By Edward (Via Kos)
Just yesterday I noted that despite the rising power of the Christian Right in the US, we’re not seeing anything that warrants the comparisons between these folks and the Taliban. I’ll stick with that, but I definitely need to qualify it. What we’re seeing in some quarters is actually much more insidious in some ways. Consider this bit of dog whistle rhetoric gaining ground (from a speech Vice-President Cheney gave at a "Town Hall Meeting" on "Strengthening" Social Security at Campbell High School in Smyrna, Georgia):
If we don’t do anything at all, if we just stay where a lot of people have said we ought to stay — there are a number of members of Congress of the other faith who have said that we don’t need to do anything — well, if you don’t do anything, the net result will be, for somebody today, say, in their 30s, by the time they get to retirement age, their benefit levels are going to be cut some 26 percent or 27 percent.
The "other" faith? What does this mean? "Other" than what?
It wasn’t a misstatement of any sort either. Some of the "town folk" who asked "questions" (and if anyone really talks this way, I’ll eat my hat), used it as well:
Q Mr. Vice President, thank you for coming to Georgia, and thank you and the President for your leadership in the war on terror. Millions of Americans appreciate that.
My question is, I watched the press conference the other night with the President, and it seems like when the two of you come up with serious ideas that those from the other faith, in the other party, all they do is demonize and, in many cases, just lie and try to divide the older generation, our grandparents from us, those in our 30s.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’ve noticed that. (Laughter.)
How could he not? It was in the script. And again:
Q Good morning, Vice President Cheney. I’d like to ask a question. This morning you’ve really delineated very well a lot of points in the program and what you and the President want to do. Could you delineate for us, because I think we have a little bit of an easy audience this morning on convincing us of this program — could you delineate out a few other points from the other side, or the other faith, differences maybe in what you’re saying this morning, and maybe what they’re saying or not saying?
Dan Froomkin noticed it as well:
I’ll be keeping an ear out to see if Cheney continues to call Democrats "members of the other faith."
This makes me suspect one of two things. Either Bush doesn’t care if any Democrats support his plans to reform of SS (perhaps he’s already conceded he can’t do it) and is simply going to use this issue to continue to shore up his base and divide the nation, or he’s hoping that Democrats eager to be identified as of the "same faith" will slip up in their efforts to do so and incidentally concede, on record, one or more of the President’s points that he’ll later spin into agreement with his solution, or leave those retracting looking like flip-floppers (recall, this is the same technique Bush used on building support for his invasion of Iraq):
Democrats have been down this road before. In 2002, some Democrats offered nodding agreement that Iraq was a serious national security threat while, in their minds, reserving judgment on the exact course Bush should take. But by the time they objected to Bush’s course, they appeared to be contradicting themselves. In this year’s election, Bush repeatedly stressed that Democrats, too, believed Hussein was a threat, as if their concurrence on the need for action was the same as endorsing Bush’s actions.
I suspect it’s an attempt at the latter. It’s insidious and divisive either way.
UPDATE: A comment on Kos shows that Cheney has been using this meme for a while now (Remarks at a Bush-Cheney ’04 Reception in Wakonda Club, Des Moines, Iowa, October 3, 2003):
I haven’t heard, frankly, a strategy from the other side. And all of you who are out there living every day with numerous spokesmen for the other faith, here in Iowa, because they’re campaigning here now because of your Iowa caucuses, when you come across one of them, ask him, what’s their strategy, how are they going to do it? Is it the sort of turn-the-other-cheek approach there, that unfortunately was all too often the situation previously? Or do they have a plan, a strategy, a way for us to go after the al Qaeda and take them down where they live.
UPDATE II: Tacitus points to this 1993 speech by Senator Alan Simpson which indicates that "the other faith" is a long standing term to indicate the opposition and in some repsects may actually be a term of endearment. It seems perhaps those calling this "paranoia" might have a point.
Being in the arena with an adversary as tough as Don Riegle, a Senator who can in every measure `give as well as he gets,’ has been a great treat, and a bit of excitement for me I mean that. I like the fray, and he relishes it.
I can remember on several occasions when he would join with others of the other faith on this floor in singles or pairs or most often troikas to rip the Bush administration. They had the time and a willingness to stay on the floor and critique the administration, and then critique the administration again, and then critique the administration one more time.
It’s vile. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it at Kos, so I went and read the transcript for myself at the WhiteHouse.gov site. The questions clearly show that it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue for the VP: it is a deliberate tactic.
My faith has nothing to do with politics. Nothing. Of course, I guess that means I am of a faith other than that of our current leadership.
Do they have video where Cheney tells a Democratic heckler “I find your lack of faith disturbing” and then begins choking him with the Force? Because I’ve only heard rumors, thus far …
Wow. That’s weird.
those from the other faith, in the other party, all they do is demonize
hmm.
Don’t everyone visit Orincus at once.
I could buy this if it was overtly a reference to the fact that liberalism and conservatism are belief systems. At a minimum, I’d refrain from pie-throwing until such time as it was obvious that he was referring to our friends across the aisle as worshippers at the altar of Baal, or suchlike.
I could buy this if it was overtly a reference to the fact that liberalism and conservatism are belief systems.
So belief = faith?
Oh, for god’s sake Slart: what do you think it was a reference to, then?
There is a reason why Cheney has the lowest approval rating in the Administration.
And I disagree about the use of terms like American Taliban as I find them quite appropriate. Since when is a direct 1:1 ratio absolutely necessary? You cannot waive the flag and announce your patriotism and talk about God “blessing” America because we are the ‘greatest country in the world’ on one hand and then doing deplorable things on the other (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo anyone?). If we are doing fascist things we can be called fascists. If we are terrorizing people, we are terrorists. If we are seeking to deny people the rights given to others, we are indeed acting like the Taliban. As a gay man these people are to me what the Taliban is to a Afghanistani woman (or God forbid and Afghanistani gay person).
And don’t even get me started on Herbert’s column today in the NY Times. If you want to support our troops, maybe it’s time to show your support for them not by putting a lame decal on your SUV but by insisting they be educated not to pose with spoons next to dead Iraqi’s and then pass those photos around like trophies. Sounds to me more like something the Taliban might do but sadly no, it’s our troops.
1\
sorry about the ‘a’ and ‘an’s as the computer froze.
I do think the context matters — was he using the term ironically or figuratively? I’d want to hear the inflection in his voice.
Which is more silly, do you think?
Actually, yes. According to my dictionary:
faith n 1. a. Confident belief; trust b. Belief in God; religious conviction. 2. Loyalty, allegiance. 3. A religion.
So, a decent case could be made for 1a or 2, over 3. What he actually meant is another thing altogether, but I think many of you have already decided.
I’m getting the same “you’re paranoid” reaction in other quarters, Slarti.
The reason I don’t buy that outright is “faith” and its divisive potential is all over the news at the moment (think Justice Sunday, the President’s “press conference,” etc.). It can’t have escaped Cheney that his words would be read that way, and so at the very least it’s disrespectfully provocative.
honestly, screw Dick Cheney.
The other day there was a discussion about liberals responding to moral arguments with legal arguments. If I remember correctly, David Brooks concluded that this meant liberals didn’t have or want or feel a need to articulate moral positions. Of course Brooks is wrong: liberals are as moral as anyone else. However, it is true that as long as liberals fail to make moral arguments, or respond to moral arguments with moral arguments, we are encouraging the preception that we don’t care about morality. I think smart operatives like Cheney and Rove understand this. Now they are building, going to the next step, of further demonizing liberals as being “the Other”, not of our faith, meaning secular.
It really is imperative that liberals respond to moral arguments with moral arguments and present moral arguments for policy initiatives. We also can use words like “faith” as long as we make it clear that we mean everyone’s faith, including people like me who belong to no particular religion.
We can’t call people like Cheney on his religious bigotry effectively if we continue to be legalistic and secular in our approach to everything.
