No, this isn't about Obama and his latest gaffe (defined as when a politician accidentally reveals what he truly believes). But somewhat relatedly, James Kirchick takes aim at liberal homophobia. He covers a lot of ground, but here's part of his take on the free pass given to Bill Clinton:
In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states (and the federal government) not to recognize same-sex marriages of other states, and then touted his support of the measure on Christian radio stations. The Clinton Justice Department refused to offer an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans, which challenged a Colorado constitutional amendment seeking to ban cities and towns from instituting antidiscrimination laws protecting gays. Clinton also signed a bill barring HIV-positive people from entering the country and one that discharged HIV-positive soldiers from the military. "It's really outrageous the pass that Clinton has gotten from gay and lesbian people considering the harm he did to the gay rights movement," [the Log Cabin Republican's Patrick] Sammon says.
Clinton did not stop harming gays once he left office. In 2004 he reportedly encouraged Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to not only support anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendments at the state level, but the Federal Marriage Amendment as well. The Clinton administration- looked upon by liberals, gay ones especially, as a golden era in American history-proved that leading Democrats can be pro-gay by convenience, not conviction, and that when homophobia works for political advantage liberals are no less hesitant to employ it than conservatives.
In addition to those cited by Kirchick, I can think of several other instances of gay-baiting by public figures on the left. I've also personally encountered morally superior "love me I'm a liberal" types who, affronted by the expression of political heresy, have no compunction about revealing what they really think by unleashing anti-gay-tinged tirades. And I know that a great many other gay non-liberals, and especially out Republicans, routinely experience the same.
More (on topic). Can you imagine the uproar from LGBT activists and the banner headlines in LGBT media if Republicans did this? Clinton and Obama Appear at Religious College that Categorizes Homosexuality with Stealing, Adultery & Sexual Abuse. At this self-describe "Compassion Forum" held at a Christian college that urges gay students to seek reparative therapy immediately, neither candidate mentioned their support for gay nondiscrimination-except-as-regards-marriage.
Off-topic: The left's latest harvest. Advocates of big-government social engineering told us that mandating production of a five-fold increase in biofuels, and paying government subsidies so that farmers would switch from traditional crops to grow a type of corn that people can not eat, would help alleviate the apocalypse of global warming (or so St. Al of Gore has revealed unto us). The result: worldwide starvation. Liberals-and big-government conservatives-defenders of the poor and powerless.
As long as I'm off topic, should I bring up how liberals spearheaded passage of a law-the Community Reinvestment Act-forcing lenders to extend credit to those with, shall we say, poor credit histories (effectively amounting to a soft quota for such loans) ? More progress thanks to government intervention over the "mindless" market! (Okay, not the whole cause, but a contributing factor-and along with their protests that banks were unfairly denying credit to the disadvantaged, more of one than liberals will admit.)
50 Comments for “Sometimes, Liberals Tell Us What They Really Think”
posted by Charles Wilson on
Keep in mind that this is the same James Kirchick who, when he couldn’t find any liberals who wanted to date a self-hating wingnut like him, complained about it in the Boston Globe. Apparently, that’s because the Boston Herald didn’t want to run a love-lorn homo’s op-ed lament.
posted by Jorge on
/\\…and just when I was about to say I was skeptical of Kirchick;s claim about homophobic liberals.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, thanks for catching Kirchick’s piece… I find he captures and exposes the seedy, intolerant underbelly of the GayLeft and liberals almost as well as the sane, cogent, truthful folks at GayPatriot.net –and GayLefties like ChasWilson hate him and GayPatriot for the same reasons: namely, the monsters loathe the mirror.
What I don’t get is why the GayLeft is so quick to cover for many of these homophobic liberals… like they’ve been doing on a smaller scale for Barry Obama, for instance. Although he’s probably not quite the pathological liar that Bill/Hillary Clinton are, he continues to duck, evade and hide from going on the record with gay reporters… he just doesn’t get it despite his faux-hip dance moves with EllenG. It’s a lot like what the GreatBarryO did over the GenPace flap in ’07 about homosexuality being immoral… it took the GreatBarryO a while to find “his authentic” voice on a very, very basic gay issue… and only after threats by the gay community to protest his lukewarm embrace.
But you know, the GayLeft has to defend liberals because they drink from the same koolaid dispenser… down on the Democrat Plantation.
Unfortunately, gay reporters in PA have concluded they may never get the chance to speak with the GreatBarryO… he’s going to duck them like he’s ducked FoxNews and O’Reilly all these years. Chickens don’t make good Presidents; just ask JimmineyCricketCarter.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9503.html
posted by Richard on
I have never known anyone — among Democrats or liberals (not the same thing) who have given President Clinton a ‘pass’ on gay rights.
Yet, what his — often GOP or Libertarian — critics seem to ignore is the larger political reality of our two-party system.
Clinton had always opposed legal recognition of same-sex marriage, as did most of the nation. Least we forget that Bob Dole — his major opponent in 1996 — was also a big fan of the DOMA.
The Justices that Clinton nominated to the Supreme Court made it possible for Romer v. Evans to exist, and thus laid the ground work for Lawrence v. Texas.
