That nice guy Chris Clarke has written a paean to speaking one's mind. It's wonderfully not-nice.
My point: it is not civil to discuss things quietly and collegially while people are dying because they can't afford medicine. It is not civil to speak in even, chuckling sardonicism as one beleaguered wild place after another is paved for profit. It is not civil to calmly raise logical arguments against torture, against kidnapping, against using nuclear weapons on civilians to show our resolve.
There's also a bit in there about "Minnesota Nice liberals." I should explain that when you first come to Minnesota, you discover that everyone is unflaggingly polite, they smile, they rarely utter a cross word, and even in the most dire situations they struggle to say something positive. It seems admirable at first, but after a while you discover it is a mask covering some of the meanest, most petty, passive-aggressive backbiting you'll ever experience, as well as a way to justify some seriously screwed up opinions. I have actually heard a Minnesota WWII veteran tell me that Hitler's Germany was a nice and tidy place, and that maybe he wasn't all bad.
I'm all for outrage! Especially since lately there have been a few too many commenting whiners who are getting pissy because I think goose-stepping theocrats are evil, or that creationists are idiots, or that politicians who monitor our phone calls are tyrannical scumbags. If you're complaining because I don't compromise in damning these people, rather than complaining about what they do, the problem isn't me: it's your superficiality.
- Log in to post comments
Mario Savio's words from 1964 are not polite and mild-mannered. Outrageous abuses call for outrage.
Whoops, sorry - apparently my browser allowed me to skip the entrance exam that determines if I'm properly sycophantic or not.
Anyway, I don't give a damn if you think they're evil. I don't give a damn if you find them scary. I especially don't give a damn if you want to hold forth on those opinions. But casting them as the power-behind-the-throne, the iron fist within the velvet glove, is simply and totally irrational. It is a contention not supported by any identifiable fact or rational argumentation, but rather one purely driven by fear and loathing.
Now, you can certainly behave irrationally while simultaneously claiming the mantle of logic and reason - I can hardly stop you, nor am I particularly interested in trying. But for you to expect the rest of the world to give you a big ol' thumbs-up and a pat on the back for it, ignoring the almost schizophrenic disjunct inherent in such behavior...well, that's really a bit much.
But casting them as the power-behind-the-throne, the iron fist within the velvet glove, is simply and totally irrational. It is a contention not supported by any identifiable fact or rational argumentation, but rather one purely driven by fear and loathing.
I guess it's not clear what you mean, here, since you don't say who "them" are supposed to be, but if you meant to refer to right-wing Christianist theocrats and dominionists, then you're quite mistaken. The evidence that such a movement exists and is using Republican domination of all three branches of government to enact an inherently anti-American agenda is legion and apparent to anyone who cares to look. It's obvious in the actions of the government, in the campaign rhetoric of Republican figures, in the trail of money and corruption that seems to flow like a sewer behind the scenes of the national GOP.
All that stuff is true, and it's not being paranoid to point it out; it's being disingenuous to deny it. There's a powerful religious minority in the country determined to oppose secular freedom at every imaginable front, and they've made staggering inroads largely because for decades they've remained unopposed by otherwise-reasonable people of faith.
They're certainly not the power behind the throne, they have the damn throne, and the entire castle, for that matter. When the president of the country comes comes out and says that creationism should be taught in school, that's hardly shadowy puppet-strings conspiracy theory. I WISH these things were so reviled that they had to be at least hidden behind the scenes.
Indeed, the evidence is so, well, self-evident, that even a single specific example is completely unnecessary.
The truth is that the Dominionists are not really unopposed by those within the Religious Right - rather, for the most part, they're simply ignored, because they are the fringes of the fringes. I realize you don't believe that, but the truth is that the vast majority of conservatives, and the vast majority of Christians, and indeed the vast majority of conservative Christians, aren't really interested in instituting a real, live theocracy of the sort the Dominionists promote. However, those darned conservative Christians have a bunch of other ideas we don't much care for, so the theocracy thing makes a nice stick to beat them with, accurate or not.
Oh, yes, and we've certainly observed him going gangbusters to do something to advance that agenda, right? We've all observed the zillions of dollars of federal money flowing to DI and AIG and the rest of the kookburgers, how incredibly successful they've been in front of Bush-nominated judges. Like in Dover. Errr, wait...and the checks don't seem to be coming in either, but hey, he said something to throw a bone to them, so he must actually be doing something to promote that agenda, right?
No. The issue is a loser, no matter which way he comes down on it, and he and his people are quite smart enough to realize it. They get a tip o'the hat now and then, pretty much the same way the Howard Dean/Eugene McCarthy wing of the Democrats get one from their mainstream guys every now and then, and that's the extent of it. Look how quick Rick Santorum flipped on the issue of creationism in schools - you think he did that because he thought he had the backing of some secret army of Dominionists?
Then why aren't they vilified by their own party? I used to be a fundamentalist. I still attend a fundamentalist church for family reasons. I thought I could be a nice, easygoing, live and let live atheist who didn't begrudge anyone their beliefs. But it's getting more and more difficult. Perhaps not every religious righter is a complete dominionist, but only by a matter of degrees. I sit in a nice, quiet, run of the mill church like hundreds of thousands of other people every Sunday, and do I ever hear clear messages that promote the "good" things and claim that they're responsible for the image fundies have in the world, so they'd better do a good job of it and hold ownership away from the lunatic fringes? No, what I hear are sermons on how to be a Godly leader, how to instill God in everything you do in your job, how the country would be so much better if Christians were in charge of everything, how we need to vote Godly and lead Godly and be on school boards Godly and pray that our leaders are Godly and in one breath bemoaning how many people in this country are in poverty followed immediately by how the real problem here is the homosexual agenda and how we "can't" pray in school.
Dominionists may be the extremists, but their ideas are certainly not on the fringes, and it's completely disingenuous to pretend that they are. Black Ops, do you know all conservative Christians, or even the "vast majority" that you say you're representing? Because otherwise, it's just your view of the small number of Christians you know against the small number of Christians I know, and mine are listening to pastors who parrot what they get directly from the leadership of the largest protestant denomination in the country.
Indeed, the evidence is so, well, self-evident, that even a single specific example is completely unnecessary.
Oh, I get it. You don't think I've read your posts, so you're operating under the assumption that I can be tricked into thinking that you're willing to be an honest participant in discussion.
Sorry. I know how it works with you, already. Evidence is dismissed with accusations of deceit. Argumentation is dismissed with sarcasm. I'm neither interested in feeding trolls nor in banging my head against a wall of invincible ignorance. You'll serve quite nicely, though, to make my arguments seem even more compelling in juxtaposition with your own dismissable sophistry.
We've all observed the zillions of dollars of federal money flowing to DI and AIG and the rest of the kookburgers
Gosh, I guess I've observed the millions of federal dollars, ostensibly meant to fund faith-based charities without regard to creed, flow strictly to Christian organizations. I've observed an ostensibly policy-neutral drug approval board reject EC based on objections from social conservatives rather than any medical concerns. I've observed a hundred examples of Christianist leverage, but then, I guess I'm some kind of wingnut - after all, I pay attention to the news. I'm out there on the fringe!
I realize you don't believe that, but the truth is that the vast majority of conservatives, and the vast majority of Christians, and indeed the vast majority of conservative Christians, aren't really interested in instituting a real, live theocracy of the sort the Dominionists promote.
Why would they? A hidden theocracy, where all the rest of us are required to cleave to a laundry list of socially conservative restrictions on behavior that we don't ourselves support, accomplishes the very same goal. Why bother with all the extra paperwork?
Dr. Myers - a pleasure to read and post on your blog, from a former Morrisian (who got out as soon as possible.) I wonder if you know my dad, Tap Payne, by reputation, perhaps?
Black Ops wrote
Come to Ohio, where Ken Blackwell won the Republican primary for governor earlier this month. Blackwell is allied with Rod Parsley ("Christocrats") and Russell Johnson ("Patriot Pastors"), both with thousands of adherents in their evangelical churches.
Vilification first requires that you take them seriously. In any case, neither left nor right in this country are composed of monolithic, Borg-like blocks of intellectual clones - there are factions within factions, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing on a wide range of issues, and that's as true for the Religious Right as it is for any other group of people in this country. Theonomy is a fringe issue, not taken seriously except by a few kooks. Ahmanson writes lots of checks to the GOP, but half the time they get sent back because he's been especially weird lately. How much power and and influence can you possibly have in such a situation, when the people who you're presumably influencing won't pick up the phone unless you promise not to be such a dork all the time?
As for how well I know them...my week among them consists of more than an hour on Sunday morning, if you catch my drift.
Sure, I know Tap. Not well -- he's over on the other side of campus, you know --but I see him around. This place is small enough that you get to know everyone.
That was so much easier - poisoning the well - than actually addressing me or the points I raise, wasn't it? But not to worry, because you've got a really devastating retort in your back pocket, one that you just don't feel like deploying at the moment, because I'm not worthy. Or something. But it's a real killer, you betcha. If only I actually deserved specifics, you'd get them to me tout suite. Got it.
LOL.
I urge you to provide a single example of me doing any such thing.
