Christian Author Says Liberals Hate 100 Things-I Respond to Each

 Constitution, Crack Pots, Featured, Politics, Right Wingnuts, Science, Society  Comments Off on Christian Author Says Liberals Hate 100 Things-I Respond to Each
Jun 082017
 
This entry is part of 2 in the series Say It To My Face

I know the headline comes as a surprise to you, but Right Wing Watch has called attention to an article by some Christian author who, on Charisma News, posted a list of 100 things we Liberals hate about America. I had to read the list, and, of course, since it’s me, I have to comment on it. So let’s just roll right through this list.

This is from Michael Snyder’s article. Of course this paragraph alone merits a response by itself (heck, I could probably write a post about each of his 100 things, but I don’t know if I’ll get that ambitious), but I’ll leave that for a later post. Anyway, here’s what Snyder thinks:

If we want to make America great again, we need to embrace the things that made us great in the first place. Unfortunately, the left tends to hate most of those things. In fact, many leftists will actually tell you that America was never great. These “progressives” want our nation to be fundamentally “transformed” into an entirely different place than our forefathers intended, and they plan to use big government as the tool to conduct that “transformation”.

So, for all your liberals out there…here’s what it turns out, according to Michael Snyder, you hate: Continue reading »

Why the Christian Church May Never Crawl Out of Its Hole

 Featured, Methodism, Religion, Right Wingnuts, Right Wingnuts, Society  Comments Off on Why the Christian Church May Never Crawl Out of Its Hole
Jan 182016
 

In the western world, churches, in particular Christian churches, are showing a general decline in attendance and membership. There’s much hand wringing within those denominations most affected; reports are being prepared, and great plans are being made to try to stem the tide, but I am not yet convinced the people in these organizations have the self-awareness to overcome the trend.

The Facebook response to a recent article I posted in a conservative United Methodist discussion group really brought this home for me, and helped me congeal my thoughts on this subject.

Background Statistics

Stats aren’t all that fun, but I think it is necessary to give some background on what is happening that’s causing this concern. The overall number of people who are religiously affiliated has, according to Pew Research, not changed all that much between 2007 and 2015. ((“U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious,” Pew Research Center, Nov. 3, 2015)) However, according to their most recent “Religious Landscape Study, “A growing share of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, including some who self-identify as atheists or agnostics as well as many who describe their religion as “nothing in particular.” Altogether, the religiously unaffiliated (also called the “nones”) now account for 23% of the adult population, up from 16% in 2007.” ((Ibid))

Continue reading »

Little Bobby Knight Contradicts Himself – AGAIN

 Constitution, Election, Featured, Politics  Comments Off on Little Bobby Knight Contradicts Himself – AGAIN
Dec 182012
 

Voting Screen - CartoonLittle Bobby Knight, he of the conservative “private sector” over at One News now, has written a piece in which he makes this accusation, “Liberals, whose lifeblood is government red ink, are working around the clock to move America closer to one-party rule.” So how is we’re doing all this you ask? Well, according to Bob, by an assault on election integrity.

Let’s do a little analysis of Bob’s article. First, he talks about the idea of doing away with the Electoral College. I have absolutely no doubt that had Mitt Romney won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote, he and the other conservatives would be screaming bloody hell. Let us not forget they fully support the Constitution when it protects their perceived right to discriminate by invoking “religious liberty” (to which the Constitution doesn’t speak), or their right to bare arms, but would move to restrict freedom of speech with an amendment to ban flag burning. Let’s just not pretend they believe the Constitution to be sacrosanct…just like with their Bible, they pick and chose.

Bob states, “Apart from their destruction of the Founders’ idea of self-government by an informed citizenry, “automatic'” registration and direct popular vote would damage the states’ constitutionally appointed role of conducting elections.” Electors are merely pledged to the winning candidate (unlike in the early days), so how is it they are some more “informed” than the general electorate?

