RSS Feed
Nine Republicans. No Biblical Citations. Why?
As I prepared for Tuesday’s Republican debate I set out my Faith and Values Pundit’s Kit which consists of a Bible and a bowl of pretzels. While the snacks were groped repeatedly, the Bible remained unmolested. For this GOP event--unlike few others that I can recall--was virtually bereft of any scriptural citations, religious references, or God Talk.
A milestone in Party history? A sign of coming change? Maybe. Maybe not. The explicit purpose of the debate, after all, was to discuss economic issues. Much to their credit the candidates stuck to the script (also to be lauded were co-moderators Chris Matthews, Maria Bartiromo, Jerry Seiband and John Harwood) who asked intelligent, thoughtful, and occasionally quirky questions all the while making sure that the proceedings chugged along briskly).
Save Sam Brownback’s reference to the importance of nominating a pro-life candidate for president, none of the candidates seemed particularly interested in trotting out their religiously tinged applause–getters. Rudy Giuliani did not remind us about the influence that the Catholic Church has had on his life. Instead, he spent a good part of the evening attacking Hillary Clinton (a strategy which indicates that he has graciously accepted his party’s nomination).
Mitt Romney--who caught on to this ploy half way through the debate and started himself attacking the senator from New York--never once cited scripture. He did not need to. As a highly successful CEO he knows a thing or two about economic issues and he seemed quite comfortable discussing them.
No references to a “Christian nation” were heard from John McCain. The senator from Arizona has signaled often to Evangelicals in the past few weeks that he wants their support. But not in this debate. And Fred Thompson, looking pensive and calm, did not seize the opportunity to point out that our rights come from God.
On the basis of the rhetoric heard at the debate one would have thought that this was the old Republican Party, the party of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller III in the pre-Moral Majority era.
Which begs the question, why? One explanation has to do with the content of the debate. The economic issues facing the American people do not lend themselves easily to chapter-and-verse citations. After all, it is hard to find biblical proof texts pertaining to ethanol subsidies. Then again, the scriptures do have a few things to say about taxes and none of those associations were drawn.
Maybe this demonstrates that during the Fourth Great Awakening religious conservatives devoted far more attention to social and cultural issues than economic ones. As Democrats are quick to point out, religious Republicans never did forcefully address the scriptures’ messages on poverty, preferring instead to concentrate on homosexuality and abortion.
Whatever the case may be, Tuesday’s debate permitted voters to ponder what the Republican Party might look and sound like if Conservative Christians make good on their threat to take their business elsewhere.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
October 11, 2007; 8:30 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: An Atheist-Evangelical Dialogue? |
Next: Is the Evangelical Vote Irrelevant?
Posted by: Hank Whatever | October 16, 2007 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Republicans have been so busy taking the specks out of their neighbors eye-----they forgot to take the forest out in their own.
Posted by: Ken McGee | October 16, 2007 9:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The president, facing repeated good-natured jabs from reporters to divulge whether he wore "boxers or briefs", just flashed his winning smile and stepped onto the lauchpad ladder."
The reporter who guessed "magic underwear" got it right - boxers or briefs.
Posted by: Mark Stenroos | October 15, 2007 11:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dateline: August 12, 2009
Washington (AP) - President and First Lady Romney are taking the customary presidential two-week late summer break to escape the Wasington heat. However, they announced that instead of retiring to Camp David or their Massachusetts home, they will be sojourning to the planet Kolob, in order to be closer to the Heavenly Father. Romney says it will be a "working vacation" as he plans to put the finishing touches on an ambitious proposal committing NASA to setting up a colony in God's home star system by 2020.
"America is a country of faith, and I have faith that if we put our minds to it we can accomplish great things", the president told reporters as he and Ann climbed aboard their gleaming white rocket ship garnished with golden angels on the South lawn. The president, facing repeated good-natured jabs from reporters to divulge whether he wore "boxers or briefs", just flashed his winning smile and stepped onto the lauchpad ladder.
Posted by: B2O2 | October 15, 2007 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GOP candidates managing to get through a whole debate without recourse to imaginary deities is indeed welcome news, but it does not "BEG the question," as Mr Berlinerblau suggests, of why this is. Begging the question is a very specific logical term meaning to assume the truth of a conclusion in the premise. An example might be, oh I don't know, that the Bible must be true because it was written by god and god is infallible (how do we know? it says so in the Bible). The GOP's secular turn does however, RAISE the question of why this is. Maybe they are reaching out for the rational vote.
Posted by: Stan | October 15, 2007 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Ki-Jana -
Thanks for your comments.
You wrote:
"Stop with the lies and the whining already. I did a search on Monster.com of my job title (Tax CPA) in my home state (VA) and found 314 openings. This doesn't even include "other" job positions that I'm qualified for but don't have the word "tax" in their job title. In the state of VA alone, I found 231 openings for registered nurses, 76 for truck drivers, 39 for cooks, 885 for construction, and 80 for police related work."
