Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
‘Conservatives’ Who Gathered in Colorado a Different Breed
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — You might have thought that a conference with the title “Conservative Call to Action” would feature lots of talk of small government, of Ronald Reagan, of the need to defend traditional values and a capitalist economy. But that would be yesterday’s conservatives.
Instead, at the event held Saturday in this famously conservative town that is home to the nation’s biggest concentration of Christian Right organizations, rabid Florida pastor Terry Jones, whose televised burning of Korans set off riots overseas that left several people dead, claimed that he didn’t hate Muslims at all — and then went on to rant that Islam “makes Nazism, fascism look like charity.” He was joined by other “conservatives” who warned that the universities are brimming with “commies,” that all liberals are evil, that President Obama only won re-election through “massive voter fraud,” and that the president’s health care plan is “Marxism to the core.”
Symptomatic of the shift of a broad swath of the conservative movement to outright paranoid fantasy was the appearance of Dinesh D’Souza, who was once a respected commentator on the right. D’Souza began to run off the rails with a 2010 Forbes magazine article that he expanded into a book and then into a 2012 film, “2016: Obama’s America.” The article was pilloried by more old-fashioned conservatives, including Daniel Larison, who described it in The American Conservative as “the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written.” The article, book and film argue that Obama is motivated by a dream of undermining Western power.
D’Souza told attendees, in effect, to get over Reagan and turn to the tasks at hand — battling the media (wholly “liberal” since Richard Nixon, he argued), all museums (they’re “liberal,” too) and “95%” of elite universities (whose professors, D’Souza said, are “anti-American”). “Obamaism” is theft, he said, the president does not care about the country, and in any case is aiding Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Jones was something of a star at the conference, whose audience topped out at 50 or 60 and was hosted by a group of the same name, Conservative Call To Action (CCTA). In this crowd, it probably boosted his credibility that he’s been banned from entering Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom because of his anti-Muslim hate speech, as his appearance as No. 2 on a “10 Most Wanted” list published by Al Qaeda certainly did. Jones described how he returned to the United States from missionary work abroad in 2008, only to be “horrified” by the country’s finances and the spread of teen pregnancies, abortions and homosexuality.
Jones offered the crowd red meat, saying that Americans need to unite, to recruit more true believers to the far right — and to be willing to die. Then he told his fans that he was off to South Carolina, one of the nation’s most conservative states, to talk to a Republican ally there about a run for an office he didn’t identify. He added that Islam was “evil,” “dangerous” and the “greatest violator of human rights.”
The conference was hosted by CCTA President Jennifer WarHawk, a self-described former atheist who also founded a group called Moms’ and Dads’ Associated Society Helping to Educate Conservative Constitutionalists. Leading off the event’s speakers, WarHawk said she was inspired by two things to organize the gathering: the death of right-wing commentator Andrew Breitbart (whose facts-be-damned website infamously and without any basis attacked former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod as a black racist) and her work in Colorado campaigning for Rick Santorum (who, after quitting his run for the GOP presidential nomination, started writing a column for WorldNetDaily, a far-right website that once ran a six-part series claiming that eating soy beans causes homosexuality).
WarHawk’s Facebook page features the new radical call from opponents of gun control — “Molon Labe,” ancient Greek for “come and take.” The phrase, attributed to King Leonidas I of Sparta as he defied Persian armies at the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, has been popularized by the Oath Keepers, a radical antigovernment “Patriot” group. The Oath Keepers is made up of present and former military and law enforcement personnel, and is obsessed with government plots aimed at taking Americans’ guns and imprisoning all who resist in concentration camps.
Another speaker typical of the new “conservatives” was Marine Corps veteran Bill Finlay, a former deputy sheriff and U.S. marshal known on the right-wing speaking circuit as “Wild Bill for America.” Describing himself as a “liberalologist,” Finlay said the ultimate goal of liberalism is to install a totalitarian government. He said the universities are full of “commies.” He said liberals will use the mental health system to attack gun owners. And he proposed to create small “special forces” teams to “invade liberal territory,” “expose the liberal agenda,” and “sow chaos” among liberal groups.
Up next was Colorado-based activist Michelle Morin, whose website features links to Muslim-bashing groups like Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs blog (where Geller has published claims like the assertion that President Obama is the “love child” of black radical Malcolm X and that the president’s mother was a “crack whore”). Morin went through a litany of complaints, saying that Obama’s health care plan was “Marxism to the core,” that “illegals” were bad for America, that same-sex marriage was damaging the nation and its freedom. If the left gets its way, Morin warned as have others on the far right, the first people targeted will be people of faith.
What CCTA hoped to accomplish with its conference was the building of a “worldwide Conservative movement that is highly networked and connected.” But the more important thing that came out of the gathering may have been more evidence of the increasingly unhinged rhetoric of many of those on the political right. In an emblematic moment, as WarHawk tried to end the conference with thanks to her volunteers, she was interrupted by the shrieking of a fire alarm that drove the entire crowd out the comfortable hotel and into the frigid outdoors.
on March 25th, 2013 at 11:46 am
This is not a damn bit different from the grandiose paranoid schizophrenics that have been allowed to harass some of our regulars. One has located the object of his obsessions outside this forum. Others could. I am asking our Hays Office to control this type of behavior.
on March 25th, 2013 at 11:46 am
Oh, what I wouldn’t have given to be the one who pulled that fire alarm.
I went to the University of Florida, where it was impossible to go two days without seeing someone (often a child) wearing one of Jones’s delightful ‘Islam is of the Devil’ tee shirts.
Remember, Dove World Outreach Center is the only group that has ever stood in solidarity with the Westboro Baptist Church.
on March 25th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
It is certainly pleasing that only about 50 to 60 attendees showed up, but then, who knows how many were dissuaded from attending by the snow storm.
I would expect that some social historian or social scientist in the future will have a field day dissecting the insanity here. I expect that it has to do with a “moral panic” (over LGBT folks, demographic changes) coupled with rabid and extremely kooky religiousity.
I do wonder at what point — for example — non-kooky Christians are going to tell hate-mongers like Jones to shut up — or at least issue a disclaimer that he doesn’t speak for the vast majority of their co-religionists.
