Whoo - THAT was a spine-building exercise!
Kasia July 10th, 2008
I’ve posted before about the Lord sending me “spine-building exercises”. Well, I just had another one.
I’ve had a bunch of missed calls that my caller ID identifies as “Levin for…” and I had idly wondered which Levin was trying to get money from me - Carl (Senator) or Sander (Representative). I live in Sander’s district, but I’ve written to Carl before; and with political lists being the tetchy things they are, anything is possible. I have gotten mail from the Republican Jewish Coalition before, even though I am neither Republican nor Jewish. So you never know.
Well, the phone just rang and it was “Levin for” again. I decided to pick up to satisfy my curiosity, Google searches having already failed to resolve the issue.
It was neither Levin. It was the Obama campaign.
Now, I have a high school friend who is working the Obama campaign. He gets sent around the country “trying to win hearts and minds”, as he puts it. If anyone might persuade me to soften my stance on Obama, it would be him - he’s smart, articulate, knew me pretty well in high school, and (I think) is smart enough and open-minded enough to actually hear my critiques and concerns and respond to them. I don’t think even he’d be able to persuade me, but if anyone could, it would be him.
Instead of my suave, smart high school friend, I had a clearly nervous kid who sounded like he might have been early in college, at the oldest, stumbling over his basic talking points.
I was courteous, and I was honest. I told him, upon being asked, that I was NOT an Obama supporter; that I was not registered with a party; that one of my biggest objections to Obama is his extreme position on abortion, which seemed to surprise him. So I asked if he was aware that Obama had opposed the Infants Born Alive Protection Act. He suggested that what Obama maybe thought was that the federal government had no business stepping in; that the decision should be left to the woman.
I said “I think if you look at the record, you’ll find that you’re mistaken about Obama’s thoughts on the federal government stepping in; because he’s already said that his first priority as President would be to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which essentially strips states of any ability to regulate abortion at all. Now, if you were to say that the Feds shouldn’t be involved in abortion but it should be left to the states, I think you’d have an argument to make - and a Constitutional one at that -” here he interjected and said, “Yeah, that’s what Roe says” - and I said “- and that’s fine, but apparently Obama agrees with some lobbyists who don’t think Roe goes far enough.” His response to that?
“Well, but if you think of the alternative, McCain, he’s more likely to appoint justices…” and something about “women’s rights”.
At that point I almost laughed out loud. I told him that I was pro-life, and that he and I had very different ideas of what women’s rights were and whether abortion was good for women.
He was obviously keen to get off the phone, but dutifully stuck to his script and thanked me for my time, said he hoped I’d still consider Obama and “sticking with the Democrats” - I told him I’d love to consider “sticking with the Democrats” if they’d have nominated a less extreme candidate. He said something about a “lot of other issues”, and we ended the conversation.
I did tell him that I respected his enthusiasm and what he was trying to do. And I concluded the conversation with “God bless you.” (I’m sure his receiver was already halfway to the cradle by then.)
He’s right. There are a lot of other issues. And those matter.
But everything I’ve seen about Obama so far, even putting life issues aside for the moment, makes me mistrust him. I’m sure he’s a genial, likable guy in his personal life, but he’s just shown himself to be too “any way the wind blows” for me. I guess the only thing I can say for him is that, in spite of some of the things she’s said that have damaged his campaign thus far, he hasn’t thrown his wife under the bus, so to speak. And I’ll trust that that’s because he loves her, not because he knows that throwing her under the bus would poll badly.
With respect to the kid on the phone, I wish I’d had the presence of mind to tell him some of the other things that bother me about Obama - though frankly, maybe from a tactical standpoint it’s better that I not have. You know, so he can’t be prepared to answer them from the next person? :-p OK, that was mean - I’m sorry, Kid From the Obama Campaign.
Since the kid wasn’t terribly confident, I don’t think I really gained a whole vertebra…but it was definitely good practice for me to speak up for life.
Likeable=charismatic.
That said, Mr. Clinton is also charismatic….