Ridiculous arguments garner ridicule. What a concept. Sorry, but like the doc says, ain't no reason to be nice about such things.
Or we could sit down and have a real discussion about real points of disagreement, and really present real arguments while at least really listening to each other, even if we end in disagreement. Crazy, I know.
I don't know what a "socially conservative restriction" is, sorry. It sort of sounds like you're talking about laws, but not really. Laws are fundamentally a reflection of someone's idea of morality, so the only real argument there is where to draw the line. Or is this something less than that, where we don't like it when others express disapproval of something we're doing?
Vilification first requires that you take them seriously. In any case, neither left nor right in this country are composed of monolithic, Borg-like blocks of intellectual clones - there are factions within factions, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing on a wide range of issues, and that's as true for the Religious Right as it is for any other group of people in this country.
This makes sense, but this also explains when you need to be loud, rude, and offensive. When Ann Coulter is on the best sellers' list for umpteen weeks, and when she gets paid $25,000 to speak at a college event and practically incite a riot, she needs to be put down in the harshest possible terms. When Bill O'Reilly spouts off about a "War on Christians" when christian interests control all branches of the government, he needs to be rudely insulted and smacked down. When a former speech writer for Bush starts talking nonsense in his blog, slam him for his idiocy. This isn't about losing civility for the rank-and-file, it's for pointing out the idiocy of ideologues who influence popular opinion, so that the populus stops and thinks about how idiotic these views are and so that they don't get taken seriously.
Oh, God, please don't make me defend Coulter. LOL.
Ann's all about schtick. She says what she says to sell books, and that's about it - I seriously doubt that she herself believes even half of what she's popping out. Someone I know observed that Ann has been gradually reducing the thinking conservatives in her audience for some time now. Not that this results in a reduction in readers for her - the intellectual conservatives are being replaced by...well, by folks who think "nuke the ragheads!" is a sound policy prescription. What can I say? I decline to defend her, and I'm actually looking forward to PZ's take on her forthcoming book. Ann is today's personal disavowal for me, and believe me, I'm not alone on that ;)
O'Reilly, it's more or less the same thing, to a slightly lesser degree. Bill's conservative bona fides are always suspect - I can report that he's regarded as much more of a simple populist than a true-blue (red?) conservative. The "war on Christians" thing is goofy, to be sure, but "you're a goofy kook" as a response is not going to get you anywhere. In fact, if you want to push the right into the hands of people like the Dominionists, that's a pretty good way to start. Granted, that requires a bit of circumspection from you and me, which is usually a lot less fun than putting out red meat for the people who agree with us, but there you go.
I, too, grow weary of being chastised for not being nice. In particular, I get yelled at for not being nice about Christianity. I'm just never supposed to point out how none of it makes any sense or how it's been used as a weapon over the centuries because that hurts their feelings.
Black Ops claim that the dominionists don't represent the majority, but I don't see many alternative voices on the Right speaking out against them. John McCain, in fact, just went and got in bed with them. I don't doubt that they aren't a majority of Christians, but they have disproportionate power. If the only Christian voices we hear are people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, how are to be blamed for believing they represent who they claim to represent?
I think anger is the only approriate response to what is happening now. There is an attempt by conservatives and the media to try to marginalize the "angry left." I think ignoring the voices of the angry left is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place. Democrats are often represented as not having values. I think that is because many of our national figures lack this passion and when they cave on an issue of importance, they look like they are pandering.
And Nymph is right. Not criticizing Christians is the new political correctness.
That was so much easier - poisoning the well - than actually addressing me or the points I raise, wasn't it?
I'm sorry, did you raise points? Last I saw you seemed content to call your opponents liars, frauds, and irrational paranoids.
I'd be happy to address a real argument, as I imagine everybody else is, but you sort of have to make one, first. We're all waiting.
Or we could sit down and have a real discussion about real points of disagreement
A discussion about whether or not your opponents are dishonest idiots? That doesn't sound like a good time.
It seems to me if you have to get emotional in order to make your point, you don't *have* a point, at least not one based on facts. Rhetoric and outrage are simply ways to distract from a weak argument. Whenever I hear someone raise their voice in a political or scientific discussion, my suspicion that they haven't a clue about what they are talking about goes *way* up. It's no coincidence that fire-and-brimstone preachers talk in a constant state of outrage.
Help.
I am being prayed for by my family because I am not (no longer) religious (ex Lutheran) and I believe in "the THEORY of evolution". I listened to half an hour of bullshit last nite regarding my moral failings, how dangerous science was, how come the eye is so perfectly designed where did the first atom come from and why are there no neanderthals left if we still have chimps- any answers??? To the neanderthals. I also was accused of being a bad parent because I was making my children doubt god.
I called my relative on their porn habit- he is not perfect just forgiven. Called that a copout. I was told that I needed to read some Creationist book, but when I offered to forward along websites like yours I was told the internet has unreliable information and books are the most reliable source of info. Whoo Hoo crazy crap. I was told religion was the reason someone in our family was healed of mental illness- okay- whatever. I am just shaking right now I am so frustrated.
I am now going to ruin Mothers Day if this shit is brought up during our feast. Because last nite I finally just told my family member to shut the hell up. I do not believe prayer heals or will heal my hubby. I do not believe that a good place to leave troubled childrens problems is at the altar. I think we should effect change in peoples' lives with concrete actions. I do not believe in a god that gives two hoots who wins a football game yet chooses to let Sudanese people starve to death. I believe that religion is a manmade invention that allows people to control one anothers actions- be good because god is watching. Even when I took my kids to church I refused to foist that crap on them. And I told them to let me know if that shit ever was a part of their experience.
Outrage- okay. How about religious people who have affairs and get divorced and remarried and somehow they get to justify their actions Biblically. How about religious people who want to stone gay people. Or who still are not comfortable with black people being at the front of the bus. How about religious people who blame women for their rapes. How about religious people who sacrifice truth for peace. How about religious people who refuse to educate their kids about sex- and then make the young pregnant girl APOLOGIZE TO HER SCHOOL DURING CHAPEL???? How about religious fundies who are only nice to Jewish people so they can save them in some Jews For Jesus bullshit campaign, but secretly blame the JEWS for Jesus death and figure the Holocaust was payback. How about the religious people who turned a blind eye to family violence because the man is the head of the home. Anecdotes- apparently I just focus on the negative according to my family. There are good religious people.
Okay- then why the hell are they not marching on the streets debunking the stupid people????? (And why did I live with some of the above mentioned people?? )
I am outraged but what the hell can I do?? I am surrounded by nutbars who believe sincerely that I am just going through a phase and that I am just bitter because life is a little bumpy right now, and if I only had faith it would all work out. There is no room for science in their worldview. And some of them are medically trained. What can I say??
As for your government- wow- you guys have a theocracy in your backyard. I did an essay about this in 1986 for a polisci class and it was scary too see how the moral majority morphed over the years. Kind of like ID. Underground, strengthened and then holy crapoli- there is a massive stinking boil on the surface of the good old US of A.
Enough- any tips to stay sane would be appreciated. I think I am just marinating in my outrage right now.
He went and talked about the Iraq war - he didn't hit on religion, and he didn't hit on abortion, and he basically stayed away from the hot-button stuff. If he'd gone in and given them some rah-rah stuff about those issues, I might agree with you, but to me that event has all the signs of a guy who's looking to concentrate on common ground, and garner some support from that common ground, without giving up his independence on other issues. YMMV.
I stated, as I've been stating, that the portrayal of the power and influence of the Dominionists is wildly overstated. I can't do this monosyllabically, Chet - you're going to have to work with me a bit here.
I think we should hate Mississippi.
One More Reason Why Liberals Hate Mississippi
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14531.html
It seems to me if you have to get emotional in order to make your point, you don't *have* a point, at least not one based on facts.
And it seems to me that to oppose an ideology based entirely on emotional appeals that lack any factual basis whatsoever, one is required to employ both facts and compelling, engaging prose. Particularly after the observation that factual appeals alone have consistently failed to get anyone's attention for decades, now.
Remember how Kerry was criticized for being too factual and insufficiently emotional? How he was lambasted for being boring?
It seems to me that a reaction such as you had, where the emotional content becomes an excuse for you to ignore the factual evidence presented, represents a failure on your part as a reader to fully engage the argument and not on the part of a writer to somehow communicate challenging concepts in a way that doesn't tread on your poor little fee-fees.
We're talking about issues that directly affect people's lives. An air of professional detatchment is appropriate for discussions of developmental biology, or genetics, or physics, or other such technical issues. An attitude of detatchment about the outrages Christian dominionism wishes to visit upon every American is insane.
I stated, as I've been stating, that the portrayal of the power and influence of the Dominionists is wildly overstated.
And evidence has been presented to you that the ranks of these christianists are significantly larger than the "half-dozen" you asserted; your response was to call that poster a liar and wonder why he didn't make up a bigger number.
You've been reminded of the considerable influence divisively religious figures such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson wield within the Republican party and the Bush administration, to the extent that they are allowed a veto power over political appointees and judicial nominees who don't sufficiently cleave to their social conservative agenda, and their social agenda is promoted from the bully pulpit of the Oval Office; your response was to dismiss, absent any evidence to the contrary, that these were men who weilded any power or influence whatsoever.
