I figured out what we need to do. (Democrats)

[sweetnpetite]

It doenst' all lie with the democratic party, or the candidates.

Someone(s) need to start forming *left wing* research, advacy, think tank ect groups with names that include words like "Family"
"Heritage" "Moral" and "Patriot"

Part of the reason that the right wing has claim to them is that they have all of these groups with names like "Concened Citizens" and "Family Reserch Council" and "Heritage Foundation"

To us (the dems, the libs) these words have become code names for bigotry or worse, and we shy away from them.

What are are groups called? (I confess to ignorance) We should either rename them, or form new ones. And get quoted in the press often. IF we're sneaky, we might even get on FOX news before they catch on

And of course, we need to get more clergy involved. (I heard that on TV the other day.) CLergy that believe in civil liberties and the environment and human rights and the poor and needy, and public education. I know that they are out there. (and if they are not- I guess we all need to get ordained )

 

[carsonshepherd]

I've often thought this. We liberals just aren't angry enough. We've let the religious right get angry while we remain fair and balanced. When we organize, we let ourselves get bad names. (EarthFirst, etc.) Radical is good, but it also alienates.

Before they kill us off entirely we need to get mad. Tear down the house. We need to react to this polarization of our society instead of just letting it happen around us and hoping we can wait for the next downturn of conservative thought.

(Okay. No more ranting today. I swear.)

 

[BigAndTall]

.

Before they kill us off entirely we need to get mad.

(Okay. No more ranting today. I swear.)

You already have M.A.D.D.

 

[sweetnpetite]

'Blood on the Moon': Where Was My Church When The Right Hijacked 'Values'

By Nicholas F. Benton
Everyone was shocked to learn that it was a mobilization of evangelical Christians, the so-called “religious right,” that keyed President Bush’s re-election last week. It caught Democrats and media pundits off guard, and even Republican organizers were surprised at how much better the religious right networks’ “Get Out the Vote” effort was than their own. Many Catholic churches weighed in, as well, among other things impacting the Hispanic vote. Many priests did not hesitate to link a vote for Bush with the well-being of parishioner souls. As much as some may grouse about the way in which all this overstepped the separation of church and state, the fact is that 95% of Americans profess a belief in God or some higher power. It should be obvious, therefore, that a strong appeal to values derived from that belief would have an important impact at the ballot box. And it did.

But hold on. I am an active, church-going Christian. But like many other Christians, I am profoundly offended by the so-called “moral values” espoused by the religious right that focused, for this election, almost exclusively against women’s rights and gay rights. On the other hand, I share a lot of the values rooted in love and compassion that are espoused by most religious traditions.

My religious background and church practice are also rooted in “moral values,” too, but defined in different terms. They are linked to notions of peace, justice, service to the disadvantaged, equality and human rights. The problem is that my terms, defined as religious values, didn’t show up at the polls last week. I want to know why.

Where was the passionate, compassionate, prophetic voice of the Rev. Martin Luther King in this election? He was no proponent of a bigoted religious right. Nor was he a secularist. As a religious leader, as a Christian, he was perhaps the most powerful force for civil rights, justice and equality this nation has ever known. Why was the legacy of Martin Luther King simply not a factor, in “values” terms, in this election?

I believe the religious right hijacked “values” to win this election because the leaders of my church denomination, the United Church of Christ, and those of like-minded religious institutions, stood on their hands and let it happen. Of course, whining bureaucrats will protest. But they got their behinds kicked badly in this election.

How many times in the year leading up to the election did CNN or other news networks put the bloated, pasty face of Jerry Falwell up on a split screen to spew anti-gay bigotry, only to have the “other side” represented by a secular person? Why was my church not pounding down the doors of CNN insisting that Falwell does not speak for all Christians, that there is another way to interpret the Gospel and moral values, entirely?

Why was abortion allowed to stand alone for so many faithful as a presidential litmus test, but not a candidate’s culpability in launching an unprovoked war of conquest that has left over 100,000 Iraqis dead so far?

It didn’t used to be this way in the United Church of Christ which has 1.2 million members including the likes of Barak Obama, Howard Dean and Jim Jeffords. Born of a merger of the Congregational Church (of the original Pilgrims) and the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1958, the UCC grew up in the spirit of ecumenicism with its leaders often marching at the head of civil rights and anti-war protests and marches.

