Newsweek on O'Reilly's examples of Dems who deserve title of "traditionalist": "two deceased Democrats and one who lost his party's primary"
In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, Newsweek general editor Jonathan Darman noted that O'Reilly, in his latest book, Culture Warrior, "champions 'traditionalists' and scolds 'secular progressives,' " and asked O'Reilly: "Are there Democratic traditionalists?" O'Reilly pointed to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy, prompting Darman to respond: "So two deceased Democrats and one who lost his party's primary." O'Reilly then mentioned two other Democrats: "OK, maybe [Sen.] Evan Bayh [IN]. Maybe [Sen.] Barack Obama [IL]. ... But I could be wrong [about Obama] because he's cagey."
From Darman's interview with O'Reilly, in the October 2 edition of Newsweek:
DARMAN: Your book champions "traditionalists" and scolds "secular progressives." Are there Democratic traditionalists?
O'REILLY: Joseph Lieberman, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy.
DARMAN: So two deceased Democrats and one who lost his party's primary.
O'REILLY: OK, maybe Evan Bayh. Maybe Barack Obama. From what I can see of him he does have traditional beliefs. But I could be wrong because he's cagey.
Is sexual harrasment and loofahs Traditional Beliefs?
The hypocracy of this man smells more than a sewer.
Does he have no soul ? Will he say and do anything to sell his stupid books and stupid Factor gear.
Sigh.
He will.
loofahs, sexual harassment, rape, stained dresses, cigars, oral in the oval............one is president and the other a media personality. One is soulless and the other a progressive God.
Your ignorance is showing. I don't know one liberal who would consider Clinton a progressive. Nice try. when you don't have anything else to say, change the subject. By the way your name is redundant.
a progressive is soooo farfetched. However, I see the "neocon" moniker thrown around everywhich way mostly by "progressives". You guys are misusing the word neocon all the time so I can misuse progressive.
your name makes me want to put on Birkenstock's, eat a granola bar and listen to Pearl Jam over a steamy latte from Starbucks. Oh and then riot at the WTO meeting.
Wanting to put on a sheet, burn a cross on someones yard then lynch an uppity black guy. Then steal your companies pension fund and go to cheer at an execution while finding a homeless guy to spit on. Isnt this stereotyping fun? Well actually its not, its just stupid.
"You guys are misusing the word neocon all the time so I can misuse progressive." --EC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So two wrongs make a right? Why not correct the misuse of the term "neocon" as a polite positive suggestion.
it's not misuse because you guys have your own understanding of what it means, a crazy warmongering new conservative. I think you guys just like it because it’s easy to associate that word with Neo-Nazi. However, if you just do a small degree of research you can find its true meaning. I suggest dictionary.com look up neo-conservative. That's basic though but there is plenty of reading out there in how it involved the socialist/liberal movement.
It is interesting that at one point of the discussion you claim:
1."You guys are misusing the word neocon all the time so I can misuse progressive." --EC
then at another point:
2. "...it's not misuse because you guys have your own understanding of what it means..." --EC
Your inconsistency kind of makes it difficult to discuss this with you intelligently. If you evolved into your second opinion, that is fine, but please explain yourself better. It is hard to keep up with your floating positions otherwise.
If you are saying that definitions of neoconservatives and progressives are subjective, then I would agree. That doesn't mean we cannot justify such labels for what that is worth. If you think a neocon label is unjustified, I would appreciate you letting me or anyone else know why.
into my argument. I was just replying to whoever said I was ignorant to call Bill Clinton a progressive, well I consider him to be a progressive and not a moderate. I doubt progressives would vote for a true moderate at least what I consider to be a moderate. It seems to me that progressives love Mr. Clinton and probably would have loved to follow in Monica's footsteps. Looking up the definition of progressive I found it is a far broader term than the actual definition of Neo-conservative like I said look it up.
I am not nor do I think most people I coincide with politically are neo-cons which in brief "is moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists. " ref. dictionary.com
However, I don’t think it is far fetched that Bill Clinton considers himself or should be considered someone who is "making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community." ref. dictionary.com
Sorry if you think my observations on these two words is unintelligent but they are just that, my observations. I was just surprised to hear President Clinton use the word Neo-Con so I thought I would call him a progressive as kind of an experiment to see what sort of response I would get.
