After calling for ABC to fire Rosie O'Donnell over religious comments, conservatives silent on disclosures of Bush White House contempt for Christian conservatives
SUMMARY: Conservatives in the media have attacked Rosie O'Donnell for comments she has made regarding Christianity and Catholicism, and several have even called for O'Donnell to be fired. But those same conservatives have yet to comment on disclosures in a newly released book that the Bush White House has pandered to Christian conservatives for votes, while breaking promises on policy and referring to them as "the nuts," "insane," and "ridiculous" behind closed doors.
In recent weeks, a number of conservatives in the media have attacked Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, for comments she has made regarding Christianity and Catholicism, and several have even called for O'Donnell to be fired, claiming that "the appropriate punishment ... is the network guillotine." Those same conservatives, however, have yet to comment on disclosures in a newly released book that the Bush White House has pandered to Christian conservatives for votes, while breaking promises on policy and referring to them as "the nuts," "insane," and "ridiculous" behind closed doors. Those disclosures are made in Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction (Free Press, October 2006) by David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
O'Donnell's fellow co-hosts on the view are former ABC 20/20 co-host Barbara Walters, comedienne Joy Behar, and former fashion designer and reality TV star Elisabeth Hasselbeck (Hasselbeck's bio on ABC.com notes that she is "[q]uick to express her conservative views," and that she was one of the featured speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City).
On the September 12 broadcast of The View, O'Donnell, during a discussion on the war on terror, said that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." On September 29, O'Donnell and Behar said regarding the Catholic communion rite:
O'DONNELL: No. I remember they would do "Body of Christ." You'd have to say "Amen" and first it [the communion host] went on your tongue. And then sometime in the '70s, there was a big congregation, and you were allowed to get it in your hand. Do you remember this?
BEHAR: No, I think I dropped out by then.
O'DONNELL: Oh, yeah, well, it was big because my mom always used to say when you have that host in your mouth, don't let it touch your teeth because it was against -- so you know, the pressure on the child getting it, you know the priest would put it right on your tongue and you're not allowed to get it stuck on the roof of your mouth because you can't touch it. So you spend the rest of Mass [indicates she's trying to clean the roof of her mouth with her tongue]. Yeah, it was a lot. But anyways, cheers.
On the October 2 broadcast of The View, O'Donnell, in discussing the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), said:
O'DONNELL: And it's the same thing that happened in the Catholic Church when pedophile priests would move from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits.
And here's the most interesting thing about the Deliver Us From Evil documentary, that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic Church from the '80s until just recently was -- guess who? -- the current pope.
A variety of media figures, Christian conservatives, and bloggers have since attacked O'Donnell for these comments, and called for her to be fired. A September 20 article from AgapePress, a news service operated by the conservative American Family Association, reported that conservative Christians called for O'Donnell's dismissal:
Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow with Concerned Woman [sic] for America, called for Rosie's job. Crouse argued, "I think Rosie's statement was very unprofessional. I think it was ill-advised and I think American people ought to be outraged. She ought to be fired summarily for making a statement like that."
Bill Gray, writing for Conservative Voice, made his sentiment clear. "I want no more of Rosie O'Donnell," stated Gray. "I have sent this message to the president of ABC .... [l]et's let him know that this time ABC has definitely crossed the unforgivable line -- and ONLY an ABC minus Rosie will ever satisfy Christian America or a Christian world." Thus, to many a Christian activist the appropriate punishment for Rosie's rebellion is the network guillotine.
The AgapePress article was referring to a September 18 "Message to ABC" by Gray, who heads World Christian Ministries, posted on TheConservativeVoice.com, in which he declared, "I want no more of Rosie O'Donnell." Gray also highlighted American Family Association founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon's "ActionAlert" urging readers to "[t]ell ABC that O'Donnell's comments deserve an apology and a reprimand."
O'Donnell's remarks about the pope were highlighted on the October 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, and were designated by host Bill O'Reilly as the "Outrage of the Week." Author and former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg called O'Donnell's comments "dumb," and O'Reilly, speaking to Fox News contributor Jane Hall, said regarding O'Donnell:
O'REILLY: But Jane, I am very disturbed by companies like Disney [ABC's parent company] and General Electric [parent of NBC] now saying we're going to do radio. We're going to put anybody on the air. They can say anything they want. It can be defamatory. It can be flat-out wrong. And we don't really care, if we make a buck. And that's what's going on.