Although considering the new tactic of pushing for laws that would allow one to discriminate against “protected groups” because otherwise you are being repressed religiously, it may take a while before the disturbed revert to hollering on street corners again rather than being able to rent hotel conference rooms.
on March 25th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Also, I would love to hear more about “WarHawk’s” story. I am always suspicious of “people that used to be____” you fill in the blanks. As I might have mentioned before, back in the 1980s and 1990s, those of us in the Pagan world were treated to various folks who claimed to have been “Satanists” and “Witches” (they never bothered to differentiate), who had seen/participated in/ conducted human sacrifices, etc. and, now that they had become Christians, were on the lecture circuit, warning church groups, law enforcement groups, and anyone else who would listen to them.
As it turned out they were frauds, but they certainly made a splash, confirming in the eyes of the righteous that Pagans (Pagans, Satanists — Anyone who as at all “alternative” in their views) were murdering babies and virgins by the thousands. We got rid of one such pest by challenging him to turn himself into the police if he had really committed murder, because if he had, he belonged in jail.
Unfortunately, “the public” often listens to folks like this–just as at least some of them listen to the folks screeching that the US is about to come under Shariah law or be invaded from within by commie college professors.
And the “liberal” media? Huh? I will never get how anyone with an IQ above 65 still believes this one.
on March 25th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Kudos to the SPLC for recognizing the existence of Conservatives who are not like this.
on March 25th, 2013 at 4:25 pm
When I read about groups such as those listed above and the public rants they are given too; it always amazes me just how many people we have running around in our country that live in fear and work so diligently to create fear in others.
It’s not enough that they must be the doomsayers in their own homes but they must bring it to the streets and try to forcibly convert others.
It’s disgusting and repulsive. Who listens to anyone that tries to sale them on the fact that soybeans are creating homosexuals? Honestly?
It’s insane! The nurturing of their own fears and ignorance is what’s tearing this country apart.
on March 25th, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Typo in the seventh paragraph: “is causes”.
on March 25th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
With reality like this, who needs fantasy? Pass the popcorn! But watch our collective back, too.
on March 25th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
A “worldwide Conservative movement that is highly networked and connected.”
Hmmm, not very alarming.
A cellular network would be alarming, for if the organization were to move into violence, it would be difficult to penetrate, monitor or disassemble.
As for 50-60 attendees, again, not highly worrisome. Even if they claim themselves leaders of a group in their locality.
For, there are a few things true in the world. There are those who are rabid and potentially dangerous, then there are those who spout off at the mouth, agree with the rabid one, but stay home when the rabid one actually does something unlawful.
And just as likely to vote against their group in the privacy of the voting booth.
Just as the Prohibitionist Party ended up, with its “massive” membership of 500 or so members, with 230 or so votes in the last election. They couldn’t even get half of their own party to vote along party lines.
I’m far more concerned with armed groups, who speak right on the edge of sedition. For, what do they say in private meetings and planning sessions?
on March 26th, 2013 at 12:46 am
Hyena like grifters out to whip up every paranoid schizophrenic and assorted crank they can reach, because it brings in cash and power.
The leaders of this “movement” have a far different psychology going on than its followers. The followers are unpleasant and nuts, while the leaders are simply antisocial chislers.
on March 26th, 2013 at 8:06 am
If you’re a mediocre, talentless person with a thirst for fame, no potential for honest employment, and no soul, you can still become a right-wing demagogue.
on March 26th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
I conclude that Leftists don’t like it when people on the Right exercise their right of freedom of speech.
Leftists only advocate freedom of speech when their views are expressed. They attempt to suppress all other points of view. This is the only conclusion I gather from this story or the comments above.
“Why is this,” I ask myself. I believe Leftists have a narrative of history from the 1960′s that they were protesting and trying to change the world. When some other group with a different worldview does the same , the typical Leftist is shocked, stunned, and dumbfounded. They think conservatives are not ‘supposed’ to organize. Conservatives are not ‘allowed’ to protest in their world. Conservatives are not even allowed to exist in their world.
That’s why whenever a right wing group holds a protest march or rally, left wing groups like Anti-racist Action start rioting and attacking people in the streets, and I’ve seen them yelling and screaming. They’re filled with hate and don’t even want us to exist or exercise any right of free speech.
on March 26th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
I attended that meeting…and I beg to differ on the impressions that were received by the author of this article.
1. It was good of this person to notice the ‘different breed’ in the room…That was the intent. The RINO’s are losing but the conservatives are alive and well.
2.”outright paranoid fantasy”, appears to be not only the feelings of the author of this post, but of the commentators here as well.
3.The choices of words here are not what one would expect from an actual journalist ie: “rabid, rant, off the rails,facts-be-damned websites,attacks on any and everything right, invading liberal territory, commie, totalatarian gov’ts, exposing liberal agendas,and my favorite,…increasingly unhinged rhetoric of the political right..”…whoa!…wait…”Hyena like grifters…?”
4.What is an ‘unkooky Christian’…or their co-religionists?
What is happening here is as basic as chickens and eggs or bread and butter…This group doesn’t agree with you, so you ‘demonize’ them to one another. I’m sorry but this group has less credibility with me than those decent people I sat among last Saturday. At the very least they were honest…and at the most very pleasant…which is so much more than I can say for anyone here!
on March 26th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Yes, Edward, anytime I don’t march in lock step with the, uh, ” Progressives” on here, I hear a chorus of theories that I never went to school, that I’m a racist, that I’m Islamophobic, that I’m just a dumb kid, etc. etc. Fact is, I went through the same Government schools that they did, the ones that teach us to look to, guess who, the same government that runs the schools, for all our needs, wants, and solutions to whatever problem they are directing our attention to this week. Possibly the SPLC could enhance their excellent “Teaching Tolerance” programs to allow common sense a voice.
on March 26th, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Yes, nothing says common sense like burning a handful of Qu’rans, despite the fact that you know the world is watching.
Until you disavow people like Terry Jones, we will never take you seriously. As if anyone takes you seriously right now.
on March 26th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Also, the last time I checked, nobody here was attempting to stop you folks from organizing and meeting.
Freedom of speech is not freedom FROM speech and criticism.