What do you mean you were suprised to hear president Clinton use the term neocon? What does that have to do with the flow of messages you have been trading with OPEN_MIND?
The definition you cite for neocon is far too narrow. There is very little moderation associated with neoconservatism. Radical leftists initiated the movement then it was appropriated by radical rightwingers.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Concepts such as neoconservatism and progressivism require more detail than dictionary definitions. You're a smart guy and I know you will do better in the future.
Thank's daddy. I'd rather not use wikepedia.
"It seems to me that progressives love Mr. Clinton and probably would have loved to follow in Monica's footsteps." - Evil Conservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the need to insult? Just because I like Bill Clinton doesn't mean I want to give him a bj, no more than you'd like to fellate your hero, Bush. That did nothing to further your argument, other than to infuriate fair-minded people who might normally give you the time of day, but not now.
Apologize, please.
CSL
I apologize.
I will never defend Bush to the extent that most people defend Clinton, he is far from my hero. My heroes are all dead. I will never hate Clinton as many on this site hate Bush, I was pretty young at the start of Clinton's presidency but I consider myself well read for my age and I disagreed with Clinton on many things. I was ashamed at what he did to my Oval Office but he was still my president.
I never was a huge Clinton supporter. I never trusted him to be very progressive and I was right, I still voted for him because the alternatives were Dole or Perot, or Bush sr. Saying you dont think progressives would vote for a moderate is just dumb. There hasnt been a really liberal president since Kennedy. Carter leaned a bit left but he has become much more liberal since leaving office. Liberals know the Dems arent likely to run a true flat out liberal. When the Democratic party called me and asked me for money I told them they didnt represent me and hadnt for a long time. This was 2000. They asked what they could do to get my support and I said run someone like Paul Wellstone for President and they said strait out that realistically that wasnt going to happen.
Also the Bush idolorty I see on the right is much more descriptive of your lewd suggestion about liberals then liberals have EVER been. Liberals have never been into the cult of personality nor idolozing our leaders. The RIGHT thinks Bush is GOD. He can lie to them send thier brothers off to a senseless war to die or let their grandmother drown in New Orleans and the rightwing is still there cheering him and lying for him. Like the S/M fantasies they have about the Lincoln bedroom Bush and some K/Y jelly.
Since we are talking about political definitions have you heard of triangulation? That is taking a leftist idea and a conservative idea then forging a third alternative between them? That was Clintons self described approach, and one that is basically the definition of a moderate. I am a progressive so while I might take a larger view of who is really a rightwinger than a conservative I certainly know who is a liberal and Clinton is no liberal.
than Kennedy (except for maybe his prosecution of the conflict in SE Asia). His Great Society programs were the biggest expansion of government involvement in the affairs of the average American (at least until Bush's drug program, etc).
Johnson was more liberal than Clinton in terms of social policy. He always did have a soft spot for military adventurism.It is customary in the Senate to refer to Senators with reference to their state. Like Barbara Boxer would be referred to as the Senator from California. Johnson was known as the Senator from the Pentagon.
It IS made up of many former far leftists including socialists and former communists that easily slid from far left to far right. That is NOT the same thing. I think its YOU that needs the dictionary. Chomsky talks about how easily some slide from far left to far right and visa versa because its about the POWER, fringes of both sides have a soft feeling for authoritarianism. So if you think you will be part of the Red vanguard, then get dissillusioned its a small jump to being part of the fascist leaning right. The reason I like neocon, and I can only speak for myself is because it is more descriptive than conservative. I find many reasonable conservatives, they believe in reality, they have compassion and they are suspicious of hard core executive power. The neo cons exemplified by the Perles, Cheneys, and Wolfowitzes to name some high profile neocons, have no use for reality, they have even publicly denigrated it. Suskind talks about how one of Bush's neocons in the White House ridiculed him as being the reality based when they are creating their own reality.
They believe in the Straussian concept of the noble lie. That the public is not worthy of having any input into policy and that lying to them because their BETTERS know whats best for them is the right thing to do. There is no reason to lump the Orrin Hatches who no matter how much I disagree with him is an honest man or a William F Buckley with Bush and his administration who lie as a matter of course and who just flat deny reality itself because they dont like its consequences.