O'Reilly's objection to putting people on the air who say things that "can be defamatory" and "can be flat-out wrong" would seem to preclude his own appearances; Media Matters has documented smears and falsehoods by O'Reilly -- both on the radio and on TV -- far too numerous to list. (Further, contrary to O'Reilly's suggestion that The Walt Disney Co. does not currently have a radio operation, Disney owns -- and will continue to hold majority interest in following a merger announced earlier this year -- ABC Radio Networks, syndicator of Fox News host Sean Hannity's radio show, another source of conservative misinformation.)
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a September 28 press release condemning O'Donnell, which quoted Catholic League president William Donohue saying: "A few weeks ago, O'Donnell compared Christians whom she disagrees with to Muslim terrorists, and now we have her ridiculing Jesus."
In the September 12 entry of her Hot Air video weblog, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin said:
MALKIN: You know, the thing is, seriously, it's a shame that there isn't a single person on that panel who could smack Rosie O'Donnell over the head with a "clue bat" about just how threatening the jihadists are.
In his October 10 "Media Monitor" column, Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid attacked O'Donnell:
Lesbian entertainer Rosie O'Donnell generated headlines when she declared that "radical Christianity" was "just as threatening as radical Islam ... " That's completely absurd, of course, as demonstrated by the violent Islamic reaction to the Pope's simple historical observation about violent Jihad. But it's not a unique view.
For all their attacks on O'Donnell, however, not one of these media figures or bloggers has addressed the allegations in Kuo's book or the statements he has made to the media about what he describes as the White House's pandering to Christian conservatives for votes, while showing contempt for their policy priorities, as well as for them personally. The New York Times reported on October 13:
A former deputy director of the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is charging that many members of the Bush administration privately dismiss its conservative Christian allies as ''boorish'' and ''nuts.''
The former deputy director, David Kuo, an evangelical Christian conservative, makes the accusations in a newly published memoir, ''Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction'' (Free Press), about his frustration with what he described as the meager support and political exploitation of the program.
''National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,' '' Mr. Kuo writes.
Kuo himself appeared on the October 15 edition of CBS's 60 Minutes and said: "You name the important Christian leader, and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places." Correspondent Leslie Stahl reported:
STAHL: Specifically, he says, people in the White House political office referred to [700 Club host] Pat Robertson as "insane"; [Moral Majority founder] Jerry Falwell as "ridiculous"; [Focus on the Family founder] James Dobson "had to be controlled." And President Bush, he writes, talked about his compassion agenda, but never really fought for it.
In the book, Kuo described ways in which the Bush White House manipulated and lied to Christian conservatives. On Page 173, he wrote:
Christian conservatives seemed especially vulnerable to that power and everyone working with them knew that. There were just so many ways to make them happy. In addition to myriad White House events, phone calls, and meetings, they could be given passes to be in the crowd greeting the president when he arrived on Air Force One or tickets for a speech he was giving in their hometown. Little trinkets like cufflinks or pens or pads of paper were passed out like business cards. The White House used them all, knowing the Christian leaders could give them to their congregations or donors or friends to show just how influential they were. Making politically active Christians personally happy meant having to worry far less about the Christian political agenda.
On Pages 239-240, Kuo alleged that Bush and White House senior adviser Karl Rove lied to Christian conservatives about the amount of money the Bush administration had made available for faith-based charities, describing the circumstances:
For two years I had bitten my tongue and toed the line. We in the faith-based office didn't speak too loudly or thunder too much. We were nice. I wasn't angry now, but I was no longer willing to lie. "Sir, we've given them virtually nothing new to give."
He [Bush] had been looking down at some papers I had given him but his head jerked up. "Nothing? What do you mean we've given them nothing?" He glared and angrily pointed toward the window. "Don't we have new money in programs like the Compassion Fund thing?"
Karl was standing next to me in front of the president's desk. He looked stunned. I glanced at him and then looked at the president. "No, sir. In the last two years we've gotten less than eighty million dollars in new grants." I was probably being generous.
"What?! What do you mean?"
Karl looked a bit confused, too. "But what about the other money? You know, the money we've opened up to new charities."
He was remembering our own spin from the winter. Yes, I told the president, because of new regulations there was technically about $8 billion in existing programs that were now eligible for faith-based groups. But, I assured him, faith-based groups had been getting money from those programs for years.