And ARA yelled and screamed at you, Edward? Oh dear! Perhaps you shouldn’t have been marching through Skokie, IL in the first place if you are so sensitive. Poor baby!
on March 26th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Edward,
1. Not every commenter here is a “leftist.”
2. No one is “suppressing” or “not allowing” any points of view here. Your comment was published, wasn’t it?
3. ARA is hardly a typical “leftist” group. Its purpose is to disrupt racist activities, not promote progressive causes.
And therein lies the rub of your paranoid, false-equivalency-laden rant. To you, “not allowing” ideas is the same as “not agreeing with” them. Do you know how crazy you sound?
on March 26th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Aron, I agree that burning Korans is an extremely negative act. Most Muslims are well educated and know that anyone who would do this is not following the precepts of Christianity in any way. Of course there is never any mention here of the constant killing of Christians in Muslim countries, or the literacy rates of the countries that riot the most when a Koran is burned. Here’s a small breeze of reality:
Egypt, 59%
Pakistan50%
Yemen50%
Afganistan 28%
Of the people can read a Koran, or a Phone Book.
on March 26th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Sam, you have yet to display common sense. You merely parrot right wing talking points in a forum that is tolerant enough to allow opinions that most consider ignorant, ill informed or plain repugnant. Do we really need to go in to the details?
on March 26th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hard left group. Socialistic would be too soft of a word. They cannot tolerate any opposing opinions of a moral nature.
Sam Malloy: Paster Terry Jones is definitely a Christian who follows strongly Christian precepts. It’s amazing that Christians are held up to their belief system (don’t remember burning a koran as being necessarily banned) but others are not.
on March 26th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
When Jews, Christians, etc stood up to the Nazi’s, were they then considered Nazi bashers? No. When they warned about the bad things the Nazi’s did were they labeled Nazi bashers? No, they were considered hero’s. It seems as if SPLC is against Jews and Christians when they warn about what they have witnessed and heard. I guess they can dish it out but cannot take it. Christians are the number 1 group in the world that is persecuted and by muslims largely. Does the SPLC go to any lengths to speak out against the hideous violence and murder of Christians? Doubt it.
on March 26th, 2013 at 6:01 pm
@wrongheifer:
we need say no more about your post on march 26th.
Your chose the name for yourself and it speaks volumes on your behalf.
on March 26th, 2013 at 6:04 pm
@wrongheifer:
the postings here do exceed the sixth grade reading level that you find in most mass media. So if you are looking for a mass media reading level you will do best to look elsewhere.
on March 26th, 2013 at 6:17 pm
@Gregory: March 26th post: The topics here can be highly intelligent. Your assessment of this forum is incorrect.
@Aron: March 26th Post: I agree with you completely.
@Sam Molloy: March 26th post, I agree that Muslims would not see that as an act of Christianity. However, it depends on the group of Muslims.
We can no more group all Muslims into one category as we could group all Christians into one category.
The extremist Christians here can be very bigoted and I do not identify people like that with any form of serious Christianity. It’s just something for them to do on a Sunday or a Holiday.
And Wrongheifer, may like to know that the bigoted Christians I’ve come across can be very nice and friendly the whole time they are holding a knife just waiting to stab the unsuspecting in the back.
A group of people no doubt you might find very pleasant to hang around.
But a great deal of Americans do not.
on March 26th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
I read my notes and they were positive…I should have written this article…You’d sound reasonable at a minimum, not like a bunch of “haters”.
on March 26th, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Wrongheifer –
My comment about “non-kooky Christians” was meant to designate those folks who follow the teachings of Jesus (e.g., charity toward the poor, not judging others) as opposed to the kooky ones who:
1. Believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and come up with explanations about how the dinosaurs were housed on Noah’s Arc.
2. Want to impose their own religious beliefs regarding “Creation” on public school science education, whether others in the class (or the school) share their beliefs or not.
3. Believe variously (some of them) that Muslims are evil, clothing purchased at GoodWill may need to be exorcised of demons that may be possessing them (Pat Robertson, you know), that homosexuals are also possessed by demons (which is why they are gay).
4. Have no problem with some of their kooky co-religionists (NOTE: I DO NOT MEAN ALL — MEANING NON-KOOKY–CHRISTIANS) attempting to make being gay a capital offense deserving of life in prison or death sentences in other countries, such as Uganda, because they can’t manage to kill gays in the U.S.
5. Elevate fetuses or even possibly fertilized eggs over the women who are pregnant — even in cases of rape or if the woman’s life is in danger. In other words, a return to the Medieval “woman as vessel” idea that basically views women as way less than men.
6. Come up with apologetics for slavery (“It’s in the Bible,” and “Blacks benefitted because they were converted to Christianity”).
Do I really need to go on? If you believe any or all of these things, good for you. However, you do not have the right to foist them on me.
I was, unfortunately, raised on this stuff. It is toxic, and it is cultish. Happily, the majority of Christians don’t subscribe to such beliefs. On the other hand, the ones who are infected with such fear-based and domineering beliefs do enough damage on their own.
on March 27th, 2013 at 5:38 am
“I conclude that Leftists don’t like it when people on the Right exercise their right of freedom of speech.”
I conclude that you are yet another person who can’t tell the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from criticism. The first is guaranteed by the constitution, the second is not provided. You have the right to speak freely, and others have the right to criticize it.
“Leftists only advocate freedom of speech when their views are expressed. They attempt to suppress all other points of view. This is the only conclusion I gather from this story or the comments above.”
How is criticizing that point of view an “attempt to suppress” it? Did the article call for the organization in question to be banned? Why is the right so afraid to have people give exposure to its ideas?
“Why is this,” I ask myself. I believe Leftists have a narrative of history from the 1960’s that they were protesting and trying to change the world. When some other group with a different worldview does the same , the typical Leftist is shocked, stunned, and dumbfounded.”
Well, while there were a LOT of ideological problems with the New Left of the 60′s and the way they saw the world, in an objective sense they were generally on the right side of the moral questions of the day- civil rights, keeping young men out of Vietnam, women’s rights, etc.
I’d love to hear your arguments against those things.
” They think conservatives are not ’supposed’ to organize. Conservatives are not ‘allowed’ to protest in their world. Conservatives are not even allowed to exist in their world.”
Funny, looking at the ratings of Fox News, right wing domination of talk radio, and thousands of blogs, it looks like Conservatives are more than allowed to exist. Stop playing the persecuted victim; this is why people call you types paranoid.
“That’s why whenever a right wing group holds a protest march or rally, left wing groups like Anti-racist Action start rioting and attacking people in the streets, and I’ve seen them yelling and screaming. They’re filled with hate and don’t even want us to exist or exercise any right of free speech.”
ARA protests the meetings of racist, often openly racist groups, not just any conservatives. Of course these days open racism and Tea Party politics practically go hand in hand, but nonetheless it really looks like you’re trying to slip something past all of us here.
on March 27th, 2013 at 5:42 am
“Aron, I agree that burning Korans is an extremely negative act. Most Muslims are well educated and know that anyone who would do this is not following the precepts of Christianity in any way.”
No true Scotsman fallacy.
