I have to ask the question because by all my usual measures of whether something is satire (criteria like excess, and advancement of stupidity that no one in their right mind would espouse), it ought to be regarded as a humor site. Having Pat Boone writing on science, for instance, ought to be a dead giveaway, and now we've got Chuck Norris weighing in on the appropriate qualifications for the presidency. Now if he'd said, "the ability to kick someone in the face while they're standing in front of you," I'd have this pegged as a humor piece. But noooo. His requirements that our president be "wise" and a "good Christian", pedestrian and merely brainless ideas.
Where he makes me wonder, though, is that in weighing those two values, he comes up with one good candidate: one individual who personifies wisdom and Christian values.
Newt Gingrich.
I think he was trying to match The Onion.
- Log in to post comments
Newt Gingrich who is currently on wife #3, having divorced wives #1 & #2 is a good Christian? In a pigs eye.
And don't forget, one of those wives was laid up in the hospital with cancer when Newt brought her divorce papers to sign, so he could hook up with the woman with whom he'd been having an extramarital affair for something like 11 years.
You go through a lot of irony-meters when dealing with the fundamentalist right.
The sad thing is, Chuck Norris is probably just too fucking stupid to understand that this paragraph is an explicit endorsement of theocracy. He probably doesn't even know what "delivering us from the evils of apostasy" means. He probably quoted this without even thinking about what kind of "encouraging restraints" the speaker in 1790 had in mind.
I don't want to take up for Newt but just because your divorced doesn't make you less of a Christian than someone who does a myriad of other 'sins'.
This is the attitude of people who think Christians have to be perfect which is just silly.
Is he perfect...certainly not. Is he a Christian....if he says he is.
If only there weren't so many silly people using my name to justify so many strange things.
No one thinks Christians have to be perfect, even nonbelievers. What we do think is that someone who yaps on about on "family values" and the sanctity of marriage ought to at least practice it himself. That's all we ask.
Of course this is all good press for him, so he can keep his WCL gig going. Notice the little icon for it at the bottom of that article.
Norris was at least wiling enough to not be shy about Newt's "indiscretions", which to Chuck apparently amount to not much. Of course if you asked the same of him with regard to Clinton, well, one wonders about all the backpedalling that would ensue.
Chuck reveals himself to be a rather poor student with this piece, both of history, and in relation to other matters with which he has no grounds to make any judgment. He was apparently good enough at one time to do something for himself, but now he's resorted to stumping for fools. I guess he's done learning.
The seeming requirement for US leaders to be religious is probably the single most frightening characteristic of the US government.
It isn't frightening because they may wish to take the US back to the middle ages in terms of science and culture that is the problem. The problem is that irrational people leading the US are, by definition, in charge of large numbers of weapons of mass destruction.
Lots of column inches are devoted to Muslims who believe that Allah has told them they must go out and kill the infidels (often, but not always, Americans). Yet where are the balancing column inches that point out that God could very well tell a large number of US officials that the infidels need to be nuked (Iran, for example) - enough US officials that it could actually happen.
The "civilized" world will not stand for Iran to gain nuclear weapons technology, but IMO, we irrationally accept ON FAITH that religious US leaders are sufficiently rational to not abuse the mighty arsenal they control. To me, it is NOT unthinkable that GWB and enough of his minions might wake up, having decided that God told them to cleanse the earth of the infidels. Unlikely? Yes. Unthinkably impossible? Absolutely not.
If we, the "western" society, would strive to keep WMD out of the hands of Muslim extremists, why do we accept them in the hands of fundamentalist Christians?
Some might argue that an atheist, having no fear of eternal damnation or some such thing, might be more inclined to kick-off a war. However, I think it is a harder jump for an atheist to convince himself that mass destruction is something to do to satisfy personal muderous intent or that it is necessary to advance some goal, than it is for a believer to convince himself that "God wishes the infidels expunged."
My apologies, I'm rambling a bit... but every time I see this kind of "vote christian" stuff, it creeps me a bit.