2 wrongs always make a right in the neocon's playbook
If you think Clinton is or was a "progressive" then you must consider Bush a moderate. Clinton was never more than a centrist and is far from being progressive. I guess when you are so far to the right he must look that way.
Perhaps when choosing your next presidential candidate it would serve you "progressives" better to choose a moderate, and not a progressive/liberal.
After all, Clinton the Moderate, was the only Democrat elected twice as President in over 50 years in this country.
Select moderates like George W Gump. Wait, he isnt a moderate he is a far right corporate stooge. Thats right they select extremists then lie their butts off about him the guy he is running against, everyone who supports who he is running against and virtually everything else except the color of the sky
Contrast Bush with Richard Nixon and Nixon is a bleeding heart liberal. That I have fallen to wishing Nixon was our president doesn’t flatter the time we live in. Furthermore, I candidly worry what that turnabout says about me. Any port in a storm, perhaps?
...I finally got around to reading the details of the Mackris suit over at thesmokinggun.com and it was actually far sleazier than anything I'd imagined it would be. O'Reilly is even more of a scumbag than I'd previously given him credit for. Who in their right mind would stay married to this guy? He is supposedly still married, isn't he? It's clear from the Mackris complaint that this behavior was an ongoing thing with O'Reilly--his attentions clearly weren't just confined to Mackris. He's taken the word "hypocritical" to new heights (or rather, depths.)
Didn't Bill write a book ("Trespassers"?) — I'm too lazy to Google it right now, that was considered sexually explicit?
The man is a moral vacuum, and is the last person to be considered to be an authority on anything. He should no longer be called a pundit, but a "has-been" or "never-could-be".
O'Reilly's novel is called Those Who Trespass (the subtitle reads "A Novel of Television and Murder"). The New Yorker did a profile of O'Reilly some months back and they spent some time picking apart the book, which they revealed was a violent and sexually explicit revenge fantasy plainly based on O'Reilly's own experiences in television.
Here's the link to the article:
[link to www.newyorker.com]
I will agree that O'Reilly has no place on some moral highground preaching about traditional values, etc. It is just more of his blathering to sell this book and position himself as some beacon for the plain truth, and spokesman for the "folks".
However, this novel he wrote is irrelevant to any criticism of him. It is what it is, a novel. Fiction.
To use this as another hammer to beat him up with just minimizes his real hypocrisy.
The New Yorker article actually puts forth the idea that O'Reilly's novel is relevant to understanding the man and his values. I'm not going to bother to paraphrase the article or elaborate any further on the obvious point that a work of fiction can in fact reflect the viewpoints and attitudes of its author.
They can put forth any idea that want to. He has mainained it is a novel, like him or not, it is a work of fiction unless proven otherwise. Anyone can hypothesize on the storylines, or where they were drawn from, all day long. It still doesn't change the fact the book is written and authored as a work of fiction.
He has enough baggage without resorting to some novel he penned. Criticism of him regarding his real life's activities is fair, linking that to this book is not.
Let's disregard for a moment that I was simply responding to someone who asked a question about his novel; I didn't draw any parallels to the content of the novel and O'Reilly's real life, not having read the book myself. That said, those parallels obviously can and have been drawn by others, which is why I provided the link. I honestly don't understand why you would proclaim that out of bounds or unfair. The guy wrote a revenge fantasy that mirrors his own life (that is, up until the point where the fictional television personality begins to drive icepicks through his rivals' skulls). Of course it's fair to bring it up.
You and I dislike O'Reilly, mine is more indifference to him and his inflated ego. Yours is seething disgust, apparently. I prefer to deal in facts and his factual personal writings, speeches and experience when evaluating him.
You prefer to deal in fact AND fiction.
If you feel the need, go for it.
Look at what fiction has meant to the Libertarian movement.
Was a fictional novel too. I guess that means it has no bearing on his beliefs, political and otherwise? That would be ludicrous. This broad statement you make is worthless sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnt. Considering his statement about Franken that one day he will hear a knock on his door and his life will change forever, I dont think its much of a stretch to conclude that his novel DOES have something to say about him.
"Criticism of him regarding his real life's activities is fair, linking that to this book is not." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have read several works of fiction from several authors. I don't know if it is indeed the case with Bill O'Reilly, but many authors nakedly advocate a certain point or use a novel to advance a particular philosophy, though it is often based on pure fiction.