People who are HIV+ are probably going to get a medical discharge from the military or at least restricted use. Is that a bad thing?
Clinton supported the ENDA and the HCPA and greatly increased funding for AIDS/HIV. Federal civilian employment got a equal opportunity policy, which may have since been ignored.
Yeah, he like most people, opposed needle exchange and medical marijuana programs.
Bush (1992) and Dole (1996) would have been worse on gay rights issues. Maybe some third party candidate would have been better, but they are not a viable choice.
Yeah, when it comes to gay families, most politicians, like most Americans, falter or demonstrate a high level of prejudice.
Candidates who have supported equal rights for gay families almost never win elections.
John Kerry would have been a better president — on gay right issues — then Bush.
Let us not forget that gay people make up, roughly, five percent of the national voting population. That is enough to get certain things done, but other things need the support of allies.
posted by RIchard on
Hay, if we want to go do the road of looking at what ‘the right’ things about gay people, I am more then happy to produce some quotes.
posted by Matt on
Gawd Richard; this isn’t about who is more homophobic–the left or the right. Homophobia crosses political lines. It’s about mankind’s homophobia, ok?
What makes the left’s message of tolerance is that these kinds of people are only as tolerant as the ‘moment’ suites.
posted by Charles Wilson on
What kind of “conservative” whines about not being able to get a date, much less whines to the Boston Globe about not being able to get a date? What a crybaby. If James Kirchick is the best the Cabinettes can offer to the world, then the Cabinettes had better hold a caucus or something.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson asks: “What kind of “conservative” whines about not being able to get a date”
I’d ask you why you have this fetish-like forlorn jealous envy of gay conservatives, Chas… attentive IGF readers know of your queer animosity toward heart-throb and ubermale MattSanchez… is it really just unrequited love? I know he’s not your first… before I asked Jamie Kirchick a question like your’s… I’d suggest you do some serious soul-searching about your animating motivation behind that question.
http://www.cplsanchez.info/
posted by Charles Wilson on
Michigan-Matt, you and your Log Cabinette friends make extravagant claims of having standards of conduct, yadda yadda yadda. North Liar Forty, in particular, disdains gay promiscuity.
But when it comes to telling the truth about one of your own, you throw out this patently ridiculous ad hominem about my having some kind of a jealous crush on the loser. Where are your “standards?”
posted by Bobby on
The reason I’m more tolerant of conservative homophobia is that conservatives never promise you that they’re open minded, that they believe in diversity, that they’re non-judgemental, that they like gay people, or any of those lies. They just cut your taxes so you can afford to buy a gun and hopefully shoot a homophobe someday 🙂
People like Obama, who clearly doesn’t like guns as demonstrated in his latest remarks, think that the government can protect you from everything. So Obama and his liberal friends are worse than any conservative homophobe, they are enablers of gay bashers, they disarm the weak to arm the strong.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson queerily queries: “But when it comes to telling the truth about one of your own…”
I guess I’m puzzled by what you write in this instance, ChasWilson. I get your hatred for all things GOP. I get you earnestly feel competent and complete in carrying the water for your Democrat Plantation masters. I get you will defend the GayLeft and all its political perversions and outright pandering… but what I don’t get is why you continue to identify me with the LCRs.
I’m not one. Never have been. I’ve explained to you repeatedly that I take great exception to their purported advocacy within the GOP as a voice for gays.
But it seems, once again, the truth and facts will just not convinve you of your ignornace on this subject.
I’m puzzled. I know your masters put blinders on all you guys when you first enter the GayLeft corral down on the Democrat Plantation, but at some point even the most loyal, most trenchant foot soldier in that partisan enterprise has to blink, has to think, has to drink something other than the koolaid.
So what is it with you? Is it that you’re so Left, so Liberal you need to defend with a-vengence? Honest, I’m puzzled.
I thought this website was about finding common ground amongst gays and moving to an independent, moderate gay forum. We are never, ever going to get there until guys like you abate and quit shilling for the Master.
It’s as simple and as vexing as that.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW, ChasWilson, I’m not the only one to question your fixation or fetish about MattSanchez… didn’t you complain with the Editors of Wiki to the point that they thought you were obsessed with Sanchez?
At least that’s what was “reported” over at Salon. True or false?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Mchigan-Matt, the administrators of Wikipedia helped your buddy Matt Sanchez whitewash his biography and to run a defamation campaign against me and my truthful website. No one — not you, not Mateo, not anyone at Wikipedia — has ever found anything on my site that’s not factual.
As for Wikipedia, two-thirds of its administrators are under the age of 25, and one-third of them are under the age of 18. This is one of many reasons why Wikipedia has been increasingly discredited as a source of information.
Their biography of your hero, Matt Sanchez, is a joke. Why are you so intent on defending the guy, and telling lies about me? It’s a good thing O.J. Simpson isn’t a Republican, because then you’d be leading the “he’s innocent!” brigade. How pathetic.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson (staying off-off-topic), we’ll record that as TRUE in your absence of a straight (no pun) answer.