Jim, Newt divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. After having cheated on her.
Christians do not have to be perfect, but elected officials absolutely must be better men than Newt Gingrich is.
It's quite telling that the religious seem to rely on the convenience of language and not deed when declaring their morality.
How pleasant it must be to live in a reality where mistakes, even atrocities, claim no personal ownership simply because the perpetrator believes he is absolved from this responsibility.
The Wingnut Daily is living evidence that our wingnuts are every bit as wacky as the maddest Mullahs in Arabia, and hate freedom almost as much. If sites like it didn't exist, some liberal rhetoric warning about the religious right might seem a bit excessive. As it is, we only have to say: Look! There.
Is he perfect...certainly not. Is he a Christian....if he says he is.
exactly.
PZ is a Christian too.
because I said so.
gettin it yet?
if not, how abour this:
WHY did chuck want a "christian" for president?
because they said they were?
think about that.
obviously Chucky hasn't, but you still have a chance.
Look, like I said I don't want to come across as a Newt defender as I am not but it doesn't make him less Christian.
And to say they must be better men is a nice sentiment but frankly if we dug into all our elected officials private information many if not most would have a stink here and there. Just like most humans. They are more than capable of voting on issues regardless.
He did some heinous things. Does that mean he is a bad person day to day? I doubt it.
Yes, we obviously need christian presidents, because we've had an absolute dearth of christian presidents in our nation's history.
But don't you see, most people, nor most politicians, presided over the '94 Republican takeover, nor harped on and on about family values and the "culture war." Newt Gingrinch did. That's the specific, particular and precise problem we have with Newt Gingrich.
"Is he a Christian....if he says he is."
Have you read Mein Kampf?
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd have to break the other direction. The man clearly performed actions which made him a hypocrite at one time in his life. TTBOMK he has never publicly acknowledged his errors. This suggests to me that he is still refusing to face them, and would perpetrate more given a chance.
Until behavior that shows improvement is manifested and consistent, I must assume that Newt hasn't yet changed his ways. Whatever faith he claims is completely irrelevant; taking sacrament, bowing to Mecca or burning incense, he's an asshat.
I agree, he has done things that he likely regrets in some form or another. Like I said I don't want to defend him on anything he has done but the fact he has done bad things doesn't make him non-Christian.
For me, it's not just that he divorced his dying wife to be with his mistress. That's small potatoes.
Nah, it's that his ideas of law and government are all completely batshit wrong. They are outright destroying anything good this country had going for it. Don't pick on him because he's a two-timing sack of shit. Pick on him because he's out to tear down America and sell its pieces off to the theocrats and robber barons.
My roommate asked me if I was intolerant of conservatives. I told him that their entire ideology is wrong and dangerous for America, and that I wouldn't tolerate people firebombing my house, either.
PZ you are one brave dude fucking with Chuck Norris and what all.
Remember, no one ever truly dies: Chuck Norris just lets some live longer than others.
Stogoe:
How about that plus the other stuff you mention? ;)
Seriously, though -- Newt likes to lecture about morality and decency, yet he's clearly an immoral and indecent man.
This is why it's not the religion I object to; it's the entire reeking package. Newt is not a good human being, and he definitely isn't a good Christian.
Really, PZ, you didn't start asking yourself that question when they published their groundbreaking piece on the link between tofu and homosexuality? After reading that piece I had to really dig around the site a lot before I could convince myself that it wasn't all just a huge joke. Even now, too many of their editorials smell like T. Herman Zweibel for me to be totally sure.
While Newt is certainly made some poor choices if we didn't elect folks for stepping out on their marriages now and again I don't think there would be many to elect. Some stats show 60-80% of marriages include extramarital affairs.
This monogamy thing is a bitch huh?