You then wrote:
"I brought up Monster.com as an example. I looked through my LOCAL, county newspaper this weekend and found almost 100 job openings including servers, babysitters, teachers, bus drivers, marketers, sales reps, cooks, dishwashers, golf club activities, and nurse."
OK. I guess I'm stupid. Could you point out where, exactly, in your FIRST post you said anything about searching in your LOCAL county paper as a source to enumerate the 314 jobs you listed as being available in VA? Could you tell me how any thinking person reading your first quote would have intuited that your post was NOT limited to a discussion of Monster.com? You do know that Monster allows you to search by state, city and keywords, don't you?
Thanks in advance for your explanation. Maybe you need a refresher course in clear and concise writing. Just a thought.
If you got an interview through a Monster.com listed ad, good for you. Was it a real job? I don't know.
How do I know that employers list bogus jobs on Monster and other boards? Because I know HR people who have told me they do it themselves. You may be surprised to learn that most job boards allow users to inform them about phony job listings, including scams that will cost one money. There are also internet chat rooms one may visit to see who's real and who's BS. The job board Indeed.com allows users to comment on any job posted. I have found that the Indeed.com listings with the highest number of user comments most always run along the lines of "this is BS, the job doesn't exist."
Anecdotal evidence? Perhaps. No more than the claims you are making which are also based on one person's experiences (yours) and a one-time cursory search of Monster (and perhaps an eyeballing of a local county newspaper).
BTW: as far as your comment, "You spoon feed them some empty one-liners and they'll swallow it like starving zombies," I would suggest that the "them" of your comment works pretty well when it refers to Republics, and as for the empty one-liners? Well, one need not look any further than the collected sayings of Ronald Reagan and gw bush to see the ultimate in one-liner emptiness.
Good chatting. :)
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 15, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It appears that we have given up trying to find out exactly what we want in a President. We are unable to agree on matters of fiscal policy, foreign relations, taxes, polution, morality, and the proper salaries for professional sports figures. We have decided to ask the seers who delve into such matters via the various books of the various religions, certain that therein must lie eternal truths which will take the burdon of such worries off our backs and conscience.
If we would only pause, before unloading the whole problem onto the backs of the soothsayers and holymen, we would come to a truth which has been plain: If we would make of a tally of all the humans who have been killed, tortured and otherwise made miserable in the name and cause of religion, since records have been kept, we would find that this figure probably exceeds such results of all the wars, since time began.
I think that we should treat the religious office seeker as we are admonished: "Follow the man who seeks the truth, and when he says he has found it, RUN LIKE HELL!"
amen
Posted by: Ralph | October 15, 2007 1:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the religious right were serious, why aren't they lining up behind Mike Huckabee????
I personally don't agree with Mike Huckabee on social issues: BUT I respect him
Why aren't the religious right lining up behind him? Seems to me it's because Huckabee is not a HATER MONGER ralling the flock with screams against gays/abortions -- Instead Huckabee seriously wants to help the poor in this country.
This apparantly is not what the right wing fundies of this country want -- their HYPOCRISY IS SO TELLING!!!!
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | October 15, 2007 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Surely Mr Belinerblau is being dis-ingenous - or is it ironic - about the "place" of religion, especially post-modern [= ante-modern-pro-testare ?] christianity, in the public square of the capitalist fundamentalism of God's Own Party. Since "the market" is a god-given - & hence self-evident - fact of life of life, there is no need for scriptural citation let alone prayer!
To believe otherwise would be to believe that "God is dead!" But the real irony is that the GOP is indeed the party of economic naturalism. Hence they are indeed practicing atheists on "economic matters", are they not. So forget about that camel & the needle!
Posted by: Civic Humanist | October 15, 2007 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It appears that we have given up trying to find out exactly what we want in a President. We are unable to agree on matters of fiscal policy, foreign relations, taxes, polution, morality, and the proper salaries for professional sports figures. We have decided to ask the seers who delve into such matters via the various books of the various religions, certain that therein must lie eternal truths which will take the burdon of such worries off our backs and conscience.
If we would only pause, before unloading the whole problem onto the backs of the soothsayers and holymen, we would come to a truth which has been plain: If we would make of a tally of all the humans who have been killed, tortured and otherwise made miserable in the name and cause of religion, since records have been kept, we would find that this figure probably exceeds such results of all the wars, since time began.
I think that we should treat the religious office seeker as we are admonished: "Follow the man who seeks the truth, and when he says he has found it, RUN LIKE HELL!"
amen
Posted by: Ralph | October 15, 2007 12:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques Berlinerblau screens the Republican living dead candidates with opaque colored glasses. Why in the world do so many American politicians have to cater to religious no-nothing ism and statements of hypocritical piety? America needs a sincere, competent, global and national manager, someone who can lead instead of dissemble as our current White House occupant does. Ardent religious belief has left a trail of blood back into all civilizations and eras. The time has come to respect but privatize whatever belief a person needs in the silence of their hearts, not on billboards or tv screens or battlefields.
