I signed up for daily news updates from Channel 4 here in LA a while ago, and every once in a while there's something that catches my eye that simply begs to be clicked. (Not that I think Channel 4 provides much in the way of actual NEWS, you know, but they're occasionally entertaining).
One recent email had a link to a Pagan Holidays Quiz. And I thought, 'how progressive and open minded!' So I had to click the link and find out what it was all about.
Turns out the quiz is pretty well researched and I got stumped several times. (Guess my old neo-Pagan days didn't prep me too well for this one.) But what made me laugh was the intro sentence to the quiz:
What I found truly disturbing, beyond the obvious problems with their message, was the spokesperson for the church. She sounded entirely rational, friendly and engaging when they first started talking to her. But when they got around to the church's message, she became a fire-spitting lunatic. There was no room for discussion or debate. She was right, the rest of the world could either agree or go to hell, and the hate and invective that laced every word she spoke was truly chilling. (One thing that always fascinates me is the way "god fearing" people such as this can generate so much hatred for the things they don't believe in or accept. My memory of Saturday morning catechism classes seemed to treat hatred as a negative emotion, one to be avoided. But I guess in difficult times like these, the "faithful" are allowed to hate their neighbors. Especially if they're gay, or morally bankrupt—i.e. "Liberal"—or otherwise unsuitable for good Christian company.)
Something else I found VERY interesting is the way they've elevated the First Amendment to "gift from God" status. Apparently, the Founding Fathers were guided by God to provide this gift, because He knew the righteous—i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church—were going to need this gift to perform His works in this decadent century. Or some such nonsense as that.
I know that these guys are WAY out on the fringe, and no one's particularly rushing to jump on their bandwagon (the church itself is apparently comprised entirely of its founder, his children and their families). But I've heard enough ugly invective directed towards gays, liberals, and anyone who's not a bible-thumping, God-fearing Christian, to really doubt the survey's notion that religious freedom is "blossoming" today. It may be surviving, but it's got a lot of people gunning for it, I think.
One recent email had a link to a Pagan Holidays Quiz. And I thought, 'how progressive and open minded!' So I had to click the link and find out what it was all about.
Turns out the quiz is pretty well researched and I got stumped several times. (Guess my old neo-Pagan days didn't prep me too well for this one.) But what made me laugh was the intro sentence to the quiz:
Religious freedom has always been one of the cornerstones of the United States, and these days it is blossoming more than ever.Just the other day, I was listening to KROQ and they were interviewing some woman from the Westboro Baptist Church (and no, I'm not linking to them, for reasons which should immediately become clear). The Westboro Baptist Church's URL is "godhatesfags.com". Their message (and, perusing their landing page, it does seem to be a one-note message) is pretty much stated in their URL.
What I found truly disturbing, beyond the obvious problems with their message, was the spokesperson for the church. She sounded entirely rational, friendly and engaging when they first started talking to her. But when they got around to the church's message, she became a fire-spitting lunatic. There was no room for discussion or debate. She was right, the rest of the world could either agree or go to hell, and the hate and invective that laced every word she spoke was truly chilling. (One thing that always fascinates me is the way "god fearing" people such as this can generate so much hatred for the things they don't believe in or accept. My memory of Saturday morning catechism classes seemed to treat hatred as a negative emotion, one to be avoided. But I guess in difficult times like these, the "faithful" are allowed to hate their neighbors. Especially if they're gay, or morally bankrupt—i.e. "Liberal"—or otherwise unsuitable for good Christian company.)
Something else I found VERY interesting is the way they've elevated the First Amendment to "gift from God" status. Apparently, the Founding Fathers were guided by God to provide this gift, because He knew the righteous—i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church—were going to need this gift to perform His works in this decadent century. Or some such nonsense as that.
I know that these guys are WAY out on the fringe, and no one's particularly rushing to jump on their bandwagon (the church itself is apparently comprised entirely of its founder, his children and their families). But I've heard enough ugly invective directed towards gays, liberals, and anyone who's not a bible-thumping, God-fearing Christian, to really doubt the survey's notion that religious freedom is "blossoming" today. It may be surviving, but it's got a lot of people gunning for it, I think.
Comments
Hey, the fact that a woman like that gets to walk around and express herself and then you get to bash her on your blog is proof positive that religious freedom is alive and well.