You've been reminded that the so-called "non-discriminatory" program to fund faith-based initiatives has not funded a single non-Christian program since it's inception; your response was... nothing, actually. You had to response to that claim.
You've been reminded that the FDA rejected OTC status for a medicine proven safe and effective for preventing conception after failures of other birth control for no scientific or medical reason whatsoever, but because elements in the White House believed that conservative Christian dominionists would react negatively to the FDA doing it's assigned job; your response to that was silence, as well. Instead you made the ridiculous accusation that I was "poisioning the well" by making accurate statements about your behavior in this and other threads.
And what have you offered to support your point? The assertion that John McCain gave one speech that wasn't about religion. Never mind that, in that speech alone, he talked about "God" in more than 6 places as though that was a real thing.
The reason I have such a hard time believing you're interested in an honest discussion where evidence is presented and debated is because, several times now, you've been presented with evidence and you've refused to debate it, instead choosing to call your opponents liars and paranoid delusionals.
Work with you? We've bent over backwards to give you what you asked for. At such time as you're ready to begin a real debate, there's plenty on the table for you to chew on. Sit down and do it, already. Accusing us of being the ones who won't grapple with your points is just more ad hominem from someone I suspect doesn't know how to argue any other way. Work with us, already.
Impatientpatient,
I know exactly how you feel, my family can be the same way. They're a lot more circumspect about it because, it seems to me, they haven't drunk as much of the Koolaid. (They see it completely differently, of course - they see it as a failure of courage on their part. If only they could muster the divine furor to disregard civility, they could return their wayward son to the fold.)
What you have to tell them is simple. "Family, I love and respect you, and I respect your beliefs and your freedom to believe as you choose, even if my disagreement with your beliefs couldn't be stronger. And it's important that you show me the same respect and not be a stumbling block for me. It's important that we share these times as a family. I was wrong to to try to tell you what to believe, just as you were wrong to dictate belief to me. I know that the temptation for you is to try to "save my soul." I know that your church teaches you that if you really loved me, you'd be as rude and divisive as you had to be to get me back in the fold. What's one ruined Mother's Day compared to eternity, right?
That isn't love. That's rightous indignation. That's the thrill of being able to ignore your responsibility to the people you love and say the things that are better left unsaid. It isn't love. If it were love, we wouldn't have all been so mad at each other afterwards. We wouldn't all be dreading this time together. We wouldn't all be afraid of what the other person was going to say, and when the issue was going to be breached.
Real love brings people together. It doesn't divide them. I know that you know this. This Mother's Day, I ask you to love me like a family in the way that brings us together, not tears us apart."
That's what I'd say, anyway. Maybe I'd write it in a letter and read it to them, or something. I've had to say very similar things to my family ever since I became an atheist.
It seems to me if you have to get emotional in order to make your point, you don't *have* a point, at least not one based on facts. Rhetoric and outrage are simply ways to distract from a weak argument.
What complete bullshit. If you're not outraged at what's going on, you've got something seriously fucking wrong with you.
My response was to point out - quite correctly - that the poster making such a claim had provided no evidence, no reference, no support whatsoever for such a number. We are into the whole evidence and reason and supporting one's claims here, aren't we? Or is "evidence" merely a standard we set for other folks, but do not plan to abide by ourselves? He says 35 million, I say great - show me the money, eh?
I've been provided no evidence as to how those persons reflect Dominionist theology, how they are affiliated with or influenced by Dominionism, how Dominionism affects their relations with or communications to the White House, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is that how things work around here, with some sort of Focus-on-the-Family card being regularly played - all PZ or you guys have to do is say "James Dobson", and everyone nods their heads sagely in instant understanding? Did anyone actually question such claims, ask what evidence there was to support them, inquire as to how that conclusion was arrived at? Or am I the first?
Why should I not dismiss such claims, absent any evidence to support them? Lemme see if I can sum up the argument somewhat, tweaking one minor detail:
Q: The kooky Martians are exercising undue political influence in the country today, sneaking their crafty evil Martian agenda in under the radar!
A: Huh? How do you know that?
Q: What? Just look at these names: Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, E. Howard Hunt, Walt Disney...the list goes on and on.
A: How does that show Martian influence on the political process?
Q: Quit whining, asshole. You're a Martian enabler.
A: Gotcha.
Q(2): There are over 35 million Martians and Martian agents operating today.
A: How do you know that?
Q(2): ...
A: Got it.
Q(3): The evidence of Martian influence is immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the situation. It's practically self-evident.
A: Humor me.
Q(3): No, you're not really interested in the evidence. You're just a troll. If you were honest, I could provide it, but you're not.
A: Huh?
...and on and on and on. Hard to believe I'm not just snapping it all up, isn't it?
"As for how well I know them...my week among them consists of more than an hour on Sunday morning, if you catch my drift."
I'm assuming that your drift is that you're heavily involved in your church. Good for you. If your drift is that I don't spend more than an hour a week warming my ass in a pew, and therefore don't know what I'm talking about, you're far from correct. I've just lately managed to wean myself down to four hours on Sunday morning, two on Sunday night, and one or two weeknights a month, since I teach two different church classes and am part of the churchwide leadership team. That's down from my all-time high early in college, when I was at 2-4 hours a day 5-6 days a week of church activity involvement/Bible studies/worship team conduction/ministry outreach/etc. Lifetime average I'd have to say is 2-3 days a week, with a leadership role in at least one aspect at a time, usually more. I kind of know what I'm talking about too.
Black ops,
I'd like to go back to the original point of PZ's post, and his reference to Chris Clarke's post. Chris Clarke was referring to a global warning denier who used to be a speechwriter for Bush!!! Do you think that someone like this has some influence? I realize that the comments and argument has gone on to talk about dominionists, but the basic premise of this thread started with the idea that when you are confronted with fallacious arguments, you shouldn't be polite. When you see the same tired statements by influential people (a former presidential speechwriter), you should be incensed, rude, and aggressive in destroying their "talking points." I agree. If you want to parse it out into how much specific influence does James Dobson have in the daily decisions of the president, I don't think anyone on this blog can give you the type of "evidence" you're looking for. The evidence I use is when my students start reciting the same crap that some of these jerks spew out. That's the influence that we need to stop. We're not going to stop the influence that anyone has or does not have on the president by writing or saying anything (most of us here wouldn't be let within a half-mile of any audience with him, and besides, he doesn't read!!).
Some things I've heard people say at my college:
"I don't believe in all of this evolution stuff, I just learn it because I have to."
"Embryonic stem cell research is just morally wrong because it ends a human life."
"There's no evidence for evolution, is there, after all, it's just a theory, right?"
When I hear these things, I get angry. I don't yell at the students, but I point out that those arguments are BS, and then I explain why. That's where we have to measure the influence of the Dobsons, Dembskis, and Falwells of the world.
Why are half the posts from BlackOps? Not terribly interesting, are they? The President endorsing ID isn't important? Ann Coulter is just doing "shtick"?
How about fewer posts that are more concise?
As for the content - in the 80s, when the idea was first floated to cut the inheritance tax, it was laughed out of town for being ridiculous and political suicide. Tweny years later and the bills have already passed and been signed. PZ is right: people who don't take the theocrats seriously are superficial. And I would add the word "fools".
They have been systematically undermining public education for decades, and have worked to get taxpayer money to pay for private sectarian education. For quite a while I thought that people will know better. And people do know better - somewhat. But the only way to resist these kinds of changes is to actually resist them. And to not worry about offending sensibilities if they stand in the way of facts.
Jonathan Badger: it is true that only calm people ever have points to make.
Oh wait, that's not true.
It seems to me if you have to get emotional in order to make your point, you don't *have* a point, at least not one based on facts.
Now that's a testable hypothesis--Jonathan is postulating that there is an inverse correlation between having facts and being emotional.
What's the evidence for that correlation (i.e., what statistics did you use to establish it), Jonathan? Presumably, you've taken steps to eliminate the sampling bias that "It seems to me" would appear to be susceptible to, so I'd be particularly interested in your methodology.
I was wrong to to try to tell you what to believe, just as you were wrong to dictate belief to me.
*********************************************************
Chet- I agree with everything except this. I was not wrong to tell them what I believe. No more wrong than they were in telling me that with time prayer and a positive attitude my husband could cure himself of scar tissue entrapping a nerve root. I brought it up because I was incensed that "medical" people thought this was true. I soon found out how entrenched that philosophy is not only in my family but in society itself. When they started spouting the same sugar coated crap time after time I lost it. My sibling who ought to know that medicine is a tool for good considering they were born with multiple handicaps and has had multiple surgeries has been the worst one of the bunch. I have no patience for therapeutic touch, acupuncture, chiropractors, helmet therapy, laughter therapy orthotics or counselling or anything else. Our life has been impacted by a real medical condition that cannot be operated on nor can it be treated with anything that helps the pain without producing powerful side effects, and we are being berated for lack of faith.
Whatever.
