Another Republican response

Another Republican response

: The Moderate Republican also responds to my Jumping the shark for Jesus post:

Sometimes I wonder though, aren’t the theocrats the “mainstream” of the GOP these days? As an old-style Republican (I sometimes think I’m the lovechild of Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller), I feel kinda like the odd duck in the party these days. I guess it leads me to wonder if Jarvis is right. In the past I believed that if the party realized how nutty the theocrats were, they would drop them like a hot potato and move towards the center. But the GOP has come to dominance because it catered to these yahoos or at least the leadership would like to believe that. I want to believe that the GOP will see how dangerous these people are to our democracy, but I’m not certain they will.

It’s not like the Democrats are any better. Now that the Michael Moore/MoveOn group has taken over, the party really out in Left field.

: LATER: Glenn Reynolds says:

Hugh’s right that it’s hard to ascribe the Congressional legislation to “theocrats” when it was supported by Tom Harkin (and Ralph Nader!). There’s much more going on than that; this is a matter on which all sorts of people, of all sorts of persuasions, can be found on both sides.

On the other hand, here’s some advice, very similar to advice I gave to the antiwar movement: If you don’t want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don’t let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up — though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard — but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut. Otherwise you’re in the same boat as lefties who don’t want to be identified with Ward Churchill, but happily use him when they want to draw a crowd.

(In fact, the Terry / Churchill axis is surprisingly close — they both view 9/11 as a necessary chastisement for a sinful America. If that’s not a distinguishing mark of full-bore idiotarianism, I don’t know what is).

We can only hope that both parties start fighting like cats and dogs over the moderate middle of America rather than trying to suck up to the lunatic fringes. Emphasis on the plurals.

: LATER: Common Room, a home-schooling blog, uses my post and Hugh’s post as an exercise in writing and reading. I’m not going for the grade. I’m auditing this course.

: LATER STILL: Linking to Micah Sifry’s review of Hugh Hewitt’s Blog book will be seen as a political act, but it’s not: I like both both of them.

: FILM AT 11: Glenn Reynolds does the blog report on MSNBC Connected and mentions this very disagreement. Political Teen has the video.

  • Derek

    Yes. But the Dems don’t hold power now. So maybe they’ll be forced to see the value of moderation.
    Or, maybe, just maybe, one day, the vast middle will shed off both fringes and form a moderate faction in the center. Call it the Common Sense Party.
    Nah, it’ll never happen.

  • Scott

    So if Republicans are now in a more powerful position than they ever have been, and are moving towards the lunatic fringe on the right, does that mean there are more crazies for them to count on in this country than sensible moderates? I think Bush is also a factor here, causing one time moderates to move further to the left or the right depending on how they view him. This has left a vacuum in the middle, so there might not be too many people left when the time comes to drop out and form the “common sense” party.

  • Jeff

    I think Glenn’s overdoing the Ward Churchill comparison. Did Democratic legislators make extraordinary efforts to pass an extraordinary bill to protect his job? Did they come out and compare his accusers to Nazis?
    Yes, there’s a small academic fringe that may have embraced Churchill, but if you’re looking for fringes of any type, the best place to go is academia. Mainstream Democratic leaders have NOT embraced Churchill or tried to save him from his self-inflicted predicament.
    The situation is quite different regarding Randall Terry, the fringe he represents, and Republicans.

  • People vote for what makes them cofortable. We’re just like the EU except we have God and they have the 35 hour work week. Neither would be bad except in our case our rights are trampled and in the case of France, Germany, etc. they suffer with high unemployment. It just boils down to human nature. The extreme left and right are equally irrational but they’re not going to trade their comfortable worldview for slow but real progress. People vote for people who believe and god and give them free drugs. Why is that surprising?

  • The scariest thing is that the right as a plurality is OK with having these guys being the voice, face, mandateers, and policy directors of their party. At what point is it too much?
    And as far as the left having the MM/MO bunch, this isn’t anything unusual. It’s been like that since forever, and if anything, the noise from the far left is eclipsed by the din from the right.
    Before, the fundies were all subdued and invisible. Now that they want to cash in their political capital, we are all forced to confront them.