The fact that Tommy Cruise gets to bash on post-natal drug use and praise silent birth on ET is proof. The fact that no one in America has killed Madonna for crucifying herself or burned down Comedy Central for the South Park derision of religions, or decimated even ONE Mosque in this country post-9/11 is proof positive that religious freedom is alive and well.
Want to know how alive and well it is? Go to Denmark or France and check out the damage done by Muslims rioting and killing and burning...over a single picture.
Q
Q: For the record, when someone asks you what your politics are, what your point of view is, what do you say to them?
STOSSEL: I'd say I'm a libertarian. And I prefer the word 'liberal' except that the liberals stole the word and have perverted it to mean 'big government running your life.' So I'm stuck with 'classical liberal' and no one knows what that means, so I call myself a libertarian.
Q: That puts you at odds with both liberals and conservatives. Which side hates you or dislikes you more – liberals or conservatives? You are in favor of legalizing drugs, you're not against abortion – things like that would annoy conservatives. But you're also in favor of free-market solutions to just about everything, from schools to buses.
STOSSEL: I think homosexuality is all right. And yet the conservatives will pay me a $40,000 speaking fee -- which goes to charity, by the way – and invite me to their events and have me on their shows. But the liberals will have nothing to do with me.
SULLIVAN: You can tell a lot about a movement by whether it is mainly interested in finding converts or heretics. Neither side is blameless in this; but the lefties would be more convincing in their appeals for tolerance if they engaged in more of it themselves.
If my pointing out the logical inconsistencies between Christianity's "love thy neighbor" message & the Westboro Baptist Church's message makes me intolerant, so be it. Guess I'm guilty. I hate intolerance. Or I’m intolerant of hatred. Or something like that. While I used some colorful language to describe their spokesperson's behavior, I don't think I crossed any lines.
As far as I'm concerned, Fundamentalists are, almost by definition, nuts. The Muslim reaction to those political cartoons is simply the latest example of that lunacy.
(Wow… aren't we done yet?)
I don't know if we can realistically drop Tom Cruise's recent behavior into this discussion. His eccentric behavior may stem from his religious beliefs, but I've gotta figure there are Scientologists that are as uncomfortable with his actions as the rest of us may be. And the negative reaction I've heard to his arrogant stand on drug use has more to do with his lack of qualifications to take that stand (i.e. he’s male and talking about post-partum depression) than its basis in Scientology doctrine.
OK… on to your liberal bashing. What always fascinates me about that "Liberals are all about Big Government" b.s. is that usually, the folks that are bothered by "big government" seem to be bothered by government's involvement in business, and yet are quite all right with the government telling you what sex your partner needs to be, what you can do with that partner and what a woman can & can't do with her body, to mention just a few. That kind of interference in day-to-day life seems a hell of a lot more Big Government (not to mention Big Brother) to me. Yet Liberals are the bad guys. Whatever. (And frankly, any discussion where the interviewer shows his bias with dismissive remarks like "lefties" is one I don't need to care about.)
(I dabbled with the notion of Libertarian politics a while back. But the more I dealt with them, the more I found them to be either way-out-there eccentric, or closet conservative. So I was unsurprised when I read an article a few years ago that discussed the close ties Libertarians and Republicans shared. Back before the Neo-Cons, when Republicans still believed in limited government, of course.)
As for that Liberal label, you're more likely to see me using it here than in real life, simply because it helps to distinguish me from the whole conservative end of things here. And because you like to slap me with it every time you try to denigrate my politics.
I haven't seen Al's film nor heard his arguments, so I really can't talk about your quote. I do know that, if you want to dispute global warming, you're going to have your hands full. You may dispute the conclusions, but I think the evidence is pretty solid. And the reality is that, by the time you can be sure of those conclusions one way or another, it's probably going to be too late to do anything about them. So, a little hyperbole to make the point, if it actually makes the point? Yeah, I'm probably fine with that.
"And because you like to slap me with it every time you try to denigrate my politics." Well, I missed the part where I've ever denigrated your politics. I'll often call you on hyperbole, I'll always try to argue for common sense, and I'm ever cynical of all political parties. But, I don't believe I've ever denigrated your politics.
As for Sullivan's blurb - I simply saw it the same day you posted. The only important part of it - to me - was that he has a point regarding tolerance: the "lefties" (when did that become a bad name?) are far more intolerant of far more groups than the "righties" (equal name calling). And, I'm not talking about extremists on either side because extremists, by their nature, are intolerant of everything that is not on board with them. The small example that "righties" pay for Stossel to speak and "lefties" won't talk to him is but one example. But, the "lefties" often prove the theory out time and again. This isn't denigration - if anything I'm thinking aloud about how the Democratic party could/should repair itself.