The fact of the matter is that claiming xtianity does not absolve one from the ownership of their actions. Thinking that somehow you can act deplorably and regain stature by saying you're a xtian is disingenuous and deceitful. I'm so tired of people pulling out the religion card when they fuck things up. Newt is a sack of dung. By claiming is allegiance to xtianity causes me to question his religion, and makes him a weakling as well. His ethics and intellectual honesty are completely bankrupt, in large part, because of his religion....in my humble opinion.
Good men do good things, and evil men do evil things. Only religion can make good men do evil things.
Hey, I just did a piece earlier on this:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-norris-nonsense-applic…
It's mostly crap: quoting some sermon, citing Wallbuilders.com, & claiming that since the 'pastor' preached it to 2 Founders, ergo, that it summarizes ALL of their beliefs, etc.
Erasmus:
PZ you are one brave dude fucking with Chuck Norris and what all.
Hey, I did it first. I'm going to try to get him to answer any of my posts, but we'll see.
I don't fault people for getting divorced. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Nobody's perfect and can predict it. In fact there are cases of couples being together for decades and then one day the whole thing unravels. Marriage is tough, no bones about it. It's not that Newt, or Rush or anyone else has *GOTTEN* divorced; it's that they're passing judgement on others in spite of it, and acting like authorities on the subject, in addition to being propped up *AS* authorities by people who buy cheap talk cheaply. Bill O'Reilly culture warrior? Please. It's about them putting on various suits of moral armor, and takig that suit off
Don't mistake criticism of hypocrisy for criticism of imperfect people. Nobody's perfect; that's evident. Newt and his ilk are and should be criticized for their very cynical and elitist view of free people, and how they should be governed.
Further on this, here's a video where Norris & his wife blather on about re instituting xtian school prayer:
http://www.youtube.com/v/tlaWbCbZhAA
I'm guessing that no, it's not a parody site. Getting harder to tell the satire from the 'true believers' on a daily basis, ain't it?
What Blueindependent said.
So how would he regain stature? Nor do I think him claiming the religion doesn't make him own his actions. He screwed up. It's over. He may be a hypocrite but isn't it also hypocritical to pound a guy for his mistakes when we likely wouldn't want the same for ours?
OK. Chuck Norris is no longer my favorite actor, and Pat Boone is no longer my favorite singer.
I think the rub here is that Newt is being singled out for embodying or espousing "good Christian" values. These points could certainly be argued, but his multiple divorces could disqualify him from being a "good Christian" (or at least, from being good enough a Christian to campaign on being a "good Christian"), and his economic policies of shafting the poor could be seen as not being what a "good Christian" would do.
Then of course, there's the notion that being good by the tenets of one religion or another should never be a test of fitness for occupancy of public office, but that's neither here nor there.
Rey Fox's comments above illustrate what I'm trying to say. In terms of being a Christian getting a divorce is a sin but no more so than someone who lies, steals, or nay other of a myriad of things.
He is not a 'bad' Christian because he has made mistakes. He may have fallen of the trail a few times but that doesn't mean his daily body of work doesn't make him a good Christian.
The fact that he has had multiple divorces does not disqualify him from being a good Christian anymore than a man who lies more than once does or lets a Lewinsky blow him does. These are one time actions. Some of you have some funny ideas as to what one has to do to be a Christian and I don't think their are 'good' Christians. Just Christians.
Chuck Norris can actually speak? I thought they just dubbed his movies. Wow, the things you learn.
...
...
Chuck Norris, if you're reading this:
I've enjoyed many of your movies. Liked your TV acting. Don't even mind your ads for Total Gym. You seem like a fairly nice guy.
But ...
Jeez, this is a bit embarrassing.
...
...
The important point for Chuck Norris is that Newt Gingrich favors Old Fashioned Values. I think we should all respect Newt for that. Sure, he hasn't has as many wives as King Solomon did-- but at least he's working on it.
Just a small correction:
Gingrich's first wife was not "dying of cancer". She was in hospital for surgical treatment of uterine cancer when Gingrich served her with divorce papers. As far as I know, the treatment was successful, and she is alive and well. I don't think that this diminishes the heinousness of what he did, however. I agree that Newt Gingrich can call himself a Christian. Considering his actions, though, why are Christians embracing him?