I guess I’m still puzzled then. You badger Wiki into having to make one of the few admissions ever in the history of the site that you’re both a liar and “obsessed” with Sanchez… then you claim Wiki doesn’t matter, is run my kids, is largely discredited?
So, why’d you pester and pester and pester them to the point they had to claim you were “obsessed with Sanchez”? I mean, you contend yourself Wiki doesn’t matter, it’s run my kids and is largely discredited… something’s not quite right, ChasWilson, even in your version of reality.
Wow, I think this is another case of you trying to shoot fish in a barrel… except the gun isn’t loaded again, there’s no fish in the barrel and no water either. Maybe you should take up knitting?
On 2nd thought, maybe it’s best if you just get some therapy for the fixation/obsession. Quickly, too.
posted by The Gay Species on
If you prefer epithets to arguments, fine, but use the proper epithets. Liberalism is the founding principles of the U.S., which you may not hold valuable, but liberals do. The “Left” is anything not “Right.” Capitalism is not written into our Constitution, and the U.S. is not now, nor ever been, a “Christian Nation.” But epithets obscure those facts, which is perhaps why the “Right” prefers “American” to “reactionary religious theocracy.”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
GaySpecies, if you prefer to correct others -it makes sense for you to be at least marginally accurate. “Liberalism” was never “the founding principles (sic)” of the US… please read Russell Kirk’s “Roots of the American Order” or any standard high school level history book and you’ll find values like patriotism, self-sufficiency, hard work, pioneering and family are not –nor have they ever been– “liberal values”. They are, by their very nature, conservative American values.
The Founding Fathers, in all the state constitutions, DofI, Articles of Confederation and Constitution sought to enshrine our inalienable rights from the clutches of the primary, over-riding “liberal” sentiment of big govt and govt intrusion into private matters. Even back then, moderates like the Federalists knew the dangers of “liberal excesses”.
The “Left” is a potent force for class warfare and socialism in our Country (please see HClinton), the cultivator of anti-military and anti-patriotic sentiments (please see HowieDean), the font of large govt and the sworn enemy of self-reliance and self-sufficiency in our ranks (please see Obama).
While the “Right” has it’s clear problems, too, there’s a whole lot of ground in the middle and that’s where you’ll find moderates like me. Trying to take back the GOP, restore it’s tradition of moderation.
As for your gayLeft claim of the US not being a “Christian Nation”, I’d advise you to spend some time reading biographies of Washington, Adams, Madison, Monroe, any of the Lees, Hamilton, Clinton and the other Founding Fathers save Jefferson.
In fact, take a moment and read about American history prior to the DocI… you’ll find it filled with stories about the triumph of Christian values and traditions… let alone, the primary impulse to settle the country, explore the innerland was for profit and God.
John Winthrop, who led the founding of the MassBayColony in 1630 preached to his fellow pioneers aboard the Arbella that, in their quest for religious freedom, they had made a holy covenant with God. In that lay homily comes the famous “city on a shining hill” seminal claim for America.
Nawh, nothing in there about being a Christian Nation. Nawh. Or capitalism. Nawh.
Keep on with the standard gayLeft anti-religion nonsense… as long as it’s seen as animating gays, we’ll never gain meaningful progress on civil rights. Just more enemies and more state constitutions amended to prevent civil unions.
Correct anytime you want; just try to be more accurate and less partisan.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Michigan-Matt, one of these eons you will tell the truth about something. You’ll even offer a fact in support of an argument. Until then, you’ll just be another wingnut claiming to be a “moderate” while spewing far-right wing talking points and libel. Enjoy your telephone booth convention with your fellow Log Cabinettes, who can’t get no respect. Who knows, maybe your never-gay idol, Matt Sanchez, will write a favorable article on his blog.
Oh, and by the way, the United States was founded by non-Christians. They called themselves Deists, and they didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, the so-called “trinity,” or the divine inspiration of the Bible. The first four presidents were Deists.
Neither religion nor Jesus H. Christ not capitalism is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and the only mention of religion in the original constitution is to forbid its use as a qualification for holding federal office. One of the original treaties (which are the supreme law of the land, above even the constitution — something your lying war criminal of a president and his cronies should remember when they travel outside of this country in future years, to a jurisdiction that takes the Geneva Conventions seriously) declared the U.S. to be in no sense a christian nation.
You can’t even bring yourself to tell the truth about American history. What a pathetic, Log Cabinette, wingnut liar you are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Deist” is simply Charles Wilson’s way of trying to claim that the Founding Fathers were antireligious bigots and hatemongers like himself, who hated religious belief in every form and thought it should be permanently expelled from government.
Obviously Charles Wilson has never seen this quote from Washington’s farewell address.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Next:
One of the original treaties (which are the supreme law of the land, above even the constitution — something your lying war criminal of a president and his cronies should remember when they travel outside of this country in future years, to a jurisdiction that takes the Geneva Conventions seriously) declared the U.S. to be in no sense a christian nation.
That is a statement supposedly contained in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1797.
However, as it turns out, in evaluating the treaty in 1931, Hunter Miller noted the following.