I need a running mate.
I already have a slogan:
“Jaibee for VP.”
Excellent, is it not?
“Where do you stand on abortion?”
“I’m Catholic.”
“Yeah, okay, but where do you stand on abortion?”
“I’m REALLY Catholic.”
I can TOTALLY see that whole conversation going on in my head!!!
I really don’t like election time. Lately it’s just become a time to pick the lesser of two evils to run our country… If someone actually had the gall (and the money for that matter) to run as independant with the same views as 75% of this country, we might actually get a decent candidate… I don’t know how many years I’ve actually gone to vote (for the “other guy”) and EVERY person I talked to voted for the “other guy” too. Kinda makes you wonder how the “other guy” got put in office! This year, “Decision 2008″, next year “Tourture 2009″. UGH!!!
Anyhoo…Cletus for prez in 2016, Jaibee for VP, and I’ll be the First Lady! lol
Don’t let your religious blindness get in the way of your civic duties. Separate church and state, always. Both will grow stronger.
Joe:
Church and state are separate, as per the Constitution, in that the government is prohibited from instituting a state church (as in the case of the C of E) or from preventing people from freely exercising their religion.
There is nothing stated OR implied in the First Amendment that suggests it is impermissible for people’s faith to inform their civic life. Which is good, because from what I’ve seen it is actually impossible to sincerely practice your faith (whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or another faith) without it affecting how you live the rest of your life. If I go to church on Sunday and ignore my faith the rest of the week, it’s (a) going to be a very hollow faith, and (b) you and those like you would quickly point out that I was a hypocrite.
It would be unconstitutional for me as a Congresswoman to try to establish the Catholic Church as the “official” church of the United States. It would not be unconstitutional for me as a Congresswoman to refuse to support FOCA, even if that decision were based partly or completely on my Catholic beliefs. Learn the difference.
Separation of church and state, as you posit it, is de facto state-sponsored atheism; and I would argue that that in itself borders on violating the establishment clause, because it establishes your beliefs about religion as the state’s position.
And I find it ironic that you suggest that your interpretation of “separation of church and state” would in some bizarre way strengthen the “church”. After all, you as a professed atheist have NO interest in seeing churches “grow stronger”, and that leads me to be skeptical of your sincerity.
Now. I WILL say that a situation like the C of E, or of the Orthodox state churches, is NOT desirable. Because since the government has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, church is naturally going to be subordinated to it, and will ultimately become the pawn of the government. That’s bad. We agree there.
But your comment implies that if my religious beliefs (you call it blindness) are part of my motivation for not voting for Barack Obama, I should shove them aside and vote for him anyway. I call BS.
First, not all of my objections to abortion and other life issues are religiously based.
Second, I have other reasons for not voting for Obama that are completely not religiously grounded - it was just simplest with that cold caller to stick to one issue, and that one issue was enough anyway.
Third, Barack Obama is not entitled to my vote. Even if I were a registered Democrat (which I’m not), he has to earn it, just like anyone else in elected office. Sometimes people can receive it just by providing an alternative to their opponent (as in Anyone But So-and-So), but that doesn’t fit this situation.
Finally, I have been carefully discharging my civic duties since my father took me to register to vote on my 18th birthday. I’ll thank you not to tell me how I ought to be discharging them. Especially when your advice boils down to “think like I think”.
God bless,
Yer Kuzzin
1) The founding documents of this country trump the bible in every which way, because they are based on reality, tangibility, and construction, rather than superstition and buncombe. Moreover they *allow* for that superstition and buncombe to have their proper place in the world: as individuals desire it.
2) The first (and thus far only) member of your cult to ascend to the highest office in the land, John F. Kennedy, clearly and intelligently delineated how these two must be separated:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers .html
3) Christianity at any rate is self defeating and heretical, as it breaks at least three parts of the Decalogue: “no other gods before me”, “no idols”, and a perversion of the Sabbath day.
4) Therefore, Christianity loses.