Stature is regained by actions, not words or beliefs. Integrity comes from adhering to an ethos. Newt's actions and integrity are severely lacking (read: fucked up). As far as being a good xtian, or just a xtian, whatever. The terms are meaningless. The issue is his (and other xtian's) notion that cloaking himself in his religion somehow expedites his path to esteem and integrity while giving him license to berate others for their imperfections.
His actions and attitude indicate he is a selfish, maladjusted, misfit (with stunted empathy) who leverages his belief system as a way to gain favor in the public arena (an indeed in his own mind). I mean why shouldn't he after all? What the hell - he is forgiven!
It's a completely decrepit philosophy that allows him the convenience of not taking responsibility for his actions while portraying himself as righteous and honorable simply because he believes. The maddening part of it all is that he is a miserable specimen of a human being but in his mind he truly believes in his righteousness, and that he absolutely has favor in his god's eyes.
Gingrich et al. are flaming hypocrites, but their behaviour shows they at least recognise how untenable those alleged "family values" are.
It's the minority to whom the hypocrites are paying their lip-service--the ones who do believe in that sexual straitjacket, that everyone should be as mortified and fearful about our own bodies as they are, that we should be devoting our public resources to enforcing their sick code, that the rest of us should lie, or at least be silent about how we live and what we think so not to disturb their illusions of being part of a consensus, who prefer bullying others to making love--those are the really creepy ones. I don't believe in "evil" in the Stephen King sense of the word, but these people come as close as you get to it in this non-fictional world.
Chuck Norris, ACTOR? Chuck Norris only plays the character of Chuck Norris. He's almost as bad as Christopher Lambert, who plays Connor MacLeod in every film he is in.
So that's what "there can be only one" means.
The thing about Newt Gingrich: even if you discount his moral failings (which a lot of us Lefties did about Bill Clinton, so let's be fair), you still have the hypocrisy issue... and one other big one. Newt Gingrich is a power broker, not a leader. When he became Speaker of the House, it quickly became clear that we were dealing with the sort of person who, as a teenager, might have schemed in every way imaginable to get his hands on a car, only to actually get the car and realize he neglected to go to driver's ed.
Gingrich is an insufferable bastard. I have often said about Rudy Giuliani and his prospective run for President that I wouldn't want him as President but I'd love to have him in my Cabinet; Gingrich isn't even worthy of being an East Wing janitor, never mind a Cabinet secretary...
Should he not be forgiven? He certainly could have found a better time and place to serve divorce papers but what if that marriage had been dead for some time? What if due to his politics he stayed in the marriage for years and both parties suffered for it?
These things are rarely black and white and while his infidelity is a failing who out there is morally perfect? Does he use his belief system to gain mileage? Of course he's a politician. Which politician wouldn't?
That being said I would never vote for the main simply because I find his stay in office andthe policies it produced repugnant. I feel it was a poor course for the nation. As Brian X said, he's a power broker and a very good one but Newt as a leader is poor.
I resent Gingrich for being a key figure in the Right's decades-long campaign to pathologize liberals and liberalism. The extent to which that campaign succeeded is irritating and depressing.
Just like Christopher Walken only plays the character of Christopher Walken, and Steven Seagal only plays Steven Seagal, and Nicholas Cage only plays Nicholas Cage.
-JimC
Then stop.
And what percentage of marriages include people divorcing--abandoning--their suffering and potentially dying spouses because they decide they're tired of having to pretend they aren't fucking someone else? I think there's just a tiny difference here. Cheating on one's spouse is wrong, but the above is unforgivable.
Azkyroth-
I think the only person who has to forgive him is his ex-wife.
I have to disagree with Chuck - er, Mr Norris. I don't think he would make a good president.
I do, however, think he would make a tremendous Republican candidate. So Chuck, JimC, by all means - let's keep pushing Newt.