” Of course there is never any mention here of the constant killing of Christians in Muslim countries, or the literacy rates of the countries that riot the most when a Koran is burned. Here’s a small breeze of reality:
Egypt, 59%
Pakistan50%
Yemen50%
Afganistan 28%
Of the people can read a Koran, or a Phone Book.”
Of course, because:
1. In most Muslim countries Christians are not constantly being killed.
2. This has never been the purpose of the SPLC. They also don’t mention the constant killing of Muslims at the hands of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and for a simple reason- it has nothing to do with the SPLC.
Also I’m just spitballin’ here, but those literacy rates just might have something to do with the fact that all of those nations are extremely poor(and/or have extreme wealth inequality). Plenty of other nations had similar literacy rates before they were fully modernized. The Russian Empire, arguably a Christian theocracy(as the Tsar was seen as God’s representative on Earth), had a literacy rate around 20%.
on March 27th, 2013 at 5:49 am
Wrongheifer(good name), you have earned your own response. Enjoy.
“1. It was good of this person to notice the ‘different breed’ in the room…That was the intent. The RINO’s are losing but the conservatives are alive and well.”
If that’s your intention, don’t be sad when your party continues to lose more elections, and don’t be surprised if people criticize you. Criticism is not the same thing as censorship.
“2.”outright paranoid fantasy”, appears to be not only the feelings of the author of this post, but of the commentators here as well.”
When you accuse Obama of being a Communist and part of a secret plot to hand US sovereignty over to the UN, you’re dealing in paranoid fantasy(and also politically illiterate). If the shoe fits…
“3.The choices of words here are not what one would expect from an actual journalist ie: “rabid, rant, off the rails,facts-be-damned websites,attacks on any and everything right, invading liberal territory, commie, totalatarian gov’ts, exposing liberal agendas,and my favorite,…increasingly unhinged rhetoric of the political right..”…whoa!…wait…”Hyena like grifters…?”
Perhaps you’d like to give us an example of a “real” journalist. Yes, the SPLC Is definitely editorializing here, but I find it odd that a conservative would be upset about that.
“4.What is an ‘unkooky Christian’…or their co-religionists?”
An unkooky Christian, for example, is one who isn’t obsessed with “end times” prophesy, NWO theories, Muslim take-overs, and the like. They don’t scream about persecution just because they aren’t allowed to preach in public schools or lead classes in prayer.
I grew up in what could be termed a “kooky Christian” household, if we define that term by those features. On the other hand, I know and respect many Christians who don’t fit that description. In other words, there is a difference.
“What is happening here is as basic as chickens and eggs or bread and butter…This group doesn’t agree with you, so you ‘demonize’ them to one another.”
Because right-wingers would NEVER engage in demonization. And just for the record, that’s coming from someone who was always sick of those Bush/Hitler comparisons from America’s so-called “left.”
” I’m sorry but this group has less credibility with me than those decent people I sat among last Saturday. At the very least they were honest…and at the most very pleasant…which is so much more than I can say for anyone here!”
Of course you see that group as having more credibility. They’re on your side, so that makes them your team.
on March 27th, 2013 at 8:56 am
Ruslan, if you grew up in such a household and became what we see today, I would truly take my hat off to you, if I were wearing one.
The same also to those here who have given such reasoned and cogent answers to these dictatorial trolls. Me, I have a hard time speaking while puking from the truly emetic dextromemes, DARVO, and lies.
on March 27th, 2013 at 9:09 am
“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hard left group. Socialistic would be too soft of a word. They cannot tolerate any opposing opinions of a moral nature. ”
Socialistic would be a wholly inappropriate word, and you mistakenly implied that your opinions are moral.
Again, freedom of speech is not freedom of criticism. Express controversial ideas, expect criticism.
on March 27th, 2013 at 10:13 am
@ concerned citizen: You misunderstood my comment to Sam, so I will clarify it for you.
This forum is tolerant enough to allow Sam and his ideological golfing partner JasonAnnieEzraEugeneEdward to spout opinions that are ill informed, ignorant and repugnant. Sam’s contributions have largely consisted of repeating what he has read at WorldNutDaily or heard on AM talk radio.
Is that assessment still incorrect?
on March 27th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Yep, that’s totally reasonable, Ruslan. An unkooky Christian is one who is so benign in his outward identity that he basically ISN’T A CHRISTIAN. Got it!
on March 27th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Gregory –
While I sometimes scratch my head at some of Sam’s comments, I also agree with him from time to time, and I don’t mind engaging him because he is willing to entertain the thoughts of others. I believe that the other “regulars” pretty much agree that we have a “agree to disagree” thing going with Sam.
Other Recent Visitors to this Site:
I have to say that I find it unfortunate that some of the self-proclaimed “conservatives” who visit this site feel so embattled. I – and I believe I speak generally for some of the regulars — have a real problem with inflamatory speech, whether it is against LGBT folks, Muslims, persons of color, immigrants, and non-Christians. Yes — there are zealots on all sides, HOWEVER (and it is a big HOWEVER, hence the caps), many of the self-identified “Right Wing” folks have taken advocacy for their points quantum light-years over the top to the point where I believe that some of their leaders bear watching, since some of them advocate violence.
Hey — if you are a Christian and am happy in your faith, I am pleased for you. However, I don’t embrace your faith, and I find it both baffling and worrisome that at least some of your more strident co-religionists believe that they are called to impose it on the rest of us.
If you don’t want to hang out with Muslims, immigrants, or people of color — that is up to you. It is also your loss, since if you were to deal with them one-on-one, you would find that many of them are nice and funny and also would think that you were nice and funny, absent the rhetoric. But I will speak up if you feel the need to impose your prejudices on others outside of your personal dealings. That isn’t what America is supposed to be about.
Fear-mongering is also a worrisome and potentially violent act, in that it can cause otherwise reasonable people to take actions that they never would have taken, sans a lot of lies. Shariah is not being adopted here, and the Muslim family that lives down the street is not automatically your enemy.
I don’t know just how to address the mindset that some have that leads them to believe that “others” are out to get them, or must be suppressed lest God send a lightning bolt down to smite the classroom where evolution is being taught. It is a mindset that is foreign to me, I believe, because I like people and I look at people as individuals and I don’t automatically assume that they are out to “get” me. I have a relative who is convinced, however, that all non-white people are just biding their time, waiting to slit all of our (meaning “white people’s) throats as soon as they get the chance. I do not believe this, but I find it worrisome that there are apparently many other people who do. You live in a scary place. And the people who fill your heads with that sort of paranoia are either crazy themselves (always a possibility) or they think that doing this will give them fame, money, notoriety, etc.