"Eight billion in new dollars?"
"No sir. Eight billion in existing dollars for which groups will find it technically easier to apply. But faith-based groups have been getting that money for years."
"Eight billion. That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups. Okay, let's go."
As we walked I vaguely recalled one of Jesus' parables about only being able to reap what you have sown. We had sown the symbolic seeds of compassion with our constituents. They had accepted them gratefully. We had sown them with the president, too, and he was happy with them.
On Page 190, Kuo described Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's behavior at the National Cathedral in Washington on the September 14, 2001 National Day of Prayer and Remembrance:
I was silent. [Former Sen.] Bob Dole [R-KS], who only got a ticket at the last minute because he was inadvertently left off the invite list, sobbed quietly. I watched his shoulders heave up and down. A family seated a few rows away held each other and cried. Their quiet cries echoed throughout the cathedral.
Ahead, Jerry Falwell was chortling with a fellow conservative leader. As Barbara Bush entered, Jerry chirped, "Whoa, does she look frumpy."
Four pages later, Kuo wrote about Rove's response to Falwell's complaint that Kuo had told people about this incident:
I talked about the [evangelical leader Billy] Graham/Falwell distinction with too many people. One day I was handed a note to call Karl. He had received a fax from Jerry Falwell, fuming because I had been spreading rumors about him. "David, Karl. Jerry sent a fax complaining about you." I told Karl about Jerry's behavior at the Memorial Service. "Listen, I don't know. Would you just call Jerry, apologize and make things nice? We just have to put up with him."
On Pages 229-230, Kuo detailed the White House's private attitudes toward the Christian right:
What they didn't get to see was what the White House thought of them. For most of the rest of the White House staff, evangelical leaders were people to be tolerated, not people who were truly welcomed. No group was more eye-rolling about Christians than the political affairs shop. They knew "the nuts" were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness. Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were. They didn't see much of the love of Jesus in their lives.
Political affairs was hardly alone. There wasn't a week that went by that I didn't hear someone in the middle- to senior-levels making some comment or another about how annoying the Christians were or how tiresome they were, or how "handling" them took so much time.
National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as "ridiculous," out of control," and just plain "goofy." The leaders spent much time lauding the president, but they were never shrewd enough to do what Billy Graham had done three decades before, to wonder whether they were being used. They were.
A blogger by the name of "AllahPundit" posted an October 12 entry on Kuo on the Hot Air blog. "AllahPundit," however, did not directly address Kuo's allegations, and Malkin herself has yet to address Kuo, either on Hot Air or her own blog.
the silence doesn't last long. Soon conservatives will respond to Kuo's book. And they will respond not with outrage that they are being played for saps by the Republican elites; they will respond by calling Kuo a liar.
Karl Rove has trotted out several of Kuo's former colleagues who just can't imagine what he's talking about. In other words...he must be lying. They've also tried to paint him as a Democratic operative.
That was quick. And predictable (obviously).
it happened before I finished reading the 3 posts above.
Hypocrisy by conservatives and/or Republicans? Who would have thought? Seems like they don't care when someone points out the obvious, that George Bush and Karl Rove have been playing them for the suckers that they truly are, but they think the world is going to end when a television host makes some comments. Actually, wouldn't they like Rosie, if her comments made the world end? Isn't that what they want? Jesus comes back and all of that.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
is comparing two unequal situations.
Rosie O'Donnell said her comments on live television.
David Kuo has written book. Although the media has portrayed him as a conservative, he once was "a campaign volunteer for former representative Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and an intern for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)." (source") Has Kuo's account obtained multiple, independent corroboration? It's a stretch to compare Kuo's words to something someone said on live television.
Also, MMFA's use of the word "contempt" is certainly unfair. Kuo wrote a 2005 Beliefnet article subtitled "Former Bush Aide: 'Minimal commitment' from the White House plus Democratic hostility hinder the faith-based plan" (bold added). If there was any "contempt" for conservative Christians, it came from Democrats.