Jim - I just have to chime in here. You sound ridiculous. EVERY politician is judged, in part, by how they handle their personal lives. My Russ Feingold doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being president, not because of his policy views, but because he's a thrice-divorced jew. And he doesn't go around spewing invective about how people are destroying the moral fabric of america. Do I mind that Newt is divorced? No, not a bit, and I congratulate his ex's. Do I mind that he's a selfish, hypocritical little prick? Yes, yes I do. If Newt had said that Clinton's adultery was between himself and his wife, that would be one thing - but he led the charge against him, on 'moral' grounds, all the while schtupping someone 23 years his junior behind his wife's back. Give it up, man.
I think I will give up now. I have never said a thing he did was correct. I have said he was a hypocrite. But I also don't see him being a bigger hypocrite than any other individual out there.
Someone please tell me in all rationality why being married 3 times somehow disqualifies one from office while staying married just to stay married doesn't? Are the Clintons and their marriage to be held above say Ronald Reagan who was also divorced? I can't see how it indicates anything about ones moral state at all.
I don't disagree that Newts actions have been hypocritical but nor do I see why Feingold can't be an effectie politician because he has gotten divorced. Just seems like your tossing away alot of good people for a silly reason.
But I am not pushing Newt. Just wondering why him being divorced is such a big deal. Him being a hypocrite yes, but divorced?
Divorce is specifically condemned by Christ. And it's not the kind of sin that doesn't involve lots of forethought and intention.
Among many sins he condemened. Usually events leading to divorce are not forethought and intention but rather pain, suffering, anger, and unhappiness.
Again I guess it would be better to endure all that and stay. Ok. Then at least he could apparently be qualified for public office.
There are many, many reasons to find Newt less than ideal as a President but him having been divorced seems to me not to be one of them.
Thats all I'm saying. I didn't realize some of you folks where voting on the state of peoples marriages as a criteria for public office. I wonder how many voted for Kerry or Clinton? Does the fact that GW is married/aparently faithful make him a better President than Clinton? I don't think so.
I tried to read the Pat Bone article. By all accounts, I could not have muddled through it without vomiting through my eyeballs, but I didn't even get the chance. Between the uproarious Pat the Stern-Faced Badass head shot, the flickering notice of Zionist oil reserves, the bimbo with T2 shades and a braindead president 'cross her teats, the baby in the doggie sex position, and other predictable calamities of graphic design, I could no longer engage my mind sufficiently to read. Perhaps this was the point - a non-fucktard filter that allows only the mindless to venture on through the actual columns on the drecky corner of cyberspace hell.
What part of "one individual who personifies wisdom and Christian values" is JimC too effing stupid to comprehend?
When I saw Chuck Norris interviewing an Iraqi-American rapper on Fox Noise (okay, on YouTube), I figured I had stumbled onto Bizarro World.
"Thinking that somehow you can act deplorably and regain stature by saying you're a xtian is disingenuous and deceitful."
So how would he regain stature?
By ceasing to be the sort of disgusting dishonest scumbag he is.
He may be a hypocrite but isn't it also hypocritical to pound a guy for his mistakes when we likely wouldn't want the same for ours?
Not mistakes, moron, intentional unethical behavior. Gingrich is a bad man who does bad things. If I were a bad man who does bad things, I wouldn't expect people to suggest that I would make a good President because I personify wisdom and Christian values (except that, in practice, "Christian values" seem to be just the sort of values that a scumball like Gingrich has).
I think I will give up now.
That's good, as you are a profoundly stupid person and the less you say, the better.
Someone please tell me in all rationality why being married 3 times somehow disqualifies one from office while staying married just to stay married doesn't?
It has something to do with him telling his first wife that he was divorcing her while she was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer, and that he had affairs with his second and third wives while married to his first and second, you git.
nor do I see why Feingold can't be an effectie politician because he has gotten divorced. Just seems like your tossing away alot of good people for a silly reason.