  • franky

    It’s the latest school of even-handedness which means whatever Republicans have done wrong, you attempt to equate it with something democrats or the left has also done (by the way, you do not, repeat, do not have to go digging when Democracts screw up – then you just tut and remind yourself what bad people democrats are). So when it was revealed Armstrong Williams was being paid off by the government to write positive things about “no child left behind”, what you then do is mention that Kos went to an event and registered himself as a journalist.
    It’s once again a rejection of reality to say: “oh one infringement is the same as another”. There are no facts, there’s just different opinions on everything.

  • richard mcenroe

    Jeff ó According to the morning news, Jesse Jackson is rushing to the Schindlers’ side today. Using the Randall Terry standard, does that make them a Vast Democratic Conspiracy?

  • ED Beckmann

    The “Culture of life Crowd” are all joining this popular fad. Everyone of them including Jesse Jackson are trying to latch onto what they perceive as the “new wave an Gold ring of political sentiment” Thank God for the likes of MoveOn and Micheal More who’s positions are the Anchors on which we on the left can rely on for our sanity and good sense.

  • Carlos

    The GOP’s “lunatic fringe” doesn’t call for a million more Mogadishus and more 9/11s or refer to Americans as little Eichmans or call Americans “the dumbest people on the planet.” See Leftists like Degenoa, Ward Churchill and Michael Moore for that lunacy.
    What does the GOP “lunatic fringe” want? They want more respect for life, and end to the Left’s war on christianity, they want a return to traditional American values, etc. Wow, that’s really scary.
    Christians built this country, and the Leftist newcomers are trying to remake it in their own image. Who are the real fringe here?

  • I think the number of people who are actually on the far right/left is overestimated. I think they get more publicity than the people in the middle. (What’s more interesting Crossfire or two moderates agreeing with eachother.) I think the moderates are being overlooked by the media and the politicians.
    The polls that I have seen have been fairly consistant and they show that the American public is pretty opposed to the federal intervention in the case (70-80% opposing).
    The media convinces moderates that we are the minority by overrepresenting that 20-30% who are standing in front of Terri’s Hospice yelling at congress because they get better ratings. (Crazy people are more interesting, see Reality Telivision)
    I think the problem is that moderates aren’t as nutty about the whole situation, which make us significantly less motivated to call into radio shows, harass congressmen, stand in the rain holding lame signs with tape over our mouths etc.

  • Sydney Carton

    Hugh Hewitt nails you, Jarvis. Substitute “the Jews” for “religious right” and you’d have a regular anti-semetic screed. The point is not that you’re anti-semetic, the point is that you exhibit a natural bigotry against religious people.
    If your idea of normal religious people are those who only go to Church on Easter, then you’ve got a serious problem. Apparrently, anyone who takes their faith seriously is dangerous to you. Yup. “The Jews” or “The Religious Right”… What’s the difference? Congratulations for proving yourself an ass.

  • I’m just glad the War on Terror is officially over so all government officials, all media, and most of the general public can worry about this issue instead.

  • MDP

    It would be helpful if Jeff defined what he means by “theocrats,” and explained precisely when it is/isn’t ok for people to apply their religious values to politcs.

  • There is also the National Review/Ward Churchill axis to consider.