The translation first printed is that of Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt and the note mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10. The signature of Barlow is copied as it occurs, but not his initials, which are on every page of the fourteen which is not signed. The Humphreys approval or confirmation follows the translation; but the other writings, in English and Spanish, in the original treaty book, are not printed with the translation but only in these notes.
It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.
As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Wow, one more time for you to jump the shark, ChasWilson? You really do go off with some whoppers there. It’s becoming a predicatble pattern of conduct -or misconduct as it were.
Facts have been plentiful in my comments, you just choose to ignore them because they don’t comport with your limited, blinkered perspective.
Facts, it is, again then.
Mistake #1, your words: “the United States was founded by non-Christians”
Bzzt. Wrong. The US -and the colonies that came before- were decidedly Christian in their temperment and leadership. North America was explored and settled by European Christian men… for profit and for God.
In fact, the Pilgrims and Puritans and Catholics and Quakers came to America so that they could worship freely and without the interference of the State or King. Hence my reference to one of the first pioneers, John Winthrop and his very, very famous “City on the Hill/Convenant with God” homily onboard ship.
The 1st A was to PROTECT religious practice from the state, not protect the State from religion. Gosh, ChasWilson, a 1st Grader knows that lesson. How did you miss it? You did complete 1st Grade, right?
Mistake #2: your words: “The first four presidents were Deists”.
Bzzt. Wrong again. Washington was an Episcopalian. Adams was a Unitarian. Jefferson was the only Deist. Madison, like Washington, was an Episcopalian. Monroe, like Washington and Madison, was an Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams, like his father, was a Unitarian. Jackson was a Presbyterian. Et cetera, et cetera. Gosh, even a 3rd Grader knows the presidents were Christian. You did complete 3rd Grade, didn’t you ChasWilson?
I kind of like John Adams, speaking on the very point you address, when he wrote “Without the help of Almighty God, I fathom not how this great experiment can endure.” He was writing his wife, Abigail, after the Declaration was under discussion for adoption.
Returning to your biggest whopper, Mistake #1, your words: “Oh, and by the way, the United States was founded by non-Christians”
Bzzt. Wrong again. Of the 56 signers to the Declaration, all but two were Christian… Jefferson and Franklin were Deists; the rest, Christian. Witherspoon was a clergyman -as were three other signers… former clergymen. James Wilson of PA is often listed as either an Episcopalian or Deist; his only serious biographer notes he toyed with Deism early in his legal career but found it wanting and returned to the religion of his parents, wife and family.
Of the 48 signers to the Articles of Confederation, all but one (Cornelius Harnett of NC) were Christian.
Of the 55 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, all were Christian but two, Franklin again and Hugh Williamson. By 1787, James Wilson had returned to his Christian roots.
And let’s remember, too, ChasWilson, that even the Deists thought of themselves as God-fearing men. What they didn’t like was the Congregationalists pushing like a camel’s nose under the tent of religious freedoms.
I really do think you need to heed to the facts, here, ChasWilson. Historical facts don’t lie and neither do I.
How important was God?
Geo Washington, making his Thanksgiving Day proclamation in 1789 wrote: “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor,? Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be?. ”
Ouch, doesn’t it hurt to be so wrong, so often, ChasWilson?
Mistake #3, your words: “What a pathetic, Log Cabinette, wingnut liar you are.”
Finally, as to your continued lie that I’m a LCR supporter, I’ve noted before in other threads that this is a simple, disputable lie on your part. I’m not.
But I’m guessing that you will continue to not let truth, facts or reason get in your way.
On the matter of the radical FarLeft anti-American sentiment you express about war crimes and TWICE elected Pres Bush or Veep Cheney traveling outside the US… the rabid FarLeft has been offering the same threat to former Secy of State Hank Kissinger for years and years and decades.
Yawn. Last year in 2007, Kissinger traveled to 5 different continents, visited 19 countries, met with 7 heads of State or his current counterpart to his former office… not one attempt to imprison him for the war crimes pleaded by the rabid, vindictive FarLeft you seem to embrace.
ChasWilson, does it really feel that good to be so virulently anti-American?
posted by Charles Wilson on
So, now North Liar Forty is into conspiracy theories! A godless lefty forged the treaty. Ha! North Liar Forty lies on: “‘Deist’ is simply Charles Wilson’s way of trying to claim that the Founding Fathers were antireligious bigots and hatemongers like himself, who hated religious belief in every form and thought it should be permanently expelled from government.”
In fact, I neither wrote nor implied that, but facts have never stopped North Liar Forty before, so why should they stop him now? Yes, the Deists thought well of religion, so long as it was a private matter. Typical of such sentiments were these, from James Madison, the 4th president:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
In any case, North Liar Forty, a homosexual who is a big fan of a Republican porn actor and man-whore, probably ought to pause before pleading for the establishment of Christianity anyway. But that’ll be his cross to bear; what matters here is what’s true.
So, now North Liar Forty distances himself from his beloved Log Cabinettes. What now, NLF? The Gay Fascist League for you?
The 1st A was to PROTECT religious practice from the state, not protect the State from religion.
