaimed that she knew of no religiously motivated firebombings, violence,
etc., committed by the right wing “Christian” fringe in this country. When it was pointed out that a voluminous history of such exists, she took a powder.
Given that her claims about the charitable giving by Southern fundementalist to Tsunami victims have been debunked here, you can expect her to pull the same stunt.
scs
It’s pathetic that I have to spend more time correcting flagrant dumbass lies here than I do making arguments here. Ok, WB Reeves, so here you go…sigh..
This is what you said:
This is what I ACTUALLY wrote:
Big ole difference bewteen NO and MANY – don’t you think? Reeves, I take a powder from you because your posts are ridiculous and not worthy of replies.
scs
Okay Stickler/Ancient Purple, (and Reeves) I think your figures are off.
Okay- Wrong. Here are some real figures: (the last number is the number of adherents).
As you can see Catholic has the largest number of followers by far. Also, there is no firm definition of what churches constitutes fundamentalist. So if you calculate charity according to percentage of adherents, your figures are off. Here are your charity figures:
So when I said this
, I wasn’t wrong.
As you can see southern states are at the top of the list in giving, give more through their churches, and baptist and evangelical churches, which some consider fundamentalist, are the largest churches in those areas. Also when I said I “believe” they were the largest donors to tsunami, we can see that they were largest donors relative to their proportion.
17 mill donated/16 mill pop > 66 mill donated/66 mill pop.
Get it now? So do I get an apology assholes??
GTinMN
It’s become clear to me that scs is just a fundie troll, given her pathetic and ignorant defenses of ID, the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and now the embattled Faux Christian terrorists. She writes as one in a partisan vegetative state, to steal an apt phrase from another commenter a few days back.
Pb
GTinMN,
Yeah, she couldn’t be more disingenuous. Even if I took her crap at face value, I like how she then goes on to entirely ignore both the Lutherans and the Mormons. Ignoring reality seems to be what she does best, really.
scs
DougJ- I knew I wouldn’t get an apology from you. I don’t know if you falsely report the facts for fun or because you’re an idiot. It’s a mystery. So all I can say in the meantime is – get a life – pleeeeeease.
Krista
Wow…that site is just…wow. It’s almost too disturbing to be funny.
Laura
I’ve never considered tithing charity. A big chunk of it is for upkeep of the church, staff salaries and vacation bible school. Often, it pays for missionary work, some of which is very controversial (for example, “converting” Catholics in Latin America to a fundamentalist church). That’s not to say churches don’t participate in real charity. For example, my church contributes to Darfur relief and other causes. And the local Lutheran church runs a food closet. But you can’t just look at how much people give to their churches and then proclaim their churches are the most generous to domestic and international charities. You would have to dig a lot deeper to find out what their church spends the tithing on.
Pooh
Au Contraire
Nongeophysical Dennis
And if I’m reading this correctly
Doesn’t that make the Lutherans followed closely by United Methodists highest in per capita donations–with the share being around $5/person vs $1.06 and $1.00 for Baptists and Catholics respectively?
Laura
Don’t forget the Greek Orthodox. With only 440,000 members nationwide, they were exceptionally generous, giving more than $9 per person.
Ancient Purple
I will apologize for looking at the wrong figure in for the Catholic Churches in the US. The SBC is, however, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. So I stand corrected.
Except you conveniently left out the Lutherans who gave $32 million from a denomination that has 8.1 million members.
In fact, the numbers I am quoting are from those denominational’s website that state that they earmarked those exact funds for tsunami relief. The SBC and the other churches mentioned in that story do not provide hard numbers.
Have a source, scs?
Krista
You ask for apologies an awful lot, don’t you? Yet, how many times have you seen people apologize to each other on this site?
In other words, I hope you’re not holding your breath.
scs
Evangelical Lutherans are considered by some to still be fundamentalist, depending on the church and who you ask. So Fundies win, no matter which you look at it.
scs
Well I get falsely accused a lot. You’re right though, it’s more of a rhetorical question than anything.
scs
With the exception of the Greek Orthodox I suppose, courtesy of Laura above, but since they have so few members in comparison, less than a half million, they don’t really count in our debate about Fundies and large group donations.
W.B. Reeves
Spoken like someone who couldn’t argue her way out of a paper bag.