Posted by: P Lunde | October 15, 2007 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
Ever notice that your remarks are all completely supposition? You throw out opinions without any substantive data behind them.
I brought up Monster.com as an example. I looked through my LOCAL, county newspaper this weekend and found almost 100 job openings including servers, babysitters, teachers, bus drivers, marketers, sales reps, cooks, dishwashers, golf club activities, and nurses. So what's wrong with THOSE positions? They don't exist either?
" I have never received an interview through a job listing at Monster". Good sample size. One person. As a retort, let me say that I did find an available position for my background last year and interviewed for the position. I received an offer but decided to take a position elsewhere.
"Your enumerating how many jobs are available is also extremely naive. many jobs posted on job boards like Monster don't really exist." - Really? Which one's? How many? The position I found at Etrade.com was a real job. At least I thought it was. Maybe it was a dream.
"They are postings for positions that are already flagged to be filled internally by the posting company." - Again, which one's? How many? Don't bother because you haven't a clue.
You see, your type of rhetoric works for the Jerry Springer/Senora Pelosi crowd. They're too fat, dumb and lazy to know any different. You spoon feed them some empty one-liners and they'll swallow it like starving zombies. This is what happens when you give people money for their entire lives instead of training. And I'm not talking just about the poor either. See Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton.
But if someone comes back at you and wonders how you came to your conclusions . . well . . now that's a different matter isn't it? (crickets chirping)
Posted by: Ki-Jana | October 15, 2007 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Candidates for God's Own Party not citing scripture? Hell has indeed frozen over. I welcome the cool breeze.
Posted by: Jim Carlson | October 15, 2007 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Do you actually mean that in this debate, they (the
candidates) started to sound like the Real GOP again? The party not of compassionate conservatism
but the party, by, of and for the elitist rich. Our
country right or wrong, for we are the richest of the rich and the rest of the world and America can go to hell in a handbasket for all we care.
Posted by: Nelson | October 15, 2007 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Kudos to you for even bothering to watch the GOP debate. As far as I'm concerned they are all a bunch of right-wing liberals and I have not heard anything "conservative" come out of their mouths yet.
Somebody please let me know when this tiresome campaign is actually over.
Posted by: Trudeau | October 15, 2007 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Jacques
Your point is well taken. A world where politicians ignore religion is a better world.
Posted by: J.W. Miller | October 15, 2007 8:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Also...when Regan was President, he made the claim that the percentage of unemployment dropped under his leadership...but failed to mention that for the first time EVER federal employees and the military were calculated into the rate of employment.
Posted by: BS Detector | October 15, 2007 8:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
Good retort! You say: "Shades of Reagan holding up the local Want Ads and stating the unemployed were his fictional welfare queens."
Also reminds me of Dan Quayle's, "This is the future of America", while pointing at the McDonald's help wanted sign. How sad that HE was right!
Furthermore you shed light brightly on the neocon problem; Out of touch, and zero empathy!
Posted by: BS Detector | October 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I find many of Ki-Jana's remarks refreshing, because Republicans usually hide their true intentions (ie. "we care about the poor, but they just are not as poor as the tax and spend Dems want you to believe."). The reigning philosophy in the GOP is exactly what KJ said: to paraphrase, every man and woman for themselves.
I'll take that debate in an open nationwide forum any day!
Dems and Libs: "Society must work for the common good so we all can prosper and because we are all in this together.
GOP and cons: "Save youself because we don't care."
Posted by: cbl-pdx | October 15, 2007 12:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it amusing that the author refers to "Democrats" in the third person.
Posted by: Mike | October 13, 2007 10:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I say again to the evangelist's.
Save the sinner's. Help the poor and the downtrodden. BUT STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!
Posted by: whiteagle38 | October 13, 2007 9:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I say again to the evangelist's.
Save the sinner's. Help the poor and the downtrodden. BUT STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!
Posted by: whiteagle38 | October 13, 2007 9:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Such a historical time to identify the billions religious nonprofits, churches, etc., have since the War On Poverty and trillions HOW SPENT
So critical more poor than ever - please break this institutional axis of evil
The War on Poverty
Posted by: Chaplain Mary Murphy | October 13, 2007 7:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Ki-Jana:
So, you did a search on Monster and found all kinds of jobs available. Wow! Shades of Reagan holding up the local Want Ads and stating the unemployed were his fictional welfare queens.
As one who has been in the job hunt recently, I can tell you that Monster.com is basically useless. I have never received an interview through a job listing at Monster while other online services like Craigslist garnered tons of interviews, both on the phone and in-person.
Your enumerating how many jobs are available is also extremely naive. many jobs posted on job boards like Monster don't really exist. They are postings for positions that are already flagged to be filled internally by the posting company. The Monster listing is just a cheap way to get them around the EOE requirements.
More to the point, your posting of there being "885 construction jobs" available in VA is presented in a vacuum. It doesn't take into consideration that there may be 5,000 unemployed construction workers looking for work in VA. Same with all of the other job numbers you posted.