(P.S. - Kuo said his contract said his book was to be released in 2007. S&S changed it to come out before the election. "Interesting"? Yes. (source)
My 2 cents. Thanks.
he is a faith-based anti-poverty activist...does that mean he can only work for the republicans? judging from their kick-the-poor-when-they're-down policies, it seems he would do better working for the dems. how do partisan affiliations have anything to do with ones faith?
as for the timing of the book's release..."interesting? yes." ummm, maybe the guy thinks that the republicons deserve to be punished for exploiting his faithful brethren. not likely, seen as it is more likely to be a businees decision on behalf of the publishers to make a splash in the market to ensure maximum sales. oooooooo, left-wing conspiracy. more like rightwing bogeyman, yet another.
as for rosie, it is interesting that none of her critics actually addressed what she said (or, rather one did). for one she didn't compare christy-fundies to jihadists...it was straight up fundy to fundy. any fundamental belief system is dangerous. just like all fundy-muslims want a theocratic state based on sharia law, all fundy-christies want a theocratic state based on biblical teachings. what is the difference there: one group bombs and threatens people who disagree with them, the other group bombs and threatens people who disagree with them...seems like a pretty fair comparison to me.
as for the comparison between the catholic church and the gop in covering up pedophilia within their ranks, how does that offend anyone. any catholic or republican with morals should be outraged by their leadership covering up pedophilia, its disgusting. now, the fact that the current pope played the role of denny hastert and the gop leadership isn't even his biggest skeleton in his closet...the fact that he was a member of the hitler youth is.
way to go rosie, you got some real gonads for speaking truth to power.
..were those really the comments that outraged the Christian conservatives?! And were they even wrong? Was the current Pope responsible for what she claimed? If not, then certainly she owes an apology. However, if so, then suck it up and move on to your next catastrophe.
Sasami: "That's the thing I didn't get ... were those really the comments that outraged the Christian conservatives?! And were they even wrong? Was the current Pope responsible for what she claimed? If not, then certainly she owes an apology."
Yes, Rosie was 100% wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger did not take charge until after the scandal reupted in 2002. She does owe the Pope an apology.
The facts:
(source)is like citing Newsmax. Here's a specific incident from ABC news. [link to web.archive.org]
That's simple capitilsm, my friend. I'd expect a Republican to know that. It's going to sell much better before an election as opposed to after.
I thought you guys were all about making money. I guess I was wrong!
As for this:
Let's say that Democrats were responsible for blocking the money. Well guess what? Democrats weren't the ones EXPLOITING the evangelicals for their own political gain.
The basic premise stands: Bush Administration exploited evangelicals to win the vote. They renegged on their promises. However, I would have to agree with some of the insiders assessment that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. are "insane" and "unhinged".
Shoes posted these same exact comments in another thread about Kuo, where he was thoroughly debunked.
Same old tricks: keep repeating it and hope it becomes relevant.
I posted simpler facts. There was no "debunking."
I think the least I can ask for is some honesty.
Thank you.
>>>Shoes89: "I think the least I can ask for is some honesty."<<<
I agree. So when can we expect honesty from you?
You have been banned at least *twice* from this site ---as "infoguy" and later "bannedagain". Then, because apparently you think you are different and special, you ignored the terms of the site you agreed to and registered here yet AGAIN as "Shoes89".
...I get angered when I read Shoes' feigned 'honesty' and integrity. But, I enjoyed the deconstruction by the other folks on this site. You're correct. *just my two cents*
Newsbusters huh? By the way didn't Simon and Schuster publish Rush Limbaugh's two books?
Why is it that right-wing blowhards constantly complain that what is said that they don't like happens to be lies or manipulations of truth, but not one of them can ever come up with a reason why?
Is it that hard to say, "Rosie was wrong about the Pope. He didn't investigate the allegations of pedophilia in the Church!" and be backed with facts?
I guess it's hard to shout over those not on your show, and you have to resort to smears and lies to try to win the argument. I myself prefer truth and facts.
"Is it that hard to say, 'Rosie was wrong about the Pope. He didn't investigate the allegations of pedophilia in the Church!' and be backed with facts?"
No, it's not. As I posted above, Rosie was completely wrong. Here are the facts: (link)
Thank you.
To be fair, Rosie was just wrong about the time period (80's until today) Ratzinger was apparently the chief investigator. If you believe a Catholic advocacy group, Ratzinger didn't run the investigations until some time in 2002.
No mention has been made by the advocacy group as to the level of involvement Ratzinger may have had before 2002.
Rosie apparently got her information from a documentary that Catholics are disputing.
Hardly worth firing someone over considering the amount of blatant and apparently willful disinformation O'Reilly puts out on just about a daily basis.
Lesbian Rosie O'Donnell
Billionaire George Soros
"Lesbian" and "Billionaire" are such odd names to give to a child.