You really are dumber than dirt. No one said that Feingold can't be an effective politician. No one said they were tossing away divorcees. Rather, it is Chuck Norris who lauds Newt Gingrich as a "godly" man who "holds to old-fashioned values". It is Chuck Norris who tosses away good leaders like Feingold based on arbitrarily applied "values", and embraces pieces of garbage like Gingrich based on those same "values". Norris is an idiot and a scumball, and his idiocy and scumballness seem to spring from the same source as Gingrich's and yours.
The clue server is down, apparently.
Listen, JimC. It isn't the divorce, really. Let me spell this out to you very carefully:
What we object to is that Newt Gingrich is a hypocritical, sanctimonious, smug bastard who spends most of his time telling us how we're all degenerate and evil and going to hell because we don't adhere to his fictional notion of old-timey family values...when out of the other side of his face, he's handing his wife divorce papers while she's in the hospital so he can go bonk his mistress with whom he's been in a long-term adulterous relationship, and who is, incidentally, young enough to be his daughter. Also incidentally, he picked on Bill Clinton mercilessly for almost precisely the same offense against good taste and possibly the public mores, leading to Clinton's being impeached, when nobody removed Gingrich from office for doing practically the same thing.
What we're objecting to, then, is the double-standard -- adultery for me, but not for thee. I'm a good Christian because I say so (and donate money to the right political party), but you're all sinners and going to hell. Or, as we like to say around my native part of the blogosphere, IOKIYAR.*
* It's OK If You're A Republican
How pathetic are you, that you need to defend Newt Gingrich, anyway. Jeez...
JimC too effing stupid to comprehend
Not mistakes, moron, intentional unethical behavior.
That's good, as you are a profoundly stupid person and the less you say, the better.
you git.
You really are dumber than dirt.
and his idiocy and scumballness seem to spring from the same source as Gingrich's and yours.
How pathetic are you
Ahhh. That wonderful feeling when minds engage in intellectual debate over differing viewpoints. The free flow of ideas. The cheap personal shots.
Try saving it for someone who is actually advocating something repugnant. Head over to After the Bar Closes and take a few choice rips on Davescot and Dembski. Visit the den of idiocy known as the World Net Daily and engage their legions directly. Hell, Forthekids did a pop'n'drop post in another thread here -- go call her names.
On a related note, Truth Machine was the only one who could get the story straight. Gingrich did not serve his dying wife divorce papers. She was recovering from a cancer surgery when he first talked to her about divorce. Newt has enough baggage that we don't need to utilize vaguely accurate, kinda truthy, exaggerated stories.
Does anyone who is not a right wing Christian nut know anything about this Daniel Foster? I couldn't see any other reference to him
"I was Chuck Norris's Acting Double" - A Film by Alan Smithee
The thing that gets me about Christians and divorce is that the Bible is a whole lot clearer and more forceful about things like divorcees getting remarried (Thou shalt not. No.) than it is about homosexuality. Jesus had a lot to say about the former and nothing on the latter, and he's not alone in the good book.
You'd never guess.
R
Bernard Brandon Scott: I am a follower of Jesus, I don't think that's compatible [with being a Christian].
Skimming what Norris wrote (not actually going to read that crap), I must say that I am struck by "It is the duty of Christian rulers, to preserve and secure to the people, their liberties and properties. (Which I'm certain included their national borders!)" Obviously these people have never bothered to read what Jesus said and did. Protecting property and keeping undocumented aliens out? It certainly reads like parody.
Actually you are wrong here. The passage you speaking about is passive and refers only to the divorce itself not any future marriage. Lanquage scholars have long known the RCC's stance is incorrect and the RCC had the correct stance until the 1500's.
Alright I've been insulted now and for what? Agreeing with you on everything except the fact that Newt is a Christian.