Recently, a hotel in my town advertised for 20 low-paying service jobs. 500 people stood in line for hours to apply, most of them minorities who were out of work because the Ag jobs evaporated when the crops were decimated by an early frost. These weren't illegals either, because the hotel won't hire illegals. These were tax-paying citizens who were in danger of losing their homes and being tossed on the streets because their employers couldn't help them at all.
Of course, Ki-Jana's take on this will be that he's pissed off that oranges cost him 10¢ a pound more due to the frost.
Your evaluation of the unemployed is both callow and misinformed. It must be fun to go through life that way.
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 13, 2007 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Your lack of empathy is astounding, but hardly surprising.
Posted by: BS Detector | October 12, 2007 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BS,
Can't find jobs? Stop with the lies and the whining already. I did a search on Monster.com of my job title (Tax CPA) in my home state (VA) and found 314 openings. This doesn't even include "other" job positions that I'm qualified for but don't have the word "tax" in their job title. In the state of VA alone, I found 231 openings for registered nurses, 76 for truck drivers, 39 for cooks, 885 for construction, and 80 for police related work.
I don't blame anybody for taking any job. If they're willing to work a job for the stated wages, more power to them. But I'm not going to break out a violin and coddle someone who would rather moan and groan about jobs instead of getting off their x-large butt and doing something about it.
Lead, follow, or get left behind. You're choice.
Posted by: Ki-Jana | October 12, 2007 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
The government's responsibility should be to help those who can't help themselves. It should not engage in assigning completely arbitrary pay rates to the private sector. In actuality, a case can be made to abolish the federal minimum wage altogether.
Your story is not unlike my own. Public school and then college on my own dime. Bought my first car when I turned 18 using every dollar I had earned working summer jobs in high school. Worked as a bartender in college. Paid off my loans with my first three bonuses from Arthur Andersen. There is nothing wrong with hard work and I'll be damned if I let my kids feel one ounce of guilt for chasing their dreams.
And please don't think to lecture me on charity. You probably won't find this in a Michael Moore movie so it's over your head, but look up the % of funding for the Red Cross sometime. You'll see one word repeated many times. . . Baptist.
And if you think the Democratic party looks out for everybody, you've got rocks in your head. You're either completely naive or an idiot if you think the federal minimum wage legislation was anything more than a political ploy. But, I guess it worked on you so I have to give Senora Palosi some credit.
Posted by: Ki-Jana | October 12, 2007 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it odd that you wonder why there was no religous talk during a debate that focused on economic policy. You talk as if that was expected. I found the lack of "Bible-thumping" during the debate refreshing and hope it means we will finally see a slightly more engaged discourse on the specific issues that plague America instead of candidates who act as if God is on their side and they are the Christian moral authority. We've already seen what a President who sees his foreign policy as his own version of the crusades has achieved.
Posted by: Matt | October 12, 2007 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity’s long-term survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.’’
Criticizing a person’s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.’’
A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. Such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily for international community, the Good Books that undergird the world’s major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.
In the 21st century when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs, the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize their singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the biosphere: ‘’We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation,’’ he writes, ‘’because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.’’
I have a particular ire for religious moderates, those who ‘’have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths’’ and who ‘’imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.’’ Religious moderates are the ones who thwart all efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance, they become intolerant of any rational discussion of religion and ‘’betray faith and reason equally.’’
The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.
At this time Islam is the reigning threat to humankind. Much like a gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century only leads us to believe not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development,’’ I couldn’t help but think of Ann Coulter’s morally developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.
I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches, temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old scriptures -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words, almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future -- they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.
Posted by: Wayne | October 12, 2007 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well Jacques Berlinerblau, I'm glad there was nothing else you could find to write about in which you persecute Christians even more. Why do people find it necessary to condemn and judge one another because of their religious beliefs? I wonder what your motives are as the program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization Jacques? I sincerely challenge us, myself included, to help those inside our faith groups be the best they can be, and help others outside our faith groups to understand your faith group with love and respect. We as Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., should be more concerned with sharing dialogue in this way. Our cause should be promoting peace amongst the nations instead of striking division into their hearts. The commonality that we share is that we are all human beings, and whether you have truly given it some thought or not we must all answer the essential questions of life: Where did we come from?(origin), Why am I here?(meaning), Who am I?(identity), How should we live?(morality), and Where are we going/What happens when we die?(destiny). If anyone would like to dialogue about my faith as a Christian or anything that I have discussed in this comment, feel free to email me at brian.f.douglas@hotmail.com. Jacques, I pray that you and your family are doing well and I hope to hear from you and others, and thank you to whoever took the time to read this.
Posted by: Brian | October 12, 2007 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The blind uncompromising faith requisite for the success of religion in a population disables that population from success in a democracy, a human convention requiring continuous compromise.
When the priest determines for the people who their prince will be, what price will that prince have paid for that determination, what price will our democracy pay for it?
