Andrew Sullivan, discussing the odious fool Rick Santorum:
The only thing worse than the Christianists’ sanctimony is their graft. In the current election cycle, Santorum is still the Number One lobbyist favorite.
Heh.
Reader Interactions
65Comments
Comments are closed.
Paddy O'Shea
Speaking of the abundant hypocrisy of “Christianists,” check out this nasty little bit of anti-Semitism currently festering over at everyone’s favorite Loon blog, Scrutator:
“This movie (The Da Vinci Code) is another salvo by Hollywood Jews to secularize America.”
– Lauren 5/19/06 5/19/06
Apparently for the Scrus questioning the sentiments of the loathsome Lauren is a freedom of speech issue …
Pb
“Some Indian Christians are so incensed with the fictional blockbuster “The Da Vinci Code” they want the government to ban it and one Roman Catholic has offered a bounty of US$25 000 on the head of author Dan Brown”
I saw some lunatics with megaphones near my local theater, decrying the evils of The Da Vinci Code yesterday.
I saw it on Friday, it was pretty good :)
Mac Buckets
What a silly post this is.
From the article that Sully lifts:
…but will that stop Sully from denouncing the “Christianists” as steeped in “graft?” Naaaaah, why ruin a good, irrational rant against people you hate?
And Sully and others will imply that this is a “Christianist” (whatever that is) problem, even if that means ignoring that the all-time lobbyist money leader was Tom Daschle, that second-place this cycle is Hillary, and that high-high up on that “lobby leaders” list, we see such noted “Christianists” as Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Arlen Spector.
So even though the money-raising is not “illegal or improper,” and even even though non-“Christianists” do the same and worse, Sully evidently is pretending to think it’s honest to rail about “Christianist graft.”
I really despise having my intelligence insulted like this. If you hate someone for judging you harshly, just say it. Just don’t pull out the Hubble telescope trying to find the faintest glimmer of pretense for your vitriol.
Tom
Sullivan’s still flogging that “Christianist” glue horse? Thanks for the warning.
srv
I think he’s holding out too much, I preferred Christo-Fascism.
The Other Steve
I think what he’s really complaining about is dishonesty.
Guys like Sanotorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. aren’t religious because they believe in Jesus.
They’re religious because they believe they can make more money that way.
VidaLoca
Pb,
wait a minute — we’re talking “Christian fatwa” here? That has to be a first!
Steve
Hilarious. Mac says:
Sullivan’s actual post:
Yes, Mac, a real whitewash job by Sullivan there.
Mac Buckets
He mentions that bit, true, but he conveniently ignores it — and the fact that this “graft” is actually legal and practiced by everyone in Congress — when it comes to his brilliant summary of the situation (“Christianists” are all corrupt). Somehow Sullivan doesn’t get that the reality he mentions negates his whole silly argument, though. Hmmmmm. File under: “There are none so blind…”
Steve
Perhaps his point is that by taking MORE money from lobbyists than all the other legislators, Santorum is MORE in the pocket of special interests than all the other legislators, and that Sullivan considers that a bad thing. Yes, remarkably, even if it’s legal, some people actually feel that legislators who take huge amounts of money from lobbyists may end up giving their constituents short shrift! It’s a crazy argument, I know.
Pooh
Steve, you are holding Mac to an unconscionably high standard – actually informing himself about a topic before he bloviates. Why that might require actual effort, and after turning on his computer and clicking the mouse a few times, he’s plum tuckered out. It’s hard out here for a Bucket.
Mac Buckets
Are you and Sully suggesting that Santorum “made more money” from lobbyists because he’s outwardly religious? Besides being unproven, that doesn’t really jibe with what we know about past lobbyist contributions.
Even if you think that Sullivan can see into (Christian) men’s souls, how would his mentioning legal contributions given to many, many Congresspeople solely indict Santorum as “dishonest?”
Face it, his whole argument (“tantrum” might be more accurate) is a mess, a gauze-thin veil over Sully’s longstanding contempt for the Religious Right. Again, why the pretense here? There are plenty of real reasons for conservatives to rail against the likes of Santorum — it seems like gilding the rhetorical lily to invent fake, nonsensical reasons, too.
Mac Buckets
If that were truly his point, he had absolutely no reason to type the words “Christianist,” “sanctimony,” or “graft” at all, did he? But he did, didn’t he?