Michigan-Matt, who describes himself as a “moderate” when in fact he’s just another self-hating gat wingnut, apparently learned to read at one of those southern christian academies. In fact, the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and prohibits “an establishment of religion.” Not, as Matt and his beloved wingnuts customarily lie, the establishment of a religion. Nope, the establishment of religion.
The founders of the U.S. had plenty of opportunities to declare this a christian nation. They never did so, and in fact went out of their way to do the opposite in a treaty in 1796 — which North Liar Forty now tells us was forged by a band of liberals.
Matt, as a practicing homosexual, you shouldn’t be angling for an American theocracy. Unless, naturally, you expect to become a priest. Is that the gameplan?
posted by Hank on
“But I’m guessing that you will continue to not let truth, facts or reason get in your way.”
“antireligious bigots and hatemongers like himself,”
One of the real tragedies of debates involving Christianity, is that the apologists are often so very un Christ-like. It’s too bad that winning an argument is more important than showing the love of Jesus Christ.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Hank, today’s wingnut christians care about a lot of things, but one of them is not Jesus Christ’s words, teachings, or spirit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One of the real tragedies of debates involving Christianity, is that the apologists are often so very un Christ-like. It’s too bad that winning an argument is more important than showing the love of Jesus Christ.
The hilarious part is that, given the time stamp, Hank was probably writing that bit of finger-wagging and sighing right before Charles Wilson released that fine example of what Hank believes to be “showing the love of Jesus Christ”.
Let the record show that Hank, who claims to be a Christian, fully supports and endorses Charles Wilson’s actions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, Charles Wilson, do your own research. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a fact, listed in the Yale law library as the result of an in-depth scholarly analysis of this and several other US treaties — which you would know if you happened to look at the link.
In fact, I neither wrote nor implied that
LOL….despite your insistence that religious people are “wingnuts” and superstitious idiots and that gay religious people and gay Christians are “self-loathing”, you insist that you’re not an antireligious bigot or hatemonger.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson, facts you asked for and facts you got… I’m sorry it doesn’t comport with your bitter, anti-religious clinging reality.
You continue to avoid facing the facts and prefer to lie when most convenient… like the early Presidents were Deists… wrong… like the US founders weren’t Christian…wrong… like arguing “establishment of religion” now means freedom from religion, not as the original words say “freedom OF religion” and hence, the Founders rationale for protecting all Christian faiths from the State establishing a single approved church. Get it Chuckie? Protect religion from the state… not the reverse? Oh, never mind.
ChasWilson, you continue to lie while calling all those around you liars with spittle issuing forth from your forked tongue.
Chas, even for the most devoted slave on the Democrat Plantation, at some point they have to accept their freedom to think independently of the Masters… it’s the hope inherent in this blog’s name.
Alas, I dare say, you never will. Pity.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And a final point and I’m done with trying to get ChasWilson to accept facts and reason, rather than continue his pattern of hate-mongering, lying and distortions.
ChasWilson, you often like to smear your better opponents wild-assed claims of them being wingnuts or worse… the simple truth is that I am a moderate, deeply entrenched in the battle to win back the GOP from the Right and restore the GOP’s long tradition of moderation, compromise and bipartisan leadership.
You contend that you’ve “goggled” me and reviewed my comments on other websites –fair enough, even if that’s kind of a creepy stalking-thing to do. But I get it. To you, I’m not liberal enough so therefore, I can’t be a moderate. I get it. To you, I’m not a GayLeft slave carrying the Masters’ water down on the Democrat Plantation, I can’t be a moderate. I get it. I’m not in agreement with your more rabid, radical FarLeft sentiments, so in your frozen aspect, that means I’m your enemy. I get it.
I think that was the very point of Stephen’s earlier post about the enemies of GeoBush are the GayLeft’s best boyfriends even if it means saddling up with guys in Iran, North Korea, insurgents in the streets of Baghdad or alQaeda terrorists bombing the WTC.
I get it. To you, I’m the enemy. Unfortunately, on securing progress on gay civil rights, guys like me are your last and only bridge to the voters who will be approving those rights for our community.
Kind of cutting off your nose, to spite you face ChasWilson. You’ll never get the nuance of all that, though.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
sorry, that should have read:
ChasWilson, you often like to smear your better opponents WITH wild-assed claims of them being wingnuts or worse…
posted by akn on
@Michigan-Matt: I always get to these comments a day late or so, but I’m hoping you see this. In response to all the “Christian nation” debate flying around (off-topic, I know, but interesting to me), I wonder if you think it’s fair to say that by ‘protecting religious practice from the state,’ our founders also intended to protect one’s right not to practice any religion whatsoever. After all, secular humanism, rationalism and other Enlightenment-era principles were also influential on American thinkers of the time, were they not?