Or maybe the "three-name thing" is to associate them with Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth. Or Kim Jong what's his name...
Who knows?
Three names indeed. You may be on to something.
Is a patriot.
I have heard so much hate toward her form the Right wing , its sickening.That slimeball Bill Donahue from the Catholic League is the worst at attacking Rosie.
Rosie is allowed her opinion, keep it up!!!!!!!!!!
Radical Dominionist Christians do threaten our liberty.
but religion doesn't belong in government. This is a free nation, which means that Rosie can say what she wants. I happen to share the same opinion as Rosie. I have no issues with Islam or Muslims. Hell, I just bought a car from a Jordanian.
I believe it was Nerzog who posted (on another thread) that one of the biggest threats to the U.S. is Christian fundamentalism. I agree whole-heartedly. Our Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as any Islamic fundamentalist. Just ask Dr. Tiller. I also believe that churches should stay out of politics or be taxed. We allow these totalitarian fundies control. They are on our school boards. They are on our city councils. They are in our local, state and national governments. They shouldn't be.
For once I agree with JLyon. Rosie is a patriot and she has the right to her opinions. The right doesn't smear Rosie because of what she said. They smear her because they want to label her as the godless lesbian they all hope her to be.
Rosie is not a patriot, she is an idiot.
And you and JLyon are psycho trolls who want to silence Conservatives like O'Reilly because they have a different view than you do on abortion.
I'm far from a troll. Maybe you should take your own advice.
It's the cons like Bill O'Reilly who don't want opposing views to be spoken. As is evidenced by the way he attacks. Who's the troll here?
YOU are a moron troll who thinks we are as dumb as you are
And JLyon and CSL are not trolls.
I am more of a troll then Common could ever be!!!!!!
;0)
Don't let them cheapen the title of "troll"!
On behalf of "Daves" everywhere, do not judge this forum by the trifling, empty-brained comments by the dull-witted, daft imbecile known as "daveblaz09487".
For once today I agree with you.
I'm not going to be so quick as to call this a troll post, but it's a tough call.
This MMFA post is talking about the Evangelical Right's campaign against Rosie for her opinion, versus the Evangelical Right's lack of a widescale campaign against the Bush Administration for alleged insults towards them from Bush aides. It's meant to show a moral hypocrisy. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence yet to prove the allegations in that new book, but there's a lot of commentators out there saying it isn't out of the ordinary.
What Rosie said is totally baseless, although I believe that the tactics of radical Christianity vs. Islam are similar - especially the formation of ideological youth groups/camps - and although I would say that faith-based initiatives and other programs inclusive to religious groups are skeevy as hell, I wouldn't go so far to say that the Church is a "totalitarian" system infiltrating our government offices.
What do you guys think?
They infiltrate our school boards to try and sell us on creationism. They buy politicians and try to legislate their brand of morality. And Rosie is gay. How hateful have the fundys been towards gays. I live in a small town in Colorado and you would be astonished at the bigotry that eminates directly from the mega churches.
And rosie makes an outstanding point. Too bad the ignorant masses don't want to hear it. Fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous. Are christians as violent as muslims? No. Their subversion of democracy is much more sinister. They use the airwaves to spread their intollerance and hateful messages. The christo-fascists are destroying america from within while whining they are being persecuted. I'm sorry if this offends but faith really is for suckers.
Actually, Christians are far more violent than Muslims. There have been far, far more people killed in the name of god than Allah. As an abstract, neither faith is more or less violent than the other. In practice and in the lives of their followers, christianity takes the violence cake by FAR. The vast majority of peopled killed in every World War, on both sides, where Christian, with a noted exception to the Jews, the Civil War was fought between christians, as was the revolutionary war, as were most every war in Europe since the fall of the Roman Republic. The killings by Spain, England, the Netherlands, France, and other colonial powers, all christian.
No, christianity is plenty bloodier than Islam.
"a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"- Arthur M.Schlesinger, Jr.
pretty much sums up the ideal for the bible-thumping fundies. now, it is unquestionable that the catholic church is a totalitarian institution...i mean, that's pretty much what the reformation was about. as for other christian sects, i would not call them totalitarian as there is no single leader or group in control. the united church and the anglican church in canada happily perform same-sex marriages...whereas other protestant sects are total bigots...their favourite line in rebutting fellow canadians is if you're soooo big on tolerance then you have to 'tolerate' our 'intolerance'.
insofar as they are totalitarian (the so-called family values bunch) it is they total ideological cohesion in calling for their own view to be imposed on all non-believers...and how is this different than fundy-muslims who want to impose their beliefs on the infidels.