Is there any doubt of Michael Crichton's distrust of Global Warming in State of Fear, Robin Cook's advocacy of better transplant laws in Coma, Dostoyevsky's dislike of Capital Punishment in Crime and Punishment, Ayn Rand's ideals of objectivism in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Hugo, Sartre, Camus, Orwell, Tolstoy, Heller, Miller...etc. I could go on and on.
Although I don't think O'Reilly deserves to share company with the above novelists, I don't think that O'Reilly necessarily deserves some kind of pass for writing fiction. It may even be easier to espouse your beliefs without the usual restraints that may come from writing supposed "non-fiction".
Would you be so quick to offer him the same scrutiny regarding a fiction book he penned about a cable TV commentator who privately donates to hundreds of worthy charities, and goes to great lengths to hide many of his selfless and magnanimous deeds?
Because if you are evalutaing him based on his fictionalized writings and somehow linking them to his personal life, then you would have to show the same if wrote that.
Has BO written such a book?
Forgive my ignorance.
"Would you be so quick to offer him the same scrutiny regarding a fiction book he penned about a cable TV commentator who privately donates to hundreds of worthy charities, and goes to great lengths to hide many of his selfless and magnanimous deeds?" --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps that is a bad example considering the seemingly ironic nature of someone who knows they will be compared to the character.
If someone goes out of their way to hide their magnanimity, why would they then do something to obviously link themselves to it (by writing about a parallel character to themselves in a novel). It kind of belies the thought they would want to keep it such a secret.
Your example is a contradiction in itself. It is true that fiction could lead one to believe something erroneous about the author, I agree to that, but I don't see O'Reilly as imaginative enough to stray too far from the limited things he thinks he knows. Of course, I am fully aware that is a belief based on nothing more than my observations of O'Reilly over a few years. I could be entirely wrong.
Despite O'Reilly's shortcomings, he is very quietly involved in many notable and worthwhile charities and does not boast about it. By this, I am not defending him in the least, much of the criticism he gets, he deserves.
I am simply saying that to include some work of fiction he wrote as some barometer of his character is misplaced. And unfair.
"Despite O'Reilly's shortcomings, he is very quietly involved in many notable and worthwhile charities and does not boast about it." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can you please provide a link for that?
Of course we can talk about O'Reilly's other books. It goes to character. Objection overruled.
I remember that New Yorker article. They did a fine job of deconstructing Billy. Thanks for the link.
Another reason why BO's novel is relevant to any discussion of the man's hypocrisy is because much of his "Culture War" hinges on what he perceives as a moral decline in pop culture entertainment. How can he take people like Ludacris to task, when he packs his own novel with as much sex and violence as possible?
Bravo
I am surprised it took you this long to read it. Bill "loofah" O'Reilly sure is a classy guy. More like a teenager with his sexual fantasies and sense of "power" he thinks he has.
Does a traditionalist:
A.) Teach women (other than his wife) to masturbate with a vibrator?
B.) Frequently engage in phone sex with women outside of his marriage?
C.) Show his penis to a "little brown" masseuse in Bali?
D.) Lose his virginity in the parking lot at JFK airport? --Maybe that is why he has such apparent affection for JFK.
E.) Attend Thai sex shows?
F.) All of the above and more.
G.) O'Reilly is full of it as usual.
J- Correct
He will say and do anything to see his garbage.
I guess not being a typically cagey politician, makes one cagey.
Okay I am getting so sick of this bashing of progressivism and this glowing commentary about "Traditional Values". I'm sorry but I like the idea of moving forward and making changes in order to improve society and/or civilization as a whole. Now wouldn't one say that the founding fathers were all for some change for the better good. Were not they being radical in breaking away from England and forming their own respective nation. Was it not progressive to think that you could form a democratic state within the boundaries of human thought and political philosophy. These were our founding fathers, were they not the voice of our traditional values?? Why is there this sharp separation of the two (pregessivism vs. traditional values). Granted I will admit that within our current climate a number of value are being left behind, but I the scapegoat becomes progressivism and it becomes something completely separate from our traditions and history.