While this may be true, it’s funny that those people always think their political enemies getting lobbyists’ cash is a sure sign of corruption. Meanwhile, the lobbyists’ contributions to their likeminded comrades are just a vital warchest to fight off the evil Other.
So it’s not a crazy argument, just a hypocritical one. Let me see all the old quotes from Democrats demanding Daschel give back the record amounts of lobbyist bucks he got. Don’t bother Googling.
Mac Buckets
Anything of value to add, Pooh? I clarified what I meant above…did you inform yourself before you bloviated here?
The Other Steve
If it was, you wouldn’t be wasting our time responding to it.
Vlad
Regardless of whether “Christianists” are all cheap grifters, Santorum certainly enjoys taking advantage of his position. That thing with the National Weather Service was absolutely shameless.
Vlad
There should’ve been an “or not” in my prior post…
Zifnab
Please. If no one responded to shit they thought was silly on these boards, the board would be dead.
I don’t think anyone can call Republican lobbyists or their purchased Congressmen as somehow more or less moral than their non-religious or non-Republican peers. Pelosi and Clinton have both been quick to embrace the phrase “Culture of Corruption” without actually doing much real work to address it.
This is, in the end, about hypocrasy. Republicans played the Holier than Thou card first, calling Democrats filthy socialist whores and blasting them for not attending enough church dinners. So when a Democrat took a check from Greenpeace or NARAL, he was a pawn of special interests and a corrupt politician. When a Republican took a check out of the church collection plate, he was a choosen candidate of god.
So I think the real ire comes not from the sactimony or the graft, but their blessed union.
Pooh
Yes, I read the post at issue (yours) and I commented on it, something which you evidently did not do. Though my 4 lines of snark hardly a bloviation makes…
Mac Buckets
So do you have a point to make, or a problem with my post that you’d like to share?
Mac Buckets
By the way, I have not dismissed the notion that Sullivan, being from My Other Country, may have not meant “graft” as an illegal, corrupt endeavor. In England, “graft” most often means hard, honest work. If Sully meant that Santorum has practiced hard graft in that sense, while my regard for his understanding of American law would be elevated, he would have to explain his use of the phrase “the only thing worse…”
Steve
Or, perhaps he just meant the dictionary definition, which reads: “Unscrupulous use of one’s position to derive profit or advantages.” You seem to be hung up on the idea that since it’s not illegal to take money from lobbyists, no one can complain about the guy who holds the distinction of #1 recipient.
Just off the top of my head, there was a well-documented incident where Santorum received a campaign contribution from AccuWeather, a private weather forecasting service, and shortly thereafter introduced legislation to bar the National Weather Service from issuing free weather information and forecasts (of the type that AccuWeather supplies for a fee). This would probably have gone down as a minor episode if Santorum hadn’t then gone around smearing the NWS during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and falsely accusing them of issuing inadequate warnings.
Again, you can say all you want that other people do it too, but he’s the #1 guy. Unscrupulous use of one’s position to derive profit or advantages.
Darrell
There’s nothing wrong with going after the #1 recipient of lobbyist money, we need more scrutiny on lobbyist recipients and donors, not less. Problem is, Sullivan used Santorum as an excuse to unfairly trash Christians, most of whom have never in their lives taken a dime of lobbyist money
and that’s what makes Sullivan such a hateful scumbag
Steve
No, what’s hateful is pretending that Sullivan, who is a Christian himself, was making an attack on Christians in general. That’s the state of conservative rhetoric these days, it seems; not only liberals, but even moderate conservatives such as Sullivan, must be portrayed as evil and hateful creatures.
If you oppose people who seek to impose a fundamentalist religious agenda on the country, then you’re “trashing Christians.” You heard it from Darrell, folks. Never mind that millions of Christians, just like Andrew Sullivan, oppose the agenda of the Religious Right.
Darrell
Oh I’m sorry Steve, can you direct us to where Sullivan made any distinction between Santorum and the “sanctimonious graft” of Christians in general? Of course Sullivan made no such distinction because he sure as hell was making a hateful smear on Christians, whether you admit it or not.
Steve
Oh I’m sorry Darrell, can you direct us to where Sullivan said anything whatsofuckingever about the “sanctimonious graft” of Christians in general? Do you have some kind of reading disability where the word “Christianist” looks exactly the same as “Christian” to you?