For the record...your original post is about religious FREEDOM. It doesn't even contain the word tolerance anywhere! If it had, I would have pointed out that "religious tolerance" is as much a paradox as "military intelligence". And, I wasn't attacking it - I own a "Born Again Pagan" shirt, and that woman sounds like a nut. I was just pointing out that the very existence of such nuts speaking openly is evidence of how much freedom we have.
It is also INdisputable that Mars is suffering from global warming and its ice caps are melting.
It is also established fact that Earth has suffered this in the past - we refer to it as the Ice Age.
The thing scientists can't ever agree on (and, I agree with you - if they ever DO agree on it, it will be too late for us) is why it is happening. Does our use of fossil fuels accelerate it? Maybe. I'm even willing to err on the side of caution and say "yes".
What I can't stand about Gore (aside from the idea that he's going to run against Hillary...why split the party?), is that he offers fiction with fact in order to create fear/hysteria over the issue. This is not a fear/hysteria issue. Not for us, not for our children, and not for our grandchildren. What I can't stand is that he makes his claims and then (let's talk tolerance again) claims that anyone who disagrees is a "nut", or corrupt and in the pockets of the oil companies. Even Richard Lendzer - head climatologist at MIT. Yeah, he's a corrupt nut...
What I can't stand about Gore is that he uses all of this paranoid propaganda to claim his Kyoto Treaty is the greatest piece of legislature ever written and that not passing it marks the end of civilization. Earth to Gore: your lame bill was UNANIMOUSLY downed. Why? Because it was too aggressive. Because you have to take baby steps, and you can't cripple US production. And, most importantly, because if India and China will not adhere to a piece of legislation reducing use of fossil fuel, then IT WON'T WORK!!! They are MASSIVE consumers of fuel. Combined, they pollute the atmosphere more than the US.
So, I just want him to shut up. But, I'll exercise my tolerance. :)
Also...liberals ARE for big government. It's the current definition of the word. I do think that it is BS when considering parties. Bush is also obviously about big government. That's why I hate him.
Of course, he's conservative on other things. It's just so hard today to say, "yes, I'm liberal" or "yes, I'm conservative". You are conservative on some things and I am liberal on some things.
BTW, 'big government' haters (me) are not all that worried about the gov's involvement in business. They are against massive bureaucracies and programs. 'Free marketers' are against gov involvment in business. See how confusing all these terms get?
And, people against gay marriage are called 'traditionalists'.
Some 'pro-lifers' are religiously bent against abortion. Others are simply 'states rightists' who believe the states should make the law, and the Supreme Court has no sway over the issue.
So, don't go hatin' on me because I call myself conservative on many issues.
As for the whole "tolerance/freedom" thing… I swear I not only THOUGHT I was talking about religious tolerance, but I READ it that way when I posted it, and probably when I first saw the damn survey. Not sure what I was smoking last week. I don't think religious tolerance is a complete oxymoron, but I think I know where you're coming from on that one.
I'll be back later for Al and the lefties and all the other BS. Just wanted to check in and acknowledge my failings. ; )
Frankly, I hope your wrong. I don't dislike Gore, but he had his chance and failed miserably. How the hell does your party preside over the biggest surplus in US history, a booming economy and relative peace in the world (ah, how naive we were) and LOSE to some former frat-boy from Texas whose sole qualification for office was that his daddy used to be President? As far as I'm concerned, if Gore had spent half as much time trying to beat George Bush as he did trying to distance himself from Clinton, I'd probably be a hell of a lot happier about the political situation in this country today. And all his "I used to be the next President" jokes just serve to point out his failings to me. No, apparently I'm not feeling particularly forgiving on this one, I guess.
Sure, "lefties" is a totally innocuous word (as is "righties," as your example shows). But, when Stossel & Sullivan are talking, they refer to "liberals" and "conservatives" until it comes time for Sullivan's "tolerance" comment, when suddenly they're "lefties." He could have just as easily said "…but liberals would be more convincing…". The use of the diminutive, in this case, is dismissive, making Sullivan's point, without saying it, that he doesn't respect those "lefties." It's the same as when I refer to George Bush as "Dubya" or you call Bill Clinton "Slick Willy."