Criticzm of Islam is acceptable (like from Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and the Pope). Terrorist portrayals of Mohammed in cartoons are acceptable. But criticism of radical Christianity and Holocaust denials aren't.
I think all of what I listed above is unacceptable. And the term "radical" really isn't used accurately.
The term "radical" means that one is on the FAR left because they are furthest from the status quo. They want immediate, progressive change in policy. So "radical" Islam, or Christianity, is not a threat. And to call those who use Islam to commit violent acts as "Islamic fundamentalists" or "radical Muslims" is inaccurate, or even Islamic facism. Facism is a type of government...not a form of war. I sometimes feel that we are moving towards a type of facism in the U.S.A. with the Patriot Act, wiretapping, the endless wars and the threat of more invasions.
ok so the cartoon of Mohammed wearing a bomb in his turban made a point...that some people are perverting Islam by using it as a rationale to murder people. however, the people who argued TOO hard for the free speech side were clearly closeted bigots parading as defenders of free speech. i didn't think the cartoons shouldn't have been published, but they did remind me of the "funny" (ironic quotations) cartoons in nazi germany portraying jewish people with hooknoses pinching pennies etc. so there is a fine line between free speech and hate speech.
now the reactions around the muslim world were insane and only fed into the stereotypes of muslims as terrorists.
however, i couldn't help but wonder what the reaction in the christian world would have been to a new york times cartoon depicting jesus blowing up an abortion clinic.
and rightfully so. Hate speech is free speech. The rebuttal is also. I did notice the resemblance to the nazi propaganda cartoons. We should remember this was a conservative rag. The offensive cartoon was meant, I believe, to be deragatory. It is a shame that some can't see that kind of garbage is counter productive. Stephen Biko said once that if you treat a man like a dog, they'll begin to act like one. Not that I'm condoning muslim extremism. But we know that these people are easily riled and prone to being sympathetic towards; or are already our enemies. Seems logical to me if we could eliminate as much of that sympathy as possible, by not defaming their main man mohammed, not bombing them quite so much, not threatening to invade their countries etc. But I digress as this has nothing to do with Rosie.
So it's not okay for Rosie O'Donnell to say that radicalism in both the Christian and Muslim worlds are dangerous, which a true statment....
But it's perfectly fine for Psychovangelists to say that homosexuality is a choice, which a false statement.
And Bill O'Reilly saying anything about anything is just.... hours of entertainment for me.
For some, I said some, it is a choice.
But what really opened my eyes recently was a add I saw a few months back in a very liberal mag here in the bay area, made me wonder just how much is in the genes.
"Gay sperm doners wanted for lesbian Mothers"
I felt awefuly discrmininated upon.
poor typos in there.
Even if homosexuality is a choice (which for most, I don't believe it is), why do YOU care? Were you wanting to give your sperm to lesbian mothers? What makes you think they would want your sperm?
For SOME it is. Not all. So we agree.
Why would they not? Why the discrimination?
Because they don't want your sperm? GMAFB.
They might not even want my sperm, and I'm gay. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, Evillib. Since it is a private affair between the two women, since one of those two women are planning to carry the seed of man to produce a child, they have every right to discriminate in who they choose as sperm donors.
Although your comment was probably in jest, there are probably some here who might have taken you seriously. Believe me, if I were in the lesbian couple's situation, almost no one would qualify. As a part of that couple, I'd like to have the best of the best of the best. You and I might not qualify.
Hederosexual Evillib this week decided to post on MMFA.
WHO CARES IF SHE IS A LESBIAN? Oh wait, the gay mafia does......
I thought that was odd of Cliff Kincaid to start off by calling Rosie a "Lesbian entertainer".
At first I thought, does O'Donnnell just entertain lesbians? What does Kincaid mean by "entertainer?" -- could be a double-entendre.
Then I thought, no, Kincaid is doing what amounts to an ad-hominem attack if you consider the majority of his audience.
By pointing out that O'Donnell is a lesbian, the rest of Kincaid's argument will go down a little easier with his audience.