I’m not advocating a chang in substance, only style. After all, historically, liberal initiatives have been rooted in morality and supported by churches: the Civil Rights Movement, the Labor movement of the early part of the century, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, support for the necessary war (WW2) and the Marshall Plan),the opposition to an unnecessary war in Viet Nam, even the environmental movement. Issue by issue, law by law over the last century it is the liberals who have been the leaders in reform movements based on moral principles. We need to start saying so, loud and long.
Slartibartfast: “So, a decent case could be made for 1a or 2, over 3. What he actually meant is another thing altogether, but I think many of you have already decided.”
Are you really arguing this in good faith (no pun intended)? The phrase “people of faith” is always meant, in idiomatic usage, to mean “people of religious faith.” It is entirely different from someone saying “I have faith that he’ll get the job done” (def. 1a), or something to that effect. The phrase “people of the other faith,” because of its similarity to “people of faith,” has clear religious undertones, if not just plain religious tones.
If you don’t buy this, think about it this way: Have you ever said “I am of one faith on the issue of gun control, where she is of the other faith”? No, of course not — it’s completely unidiomatic. You would say “of one belief” or “I am of the belief that,” not “I am of the faith that.” You might not find it troubling that Cheney’s implying that Democrats are necessarily of some other religious faith than Republicans, but he’s clearly not just saying that they believe something different in terms of policy.
Well, OK, pun intended.
Sorry, he’s not my type.
Not saying paranoid, just…err, premature, perhaps.
“honestly, screw Dick Cheney.”
Sorry, that’s Lynne’s job (and no amount of money could get me to assume it).
what praktike said
Inflection? Dick Cheney?
These town hall meetings are really creeping me out, even without stories like this. There’s a real cult of personality feel to them that is completely contrary to a healthy democracy.
Then you have things like this. Cheney’s a frequent guest on this guy’s show, right?
Edward, by itself the “other faith” thing is harmless. It’s not by itself. People who demand that you look at this in isolation in the best possible light….who are you going to believe? Them or your lying eyes? Demonizing their opponents works like a charm for them, and they’re going to keep doing it until it stops working.
Wait. The problem isn’t that he meant #3 rather than #1(a) or #2. The problem is that he is purposely entangling the three definitions at a time when it is clear that #3 is a wedge issue. It’s a fairly strange construction, these days, to use “faith” to mean “political beliefs,” and it is completely out of character for the fairly flat type of language you normally here Cheney using in interviews.
So he means for “faith” to be understood in multiple ways, and intends for his listeners to understand that (a) he and his party, like his listeners, are faithful, and (b) he and his party’s actions should be judged, which is to say simply accepted, as one would tenets of faith. Which is spooky, but neither ineffective nor unexpected.
Looking…looking…looking…
No, it doesn’t appear that Cheney used that phrase. If he had, perhaps that’d be a decent point.
And if it’s bad and deserving of contempt when they do it…sure, go right ahead, Katherine.
Well, you’ve already found the 2003 reference. If you want me to ask the relevant people for clarification on this, I’m happy to, though I doubt they’ll want to do so for the benefit of the blogosphere.
And on a side note, I wouldn’t ever quote Froomkin on anything.
Putting on my moonbat hat for a second, notice how he intertwined another religious reference in quote in Edward’s update. Evil, naughty Zoot.
Doffing the hat,now, and putting it in the closet where it belongs.
If you want me to ask the relevant people for clarification on this, I’m happy to, though I doubt they’ll want to do so for the benefit of the blogosphere.
I’m actually willing to believe Cheney uses this somewhat harmlessly, but when he heard the audience members pick it up (and it certainly doesn’t read as spontaneous), given the climate, the responsible thing to do was to clarify what he meant.
Oh, and please ask all the same…you never know.
Grasping at straws… what more is there really to say.
Grasping at straws… what more is there really to say.
Well, uh, duh, I guess why it’s a “straw” would be one place to start…
Demonizing their opponents works like a charm for them, and they’re going to keep doing it until it stops working.
You misspelled “us” and “we’re” there.
Demonizing their opponents works like a charm for them, and they’re going to keep doing it until it stops working.
You misspelled “us” and “we’re” there.
OK…everyone got a shot in…let’s move on please…the topic is what did Cheney mean by “the other faith”? Discuss.
I should clarify, by demonizing I mean something quite specific. I mean:
1) implying that your opponent cannot be trusted simply bec ause of who he is, so that there is no need to address his arguments,
and/or
2) making charges that are factually false
There’s this idea that criticism from Democrats is wrong because they’re Democrats, or criticism of the President is illegitimate because it criticizes the President, or that you can dismiss a New York Times story because it’s in the liberal New York Times, or that Judge Greer must be a liberal activist judge because he ruled against you. That’s what I mean by demonizing.
I don’t mean evaluating a specific person’s present conduct in light of their past conduct–an argument that if two possible interpretations of someone’s action is, their previous actions are useful information about their future actions. I don’t mean aa belief that the similar actions by many different members of a political party’s leadership–men who all know each other–might reflect a common political strategy.
To be clear, I don’t subscribe to Neiwert’s theories. I think this is an election strategy: if we convince people that the press, experts in various fields from the universities, any Democrat politician or voter, and the independent judiciary are untrustworthy, biased secular liberal blame-America-first unpatriotic decadent elites opposed to “people of faith” and supportive of a “culture of death”–then we can make people believe whatever we want them to believe, and do whatever the heck we want in power, and keep getting re-elected.
It’s not pseudofascism, it’s not an effort to lay the grounds for dictatorship. John Cornyn & Tom DeLay didn’t want judges killed and didn’t think there remarks created any risk of judges getting killed. The people who make casual false, accusations of treason don’t actually want the people they accuse of it getting thrown in jail. It’s an election strategy. A cynical, manipulative, destructive election strategy that has led to bad things and will lead to worse–but for all that, an election strategy.
I have been guilty of losing my temper and being obnoxious, especially after the same conversation repeats a number of times with the same specific people, but that’s not what I mean by demonization it’s just not the same thing as what Limbaugh and DeLay do.
Let’s see . . . drive-by one-liner from 123concrete . . . the usual “I’m-rubber-you’re-glue” juvenile shitheadedness from Mac . . . mysterious “I’m connected” something-or-other from Tacitus . . . Slarti’s the only Republican even attempting to actually examine the thing. Amazing. By which I mean, “Not amazing at all.”
Anyway, I agree with him (Slarti) that the charitable explanation is the Cheney was referring to the “faith” of “Republicanism,” but even given that, when combined with the way that the GOP is using religion as a wedge issue, it is rather unnecessarily provocative and bound to get messy. Although, I have to assume given the GOP’s success since 2000 that Cheney a) knows exactly what he’s doing and b) intends for that messiness to occur as his desired result.
The less charitable explanation is that there’s literally no distinction for the GOP leadership anymore between partisan politics and Christianity, but I’m not willing to let myself be that cynical yet, because I can’t afford to move to Australia.
Anyway: Welcome, Democrats, to the club! We nonreligious have been putting up with this crap for years.
Lighten up, Phil. This thread allows them to avoid Sebastian’s on torture . . .
Phil,
I’ll give you the 123concrete reaction, but on Mac and Tacitus, you’re overreacting. And the line on Mac violates the posting rules. Please bring it down a notch.
I’m just glad at least some folks are willing to stand up for the virtue of plausible deniability. What would the state of politics be if we actually called people on their bullsh*t?
You’re right, I don’t know how I could have seen any linguistic similarity between the phrases “people of faith” and “those from the other faith.” What a stretch.
Sarcasm aside, I’ll grant that if I’m making a linguistic argument, I should hew closely to the actual words (I know, generous of me). But my point stands. I just don’t believe that any native speaker of English (which I’m assuming you are; correct me if I’m wrong) hears the phrase “those from the other faith” and thinks of a secular definition of “faith.”
As for Edward’s specific question, I do think that Cheney’s really just referring to the people on the other side of the given issue, or more generally to Democrats. But as some before me in the comments have pointed out, he’s using language that intentionally brings religion into the debate. Again, you may or may not think that’s wrong, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’s doing it.