Darrell
I see no meaningful distinction between the descriptions ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianist’.. but since according to you, I must have some sort of reading disability not to see it, perhaps you can refer us to a dictionary which would explain it, as Merriam-Webster’s dictionary does not. They must have a reading disability too, huh?
Mac Buckets
Yeah, like the uproar when Daschle set the lobbyist cash record? Oh, wait, there was no uproar… Hmmmmmm, how could that be?
Look, anyone can complain about anything, and I never argued otherwise, but that person must be fair and reasonable about the nature of lobbying and the prevalence of lobbyists in all corners of Congress.
I think this is a case where Sullivan has no interest in such fairness, and just wants to tar the “Christianists” with whatever brush likeminded folks will find palatable.
I just find it transparently selective when we stop at #1 because we are fans of #2, or stop at #4 because “our guy” is #5. Either everyone on that >$500K list (9 Dems and 9 Pubs) is corrupt to proportional degrees and should receive proportional criticism, or they are all just doing what Congress does and has been doing for decades.
In any case, none of this explains why Sullivan felt it necessary to go the “All ‘Christianists’ are corrupt” route on this topic, when it is obvious to anyone with six functioning brain cells that the people on that list have no common “religiousity” trait — rather, the trait most obvious is the fact that they are all powerful legislators.
Steve
Oh, you don’t understand what the word means, so it must be a hateful smear, right? I’ll help you out with Sullivan’s own definition:
Amazing that you have no problem understanding what the word “Islamist” means, but your brain just locks up when you see “Christianist.” Uh huh.
Mac Buckets
Link, please? That definition is pretty vague as it stands there — just wondering if he got any more specific.
Well, that’s a pretty offensive comparison. I guess “Christianist” only applies to two wackos in the woods somewhere who violently seek a “Christian caliphate,” then?
Steve
Right, the only people who want to make fundamentalist Christianity the law of the land are two wackos in the woods somewhere. That’s so true!
Mac Buckets
Yeah, I’m just ignoring all those “Christian Carbomb” stories, and the Christians who are beheading atheists on vidcams.
Steve
Pretending that it’s all about carbombs shows a lack of interest in an intelligent debate, but just in case, you might find a more interesting discussion of this terminology here.
Sojourner
Don’t you ever get tired of the argument that something/someone is not a problem since it/they’re not as bad as…
Call the Repubs the party of declining standards.
Perry Como
Christianists could also be called Dominionists. They have a great amount of influence in the 2006 Republican party. Just look at the lesiglative agenda for the past 4 years.
Krista
C’mon Mac – you know damn well that there are many people who want the laws to reflect fundamentalist Christian attitudes. The vast majority of those people have not resorted to violence. They don’t have to — they have friends in very high places.
FWIW, no, there are no “Christian carbomb” stories, but I do seem to recall hearing of a few abortion clinic bombings, and the murder of a doctor or two who have provided that LEGAL service to women. So no, most fundie, political Christians (or Christianists, as the new term seems to be) are not violent, but to pretend that it’s completely outside of the realm of possibility is foolish.
Perry Como
/me should have read Steve’s link.
Perry Como
Maybe Theofascist is a better term? You “conservatives” can debate semantics and the evolution of language, as well as the ability to coin a word. It saves you from facing the fact that there are people in the Republican party that wield alot of power and they are Christianists/Dominionists/Theofascists/whatever.
Sullivan is trying to separate the people that see Christianity as a political tool from the people who see Christianity as a faith. Many of us have no problem with the latter. But we have a *huge* problem with the former.
Perry Como
Krista, give them time (and power). From Steve’s link:
Meet the new Republican Party.
Mac Buckets
But that’s a very, very false analogy, isn’t it, K? Hey, if wanting laws to change was what Islamism was all about, then I’d think Sullivan’s comparison and your argumetn were apt. But Islamism isn’t about campaigning through the political system to get laws changed, is it? Islamism seems to be more about bombing, beheading, and violently forcing entire belief systems to change by jihad, threats of jihad, and murder.
Again, show me the corresponding Christian group. Show me even the wackiest Baptists who march with signs saying that those who oppose Christianity should be killed. Show me the Lutherans sawing off the head of a captured atheist. Until then, the comparison is offensive and ludicrous.