5) At any rate, what’s more important come November is how we’re going to take on the dread curse of Mohammedanism, how the West as a unified force can do it.
6) Anyone who doesn’t jack off at least three times a day is a queer. (Just wanted to quote Lester Bangs.)
7) The cheese stands alone. (Can’t remember whom I yoinked this one from.)
ta,
JW
he founding documents of this country trump the bible in every which way, because they are based on reality, tangibility, and construction
Tangibility, etc. You mean like that “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” bit? Neither the Creator nor those rights are tangible.
And with respect to “construction” - if you mean as in “to construct”, like “to build” - good grief, what do you call the New Testament?!
The founding documents of this or any country can ONLY trump the Bible IF your presumption that they are not the inspired, inerrant Word of God is correct. IF they are the Word of God - and I realize that you think that is so unlikely as to be negligible, but IF they are - then that changes things significantly, n’est-ce pas?
Now. The New Testament (very thoughtfully and conveniently, for a document that you think is based on “buncombe”) specifically states that Christians are to respect legitimate authority, including government authority; and that we are to “render unto Caesar [the government] that which is Caesar’s”.
I am NOT trying to instate Catholicism as the law of the land. However, individuals have (quite rightly) been voting based at least in part on their religious convictions since they have started voting. That’s part of what “representation” means. You go down to the Bible Belt and run for Congress, and you’re going to get laughed out of the South, because you neither respect nor represent the views of the people you would be seeking to represent. I am not obligated to vote for someone whose views are radically different than mine simply because the differences may be based in part or in full on religious views. You are likewise not required to vote for, say, Joe Lieberman; since he is one of those crazy people who actually believe in God. You know, like 75% or more of the country?
And I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Roe v. Wade is neither infallible nor irrevocable. Supreme Courts have made bad decisions before (cf. Plessy v. Ferguson, Dredd Scott). And Roe even says that a woman’s right to privacy in the matter of abortion is NOT absolute - a point which FOCA seeks to nullify by removing any and all state regulations on abortion. You should’ve had enough Poli Sci in your minor to know that that’s a usurpation of states’ rights by the feds.
I’ll save the Christian apologetics on the points you mentioned (the alleged violations of the Ten Commandments) for another context, because this comment is quite long enough already. I will, however, ask: if it’s “self-defeating”, why has Christianity been around for 2,000 years and why does it have the most adherents of any religion in the world? And as an atheist who has renounced the Jewish faith, why do you care if we’re heretics?
Your “cheese stands alone” was yoinked from a nursery school song, btw - “The Farmer in the Dell”.
Finally, I will say this: I value free speech above almost any other public good. However, free speech is also not without limits. You are coming into my Internet “home” when you comment on this blog. Please extend basic common courtesy and keep the outright insults to a minimum. It would also be nice if you responded to my points instead of replying with non sequiturs and crude quotes about masturbation.
Love,
Yer Kuzzin
Ain’t no insults, just words, and ideas, which are worth something.
Why has Xianity been along for so long? Because people fall for the lowest common denominator. Just like P.T. Barnum. They think with their torsos, their guts and hearts, instead of their heads. And yes, one should have all these in alignment. I’ve posited it as: Brain, Heart, Guts & Gonads. But the Brain is at the top.
I do value ideas, even when they’re swathed in the crap you spew, which is why I haven’t banned you or turned on comment moderation as of yet. If your brain is indeed at the top, how about responding to the substance of my responses intelligently and without making snide comments (i.e. “the dread curse of Mohammedanism”; “your cult”; etc.)?
My point in bringing this up to you is not so much that this particular set of comments was rude, but that you’ve been unnecessarily insulting in something like half the comments you’ve left on the blog. I’m not a polemicist, and I don’t appreciate polemics. As I said, this is my Internet home, and I expect civil discourse in my home. You’re becoming the guy who always comes to the party, drinks way too much, and pukes on the couch; and your “words and ideas” are steadily decreasing in proportion to the vomit. Keep the “ideas” at the forefront and the vomit in the background, please. That’s all I ask, and it isn’t unreasonable. If your only purpose is to come here and tell people they’re nuts for believing in God, or argue with us about why we believe in God, I think you’re wasting your time; but I don’t really care that you choose to waste your time that way. Just do it with a modicum of civility.