Arguing for the precise definition of the word in Cheney’s usage here is interesting, but largely beside the point. As Katherine states, he is deliberately choosing rhetoric that conflates religious and political conviction. He is arguing political difference in such a way that it plays on religious connotations as well. This is by design.
As such, it doesn’t matter that he means only to use faith as a figure of speech for political affiliation. There are plenty of other ways to convey that, and this construction allows him to float that connection rhetorically without having to defend it when pressed.
Read Cicero. I guarantee that Cheney’s speech writers have. This is pure rhetorical strategy.
To give further illustration of what I mean about
a) demonization v.
b) evaluation of conduct in light of other conduct….
First of all, yes, there is an obvious continuum here, but just because there is a continuum doesn’t mean that you can’t say that two things are far enough apart on the continuum that they’re not really comparable and should be called by different names.
So. On the torture issue, this would be an example of (a):
Glenn Reynolds’ repeated dismissal of every single Democratic politicians’ attempt to address the issue, investigate Abu Ghraib, call for resignations, opposition to the Gonzales nomination, etc. etc. etc. as “transparent politicizing of the issue” that discredited the cause of opposing torture.
See here for a specific example as eviscerated by Andrew Northrup–the formatting’s screwing but the post is there, just scroll down.
This would be an example of (b):
seeing the incidents of torture at Abu Ghraib, at the Salt Pit and Bagram, at Guantanamo, and in the rendition program, and the torture memos–seeing all those things as part of a pattern where each credile or verified accusation is both reinforced by, and reinforcing of, previous credible/verified accusations of torture.
Read Cicero. I guarantee that Cheney’s speech writers have. This is pure rhetorical strategy.
I agree and feel that drops the ball sqaurely into the pro-Cheney side’s court. And now….
Pretty sure he meant it in the figurative sense (since, ahh, if he was targetting us secular humanists, he woulda said “people of no faith”).
But on general principles, screw Dick Cheney.
Oh. But I also see that part of Slarti’s anger was engendered by my plain old sloppy pronoun usage. I used them twice in one sentence: “who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes” and “demonizing works like a charm for them.”
The “them” I had in mind in the first clause was “people defending Cheney” but the “them” I had in mind in the second clause was, Limbaugh, Cheney, Bush, DeLay, Cornyn–basically, a smaller group of the GOP leadership who actually use this strategy. Slarti, I’ve can’t immediately recall ever seeing you demonize anyone & you’ve certainly not done so here. I apologize for the implication–sheer carelessnes.
Here is former Senator Alan Simpson using the phrase in valedictory reference to the opposing party in 1993. I think we can put this one to bed now. While I appreciate the concerns of those who think this is part of a plot, I only wish the machinery of governance was that canny.
what did Cheney mean by “the other faith”?
he meant all those hellbound commie secularists.
I think I have to agree with Tacitus (and apologize to Ken, over on the dark side). Update coming…unless, someone somewhere can validate nous_athanatos’s take…hurry…I’ll update slowly.
e
huh? what does Alan Simpson’s 12 year old floor tribute to Don Riegle prove about Cheney’s intent, unless you think Cheney’s speechwriter was deliberately alluding to it or even knew about it?
Unless your view was that there was no harmless way to use the phrase to refer to the other political party. But that’s not what I thought you were arguing.
I find the Potemkin town hall itself much more bothersome than “the other faith”.
what does Alan Simpson’s 12 year old floor tribute to Don Riegle prove about Cheney’s intent, unless you think Cheney’s speechwriter was deliberately alluding to it or even knew about it?
see the second update. In that context it does indeed suggest “the other faith” is virtually a term of endearment. As Cheney was in Congress, I’m not at all convinced now he didn’t “innocently” mean it that way.
It’s careless of him, but perhaps not insidious.
Tacitus: While I appreciate the concerns of those who think this is part of a plot, I only wish the machinery of governance was that canny.
I know it’s fashionable in some parts to try to stick disagreeable folks with the conspiracy theorist label, but when members of your party have publicly announced that a war on faith is being waged (which is news to the alleged aggressors, but there we are), it’s a bit feeble to simply dismiss our concerns as “think[ing] this is part of a plot”.
And the “Town Hall Meeting” described above is not governance, nor anything like it. I suspect you realize this, so I’m not sure why you used that word.
Speechwriting and political outreach by officeholders in general is assuredly part of the machinery of governance.
I find the tendency toward paranoid theorizing pretty feeble myself — although this is far, far, far from the worst example of it — so don’t protest too much when it is given its due.
Fair enough, but I doubt the questioners from the audience were aware of the use of “the other faith” as a congressional “term of endearment”. It means something else to them, even if Cheney didn’t intend that.
I think you’re being hopelessly naive (one occurrence of a phrase in a speech Cheney never read, which was made years after he left Congress, which probably received absolutely no press coverage, which occurred 12 years ago & we have no evidence has ever been used affectionately before or since, as proof of common Congressional usage as a term of endearment? come on now, really–if you think every Congressman is aware of everything ever said on the floor of Congress…) but that’s what I like about you. 🙂
I also suspect I found the phrase less instrinsically objectionable and was more bothered by the context.
I doubt the questioners from the audience were aware of the use of “the other faith” as a congressional “term of endearment”. It means something else to them, even if Cheney didn’t intend that.
This is a good point.
I’d like to see the Vice President clear up the confusion on that term…publically.
or publicly even…
I also suspect I found the phrase less instrinsically objectionable and was more bothered by the context.
which part of the context?
Do we know if they actually feed audience members the questions, or suggest phrases to use? Or are they just exceptionally well trained at picking up the phrases they’re supposed to use?
I of course know exactly what I’d say if I ever got into one of these things:
Mr. Cheney, the President’s plan to phase out social security seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. How did it get so popular?
I think we should try to infiltrate. It’s the only way to find out exactly how they’re screening people out.
However, I can’t imagine they’ll be doing any town halls in my state, what with the marauding bands of activist judges attacking the sancity of marriage and all.
Not angry; more disappointed. But since you actually meant something different than I thought you did, not even really that anymore.
Well, I’m still a little stymied as to what “other faith” Cheney might plausibly have meant, in a religious sense. Any ideas?
Tacitus–Here is former Senator Alan Simpson using the phrase in valedictory reference to the opposing party in 1993. I think we can put this one to bed now.
Nice catch. But I hardly see how this “puts this one to bed” since the political context has changed a great deal since then, and the reception of the term is not necessarily the same in both circumstances. Yes, this is a term which has been used in the past by a Republican senator while praising the opposition. That does not mean that the term has not taken on other resonances upon which the speechwriters are now troping.
Claiming it is a rhetorical device that conflates religion and politics is not the same as making a paranoid claim that the VP is using code words to talk to his base (the latter of which has always failed to convince me anyway). It’s just a simple observation that given the context of the administration’s judicial nominees and the whole “activist judges’and radical secularists’ war on faith” line currently being spun out by the rhetoricians and pundits on the right, these phrases become loaded with a different sort of connotation than they used to have. Care to compare contexts?
Here is another example of Senator Alan Simpson using the phrase in question, from 1992.
Now, what state did Simpson represent? What state did Cheney represent? Might we be looking at a local colloquialism here?
Still wondering why no one’s objecting to Cheney’s “turn the other cheek” reference. I mean, it is Biblical, after all.
Tac, it’s possible that Cheney has been tactless and insensitive (when he’s not being a cold, calculating nut-cutter) for so long that Simpson got that phrase from him.
Hey! I thought I put that hat away.
Might we be looking at a local colloquialism here?
Absolutely.
Now is this particular coloquialism present in the speeches of congressional representatives from Georgia as well, since the crowd there in Georgia picked up on that particular turn of phrase? Does it mean the same thing to them that it does to Cheney?
What rhetorical work is being done by that phrase? Is this work the same in both cases (Cheney’s and the audience members’)?
Important questions to consider before we put this one to bed. Perhaps questions with no clear answer, but that does not mean that they are unproductive.