And that is why I speak up in outrage every time I hear about bureaucratic stupidity and people acting like sheep. I am told at every turn that my negativity is causing the situation to be worse. Well my optimism five years ago did not seem to help much either. Neither did my hubbys. His surgery was an immediate success- 8 hours after it he walked out of the hospital. No pain. The growth of scar tissue was an insiduous process caused by indeterminate factors. In other words shit happened. To hear everyone else tell it it was because he wanted attention and wanted to drop out of the world of meaningful employment and friendships and stay at home and just eat worms.
Do I believe that there is something medical that may help- not now but in the future. Of course. Does that mean I am indiscriminately "believing in science"? No. I just have been following medical advances and uses for drugs over the last four years. There have been promising glimmers of relief. We know what does not work through trial and error. We ( and more importantly HE) are/is going to be okay eventually. The thing is that it is insulting to be told that I or he has caused this because of a deficiency of Vitamin Faith.
I need to add something. There is something freeing in not believing in a Toothfairy. I have utmost respect for how the body works, how animals interact, and how a tree grows. I have very little understanding of it- it is like a new language that I learn a bit at a time. I am fascinated by circadian rhythms and cytokines. I try to be kind- no change there. But I will not be stupid and I will not be ashamed. That I am expected to pander because I might upset my mother or whoever is a bit ridiculous. I would not dream of walking in and letting both barrels go for no reason. I don't think I would even deign to argue or belabour points that will be brought up. I will just move on to something else. I will be the political animal that I need to be in order to survive. And then I will leave early.
As for emotionality and the veracity of an argument as has been discussed by others----------- emotional at least means you give a crap. I have been emotional many times while advocating for what I need. Logical but emotional. I got what was needed. Not embellishing anything but stating vociferously how the reality of things has affected life can be a good thing.
Thanks for the advice Chet. I must say I had no idea how religious the people in my family really were until I said CYA!! They certainly have become more frantic.
Why are half the posts from BlackOps?
Because he's frightened and desparate. He knows that once you attempt to engage a conservative in "debate," they've already won. They'll preen and fuss about rhetoric, they'll trot out tired "gotchas," they'll demand ever-increasing levels of documentation for every fucking word you use, and then when you lose your temper, they'll declare victory by default.
Black Ops, if you're still out there, understand this: The debate is over. You want to win the debate? Be my fucking guest. You win. And you can take that win, and get an ice cream cone at Baskin Robbins for $3.50.
Because at the end of the day, reality trumps fantasy. And you can't keep reality at bay forever. So go ahead, believe whatever bullshit you want. Tell any lies that make you feel better. The die has been cast; even if every conservative pulled his head out of his ass right this minute, there's still going to be plenty of blood on your hands for years to come. So congratulations on that death toll; it's all gravy now. You're way past redemption at this point.
I've been provided no evidence as to how those persons reflect Dominionist theology, how they are affiliated with or influenced by Dominionism, how Dominionism affects their relations with or communications to the White House, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I guess I don't understand the issue you're having, here. Is it just that when we say names like "James Dobson" or "Pat Robertson" you don't know who we're talking about? You're unaware of the religion these men publically claim to adhere to? You've got no idea of the social and political views these men express? You're completely unfamiliar with the organizations and media channels that they control?
If you're unaware of how they espouse a vision of America's political future that would mandate no citizen be allowed to engage in behavior unsanctioned by their ideosyncratic interpretation of the Bible, then it's sufficient to read their writings and listen to their public statements to educate yourself. If you refuse to do those things, there's not going to be enough space here on Dr. Myers's blog to educate you. We aren't here to do your homework for you.
These aren't men who are reticent to assert that they believe that no other justification for legislation is necessary, or desirable, than the appearance of a certain precept in the Bible. These aren't men who are reticent to assert that the idea that government and faith are two seperate magisteria. These aren't men who try to disguise their vision of a future America where abortion and contraception are unavaliable, where pre-marital sex and adultery constitute criminal acts, and persons of other religion or no religion are tolerated as an underclass, so long as they abide by the precepts of the Chrisitan faith.
Do you have some reason why we shouldn't take these people at their word?
My response was to point out - quite correctly - that the poster making such a claim had provided no evidence, no reference, no support whatsoever for such a number.
Oh, really? Just as you provided such detailed support and references for your assertion that there were only "half a dozen" Christian dominionists?
Why should I not dismiss such claims, absent any evidence to support them?
What, exactly, would you require to support the assertion that these are powerful men who wield influence in the political sphere? Again, this isn't the place for us to post a detailed biography of each of these figures. You're going to have to do a little research yourself - generally required for one to know what the hell one is talking about - and draw your own conclusions from the fact that, for instance, James Dobson throws a "Justice Sunday" shindig with several high-ranking congressional conservatives and suddenly, absent any pressing need and outside of any immediate context, stopping gay marriage is a referendum issue on over 14 states simultaneously. For instance.
Did anyone actually question such claims
Question what claims? That there's a man called James Dobson who chairs an organization that wants their biblical social model to be established law?
Like, I just don't get it. You've never heard of these people? You don't believe they exist? If that's really the issue, I don't know what kind of proof I could offer in this venue to substantiate the existence of James Dobson. I don't have a scan of his birth certificate for you.
Chet- I agree with everything except this. I was not wrong to tell them what I believe.
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should be. You should never apologize for honestly asserting what you have come to believe, of course.
But it doesn't help matters for you to defend your own beliefs by attacking theirs. It's very likely that your family have beliefs that are not consistent with their actions. Pointing that out isn't going to make for a particularly pleasant Mother's Day.
Our life has been impacted by a real medical condition that cannot be operated on nor can it be treated with anything that helps the pain without producing powerful side effects, and we are being berated for lack of faith.
I get that their "advice" seems inconcievably insensitive; that it seems like they're suggesting your husband's intense pain is a punishment for his faithlessness. Believe me, my family has said things to me that I found equally insensitive.
But they mean well. I get that that doesn't make it feel better.
There is something freeing in not believing in a Toothfairy.
Yes. It's the freedom of knowing that your decisions about how to live your life don't have to be matched against some vague indeterminate sky-man's plan for what you're supposed to do, lest you be punished for the hubris of daring to choose your own fate.
Obviously, yes. They're just imaginary Martians. Focus on the Family has a yearly revenue of over 135 million dollars, Tim LaHaye's apocalyptic books have sold over 80 million copies...but hey, they're no more real than fantasy invaders from space.
That comparison he made is enough: he's a troll.
Black Ops:
The problem here is this: you're doing more or less the same thing many Creationists do. They demand evidence for transitional fossils, they're presented with some examples, and then they insist that these aren't adequate, or perhaps even evidence at all, because the skeletons aren't entirely complete, or because there are gaps in the fossil record, or because scientists aren't entirely sure how life originated, or, or, or...
In other words, you're setting the bar so impossibly high that no reasonable effort could possibly accumulate what you would acknowledge as "supporting evidence." You demand detailed evidence that prominent televangelists' views are similar to those of the Dominionists when the views of both are a matter of public record and examples are displayed in many of this very site's random quotes. You demand evidence that these views are reflected by conservative Christians in general, and when people cite examples from their personal experience and general knowledge of religious organizations, much of it derived from reading their public statements and publications, and you dismiss it. You demand that we explain how these people influence President Bush, and when we provide examples you apparently dismiss them as not detailed enough or anecdotal or something. You've completely ignored, or contemptuously blanket-dismissed, several points that have been made. You demand we spoon-feed you detailed support for every point in our arguments, every fraction of a step of our reasoning, even in cases where the facts behind our points are so well-publicized and straightforward could only be honestly disputed by a psychotic or a person who had literally spent the last decade or two under a rock. And throughout it all you maintain a demeanor that in a real-life casual debate would, by the standards of most of America, have more than earned you a punch in the mouth several posts back.
I don't know what it is you're trying to accomplish. Perhaps you just want to try and make people look stupid. Perhaps you just want to make trouble. Perhaps, perhaps, but it's more than clear that an honest, fair, and civil debate is not what your goal.
Nevertheless, it would be amusing to see how you react to someone actually accumulating something like the level of evidence you demand, so when I have a chance I'll try to find some links supporting these points. Anyone wanna take bets on whether this sneering little cretin will simply dismiss those too, or whether he'll not even respond? Maybe we'lll get lucky and his head will literally explode.
Err...make that "In other words, you're setting the bar so impossibly high that no reasonable effort could possibly accumulate what you would acknowledge as 'supporting evidence,' and then when someone comes close you move the bar."
Well, I did say "it seems to me", but I am a human being and I doubt my physiological reactions differ to any great degree to other human beings. I know when I can't defend myself with facts (for example, when I've forgotten that I promised two months ago to go to a birthday party of my SO's niece or something), and later made other plans, I tend to get angry and say something like "How in the hell was I supposed to remember *that*? You've never mentioned it recently!" Getting emotional is just a way to avoid saying calmly "Yes, you are correct. I did promise to go to the birthday party and I was in the wrong for making other plans." In other words, getting emotional is simply a manner to avoid admitting that I'm wrong. So, again, "it seems to me" that when other people get emotional (particularly when they get angry) they are pulling the same stunt.