As for Stossel's comments about how conservatives will invite him to speak, but liberals will have nothing to do with him is meaningless without context. I'm not familiar with Stossel, so I have to ask, what's he speaking about? The fact that he may be tolerant of homosexuality and isn't against abortion are not exactly ringing endorsements. It may be that, despite his "tolerance," his message is one that liberals simply aren't interested in hearing. As for his speaking fee going to charity, I bet I could come up with a long list of charities that I would not care to support, so the statement is meaningless to me. Frankly, his comments strike me as rather self serving ("I'm so great, I don't understand why those silly lefties aren't falling all over themselves to hear me speak!"). Thanks. I'll pass.
As for your "definition" of Liberal, that's an external label, applied by those who don't agree with liberal politics. It's the same as if I were to say that Conservatives are the "tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, to hell with the environment" guys. There's some truth to that interpretation of conservative politics, but I'm sure that conservatives would dispute that perception and be able to give reasons and justifications for the actions that lead to that perception. I would assume that most liberals would dispute Stossel's "big government ruining your life" designation just as vocally. My politics are liberal (duh) and I'm not interested in big government. Bureaucracies are wasteful and inefficient. But I believe the government has responsibilities to its citizens and, until you can come up with some way the government can operate without bureaucracy, then
we're stuck with it.
What really fascinates me about that whole discussion is that closing remark. When the hell did conservatives become the bastion of tolerance and liberals intolerant whipping boys? The venom and invective I'm hearing these days all seems to be coming from the right side of the aisle. Maybe conservatives think they're more tolerant since they just lump everyone they dislike under the liberal banner and can hate just one group.
I've always thought liberals were the tolerant types. I know all the liberals I know are. It's the same amazing spin job I see conservatives regularly engaged in. (Did you know that one of their recent Spanish language ad campaigns blamed Democrats for trying to criminalize immigration? This despite the fact that the immigration bill everyone's been fighting over came from a Republican.)
Frankly, there's enough intolerance to go around. You want to believe liberals are intolerant? Fine, have a good time. Just don't try and convince me conservatives (liberal hating, gay bashing, conformists that they are) are any better. (And yes, if you want to paint liberals with generalizations, I'll be glad to do the same. See, you went and got me ranting again!)
Yeah, the Right certainly is a bastion of tolerance and open-mindedness.
Let me see how to address this?
"You know, for a writer, you're intriguingly blind to usage and perception. Do you do that intentionally, for the sake of argument, I wonder?"
You think so? I don't see it. Maybe I AM blind.
On second thought, no. I just read Sullivan a lot. He's a Brit and likes to refer to us as "righties" and "lefties". It's his thing. He's a gay, British, 'conservative' who despises Bush...so, he has no point or agenda in using the term.
I WILL grant you that the particular example is relatively pointless. I don't know enough about the Stossel situation either.
I'll also grant that "liberal" doesn't always mean "expand government". That was kinda my point - the old labels no longer apply. There is too much crossover. And, God knows, with politicians, they are constantly doing doublespeak to appeal to polls anyhow so you NEVER know what they are.
As for being "stuck" with bureaucracy...well, that's a debate we can have over drinks: one conservative to one liberal. Let's just say I think you're mistaken for now.
When the hell did conservatives become the bastion of tolerance and liberals intolerant whipping boys? The venom and invective I'm hearing these days all seems to be coming from the right side of the aisle...I've always thought liberals were the tolerant types. I know all the liberals I know are."
Then you haven't been listening to Air America, or Al Gore, or Harry Reed, or Chuck Shumer, or Howard Dean, or Ted Kennedy, or John Murtha. These guys have all been spewing invective, accusations, names, hate, and insults for the last two years. I'll assume you live in a cave?
I'll grant you that there are a ton of nuts on the EXTREME right who want to Christianize America, or burn homosexuals or whatever. There are a ton of EXTREME lefties (no offense intended) who want to defend the rights of pedophiles (that's the ACLU, btw) or kill Bush or whatever. There are always extreme nuts to make a case for intolerance.
Now, I don't think the conservatives or righties have become the bastion for tolerance, but the point Sullivan is making is because the invective and insults and hate from the left are no longer just coming from the extremes. It is coming from the MAINSTREAM. Except for Air America, all those I mentioned are Senators or Congressmen. And, Dean heads the Democratic party. They have dropped fascist comments, Hitler comparisons, paranoia, conspiracy theories, and more over the past 2 years. I have no doubt your liberal friends are tolerant because I know you. Do you know your party? They are getting weird lately...