Fine, if Sullivan wants to use the “equivalent to Islamist” label on the very, very few abortion-clinic bombers, OK — the bombers cannot be offended by it because their actions (if not their motivations) are similar to Islamists. If he uses it on anyone else, they have a real beef.
Mac Buckets
It’s you who don’t get the argument, not me. Sullivan made up the term (and provided the definition) to directly compare “Christianists” and Islamists. I’m showing that the two are thousands of miles, not inches, apart — and that people like Santorum have every right to be offended by such a ham-fisted comparison by an allegedly scholarly writer. No one is arguing which is worse, because that would be infantile.
Mac Buckets
“Where are the positive stories about the Islamists who don’t blow up innocent civilians,” eh? Funny stuff.
Of course, it’s all about the violence. Who would have a problem with Islamists if they only sought political power through the vote? Ummm, just to clue you in, there’s a slight difference in blowing people up, declaring jihad, and beheading non-believers to coerce infidels to submit to Islamic theocracy and trying to get out the vote for a candidate whose beliefs are the same as your own. If you think the two are equivalent, you’re insane.
Steve
Sure, if you define the word “Islamist” to include only car bombers and the like, there’s a big difference, but that’s just a definition you made up, as far as I know.
Steve
Um, Israel, and pretty much every right-wing party in Europe, right? For starters.
Most of us would have a big problem with living under Islamic law even if the government got there by wholly legitimate means.
The Other Steve
Other than the pro-lifers, I’m not aware of any religious group in the US behaving that way.
Did you have an example you wanted to provide us?
The Other Steve
Not Mac Buckets and Darrell, they’d be 100% in support of their new alien overlords.
Steve
Well, I don’t know about that. But I can certainly imagine them saying, “At least these guys aren’t as bad as John Kerry.”
Mac Buckets
And, of course, even that’s to a much less severe degree. I think there’s been one abortion clinic attack death in the last seven or eight years.
Mac Buckets
Hail ants!
Silliness aside, the point is to differentiate between acquisition of political power through jihad and murder (Islamism) and acquisition of political power through the democratic process (“Christianism”).
Anyone who holds the two equivalent, as Sully seems to, is stretching desperately to slander people he despises. It’s fairly transparent to anyone without a dog in the fight.
Steve
Again, it’s not the process Sullivan is worried about. It’s the result.
Anyway, we’ve gotten quite far from the original point, which is that Sullivan was hardly making a “hateful smear” against all Christians, as Darrell claimed.
Darrell
No, I simply pointed out that Sullivan “invented” a word not in the dictionary (Christianist) that people would reasonably interpret as something similar to ‘follower of Christianity’. My interpretation according to jackasses like you Steve, indicates I have a ‘reading disorder’.
Except not even Sullivan’s “definition” changes the fact that he made a hateful smear on an entire group that he disagrees with. His definition doesn’t help much if you speak the English language, as he again unfairly attempts to smear Christians, comparing them to Islamists, who, unlike Christians, are known to blow up women and children in markets and pizza parlors to force their supremist ideology. From Sullivan:
Explain for us Steve, how this is not smearing Christians as a group. Sullivan refers to all ‘Christianists’ as full of ‘sanctimoneous graft’, having previously compared them to ‘Islamists’ who are as he explains, distinct from peaceful observers of Islam. Truth is, Sullivan is a hateful bigot
Cyrus
It seems like you’re saying that everyone who uses violence to achieve their ends is better than everyone who doesn’t. So much better, in fact, that it’s impossible to honestly compare one to another. If you feel that’s inaccurate, well, clarify your words please. (Just to get it out of the way, because I’m sure you’d take any chance to assume the worst of me, yes, of course that’s generally true, but there are always exceptions and there are certainly more things you should look at than just that.)
But whether or not you’ll try to find nuance in that, you’re obviously ignoring whatever goals a person or group like Christianists have. And the goals of the two are pretty damn similar once you allow for the different cultures in which they exist, even though they are, yes, using different methods.
Darrell
Learn to read dumbass.. He was saying the exact 180 degree opposite.
Please tell me this isn’t where all the smart lefties come to post
Steve
You just explained it for yourself. Christianists, who want to make America into a Christian theocracy, are distinct from ordinary Christians, who do not want any such thing.