I don't see what George Bush has done wrong, he's destroying a bunch of people who shouldn't be in the 1st place. I say the Iraqis are just here to take up space on this planet. They're not doing anything to benifit us. George Bush is doing a great job where he is. I hope he sends a nuke to Iraq and just wipe that country out of the map. The only thing the Iraqis know how to do is terrorize countries, they're all terrorists.Ok, I'm going to say it, I think George Bush is good. He's one of the greatest president ever.. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! he attack Iraq and many Iraqis died.. so what? I hope he bombs Iraq again, I seriously don't give a crap if the Iraqis die, I hope bush kills them all, bomb the hell out of Iraq. serioulsy I think the Iraqis are nothing but terrorist and George Bush is doing the world a favour by bombing them and killing them. they just like to bomb the hell out of each other, so the Americans attacking Iraq doesn't really make that much of a difference, they're just speeding up the process. So I solute George Bush I say, those Iraqis are bombing each other anyways, because they're a bunch of no good 3rd world terrorist and all Iraqis are like that. Yeah, I've heard it all, I'm racist, whatever, but think about it, all the terrorism that occured, most of them are from the middle east in some stupid 3rd world country, and I'll let you know that I will never have any respect for an Iraqi because they're all no good terrorists.
Who can argue with that post?
Who can understand it, to argue with it for that matter?
I can't actually pick out any statements that are objectionable, because they don't make any sense on their own. I have to kind of paraphrase the statements themselves in order to make them slightly intelligible.
Are you actually arguing that 1. Bush hasn't done anything wrong and 2. All Iraqis must die?
Is that what you are getting at?
No more bold. Thanks.
How's this then? Please tell me this is fixed.
being a Christian means I have to think like you, then I'll pass. Thank you for playing.
The statement alone that the Iraqis are just taking up space since they arent doing anything to benifit US, is breathtaking in its stupidity. Tsunami level stupid. Either you are a world class satarist or else you need the services of a mental health professional immediatly
think we all know who was responsible for that, the Godless liberals who cannot stand having their immorality shoved back in their ugly face!! The defenders of free thought, the Big Bang theory and evolution, are not only striking out at me, but at all Christians. . Last night, while I was sitting on my front-porch swing, gazing up at Heaven, President Bush appeared to me in a vision. He told me that my work was not yet finished, there were still many liberals who had not yet seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!
President Bush would not be in the White House right now if God didn't want him there. President Bush was put in a position of leadership in order to wipe the devil's religion of Islam off the face of the Earth, so that the Christian God can fill the world with His message of peace and love. President Bush has stated numerous times that he speakes with God in the Oval Office, he even asked God for military advice before the invasion of Iraq. Modern liberalism is the equivalent of atheism, liberals are in favor of killing babies, raising taxes, teaching evolution, and same sex marriage. Jesus is opposed to all of these horrible things.
represent my entire belief system in just two posts? Thank you goodchristian for doing the lords work. Haha Gimme a break! Someone was bored.
I guess you think you're clever, but your parody of the right is exactly what they would do to us.
I'm not going to satirize the right as you do because I feel that the progressive agenda has its own merit and that logic and sound reasoning will win the day.
I do understand your frustration, however, but post your satire elsewhere. Unless it's good satire, I can't get enough of the good stuff.
You are apparently a liberal sarcastically pretending to be a conservative nutjob. Pretty funny.
Like a conservative could ever be as moronic as that.
Thanks. I needed a laugh.
I assume that your post is a joke, since it is signed by "Goodchristian" but could not possibly have been written seriously by anyone with any familiarity with the words attributed to Jesus in the New Teastment. If it is a joke, it is not funny. If, on the other hand, your post was in any way serious, you should probably be on another website. I would suggest "Psychiatric Matters."
I know that whoever wrote that long "right-wing" post was either making really badover-the-top satire (or a they're a tad disturbed), but I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read that Jesus was opposed to RAISING TAXES?
Anyone this dumb would need a caretaker to remind him to breathe. Good satire. You should write for the Onion.