This will sound strange coming from me. I've spent most of my life tettering on the brink between agnosticism and atheism. But I don't think its "faith" thats for suckers; it organized religion thats for suckers. Not to offend anyone, but organized religion is not about "faith" or "belief", its about social and behavioural control. This predates Christianity.
People willingly put their faith, not in their deity, but in "men of god" without remembering these men of god are after all just men. Imperfect, fallable men. Nothing more.
but then again, as the new Richard Dawkins book argues, "faith" is a delusional belief not supported by facts. and just because one cannot refute god, one can similarly not refute the flying spaghetti monster. so maybe faith is for suckers...
faith is a large part of the organized religion or church. I don't pretend to know if there is a god, whatever "god" means. Is it a bearded ghost up in the sky directing traffic? I doubt it. But I don't spend much time on it. Life can be beautiful enough without putting a human face on it and following self rightous ideology. I agree with you Watcher. Organized religion is about control. And politicians and kings have always used it to supress and control the masses. Religion is dangerous. Though there is certainly good in religion, I don't dispute that. But I'm with Tom Paine, religion robs an individual of having to worship or not as their conscience dictates.
Here is why. Lets take it out of the religious context to make this point. There are things that you need to believe because to believe otherwise would be Hobbs choice, that is a self fulfilling prophesy, or would just make the world an unacceptable place to be. Do you believe in the decency of people? I do. Yet what evidence is there to support such a claim? The evidence is huge on both sides of the argument. I believe people are basically good in their hearts because to believe otherwise is a road I just cannot choose to travel down. Now I wouldnt dismiss proof to the contrary. If it became measurable and it could be scientifically proven otherwise I would accept that but until that happens I will stubbornly refuse to accept that people are not basically good despite the constant stream of small evidences to the contrary. Is the world going to be improved if for the most part people believe that we are basically good? I think so, to take this route, to engage the world with THIS mindset is the better course. We understand thats some people do very bad things and take that into account but we have FAITH that the basic essence of humanity is good and WANTS to do right.
In a religious concept I dont believe because it would be comforting. I have my reasons that are really too complicated to go into in this context, it did involve years of study. However I think that faith is a lesson we are meant to learn. There is more to this existance than is dreamt of in MOST philosophies. If we limit our beliefs to that which we can touch, smell, see, and measure we will be missing out on a whole lot of wonders. I understand both sides of this argument having in my life been on both sides of this fence. I do have faith in many things I cannot prove, I dont really think I am a sucker. I also understand being cynical. If you fall for anything you can fall for everything. As with most decisions about how to handle reality, I dont think its about making a hard and fast unalterable decision but dancing on the razors edge finding the comfortable middle ground being cynical her and more open minded there, trying to be right in each case rather than conforming to a rigid rule on what to accept and when.
and thanks for the courteous and well thought out response to a rather crude statement on my part. Faith in people to me is more a benefit of doubt that they will do something good or behave well. I don't think I can subscribe to the idea that people are good. People just are. They just exist. Sometimes they do good works sometimes not. Don't get me wrong though. I don't just trust my senses. I understand that there is much more going on that our feeble minds can comprehend. Ideas and philosphical pondering on the possibilities of some of these things doesn't involve faith of any kind to me. I believe in pragmatism and one thing I am convinced of is I don't know anything for certain so can't allow myself to just assume something is true when it makes no logical sense to me. As far as religion goes. I was raised evangelical Christian. This scarred me for many years as I saw the world of Christianity as being just as corrupt as the branch I was born into. As I grew older I realized that good can certainly come from the teachings of Jesus and as far as I'm concerned if you want to believe in something to get you through life, so be it. As long as it doesn't try to suck me in.
He thinks it's awful that anyone can express their opinion on the radio [or TV] as long as they make a buck.
Huhmmmmmm!?!
And its' Evillib?!
I dont know whether to feel flattered or violated.
But, according to a growing mountain of research (genuine researcg, not conservative pseudo-research) Attraction to those of the same gender is wired into the brain. Therefore, no choice involved.