  • Angelos

    Wow Carlos, you got three meaningless soundbites/talking points into one sentence! You’re really good!
    -respect for life. By this I assume you mean abortion. Well, that’s all well and good. I for one wish abortion never happened. But condoms break, birth control fails, people get careless. And there are certain people who should just not have kids, now or maybe ever. And NO ONE should make that decision but the woman who is subject to the carrying and raising of said child. Considering how many abused and unwanted children were carried to term and live miserable lives, a mature and painful decision to prevent just that is a good thing. It it not anyone’s place to control someone else’s life. And yes, I know, that is the primary goal of religion. But sorry, no. Freedom FROM is just as importnat as freedom OF. You can do what you want, but leave me out of it. And please, have your fellow religious nuts in the White House stop killing thousands of innocent Iraqis before you talk about abortion. Let’s get rid of the death penalty before we talk about abortion. If our soldiers hadn’t tortured, abused and killed more people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib then American soldiers were tortured and killed by the VietCong (!!!!), then you and your winger buddies could talk about respect for life.
    -War on Christianity? Please. Look, this has been discussed ad nauseum on this site, and I don’t want to wake Kat up, but I’m not trying to end Christianity. I’m trying to keep it the hell away from me, so I can be as free as you to practice (or not) what I want. You can’t attack me with your dogma, try to run my life according to your beliefs, and when I defend myself, accuse me of a War on Christianity.
    -Traditional values. Ahh, my favorite. Let’s put the women back in the kitchen, medicate them with Valium so they can cope. Let’s DEFINITELY put the niggers back in their place, along with the gays. Actually, what the hell, women shouldn’t even vote anymore. And of course, there was never any murder, adultery, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, abortion, war, Mexicans taking our jobs… Just all of us a bunch of white Christians with sunshine coming out of our asses. Don’t make me laugh.
    Christians built this country? Leftist newcomers? How ignorant can you really be?!?! Oh wait, never mind. That’s goal number one of religion – keep ’em down, and keep ’em stupid. That way they never question….

  • Keith

    You know, with all the talk of theocrats and philosophies I get the feeling no one is actually THINKING about the Schiavo case, just feeling.
    Forgive me if this has been brought up – but if I were to THINK about it, it seems as if there are only two possibilities… The Michael Schiavo possibility – his wife died years ago and her body is empty… OR Terri Schiavo’s parents’ possibility – that she is alive, and exists somewhere within her brain and body.
    So… if that’s the case, and the Michael Schiavo possibility is the true one – then there is no torture of a person, that person no longer exists, there is no (deontological?) harm in her remaining on life support. It’s just a body there, no suffering possible.
    If the ‘possibility’ of her parents is true, then there is a person alive in there somewhere and taking her off the feeding tube to starve and dehydrate is killing a person, not a body.
    Seems to me, that if you’re to think about it… there doesn’t seem to be a lot to the argument to take the feeding tube away in either case. Not when one party is willing to take care of her either way.
    It’d be nice to hear any of these ‘theocrats’ discuss things in a logical manner, but every major media examination of this, however, seems centered on feelings rather than thoughts.
    I don’t know either way, but I sure wish we’d be spending more time on why convicted sex offenders can be released 22 times in order to kill little girls than on this admittedly tragic, but somewhat isolated case (compared to that poor Florida girl and the possibility for that to happen again).

  • Sydney Carton

    Man, you’re a character. In one post you protest the complaint that you’re engaging in a War Against Christianity, and in the next paragraph you slime every Christian as a racist mysognist. It would be funny if you weren’t serious. But you only betray yourself with your words. Keep taking and you’ll merely bury yourself further. However, I don’t think my fight is with you, and I care not for your petty bigotries against practicing religious people. Your hate is your own problem. But Mr. Jarvis’ soapbox is a bigger fish to fry. Luckily, the reaction in the blogosphere to his screed has been mostly negative, accusing him of hyping the hatrid he pretends to denounce. So far, this has been a good debate because to silence bigorties such as yours, exposure is the best treatment.

  • Keith….EXACTLY!
    “Seems to me, that if you’re to think about it… there doesn’t seem to be a lot to the argument to take the feeding tube away in either case. Not when one party is willing to take care of her either way.”

  • Jeff wrote (in Jumping the shark for Jesus)
    “we are a secular nation of churchgoers and that we value separation of church and state over either church or state: That is our mainstream.”
    While that may be where we are now, I don’t think the founding fathers considered separation more important than the original components but as a vital and forward way to protect those who did not believe as they did from persecution.
    Unfortunately they never saw this coming: I quote from a former post from Robert Brown –
    ” ten commandment monuments are being easily scrubbed from even remote public property, there can be no whiff of religion in public schools, a tiny cross was easily forced off the LA seal, the ìpledge of allegianceî may soon be banned because of ìunder Godî, ect.
    Like it or not, the religious founded this country. (not to be confused with the so called “lunatic fringe”)
    What happened next is akin to being welcomed into an Amish household only to trash their way of life.