Nous, while a valid subject of inquiry, I rather doubt that most — sorry, Katherine — are doing anything else with this than stoking preexisting fires.
Nous, while a valid subject of inquiry, I rather doubt that most — sorry, Katherine — are doing anything else with this than stoking preexisting fires.
Well that’s certainly one othe themes in the original post, and since I posted it, I’ll redirect. Now that we have information that suggests it may be a colloquialism, the next question are indeed…
Now is this particular coloquialism present in the speeches of congressional representatives from Georgia as well, since the crowd there in Georgia picked up on that particular turn of phrase? Does it mean the same thing to them that it does to Cheney?
What rhetorical work is being done by that phrase? Is this work the same in both cases (Cheney’s and the audience members’)?
And I think this is important. I got an email late last night from someone who’s not even a blogger (and so not at all stoking preexisting fires) suggesting this was an outrage…so folks hearing it are taking it the way I first suggest it could be taken…if that’s not the intent, the VP of the US might want to clarify for his nation.
Context is everything. I can easily see how Sen. Simpson’s 1993 use of the phrase is bit of light-hearted jocularity. But in our present context, as well as the more specific context of venue and speaker I can’t see how anyone can fail to see the phrase as anything other than an escalation in the current culture wars. Anyone of good faith, that is.
Anyone with Lexis-Nexis care to do a search for how many times the phrase has been employed since 1993? That might tell us something interesting. (Pedantic pet peeve: Personally, I can’t stand the “meme” meme. But it really grates when something else seems more suitable like “phrase,” or “turn of phrase” or the like.)
It’s not pseudofascism, it’s not an effort to lay the grounds for dictatorship.
Katherine, if that’s your take on Neiwert’s thesis, you’ve misread him, egregiously so.
–the government-financed fake town hall from which independents and Democrats are screened out
–the constant mischaracterization of his opponents, present in Cheney’s remarks around this question & even more so in the question from the audience that uses the phrase “other faith”
among other things.
I was a reporter, however briefly. I don’t like dishonest propaganda, especially dishonest propaganda financed by my tax dollars that uses the secret service to screen out meddlesome Democrats and independents. I don’t like the idea that the government ought to be free from criticism and that people who criticize it can be dismissed as belonging to another religion & have their position lied about rather than their arguments ever being responded to. I don’t like the obsequious devotion to powerful people because they’re powerful, which has become so rampant in the press corps.
Their entire attitude of this administration, from day one, has been “it’s true because we say so. What they say is false because it’s THEM saying it.”
It’s manipulative. It’s Orwellian–not the totalitarian aspect of 1984, but the perversion of truth and language to serve the people in power. It’s utterly relativistic, ironically enough. It leads them into mistakes, again and again, and it makes it impossible to fix those mistakes.
It’s no way to run a healthy democracy–if you want to see what that looks like watch one of Tony Blair’s town halls. The Daily Show ran a segment on this last night, and it was hilarious, but it was also so f***ing depressing. Here we are, the country that was the birthplace of freedom of speech and the press and conscience and religion, the country where those things are more strongly protected by law than any of the world authors of the First Amendment–and somehow, we have forgotten why we have those things, and how to use them. It’s not only the incivility and impoliteness and viciousness of the Limbaughs, Coulters, Malkins, Reynolds, and Hannitys of the world that bothers me. Incivility has always been part of our politics. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton despised each other; there used to be fist fights on the floors of Congress; there was the whole think with Cleveland’s illegitimate daughter. God knows Atrios and Kos are not civil, and I often am not half as civil as I should be. What bothers is their obsequiousness–not just that they say nasty things about their fellow citizens, but that they do it in service of the most powerful men in the country.
It’s especially dangerous because the administration convinces themselves that “It’s true if we say it’s true, anyone who criticizes us must be lying”. They stop believing anything that doesn’t serve their interests, anything that implies they made a mistake, anything they don’t want to believe.
Take a look at this from Andrew Sullivan, from an email he received from a human rights activist in Uzbekistan, who has investigated the practice of torture there & spoken to members of some commission to study the human rights situation:
If they say “we don’t torture or send people to torture” enough times, they think that is sufficient, and we can just dismiss the overwhelming evidence that they are torturing people & sending them to be tortured.
This is only the area of this I know the most about. It applies across the board. Iraq, social security, the environment, the tax cuts, the Terri Schiavo case–it applies across the board.It applied to the Texas death penalty before Bush came to office–this was why I never thought he was moderate, dumb or harmless; I thought someone who claimed to be a “compassionate conservative” and a man of faith who presided over that system without a second thought had really troubling tendencies. I used to think they just lied all the time but I suppose it’s not a lie if you deceive yourself. As I said about the Schiavo case, it’s less lying, then the complete forsaking of reason.
We all deceive ourselves & fail to see truths staring us in the face because they make us look bad, but today’s GOP leadership & the right of center press & too many of their supporters–not all obviously–have made an art form of it. They believe what they want to believe, or what is politically advantageous for them to believe.
Suddenly this is a “local colloquialism”? And because someone in the VP’s carefully pre-selected and vetted audience picked up on it? Horse…uh…pucky(?)
Do I really have to detail how the transmission of new *takes out white hankie, waves it* memes occurs? When we’ve seen it time and time again. Anyone need a schematic for this? Diagrams? 8×10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining what each one is?
if that’s not the intent, the VP of the US might want to clarify for his nation.
hah. he knows exactly what he’s saying. he’s been doing the same thing for the past four years with WMDs, the Iraq/9-11 connection, not meeting John Edwards, etc.. he’s a serial mis-leader.
They believe what they want to believe, or what is politically advantageous for them to believe.
well, sure. but it’s only a problem for those who remain “reality based”. if you close your eyes and believe, they’ll take you with them.
I notice that you re-used “local colloquialism”, Barry, and conclude that you’re simply Tacitus’ plant here to better spread the meme.
Said completely tongue in cheek, just to be clear.
I think I’ll take the opposite position: that anyone of good faith would avoid coming to conclusions based on a dearth of fact.
I just wish the Republican leadership would stop waffling and make up their minds — are Democrats godless heathen (as opposed to “people of faith”) or servants of Satan (that “other faith”)? Somebody tell me soon so I can plan my Sunday mornings.
Exactly, kenB.
I am sure there was an era when “party of the other faith” just referred to the opposite political affiliation, just like there was an era when calling someone “gay” meant they were a happy go lucky sort.
When the faith-based audience is using the phrase, I seriously doubt it is being used as Simpson used it. And I doubt that Cheney, et al., intend to use the phrase in the Simpson sense, since they are openly appealing to faith as a political force.
If not, they are going to have to change their rhetoric anyway, since their religious politics have changed the meaning of the phrase.
their religious politics have changed the meaning of the phrase.
Hear hear.
Yes, of course. Since a dozen years or so have gone by, the meaning cannot be the same as it was in the original use. Because of that mechanism our language has that completely changes the meanings of every word and phrase every couple of years. There’s a word for that, but I think they changed it.
(That manifesto was in response to Edward’s question, “what context”?
As for pre-existing fires, I don’t deny that I dislike them intensely. But if you think it’s just because they’re conservative and I’m liberal, and they’re Republicans and I’m a Democrat, and they’re Christian and I’m not….I used to be a reporter, I’m training to be a lawyer. The administration & the congressional leadership have shown nothing but contempt or indifference for any obective fact or any law that might restrain their actions or make them regret their actions in any way. That’s why they drive me crazy.
What’s insidious about “the other faith” is that:
1) it is either intolerant or utterly relativistic or both: it’s not that they’ve weighed the evidence and come to a different conclusion, they can only disagree because they have a different religion from you, or no religion at all.
2) it also sort of implies that the flawed leaders of political parties are deserving of religious devotion.)
Slarti:
You’ve mispelled “surfeit.”
Until some reliable source with Wyoming roots weighs in or regional colloquialisms I’ll take Occam’s razor to this and suggest that Simpson’s use is where Cheney heard the phrase and recalling it now in the present culture war, he employed it to new intents and purposes.