One price we have paid, our collection of political candidates for the religious party seem to be about as useless a group of pandering idiots as I've ever seen in my life. And the opposition available seems to feel they only need point this out and we the people will select them out of our revulsion ... the lesser of two evils? The lesser repulsive is more accurate.
Posted by: K | October 12, 2007 8:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Typical!
"Instead of always subsidizing people and crippling them with artificial floors, why not encourage them to get better jobs if they want to earn more? "
Get better jobs where, and how? If my parents had not helped me with the basics (food/shelter) through college, I'd have never made it. I worked full time, at near minimum wage the whole time, and racking up debt with a full time class schedule. And I am FORTUNATE!
Furthermore, all of the decent jobs are being sent overseas. Factory jobs going to Mexico, China...otherwise decent call center work goes to India, or the Dominican Republic.
Then folks like you say, "just go get a better opportunity if you want one". Then blame brown people who come here for stealing American jobs, when really it is greedy CEOs handing those jobs to foriegners OUTSIDE this country!
Insensitive, to say the least! Diabolical, to be accurate. Satan incarnate, to be blunt.
Posted by: BS Detector | October 12, 2007 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The “business” of God-consciousness. Now there’s a concept. : ) So much for separation of God and State – always an elusive concept no matter how hard His creation has tried to grasp and execute on it. To me it is ironic that states that have, in fact, let “God” into statehood, have fared just as well or poorly in history when viewed over a long enough period of time (i.e., allowing for rises and falls in the nation’s grandeur). Perhaps the real determinant of a nation's success is God-consciousness itself, mutual acceptance and tolerance, and not the business thereof.
Posted by: VoxClamantis | October 12, 2007 8:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The right will rise up in this campaign:
Jews need to be perfected
Towelheads need to be exterminated
Liberals need to be interred
and the world will soon be engulfed in a fiery hell. Can't wait.
Posted by: ray | October 12, 2007 7:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
More of the same is the rejected plan of this crop of greedy power craving dogs of war! Is there no republican that actually cares about the nation and its people?
Posted by: Chaotician | October 12, 2007 6:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank God! He _was_ listening!
The last thing we need is more religious propaganda from a bunch of moral hypocrites.
Posted by: James Jones | October 12, 2007 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Ki-Jana -
Yes, I have socialist tendencies. Maybe it's because I started as a minimum wage worker and spent years struggling to pay my own way through college. Along the way, I had no help from my family (we had no money) but I did have help in the form of academic scholarships and other grants. It took me 9 years to pay back my college loans, but pay them back I did. No default here.
I had a built-in advantage because I am a white male. I realize I had an advantage, and I would like to see similar advantages extended to the truly disadvantaged. Ergo, I give to certain charities and support the party that looks out for EVERYBODY, not the Party that concerns itself only with the monied and well off. I have no problem with a decent wage being paid to minimum wage works, especially when bush's buddies are all sucking at the government teat to the tune of billions of dollars a day.
I'm white, male, 50-ish...and pulling in a 6-figure salary for the past 12 years. Geez, I sound like I followed your "game plan for success" as outlined above! If I didn't have a conscience and a moral center, I could be a Republic.
But I do have morals, and I don't believe in a dog-eat-dog world, so I'm not a Republic. I'm secure in my views, so I don't spend every waking moment worried that someone is going to "take away" what I've earned. No, that's the trademark of most Republics I know, including you, Ki-Jana.
Have fun in your fears, KJ. No one is out to get you, unless it's your fellow knuckle-draggers over at the RNC.
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 11, 2007 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
You are correct in that you used the term "decent" wage. Of course, I wasn't discussing a "decent" wage when I posted and you replied, but maybe that's neither here nor there.
Either way, I'm glad to see your socialist tendencies coming front and center. I'm sure El Presidente Hillary will welcome your vote. Instead of always subsidizing people and crippling them with artificial floors, why not encourage them to get better jobs if they want to earn more? Nobody in our great country has a gun to their head to work a cash register. Want more money? Want to earn a "decent" wage? Go get a better job. No excuses. No handouts. If you want it, go get it.
Posted by: Ki-Jana | October 11, 2007 10:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark:
I've never heard the 5% yield before. If that is so then your numbers are bad. A gallon of ethanol is only worth .8 gallons of gas. Boondoggle grossly understates the case.
The problems are solvable and there's ample resources on planet earth to do it. Just one example. The southwest has vast regions of fertile soil that only needs water. That's instant wealth, just add water. The polar ice caps are melting supplying lots of fresh water. What? It's all going into the ocean.
I lied. One more example. The Mariana trench has enough methane, (natural gas) to supply the energy needs of the entire earth for the foreseeable future, hundreds of years. It's worse than that.
If the methane now trapped by water pressure in deep water is disturbed by an earthquake or the like there will be a mega disaster, 300 feet or more of rise in sea level flooding all major seaboard cities and for 10s of miles inland. When the gas cloud ignites people will be burned like the fires of hell only they will burn up. Maybe the great thinkers will decide to mine it on those grounds as well as the need for energy.