Point taken about the misrepresentation. My error. Of course there have, in fact, been MANY instances of religiously motivated violence in this country. So we will have to weigh my error against your ignorance.
Speaking of ignorance.
This is nonsensical. Evangelical and Fundamentalist are not synonymous, regardless of what some nameless, numberless, hypothetical someone might think. Billy Graham “might be considered by some” to be a liberation theologian but I wouldn’t present an argument based on such.
It’s apparent that you conflated general church offerings with sums specifically donated to Tsunami relief in your original statement. If it was an honest mistake, just own up to it.
Ancient Purple
scs, please educate yourself. You clearly are ignorant when it comes to religious terms as well as the names of denominations.
ELCA stands for Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. That is the formal name of the mainline Protestant denomination representing Lutherans. They are not fundamentalist in any way. They do NOT take a literal translation of the Bible. They openly welcome gays and lesbians into their congregations and have NO prohibition against individual congregations allowing same-sex unions.
“Evangelical” means to be witnesses to the Gospel. It does nto mean they are fundamentalist. The Evangelical Church in America in 1955 voted to join the United Church of Christ, the most progressive denomination in US Christianity. The UCC openly ordains gays and lesbians, is not conservative by any stretch, but also has a mandate to evangelize in the world today.
You make the same mistake that most people do in that they equate evangelism with fundamentalism. You can be a fundamentalist and evangelize, but if you evangelize, that doesn’t make you a fundamentalist.
The ELCA is NOT a fundamentalist organization. Never has been and never will be.
So, your claim that “the Fundies win” is a load of crap.
But I won’t ask you for an apology. I will simply ask that you educate yourself.
Ancient Purple
Here some links to educate you, scs:
Evangelical.
Christian fundamentalism.
scs
Well Ancient, if you use the link to Wikipedia- you get this:
They may be described as ‘fundamentlist’ because they have the same origins and share many beliefs. So when I said “the fundamentalist churches of the south” above, I did not specify the narrower sense of the word but meant the broader traditional sense of southern conservative churches. And unless you can read my mind, there’s no arguing with how I meant it. Either way you look at it, it you don’t include Evangelicals as Fundies, Fundies are number 2, and if you do, they are number 1. Quite different than being scoffed at and ridiculed for my assertion as Fundies being large donators to the tsunami, like it was a totally ridiculous idea. And quite different from being told Catholics were the numbner one givers in this country. Stickler and Ancient Purple didn’t grasp the facts before they insulted and critiqued- the mark of real idiots who have no shame. And then Reeves messed up because he can’t understand the difference between “none” and “many”. So in conclusion, you all messed up and I win, you lose. Get over it. And look up your facts before you act like dumbasses, because I’m getting tired of setting you all straight. This isn’t an adult education class (unless you start paying me maybe).
Ancient Purple
scs,
You claimed that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America was a fundamentalist church. It isn’t. It never has been and never will be.
Your figures are guessing games because you have been unable to point to a website that lists hard numbers as to the amount given by these so-called “southern conservative churches,” which, by the way, does not mean that they are fundamentalist. The Catholic Church is conservative, but it isn’t fundamentalist.
Let’s review, scs. You stated and even bolded the text that the “Evangelical Lutheran Church of America” was a fundamentalist church. You were wrong. Flat out wrong. Drop by your local ELCA church and ask them if they are fundamentalist. They will either gasp in horror or laugh.
You don’t even know what is or is not a fundamentalist church. Nor do you know what the term “evangelical” means.
Clearly, you are not interested in educating yourself either.
But God be with you in your ignorance.
ppGaz
Heh.
W.B. Reeves
Ancient Purple,
Having been raised in a Southern Evangelical Church, I can vouch for your acuity here. SCS doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Laura
In other words, they’re Christians.
So, you’re admitting you were wrong. That’s a step.
If you do include Lutherans as fundies, you’re an idiot. Some fundies are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundies, especially Lutherans. But you didn’t just say fundies, you said “fundamentalist churches of the south.” Evangelical Lutherans are not only NOT fundamentalists, they are concentrated in NORTHERN states.