Our world is going to be in for an uphill battle with climate change, lack of decent drinking water, and other challenges coming down the pike. Does it really make sense to waste all of your efforts “closing ranks” when, in fact, our best hope for a sustainable future that is reasonably famine and war free is working with other people?
on March 27th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
To be fair, most Muslim contries have a very high literacy rate and a great educational system. The very ones that kill Christians routinely, and killed hundreds in retaliation for burning a paperback book are the ones I singled out. The SPLC’s focus is on this country, and what is wrong with it. That is it’s purpose. That’s also why it attracts Liberals like fried Twinkies at a tractor pull. Too much maistream media blames us when people are murdered overseas for one Free American’s bad judgement.
on March 27th, 2013 at 4:26 pm
CoralSea,
A year ago I was willing to cut Sam some slack, as he claimed to be a young person. Youth offers the chance of education and I think we can all agree that Sam is a good candidate.
Since that time, Sam has been obdurate when his right wing talking points have been deconstructed with factual information. For me, the final straw was during the election when Sam went from dog whistle racism to outright racism. At this point I have doubts about his story, to include his age and orientation.
I can subscribe to the agree to disagree pact but I find it difficult to let his more egregious idiocy pass by without comment. That may reflect a character flaw on my part but we are what we are.
on March 27th, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Brock,
Since when is “being benign” a measure of one’s degree of faith in Christ? It’s irrelevant. And since when is “not being benign” indexed by paranoid and irrational ideas? You’re a logical mess.
on March 28th, 2013 at 2:06 am
“An unkooky Christian is one who is so benign in his outward identity that he basically ISN’T A CHRISTIAN. Got it!”
So a Christian has to be the opposite of “benign”, and believe in all kind of paranoid conspiracy theories, otherwise he won’t be a Christian in your book. Got it! Can’t believe that I spent all those years in Sunday school thinking it had something to do with John 3:16.
on March 28th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Brock Henderson, the name “Christian” does not mean just believing in God and practicing Old Testament law. That’s Judaism. A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ (that’s where the name Christian comes from) was who He said He was, and who accepts Him as their Savior, and who practices His teachings which are found in four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And yes, that’s where John 3:16 is. Right on, Ruslan! :)
What Terry Jones and others like him say and do is definitely not Christian behavior because it’s contrary to what Jesus taught. Jesus said to love our enemies and even do good to them. Anyone, including you and me, who doesn’t do that, is breaking Jesus’ commandment, and therefore, sinning. Every time people like you and Terry Jones use the name of God or Jesus to hurt someone in some way and make Christianity look like a religion of hate and judgement, you throw dirt on the name of Jesus and give all of us Christians (the ones you say aren’t) a bad name. I’m sure that you fundamentalists have driven more people away from Jesus than you have ever led to Him. I know people who grew up in extreme fundamentalist families and became atheists because of it. Jesus never told us to try to control other peoples’ behavior, just our own. He made it very plain that we are not to judge unless we ourselves are without sin. If you think you are, you are very deluded. You’ll probably say I’m judging you but I’m not. I’m not saying that you are going to Hell for your hateful behavior, just that it is contrary to what Jesus said to do, therefore, it is sin. I have a right-wing fundamentalist sister that thinks she knows who’s going to Hell and who isn’t (I bet you think so too) but I don’t know those things. What He did tell us to do is to spread the Gospel (good news) that whosoever (that includes gay people too) believes on Him is not condemned but has everlasting life. He commanded (not an optional suggestion) us to treat others the way we want to be treated and to help people who need help. I bet that would include health care too. You know, what people like you are fighting against and calling “socialism”.
on March 28th, 2013 at 7:26 pm
It is interesting to note that the Christian Conservatives are the very ones who harbor, produce 90 percent of the hate that leads to violence in this country. First the natives that were here first, we were taught to hate, then every foreign group that arrived, one after another, down to now, Muslims. The good Christians seem to be abcessed with wanting to force Hate and to hurt someone.
on March 28th, 2013 at 10:15 pm
My, oh my how the Progressives get their backs all hunched at the mere whisper of Conservative criticism…Interesting…
Wrongheifer as in ‘..don’t f-ck with the wrong heifer’…I thought it was unique and very midwest inspired. Sorry you found it offensive. And the comment about the ‘back-stabbing Christians’ I found very amusing as the only one a true person of Christ answers to is the LORD and not mammon…but again, that is another subject.
My criticism of the author is valid as it was an inaccurate portrayal of the group. The vapid, snotty, backbiting ‘reminders of who was at the meeting’ allowed me to see the new liberal standard of being ‘close minded and bigoted’ rather than accurately reporting the event, but, to each his own I suppose. Better ye than me my friend.
on March 28th, 2013 at 10:32 pm
One more thing…Would SPLC label me a ‘bigot and a racist’ for being angry about the Monsanto Immunity deal? GMO’s and a sitting Supreme Court Justice that worked for Monsanto for 4 years…Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here?…
Seriously?
on March 28th, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Christian , Christian Right , Conservative and just the type of screwballs that won’t be able to pass the background checks on mental competency on a firearm purchase application . Need more of them so to make a bigger group that stands out . Then we can fit Terry Jones in some black/white stripped pajamas and let him lead them all off the deep end to the crank house . The religious conservatives , even the ones that are half-straight , are all fast becoming nut jobs . Let the Republicans have them all .
on March 29th, 2013 at 8:07 am
Well, wrong heifer, you have cause to rejoice. The bullship is coming, there’s dancing tonight (you gotta hurry, hurry, hurry home…)
on March 29th, 2013 at 9:27 am
“Wrongheifer as in ‘..don’t f-ck with the wrong heifer’…I thought it was unique and very midwest inspired. Sorry you found it offensive.”
Who found it offensive? I found it appropriate, as though you were admitting you were A. wrong, and B. a heifer. I’m sorry if that’s not the case.
” And the comment about the ‘back-stabbing Christians’ I found very amusing as the only one a true person of Christ answers to is the LORD and not mammon…but again, that is another subject.”
Really? So then what about this thing: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
on March 29th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Groups like these are interested only in recreating the storied days of Southern Style Slavery, where ignorant and racist wannabe rich people could simply present their lighter colored skins and suddenly be rich and powerful by selling their fellow citizens to criminals like themselves.
None of their arguments are truthful. In fact, they are Evil Incarnate and we all know that.