No. Haven't been to church in years. Don't really have a church, actually. My interaction is outside that, elsewhere.
Almost certainly.
Okay, fine. I don't give a crap about polite, actually. Cogency would be nice, though.
It's nice that you take the time to rationally rebut misconceptions on the part of your students. Would that others were so bold.
It certainly hasn't got a damned thing to do with creeping Dominionism - or if it does, someone really ought to be able to do more than just assert it.
n other words, getting emotional is simply a manner to avoid admitting that I'm wrong. So, again, "it seems to me" that when other people get emotional (particularly when they get angry) they are pulling the same stunt.
This is (and I say this without a trace of emotion) utter crap. Just because Mr. Badger identifies emotion with childish defensiveness because that's his primary mode of expresssing emotion doesn't mean that it's true for others.
Mr. Badger is doing the worst possible kind of projection: he's projecting *his* personality flaws onto others, when he has no evidence to support that projection.
Note to self: try not to discount Mr. Badger out of hand in future just because this particular argument of his is so profoundly puerile.
I know who you're talking about. I see something on weirdo Dominionist conspiracy theories, and when I ask, I'm told to look at James Dobson. Okay, I'm looking - tell me what I'm supposed to see. What am I looking for?
At this point, I'm starting to think it's sort of like Santa Claus - you can't see it unless you really, really believe it first. Or maybe not, but the fact that everyone seems to act as though simply putting a picture of Bush next to a picture of Dobson, without any further explanation, is somehow sufficient evidence of B's influence on A...that's not real encouraging. And when I ask for someone to draw the connection, I get labeled an asshole, a troll, an enabler, whatever. Okay, fine - I'm an asshole. Now that that's out of the way, someone wanna answer the question?
That comparison he made is enough: he's a troll.
Brilliant. "Troll" being someone who dares disagree, requests that you support your ridiculous contentions in a coherent fashion, and then ridicules some stunningly subpar reasoning. Guess what, my man? I already beat you to the punch - I'm not nice when I find a really stupid post like you popped out there, and I'm not nice about pointing out that it's virtually devoid of content, along with whatever you call that attempt to defend it, and I'm not nice about politely pretending that your response to me is somehow more than you finding different variations on the "asshole" theme. Don't tell me about not nice - I didn't object because you weren't nice, and if you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know that. I objected on the grounds that that smelly pile was nothing more than basic intellectual fraud. Innuendo, strawmanning, guilt-by-association - a real dog's breakfast, in fact. It ain't your tone, doc - it's the content. Or more precisely, the lack thereof.
Okay, that's theoretically possible. After all, a person can only really know how they themselves process emotion. So I have two questions for you. 1) How do you personally use anger differently? and 2) Does hearing anger in other people's voice enhance their credibility, decrease it, or has no effect (in your opinion of course).
I so want to believe you. Really, I do. Actually, I was gonna bug out after my previous post, but yout offer is so intriguing that I guarantee I'll be there whenever you present whatever it is you're gonna present.
This isn't quite the same as forgetting a birthday: children are having their limbs blown off in Iraq. I think you should be angry about that.
I see something on weirdo Dominionist conspiracy theories, and when I ask, I'm told to look at James Dobson. Okay, I'm looking - tell me what I'm supposed to see. What am I looking for?
His vision of Christian involvement in politics.
Like, again. What's the problem here? Is it really so unclear what we think Dobson and Robertson and David Barton and Tim LaHaye and Rick Santorum have in mind for the future of life in America? That's been the subject of a number of Dr. Myers' front page posts. Certainly I've laid out parts of the Christianist vision in several posts, now. Why aren't those things sinking in?
Is it your assertion that the aforementioned figures approve of a society where adults can get contraception if they want it, an abortion if they want it, and have sex with anybody who consents? That they approve of a society where putative legislation is required to have a compelling secular purpose, regardless of the degree to which it is coherent with religious teaching?
Is it your assertion that there's no reason to believe that these men imagine a future for America where, if they decide that if the Bible says you can't do X, then X becomes against the law to do? Are you asserting that there's no evidence for that belief on their part, and that they haven't been making efforts to make that vision reality?
I'm just trying to get a handle on what you think hasn't been supported or substantiated.
At this point, I'm starting to think it's sort of like Santa Claus - you can't see it unless you really, really believe it first.
When Rick Santorum comes out and says "the idea that there should be a seperation between church and state is a myth", are you telling me I shouldn't believe that Rick Santorum would like to tear down the separation between church and state? When Rick Santorum comes out and says that the only reason that making gay sex against the law probably isn't a good idea would be the enormous difficulty in enforcement, I shouldn't believe that he sees no problem with enacting laws based on no justification but their similarity to a Biblical precept?
That doesn't seem like Santa Claus. It seems like all you have to do to substantiate that these guys want to enact a Christianist theocracy in practice if not in letter is to simply listen to them tell you all about how they want to enact a Christianist theocracy in practice if not in letter.
Where am I going wrong, BO?
But by "be angry about that" don't you really mean "want to take action to stop that"?
No, I meant what I said. When people are dying in this abomination of a war, you should be angry about it. Yes, do something about it -- but anger is an appropriate and reasonable emotion to feel.
Passivity is not. We've got too much of that as it is.
This is a troll.
Everybody, look. Someone whose first words are an insult, and second words are intended to create an argument orthogonal to the blog entry (which is why it's so important to get it into the crucial first few replies).
This is a troll.
And what is the first rule? Do not feed the troll.
But by "be angry about that" don't you really mean "want to take action to stop that"?
Since, in this country, we have a government that enacts policies according to proximate public will, I think what he means is "make an impassioned, compelling case that holds the reader's attention long enough to convince him and others that the leaders of this country are guilty of a great wrong."
I won't put words in his mouth, though.
Where am I going wrong, BO?
The issue is not whether the Dominionists are freaky whackjobs - I've basically been stipulating that from the beginning. They're freaky whackjobs with some truly bizarre ideas about politics and political life. But what I'd like to see is evidence of their asserted power. What portions of the Dominionist agenda are being seriously advanced at the moment, or reasonably appear as though they may be advanced in the near future?
Now, there's about a zillion potential answers there, but let's see if we can find something unique to Reconstruction theology, so as to avoid correlation/causation arguments. I.e., don't come back to me with "ID" as an answer - Reconstructionists are creationists, but not all creationists are Reconstructionists, so that's not going to help us understand if it's freaky whackjob influence at work, or if it's just happenstance. Not that non-Reconstructionist creationists don't have their own freaky whackjob issues, but whatever. Does that sound like the bar is so high as to be unattainable? I don't think so, but I'm sure you'll let me know if you disagree.
The FDA's resistance to passing Plan B is a great example. PZ just wrote about it in great detail recently.
How about medical marijuana? Doesn't matter how many scientific studies show it helps some people in some conditions, it's evil.
How about solely funding abstinence-only sex ed, even in the face of studies that show it doesn't work?
Wait, I know, there are a few people who want those who are only partial "reconstructionists", so they don't count? The issue is legislating a particular narrowly focused morality based on (by their own admission) the Bible. It's there, and there in dozens of different examples.
In other words, getting emotional is simply a manner to avoid admitting that I'm wrong. So, again, "it seems to me" that when other people get emotional (particularly when they get angry) they are pulling the same stunt.
A implies B, therefore B implies A is such an easy logical fallacy to fall into, and such a minefield in establishing causality, that Robert Koch actually developed 4 separate postulates that needed to be met before it could be claimed that Agent A causes Disease B. Here, the "agent" is "lack of facts", and the "disease" is "anger".
The postulates are here, but briefly, their purpose is to ensure that, among other things, 1) coincidence doesn't get mistaken for causation, and 2) cause and effect aren't reversed.
You made a very sweeping (not to mention insulting) generalization, which was based on insufficient analysis. You established that (in you) lack of facts leads to anger, but you didn't establish how you ruled out anger leading to lack of facts, nor how you ruled out that they could co-exist with each other.
Naturally, people in whom anger and facts can and do co-exist reacted badly to your causal assertion, first, because it was insulting, and second, because you did nothing to substantiate it. Your example only goes partway in that direction, and omits other reasonable explanations.
Black Ops, some of the reason this is used is because we feel it being used against us. Those who have the slightest step to the left of what they consider reasonable debate are villified and shouted at. It might not be 'nice,' calling them something that is further right then they are, but do I want the terrorists to win because I think it's a bad idea to torture people? Is it nice to do that? But, is it effective in stopping conversation short?
We see the Christian Right as the core of the problem, and see it as likely that given their stated beliefs, that they are pushing for a country governed by the laws of their religion. It might not include some of the specific aspects of Dominionism, but the essential idea is very similar and from the viewpoint of many of the people here, what they are asking for is a Theocratic state.
The over-zealous attacks do stop the conversation, and force them to try and distance themselves from the crazies, or to be de-facto allies if they refuse to defend themselves.
Wait, I know, there are a few people who want those who are only partial "reconstructionists", so they don't count?
What's a "partial Reconstructionist"? Someone who only shares some beliefs in common with Reconstructionists? You wear shoes, I assume. Lenin wore shoes. Is there some utility in me labeling you a partial Communist?