It’s a fact that Catholics far outgave every other church for tsunami relief, and if you break it down by per person, Lutherans and Methodists were the most generous (except for Greek Orthodox, who you decided didn’t matter). The only fact you provided was a Forbes article showing that people in Southern states tithe the most, but you provided no facts on what the churches spend that money on. Since I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, I’d guess most is to support church activities and missionary work. Some is probably for charity, but so far, you haven’t offered any facts to prove that fundamentalist churches of the south are the “largest givers from this country of charity to domestic and international charities in general.”
You had no fucking idea whether evangelical churches of the south were the most generous or not. But you decided to throw that out there anyway, hoping nobody would call you on it. When they did, you tried to lie your way out of it, calling Evangelical Lutherans fundamentalists. And now you want everyone to get over it? I bet you do.
Laura
fundamentalist churches of the south…
By the way, if anybody is interested in learning more about ELCA, they have a great website. One of the best church websites I’ve seen. Here’s the link to their page describing how they interpret the Bible. After reading it, even scs should be able to grasp that there’s nothing fundamentalists about them.
Faux News
I want to see Stormy waterboard scs. Even if it’s on Pay Per View!
ppGaz
scs, you’ve been declared PHS.
You’re in a Persistent Horsemanure State.
But don’t worry, it looks like you can still follow the balloon with your eyes ……
TallDave
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.
scs
Here let me post again this direct quote from the Wikipedia link above. Now READ it this time. And please follow the link to Wikipedia. All of you saying you have grown up “Baptist” are off. Again Fundies and Evangelicals have the same origin of developing a 100 years or so. Recently they have split and define themselves more narrowly, BUT they have the same common development. Lots of Evangelicals are saying to everyone -Oh no, we aren’t Fundies, we aren’t like them! We’re better.” But there’s a lot in common. It’s like saying both Lutherans and Presbyterians aren’t Protestant. Yeah they split and are different, but in a larger sense they share the same religion and are the same. AND again, since I meant it in the LARGER sense of the word of “fundamentalists”, as a descriptive word for conservative southern churches who share a common belief system, and not “Fundamentalist”, the specific sect, my phrasing can include both sects. Argue the correct original issue for once instead of obfuscating and taking the cheap way out.
scs
Again, my original statement was:
I used “fundamentalist” as a descriptive word for conservative southern churches, which is a legitimate way to use the word, and which can include some southern Evangelical churches. If you know that I didn’t use it that way, in the broader sense, then you belong on Psychic Friends Network.
scs
One more- notice that I did not capitalize “fundamentalist” when I originally used it. Because I did not capitalize the word, it is obvious to all that I used it as a descriptive adjective, not the actual sect of “Fundamentalist”, and so I used it in the “broader sense”, in which case, according to Wikipedia above, Evangelical can be included. Sorry, but I am still right, you are still wrong. So when are you going to start paying me for this education I’m giving you all?
Country
My Friends, This here is a sign of the times .
Beware of the mark of the Beast !!
Identity tags implanted under workers’ skin
Tiny silicon chips work like an access card you can never lose
* Assocated Press Release*
Updated: 7:11 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2006
CINCINNATI – Tiny silicon chips were embedded into two workers who volunteered to help test the tagging technology at a surveillance equipment company, an official said Monday.
The Mexico attorney general’s office implanted the so-called RFIDs – for radio frequency identification chips – in some employees in 2004 to restrict access to secure areas. Implanting them in the workers at CityWatcher.com is believed to be the first use of the technology in living humans in the United States.
Sean Darks, chief executive of the company, also had one of the chips embedded.
“I have one,” he said. “I’m not going to ask somebody to do something I wouldn’t do myself. None of my employees are forced to get the chip to keep their job.”
The chips are the size of a grain of rice and a doctor embedded them in the forearm just under the surface of the skin, Darks said.
They work “like an access card. There’s a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door,” Darks said.
Darks said the implants don’t enable CityWatcher.com to track employees’ movements.
“It’s a passive chip. It emits no signal whatsoever,” Darks said. “It’s the same thing as a keycard.”
CityWatcher.com has contracts with six cities to provide cameras and Internet monitoring of high-crime areas, Darks said. The company is experimenting with the chips to identify workers with access to vaults where data and images are kept for police departments, he said.
The technology predates World War II, but has appeared in numerous modern adaptations, such as tracking pets, vehicles and commercial goods at warehouses.
After Hurricane Katrina, as body counts mounted and missing-person reports multiplied, some morgue workers in Mississippi used the tiny computer chips to keep track of unidentified remains.