WE also know that traveling salesmen were quite gifted in hoodwinking their fellows into thinking they were legitimate pastors. Today’s shady pastors are their heirs.
on March 30th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
I just had to return to wish everyone here a Blessed Easter.
@Ruslan…a.) It is not the case…b.) How do you know I haven’t done exactly that?
Again, Peace be with you sorry brothers and sisters…Hope you don’t choke on your EASTER eggs!
on March 30th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
oh…and one more thing…
Why won’t any of you address my Monsanto question?…
on March 30th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
1. Dignified Work
2. Environmental Justice
3. Economic Redistribution
4. Democratic Participation
5. Community Empowerment
6. Global Non-Violence
7. Social Justice
You might be a A. Socialist B. Marxist C. Communist D. Democrat E. all of the above
Happy Easter!
on March 31st, 2013 at 9:39 am
Wrongheifer –
Why would you think that SPLC would consider you a bigot and a racist because you are concerned about Monsanto and GMO’s? Do you really think that, simply because Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto, that would mean that anyone in the progressive world would believe that gives Monsanto “a pass” on the real damage they are doing both to the environment and to independent farmers who don’t want to use their Genetically Modified frankenseeds?
Really?
That’s just bizarre.
on March 31st, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Wrong heifer, it sounds like you got hold of the wrong silage.
on March 31st, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Wrongheifer seems to have come down with Mad Cow.
Time to cull the herd.
on March 31st, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Haha, Ellen, I am completely aware of the difference between the Old and New Testaments. And my dear, there are other parts of the New Testament besides the Gospels. There’s . . . uh . . . oh yeah, the OTHER 23 BOOKS, which is to say there is more to Christian doctrine than just the words spoken by Jesus. Christianity defined only by the Social Gospel is NON-Christianity. Secular humanism. Atheism. Separation from Christianity. Pick any of the aforementioned phrases or a combination thereof.
Christianity, by the way, IS a religion of judgment in one way – judgment of SIN, meaning discernment of what it is from what it isn’t. Judgment of PEOPLE, of course, is different, and there is no doubt that Christianity does not permit that.
on April 1st, 2013 at 12:20 am
Wrong heifer — I must agree with Reynardine about you having eaten some (really) bad silage.
As for your list:
wrongheifer said,
1. Dignified Work
2. Environmental Justice
3. Economic Redistribution
4. Democratic Participation
5. Community Empowerment
6. Global Non-Violence
7. Social Justice
Now — what parts of that DON’T you agree with? While I don’t hold with the idea of taking huge amounts of the money that the wealthy earn, considering the current situation, I believe something in regard to “fair taxation” needs to help level the playing field. And I will tell you why.
First, a lot of the very rich obtain their “income” not from wages but from capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than wages. While the idea behind a lower rate for capital gains is to encourage investment, I think that given the huge disparity in wealth that we are now seeing, there should be a threshhold after which a higher rate is charged.
Second, the owners/major shareholders of some of our larger companies have managed to push at least some of what they should be paying their employees onto the taxpayers. An example is WalMart, which pays many of its employees so poorly that they qualify for food stamps and other benefits for the poor. I don’t blame the employees for this — I blame WalMart and other companies that follow similar practices. And the irony is that they complain about how poor freeloaders suck of all of these government funds. They should look in the mirror.
Third, the demonization and systematic destruction of the unions has done damage to wages throughout the country. You don’t have to have a union job to benefit from unions. All wages are higher in states that do not have anti-union “right to work” laws.
Rather than going on, I will end this discussion by explaining that I grew up in a very affluent area and in a very affluent family. Taxes were higher then, and the “rich” weren’t (for the most part) as mega-rich as some of them are now. But guess what? We had more stuff than you could imagine. $100,000 horses. Rolls Royces and Mercedes. $1 million plus houses. Hell — we even had servants, although as I kid, I simply found them annoying because they were more adults to boss you around.
However, at the same time, there was also a strong and populous working class and it was also still quite possible for large numbers of people who had been born poor to get an education and work their way up the economic ladder.
So what I am saying is that we need to go back to a more equitable distribution of income that allows for the exceptional to live well — to even be rich — but that does not skew the distribution so seriously toward a very small percent that the rest of the population is barely scraping by. Why ANYONE thinks it is acceptable for anyone in a first-world country and economic power-house like America to wonder where their next meal is coming from, or be homeless or at risk of homelessness is beyond me. The only answer I can come up with is individual greed — or perhaps a burning desire to suck up to the uberrich in hopes that they will toss you a few crumbs. We are better than that, or we should be.
As for the other items on the list: Hell, yes! To all of them.
Now please return to your barn. Obviously, your udder is too full and you need to be milked but good.
on April 1st, 2013 at 9:16 am
Yeah, Brock, we can’t have a Christianity based on the teachings of that pinko, Jesus, can we?
on April 1st, 2013 at 10:10 am
Brock –
You can judge all you want — but you cannot impose your religion (or, I should say, your take on Christianity) on the rest of us.
Although your more objectionable posts have been removed, I can say, after having read them, that you are a very angry and unhappy man. In all seriousness, I suggest you look into whether you are suffering from clinical depression. Depression doesn’t just make you sad — it can also cause one to have frequent and irrational rages.
I have a relative who suffers from these rages — and was also at one time very consumed by religion. He could be extremely scary, and he has basically wasted a large portion of his life. He dropped the religious component, which helped, but he still goes berserk periodically, raging about everything from minorities to why people are still wearing jeans (which he hates).
When he isn’t raging, he is intelligent and talented, but predictably, he has very few friends. This is very sad, considering how wound up he gets over things that simply don’t warrant that much drama.
I believe you may have a similar problem and might benefit from anti-depressants. Please consider it. Life is too precious to waste being angry and self-righteous all the time.
on April 1st, 2013 at 10:45 am
Apparently it went unnoticed by the SPLC (unless I’m mistaken) but James Ives, president of the Fort Bend, Texas Tea Party was also fouth in command and “Propaganda Minister” at the American Fascist Party — a supposed now defunct neo-Nazi organization aimed at establishing fascism in America.
Ives was also a frequent commentator on right wing radio, including most notably on a station owned by Texas State Senator Dan Patrick, also of the Tea Party.