On to your comment. I submit to you that Christianity took off like it did because of the witness of the Apostles (minus, of course, Judas), and other people who saw Christ after the Resurrection. Do you know what happened to the remaining eleven Apostles? Of all of Jesus’ twelve closest followers, only one died a natural death - John, who (coincidentally?) was the only one of them who stayed by Christ through the Crucifixion, along with the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. The others all died horrible deaths.
Bartholomew was skinned alive. Peter was crucified upside-down. Thomas was boiled in oil.
Imagine that you are leading a fledgling religion, and you are (as you posit) just in it to sucker people. The authorities are none too friendly, and your comrades start to be gorily executed. Don’t you think that you would slink off and shut up for a little while, until the fuss died down, or maybe try to find a slightly less deadly line of work?
But they didn’t. They kept preaching and winning converts. And I submit to you that they had no reason to do so - they had no reason to have an interest in suffering a brutal martyr’s death - unless they were sure that Jesus was who they said he was. These guys did not have a reason to die for what they were saying if they were just trying to con people.
And moving past the “con” prospect, let’s say they were suffering a mass delusion. I don’t know about you, but I think if I was even the tiniest bit unsure about whether I had seen what I thought I had seen, after the knife peeled off the first strip or two of skin, I think I would say “Um, you know, maybe you’re right - maybe he’s really dead.” But you know, that’s just me. I’m a sucker for not wanting to die a horrible painful death for absolutely no reason.
Words, mere words. Goyim are so hoity-toity.
Xianity was an invention of Saul. If that man Joshua of Nazareth existed, he was just another rebel out in the baked sun of the Levant ready to blow. People, human beings, do and think strange things under duress. He may have been a good synthesizer of ideas but he was no messiah. And he was put to death for heresy — not that I agree with that notion, but that was the law of the land at the time.
End of story. Now go forth and be good to your fellow man.
Two things:
1) “Why has Xianity been along for so long? Because people fall for the lowest common denominator. ”
It seems to me that there are several religions that are even older than Christianity - what does your statement say about adherents of those faiths?
2) “Now go forth and be good to your fellow man.”
Exactly! It might do you some good to heed your own advice once in a while (just sayin’ …)
….
K, even my angry-with-organized-religion husband is turned against ya, Waldman.
If atheists are so much smarter than believers, why do they so often piss of people who agree with them, or are sympathetic to their views?
Seems like smart folks would be better at convincing people….
Don’t let your religious blindness get in the way of your civic duties. Separate church and state, always. Both will grow stronger.
Let’s try this shoe on the other foot, shall we? “Don’t let your philosophical blindness get in the way of your civic duties. Separate atheism and state, always. Both will grow stronger.”
If you assert that, as Christians, we shouldn’t permit our faith to inform our politics, then your atheism shouldn’t inform yours, either.
One of my friends is a pro-life atheist - she has reasoned her pro-life stance completely without regard to divinity. If she were to support pro-life candidates and policies, she would be aligning her voting preferences with those of pro-life theists. Should she avoid doing so, or are those strictures only to be placed on those of us who vote on the basis of religious conviction?
If the world’s people are ever going to come together and unite over any one thing, it will not be Xianity, nor Judaism, nor Mohammedanism. It will be music (specifically rock and roll, the tune for all) and money (which is empty and amoral and absolute zero and for those reasons precisely perfect as a medium of exchange). Everything else is commentary.
At least we now know what “god” is to Joe Waldman…
….Rock and roll?
Now I hope more than ever that you’re joking. Nobody could be that shallow.
Could they?
Now I hope more than ever that you’re joking. Nobody could be that shallow.
No kidding. And unfortunately, the rock-n-roll bit leaves me out of Waldman’s one-world dream, since I can’t stand most of it.