As an atheist, I sometimes get frustrated that America’s long tradition of secularism (which was even acknolwedged, albeit somewhat negatively, in the Pope’s address yesterday) and, yes, atheism seem to have faded so much from the country’s cultural consciousness, and in some cases, like that of Comfort, Texas, been actively suppressed. Comfort was founded by German Freethinkers (science-affirming atheists who held that one’s beliefs should be rooted in rational thought and who opposed biblical literalism and other dogma put forth as infallible truth) who emigrated during the German revolutions of 1848 to escape — much like the pilgrims — persecution for their beliefs. Even in Texas, though, these Freethinkers were often murdered mainly for their opposition to slavery, but also for their support of progressive causes like women’s suffrage and secular schools. It would be nice to say that America has moved beyond that type of persecution, but sadly it doesn’t seem that way: a monument honoring the Freethinkers was erected in Comfort in 1998, and less than a year later was vandalized and destroyed following complaints from locals who refused to pay tribute to atheists. I grew up in the Texas Hill Country, so this story is of particular significance to me.
My question to you, if by some miracle you’re actually reading this, is whether you as a self-described ‘moderate’ believe that people should have the right to be free from religion, and whether you believe that to be among the founding fathers? intentions for this country, since those intentions seems to be very important to you. (I?m not trying to be combative in any way; I was simply made curious by all your comments on the matter.)
Any response sincerely appreciated!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In response to all the “Christian nation” debate flying around (off-topic, I know, but interesting to me), I wonder if you think it’s fair to say that by ‘protecting religious practice from the state,’ our founders also intended to protect one’s right not to practice any religion whatsoever.
Of course, which was why religious tests for office and the establishment of a European-style state religion, in which the chosen church was allowed to levy and collect taxes even on those who didn’t attend it, were excluded.
Furthermore, I personally believe that those who would go so far as to vandalize and destroy a monument to people who were not of their religious faith are criminals of the worst order.
The problem is though, akn, I don’t see what those people did in vandalizing the monument and destroying it, as if it were so offensive that they couldn’t stand to be around it and had a right to publicly excise it…..as any different than militant atheists trying to ban Christian symbols from any public place.
In short, you have the right not to practice religion or to practice religion as you see fit. However, the mere fact that a religious object or symbol — or a non-religious symbol, like the monument — exists in a public place does not mean you are being forced to practice anything.
posted by akn on
Thanks for the response, NDT, and I agree that demanding removal of religious symbols from certain public places is sometimes going too far. I try to be tolerant of people’s religious practices so long as they don’t try to ‘witness’ to me, and it’s nice to know some religious people feel the same about atheists.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
akn, I concur with NDXXX’s comments and would also say that every citizen has the right to NOT practice a religion. As I pointed out above, Founders like Jefferson and Franklin -both Deists- were very concerned about the establishment of a state religion… back then, mostly a concern about Congregationalists.
But being against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion over all other religions isn’t the same as “being a Nation founded by non-Christians” or having been created in a vacumn with no reference to the predominate, Christian values of the era. It’s just silly and ignorant to argue otherwise.
I appreciate & respect your antheism. There are many, many days when my Catholicism wanes and I find myself more agnostic than Catholic. But I never doubt that this country’s moral code is one founded on Christian values and principles. To find otherwise would require turning history on its head and sticking it 12 feet down in the sand.
But then, there are many in our community who would prefer to have that exact thing done because history restrains their self-interest.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
sorry for the typo, akn
posted by Charles Wilson on
I’m telling you, it’s a Jeffersonian conspiracy! Tear down that memorial! And put Reagan on the nickel!
– North Liar Forty
posted by Brian Miller on
being against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion over all other religions isn’t the same as “being a Nation founded by non-Christians” or having been created in a vacumn with no reference to the predominate, Christian values of the era
Amongst the values of that era that were popular Christian values was the inferiority and noncitizen status of people of color, the legality and moral justification of slavery (which was endorsed in the Bible), the status of women as legal property of their husbands/fathers, and Thomas Jefferson’s preferred state punishment for “sodomy” — which involved drilling a hole through the cartiledge of the nose.
I’d like to prefer to think that society, which has evolved past all of those superstition/”faith based” beliefs, will continue to evolve past them… and religious “faith” will be viewed as the personal fantasy that it is.
posted by Richard on
Far be it from me to enter into this apparent pissing match between two people (neither of who seems to know much about American history)…but…
The United States, as a nation, was founded by people who were Age of Enlightenment Deists AND people who were Evangelical Protestants. It was oftentimes a touchy ‘union’ of convience and compromise.
Just like western civilization is heavly influenced by both ancient Greeko-Roman Paganism, Jesus Christ and Catholicism.
Notice, that I say, “Protestant” (for the US) and not, “Judeo-Christian”. This is because Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) and anti-Jewish prejudice was also ripe.
America was not really eager to celebrate a pan-European, Jewish-Christian heritage until after WWII.
Bzzt. Wrong. The US -and the colonies that came before- were decidedly Christian in their temperment and leadership. North America was explored and settled by European Christian men… for profit and for God.
In fact, the Pilgrims and Puritans and Catholics and Quakers came to America so that they could worship freely and without the interference of the State or King. Hence my reference to one of the first pioneers, John Winthrop and his very, very famous “City on the Hill/Convenant with God” homily onboard ship.
The 1st A was to PROTECT religious practice from the state, not protect the State from religion. Gosh, ChasWilson, a 1st Grader knows that lesson. How did you miss it? You did complete 1st Grade, right?