Methane is suitable for running automobiles but doesn't have the "Nascar kick" of gasoline. Unless the children grow up we can rule it out for that purpose. Maybe it, methane, the sun and/or wind could be used to get the energy needed to cook off the ethanol. The Canadians use 50% of their oil to extract it from the sand. They're looking at the sun, wind etc. with a 50% increase in real oil supply as the prize.
Anyhow, the family farm is a thing of the past I think. Farmers have been the whipping boys of the nation since the whiskey tax so nothing new there. Be careful or the capitalists will label you a communist for suggesting the corporation farm even though it's a reality already. Nobody does communism like Americans.
We look back at things like the great depression and wonder why no one saw them coming. Maybe those that did see them coming were shouted down?
I suspect your Miss Hillary will win in 2008, grant amnesty to illegals and solve all the problems at once, labor to replace the retiring boomers, occupants for all those empty houses and payroll taxes so those boomers can have SS. The evangelicals are losing big time, no Bible thumper candidate and the likelihood of amnesty. What's this world coming to?
Posted by: BGone | October 11, 2007 8:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear K: Did Bush 1 actually say this? I usually don't take new information without verification, but in this case, I'll assume that this quote is accurate. Perhaps at this point in American history, the people are saying to the religeous right, "take your business elsewhere." What a discusting quote from a president. The right can all go to hell.
Posted by: Jim M | October 11, 2007 8:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear BGONE -
Thanks for the comments.
I don't get the rush to ethanol. It's my understanding that it takes one gallon of energy to produce 1.05 gallons of ethanol. That's a meager 5% yield!
Ethanol has all the marks of another government boondoggle, and though I don't know which party is behind it, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was my own Democratic Party sucking up to the farm industry once again.
I'm sorry, but I don't really see the value of the "family farm" these days. I understand that people want to hold onto their traditions and memories, but I don't have much problem with Big Ag raising most of our food, and it seems that our government is in the habit of doling out tremendous amounts of tax dollars to the Ag industry while flogging the "save the family farm" mantra to death.
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this. have at it.
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 11, 2007 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark:
You made an interesting and somewhat obvious point which stimulates a thought. There's a theory that takes your point to the zenith.
The oldest artifact from ancient Egypt, a vase has a picture of the first Pharaoh known as the scorpion king holding a mace about to smash the head of an "oriental" Jew no doubt. What did they do with him after the Egyptian God, Pharaoh smashed his head? Did they eat him?
The two symbols of that Pharaoh, the scorpion and the asp are both cannibals of a sorts. Asps feed on other snakes and scorpions caged will eventually eat each other until there is but one left to die of starvation.
There came a time in the ancient world when uncontrolled population growth combined with crop failure caused massive starvation. Were the survivors those that were literally "fishers of men" the ones that ate the men they caught?
Are we there yet? Our appetite for gas guzzling automobiles and the lack of political will to curb it has led to the most rapid growth in commodity prices ever. Look for a loaf of bread that historically has been the price of a bushel of wheat to go to over $8 within the next 12 months. Fifty percent the the richest farm land in America is now under contract to grow sugar cane for the production of ethanol next year to say nothing of the grow-corn fever. America not only imports most of it's oil but is now a net importer of food, from China even.
At Georgetown university the biggest problem is politicians not embracing a proved hoax as God's absolute word, appeal to "the fishers of men" so they can get elected and be puppets to them.
Devil has had His day. Only God can help us now. Whether or not you are correct, there is no God or otherwise we skate on very thin ice. God has never come to the rescue of anyone before. Only Devil shows when people cry out to God, take Moses for example.
Posted by: BGone | October 11, 2007 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ki-Jana writes:
"Then, you don't have to embarrass yourself by quoting completely false statistics like 7.8 million people rely on the federal minimum wage to survive."
Like a typical - TYPICAL - Republic, you make up falsehoods and put words in people's mouths. Please quote where I said that "people rely on the federal minimum wage to survive." Those are your words, not mine. I think I used the term "decent wage." Yes - I believe that a soccer mom whose husband makes $1MM a year should get a decent wage for running a cash register or doing some other entry level job, just as much as I believe that two people who are heads of a household and are both stuck in minimum wage jobs should each make a decent wage. Do you have a problem with that?
Even if you consider 7.8-million people to be an INFLATED number, that number still represents LESS THAN 3% of the people in this country. If we can't afford to help 3% of the population at this point in time, then I'd think the only solution is the absolute elimination of the Republic Party.
BTW - your infantile use of terms like "Senora" Pelosi in an attempt to diminish her through name calling are also TYPICAL Republic strategies that don't work on those who don't drink your kool ade. Are you proud of such techniques that put your ignorance on parade for all to see? I guess so.
Further BTW - how old are you? I'm guessing early 20s.
Dr RP - Yes, I would be all for eliminating the Electoral College. It's time we had a direct vote for the president.