He goes on to talk about the “states’ constitutionally appointed role,” but later in this very same article complains about the fact that two (not one but two) STATE courts in Wisconsin ruled that the Voter ID law in that STATE violated that STATE’s Constitution. I don’t get it. Does he want the States running their own elections, or not?

In general, he has a problem with making it more convenient to vote. He thinks we shouldn’t be able to get an absentee ballot for “no excuse.” I have to travel often on short notice (because I work, in the private sector). Several times, I’ve been out-of-town on election day, but the travel came up only after the deadline to apply for an absentee ballot had passed. So, does Bobby want me to work and not vote, or become part of “Big Bird’s Food Stamp Army” (see his article for this insulting comment) so I can vote? Which is it jerk?

And heaven no, we can’t have college students voting. Here, he just tells a bold-faced lie (but conservatives like little Bobby never let the facts get in the way of a good fiction). He states the students voted “on the spot.” Not true. In the same paragraph he states any political rally had to be at least 300 feet from the polling place…that’s the length of a football field, and not “on the spot.” Furthermore, in the case he’s citing, the polling place was actually more than 300 feet away (again, let’s not worry about the facts or anything).

I live in Florida where the Republican controlled state legislature and governor have done everything in their power to suppress voting, and I think they found one person who was registered improperly. Wow, all that effort, money, and attempts at voter suppression for one lousy vote (and oh, by the way, if memory serves, the guy was registered as a Republican, but either way, it certainly didn’t change the outcome of the election, and that’s why conservatives are so sore). So please Bob, go quietly back to your job in the private sector.

Yet another case of the Right Wing-nuts accusing progressives of doing the exact thing they are doing…screwing up the voting process.

Conservatives Hate Freedom

 Culture, Economy, Featured, Politics  Comments Off on Conservatives Hate Freedom
May 162012
 

Michael Lind has a great story at Salon.com today about how conservatives say one thing, but do another. I know that will come as a shock. Despite their claims of being the people bent on protecting Americans’ freedoms, they are actually the people who have, over the past 60 years, most sought to curtail those freedoms.

Lind is careful to make the distinction between true Libertarians and conservatives, and points out that, since World War II, conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the U.S.

In the ’60s, Goldwater and Buckley, along with their adherents, opposed every civil rights measure for African-Americans. As is so often the case, they claimed they weren’t segregationist, they were opposing federal government interference, but this made them OK with state government interference in personal lives.

Up until 1965 the use of contraception was banned for married couples, and when the courts struck that down, and made abortion illegal, they didn’t even pretend it was for Constitutional reasons, but opposed it based on their religious views. As Lind puts it:

In other words, the very conservatives warning us about the dangers of “mobocracy” when it came to the welfare state had no objection to using the power of government to force their fellow citizens to live their private lives according to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas or the Book of Leviticus, as interpreted by semi-literate Southern Protestant preachers.

We explore here often not only their attempts to not only subvert the inalienable rights of LGBT people, but to, by state constitution fiat, curtail the rights.

They’re not better on the rights of workers and debtors and the poor, All people clearly covered in the Bible to which they so vehemently claim to be their authority. They have worked aggressively to inhibit workers rights to unionize and bargain for a better life, they have opposed the minimum wage at every stage, and oppose all workplace safety regulations.

Despite the biblical admonitions against usury, they have opposed every effort to help families refinance homes in which they are underwater. They have opposed taxes on the rich to help support the social safety net, and in many cases have worked for its removal.

Lind ends his piece with a chilling look at America if the conservatives had won their battles:

Formal racial segregation might still exist at the state and local level in the South. In some states, it would be illegal to get abortions or even for married couples to use contraception. In much of the United States, gays and lesbians would still be treated as criminals. Government would dictate to Americans with whom and how they can have sex. Unions would have been completely annihilated in the public as well as the private sector. Wages and hours laws would be abolished, so that employers could pay third-world wages to Americans working seven days a week, 12 hours a day, as many did before the New Deal.