I joined the UCC 40 years ago this month, subsequently enrolled after college and graduated with honors from a UCC-affiliated theological seminary. The civil rights and anti-war ferment of the 1960s and early 1970s was deeply intertwined with the activism of the UCC and other progressive denominations and religious institutions in the spirit of Martin Luther King, offering critical logistical and moral support. In those days, the moral “high ground” was clearly held by those who took to the streets on behalf of peace and social justice. They stood strong, in particular against the many sermons preached in conservative and reactionary churches insisting the Bible supported racism and war, and fiercely opposed integration and interracial marriage. They also stood against popular sentiment, which was against interracial marriage at that time by a wider margin than it is against gay marriage today.

One can only speculate about what caused the change since those days, but we know how dramatically things have reversed in the period between that point and this.

I have my theories, based on a lot of eye-witness observations over the interim, and I intend to say what I surmise about it all. Rampant covert domestic intelligence operations during the 1970s, some of which was publicly exposed but much of which was not, helped mute one social current and give force and voice to another. Little of it has been by accident.

It is time to ask tough questions, and I hereby join many others equally troubled to call my church, the United Church of Christ, and kindred groups, into some very serious soul-searching.

The particularly-painful irony regarding the UCC in this election was not only its dead silence in the face of a mobilization of the religious right, but the fact that its national headquarters is located right in the one place where a concerted effort could have made a major difference: Ohio.

http://www.fcnp.com/436/whitehouse.htm

 

[sweetnpetite]

I've often thought this. We liberals just aren't angry enough. We've let the religious right get angry while we remain fair and balanced. When we organize, we let ourselves get bad names. (EarthFirst, etc.) Radical is good, but it also alienates.

Before they kill us off entirely we need to get mad. Tear down the house. We need to react to this polarization of our society instead of just letting it happen around us and hoping we can wait for the next downturn of conservative thought.

(Okay. No more ranting today. I swear.)

And we need to get our numbers up!

The only way to outnumber them is to beat them at there own game. Keep believing in prochoice and birthcontrol- but don't *use* it!!! We need to have more kids than the fundies and raise them up to be good liberals who vote Democrat!

 

[Guest]

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Jesus was a liberal. (Just look at his endless pleas to help the little man, about tolerance, about improving the self)

Jesus was a commie. (look at his endless appeals against the greedy and the rich, most famously his "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven")

Jesus was an appeasenik. (He was strongly against eye-for-an-eye schemes and was very big on "turning the other cheek" when abuse came your way)

Jesus was a bleeding-heart and coddled sinners. (Remember how the only person who was personally guaranteed passage into Heaven by Jesus was a whore)

Jesus was "trying to attack religion" (look at his endless calls against the corrupt among the Church in terms of the Pharisees, at his distaste at those who used Church for money or power (see Pharisees, apply to Evangelicals), and his implied statements for a separation of church and state ("render unto Ceasar all that is Ceasars"))

The so-called "Christian Right" are false Christians. They do not follow in Christ's footsteps. They instead look exclusively to the OT and Paul, because Jesus isn't about the hatred, about bloody revenge, about banning immorality and burning the sinners. What has usurped the Christian name and has caused the anti-religion movement is a doomsday cult. A group of psychotic usurpers and blasphemers who believe the world will end soon if they don't "fix" the immorality, if they don't "make it all good and proper" and they don't fear Hell for their sins, for the "plank in their own eye" as Christ said. No, they know that all it takes to enter Heaven is to be a Christian, that simply by believing that Christ is their savior and prepaid for their sins, that they are off the hook. These are the fake Christians. The ones who deserve scorn and it is time the true followers of Christ point this out. Sure, it would help if the atheists stopped lumping all Christians together like the neocons lump all Islamic people together, but to aid that the sanely religious must have the courage to say the truth. Let the truly religious, the ones who truly follow the words of their God and their prophet stand against the violent usurpers. Let them take their respective religions back on the world stage.


End rant. Oh, and fuck politics. We deify people who would gladly sell their grandmothers to a dog meat factory for a few points in the approval rating. Who have no qualms about ruining people's lives to keep power. We have forgotten everything Nixon and Watergate have taught us, steaming in blind ignorance and constantly tauting the "glories" of our elected officials, making issues of their fake moral rhetoric to hide their utter scruple bankruptcy, and overall protecting them from any and all forms of scorn. Politicians are always worthy of scorn, it's not a job for personally good men who care about end products. If you don't believe me, just look at "demon incarnate" Jimmy Carter. It's like deifying CEOs or conmen, you're going to be eternally disappointed.