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 11, 2007 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ki-Jana,
Of course posting makes me feel good - I wouldn't do it otherwise.
I'll bet posting makes you feel good too.
Regards.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | October 11, 2007 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark:
I agree, and what do you say to getting rid of the electoral college? (this is implied in my previous post, or at least I meant it to be).
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | October 11, 2007 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie,
Feel better about yourself now? Sad, really.
Mr. Mark,
Perhaps if you watched a debate or two you might learn something other than what Senora Pelosi tells you. Then, you don't have to embarrass yourself by quoting completely false statistics like 7.8 million people rely on the federal minimum wage to survive. If you don't get it, you just don't get it.
Posted by: Ki-Jana | October 11, 2007 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Speaking of fishes, have you ever considered the negative connotations of Jesus saying that "I will make you fishers of men?"
First, who are the fish? That would be us, the laity, ie: those who aren't clergy. What happens to us when we get caught? Well, we're pulled out of the sea of independent thought and deposited on the deck of a religious boat where we gasp for air for a few seconds until we're dead.
Then, we're gutted and either sold at market or served up on the dinner tables of the fishermen...who then use the profit and nourishment we provided to go back and catch more fish the next day.
Sounds a lot like religion and the church, doesn't it?
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 11, 2007 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Because the fishes ate the loaves, then the fishes died from the alge.
Posted by: Joe | October 11, 2007 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why didn't any of the Christianist panelists cite the multiplication of the loaves and fishes as a religion-inspired model for growing the U.S. economy?
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | October 11, 2007 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If you don't understand the above answer the try:
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul
There's been a little soul selling going on in the present administration?
Posted by: BGone | October 11, 2007 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nine Republicans. No Biblical Citations. Why?
Posted by: BGone | October 11, 2007 5:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Dr R.P -
My two cents on helping the election process:
1. Weekend voting period: polls open at 9am Friday and close at 9pm Sunday. Lots of time to vote for lots of people to participate.
2. Paper ballots. The rationale for not using paper ballots is that they take too long to count. Yep, our last two presidential elections showed how quickly votes get counted with the various non-paper ballot systems we use in this country.
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 11, 2007 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I firmly believe in the Constitution and in separation of church and state. But if a candidate wanted to include a religious comment he is free to do so. There is no law against it. What do you want to do, have them arrested? Maybe this is too technical for me. Bring in a few Contitutional scholars. None-the-less they can say anything they want. You don't have to vote for them.
Posted by: rich | October 11, 2007 4:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I hope you're not complaining that religion was left out of a political debate.
Religion doesn't belong in government and the Constitution states there should be no religious test to hold office.
That the Republicans didn't talk about religion in the debate is surprising since that party is dominated by Christian fundies, evangelicals and Zionists. But I think we should be grateful that during this one, measly debate, religion wasn't shoved into our faces.
Posted by: Maryann | October 11, 2007 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It will be a long time I'm afraid before some people will accept the idea that all religions are welcome here. That means all can worship as they please as long as they don't bother anyone else. And from a personal perspective "bother" is the word I choose to use.
Posted by: rich | October 11, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A website and organization devoted to "Voters for None Of The Above"
Posted by: nota | October 11, 2007 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have a proposal to change the way we vote:
Each person still gets one vote, but it can either be a positive vote FOR a candidate, or a negative vote AGAINST a candidate. Then a candidates total number of votes = # of positive votes - # of negative votes. This has the advantage that when someone wins, they know how much the public was actually for them, and would have a more difficult time claiming a "mandate" where none really exists. Also, it would be more satifying for people who just can't bring themselves to vote for either of the 2 main candidates, so it might increase voter turnout.
Also I would want one other rule. If no candidate ended up with a positive number of votes, the whole process would have to start over with 2 new candidates. (Not sure what to do with about who runs the country in the meantime, but the person currently in office would be out regardless).
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | October 11, 2007 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The Bible remained unmolested"
Funny, I'm willing to bet that's usually the case with the GOP. Not that they would admit it.
Posted by: Fred Evil | October 11, 2007 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I stopped voting for republicans in 1988, when Patso declared he was a candidate. My brother and I called him: President for Eternal Life Pat Robertson.
Oh, and there was this statement from Bush the First:
"Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
I've since been "throwing away" my vote on the libertarian candidates. This time however I'm going to vote for a democrat, for the first time in my life. I'm going to join the "lesser of two evils" voting constituency ... I see the republican theocracy for the Great Evil it really is.
Posted by: K | October 11, 2007 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
K,
"I will never vote for a republican who kisses the arse of the religious right. Period."
If you voted for Bush, you already did!
"instead I'll be forced to vote for Hillary out of my desparation to free my country from the rightwing religious nutjobs now infesting the party I once believed held our country's interests above politics."
And their religious interests always trump both the country and politics (as in "God, Family, Republic"). These people have always held their religion above the Constitution. Scary isn't it?