  • Angelos

    I’ve plenty of your posts Sydney, and I have nothing to defend myself against you.
    But if you disagree with my assessment, please define for me then, traditional moral values. And tell me when, exactly, did these halcyon days exist, to which the thumpers would like us to return? When there were no problems, everyone loved one another, blah blah blah.
    Empty buzzwords from empty people.
    I carry no “petty bigotries against practicing religious people.” I do feel I must defend myself from them, when the line of freedom OF/FROM is crossed.

  • Sydney Carton

    If you want an idea of traditional moral values, pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other equivilent statement of doctrine. You’ll find that the values expressed there are pretty mundane, and are largely a discussion of how to apply the Golden Rule of treating your neighbor as yourself and avoid the temptation of sin as applied from the 10 Commandments. Nowhere does the Church, or other religions (for the most part) teach that a halycon day existed. Rather, it is understood that sin must be conquered in our own time by each of us, and that we are never strong enough to conquer it alone and require the Grace of God. But in any event, if you’re truly curious you can find these answers on your own. I suspect you’re not really curious, and merely want to bash. I won’t stop you from bashing, because you look like an idiot when you do it, which merely serves my cause.

  • Keith,
    It struck me early on that Terri’s husband has gone through an aweful lot of effort to get this feeding tube removed. So maybe the reason he is pushing so hard for it is because he believes it is what Terri would have wanted. He could have just given up custody of her to her parents ages ago. But he is fighting to let her die, maybe he really thinks he is doing what she wanted. Just a thought.

  • nate bissonette

    If you compare the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers to those of modern politicians Jeff Jarvis considers theocrats, it becomes clear that the country was doomed from the start.
    The only way to save America is to purge all vestiges of religiousity from the country, so we eventually can become as moral, ethical, healthy and prosperous as any other thoroughly and completely secular nation, like . . .
    North Korea?
    North Vietnam?
    Red China?
    Wait a minute . . . .

  • Notorious right-winger Jesse Jackson enters the fray (via Protein Wisdom.

  • kevinP

    You have called on Hewitt and the “THEOCRATS”!!!!!!! to denounce Randall Terry. Done. On the second day that Terry began appearing on the tube Hewitt called him a “nut” and said that the parents made a big mistake by letting him be a spokesman for their cause. The media, right and left, are elevating him to a place of importance because he is great for ratings. He makes absurd and expolisive comments that rile up their readers and cause the overheated shoufests that passes for dialouge on TV today.Your Michael Moore comparison will be more accurate on the day that 80 per cent of the party leadership shows up for a Terry book launching and gives him a standing ovation. Or if at the next SOTU speech Terry is placed next to Mrs. Bush. Don’t hold your breath.Terry is not even a good representitve of the evangelical right let alone the entire party. He will never be anything other then a fringe wacko and the attempt to make him a symbol of the religous right is just as silly as saying Ward Churchill is the guiding force behind the democratic party. And now I learn from one of your moderate reasonable posters that all religous people on the right want to bring back slavery, lock women in the home and make them addicts to mood altering drugs. It is a good thing that he isn’t one of those religous wacko’s who use overheated hyperbole and wild charges because we know that everyone on the other side of the political spectrum are rational, scientific, and only use logic and facts to make their arguments.

  • Angelos

    The Golden Rule works for me.
    But the Commandments? Please, what a joke:
    1) “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
    Doesn’t apply to me. I hold no gods. But sure. I can dig it.
    2) “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
    Where to begin… first of all, every church in the world violates this, so that’s actually pretty funny. And how many pictures of Jesus hang in how many millions of homes? That’s bad too. And this can also be interpreted as intolerance toward the practicing of other religions. Or shall I say, completely contrary toward the AMERICAN value of freedom of religion.
    3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
    This has nothing to do with swearing, goddamn it! “The phrase ‘taking God’s name in vain’ related to contracts. They were sworn ‘in the name of the Lord’. If the terms of a contract were broken, the offending party was said to have taken ‘the Lord’s name in vain.'” So again, even “christians” don’t know anything about following the commmandments.
    4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it”
    Yeah, OK, the day all Christians abstain not only from work, but from play, on Sunday…
    5. “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
    Do I really need a book of fiction to tell me this?
    6. “Thou shalt not kill.”
    Personally, I think I can intuit this without the help of your traditional moral values.
    But in terms of Christianity, they don’t really mean it. It’s OK to kill “persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed”
    It’s also OK to kill if you’re the born-again governor of Texas, and you enjoy sentencing people to death.
    7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
    Again, I can intuit this without your help.
    Bakker, Falwell, Gingrich, etc., couldn’t.
    8. “Thou shalt not steal.”
    Uh huh. Fear of jail actually works for me…
    9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
    Uh huh. Also codified by law…
    10. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
    Hell, coveting and keeping up with the Joneses and constantly wanting bigger/better/faster/more is the American way!
    And if the aforementioned ass of my neighbor’s wife is a great one, of course I’m going to covet it. Not going to tap it, but what’s wrong with a little masturbation fantasy?
    So there we have it. 10 commandments, some meaningless, some obvious, most ignored even by the people who profess to know how I should live my life, and would like nothing better than for the pinheads in Washington to force this garbage on me in the form of law.
    Please Sydney, have something intelligent to talk about.