Mistake #2: your words: “The first four presidents were Deists”.
Bzzt. Wrong again. Washington was an Episcopalian. Adams was a Unitarian. Jefferson was the only Deist. Madison, like Washington, was an Episcopalian. Monroe, like Washington and Madison, was an Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams, like his father, was a Unitarian. Jackson was a Presbyterian. Et cetera, et cetera. Gosh, even a 3rd Grader knows the presidents were Christian. You did complete 3rd Grade, didn’t you ChasWilson?
I kind of like John Adams, speaking on the very point you address, when he wrote “Without the help of Almighty God, I fathom not how this great experiment can endure.” He was writing his wife, Abigail, after the Declaration was under discussion for adoption.
Returning to your biggest whopper, Mistake #1, your words: “Oh, and by the way, the United States was founded by non-Christians”
Bzzt. Wrong again. Of the 56 signers to the Declaration, all but two were Christian… Jefferson and Franklin were Deists; the rest, Christian. Witherspoon was a clergyman -as were three other signers… former clergymen. James Wilson of PA is often listed as either an Episcopalian or Deist; his only serious biographer notes he toyed with Deism early in his legal career but found it wanting and returned to the religion of his parents, wife and family.
Of the 48 signers to the Articles of Confederation, all but one (Cornelius Harnett of NC) were Christian.
Of the 55 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, all were Christian but two, Franklin again and Hugh Williamson. By 1787, James Wilson had returned to his Christian roots.
And let’s remember, too, ChasWilson, that even the Deists thought of themselves as God-fearing men. What they didn’t like was the Congregationalists pushing like a camel’s nose under the tent of religious freedoms.
I really do think you need to heed to the facts, here, ChasWilson. Historical facts don’t lie and neither do I.
How important was God?
Geo Washington, making his Thanksgiving Day proclamation in 1789 wrote: “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor,? Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be?. ”
Ouch, doesn’t it hurt to be so wrong, so often, ChasWilson?
Mistake #3, your words: “What a pathetic, Log Cabinette, wingnut liar you are.”
Finally, as to your continued lie that I’m a LCR supporter, I’ve noted before in other threads that this is a simple, disputable lie on your part. I’m not.
But I’m guessing that you will continue to not let truth, facts or reason get in your way.
On the matter of the radical FarLeft anti-American sentiment you express about war crimes and TWICE elected Pres Bush or Veep Cheney traveling outside the US… the rabid FarLeft has been offering the same threat to former Secy of State Hank Kissinger for years and years and decades.
Yawn. Last year in 2007, Kissinger traveled to 5 different continents, visited 19 countries, met with 7 heads of State or his current counterpart to his former office… not one attempt to imprison him for the war crimes pleaded by the rabid, vindictive FarLeft you seem to embrace.
ChasWilson, does it really feel that good to be so virulently anti-American?
posted by Charles Wilson on
ChasWilson, does it really feel that good to be so virulently anti-American?
Poor North Liar Forty. It must be a burden to be the reincarnation of Roy Cohn!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson, as it was written above and is so today, I repeat
“And a final point and I’m done with trying to get ChasWilson to accept facts and reason, rather than continue his pattern of hate-mongering, lying and distortions.”
posted by Richard on
No, the U.S. colonies were decidely Protestant and openly disliked Jews and other Christian sects.
They would have been deeply offended at the suggestion that the colonies were a Christian nation, because such a notion included “those Godless, immoral, intolerant and bastard Catholics.”
Of coarse, the native Indians were living in America before the colonists came and the African persons who (cough, cough) migrated to the US were pagan or Muslim.
Facts do not lie, but people do. Many people on the political right want to try and depict America as ‘Christian nation’.
Just like Libertarians try and revise history to depict the nation as a libertarian one.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard opines: “They would have been deeply offended at the suggestion that the colonies were a Christian nation, because such a notion included “those Godless, immoral, intolerant and bastard Catholics.”
Richard, like a lot of godless GayLefties, you are solidly intent on recrafting history to suit your own, modern need.
The nonsense about “Catholics” is exactly that -nonsense. Catholics were a tiny, teeny little minority in the British colonies prior to 1776. Canada, Florida and sections of the American SW were different cases, though. In 1776, there were only 6 –that’s six– priests in all of New England and the mid-Atlantic region, Richard.
6 priests and not a single bishop. Practically speaking, there were no Catholics in the Brit colonies. Historians have estimated that the Catholic population of the Brit colonies in America was about 1,170 in 1776. Yet still, one of the signers of the DofI was a Catholic and had considerable impact on the formation of our Christian nation… go figure, you were saying about the animus toward all those Catholics in the colonies?
Of course, I’ll leave for another day the notion that Catholic France had been one of America’s great saviors at a particularly needy moment when Cornwall was landlocked in Yorktown.
posted by Charles Wilson on
And a final point and I’m done with trying to get ChasWilson to accept facts and reason, rather than continue his pattern of hate-mongering, lying and distortions
“I call upon America to respect human rights abroad and uphold the constitution at home.”