This whole discussion about "traditional values" by O'Reilly and others is so disingenuous. What exactly does it mean? What are "traditional values" that are supposedly being trampled by the "secular progressives to the detriment of "traditionalists?" As soon as you define what a "traditionalist" is supposed to think, the entire "dispute" starts to look silly. Do "traditionalists" believe that there should not be separation of church and state, or that Christianity should be a national religion, or that certain groups should be openly discriminated against? While there may be people who would like all those things, certainly a majority of Americans would never agree on any of them. The problem is that there are disagreements over exactly what separation of church and state mean, and what is or is not governmental sanction of one religion over another. There are no universally held truths on these types of issues. Before anyone throws around terms like "traditionalist" and "secular progressive" to look at an issue, those terms and how they relate to that problem would have to be precisely defined. Which of course, is impossible and silly. A "traditionalist" on one issue may be a "secular progressive" on another. As soon as O'Reilly tried to define what he was talking about, his audience would realize that the terms have no meaning. Hence, the whole "point" is he is trying to make is nonsense.
Progressives are taking it too far. I for one, could not give a rats as# about seperation of Church and State. I am no fanatic. I do feel the people that go around ripping down crosses due to such, are fanatics. One reason I hate the ACLU. Americas Communist Liberties Union. Progressives are just as fanatical as Right wingers. This country was founded by Christians, and that should not be forgotten. But to hell with all you fanatic Christians as well, like the poster above.
I am not sure if Traditionalist, or Progressives are the right word, but Democrats have changed over the last 15 years. So have Republicans. I think they all stink of sewer scum.
a rant for sure.....
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. -- The Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under President George Washington (signed by President John Adams)
every time a athiest complains and some liberal judge rips down a cross, they are ripping away a value I believe in. The United States, one Nation under God. To hell with all those fanatics.
in the government endorsing a particular religion? That may be one of your values, Evillib, but it was not a value of the founding fathers.
"every time a athiest complains and some liberal judge rips down a cross, they are ripping away a value I believe in." --EC
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you believe the function of government is just to support your "values" at the expense of everyone else's rights? Who is the extremist again?
i just do not see what the problem is with the crosses. I am not endorsing full blown Gov = Religion. But, when the Pledge of Allegiance is thrown out of schools because it offends a few people, and alike, it just pisses me off. I am by no means a fanatic for anything other than my family, and my hobbies. It is my right to feel so, as is your to feel however you do. Do not put words in my mouth.
Are the majority's rights worth more than the minority's rights? Aren't everyone's rights equal? Maybe I am just some kind of fanatic on this? Maybe I should always come to the self-serving conclusion that my rights are just more important than everyone else's.
BTW, where did I ever put words in your mouth? I simply asked you a question (which I noticed you didn't answer).
I said "No"..... that is the answer to your question.
You did answer "no".
What I don't understand is that if everyone's rights are equal, as I believe you agree, then why should monotheists (more specifically Judeo-Christians) be the only ones to have their beliefs promoted/affirmed/established or whatever by the government?
You understand now that just having more people doesn't give you more of a right to anything I hope.
I do not look at the cross on government grounds as a Christian Religious symbol. I look at it as a Symbol of Power. Guess being I grew up without church leaves me lacking the depth of the subject.
"But, when the Pledge of Allegiance is thrown out of schools because it offends a few people, and alike, it just pisses me off." --EC
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a typical conservative strawman tactic. This argument isn't simply about "offense". It is about Rights. Your Rights aren't any more valid than anyone else's despite your apparent feelings on the subject.
If this was simply a case of "offense", I would agree with you. Offense is simply one of the biproducts of free speech.
I am a conservative with feelings......????? Even you said it!
:0)
First the pledge of allegience was never thrown out of anyplace its MANDATORY use was dismissed as unconstitutional. Do you remember why? It was a defense of the opposition to it made by RELIGIOUS PEOPLE who felt they could not in good concience pledge fealty to any but God. So you are arguing that religious expression is being disrespected by arguing how wrong it was to UPHOLD those same religious expressions.
I adminted I know little about it because I am no Bible thumper, or extreem-pushover-liberal like yourself.
That hurts though. I admit to being an extreme liberal but where do you get the pushover? I think I hold my own. It is certain YOU arent pushing me at all. I could answer this stuff with half of my brain tied behind my back
I am not saying all athiests are finatics. I am sure there are many that "Turn the other Cheek" at these offending crosses.
People who live their lives according to reason are rarely fanatics.
Besides when has an Atheist ever foisted their opinion on anyone? I haven't seen any insist that the pledge include "One Nation under no God".