I'm trying to pin down your terminology. You claim that there are creationists who aren't reconstructionists. I assume by reconstructionists you're equating that to dominionists, since you've just replaced the term? Now, show me creationists who wouldn't answer "yes" to the question "Should we have a Christian as president?" They're not extremists, so you say they shouldn't be branded the same as the others, but surely they are at least partly on the same side?
Miles -
The intersection of law and morality is always an interesting topic. They would, of course, counter that you are trying to impose your secular beliefs on them. I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument myself, but it is what it is, and they really believe that. Ultimately, the answer is, whoever persuades the most people to sign on will have their vision of society realized.
I'd prefer not to have the Reconstructionists be the ones sitting on top of the hill when all is said and done, so I don't do them the service of painting them as anything other than fringe kooks. Because that's what it is to them when you all make them out to be movers and shakers, some sort of Army of God, laying waste to all who dare oppose Jesus. Or something. Why? Because when you guys demonize them, folks who oppose you but aren't Reconstructionists start looking at Reconstructionists in a more sympathetic light. "Well, the godless heathens don't like 'em, so they must not be all that bad". It's perverse, it's bizarre, and it's how people behave.
I'm hardly saying that they shouldn't be criticized. Nor am I saying that you all in particular shouldn't criticize them. Just, please, don't make them out to be some sort of cross-wielding juggernaut. They're not. They're fringe kooks, of the same approximate sort as folks who think the moon landings were faked or that fluoridation is a Commie plot. Give people an excuse for a schism, not an excuse for an embrace.
I assume by reconstructionists you're equating that to dominionists...
"Christian Reconstructionism" and "Dominionism" are approximately interchangeable terms, yes. Sorry.
Now, show me creationists who wouldn't answer "yes" to the question "Should we have a Christian as president?" They're not extremists, so you say they shouldn't be branded the same as the others, but surely they are at least partly on the same side?
Depending on the issue you choose to concentrate on, you'll find a lot of people "partly on the same side" as Reconstructionists. Gary DeMar (google him if necessary) thinks we should be in Iraq. Joe Lieberman thinks we should be in Iraq. Does that mean Joe's partly on the same side as Gary? Do we gain anything if we label Joe a partial Reconstructionist?
I didn't have to rule it out. I wrote "if you have to get emotional in order to make your point, you don't *have* a point, at least not one based on facts."
This fully allows for having both facts and emotion, because someone who has the facts doesn't have to get emotional whether or not they are.
But more interestingly, is *why* people are defending emotions such as anger. I just don't get it. Do others really find presentations where the speaker yells or bursts into tears more convincing than a straight presention? Or really finds protesters marching around shouting doggerel like "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! George Bush has to go!" more convincing than a lecture on how the administration's policies has weakened relations with the European Union?
Do others really find presentations where the speaker yells or bursts into tears more convincing than a straight presention? Or really finds protesters marching around shouting doggerel like "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! George Bush has to go!" more convincing than a lecture on how the administration's policies has weakened relations with the European Union?
Yeah, because those bullshit examples are the only ways to express emotion when confronted with, for example, tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths in a colonial adventure, or the shredding of the civil liberties that are the only thing that stands between the United States being a republican and being a dictatorship.
More straw men, please, Mr. Badger.
I didn't have to rule it out. I wrote "if you have to get emotional in order to make your point, you don't *have* a point, at least not one based on facts." This fully allows for having both facts and emotion, because someone who has the facts doesn't have to get emotional whether or not they are.
You also wrote:
Rhetoric and outrage are simply ways to distract from a weak argument.
which seems to mean that you consider being legitimately outraged and having a strong argument to be negatively correlated. Did I misread what you wrote?
But more interestingly, is *why* people are defending emotions such as anger. I just don't get it.
Defending against what? Anger is a perfectly reasonable response to an outrageous act. You might as well say you don't understand why people are defending pain--it is a response to a stimulus.
What I don't get is how you can get angry over something as mundane as forgetting your SO's niece's birthday party, yet regard what the current Administration is doing to human rights and constitutional law with equanimity and calmness. I doubt that I will ever be able to understand your priorities or your sense of proportion, any more than you will ever understand mine.
Do others really find presentations where the speaker yells or bursts into tears more convincing than a straight presention? Or really finds protesters marching around shouting doggerel like "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! George Bush has to go!" more convincing than a lecture on how the administration's policies has weakened relations with the European Union?
Perhaps part of the problem is that you have a few stereotypical conceptions of what anger is, and how it can be expressed effectively. I for one am very angry what this Administration has done to the former good name of my country, yet you have not shown how--per your sweeping generalization above--my outrage has detracted from my argument or the facts.
being a republican
being a republIC
Whether or not Coulter herself believes what she writes is completely, utterly, cosmically irrelevant. The point is that her books sell like toilet paper and bottled water the day before a hurricane. Other people believe what she says. They're the problem. Coulter is just a loud-mouthed fascist out to make a quick buck, and she's not above telling a few hundred lies to do it.
And even if Coulter doesn't believe what she writes, so what? Does that somehow mitigate her troglodytic hatemongering? History tells us that doing evil is much easier when you're sincere about it.
You've just declined to defend Ann Coulter right in the middle of defending Ann Coulter. So that's a bit odd.
BlackOps, is it really such a complete mystery to you why no one around here takes you seriously?
Because we aren't Vulcans, Mr. Badger.
First of all, many of us do, in fact, empathise better with people who get angry with evil.
If you see footage of a person with their face blown of and say, "Jesus, that's horrible" then this allows us to relate to you as a fellow human being.
If on the other hand, you simply shrug and say, "This will surely negatively impact our future plans in the middle east, now where'd I put my sandwich." then your lack of empathy becomes slightly frightening.
Anger at politics grows from empathy; We are angry at torturers because we empathize with their victims. I really hope we don't have to defend empathy as a worthwhile emotion.
Now, obviously anger tends to engender negative reactions in the targets of that anger. In a face-to-face meeting, time is of the essence; you can't wait a day to cool off before responding to an assertion. For this reason, it is best to avoid excessive emotionalism in face-to-face meetings.
However, not all political commentary or even discussion is done face-to-face in real time. When it comes to responding to an op-ed, taped comment, or even message board discussion, there is a longer time to answer.
It's fairly easy, even for us emotional folks, to cultivate the skill of finding the argument behind angry ranting. It's one many of us have cultivated without any professional training. For somebody who doesn't feel anger, it should be even easier to disregard rudeness.
Oh, as an afterthought, politeness generally acts as a shield to legitimise incredibly nasty beliefs.
Often, the ideas like putting, say, me into a concentration camp are discussed in calm tones.
To react calmly is to act as though the idea isn't an abomination, which it quite clearly is.
Politeness, as defined here, is about surface polish; the way in which ideas are presented. To rail against politeness as a virtue is to say that the substance of an idea is more important then the way in which it is presented.
Or, to put it another way, which statement is really worse:
"You're a fuckhead"
Or
"We need to seriously discuss sending liberals to concentration camps"?
It's not an issue of action vs. passivity. You can be active about things while being plainspoken: "For every dollar an American man gets, an American woman doing the same job, holding the same qualifications, and working for the same amount of time makes 79 cents. Now tell me we don't need more enforcement of equal pay laws."
As for outrage, personally I feel outraged about American atrocities to about the same degree I feel outraged about dogs' biting men.
I won't comment on the Dominionist/Reconstructionist diversionary tactic, since that is precisely what it is. It had nothing to do with P.Z. Meyer's topic. I CAN cite relevant data on it, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
P.Z. Meyers quoted approvingly of this passage : "My point: it is not civil to discuss things quietly and collegially while people are dying because they can't afford medicine. It is not civil to speak in even, chuckling sardonicism as one beleaguered wild place after another is paved for profit. It is not civil to calmly raise logical arguments against torture, against kidnapping, against using nuclear weapons on civilians to show our resolve."
Black Ops, seeing an opportunity, says of this stance: " Now, you can certainly behave irrationally while simultaneously claiming the mantle of logic and reason - I can hardly stop you, nor am I particularly interested in trying. But for you to expect the rest of the world to give you a big ol' thumbs-up and a pat on the back for it, ignoring the almost schizophrenic disjunct inherent in such behavior...well, that's really a bit much."
Note that Black Ops is not really addressing the content of the initial quote. Merely calls it "irrational." Question: What part of the initial post is irrational?
I should explain that when you first come to Minnesota, you discover that everyone is unflaggingly polite, they smile, they rarely utter a cross word, and even in the most dire situations they struggle to say something positive. It seems admirable at first, but after a while you discover it is a mask covering some of the meanest, most petty, passive-aggressive backbiting you'll ever experience.
That certainly jibes with my experience when I spent two years in grad school at the Twin Cities U campuses.
And the climate's a bitch. I expect that in return for bitterly cold winters, I get nice mild summers. Or that in return for hot, humid summers (leaving aside the mosqutoes) I get nice mild winters. But noooo.......
From today's New York Times:
Conservative Christians warn Republicans against inaction
You've just declined to defend Ann Coulter right in the middle of defending Ann Coulter. So that's a bit odd.