End second rant. I don't want to go for a third, I'm emotionally tired of all the bullshit and it's the right proper time I went back to not giving a damn about idiots and assholes.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by carsonshepherd
I've often thought this. We liberals just aren't angry enough. We've let the religious right get angry while we remain fair and balanced. When we organize, we let ourselves get bad names. (EarthFirst, etc.) Radical is good, but it also alienates.

Before they kill us off entirely we need to get mad. Tear down the house. We need to react to this polarization of our society instead of just letting it happen around us and hoping we can wait for the next downturn of conservative thought.

(Okay. No more ranting today. I swear.)

I've often thought the bigger problem was the "college liberal" being a whiny, angsty, "downtrodden", loud, obnoxious jerk-off in the face of the conservative calm, assertive demeanor. There are just too many ignorant fucktards in the Democratic movement who have no concept of what can and cannot be done, looking only at what "ought to be done".

Idealistic is good, but being entirely impractical is a waste of time.

 

[Xelebes]

The so-called "Christian Right" are false Christians. They do not follow in Christ's footsteps. They instead look exclusively to the OT and Paul,

So true, it's aggravating. My parents are staunch right wing religious people. That is, they align themselves more with the Southern Baptist church (even in Canada they have a bit of a following here) and they call Romans the most important book of the Bible as they believe Romans is the book that tells how one is to be a Christian.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Really you just need to get a clue.

I think she has demonstrated she has more than a clue. While her position is quite partisan, it is well thought out and supported. The passage you quoted was obviously a joke. To make a statement on it such as you did, was at the very least uncalled for and more than likely just mean spirited.

I think it says a lot more about you than it does about her.

-Colly

 

[Edward Teach]

I think she has demonstrated she has more than a clue. While her position is quite partisan, it is well thought out and supported. The passage you quoted was obviously a joke. To make a statement on it such as you did, was at the very least uncalled for and more than likely just mean spirited.

I think it says a lot more about you than it does about her.

-Colly

I think you have pretty legs.

 

[Weird Harold]

Idealistic is good, but being entirely impractical is a waste of time.

Now if the Libertarians could figure that out and nominate someone with more sense than idealism we might actually have a real choice come Election 2008.

 

[Edward Teach]

Now if the Libertarians could figure that out and nominate someone with more sense than idealism we might actually have a real choice come Election 2008.

I'd love to see the Libertarians become a choice, WH, but the Right has too big a jump to be overtaken. They have worked really hard and developed a solid strategy and base that is going ot be difficult ot beat.

When the pendulum swings the other way, and it may take something like another Viet Nam to cause it, it is going to be so rapid that we really suffer, more than before. This country couldn't handle riots and a Kent State right now. It would completely implode.

Ed

 

[BlackShanglan]

Before they kill us off entirely we need to get mad. Tear down the house. We need to react to this polarization of our society instead of just letting it happen around us and hoping we can wait for the next downturn of conservative thought.

Carson, you know I adore you and think you the font of all wisdom and goodness.

But I run a mile from angry people. They rarely have good logic or reasoning and they are frequently unpleasant. I don't think that getting mad is likely to be an effective solution. Just look at poor Mercutio ... he's ranting like a lunatic. And that polarization you mention isn't likely to be resolved by getting really pissed off with the people on the other side. That tends to increase polarization.

The only way to convince people to agree with you is to look at their reasoning. If we don't start with "what did they see in the opposition that appealed to them?" we will never be able to fulfill their needs ourselves. This isn't meant to be a statement about peace-and-love tolerance and acceptance of others; it's an observation of what works in pragmatic terms. Even if we could hop in a time machine and go back to Germany as the Nazi party began to come into power, we couldn't stop them just by getting very angry and demanding that people stop supporting them. We'd have to work out what need Hitler was filling, what desires he promised to fulfill, and find a way to make our path look better.

In My Horsey Opinion.

Now if the Libertarians could figure that out and nominate someone with more sense than idealism we might actually have a real choice come Election 2008.

Don't get me started on the Libs. Anyone operating on the theory "most people have the good sense to make appropriate decisions for the best of themselves and others" hasn't been watching the same human race I have.

 

[BlackShanglan]

When the pendulum swings the other way, and it may take something like another Viet Nam to cause it, it is going to be so rapid that we really suffer, more than before.

Have you been reading Yeats, Mr. Teach? We may all take comfort from his vision that the word progresses through historical cycles, moving to one extreme, then in violent upheaval reversing to the other. If he's right, we're probably getting near due for a flips of the gyres here.

 

[Edward Teach]

Have you been reading Yeats, Mr. Teach? We may all take comfort from his vision that the word progresses through historical cycles, moving to one extreme, then in violent upheaval reversing to the other. If he's right, we're probably getting near due for a flips of the gyres here.