"Did you know that one of their recent Spanish language ad campaigns blamed Democrats for trying to criminalize immigration? This despite the fact that the immigration bill everyone's been fighting over came from a Republican."
I can't claim familiarity with this. However, I can tell you this: the bill that came from Republicans is being fought over because IT IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH! Actually, the Democrats like it. The fighting is between the Republicans and their base. And, no one EVER has attempted to criminalize IMMIGRATION. It's ILLEGAL immigration they are debating. That's already a crime. The debate is over if/when/how to finally enforce it.
Yeah, the Right certainly is a bastion of tolerance and open-mindedness."
As if to make MY point, you bring up another right-wing bomb thrower who is trying to sell her book. Show me a Senator or Congressman from the Republican party who acts this way. There isn't one. You've already seen my list of Democratic politicians who say outrageous things every day.
BTW...in 'defense' of Ann. She makes a good point in this outrageous argument. Her point is that the Democratic party looks for victims who are "unattackable" to parade around the country and throw bombs at the right. Cindy Sheehan is another good example. These are women with extreme positions, little knowledge of world politics save their own strong opinion, and they can't be 'attacked' or even publicly disagreed with because they are victims.
Unfortunately, Ann (as she is wont to do) couches it in a heinous personal attack against them. It is extremist personal attacking at its worst and outrageous hyperbole. Too bad, because her point is both valid and strong. It just gets lost in the noise.
Hey...you do that sometimes too! Well, not the insults TOO much, but they hyperbole definitely! Go write a book for the left!
However, I predict that these comments will NOT help sell her book. I think they will bury it. She always pushes the envelope, but this went too far, and I think it will blow up in her face.
As for the ad campaign I mentioned, that confusion between legal immigration and illegal immigration was part of the point. According to FactCheck.org, the Spanish language ad says that Democrats "voted to treat millions of hardworking immigrants as felons." They're the one's blurring the lines. And I'm not disputing the need to enforce and/or strengthen our immigration policies. I just kinda thing a new Berlin wall might be an extreme solution.
I'm not making the case for bureaucracy (GOD, I hate that word—I never can spell it right). I just don't think it's going away any time soon. Best you can do is hope to minimize it. Maybe I'm just a pessimist.
Frankly, no I haven't spent much (any?) time listening to Air America. Nor that much listening to/reading anything by most of the names you mention. I'm not living in a cave, but I'm really trying to distance myself from all the noise. I don't listen to the BS from the Republican party either, so I can't offer any examples of anything I might find problematic coming from their camp.
I can acknowledge that I think the Democrats are floundering and trying to find a voice. I'd settle for any voice right about now, though I'd probably like one that didn't sound shrill, paranoid and ineffectual (wait, am I talking about their rhetoric, or their policies?). Suffice it to say, I’m not terribly happy with them. (And, while I can grant you that it's not the most politic thing to do, those fascist comments and Hitler comparisons are disturbingly easy to make. Homeland/Fatherland. The "rat on your neighbor" program as an anti-terrorist measure. I'm sure there are others. And no, I'm NOT trying to say Bush is like Hitler or they're fascists. But, since I am admittedly prone to hyperbole, it's the kind of hyperbolic comparison I find easy.)
But I think that (back to debating labels again) the current Democratic party has about as much to do with traditional Liberal ideas as the current Republican party has with traditional Conservative ideas. They both seem to be in a race to the right, with the Republicans cozying up to those same crazy Religious righties, while the Dems seem to be trying to romance the mythical "middle". Unfortunately, those in the middle (the undecided, etc.) don't particularly trust the Democrats and those of us on the left are wondering what the hell they really stand for any more. For instance, I've disagreed with Diane Feinstein (her "save the flag" amendment) and Hilary Clinton ("video games are evil") nearly as much as any one on the right lately. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with them, since the Republican alternative is worse, imho.
When it comes to modern day politicians, what's the difference?
I love that you brought up the Hillary video game thing. It is indicative of modern politics. She doesn't BUY that...this is all "polling politics" now. She had some polls analyzed and her people said, "You might try courting the 'mothers of the heartland' womens vote with a speech about this." So, she did. The next day, her polls didn't budge, which means no one bought it, which is why you've NEVER heard her mention it again.
There are no more politicians in power who BELIEVE in anything anymore.
Come on, how can you say that? They believe in their polls, don't they?
And I thought I was the cynical one. ; )
(god, I hate emoticons.)