Barry:
“surf it” is two words.
Tac has already weighed in with prior art.
Yes, of course. Since a dozen years or so have gone by, the meaning cannot be the same as it was in the original use.
what you imply doesn’t prove Cheney was using it in that ‘original’ sense.
remember when the word “private” didn’t mean “government-controlled until you die”, and “constitutional” didn’t mean “in opposition to Senate precedent” ?
And, you’ve got just as much evidence to support that Simpson got it from Cheney: none at all.
Of course not. How many ways do I have to say that you don’t know for sure? Or even with more certainty than any other explanation?
Slarti:
I hope your latest was tongue-in-cheek as well. But a few references from a fellow politician do not a regional colloquialism make.
Rather, they serve to support my tentative thesis as to the source for Cheney’s re-working of the phrase.
Wasn’t there a scene in a Woody Allen film in which the Woody character complains that he doesn’t trust some guy because he’s always asking things like “D’you go the theatre last night?: and “D’you this…?” and D’you that ….?” Woody wants to know if this doesn’t sound vaguely anti-Semitic.
When Kruschchev (sp?) said “We will bury you?” and an undertaker says “We will bury you?”, I can never tell which one is speaking in metaphors.
But, like Woody, I think I’ll keep my guard up. After all, Alan Simpson has an actual sense of humor.
And it’s not as if Simpson and Cheney are both politicians, members of the same political party, with such service going back for many decades, who’ve both represented the same very sparsely inhabited state at the national level, and who’ve worked very closely together during that time or anything. Why I’ve even heard tell that Dick won’t even take the good Senator’s calls! The nerve, I tell you. The nerve.
John Thullen: Works better if you render it thus: “D’jew”, or “D’jou” but you’ve got to have that “j” in there.
their religious politics have changed the meaning of the phrase.
Well. For you.
Katherine, claming prior experience as a reporter and current experience as a lawyer-in-waiting is hardly the way to establish bona fides for objectivity.
How many ways do I have to say that you don’t know for sure?
IMO, sometimes it’s hard to tell if your attempts to knock down a statement are implicit endorsements of an opposing view, or just playful pedantry.
(please don’t think i’m saying i don’t do the same)
And it’s not as if Simpson and Cheney are both politicians, members of the same political party, …
does everyone else in the room when Cheney’s giving his little talks know the history of that phrase ? does he fill them in ?
or do you suppose people hearing Cheney speak are hearing it the same way everyone else here heard it before this Simpson reference came up?
me:
“I should clarify, by demonizing I mean something quite specific. I mean:
1) implying that your opponent cannot be trusted simply bec ause of who he is, so that there is no need to address his arguments”
Tac:
“Katherine, claming prior experience as a reporter and current experience as a lawyer-in-waiting is hardly the way to establish bona fides for objectivity.”
Many journalists and lawyers disagree with the President. Therefore, as a class, journalists and lawyers know nothing about facts or law, and cannot be trusted. Q.E.D.
If a lawyer says the President is breaking the law, that lawyer is clearly biased, and cannot be trusted, and his statement is not evidence that the President is breaking the law.
If a reporter says that the President’s statement is factually false, that reporter is clearly biased, and cannot be trusted, and his statement is not evidence that the President’s statement is false.
If a scientist says that the President’s environmental policies are not based on sound science, that scientist is clearly biased, and cannot be trusted, and his statement is not evidence that the President’s environmental policies are not based on sound science.
If an economist says that the President’s fiscal policies are an awful mess that harm the poor at the expense of the rich and threaten a fiscal crisis, that economist is clearly biased, and cannot be trusted, and his statement is not evidence that the President’s President’s fiscal policies are an awful mess that harm the poor at the expense of the rich and threaten a fiscal crisis.
Does anyone see a way to convince people that the President and the Republicans and Congress are wrong when saying that the the President and the Republicans and Congress are wrong is seen as proof you are too biased to be taken seriously?
I sure don’t.
their religious politics have changed the meaning of the phrase.
Well. For you.
Sorry. Its your heroes in the politcal arena that have politicized religion and changed the meaning of the phrase.
Does anyone see a way to convince people that the President and the Republicans and Congress are wrong when saying that the the President and the Republicans and Congress are wrong is seen as proof you are too biased to be taken seriously?
You have to learn the secret handshake.
or do you suppose people hearing Cheney speak are hearing it the same way everyone else here heard it before this Simpson reference came up?
Maybe in his mind it was innocent, but is taken badly by those sensitive to such a turn of a phrase.
I only have to say that it always reminds me of the ‘Pork, the other white meat’ campaign, which I suppose could be taken as an oblique comment on the Neocon=Jewish conspiracy meme.
While googling the above, I found this. FWIW
While googling the above, I found this. FWIW
SASKPORK, what a horrible sounding abbreviation.
Katherine, claming prior experience as a reporter and current experience as a lawyer-in-waiting is hardly the way to establish bona fides for objectivity.
And thusly does Tac demonstrate one of the reasons he’s not taken seriously by adults outside of his sandbox.
I knew the obsessives would come out sometime. Where’s Hilzoy to keep things tidy?
Many journalists and lawyers disagree with the President. Therefore, as a class, journalists and lawyers know nothing about facts or law, and cannot be trusted.
No, Katherine. Let’s not move from saying unsupportable things to saying silly things outright.
Which would be a decent point, were I arguing the regional colloquialism thing.
Well, let me offer you a key, then: I don’t to implicit endorsements. Much. Aw, cripes.
I think I made a comment to this effect today, or late last night: don’t construe my critique of your thesis as a statement of thesis diametrically opposed to yours. I wouldn’t dream of claiming Cheney said this in complete innocence precisely for the same reason I’m criticizing the leaps to Conclusions (remember, it’s a long swim back. And yes, I’m fully aware of the Phantom Tollbooth teaser nature of that comment).
I knew the obsessives would come out sometime. Where’s Hilzoy to keep things tidy?
I’ll keep things tidy…on both sides…never you fear. This is my thread, and I’ll play sheriff here.
Play nice, everyone (and if you’re wondering if that means you, it does!) or I’ll start draging folks around by their ears…and I’m just tipsy enough to do it, too…don’t push me!
Anyone else here watch “Super Nanny”?
This incredulity that phrases can rapidly adopt a different resonance seems unwarranted to me.
Imagine that the Republicans, due to their support from the business-class flight demographic, briefly gained the moniker of the party of airport lurkers. (Not a moniker that would be likely to stick, I’ll grant you.) Imagine that Howard Dean mentioned that his political opponents aren’t concerned about normal people, but all too happy to support those who lurk around airports. Surely we would be justified at being concerned at this use of language, regardless of whether it has precedence?
(I think this is may be a lousy example but whiskey and elections have done me in tonight.)
This whole thread is a classic example of why you shouldn’t mix politics and religion. One shouldn’t be abominated by superstitous and partisan ideologues, and the other shouldn’t be abominated by superstitous and partisan ideologues. For your part in starting this Edward_, you shoulld go to hell in a handbasket. A very well made handbasket that demonstrates the synthesis and antithesis of the opposing handbasket weaving traditions.
I hope it would be a basket like one of these. Edward deserves no less.
Has anyone actually given Cheney’s speech a listen? Pondering the question of Wyoming colloquialisms over my dinner of sauteed jackalope haunches I decided that I simply had to hear it for myself.
So, I found it on the internets and settled myself down and gave it a close listen-hear. And what I discovered shocked and awed me even as I’m sure it would shock and awe many of my fellow travellers. (And it also goes to show once more that you can’t trust transcripts these days.)
It’s bad.
Real bad.
How bad?
It’s actually far worse than we (Edward, et al,) thought. It has the distinct smack Rovian handwork to me (Dick Tuck, eat your heart out. After decades of effort I think Karl’s finally bested you). And once again those dastardly Republicans have shown themselves to be the true masters of framing and re-framing the debate. In this latest case of theocon logomancy Cheney has gone and pulled the rug right out from under the Democrats’ feet.