As much as it pleases me to see you finally identify a conservative as a hateful bigot, I just can’t go along with the description.
Darrell
Except that to Andrew Sullivan, a supporter of ‘Christian theocracy’ is anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage
Mac Buckets
And that’s where he’s 100% misguided, and where his equivalence fails. I refuse to pretend that Sullivan forgot about the violence that Islamism utilizes as part of its “process.” Rather, I believe Sully intentionally used the connotation of this violence because he wanted to conjure the scariest image possible about the Religious Right he despises.
Steve
Look, even if you think Sullivan is completely wrong about the Santorums and Dobsons of the world, it still doesn’t mean he made a hateful smear against all Christians. It’s funny how Darrell, who normally considers accusations of bigotry to be the clearest signifier of a leftist whackjob, is so quick to fling around the accusation himself.
Darrell
Because, as Mac points out so well, Sullivan intentionally compares those he disagrees with, and the disagreement centers almost entirely over the issue of gay marriage/gay rights, to violent Islamists which characterizing them all as full of sanctimoneous graft. That is a textbook example of bigotry
Steve
You won’t make an attack on a handful of demagogic Christian leaders into a hateful smear against all Christians, no matter how many ways you try to dance around the point.
Even if you think Sullivan is attacking each and every man, woman and child who favors a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, that still would be a long, long way from an attack on all Christians.
Darrell
If I have a problem with a position held by black elected leaders and the NAACP, say on the issue of race based preferences in hiring.. would it not be pure bigotry to then, on the basis of disagreement on race based hiring preferences.. for me to then smear all blacks who support their position by comparing them to murderous Al Queda supporters? or to characterize them all as ‘sanctimoneous and corrupt’? Of course it would be.
Who’s dancing now Steve?
Mac Buckets
No, actually, I’m still waiting for someone to say what the specific policy goals of these fictional “Christianists” might be. Besides to smite Andrew Sullivan with large stones, obviously.
And if your first graph was a typo, rather than a wild misreading of my point, and you meant to ask if I thought that non-violence is better…well, duh, assuming the ends are of equal value to me. Of course, all ends are not created equal, but if two groups have the same basic goal and one tries non-violence while the other hacks folks into small chunks, I’ll hold in higher regard the folks without the cutlery, sure. Does any sane person think otherwise?
Cyrus
Gays back in the closet, first of all. Stoning them to death is optional, as long as when they do get beat to death, it’s understood that the attack is at least half the fault of the victim. (See “The Laramie Project”.) Strict penalties for extramarital sex enforced by law. (South Dakota, obviously, plus opposition to vaccines that can prevent various STDs because it would “send the wrong message”.) And getting science and other vestiges of rational thought out of public school is also a priority. (Yes, because when Behe admits that astrology is also science by his definition, of course we can trust his scholarly work on evolution. And I wasn’t sure if I should include abstinence-only education in this category or the last, but…)
Yes, my first graph was a typo. Where I wrote “better”, I meant “worse”. Thank you for going on to address my point anyways, I appreciate that.
I don’t think otherwise, but that’s not what we’re talking about. You’re not saying you hold one in higher regard and stopping there, you’re going on to say that any comparison between the two could only be caused by “stretching desperately to slander people he despises”.
Cyrus
That’s a completely inaccurate analogy and you… well, okay, you probably didn’t know it, so I’ll explain. In your example, you would be taking a disagreement with leaders/spokespeople for a group (black elected leaders and the NAACP) and applying it to everyone in that group (blacks). But that’s not what Sullivan is doing. He’s taking a disagreement with a group (Christianists) and applying it to everyone in that group (Christianists). Sullivan and others as well, like David Neiwert I think, have explained more than once that they are only using the word to refer to a group separate and distinct from most Christians, and it’s not their fault you can’t grasp it.
If it hurts your feelings to see the word “Christian” incorporated into something with negative meaning, make up your own word for it. And it’s hardly like reactionaries are the first and only victims of this phenomenon…
Darrell
Cyrus wrote:
What I actually said:
Not all blacks as you mistated, but those blacks supporting that position, as I clearly spelled out. Sort of blows your entire argument out of the water, doesn’t it Cyrus?
Steve
Just show me where Sullivan has said that every Christian who opposes gay marriage is a Christianist. Shouldn’t be hard for you to find that cite, right?