Oh and truth machine as I was wading through your insults which I guess makes you think yourself smart you said:
Apparently you missed the comment where a fellow said the man couldn't be elected to a certain office because of it. Nothing to do with Newt style behaviour.
then this:
How many times do I have to type it? I am not defending Newts actions. I am simply stating an idea that he can be a Christian albeit a bad example of one and still have made his mistakes.
Is he a hypocrite? yes, where have I said otherwise.
Was he wrong in his actions? yes, where have I said otherwise.
It just seems to me that the same double standard he applies to others(Clinton) is being applied to him here.
The sad thing is I don't even like the man and have been cast as a Newt defender simply because I say the simple fact that he can be a Christian and behave in the manner he has done. For this obvious point I get insulted.
PZ, you're taking a big risk criticizing Norris. Chuck Norris has only one response to people criticizing what he says: roundhouse kick to the face.
Remember: 150,000 Americans die from Chuck Norris related accidents every year.
What is the root of this problem? In America, the office of the president is seen as some sort of ecclesiastical ordination. The man (sorry Hillary, not this time) who sits in the Oval Office is vested with all sorts of expectations that really go far beyond the job description.
I have a theory about this. In just about every other modern Western democracy (and most of the stable non-Western democracies), there are two heads of state: the formal head of state, and the political head of state. The former is usually the president in a republic or the monarch in a constitutional monarchy. Their role is largely ceremonial. The political head of state, often called prime minister or chancellor, is head of the executive branch and usually also part of the legislature as well. Alternatively, you have the French model where the president and prime minister both have political roles, but in different areas of governance.
In the United States, however, both roles are invested into the same individual. And thus he seems to be treated like an elected monarch as a result. There is an awful lot of symbolism invested in the president's office: the White House, the Oval Office, Air Force One, The First Lady, "Hail to the Chief", the Seal of the POTUS, the State of the Union, etc. You rarely see this level of iconography with other democratic heads of state, unless they are constitutional monarchs.
As a result, I think Americans expect far more from their presidents than any other citizens of democracies expect from their heads of state. The president has to be a man of integrity, and character, and moral fibre, and is constantly examined on things like character and personal foibles instead of his record. In Canada, I don't care about my prime minister as a person; I only care about how that bastard is going to screw up my country this month (a sentiment which applies to every PM we've had since I was born).
Thoughts?
A few months ago I wrote a diary entitled Their Reality Has Lapped Our Satire. If I hadn't written it then, I would have to write it now.
Newt is a Christian because he was born to Christian parents and never rejected their branding.
Of course, the fact that he can be considered to "personify wisdom and Christian values" despite being a weaselly little pitspawn demonstrates both the bankruptcy of Christian morality and a widespread aspect of Christian thinking: that as long as you say the right words - paying lip service to a set of morals even as you ignore them, for example - nothing else matters.
Yes. That's the point. That's why, when politicians say, "Vote for me! I'm a Christian!" everybody on this blog snickers. Being a self-proclaimed Christian clearly isn't a qualification for being in a position of leadership and trust any more than being a self-proclaimed cowboy is. Somehow, the concepts of "Christian" and "morally upstanding guy who can be trusted to act in the best interests of others" were conflated long ago, and politicians have been riding the wave ever since.
The whole point is that either those two ideas are really related and Newt isn't really a Christian, or that Newt simply puts the lie to the whole idea that religious fervor has anything to do with being a good leader or even a good person. We've all sort of realized that when a politician refers to himself as a Christian, it doesn't mean "behaves like Christ" but rather "likes to support public policy based on largely irrational bronze age traditions."
As stated I don't doubt he really is a Christian. Just not one who has managed to be very successful at it. Your second sentence I agree with totally. Just because he is a Christian should gain him no free pass. It seems to me we could 'No true Scotsman' Newt here but in reality he's as Christian as any other, his flaws are just more obvious and public.