He doesn’t say, “The Other Faith.”
He said, “The Mother Faith.”
The bastards! They’ve read Lakoff’s book!
I don’t think you are reading Tacitus correctly at all. Lawyers are not known for being objective. They are known for being paid to take a side and zealously advocate it despite what they believe (and please, please don’t join a large firm if you want to avoid that). As for journalists, even if you don’t believe that political bias is a big deal from them–most people are willing to admit an incredibly strong sensationalist bias exists in journalists. They attempt to frame things as shocking or strange. Both of these concepts have been around for decades regarding both of these professions. It doesn’t have anything to do with the idea that some lawyers and journalists don’t like Bush.
But the thing is, journalism has objectivity as an ideal. Law has the rule of law as an ideal. Katherine (if I understand her correctly) was explaining why she finds certain things unacceptable, and the values that these occupations incorporate go some way in explaining why she feels this way.
It may be that, in actual fact, doctors are more honest than journalists. But honesty and objectivity are not among the underlying noble motivations in becoming a doctor (perhaps the desire to help others, or the Hippocratic principle).People can aspire to journalism because of a desire for the Truth that is not reflected in most other occupations. If you (meaning anyone – this isn’t targeted especially at you, Sebastian, or anyone else) are prepared to take Katherine in good faith, then it matters not whether ‘most journalists are biased’, it matters that ‘journalists ought to be objective’.
If she had said ‘I read the Bible, and attend church, and I get outraged at this lack of compassion shown by the administration’, would it be a legitimate response to try and bring up lists of the actual failings of actual christians, or, as a more accurate analogue, to assert that Christians are the last people you think of when compassion is discussed? To me that is out of bounds, by assuming that the values a speaker articulates are ones they fail to reach, in the total absence of evidence.
don’t construe my critique of your thesis as a statement of thesis diametrically opposed to yours.
hmm. ok. it might take some time for me to get used to this M.O. – it’s an unusual one out here in the polarized world of blog comments. be patient. 🙂
I understand from reports that a Baptist Church in Waynesville just asked the democrats in their congregation to change or leave.
I understand from reports that a Baptist Church in Waynesville just asked the democrats in their congregation to change or leave.
I saw that on Kos…(merci Ondine)…
I thought about posting on it, but I’m sure it would be dismissed as the mad rantings of one individual and not at all a sign of our times…it’s hard keeping track of all the things I’m not supposed to connect to all the other things and conclude the Christian Right is becoming alarming.
a Baptist Church in Waynesville just asked the democrats in their congregation to change or leave
the video clip says the pastor said the decision wasn’t politically motivated… umm ?
At some point all these things adding up can’t be dismissed as outliers and will be seen as a growing trend. Will it be too late? I’m more concerned that by the time it is seen as a trend it will already be like kudzu – grown too far and too high to stop. The Taliban did not appear out of thin air to take over Afghanistan.
http://www.wlos.com/
“East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn’t support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say “the actions were not politically motivated.” There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.”
If churches want to kick out members on the basis of who they vote for, more power to them. They’re reducing their own numbers, risking their tax-exempt status, and ensuring that the ones they just kicked out will join a more tolerant and sane congregation.
IOW, evolution in action.
Catsy
Unfortunately, evolution is a startlingly slow process. Political evolution can also be outlawed.
Tax exempt status so far from this administration has only been questioned when the group was considered liberal.
“But the thing is, journalism has objectivity as an ideal. Law has the rule of law as an ideal. Katherine (if I understand her correctly) was explaining why she finds certain things unacceptable, and the values that these occupations incorporate go some way in explaining why she feels this way.”
I wasn’t trying to pick a fight, it just seems to me like a very normal comment about journalists and lawyers which could have been said anytime in the past 100 years was turned into something that purports to be grounded in Bush-o-philia. No matter what ethos lawyers and journalists try to project to outsiders, it is a fact that their routine actions are grounded in something very different. Lawyers are typically paid to take a side, defend it to their utmost, and do so while trying to seem objective. This is a fact about the typical practice of law. Journalists make money trying to make things sound interesting or shocking–though to be honest, their idea of interesting is often very shocking to me. Seeing weekly car chases on TV or hearing about a bride who ran away rather than get married doesn’t fit my idea of interesting, but I liked “The Tick” as a TV show so I should probably admit that my taste doesn’t qualify as typical. My point is that these reputations have nothing to with liking or disliking Bush. They have nothing to do with Bush at all. These reputations were established long enough ago that I’m sure we could dredge up some fun Mark Twain quotes if we wanted to. The fact that both reporters and lawyers like to project an aura of objectivity while persuing far less noble aims is one of the reasons both professions are subject to so much ridicule.
Change what? I’m almost afraid to ask.
Given that Waynesville has a population of about 9000 and over 40 churches, I’m confident that the people will be able to find a new home. Dunno how this variety of Baptist church is organized, but if our pastor pulled something like that, we’d fire him. He’s employed by the church council, which is partly me. Probably we’d first go to the synod and make a report.
I don’t expect that the incidence of idiocy in the clergy is all that much different from the rest of the population, so this sort of thing doesn’t surprise me all that much. Nor does the extrapolation from the minister of one church having at most a couple of hundred in the congregation to the religious right as a whole. Stupidity abounds.
Ah, here’s something I can agree with.
Ah, but outlawing “political evolution” (whatever it was that you meant by that) doesn’t do a thing to actually halt change. In fact, it might occasion a jump to a new equilibrium, and accomplish a change that’s the opposite of what was intended.
Slarti
They were asked to repent for the sin of being a democrat. That was the change requested. Become a republican or leave.
It would be hard to imagine just three years ago that even an idiot would think this sort of thing were possible to get away with yet now the rest of the congregation was reported to have cheered.
Ignore at your peril.
The point guard on my son’s basketball team kept throwing 3/4 court passes down the court and each one resulted in a turnover. One an out-of-bounds pass. Another became a travel as the receiver couldn’t control it. Another knocked the kid over and the other team picked it up.
You could focus on the various reasons for the turnover or you could focus on the ultimate result of the 3/4 court pass. Me? I told the point guard to stop throwing the damn pass. You? Maybe you would focus on each specific reason the ball was called a turnover in the scorer’s book. Unfortunately, with a thrid grade team there is only so much time and skill to work with.
I understand that, carsick, I really do. But: what are you suggesting?
I mean, I can get you the church’s phone number if you want to tell them to stop making that pass.
It would be hard to imagine just three years ago that even an idiot would think this sort of thing were possible to get away with yet now the rest of the congregation was reported to have cheered.
Are you kidding? I could easily imagine it, at any point in our nation’s history. And I could easily imagine the same sort of ideological purity test happening on the liberal side as well. Some people just get carried away with their own beliefs.
I was far more disturbed by the attacks on John Kerry by the upper muckety-mucks in the Catholic church. But this is just the usual nutjobbery, unless and until some high official endorses the action.
I’d think an explicitly partisan organization should lose its 501(c)(3) status, to start with.
“It would be hard to imagine just three years ago that even an idiot would think this sort of thing were possible to get away with yet now the rest of the congregation was reported to have cheered.”
I actually heard about a case just like that at least 15 years ago. I suspect that every ten years or so a pastor gets even more ridiculously sanctimonious than his most outrageous peers and does something like this.
The short version of your remarks regarding this story:
“It’s just one idiot in one church and the church is small and there are other churches in the area. It is not an example of a trend in America.”
It certainly is not related to a state legislator proposing getting rid of all art created by homosexuals from the state’s libraries (Goodbye In Cold Blood and The Glass Menagerie). It is certainly not related to the president’s controversial picks for judgeships being the only ones who are ‘People of Faith.’
It is certainly not related to the federal government wanting to decide individual family medical matters that are legally recognized as the domain of the family, individual and their doctor.
Me? I think the republican party should stop throwing the damn pass. You? You seem to think all these things are unrelated incidences cause by “enthusiastic volunteers.”