The compromise position in that case would be to leave out the reference to God to restore the original religious neutrality and everyone's rights are intact. It is an extreme position to want to keep "under God" in at the expense of the equal rights of the minority.
But we have one here in California that LOVES to make a stink over everything he finds offensive to his rights. For all I care, he can drop dead.
It may be a case of "offense" as you say, but unless you provide something to back up your claim, it is unconvincing.
As you have answered above, your own rights are not more important than his, so unless he is asking you to accept (through the government) that there is no God, then he is not violating your rights.
Evillib: Your post proved exactly what I was trying to say. It is inherently contradictory--which is not surprising because many of us feel and think similarly, just on different issues. You say that Progressives are "taking it too far" but you also say "to hell with fanatic Christians." I think that you are trying to find a point in the middle that you feel comfortable with. That is understandable--most people feel conflicted by either extreme. But under O'Reilly's simplistic view of the world, if I were to slap a defining label on you right now, are you a "traditionalist" or a "secular progressive?" I guess it depends on the definitions. If I define "traditionalist" as you define "fanatic Christians" then you are not a "traditionalist" but you probably are not a "progressive" either--at least not the type of "progressive" that you think is "taking it too far." The simple fact is that there are no labels that fit, and when people like O'Reilly sell books to people which suggest that there is this "secular progressive" coordinated movement that is taking over the world, it is drivel. The reason there are no sensical discussions anymore about what should or should not be done, is because the first question so many people have is "are you a conservative or liberal" as if one's argument or point of view can be accepted or disregarded depending on how they are labeled.
well said..
Evillib: In one of your last posts you indicated how much you hate it when a "liberal judge rips down a cross." That, however ia an emotional response. Think about it: the lawsuit challenging a cross is not contending that you should not be allowed to display as many crosses as you want to in your home, car, etc. Rather, the lawsuit is just saying that crosses should not be displayed on governmental symbols, or on governmental property. If they are, then the entire idea of separation of church and state is meaningless. Obviously, a government that displays crosses as part of a village seal, for example, cannot say that all religions are treated equally--only one religion would be displayed on the village seal. Think of how you would react if you lived in a town in the U.S. where the majority of the members of a Village Board were Muslim. (not a far-fetched idea at all. There are some suburbs in Chicago which have a large percentage of Muslim immigrants). Suppose they voted to display the Koran on the Village Seal. Do you think that there would be complaints from the non-Muslim residents of the Village? Of course there would be. And saying "majority rules" would not cut it because then the idea of separation of church and state, as well as equal rights for all, would be thrown out the window--it would just be a matter of who had the most people and they could impose their symbols on the minority. Isn't one of the greatest things about America is that we really try to mean it when we say that the government will not try and impose any religion on anyone--yet you and I are still free to practice our religion and display our religious symbols in our own homes? "Freedom" means that people are free to do what you may disagree with, without having the government display the "right" religious symbols. That's the point.
I just do not look that deeply into the subject. Being I am not a religious fanatic, or otherwise, it just does not bother me. I grew up with the symbol of the cross and never looked at it as a Christian thing, but a symbol of a powerful Nation. That is why I am offended by these types of actions. But it seems, by these postings, it is not that easy for some to overlook. I really don't care if it offends someones rights, I really don't. I do not see into so deeply.
Evillib: When you say "you do not think about it that deeply" but you are offended when someone challenges a government displaying a cross and you do not care if someone else is offended, you are thinking emotionally. I completely understand that at first blush your reaction might be "who cares about these troublemakers anyway?" I think most people react similarly when the status quo gets challenged. But it is the fact that an individual can challenge the staus quo and win if he or she is right on the law that is what really makes this country great. It is not enough for the majority to say "stop complaining." Rather, an individual has a right to challenge a governmental action as being unconstitutional--and if the action is unconstitutional then the government must change the action. This is what equal rights means, and this is what we should all be proud of even on those occassions when we are not crazy about the results. Again, you did not answer my question: if you lived in a town where the majority of the Village Board was Muslim, and they voted to have a Koran placed on the Village Seal, do you think that non-Muslim memebers of the community should be able to challenge that? My guess is your answer would be "yes," as would mine. But that means that the same answer has to apply when the symbol is Christian, or there are no equal rights--just "majority rules" which means no rights at all for anyone who is not lock-step in line with the majority opinion. I know that is not the country either of us wants to live in. By the way, I have to ask--why do you have an "Evillib" tag line? You don't really consider "libs" evil do you?