If i'm not mistaken, Shang, I read somewhere that the US historically runs in 30 year cycles of left and right. If my math is correct, we should be on the down swing of a right wing cycle due to hit bottom in the twenties.

Ed

 

[BlackShanglan]

If i'm not mistaken, Shang, I read somewhere that the US historically runs in 30 year cycles of left and right. If my math is correct, we should be on the down swing of a right wing cycle due to hit bottom in the twenties.

Ed

Ugh. I do not relish the next fifteen years if this is only the beginning of the downswing.

Yeats I think envisioned something vaster and more slow (with a nod to Mr. Herrick) - 1000-year cycles if I am not mistaken. But then, his weather forecast for 1896 was "rain of alchemical fire remaking the world as we know it," so he does make the odd slip.

 

[Weird Harold]

Don't get me started on the Libs. Anyone operating on the theory "most people have the good sense to make appropriate decisions for the best of themselves and others" hasn't been watching the same human race I have.

True, but there IS more to the Libertarian platform than that extremist position. If they'd pick some of their less rabid extremists to run for office I'd support them just to give them a boost towards becoming a more mainstream and electable party.

The Libertarians are what the Republicans started out as but have forgotten about -- less government, less taxes and more personal responsibility.

Eventually they'll moderate their extremism or fade way completely. They hve the promise of truning into a fairly supportable party, although they're nowhere close at the moment in their choice of nut-cases to run for President.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Carson, you know I adore you and think you the font of all wisdom and goodness.

Yup.

But I run a mile from angry people. They rarely have good logic or reasoning and they are frequently unpleasant. I don't think that getting mad is likely to be an effective solution. And that polarization you mention isn't likely to be resolved by getting really pissed off with the people on the other side. That tends to increase polarization.

But see, that's the thing. The religious right has made people angry about abortion and gay marriage. They polarized this nation by making what is a personal, religious issue into a political issue. (Um, like, no good logic and reasoning, and unpleasant rings a bell here.)

When I say "get angry", I suppose what I really mean is "get organized." That's our problem, I think. We're not organized. We don't have the "push" we need.

Also, I fully agree with sweet's idea we need to breed more. Teach your children well and all that.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I've often thought this. We liberals just aren't angry enough. We've let the religious right get angry while we remain fair and balanced.

What? Surely you're joking. The liberal left is the most angry group of people out there. Look at how angry and hate filled some people on this board get anytime Bush is mentioned. Michael Moore is the poster boy for the angry left, and there's nothing fair and balanced about him or his work.

I think one of the far left's problems is that they are too angry. It gives them a bad reputation in the eyes of moderates.

IMO another mistake that Libs are making is to blame all of the election woes on the "religious right". It all has to be the fault of conservative christians. That's just not the case. It's bigger than just that group. Moderates and conservative Dems are being turned off by the agenda. Take gay marriage for example. The failure of 11 states to pass a gay marriage amendment is being blamed on the religious right, but lets look at the nembers from some of those states.

In the state of Kentucky. Bush won this state 60%-40%. The amendment passed by 75%. That is 15% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In the state of Georgia. Bush won that state 58%-41%. The amendment passed by 76%. That means that appx. 17% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In the state of Michigan. Kerry won that state 51%-48%. The amendment passed 59%. That's 11% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In the state of Mississippi. Bush won that state 60%-40%. The amendment passed 86%. Thats 26% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

in the state of Montana. Bush won that state 59%-38%. The amendment passed 67%. Thats 8% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In North Dakota. Bush won that state 63%-36%. The amendment passed 73%. Thats 10% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In Ohio. Bush won that state 51%-49%. The amendment passed 62%. Thats 11% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In Oklahoma. Bush won that state 66%-34%. The amendment passed 76%. Thats 10% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In Oregon. Kerry won that state 52%-48%. The amendment passed 57%. That's 9% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

In Arkansas. Bush won that state 54%-45%. The amendment passed 75%. Thats 19% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

Now, does that look like something that the religious right won on their own?

 

[carsonshepherd]

IMO another mistake that Libs are making is to blame all of the election woes on the "religious right". It all has to be the fault of conservative christians. That's just not the case. It's bigger than just that group. Moderates and conservative Dems are being turned off by the agenda. Take gay marriage for example. The failure of 11 states to pass a gay marriage amendment is being blamed on the religious right, but lets look at the nembers from some of those states.