If one seeks proof of the close ties between fascism and the Tea Party, one need look no further. All the data is out there for anyone who cares to look.
on April 1st, 2013 at 5:45 pm
CoralSea, you can try all you want to paint a face of “religious neutrality” – a total oxymoron – upon what is in reality an indisputably anti-religious ideology called secular humanism. The point and purpose of the modern-day drive to purge the public square of religion is to ABOLISH AND DESTROY religion. Everybody with a brain knows this. You cannot fool anybody. Now, my dear, I ask for evidence of your claim. Prove that it is a legal reality here in America, per the consent of the American people via Constitutional ratification, that there can be no official imposition of religion at any level of government. If I looked back through the annals of U.S. history, certainly I wouldn’t find any state-, county-, or city-established religion, would I? . . . You know, because it is most certainly illegal and always has been?
Yeah. This oughta be good.
on April 2nd, 2013 at 8:52 am
Reynardine, if you believe that about Jesus, then you know precisely nothing about Him or Christianity.
on April 2nd, 2013 at 9:52 am
Well, Brock, you’re talking like a weasel again. No surprise, since I doubt you have it in you to become a man.
on April 2nd, 2013 at 10:30 am
Brock, if you stopped repeating the intellectual defilements your parents gifted you with, you might actually get somewhere in your arguments.
“Secular humanism” is a popular catchphrase among the religious right to describe what they perceive as an assault on the sancitity of their beliefs (i.e. the ability to impose religious doctrine on others in a secular climate such as schools or public spaces).
I am an unabashed secular humanist, and also exercise my right to religious practice. Indeed I support the existence and flourishing of all faiths because I believe religious studies can contribute to a well ordered and peaceable society. For example, I have repeatedly called in this forum for expansion of faith-based programs (of which Christianity is perfectly valid) in penal institutions to help exiting prisoners to acquire a new sense of self and truly rehabilitate.
And yet, I am also a secular humanist because I believe that religious doctrine must be tested and evaluated by each individual. I favor science and reason in any conflict with religious teachings. I believe people can be fulfilled by other means than religion, as well as conduct themselves ethically without religion. I believe our understanding of the universe is benefitted by religious inquiry, but also that such inquiry must build upon itself in a larger body of knowledge.
Accordingly, the best definition of secular humanism is tolerance toward religious practice and respect for the right not to practice, and not, as you state, a philosophy aimed at destroying religion.
on April 2nd, 2013 at 10:39 am
Brock — the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (you know — part of the Bill of Rights) includes as its first item a prohibition of the establishment of religion by the state (the Establishment Clause). The First Amendment also forbids the government from favoring one religion over another.
Certainly, in many communities, Christianity was a “de facto” public religion by virtue of the fact that the majority of the people who lived in the community were Christians (or nominally so). This was a cultural thing, but it certainly wasn’t sanctioned by the Constitution.
As it is, religion is actually well-supported in this country when one considers its non-profit status. Also, many religious organizations receive funding from the U.S. government to allow them to help out the disadvantaged. Catholic Charities received about 70% of its funding from the government up to a year or so ago. I don’t know if this has changed. And you’ve heard about “Faith-Based initiatives?” I have mixed feelings about these. On the one hand, some religious-based organizations are “down in the trenches,” helping people who are struggling, and it makes sense to funnel money through them. On the other hand you have groups like pregnancy crisis centers, which basically prosyletize to women who are seeking abortions. I don’t think that government funds should be spent on what is basically religious preaching. This also applies to the ridiculous, abstinence-only sex education, which is invariably something pushed by religious folks.
I will not engage you further, as you are an abusive, know-nothing assclown with mental problems.
on April 3rd, 2013 at 2:55 pm
I hate to speak in Pat Robertson’s defense, Coral Sea, but he never saId clothing from Goodwill needed to be exorcised. He was asked by some nutty caller whether or not it was necessary to pray over second hand clothing to exorcise devils and he said there was probably nothing to worry about and that such prayers, although harmless, were unnecessary. I saw this video and Robertson actually chuckled at the idea that someone thought second hand clothes might be demon-possessed. I am no fan of Robertson’s, but he is not guilty of this charge.
Also, when was Dinesh D’Souza “respected”? I have always thought he was a far-right nutjob who simply had enough schooling to know how to set his extreme views in grammatical paragraphs.
on April 3rd, 2013 at 3:39 pm
CoralSea, I now ask for evidence that the people of the U.S., by their due knowledge and consent, ratified a part of the Constitution which incorporated the Bill of Rights towards the states. So you’re saying that in the few decades following the ratification of the Constitution when a few of the states still had established churches, they were in violation of the Constitution. Evidence, please. Thank you.
aadila, why yes, indeed, when the forces of secularism are creeping into a town or city or county which has known a certain religion as its de facto religion for generations, and then all of a sudden a court ruling emanating from lawsuits filed by one or two disgruntled village atheists puts a sudden end to all of that, then the citizens of that municipality are quite likely to try and put a name and a face on the movement responsible for it. What other name is there to call these anti-religious forces? I stand by what I said, by the way. The purpose and destiny of secular humanism is the abolition and destruction of traditional religion.
on April 3rd, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Mareli –
I saw the Pat Robertson video, as well, and yes, he chuckled. But he also didn’t dismiss the idea and he stated that inanimate objects could sometimes harbor demonic energies. But you are correct, he said this in connection with a question that had been asked of him, although I stand by my using it as an example, since a non-kook would have told the questioner “absolutely not.”
There are certainly no shortage of a certain type of Christian that holds odd beliefs about inanimate objects. The Dominionists like to burn cultural artifacts to address “Generational curses” and, of course, Bill Gothard freaks out over troll dolls and believes that having them in the house will either make pregnancy difficult or lead to a rough delivery of the baby. So I could have used some of these other stellar examples of rational thought in place of Robertson’s latest weirdness.
Aadila — Great post!
Brock goes the weasel — Dogs eat hovercrafts!
Nothing else gets through, so “Dogs east hovercrafts!!!!”
on April 3rd, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Traditional religion? You mean Paganism? Because Paganism is much, much, much more traditional than the Abrahamic Three, pre-dating it by tens of thousands of years.
You can’t win, Brock. We’ve got your number.
on April 3rd, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Brock,
In the first case, the evidence you seek is found in Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution.
In the second case, you quite clearly failed to stand by what you said. I presented a cogent argument, which you failed to rebut. In order to stand by what you say, it would be necessary to defend your opinions in the face of a rational argument. Obviously, you cannot. And this is exactly why so many people are willing to file suit to limit the imposition of your beliefs, not, as you claim, because of the mere existence of religion.
Finally your affirmation of a “de facto” religion for cities, towns, and counties is completely erroneous. The exercise of religious freedom is a question of individual liberty, not one conferred upon the public powers, as per the Constitution.