– George W. Bush
posted by Charles Wilson on
Richard, like a lot of godless GayLefties, you are solidly intent on recrafting history to suit your own, modern need.
Michigan-Matt, how quickly you forget your pathological lying. You are a “moderate,” remember? Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson, we know what you think of “moderation”… come on… get real. I’m surprised you can even spell the President’s last name… the twice elected President, that is.
posted by RIchard on
Fact 1: Prejudice against white, non-Protestants (often related to bias against the “PIGS” people) was high in this nation until after the Second World War. Many Protestants would have not thought about a Judeo-Christian heritage.
The recognition, let alone celebration of an American pan-European, Judeo-Christian heritage came about after the Second World War.
The anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish prejudice in America has been well documented both in colonies and throughough the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
The fact that a Catholic was a signer of the Declaration would have been rather liberal for the day, given the prejudices of the day.
Their were also a handful of Jews who helped America win Independence, including a banker.
The aid of Catholic France was a factor in patriots attempts to cover up some of the more overt, public expressions of bias.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, like debating the merits of a McCain presidency versus an Obama one, this discussion about the true, fundamental nature of our Country, the Colonies and the early Republic will have to stand as it is… you think the effort of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the pioneers and settlers, the Quakers, the Catholics in mid-18thC Maryland, the French and Spanish throughout America somehow translates into a godless, secular nation.
Set aside the direct words of the Founders. Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Carroll, Madison and Lee.
Set aside the specific words in the Declaration of Independence written by one of the leading Deists of the day who admitted all that we have comes from God the Creator.
Set aside the fundamental Bill of Rights required before the majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention would adopt the Constitution. A list that begins by insuring the freedom of religion from state control.
Set aside the 175 yr history of this Country’s founding and the influence of two Catholic nations (Fr & Spn) on its people and two Christian nations (Dutch & Brits).
All of that, poof, is gone. What have you now to lay your proofs upon but speculative opinions on your part and a fictionalized historical interpertation of our Founding?
Nothing.
You would prefer to state opinions as “facts”. I don’t. My education at Univ of Michigan began with testimony to intellectual honesty. I can’t opt into your moderne belief system crafted to augment your current politics… it just doesn’t work.
posted by Charles Wilson on
one of the leading Deists of the day who admitted all that we have comes from God the Creator
“Admitted?” Hey, Matt, why don’t you apply that, uh, education you say you got at the U of Michigan and ponder what it means to be a “Deist.”
posted by queerunity on
Liberal homophobia is more out of political fear whereas conservative homophobia is usually driven by actual hate or religion.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com/
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“Admitted?” Hey, Matt, why don’t you apply that, uh, education you say you got at the U of Michigan and ponder what it means to be a “Deist.”
Already have… it’s one of the Nation’s best universities, Chas. Did you know it started as a Catholic college and was founded by a priest?
I’d suggest you take a second and grab a copy of Judge Bork’s “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” where he will teach you about our founding, our Fathers, and the over-inflated role of Deists (by today’s modern and self-serving liberal anti-religionists)
I’d loan you my copy but I’d be scared you’d color in the margins.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I’d suggest you take a second and grab a copy of Judge Bork’s “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” where he will teach you about our founding, our Fathers, and the over-inflated role of Deists (by today’s modern and self-serving liberal anti-religionists)
Ah, a Bork worshipper. Some “moderate” you are. Ha!
posted by Richard on
Intellectual honesty is something that you know little about. Your contempt for the truth, America, freedom and democracy are well documented.
I have never claimed that America is a “Godless, secular nation.” Once again, you demonstrate your lack of respect for basic moral values; i.e. honesty.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and thus had a different idea of what ‘the Creator’ was, then his Protestant and Catholic associates.
Yet, as was often the case, compromise was something that everyone — or most — decided to live with, for now.
Some people felt that the Federal Bill of Rights ought to apply to the States, others did not. The implications that this had for religion and slavery were obvious factors in which side won.
Prior to the 14th Amendment the Federal Bill of Rights only dealt with federal actors, even then it was largely a dead letter until the rise of authoritarianism.
anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish prejduice was a problem in America. Most Americans were western European Protestants who had been raised to hate the southern and Eastern Europeans, other Christian sects and Jews.
Anti-Catholic prejudices had to be toned down when Spain and France joined the patriots cause (which they did mostly to get back at England).
To claim that America is a ‘Christian’ nation wrongly excludes Jews and Judaism.
It also covers up the longstanding ethnic-sectarian conflict in this nation that did not really begin to settle down until after the WWII. Not to mention the tricky historical relationship between religion and race.
It is no accident that we erected Ten Commandment monuments to celebrate a pan-European, Judeo-Christian heritage after WWII and during the Cold War.
posted by Charles Wilson on
To claim that America is a ‘Christian’ nation wrongly excludes Jews and Judaism.
It does a whole lot more wrong than that. It excludes atheists, agnostics, scientists, rationalists, and secularists. It also embodies a whole series of bald-faced lies about American history, which the Republican Party is happy to rubber-stamp if they think doing so will get them votes in Jesusland.