I’m not a big fan of “shorter slart”, sorry. And you got it wrong. Here’s a hint: the fundamental interconnectedness of things (different series, I know, but my programming drives me this way) doesn’t imply rigid interconnects.
And here I thought this was a church in rural North Carolina. Well, I’ll get right on the hotline to Karl and have him pass the word on down.
Seriously, you think this has anything to do with the GOP? Based on what, other than it’s fun to pretend?
Seriously, you think this has anything to do with the GOP? Based on what,
A number of things actually, beginning with the use of churches as campaign headquarters, the use of church mailing lists for campaign purposes, the appearance of high-profile GOP leaders at church political rallies painting Democrats as anti-people of faith, etc. etc. etc. You think all of that was missed by this minister?
Yes, blow it up into extreme conspiracy theories and then attack the straw.
Do you really believe that the GOP leadership hasn’t worked to foment religious/political fervor in their fight for the 51% solution?
Do you watch the news?
I don’t think it is a conspiracy. I think it is right out in the open and that openness encourages the more “enthusiatic” to reach further than would have been tolerated a few short years ago.
You may agree with the strategy and the aim but do you also deny the GOP is working the strategy?
Seriously, you think this has anything to do with the GOP?
if the GOP hadn’t been doing its damndest to tell the country that the left is anti-religion and wants to ban the bible, it’d be reasonable to think they weren’t somehow responsible. but, in reality, they have been doing their damndest to tell the country just that.
and by “somehow responsible” i don’t mean “directly responsible”. i mean they’ve helped create a climate where this kind of thing is completely expected.
I’m not saying the GOP has never done anything disagreeable, cleek. I’m saying that…what? What are you going to do about this, other than bitch about it? Pass a law?
Ask that religious members of the GOP react to the story with public shock and horror? Pull the church’s tax exemption?
Oh, I see. Now you want to change the subject to “Well yes but what are you proposing to do about it.” Are you conceding the points and moving on or are you losing the battle and trying to deflect it somewhere you feel more comfortable?.
“The 4th Circuit ruled Chesterfield County’s Board of Supervisors did not show impermissible motive in refusing to permit a pantheistic invocation by a Wiccan because its list of clergy who registered to conduct invocations covers a wide spectrum of Judeo-Christian denominations. Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, No. 04-1045 (April 14).”
So now our country’s religion is Judeo-Christian. Good luck to any American Indian, Hindu or Muslim (or, God forbid, a Wiccan) who gets elected to a city council or county commission seat. Let alone to congress. Apparently their religions are under the umbrella of ‘judeo-christian’ and if they aren’t then… well… it is not considered a show of impermissability to refuse them to invoke a prayer for the public to hear.
But this isn’t part of the GOP’s aims. Why would you think that?
or this:
“The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today’s climate, however, he’s got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.”
Hmm. Where was that congressman from again?
“The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisers including Karl Rove. “We’ve got the Holy Spirit’s wind at our backs!” Land declares in an arm-waving, red-faced speech. He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing “Imagine” as a “secular anthem” that envisions a future of “clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn.”
The Dominionists are also stepping up efforts to turn public schools into forums for evangelism. In a landmark case, the Alliance Defense Fund is suing a California school district that threatened to dismiss a born-again teacher who was evangelizing fifth-graders. In the conference’s opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.”
Personally, I think Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’ is a sappy ode to child’s version of Utopia or something but apparently I missed the references to ‘Clone farming’ and ‘hard core porn.’
Maybe I should play it backwards.
Slarti, Do you have an old turntable I could borrow? My CD player doesn’t allow me to hear the hidden words in Lennon’s song. Actually, since Rove talks to this guy regularly perhaps you could get on your hotline to him and ask if he has one.
What are you going to do about this, other than bitch about it?
i’m doing it right now: i’m doing my best to highlight the kinds of things that i think make the GOP a dangerous (sic) party to vote for. you want a culture / religious war? fine, vote GOP.
maybe the GOP has other things going for it that some people like enough to overlook the GOP’s religious demagoguery. if that’s the case, i want those people to know what they’re encouraging besides yummy tax cuts and deregulation.
call it “bitching” if you like.
“maybe the GOP has other things going for it that some people like enough to overlook the GOP’s religious demagoguery”
people have to be willing to overlook demagoguery to justify voting
“i mean they’ve helped create a climate where this kind of thing is completely expected.”
I don’t think anyone is saying that the pastor’s actions are completely expected. His actions are rather unexpected and certainly not typical. But there are all sorts of heavy-handed pastors around, so I’m pretty much willing to believe that every couple of years one will do something really shocking. Weirder things have happened with splinter religious groups. Around here there was some weird group that killed themselves when a comet came by. Frankly I don’t know anything about this pastor other than what is reported, but he seems unhinged, not a sign that Republicans are kicking Democrats our of church as some sort of effort.
Exactly, Sebastian. And cleek, if you read what I’d said over the entire thread, you’ll notice a few things that are pretty much along the lines of what Sebastian said.
Why is it that the reaction of some folks to isolated pockets of stupidity is to blame the other half of the country?
“Isolated pockets?” Well, yes, but take a listen to the excerpt of Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary speaking on “Justice Sunday” as well as the discussion yesterday on Democracy Now.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the pastor’s actions are completely expected
really? cause that’s what I am saying.
how many times do we have to hear that The Left is full of “militant secularists” who are anti-Christian, anti-Church, who want to ban the Bible, destroy the family and everything America stands for, and persecute Christians before you’d say “ok, maybe the GOP is trying to create a climate where someone would decide Democrats are no longer welcome in a church ” ?
i reached that point a while ago, obviously.
You know, if I were the head of the GOP, I’d certainly consider kicking Democrats out of church a priority. Hell, kick ’em out of Sam’s Club, too.
Right. I’m sure there’s an upside to that, somewhere, but I can’t for the life of me think of one.
I’m sure there’s an upside to that, somewhere, but I can’t for the life of me think of one.
Modern GOP Maxim #1 : anything that mobilizes and enflames The Base is a good thing.
To return to my intial analogy. Yes, it’s just the ball going out of bounds. Nothing to be concerned about.
Of course it also has no relation at all to efforts like:
H.R.2357
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit churches and other houses of worship to engage in political campaigns.
Sponsor: Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] (introduced 6/28/2001)
Introduced nearly four years ago; status is what, now?
Is it your position that tax-exempt organizations should not participate in the political process? I’ve got no problem with that, so long as it’s a rule applied uniformly.
Just think of the corporate contributions churches could salivate over if they could retain their tax-exempt status and start actively promoting one party over the other.
Who needs a large congregation if Coors or WalMart are paying the bills.
And this on the heels of ABC not allowing an ad by the United Church of Christ promoting its inclusive policy towards gays, racial minorities, and people with disabilities. And yet deciding to air James C. Dobson’s Christian ministry Focus on the Family ads promoting corporal punishment.
No trend here focus. The ball just got thrown out of bounds that’s all.
That proposal didn’t get a 2/3rds vote but once the fillibuster is abolished then hey! why not bring it back eh? I haven’t seen the religious radicals give up on a proposal yet so why do you think they have? Because Bush no longer needs their vote meeans nothing to those folks or the congressmen who need their votes.
Are you saying it was filibustered?
Again, there are other not-for-profits that are NOT religious organizations that have participated in the political process and funnelled corporate money into the political arena. Do you have a problem with that, or is it just the those organizations that have religious affiliation?
Kind of eliding the distinction between “participating in the political process” and “engaging in political campaigns”, aren’t you? I mean, if you wanted to say that the distinction is meaningless, so if we’re going to permit the first (as the law currently does), we should permit the second (as the law currently does not), that would be a position we could discuss. Or if you wanted to say that the current law against engaging in partisan political campaigning by non-profits is unenforced, or selectively enforced, and bring up some examples then that would be a different position we could discuss.