A symbol of our nation. That makes your whole argument a non sequitar
Since they dont care if their rights offend YOU. Neither do I.
to offend you Solon.
You will have to try harder.
"I just do not look that deeply into the subject." EL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I disagree. I think you are mistaking the amount of time fanatics tirelessly devote to arguing against Separation as some form of "depth". In a brief period of time, you have managed to hit nearly every major argument used to argue against Separation of Church and State. It just really isn't all that deep of an issue to begin with.
1. We (Christians) were here first. 2. There are more of us (Christians). 3. Non-Christians are just "offended" (and need to get over it). 4. It just bothers me (as a Christian)
The only arguments I see missing is any variation of the word parsing of the 1st Ammendment and the "It is a battle of doing God's work vs. the work of the devil" --since you are not a religious fanatic, I understand why you wouldn't use that one.
In large part by deists on enlightenment principles. Benjamin Franklin said lighthouses are more useful than churches. You should read what Jefferson said about the divinity of Christ. Paine was an out and out Athiest. Even IF true, and it is at best debatable that we were founded by Christians, at least if you are talking founding fathers, it would still be irrelevant. As is your point that when a judge removes a cross he is removing something that you believe in. If a judge removed a statue of Bhudda or a symbol for Indra would THAT bother you? The ACLU has taken the side of MANY religious people to protect THEIR right to religious expression. You dont hear too much about it because the agenda of the right is to demonize them.
[link to www.zeppscommentaries.com]
"This is a disappointing ruling that further erodes the constitutional protection for our free exercise of religion," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "In our view, this law was well within Congress' authority to enforce the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Court's decision today has once again lowered the threshold at which the government can take away our religious freedom."
CHARLESTON, WV __ The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia yesterday asked a federal judge to issue a summary ruling in favor of a minister who declines, for religious reasons, to have his photograph taken for a drivers' license.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Rev. Benjamin David Daniel Cyrus of Garrardstown in December in federal court in Charleston after the state refused to issue him a drivers' license without a photograph.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL __ In the first case to be filed under Florida's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida goes to trial today on behalf of seven families seeking to prevent the removal and destruction of religious symbols placed at the gravesites of their loved ones.
This is what Christianity Today magazine has to say about the ACLU
[link to www.christianitytoday.com]
More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment's free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians.
For example, in 2001, the group interceded with a school district in Michigan that had deleted a high school senior's yearbook entry because she included a Bible verse. In 2002, the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of a pastor associated with Operation Rescue who was prevented from participating in a parade because his pro-life poster showed a photograph of an aborted baby. And last September, the organization joined a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey second-grader who was not allowed to sing "Awesome God" in a school talent show. (All of these examples are easily accessible on several Web pages now devoted to defending the ACLU 's record on Christianity.)
Your take on them is simplistic. In fact you should read the CT article as it takes your type of argument to task even while saying they think they are wrong about their overall view on religious expression in the 'public square'
America Communist Liberties Union.
Never wanted their help, will never ask for it. Bunch of little panseys who got picked on in school, much like you Solon?
I wasnt picked on I was the star of our wrestling team. I think you are mistaking YOUR childhood for mine and mistaking YOU being made fun of for your obvious inability for higher brain function with being geeky. Projection is not your friend
Whatever you think of O'Reilly TWO of his examples of Democratic traditionalists, John Kennedy & Bobby Kennedy seem reasonable. Just as I might suggest Barry Goldwater & Dwight Eisenhower as an examples of a Republican traditionalists.
BTW Goldwater felt the Religious Right DESTROYED Traditional Conservatism.
really, how long can one continually bash on big O over and over and over again. I gets borring real quick. Makes it easy to go off topic.
At some point, Bill's ratings will inevitably come up in an effort to convince us how credible he really is despite his glaring shortcomings.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the GOD Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was from the idea of divine authority.
Constitution so deliberately acknowledges the supremacy of Jesus Christ our Lord over America
You have no idea what you are talking about.
As far as Jefferson here are some kernals of his thoughts about religion and civil society
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
[link to etext.virginia.edu]
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810. ME 12:345
[link to www.nobeliefs.com]
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814