Allow me to elaborate, then. In the sense that Ann's gig is all schtick, I believe that she knows better, even if her audience doesn't, which makes what she does truly reprehensible. I think that Ann Coulter is a cynical bullshit artist, who has carved out a profitable niche for herself by catering to the baser instincts of the mob with a combination of irrational fearmongering, historical distortion, and manipulative, overwrought, near-hysterical prose. Plus, I'm pretty sure she's a post-op transsexual, NTTAWWT.
Now, if that's a "defense" of her, hopefully you'll at least grant that it's not much of one. About the only thing I can offer that might be construed as being in her defense is to point out that she's hardly got a monopoly on that kind of thing. Even scientists are known to do a bit of irrational fearmongering now and then. This does not mitigate Coulter's own awfulness, however.
Question: What part of the initial post is irrational?
Your confusion is quite understandable. Suffice it to say that this:
...is Myers' rather inelegant way of insuring that a disagreement that began elsewhere gets dragged in here as well. Most blogs and forums I know discourage that kind of thing, not least because it makes the context of what's being said difficult to track, but whatever. The Dominionist thing seems to have petered out, but the context is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/scary_evil_christians.php
If the discussion on that point is to continue, why don't we, for the sake of convenience, do it back there on the thread where I originally registered my disapproval? Myers may wish to clutter up his blog by picking the same fight everywhere he goes, but I'll be a nice guy and save him from himself in this instance.
Sorry, that'll confuse things further - I believe I first objected here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/not_my_kind_of_atheist_nor_a…
Conservative Christians warn Republicans against inaction
Yeah, they get sassy every couple of election cycles. Either the GOP gets extreme to hold on to them, or it doesn't and they stay home, but either way the Republicans lose elections. And the Religious Right spends a few years wandering in the desert, during which time they once again come to realize the virtues of half-a-loaf over nothing at all. Lather, rinse, repeat - there is nothing new under the sun.
What portions of the Dominionist agenda are being seriously advanced at the moment, or reasonably appear as though they may be advanced in the near future?
Asked and answered. Like I said, an in-depth biography of Christianist figures and organizations is not within the scope of this thread. Is it just that you still don't know what that agenda is? Or is it that you don't know how to compare their stated agenda with the policy efforts of figures in the government? "Man, I just can't figure it out. Christianists oppose abortions even to save the life of a mother; suddenly several states ban abortion even to save the life of the mother. Christianists oppose any form of gay marriage or gay civil union; suddenly, 14 states have ballot initiatives simultaneously to ban gay marriage or civil unions. But - is there a connection?! The world will never know, I guess."
At some point, you have to stop looking at 2 here and 2 there and realize that they're not going to add themselves. You can lead a horse to water, I guess, but...
Oh, come on. Anyone who opposes abortion is by definition a Dominionist? There are Biblical prohibitions on murder and theft, I'm sure you know. Does that make anyone who opposes murder a Dominionist?
You would make the term so broad as to be meaningless, in which case "Dominionist" amounts to precious little more than shorthand for "someone who disagrees with me".
Hey, Chet - are these guys "Dominionists"?
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Here's a definition of Dominionist/Reconstructionist thought : "sociologists suggest that a dominionist-envisioned program can range from urging political activism in civic society under the banner of "family values" or "traditional values", to involvement for more explicitly Christian and biblical reasons." Christian Reconstruction claims it has a reconstituted covenant with God and the right to a new dominion in his name. In this worldview, the mandate for Christians is not just to live right or to help their neighbors: They are called upon to take over *or* eliminate the institutions of secular government. Estimates as to the numbers of people that hold to this view range from 20-35 million in the U.S. Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, New York: Broadway Books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism , Kenneth D. Wald. Religion and Politics in the United States. Fourth edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
You didn't really answer my question, Black Ops: I said "Note that Black Ops is not really addressing the content of the initial quote. Merely calls it "irrational." Question: What part of the initial post is irrational?
Your complaint seems to be with P.Z. Meyers *commentary* on the initial post -- that "Especially since lately there have been a few too many commenting whiners who are getting pissy because I think goose-stepping theocrats are evil...." Yet you fail to say where any of that is irrational, either. Is it the sentiment it contains? Or the fact that he posted it? Or that you seem to feel it applies to you? What part of any of that is irrational?
Deadman, I put a reply to this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/not_my_kind_of_atheist_nor_a…
Thx.
"Either the GOP gets extreme to hold on to them, or it doesn't and they stay home, but either way the Republicans lose elections."
I'm sorry, but what elections have they lost in the last decade??????
Well, there was that guy Clinton - you probably remember him.
Ooh, ooh! The irrational leftist Wall Street Journal has an article today about Dr. Dobson's private meetings with Republican leaders to demand more action on enshrining the religious beliefs of him and his followers into law. Good thing the Republican leadership isn't even returning his phone calls, since no one's even heard of him. Oh, no, wait, just like with "Justice Sunday" Republican lawmakers are lining up to kiss his ass.
But just because he holds particular religious and political beliefs, we're smearing him as a "Dominionist"? Well, one of those beliefs is that this should be a "Christian nation," and that the laws and amendments that govern all of us should conform to his particular religious tenets. Pretty vague and harmless, if you ask me.
Black Ops did raise an interesting point further up about "partial Reconstructionists." I think he was trying clumsily to explain that many genuine premillenial dispensationalists have not been coopted by the Robertsons, LaHayes, Dobsons, Perkins, Schlaflys, and Falwells. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention have long supported separation of church and state, because like Jefferson they worried about the answer to "Which church?" (This is why convention ethicist Dr. Land was publically critical of the GOP's drive to use church directories for GOTV). However, the latest president of the preeminent Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville, Al Mohler, is a fellow traveler of Dr. D. James Kennedy, who himself is an acolyte of R.J. Rushdoony, father of the modern Christian Reconstructionist movement. Dr. Mohler has already initiated a purge of those who hold to more traditional Southern Baptist doctrine on separation of church and state, which had already been drastically weakened by support for Reverend Falwell's Moral Majority. As Black Ops was meaning to tell you all, this action has led numerous Texas Baptist churches to split off from the Convention. So you could hardly label those churches as "Dominionist," or even "partial Reconstructionist."
(Okay, Black Ops didn't actually mean any of that, primarily because he's probably "never heard of" the Southern Baptist Church, and it's just on the very fringe of society anyway.)
Oh, and very soon now Black Ops is going to honestly address the deliberate holdups on emergency contraception due to social conservatives dictating national health policy. Once he gets back from badmouthing Roy Moore on streetcorners in Alabama, which could not possibly have any adverse consequences.
There, that was fairly civil.
Oh, yeah, the guy who was impeached by the Republican-controlled Congress for daring to have extramarital sex and had a vice-president who was defeated by a barely-literate Republican who has proceeded to govern so impeccably with his Republican Congress ever since. Good example.
Oh, come on. Anyone who opposes abortion is by definition a Dominionist?
I don't know. Did I say that they were?
How about you address my points rather than grapple with strawmen?
You would make the term so broad as to be meaningless
In several seperate posts I've laid out exactly the definition of the term. Did you just not understand it? Your posts don't seem to give any indication that you're doing anything except mining the posts of your opponents for one-liners for you to launch non sequiters against. You've certainly abdicated any attempt to respond honestly to debate.
Hey, Chet - are these guys "Dominionists"?
If you have to ask, I guess you're not paying attention. Do "these guys" believe that American should enact and enforce the conservative social philosophy derived from their ideosyncratic interpretation of the Bible?
I don't know. Did I say that they were?
You're apparently telling me that opposition to abortion (or abortion without exceptions) is a sign of "Christianism", but here's a bunch of atheists who oppose abortion. I expect they might actually be quite offended if you were to label them "Christianists". Obviously, therefore, opposition to abortion cannot, in and of itself, necessarily be taken as a sign that the opposer is desirous of theonomy.
In several seperate posts I've laid out exactly the definition of the term.
Not really, but you've given some examples of what you consider to be Dominionist belief, and I expect you think that's the same thing. Anyway, most recently, you appear to have assigned opposition to abortion and gay marriage under the heading of "dominionist influenced" positions. Abortion, I believe I've addressed, but to look at gay marriage for a moment, Oregon declined to legalize gay marriage by a 57-42% vote. Now, I guess if you're going to explain how that's indicative of creeping Dominionist influence in Oregon, maybe you can also explain how you reconcile that position with the fact that Oregon voters have legalized medicinal marijuana by a 55-45% vote, and legalized physician-assisted suicide and then reaffirmed that vote by a margin of 60-40%.
Do you figure that medical marijuana and PAS are Dominionist positions? Or is it perhaps possible that there can be a segment of the population that's uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage all on their own, that they can legitimately and of their own volition oppose it, without somehow being under the spell of freaky-freakies?
Oh, yeah, the guy who was impeached by the Republican-controlled Congress for daring to have extramarital sex...
Hey, you asked for elections. Actually '96 is a good example of what I'm talking about. The hard, hard right put Dole in between a rock and a hard place, by demanding the sun, moon, and stars from him as proof of his fealty. He didn't give it, so they stayed home, and the nation got four more years of Bill Clinton. Who may very well have been destined to win no matter what, but the right's shenanigans didn't help matters.