  • Carlos

    Thanks Angelos. In your last series of posts you’ve done a better job of proving my point than I or Sydney ever could have.

  • tonynoboloney

    I agree with you Sydney, I think Angelos is a hate spewing, fear mongering biggot of the widest stripe. Thank you for taking him on in such a reasoned and respectfull manner, I was feeling I would have to, but you did a much better job than I would have. TONY

  • AbyssBoy

    Commandments aren’t simply a warning of coming doom if they are ignored, but more of a holistic guide to happiness, in addition to being the law before there was a law (so to speak).
    Two examples:
    1. Is stealing wrong because there is a law against it, or because it harms my fellow man? In addition, there is more to stealing than knocking off a Brinks truck…if we work for someone how do we spend our day and guard the resources that are not ours?
    2. Coveting the neighbor or the neighbor’s goods is a human problem…the point is that in doing so, it prevents us from having an authentic experience with our own, or from being thankful for what we have. Does it happen? Why yes. But the commandment reminds us not to wallow in these desires but to enjoy the beauty already around us.
    Also, since the commandments are ideals for attempting to follow a holy life, it’s obvious that people will fall short and need to hear the lesson repeatedly. Pointing out where individuals fall short serves as a reminder that the standards are something worth pursuing, not abandoning.
    It’s up to the individual to follow or not to follow…but as a code of conduct (and when seen through reflection, rather than simply reduction), it’s a pretty damn good one. Sounds like the objection is more that people do not follow it as they should, which serves all the more to point out its usefulness.

  • “A sailor needs a fixed star by which to navigate.”
    No one can keep all the Commandments all the time.
    No one that ever lived (but Christ) is capable of it.
    The Bible tells us the most fundamental purpose of the “law” was to bring us precisely to acknowledge this point (Gal. 3)
    When Christ took upon himself the consequences of our sinful nature, he enabled salvation based on faith and acceptance.
    An excellent resource on this, a book, is featured at:
    There is a difference between being weak and sinful..something everyone is… and promoting sin itself.
    Quote from another:
    “Do we advance or oppose the will of God on earth?
    Liberals start out with some noble ideas but ah how soon it becomes twisted with humanistic thinking.
    The result is confusion.”

  • Sydney Carton

    Thanks, guys.
    Angelos, sometimes you make it too easy. But I’ll stop for now, out of MERCY (be thankful for that Christian virtue). Because talking to you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  • Mr. Jarvis, sir, you needn’t worry about a grade. For the purposes of this assignment, you are one half of the text.=)

  • Jon H

    Reynolds vastly overestimates the importance of Ward Churchill.
    If you take Andrea Dworkin, and shrink her to 1/10000th of her size and importance, you’d have Ward Churchill’s significance. And Andrea Dworkin isn’t terribly prominent these days.
    The man is not a ‘thought leader’. If he draws audiences, at this point it’s probably for the entertainment value. He’s the G.G. Allin of lefty academics. People who don’t like the music will show up just to see him poop on stage.

  • So when can we start taxing the churches? If they want so much say in govenment policy, they need to start paying their goddamn addmision price.