Likewise, the argument that prior existence of unconstitutional practices justifies their continuance is also preposterous, fallacious and absurd.
Thank you, please come again.
on April 3rd, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Oh and aadila, my parents had nothing to do with my current beliefs.
And yes, I bet you’re angry at conservatives for identifying the left-wing ideologies that are doing their part to destroy the West. Cultural Marxism, political correctness, secular humanism/secularism . . . I bet you’d just LOVE to be able to operate with perpetual stealth and obscurity, with your opposition totally at a loss for knowledge of those terms and their meanings. After all, a nameless and faceless enemy can carry out its mission much more successfully.
on April 4th, 2013 at 8:49 am
Brock, paranoid ideation leads people to see a menace where there is none. If you were able to climb down from the ledge of exalted defiance and inject some reason into your arguments it would be easier to engage with them. This passionate screed against vague exogenous forces conspiring against you speaks to a certain amount of delusional thinking.
Don’t get me wrong: I admire your fighting spirit and at times you show evidence of higher thinking skills, but when you resort to blanket condemnation of intangible forces and phantom enemies I really feel sorry for you because it must be dreadful to live that way.
To help get you on the path of reasoned discourse once again, perhaps you could address some specifics instead of metaphysical generalities and emotional diatribe that lack any tangible basis for discussion.
If you bet I am “angry at conservatives” that would be a losing bet. The idea of shadowy yet anthropomorphic ideologies which creep and lurk ever nearer provokes a sense of pity rather than anger.
To be quite clear, there are examples where I feel certain complaints against religious expression in the public sphere go to far. I for example, have no problem with a monument or statue with religious motifs near a courthouse, because this is part of the fabric of American history and culture. That is a far cry from a judge handing down a stiffer penalty to an apostate or non believer due to their religious beliefs, or for violating religious rather than secular law.
Where I do have a problem is the intrusion of superstitious ideas such as the existence of gods or metaphysical “creation” myths into public school curricula, when there is no way to substantiate such ideas through material analysis. For example, one might believe there is a little man in the refrigerator who turns off the light when you shut the door, but I wouldn’t want that to be presented to children as a viable alternative to learning about physics.
And when religion intrudes into public sphere to the detriment of other faiths, the right not to practice religion, or against the basic principles of science (whether they be social or material), it is predictable that the backlash can focus on the origin of such ideas (the faithful) rather than the specific intrusions found objectionable. Certainly you should be able to see that religious militancy is met with anti-religious militancy in equal proportion.
So please feel free to sort out the bolus of angst that troubles you so about religion in America, and let’s go one by one with the specifics where you feel the right to religious freedom is under assault. Keep in mind that I practice religion and represent a religious minority. Perhaps we will reach common ground.
on April 4th, 2013 at 11:40 am
Aron, I never said paganism wasn’t a traditional religion. Do entire communities with paganism as an established religion have a history here in the U.S.?
aadila, I have before me a two-volume book, over 2,000 pages in length, called the Debate on the Constitution. These include minutes, excerpts, and transcripts of the debates that took place at Independence Hall, the Constitutional Convention, state ratification documents, plus the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and the big kahuna, the Constitution itself. If I were to scan it all, I wouldn’t find any evidence that calls your claims about the Supremacy Clause or the First Amendment into question, would I? You are being honest with us, aren’t you? How can the Supremacy Clause be a state incorporation vehicle for the First Amendment when it’s the LATTER that is an amendment to the FORMER? In any case, you must have godlike knowledge and insight into the real legal mandates inherent in the Constitution when you – someone born possibly as much as two centuries later – claim that some of the parties responsible for providing their due consent towards the ratification of that document, people who were THERE, were in fact in violation of it the entire time concerning the First Amendment. Wouldn’t it be a rather serious matter, aadila, that a handful of the states were in direct violation of the Constitution that had JUST gone into effect, by having state religions? You know, serious enough to merit many a statement of denunciation by authorities on the matter? Can you provide any statements by members of Congress, for instance, during the period of time in question, calling upon the states to renounce their state religions because they did, in fact, ratify a document which served to incorporate the First Amendment and/or the others towards the states?
on April 5th, 2013 at 8:39 am
Brock, for the last and utmost time, GET PSYCHIATRIC ATTENTION. I know what I’m looking at. This won’t end well.
on April 5th, 2013 at 8:56 am
Fortunately for everyone, Brock, such determinations do not rest with me or any other individual but the institutions of our country; specifically, in the case of interpreting the Constitution, the courts. Whatever crackpot legal theory you may have is fair game if you wish to file suit. But when you are smacked down, don’t say I didn’t warn you. And as to your book, sadly the flower of intelligence does not always bear fruit.
That settled, are you going to address my rebuttal on the alleged affronts to religious liberty in America, or slink away and hope that no one notices?
on April 5th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Oh, you’re talking about judicial review of acts of Congress, something the judicial branch of the U.S. government was never given the power to do? Oh yeah, sure, Madison’s and Hamilton’s explicit explications of the Constitution are all one big “crackpot legal theory.” Hilarious.
Uh, last time I checked, the theories of Gramsci, Hirschfeld, Marcuse, Adorno, Kinsey, and the Port Huron Statement are very real, tangible things.
In order to engage in a debate on religious liberty here in the U.S., aadila, we have to come to an honest understanding of what it is and what it is not.
on April 5th, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Then come to an understanding, honey pot. The rest of us already have.
on April 17th, 2013 at 8:05 am
A note to our commenters:
As a lot of you know, we’ve developed a problem with the antagonistic nature of the comment threads on Hatewatch. As a result, and after talking to some of you, we’ve decided to try and restore some civility and sense of community.
From now on, we’re just not going to publish comments that include name-calling of any kind, no matter whose side of a particular issue you’re on. We’re not going to publish guttural expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, gay-bashing, misogyny and so on. We will publish white nationalist arguments, but only if they’re presented civilly and calmly, like the fellow from Stormfront who recently made an effort to politely argue with other commenters here. We will not publish bogus claims about certain groups’ alleged inferiority, and we won’t publish links to racist sites or sites that contain misleading or false statistics. Finally, we plan to stop publishing comments from a few posters who have become a real problem on our threads.
This is not an attempt to censor people’s thinking, but it is an effort to make Hatewatch more of a community of people discussing important issues. We don’t want it to degenerate yet another Internet shouting match.
Thanks for your understanding. We appreciate your contributions to the blog very much.
Mark Potok