Well, as Coragyps alluded to above, if Gingrich qualifies as a Christian because he says he's one -- regardless of his conduct -- then I don't want to hear ANY more Christians saying that Hitler couldn't possibly have been a Christian. Hitler loudly identified as a Christian his whole adult life, and so it's extremely hypocritical to say Hitler wasn't really a Christian because he supposedly 'didn't act like one'. You have to apply the same rule consistently, folks.
I just want to know what type of conduct does qualify one as a Christian? I see people disqualifying Newt for his actions but what actions make one a Christian then?
I thought it was a professed belief in Jesus.
As George mentions above one must be consistent. I personally think Hitler was a Christian in his beliefs. Likewise I think Newt is as well. So is Ted Haggard. And Pat Robertson. I think way to many people think being a Christian means you have some perfect nature. It simply isn't the case.
George:
& there it is, isn't it? An argument from force. Small wonder WingNut daily brought him on as columnist, then. They probably thought/think all us 'libruls' are weak, soft creatures, & no 1 would possibly dare pipe up to criticize the mighty Chuckles.
In real life scenarios, as opposed to action flicks, when someone beats up 5 or more guys, the fellas who get their asses kicked usually go running to the cops, & press charges. It's their word(s) against a solo individual.
Norris is welcome to take his best shot. Win, lose or draw, I'll press charges (chances are strong it'll be #2).
Besides which, I think there's probably deep pockets involved.
We live in a country, not a middle-school playground.
Well, be careful, though: Chuck Norris has only two speeds: walk and kill.
Remember: there is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
Meta-question: Is JimC actually a parody commenter?
Jim, you seem utterly bent on asserting that Newt is a Christian while hastening to add that you agree with those who say Gingrich is a shitbag in every measurable way.
It appears to have escaped you that people here don't care who is or isn't a "true" Christian. You're not exactly dealing with a blog where a lot of visitors believe in resurrections or second comings or any of that bullshit.
All folks care about is that he's no candidate for leadership, and the fact that his appeal to Christianity, valid or otherwise, automatically renders him that much more voteworthy in the minds of too many mindless Americans. This is not surprising, since Christians place a huge premium on spreading this label around as much as possible while establishing time and again that their behavior is no better, on average, than that of the god-free.
Maybe this will help: I don't give a shit how anyone chooses to define "genuine Weird Al Yankovic fan," even if someone claiming that status happens to be someone who regularly burns Weird Al CDs and rails against the whole concept of parody. But if a moral leper can make himself that much more viable as a candidate for office simply by saying he's a Fan of Al, then there's a problem - one you're too busy rooting around in the lyrics of Eat It to appreciate.
I'm not bent on anything and frankly I'm unsure how I got to this point in the conversation. But I think it's possible to be both of the things you mention above.
The rest of your post is pretty irrevelant to what I have been saying.
That would just mean Chuck Norris is natural selection.
False Prophet, I agree. The US President was meant to be the UK Prime Minister and the UK King in one person -- that experiment had to fail.
George:
Thanks for the advice. I, however, have two speeds as well:
Stand & deliver.
Chuck Norris is on the dark side? Nooooooo! And why is that stupid fool Gingrich's name even on anyone's tongue?
Stumbled on an article, got to thinkin':
Would any of the Founding Fathers get elected today?
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2007/02/among-founding-fathers-who-…
Chuckles needs to do a bit more homework, methinks.
Fact # 264: Chuck Norris once wrote an entire article for a right-wing site via telepathy while eating an entire live alligator. Some liberals pointed out that his article was historically inaccurate, endorsed theocracy, and generally went against the entire constitution, but shortly died of roundhouse-kick related causes.
Alex:
Some liberals pointed out that his article was historically inaccurate, endorsed theocracy, and generally went against the entire constitution, but shortly died of roundhouse-kick related causes.
LMAO!
Thought I felt something whiz by my head, but I ascribed it to faux poltergeist phenomenon, & shrugged.
So that was what it was!
That would just mean Chuck Norris is natural selection.
False Prophet, I agree. The US President was meant to be the UK Prime Minister and the UK King in one person -- that experiment had to fail.