This can be confirmed by gay friends who will tell you that if they WERE given the choice, they wouldn't have chosen something so hard for people to deal with.
side of the nature/nurture debate. however, i recentrly watched---and i know this isn't scientific---an mtv dating show for gays and lesbians, and they all said that the knew they were gay as far back as they could remember. nevertheless, my social geography prof said that it is a choice, that most species have circumstances of homosexual behaviour, and that while he is gay and prefers men he doesn't mind rolling in the hay with a woman once in awhile. also, one of my friends was a full out hetero, then she was bi, then she was a lesbian for years, and now she is a hetero again. accordingly, many men sentenced to time in prison readily admit to homosexual behaviour, not because they are gay, but because there are no women around.
it's all anecdotal data, but i don't think one can say conclusively one way or the other...although, as you say more biologically based data is coming out weekly to support the nature side. despite this, my gay prof asserts that his friends in the community readily admit to employing the "it's not a choice" slogan as a form of strategic essentialism, as it is hard to criticize someone who is born different than most people.
and everyone sees sexuality in a different light. Being a social scientist, you most likely know about Kinsey and his famous scale. Some people are total 1's (totally heterosexual) and some people are 6's (totally homosexual). I am a total 6. I wouldn't have it any other way. If I could do it over again, would I be straight? Hell no. No offense to straight folks, but there are some people (like me) who embrace their sexuality instead of holding it in, causing a life of mental and emotional anguish. If there were fewer people like Robertson, Falwell, et al., you might not see such self-loathing during the coming out process that is exhibited by many gays. Robertson and his ilk know they have this effect on others. They use divisiveness to force people into an "us" versus "them" sort of morality, where anyone who is different is shunned. It's disgusting.
damn straight...if there were less robertson falwell et als...people wouldn't have to live a lie...which must be an unbearable thing to do. then again, i think the robertson falwell bunch are really an example of "thou doth protest too much" (i.e. they are 6's dressed up as 1's). always seems to be the case that the most homophobic tend to be, well, homo. a canadian comedian, akin to jon stewart, just did a bit on canada's focus on the family, whose website warns parents that sponge-bob square-pants is gay. he said that these christy conservatives talk about gay sex more than gay people.
anyhoo, i digress.
gawd bless diversity.
It depends on what you have faith in. When things get tough, I always have faith in the inevitablity of things turning around and getting better. It's not god, but it works for me.
that god is love...but that isn't a belief unsupported by fact. and your own "faith" cannot be the garden variety.
not rooted in fact. That's what faith is. Just a belief in something with nothing to tangible to back it up.
the existence of God, the veracity of Christ's claims, etc. I'm not an expert in biblical history, but I am aware that some of that is out there (though that's for another time and place). But at the end of the day, like a lot of things, it comes down to faith - do you believe or not? And I think that almost everyone has faith in something - whether it be God (in different variations abd forms), science, human nature, etc. I think the only true unbelievers are agnostics, and even some of them believe in something.
About Rosie O'Donnell, I honestly am not offended by her comments, even as a Christian myself. I may or may not agree with all of it, but it's her right to say it. I think that the "Christian" Right's outrage is just indicative of how distracted they have allowed themselves to become. The GOP knows that many Christian conservatives will be easily swayed by psuedo-issues like criticism of their religion, as well as things that they think will threaten their "traditional" (although not necessarily Christian) way of life.
These people often don't think with much depth about the scope of what their faith calls them to be and do. They then vote GOP, who in turn all but ignore the issues they have been told to care about. I mean, what has actually changed under united Republican government? Abortion is still legal, gay marriage laws haven't changed on a national level, there still is no prayer in schools. You name it - nothing's changed for them.
Meanwhile, biblical principles such as love for neighbor, compassion, justice for the poor and oppressed, etc., are being ignored by these same people who believe that they're being good Christians by being loyal Republicans. It's a shame, and it's really sad. I wonder, though, when these people will wake up and realize that the party they're supporting is making fools of them.
I disagree a little bit about the first thing you mentioned though. I don't believe it's possible to prove or have true evidence in the existence of God. People can claim that there are pieces of noah's Ark on top of Mount Ararat. That doesn't prove anything. It may to someone who has faith, but we can't even agree on what "God" is let alone find proof that one exists. It's all ancient words and speculation.
if they have been able to "see through" Robberman, Fallfar and a few other "Christian" leaders. I would wonder how much groups like theirs would siphon off for their own coffers if granted "faith based" monies from the government. A 90+% administrative fee? Or would the $$ actually reach the masses?
"Thus, to many a Christian activist the appropriate punishment for Rosie's rebellion is the network guillotine." Bill Gray (who the flock is he?) obviously thinks conservatives are our rulers by divine right and Rosie's being uppity.
O'Donnell Abu! (her ancient clan's war cry)