What would have happened if he'd paid tribute to them, and agreed to do what they wanted him to do? That vast, mushy middle-of-the-road voter segment, the segment that doesn't like extremists of any flavor, would have seen him beholden to some sort of weirdo snake-handlers who wanted to build heaven right here on earth. And the only thing you'd have seen would have been a cloud of dust behind them as they stampeded into the warm, loving arms of that classic American Everyman, Bill Clinton.
Now, flash-forward ten years. Because these idiots have a real short fucking attention span, they're lining up to try the same old shit all over again. They're going to flex their muscles and get what they want, or they're gonna take their ball and go home, with the exact same results as before. Waaa waaa waaa.
Geraghty had a pretty good piece on the pending phenomenon in this morning's NRO - you guys probably don't get over there much, but in a nutshell, he (quite correctly, IMO) pointed out that the Republicans in the most danger in the upcoming midterms were the most conservative ones, the ones ostensibly most friendly to Christian conservatives in the first place. So if they stay home, they not only shoot themselves in the head, they shoot what few friends they have in the head too. And the only ones left standing are moderate Republicans, who now don't owe those folks a damn thing, and a bunch of Democrats. Yay - excellent plan there, Mr. Hard Right!
Or, they do what they're trying to do now, and twist enough arms that they get serious commitments to their agenda. And then they discover, once again, that while they're a large faction within the GOP, they're not nearly large enough to do it all on their own, and the midterms go up in smoke anyway. Because, you know, when the leader of your party is in the deepest slump of his entire two terms, and people generally aren't happy with the direction of the country, the state of the economy, the war in Iraq, and they're pretty much looking for any old excuse to dump you, that's exactly when you want to come across as a bunch of extremist whackos for the upcoming elections, right? Right.
This is why I've been saying all along that you guys worry way too much about those clowns. You mostly seem to be looking in from the outside, and hence you don't really have a clear idea of the internal dynamics of the right. They can only hurt themselves with this kind of thing - I'm quite sure that the NYT knows that, which is why they're making such a big deal out of it. The only way they can get anything at all is by shutting the fuck up, showing up to vote, and accepting whatever compromises they can broker with people who aren't as extreme as they are. That's it. Maybe this time around they'll decide they'd rather be right than be effective, and then that shit will backfire on them, as it always does. And then maybe next time they'll realize that half a loaf isn't really so bad after all, when the alternative is nothing.
Yes, they're creepy. But they're not as powerful as they think they are, and they're not as powerful as you think they are. The GOP has about five months to remember that fact now, or they'll get a rather uncomfortable reminder of it. And then in ten years, we'll all have the same conversation all over again, because those fools never really learn - they just gotta keep touching the stove, over and over again, to see if it's really still hot...
Obviously, therefore, opposition to abortion cannot, in and of itself, necessarily be taken as a sign that the opposer is desirous of theonomy.
Boy, you destroyed that argument! Good thing it wasn't mine.
Hey, maybe you should sit down and drink something. Looks like walloping that strawman took a lot out of you.
Not really
No, really, I did. Look:
Do "these guys" believe that American should enact and enforce the conservative social philosophy derived from their ideosyncratic interpretation of the Bible?
Does that look familiar? It should - it's in the post right before yours, and in the paragraph after the one where you stopped reading, I guess.
Could you answer my question, now? Do the aforementioned "guys" believe that American should enact and enforce the conservative social philosophy derived from their ideosyncratic interpretation of the Bible?
The simple fact that shames Ops posturing is acces to the microphone. Who has it. Certainly not the mainstream, love your neighbor, Christians. The dominionists have spent years building their power base with the Republican party. To pretend that you don't see what has been happening for the past thirty years is obtuse beyond reason.
Do the aforementioned "guys" believe that American should enact and enforce the conservative social philosophy derived from their ideosyncratic interpretation of the Bible?
Gosh, Chet, you never bothered to define that. Is desiring a prohibition on murder or theft a case of someone "enact[ing] and enforc[ing] the conservative social philosophy derived from their ideosyncratic interpretation of the Bible"? What if there's someone out there for whom the only reason for wanting such a prohibition is because the Bible says so? Is their desire for a prohibition on murder now ruled out of bounds as a result? Or is that not "ideosyncratic" because you happen to agree with it?
BTW, Chet, you have yet to explain how PAS is a "Dominionist" position, seeing as how the Oregon voters are so obviously enthralled by fundies and all...
The simple fact that shames Ops posturing is acces to the microphone. Who has it. Certainly not the mainstream, love your neighbor, Christians.
Right. You haven't heard anyone else speaking out, so therefore there isn't anyone else speaking out or being heard.
Classic. You guys have been hanging out with the cretards too much - their "logic", such as it is, is starting to rub off.
Gosh, Chet, you never bothered to define that.
Ignoring the fact that I've defined that in two successive posts by now, could you answer the question, please?
What if there's someone out there for whom the only reason for wanting such a prohibition is because the Bible says so? Is their desire for a prohibition on murder now ruled out of bounds as a result?
Oh, man, you got me there! If only there were some way to determine if putative legislation was justified by a compelling secular purpose, or if its sole justification was religious.
Oh, wait - there is. It's called the "Lemon test." I suggest you look it up, maybe?
I have no problem with religious justifications in addition to a law's secular purpose. If such an additional justification makes it more likely for a good law to find public support, so much the better. The problem is laws that have no secular purpose, only religious purpose. The American constitution prevents such laws from being enacted. The Christianists find this an inconvinient obstacle in their quest to subject us all to their Biblically-determined model of social structure.
What I love the most is your naive faith that, when the GOP wises up and kicks out the dominionists, the Magic Tooth Fairy swoops down and undoes all the damage with their magic wand. Nobody here really believes that the Christianists will succeed in forcing American society into their mold. The problem is - how much damage will they do on their way down? It's all very well and good for you to look in your crystal ball and so smugly assert that the Christianist's pride goeth before a 2008 fall, but their gains don't disappear when their influence does. The next round of elections might very well mean a resurgence of truly conservative, moderate Republican leadership, but even then, we'll still have 14 states that make homosexuals second-class citizens, South Dakota and Mississippi and who knows who else with sweeping abortion bans that set the life of a brainless zygote at a much higher priority than a teenage mother (until birth anyway), and an entire judicial system polluted with judges who believe that everything important in the world had happened by 1776 and therefore, the Constitution hardly needs to be interpreted in any context more modern.
You don't just wave a wand and that stuff goes away. The judges alone will sit for decades, legislating a regressive agenda that privleges the rich and male over everybody else. But hey - I'm glad you're here with your second sight to tell us that everything's going to be fine in America's distant future. For your next trick, maybe you can hold a sealed envelope to your forhead and magically produce an actual rebuttal to my arguments, for once?
Oh, brilliant. "The judges alone will sit for decades" - hey, those would be the same judges you trust with the Lemon test, right Chet? Oops, no, those would be some other judges, presumably, who create some other entirely subjective standard besides Lemon, which would be, you know, bad. Your subjective standard = good, someone else's = bad. Because Chet likes lemons, I guess, and doesn't like not-lemons. And when judges like lemons too, they're good judges, but when they don't like lemons, they're bad judges. That about the size of it?
So what do we have as far as the sorts of laws you've apparently suggested don't have a secular purpose? Abortion restrictions and abortion bans, or gay marriage bans. You still haven't explained how the atheist pro-lifers have some non-secular purpose in mind, nor have you bothered to explain how the Dominionists were able to hypnotize the voters of Oregon just long enough to impose a gay marriage ban, but not quite long enough to deal with PAS.
"Rebuttal" implies that you have an argument, Chet.
Because Chet likes lemons, I guess, and doesn't like not-lemons. And when judges like lemons too, they're good judges, but when they don't like lemons, they're bad judges. That about the size of it?
If you thought my post was about liking lemons, then no, that's not the size of it.
Do you think you could answer my question? This would be the fourth time I've asked, thanks.
Is this supposed to distract from the fact that you brought up gay marriage bans, but when I point to a specific example, you suddenly don't want to talk about it any more? Does that usually tend to work for you, then?
Do you think you could answer my question? This would be the fifth time I've asked, thanks.
Sorry, Chet, I've, asked you to elaborate on your points, addressed them where appropriate, and even provided specific, real-world examples to illustrate my counterpoints. This is just silly rhetorical games now, where you pretend that an answer that's unsatisfactory to you is equivalent to not answering at all. So, by all means, carry on with the routine - it's not like I haven't seen it before - but when you feel like living up to your own standards of Q&A, we can talk about that Dominionist stronghold known as Oregon.
So, you're not interested in discussion after all.
Ok, that's fine. Just wanted that to be out there. Have a nice day!
Yeah, yeah - I know that gimmick too. No, Chet, I'm not really interested in a "discussion" where you unilaterally set the terms of the debate, and then I'm somehow obligated to abide by them. Just wanted that to be out there too. Cheers!
Hey, Black Ops, don't you have to go play tag on the interstate?