As it is, I don’t understand your comment. Yes, e.g., environmental groups participate in the political process. No, they do not now participate in partisan politics if they want to retain their tax-exempt status. That’s the same standard that’s applied to churches. This incident shows a church going over the line into partisan politics, and HR 2357 would be a significant change in the law.
“Or if you wanted to say that the current law against engaging in partisan political campaigning by non-profits is unenforced, or selectively enforced, and bring up some examples then that would be a different position we could discuss.”
you mean like say 527 groups?
I wasn’t at all offended by your suggestion Sebastian, but I’m not sure I buy it–whatever my faults I didn’t go into journalism to stalk the latest celebrity on trial or into law to chase ambulances, and I have no intention ever doing so. I think I have good bona fides as being naive enough about journalism and about the U.S. Constitution–if I didn’t care I wouldn’t get so bloody obnoxious in debates over those subjects. And Tac would know that.
Slarti, as someone who has worked in a lot of non-profits, I am well aware that it was as blatantly clear who the NRDC wanted to win in this last election as much as the Southern Baptist Convention. But there are rules. Non-profits set up separate legal entities to do their lobbying, for example, and those are not tax exempt. I don’t know all the rules, but I am 99% sure that expelling people based on their party affiliation or worse, who they voted for, is Right Out.
I used tax-exempt loosely — the difference between 501(c)(3)s and 527s is that 501(c)(3)s can receive tax deductible donations and 527’s can’t. If a church wanted to change its status to a 527 and engage in partisan politic, more power to it — but people would have to pay taxes on the money they donated.
If I’m not mistaken, the rule changes needed to suspend the rules and kill a fillibuster are the same ones Jones, the sponsor of the amendment, proposed when his intitial amendment failed.
“On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 178 – 239 (Roll no. 429).”
That was introduced in June 2001 and voted on in Oct. 2001. Things changed in 2002 didn’t they?
He also reintroduced the bill as HR 235 in January 2003.
I’m sure he or others will try again.
will this help?
well, if you’re the poster child for it, the verdict would have to be “no.” Eh, heh?
“Eh, heh?”
apparently, my apologies for walking off the farm
apparently, my apologies for walking off the farm
Hey heh,
i just re-read my comment and it didn’t come out at all how it sounded in my head when I wrote it…it was meant to be much funnier and less mean.
sorry about that.
although I’m not sure what “walking off the farm” means.
Heh, I don’t see where I have proposed a single conspiracy.
I’m angry about the outward strategy. I don’t see anyone trying to hide the fact that they are giving religious radicals reason to believe they can change our constitution.
Let’s see: 1)Three branches of govenment vs “the senate should consent (not advise) because the republicans have a simple majority.”
2)Three branches of government vs “our judges stood up for the law at the cost of Terri Schiavo’s life. We should impeach them.”
3)Three branches of government vs. “These judges who will have lifetime appointments in an independent branch should have the easiest way to confirmation because they are who the president wants.”
Well. 1)Our constitution is not a populist document but one of a liberal democratic republic ie. respects the right of the individual or minority.
2) Activist judges are which? The ones who break the law in your way or the ones who interpret the law in accordance with the constitution.
3) Judges are not intended to serve at the pleasure of the president the way members of the executive branch may be interpreted to be but are intended to serve as the judging buffer between the executive branch, the legistative branch and the individual or minority in accordance with our constitution.
Heh, I don’t see where I have proposed a single conspiracy.
I’m angry about the outward strategy. I don’t see anyone trying to hide the fact that they are giving religious radicals reason to believe they can change our constitution.
Let’s see: 1)Three branches of govenment vs “the senate should consent (not advise) because the republicans have a simple majority.”
2)Three branches of government vs “our judges stood up for the law at the cost of Terri Schiavo’s life. We should impeach them.”
3)Three branches of government vs. “These judges who will have lifetime appointments in an independent branch should have the easiest way to confirmation because they are who the president wants.”
Well. 1)Our constitution is not a populist document but one of a liberal democratic republic ie. respects the right of the individual or minority.
2) Activist judges are which? The ones who break the law in your way or the ones who interpret the law in accordance with the constitution.
3) Judges are not intended to serve at the pleasure of the president the way members of the executive branch may be interpreted to be but are intended to serve as the judging buffer between the executive branch, the legistative branch and the individual or minority in accordance with our constitution.
Sorry about the double post.
Ted Barlow has posted a nice list of recent events at Crooked Timber under the title of “South Park Bingo.” Scroll down a few posts to see it.
Take a look and you may understand why this Waynesville incident should not be viewed in isolation.
The Apple people alerted me to the Reverend Land’s kind words and I want to clarify a few things from my perch at God’s side.
First, I’m sorry “Imagine” was not up to my usual standards, you know, the chord changes were a little uninspired and quite frankly, I was a little insecure about Paul and the Wings thing at the time and ripped it out quickly. It’s not “You’re Going to Lose that Girl”, but I was on me way back, and Yoko was doing her thing, well…
Also, for you Beatle lovers out there, I want you to know that I would like to clone Paul’s bass playing on just about everything, and Ringo’s fills on Sgt Pepper, and George’s kind thoughts on everything else. And, there are no children I want to sacrifice, thank you lads, and isn’t it funny those words coming from the Reverend who worships a guy being effing sacrificed and slaughtered on the Cross. The Reverend likes death, doesn’t he? Like M.D.C., my best fan.
Polygamy. It’s no fun if it’s legalized, is it lads? As for porn, the Reverend’s every utterance qualifies. It’s a business, just like the Reverend’s soft-core business, which seems a little Teddy-Boy to me.
I’ve said a lot of stupid things, too. But somebody asked, didn’t they?
Ella Fitzgerald, my dear whopper.
I’ve got some new songs. Can you hear them?
Love, John and Yoko
“I wasn’t at all offended by your suggestion Sebastian, but I’m not sure I buy it–whatever my faults I didn’t go into journalism to stalk the latest celebrity on trial or into law to chase ambulances, and I have no intention ever doing so.”
Sure, but if you were the standard we wouldn’t be having the discussion. And if I were the standard for Republicans you would probably be happier about it than now.
In fact I propose that we become co-dictators of the United States and rule by unanimous consent. Anything we agree on has to be close enough to right for government work. 🙂
Seems to me as if there were some tax-exempt organizations that did participate in campaigns, and didn’t lose their tax-exempt status. Who they were kind of eludes the memory-fetching algorithm just now. If you thought by “participating in the political process” I meant “voting”, well, that just doesn’t fit the context, now, does it?
Katherine, I agree with that it’s Right Out; I’m just not sure there’s any consequence, other than widespread ridicule.
Installing wood flooring today; I’ll be prettuy much unavailable. Ditto for yesterday, tomorrow, and maybe Monday.
Mr. Holsclaw–
Governance by legislating the intersection of your beliefs and Katherine’s might be a very short route to libertarianism.
(And what this method would do to constitutional interpretation is just too awful to contemplate.)
Seems to me as if there were some tax-exempt organizations that did participate in campaigns, and didn’t lose their tax-exempt status. Who they were kind of eludes the memory-fetching algorithm just now.
If you’re talking about 527s, I addressed that in my comment on 5/6 at 4:32.
Sorry, I hadn’t seen that. I agree, pretty much. Taking a quick break while the glue sets; not much else to say here, anyway.
In fact I propose that we become co-dictators of the United States and rule by unanimous consent. Anything we agree on has to be close enough to right for government work. 🙂
You’d have whatever passes for my vote as a peon in the new slave-ridden order!
I, for one, welcome our new moderate overlords.
Politics in this country are a sham.
Press conferences, town hall meetings, interviews are all staged.
What would the politicians do if they really had to debate the issues? Without having time to consult with their handlers?
We need a system more like the British parliament, where they openly debate each other.
I find it so frustrating that people in this country don’t see through all the crap. Or, if they do, why not stand up and object?
Everybody laments the current state of politics in this country. But until more than 50% of the people show up for elections, nothing is going to change. (By the way, can someone teach the current rulers that a victory of 1% or 2% does not a mandate make?).
In Los Angeles, we’d like more than 25%!