  • EverKarl

    Clearly, Jeff brought this up so that he could continue his relentless attack on Democrats. I’m updating my banner demanding he resign from the human race right after I finish this yummy tub of pudding.
    BTW, if you were wondering why the Schiavo case has been so long and drawn out, it’s because no public controversy has closure until the Rev. Jesse Jackson does his lap, and he was unavoidably detained with that Michael Jackson interview.

  • HA

    Who do you fear more? Ward Churchill or Randall Terry?
    I fear Churchill more. Terry would turn us back to 1950’s America. Churchill would turn us into 1950’s Russia. And Churchill’s ideology is far more mainstreamed within the Democratic party than Terry’s is within the Republican party.

  • klf

    Part of the problem with Jarvis and his new moderately republican friend is their definition of ‘theocrat’. Jeff seems to imply any consistent churchgoer is a theocrat, which is ridiculous on its face. Painting with too broad a brush?
    “And I am posting this on Easter morning as millions of Americans go to church — huge numbers of them who may not be devout in media terms and, in fact, go only once or twice a year. These are the reasonably religious, not the zealots, not the theocrats, just Americans.”
    I wrote about a tad about this at my little-read blog.(
    The original post used sloppy reasoning, but considering it came pre-packaged as one of Jeff’s patented rants, perhaps that’s not surprising.
    Is anyone else amused that someone who has attacked the FCC with the zeal of a 100 excitable men (and made it a 1-man crusade for the most part), is so quickly classifying religious Americans as ‘zealots’ and ‘theocrats’? Why not insult millions of weekly churchgoers? It’s no wonder the left has such a hard time when their most conservative adherents think so little of organized religion and those that take part.

  • Klf
    I visited your blog…and will be back.
    Yes, I had the same thoughts as you did about there being nothing to attend on Christmas and Easter if all were “reasonably religious”.

  • Angelos

    Interesting Sydney, becuase you haven’t really SAID anything.
    You said, snarkily, “But in any event, if you’re truly curious you can find these answers on your own.”, and it’s obvious that I have, over the years, come to my own conclusions.
    For example, that there is absolutely no need for religion, that reality is interesting enough without a book of fairy tales; that I don’t understand how people who follow a book of fairy tales with the strict, literal interpetation can be taken seriously by anyone – there’s obviously a lack of capacity to reason; that I think people who are “a la carte” religious are even worse, because they’re hypocrits; that born-agains are the worst of all, because they got to party for year and years, and now they get to annoy me with their unjustified sense of superiority.
    Aside from all that, I don’t really care what you do regarding religion. I don’t hate you, I don’t persecute you, I don’t even think about you – until you try to encroach on my personal space. If you and your buddies at the PTC don’t like something, fine. Don’t watch it, listen to it, read it. But don’t you dare try to take away my right/ability to watch it, listen to it, or read it. Then I call bullshit. The people who fled England did so to escape exactly the kind of religious control that thumpers here would like to impose.
    If your only response is to call me a “biggot” (hey Tony, learn to spell before you try to insult me) and an idiot, well, you’ve lost your case.
    How about some actual thought in your posts? Hey, you don’t have to agree with my assessment of the value of the commandments, but if you can’t be bothered to do anything but sling insults, why, I might even have to question your christianity!
    Reread all your posts Sydney. Where have you made a post that didn’t have to do with attacking me and my posts? Where did you actually put down an original argument? Look, some believe in God, some don’t. Some believe in a code of living as prescribed by religion, some just do petty much the same stuff on their own. The problem lies in the fact that the “religious” ones want to codify how the “nons” live. When I try to protect my rights to live how I want without the influence of thumpers, you erect the “War on Christianity” straw man to distract from your very real goal of restricting my freedom. I see through it.
    I would be quite happy if I never had to discuss organized religion again, in the context of its effect on me. But as long as it has an effect, and tries to have a larger one, I will be there defending myself against it.
    That makes me a bigot? Please.

  • Angelos

    A fantastic little article on the the denial of humanity that is really the raison d’etre of organized religion.
    Fear and control.
    Have a nice life.

  • tonynoboloney

    Angelos, you are correct in that I spelled “bigot” wrong, but am wondering as to the “idiot” comment? But if the shoe fits………..