This really is an article you need to read, especially if you are a conservative.

Fox News Pundit Says McCain Has to Bash Gays to Win

 Election, Gay Issues, Politics, Religion, Right Wingnuts, Society  Comments Off on Fox News Pundit Says McCain Has to Bash Gays to Win
Jul 072008
 

From the “comes as no surprise” category, Fox News Pundit Fred Barnes said Sunday that McCain would have to run a center/right (not sure what that actually looks like myself) in order to win the election. This would mean appealing to the far right wingnuts of the party by using the “gays in the military” and “gay marriage” issues. Barnes explicitly cites these issues.

First, on a point of clarification, Barnes is wrong is when he says about gays in the military, “This is not a popular issue.” A recent CNN poll finds that 79% of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly, and Zogby poll from 2006 finds that 73% of service members are comfortable with gays and lesbians. (These and other related poll results here.)

The left side of the blogosphere is all in an uproar over the comments. I don’t like that this happens to be a true statement, but it is true that McCain will win friends from the krazy kristian kooks by bashing gays. This has been a winning issue for Republicans for a while now (there’s yet no real price to pay for homophobia), and the recent California ruling can certainly be used to inflame that important Republican base. So the fact is, (while I don’t like it) it’s going to happen, and it’s just a matter of time.

On the other hand, Juan Williams makes a good point as he keeps asking, “who else are they going to vote for?” The fact is, McCain doesn’t have to play the GLBT card, as the krazy kristians certainly are not going to vote for Obama, and unlike what Barnes says, they are not going to sit home and allow a black man to move into the White House. They will come out and vote for McCain just because he’s already said once that he supports Arizona anti-gay marriage amendment…that’s all it takes.

Which Kids Grow Up to Be Liberals and Which Become Conservative

 Culture, Politics, Society  Comments Off on Which Kids Grow Up to Be Liberals and Which Become Conservative
Mar 202006
 

A few months ago, the Pew Research Center (bastion of right-wing political thought) issued results of a?poll talking about who was happier…conservatives or liberals. Not surprisingly, the study, which got a lot of main stream media attention, found that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.

At this exact moment in time, does that come as a big surprise to you. I mean, who do you think is happier, George Bush or John Kerry, Dick Cheney or Al Gore?

However, a more serious and long-term scientific study has determined that whiny children grow up to be rigid and politically conservative. Self-reliant, confident kids grow up to be liberals.

This is not wishful thinking by liberals. University of California at Berkley professor Jack Block and his late wife, Jeanne Block, tracked almost one hundred children for two decades. From nursery school on, the kids were studied and interviewed–without any sense of political bias (as back in nursery school, few of the kids really cared about politics).

Block’s decades long research found that the whiniest, least confident kids were those who grew up to be uncomfortable with ambiguity, who toed a rigid line on social issues, and who were, for the most part, right wingers. The kids who were loose, interesting, and willing to challenge authority ended up being liberals.

Alito's America A Scary Place

 Politics, Right Wingnuts, The Courts  Comments Off on Alito's America A Scary Place
Oct 312005
 

I might as well get a post about Bush’s Supreme Court Nominee out of the way. In bowing to the religious fanatics on the right, he’s pretty much sealed the fate of our Constitutional rights to be left alone by the government.

The right wing demanded the withdrawal of Harriet Miers so she could be replaced with a judge who met their rigid, ideological litmus test. This morning, the conservatives got what they wanted. President Bush will nominate Third Circuite Appeal Court Judge Samuel Alito as the replacement for swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor. (In contrast, John Roberts replaced the very conservative William Rehnquist.) On NBC’s Today Show, law professor Jonathan Turley said there "will be no one to the right of Sam Alito" on the Supreme Court. Alito’s record supports Turley’s view. His history of right-wing judicial activism will be a key issue during his hearings.

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view and also voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” Summary judgment allows a case to be dismissed before it goes to trial. [Nathanson v.Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]