You're right. And nobody said the Democratic party was PRO gay marriage as a whole. Some of us are and some of us aren't. But what the party does not want is to change the US Constitution to forbid it; marriage is traditionally governed by the states. The people OF THESE STATES exercised their right to democracy and VOTED on these amendments.

I'm not arguing gay marriage (please, no.). Only that those of us who identify ourselves as liberals need to get more organized with our own agendas, and not let the "religious right" turn our country into a theocracy.

 

[BlackShanglan]

True, but there IS more to the Libertarian platform than that extremist position. If they'd pick some of their less rabid extremists to run for office I'd support them just to give them a boost towards becoming a more mainstream and electable party.

That far, Harold, I will gladly trot with you. In fact I'll support nearly anything not morally or ethically objectionable that would result in a viable third party. I don't even particularly care if it's a third party I like; I just think that some competition for the two mains would be a very healthy thing.

But see, that's the thing. The religious right has made people angry about abortion and gay marriage. They polarized this nation by making what is a personal, religious issue into a political issue.

The gay marriage issue quite honestly baffles me. It really does. I have enormous difficulty understanding what about it scares the piss out of people in the way it does. I could see them becoming militant if their *churches* wanted to have gay marriage; that would be a statement of religious doctrine that perhaps they might feel was deeply significant. But the government financially and legally recognizing gay partnerships? Who could possibly care so deeply about that? It's the government. They do more stupid and damaging things before breakfast on a daily basis. I find the deep-rooted opposition to this quite baffling.

Abortion is a tougher one. As I understand the grounds of the debate, I think it's begging the question to posit it flatly as an issue of personal choice from both sides' points of view. If people believe that a fetus is a human being, then they are pretty much bound to think that the issue is not one of personal choice alone, or not of one single person's choice. Personally, I think those camps - life/choice - almost inherently unreconcilable unless someone comes up with a really clever new way to get them to agree on what is or is not a human life. Hence my tendency to just vote rather than argue it - most people have made up their minds, and there really isn't enough solid evidence to move the thing one way or another.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I could see them becoming militant if their *churches* wanted to have gay marriage; that would be a statement of religious doctrine that perhaps they might feel was deeply significant.

Sweetie. That is precisely why people are opposed to gay marriage. Their churches think gay marriage is evil, wrong, sinful, sick, a threat to our society, a threat to the institution of marriage, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

... a really clever new way to get them to agree on what is or is not a human life. Hence my tendency to just vote rather than argue it - most people have made up their minds, and there really isn't enough solid evidence to move the thing one way or another

Yeah, I agree. Except that that Consitution thingy we have (for now) says a woman has a right to choose for herself. SO FAR people have the right to make up their own minds on this issue and not be forced to let the government make it for them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sweetie. That is precisely why people are opposed to gay marriage. Their churches think gay marriage is evil, wrong, sinful, sick, a threat to our society, a threat to the institution of marriage, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Yes, but their churches aren't being asked to change their doctrine - just to recognize that the government and the church are two different things. Yeesh. OK, maybe I'm preaching to the choir, but I fear the day that I think that the government's actions are part of my religious doctrine. "Render unto Caesar," you know?

Yeah, I agree. Except that that Consitution thingy we have (for now) says a woman has a right to choose for herself. SO FAR people have the right to make up their own minds on this issue and not be forced to let the government make it for them.

See, this completely makes sense if one assumes that the woman is the only person involved. But if one assumes that the fetus is a human, then it too has legal rights and choices to make, and most people choose not to die. In a nutshell, it's the same argument the South had with Lincoln on the slavery issue. Their POV was "this is an individual rights issue;" Lincoln's was "this is now the government's business because a third party (the slave) is involved and that third party also has rights." In fact the definition issue is at the heart of both. If we define slaves as a sub-species of people who shouldn't have rights, then keeping slaves can be an individual choice. But if we define slaves as actual human beings with rights to protection under law, then slavery can't be a personal choice because it takes away the rights of the slave. Same with a fetus; if we define it as not being human, then the whole matter makes sense as personal choice. But if we define it as human with rights of its own, then its rights can't be taken away by someone else's choices, as with the slaves. So long as that "it's a human life" / "it's not a human life" divide can't be spanned, the Constitution doesn't really help us. If it's a human, then it has rights, and traditionally the right to live supercedes other rights in interpretation of law. If it's just a lump of tissue, then it has no rights and people can do anything they like, as their actions do not take anyone else's rights away.

 

[carsonshepherd]

there is absolutely no way you can make a legitimate parallel between a human being who's owned by another, and a fetus who is still connected to, and part of, the mother.

Go on. I dare ya.