Welcome to the TheoCon (R) party!
Posted by: Freestinker | October 11, 2007 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Clinton campaign has made the assumption (valid for the most part) that she is going to be the candidate of the democratic party in the general election. In a very real sense this gives them a Big Advantage over the other candidates in both parties - she can play general election politics before they can. She can avoid the most outrageous liberal pandering to a greater extent than any of the other democratic candidates.
She may be losing the left-wing wackos in the primaries by refusing to pander to them, but she is not chasing off the more right-leaning centrists and independents.
The republicans are still living and campaigning inside their republican bubble. They are forced to pander to the right-wing wackos so as not to lose their interest in the primaries, but in so doing they are chasing off people like me - I will never vote for a republican who kisses the arse of the religious right. Period.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, so despite the fact that he would be the candidate I would vote for I'll not get the chance to vote for him - instead I'll be forced to vote for Hillary out of my desparation to free my country from the rightwing religious nutjobs now infesting the party I once believed held our country's interests above politics.
Despite the assertion made by the moderator that there was no bible-thumping going on in this debate, I could clearly hear Dobson and Robertson in everything these candidates said.
I would like to let the republicans know just how much I hate them for doing this to our country, you are putting Hillary Clinton in the whitehouse just as surely as if you chose not to run any candidate at all.
Posted by: K | October 11, 2007 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, given the claptrap the democrats roll out in their debates, ALL the politicians have the same theme- say the right thing to get nominated/elected, and once elected, do something else .
Hypocrisy of all sort lies in both parties there Candide.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | October 11, 2007 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I now know two people who watched the debate - Jacques & Candide.
Was there anyone else who had 90 minutes of their life to waste? [crickets]
Posted by: Mr Mark | October 11, 2007 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just because the GOP candidates didn't talk about religion it doesn't mean they have abandoned pharisaical hypocrisy. All their talk about the economy indicated that they neither understood how it works nor care about its effects on the American people. The same old baloney was dispensed. I was pleased to hear nothing about the Blue Fairy but there were plenty of other leprachauns in the bunch.
Posted by: candide | October 11, 2007 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Actually, I for one am hoping that major religious and secular or denominational entities will not endorse candidates this season. After-all matters of faith are of a personal or family nature. History of Religion indicates that church/state unions lead to misguided crusades. And most of those crusades are focused on the love of money and power not Gee Oh Dee.
As you point out the flock may have been misguided putting poverty aside spending like there is no tomorrow. Those faking or pretending to be ethically and morally superior human beings were shown to be phonies. I think it's a natural law of universe to become a hypocrite when wearing religion on one's sleeve. Were we not forewarned watching them pray in public ?
Recently I have been obsessed by a product of Hollywood, a movie entitled "Breach" the case of a double agent deeply engrained within the FBI. I think that the movie tried to capture, among other things, an insider's view of effects of religion on certain government agencies. The movie literally reminded me of reports of noon prayer meetings held within Ashcroft's office. Current day revelations make me wonder just who the Hell these civil servants were praying to if the Constitution of the United States was not put first ? After-all you point out the law(s) are handed down from God and that holds true for many, many countries of this One World.
Doing some research I came upon the products, yes products, of Founder/Director of the Christian Crusade, Dr. Billy James Hargis. This movement was anti-communist, God and all American as self-proclaimed. Dr. Hargis had a familiar theme to his works, attacks on the far left. For truth seekers at the time of JFK assissination, I think some smoke-n-mirrors were created.
Of course, alot of people trying to give meaning to the modern day neoconservative movement are focused on a time period starting with Clinton impeachment to current day. I believe the true moral majority or conservatives have much deeper roots and are familiar to those who loved Ike.
In a spirit I recognize through President Carter, Clinton and a few others, the writings of Dr. Norman Vincent Peale* echo in my mind, "Tough times don't last but tough people do...". Criticism of Dr. Peale's work focuses on techniques of self-hypnosis or thinking oneself into a world viewed through rose colored glasses.
Since 1999, I think some have been trying to sell it's "The end of the world" mentality on a wholesale level. If one listens to late night or international radio broadcasts, one knows what I am talking about. In fact, the reaction to global warming stories reminds me of traffic jams on Jersey highways by automobile drivers rubber-necking traffic accidents even on the otherside of divided highways.
Bottom-line to me is that in the aftermath of 09/11, the American public looked to God for help, comfort and strength but we got ripped off. And I will state this, getting ripped off seems to be the norm for idolizing TV generation evangelists. It's the end of the world, send me your hard earned money and buy Gold. Did some believe they were the heirs of America's fortune ? Perhaps "they" should go back to bible school devoid of political quests studying the Beautitudes.
We expect politicians to lie. I personally resent Legislators and Executives lying from pulpits of the Whitehouse or Congressional assemblies. Some people will say anything to win an argument, that is not debate to me and it's just downright unchristian to lie.
Thank-you for providing open and honest discussion. As myself ponders these questions and many more, I have learned to do my own homework:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale