« the war 5 | Main | from skid row to the holy land »

moral degeneracy and you

moral degeneracy and you

Arthur from Light of Reason sent me an email last night pointing me to this article (A Solution for the Democrats: How to win next time, By Dinesh DíSouza) and his response to it. Of course, Arthur's response was measured and mature and professional in its demeanor.

D'Souza's screed is the reason why I will never embrace the far corners of any political party. In those corners stand shallow, closed-minded people who insist that the world should think and behave as they do; anything else is just wrong. They very rarely listen to opposing views and even if they do, they only listen with half a mind, while the other half is carefully constructing their retort to your opinions. In their world, in fact, there are no opinions. They are only absolutes, and to stray from their absolute is to travel beneath their contempt.

That's fine with me. I do not mind at all being looked at with contempt with someone who uses the term "moral degeneracy" and the words divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and pornography in a one-lump sentence.

Like Arthur stated, to put bestiality in the same sentence as divorce and homosexuality, one can imply that D'Souza holds them in the same light; that to love someone of the same sex or to no longer love someone of the opposite sex is the equivalent of being a pig-fucker.

Perhpas D'Souza does not think that "moral degeneracy" includes spousal abuse, or the myriad other reasons for divorce. For him, adultery is considered a degenerate act, yet so is divorce. From that, one can be lead to believe that D'Souza is one of those who preach the mantra "married for life no matter what." I'm willing to bet that Mr. D'Souza has never been battered or cheated on or had every last cent taken from him by his spouse, leaving him to break open his child's piggy bank to get milk while his spouse vacationed in a luxurious hotel room in Las Vegas.

Obviously, this is personal for me.

The fact that D'Souza puts homosexuality into his equation reveals so much about him. He has no tolerance for people who are not like him. He is a corner-lurker, one who will pounce on you and check your pockets for incriminating evidence. Like others who like to situate themselves into places where there is no room to turn, he sees only what he wants to see, and then he passes his vision on to everyone else as if it were The One and Only Truth.

He uses the term anti-American as if all those things he lumps together somehow speak of subversive activities and wrongdoing. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not as if a person wakes up one day and decides to protest America by turning gay. Being gay is not an action; it is part of a person. To cut down all gays as being degenerates or anti-American is to attack their hearts and souls and very beings. Is that the moral high ground? Does D'Souza thinks doing such a thing makes him right or better than anyone else? On the contrary, it makes him hateful and righteous. Those are not great moral values, are they?

As for divorce, I dare D'Souza to come walk a mile in the shoes I was wearing a few years ago. I dare him to step into the life of a person who exists in a loveless black hole of a marriage. There is no moral law saying a husband or wife who is living in a nightmare world must play the martyr and stay in the relationship just because that is the value someone else has decided for them. I have my own moral laws, thank you. One of them says "Don't let anyone fuck you in the ass with a ten foot pole." Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Judge not lest ye be judged, Mr. D'Souza. For some of us, the ultimate in moral degeneracy is to wrap your own morals around a sharp knife and use that knife to cut the heart and soul of others.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference moral degeneracy and you:

» Back on the insomnia kick again. from VASpider's Web
But at least I have good things to read while I'm doing another one of my marathon stretches of awakeness. [Read More]

» How to be right Republican asshole, lesson 1. from Stupid Evil Bastard
There are so many things wrong with this commentary by Dinesh D'Souza over at the National Review's website that I don't know where to begin. Many on the political Left are blaming the leadership of the Democratic party for moving to the center, accomm... [Read More]

» Gimme That Old Time Religion from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Arthur Silber has a great piece up about a screed from Dinesh D'Souza, touching issues such as illegitimacy, marriage, homosexuality [Read More]

Comments

Hi,
Hmm. Thought you might have a few things to say about this. Thanks for your additional thoughts. I guess you could say we double-teamed him...or something like that. HAHA God, he's a pig. The fucker part, I don't know about. Actually, I've always had a funny feeling about him, but I'd better not go there. Take care, sweetie.

God, Michele, I know a few foreheads I'd like to tape this blog entry to... followed by repeated blows to the skull with a hammer, but that's neither here nor there.

Nicely, nicely done.

sniff This is exactly why a tree-hugging lefty like me loves you so much.

Bravo! very well said! People like that scare me.

I hate judgemental people.
And the end is always the same... when hit with the same difficult choices as the people they condemn, the end up being forced to follow the SAME PATH as those they condemn... then the graduate to hypocrytes.

While I can point and laugh at this... it takes too long, and it's too aggravating. Ever since Jimmy Swaggart, I just hear screeds like D'Souza's and just say "Ahhhh shutthefuckup" and move on.

Pig fuckers.

Good eye, Arthur. Spot on, Michele. I glanced over the article the other day and it just looked like sarcastic gloating so I moved on. The moral scolds of the Republican Party and the conservative movement believe they are the most powerful voices because they get the most press. The next two years will provide an excellent opportunity for those of us who are part of the VRWC for liberty's sake to assert ourselves.

Excellent Job. Never have I seen such a throuough demolishing of a straw man in my life.

Of course, since he never actually says that adultery is as bad as bestiality, those of us who are restricted to reading what he actually says aren't quite as shocked.

So, anyone who uses the term 'moral degeneracy' is automatically beyond the pale?

I read his article as more of a parody of democrats rather than a hard-right church-pulpit fire-and-brimstone speech. Maybe that explains our diffences in interpetation.

In parody, you can use extreme notions. Its part of the definition.

Of course, you could assume he was serious, but then you'd have to assume that he thinks democrats want to make is so 'anti-American aliens could at least vote for Democratic candidates in presidential elections.', for example. Or that he actually thinks Dems might support pig-fucking.

Yes, he might have been serious about that one, and in that case we'd have to lock him up for his own safety. But isn't it just a tad possible he's exaggerating for humoristic effect?

Your overreaction is unwarranted, sirrah, and responding to it by saying 'well my ex sucked the big one' is a perfect example of 'the personal is political' hogwash.

Sadly, Ryan, it's not unwarranted at all, nor is it at all unlikely to assume that someone from the far reaches of the Right would equate beastiality, adultery, and homosexuality. In fact, it's been done.

These things come squawking out of the far recesses of the Right so often that when the tone is as unclear as this article -- and sorry, it reads too much like a Far Right screed to come across as parody -- it's inevitable that the words will be taken at face value.

Additionally, by distilling everything that Michele had to say down to 'my ex sucked the big one,' you disregard a lot of the completely impersonal statements she made regarding other salient points. 'Hogwash' is an applicable word, here, but not for her article, rather, for your response to it.

Ryan, I do believe that a good portion of his article was tongue in cheek. However, the sentence I refer to you - where you lumps all those things together as part of moral degeneracy - is quite telling.

In fact, it seems to be a recurrent theme with him:

"I also agree with Buchanan that there has been a moral slide? Who is responsible for high divorce rates, high illegitimacy rates, the social acceptance of homosexuality, the rising tide of pornography, and the vulgarity of our popular culture?"

Do a little research on D'Souza and you'll find there is no "humoristic effect" to this at all.

Yes, its been done. So-frigging-what? A lot of things have been 'done'. The existance of Pat Robertson doen't give you the ability to magically transform anyone you like into a clone of him. You have to provide some proof. And this you have not done.

She is literally using the side of a period that the clauses are on as proof. Now, I'm all for careful reading, but that is getting silly.

I notice you don't say you believe D'sousa thinks that Democrats want other countries to vote in our elections or pig-fucking for eeveryone. Could it be that you concede my point(that he is using parody), or did you miss the entire point of my post by accident?

Oh, I see. Your rebuttal was cut to make room for:

>'Hogwash' is an applicable word, here, but not for her article, rather, for your response to it.

Pigfucking, indeed.

A note: Michele's response was posted while I was still writing my response to he syncophant.

Thank you Michelle, I actually did look for other articles by him to see if I could be wrong, but I didn't see any listed (because he is a 'guest writer'). I am looking thru the NRO website now to see what's going on here.

(Note: I said that her post did not prove that he was equating bestiality with divorce, and that remains true. I am willing to hear additional proof.)

Ryan, I think this paragraph reveals the underlying personal truth in his statements:

Finally, the Democrats could become the party of moral degeneracy. In recent years the Democrats have not embraced moral degeneracy outright. They have contented themselves with hiding behind the slogan of "liberty." If accused of encouraging pornography, the Democrats have said, "No, we are for liberty of expression." Charged with supporting abortion-on-demand, the Democrats insist, "No, we are the party that gives women freedom over their own bodies." Caught distributing sex kits and homosexual instruction manuals to young people, the Democrats protest, "We are merely attempting to give people autonomy and freedom of choice."

Things covered in his book "Letter to a Young Conservative"
**Why allowing homosexuals to marry will not rein in their promiscuous, self-destructive behavior

**Two working parents? Why this is a dysfunctional system

I could keep going if you want, Ryan. There is plenty of proof out there that the man is a hompophobe and moral elitist.

Ok, I did a bit of research, and I'll say this. The writer is more extreme than I had previously believed, but he's not as quite 'out there' as you imply, nor is entirely clear that his article is not a parody. I still think it is, but I can now see how you can believe otherwise.

I'll just leave it at this: You can say that something that increases divorce rates is bad, unless the alternative is worse, without being a fanatic. There is a huge range of 'badness' of a marraige from positively abusive, to simply neglectful, to just dull.

Reasonable people can disagree where on that scale the proper 'divorce point' is (and weather children are at stake may shift that point).

Labelling someone based on where he/she thinks that line is neraly as bad as the 'racist' smear. It shuts down debate, weather or not its true.

Argh, another post while I was writing my own...

After reading what you say, I refuse to put my foot in my mouth any futher. I am wrong.

I read the article wrong, because I refused to believe that anyone could seriously believe such things(much less be printed on NRO, which I repect), and therefore it must be parody.

Apparently the bogeyman DOES exist. You'd think I'd have learnt that lesson by now.

Sowwy. Forgive me? :(

It's not so much the divorce issue that has my panties in a bunch, Ryan. It's his implication - not just in the quoted article above but in many speeches and articles he has written as well as his books - that homosexuality, divorce, two working parents, are things that contribute to the moral decline of our society.

I don't believe that for a minute. I believe that all three of those things are very personal and nobody has any business blaming me or anyone else for the low morals of an entire country.

Morality is subjective. One person's morality comes from the bible, another person's comes from within. To try to subject your idea of morality on someone else and then lay the degeneracy of country on their heads when they don't expect is smugness and righteousness to the extreme.

Well obviously I posted that while you were posting the other, Ryan. My feelings on the subject still stand, but thank you for admitting you read me wrong.

Well obviously I posted that while you were posting the other, Ryan. My feelings on the subject still stand, but thank you for admitting you read me wrong.

Np, actually, as with all reasonable debate, everyone is a winner.

It's exactly shit like that the Republican party needs to watch out for if it wants to keep its control in two years. They won a big victory on Tuesday, no doubt. But they don't have such a lock on both houses that they couldn't easily lose it in 2004. If they keep pressing the right-wing social agenda, then those of us in the center may not vote for them in '04. Of course, with the idiot Trent Lott back as Senate Majority leader, who the hell knows what they'll try to do. They won because of national security concerns, not "moral degeneracy" concerns.

Although it would take a pretty seriously sorry Republican senatorial candidate in '04 to get me to vote for Chuck Schumer. Shudder.

Exactly my point in all of this, Lesley. The Republican agenda for the future should stray as far from the far right as it can. The issues of abortion and other morality agendas is not what won them such a big victory last Tuesday. Homeland security, foreign affairs, national security, smaller govt; if they concentrate on those issues and stay away from grabbing onto the waistbands of the moral majority folks, they will do ok.

Excellent job, Michele.

D'Souza often has a point, but this screed of his is way beyond the pale and tends to paint everything else he's ever written in a bad light, which is his own damn fault. It'll be a while before I ever waste any time on that fundamentalist fucknozzle again.

Oh, and I'm a Christian, conservative right-winger. That oughta say something about how far over the line of decent commentary D'Dimwit is with this one.

Fuck him and the limp old nag he rode in on!

Great comments and debate here. I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for poor old Dinesh. Almost. I'm over it now. To hell with him. (And just think what a pathetic sex life he must have. Or maybe not. Ick. Now that rates a big shudder.)

Hopefully closing the bold tag.

D'Souza is just as scary as Fred Phelps. I'm amazed that either of them actually have followings...D'Souza is a homophobe, racist & classist and I personally give him "crackpot" status.

Bravo! Outstanding work. I'm actually quite surpised that, in place of bestiality, D'Souza didn't use pedophilia.

However, your deconstruction, and Arthur's were spot-on. I preferred yours, Michelle. Some people shouldn't be treated with politeness.

Michele wrote at 1:01 PM: "Homeland security, foreign affairs, national security, smaller govt." is what won them the '02 election.

This Democrat (faster, please variety) says: exactly.

Great take on D'Souza, Michele. I went to the same college as he, where he made his name by throwing bombs at the dominant lefty p.c. paradigm. He made his point: maybe it's time for a new one?

Why won't Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) comment on this? Why does he only link to you when it's about "left-wing homophobia"? What about this garbage? Please comment on that Mr. Michele.

Why won't Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) comment on this? Why does he only link to you when it's about "left-wing homophobia"? What about this garbage? Please comment on that Mr. Michele.

I think you have all provided much evidence that D'Souza went beyond the pale with his NRO piece.

In response to Emperor Misha's excellent point, above, I tend to agree that on many subjects, D'Souza is a brilliant writer and thinker who articulates conservative ideas with flair and cleverness. His book "Illiberal Education" made me think differently about political issues on campus while I was a grad student and, I would have to say, contributed to my own ideological development.

Unfortunately, D'Souza's recent writings and speeches also demonstrate he is prejudiced against homosexuals.

D'Souza has a new book called "Letters to a Young Conservative" (which Michele mentions above) that is meant to be a primer on basic conservative thought for college and grad-school age readers. The format is a series of letters (this book is the third, I think, in a series of "Letters to a Young [fill in the blank]," with others by Christopher Hitchens and Alan Dershowitz) that are addressed to an imaginary (I assume), gender-neutral student named "Chris." (Interestingly, I guess it didn't cross Dinesh's mind that some young Jacobs and Rosarios might be developing conservative consciences, let alone any young Dineshes out there. But let's stick with his anti-gay prejudice for a moment.)

In a chapter on homosexuality, he predictably comes out against same-sex marriage and gays in the military. His arguments on the former are thin. Not just thin, but tautological. Basically, he says gays should not marry because marriage is the particular province of a male and female, which is the proven best way to raise a family. There is, of course, no evidence for this; just assumption.

He further states that people like Andrew Sullivan are illogical for arguing that society should not prevent homosexuals from marrying because the "child-rearing" argument if flawed, i.e., society does not deny marriage licenses to childless couples. (See, e.g., Bob and Elizabeth Dole, Pat and Mrs. Pat Buchanan, and on.) He reasons that we also do not deny drivers' licenses to immature 16 year olds or voting rights to immature 18 year olds. In other words, to D'Souza, the fact of exceptions does not vitiate the bright-line rule. Such an analogy is specious and would be compelling only if there were irrefutable evidence that only a married man and wife can raise children well. (There will, it seems, never be such evidence because individual households differ so dramatically.) More crucially, the problem with D'Souza's argument is, again, the assumption that marriage exists solely for procreation when there are abundant examples of its other benefits and joys. (Um, Dinesh, couples stay together when the kids fly the coop and don't call as often as they should.)

D'Souza also argues that the absence of laws permitting same-sex marriage is not discriminatory because gays and lesbians do have the option of marriage to members of the opposite sex. Really, he does say this! I hope D'Souza's "Chris" -- whatever his sexuality -- realizes that D'Souza's prescription sounds like a tremendous idea for both parties to such a union, any offspring, their families, and society in general. (Note to Dinesh: If sexuality is really just a choice, how much money would you have to be paid for you to have a same-sex relationship since, after all, your "choice" to do so is really just a matter of the proper external incentives? In a different type of society, would he regard the singular "option" of cohabitating with another man -- the analog of his suggestion that straight-only marriages are not discriminatory -- as much of a choice?)

In his chapter in "Letters," D'Souza also tosses off a smug anecdote related by his mentor at Dartmouth, Jeffrey Hart, who was confided in by a gay colleague lamenting the fact that he could not have a child. Hart told his friend he was "going about it the wrong way." Yes, if only he were straight and able to procreate. That, ipso facto, makes for a great parent.

It's disheartening that this is the sort of flimsy and prejudicial thinking that D'Souza's publisher wants to pass off to young minds as state-of-the-art conservatism.

D'Souza's discomfort with gays is not limited to the printed word, lest you think it emanates from his intellect. I saw D'Souza speak recently at a Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs lecture meant to promote his other recent book on American exceptionalism. In a gratuitous trashing of the French people, D'Souza tossed off the observation that all French men are "rather effeminate" (ever heard of Charles DeGaulle, Dinesh?), implying that they were gay, and further suggesting that the French government's squishy obstructionism of U.S. foreign policy is attributable to the weak and silly dispositions of French (male) leaders in that country.

I wonder to whom he thought he was tossing red meat in the crowd. Could he not conceive of the idea that someone can be both gay and politically conservative (and willing to give up an evening of one's time to listen to what one had hoped would be an intelligent and informed presentation of ideas)? And how clueless and sheltered must he be to buy into the stereotype of the effeminate gay man? Has he ever been to a gym in San Diego, where he lives? (Actually, not often, it would seem. Ironically, D'Souza himself is a slight guy pushing middle age whose natural thinness seems headed for a paunch. He is hardly one to talk about masculine or intimidating presences, which could perhaps explain a lot. But then he dated his college classmate, Laura Ingraham. Talk about degeneracy! Well, let's not go there, either.)

It's a shame that D'Souza was selected to write "Letters to a Young Conservative." His NRO posting that you've all brilliantly parsed, however, should hardly surprise.

Wow, lots of anger! I read that piece and saw pure sarcasm and satire, with occasional bits of opinion thrown in. Big deal. Lighten up! Is it a masterpiece, no. So what? He's trying to make some points about the leftist agendas so prominent in Dem policy. Hard to argue, after what happened on Election Day, that his point is without merit. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the constant leftward pull on social issues exerted by Dems everywhere has been yanked back, hard, by the voters. It was not just Iraq people were voting on.

Dinesh D'Souza is a well respected conservative and academic. I read "Illiberal Education" too, very enlightening book, and quite on target in its criticisms, as we are seeing now. I think it imprudent to toss aside his entire premise (Dem leadership is too liberal) because of a couple of possibly ill-advised comarisons in his text.

Dear Jeff (10:34 PM),

Er...not.

Michele had the right of it in her original post. My parse of D'Souza's "possibly ill-advised comparisons" is that he's wrong.

This election, the Right found unexpected allies in the Center (like me). Keep us or lose us? You decide.

I hate to rain on this parade, and I'm not arguing here for anything but a proper reading of an oft misused passage of scripture. The FULL passage is: "Judge not, lest you be judged, for with what judgement you judge you will be judged". It is a warning against hypocrisy, it does not mean that we should not judge. This is made clear in LK 12:57, "And why are you, in your hearts, unable to be be judges of what is right". Rail as you will against Mr Souza's writings and/or opinion. However please leave the bible out of it, especially since you claim to be an atheist. Thanks

Atheists have just a right to quote from the Bible as Christians, Eklektos. After all, much of our culture is based on that book. And you really don't want to be telling Michele what to say on her own blog.

Speaking of judging not...

I take some small issue with the following quote:

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not as if a person wakes up one day and decides to protest America by turning gay. Being gay is not an action; it is part of a person. To cut down all gays as being degenerates or anti-American is to attack their hearts and souls and very beings.

I am not interested in arguing whether or not homosexuality is a choice. My opinion is that the medical evidence supports the notion that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. However, I don't believe that the degree of determination in homosexuality behavior determines its status as moral degeneracy. Defense of homosexuality (or attacks on homophobia) on this basis imply that it does. If that is not intended, then it would be sufficient to say that the personal sexual behavior of adults is included within the pervue of their personal freedom, irrespective of the cause.

Most of the time, you say, "two out of three ain't bad," and the parts of the article about the Left being reflexively anti-American (watch coverage of any "peace" rally and you'll see what I mean) and favoring economic redistribution were arguably correct. It's the third part of the article, the "moral degeneracy" part, where I have to part ways with Mr. D'Souza. I don't care what people are doing in private as long as they aren't harming anyone else. Divorce, homosexuality, pornography, that's people's own business, not the government's, not mine. The article's tone was satirical, but the sentiments expressed at the end weren't. It deserves the fisking it's getting, which just goes to show that you don't have to be a Lefty to get fisked.

What you're a bit deluded about is in thinking that the first two parts can be severed from the third. All three parts are the par of carefully woven ideology of the far right. You can't take one out, not at National Review at least. So when you sign on to one part of it, you're signing to all of it.

Andrea, fuuny, seemed to be written as a request the way I read it. Beside, as I said it is not quoted, it is misquoted. Out of context and incomplete. Just like you just did.

wonder whether D'Souza would have mentioned bestiality in his litany of democratic sins if it weren't for this recent piece by Peter Singer.

Here's the link:

http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/

This article appeared after the ever controversial Singer took a prominent position at Princeton University.

Eyebrows were, unsurprisingly, raised.

My question for Singer: How can a human and an animal engage in consensual intercourse?

I think people should be sensitized to homosexuality because three percent of the population must be catered too over the whole, hey it ain't democratic, but I want to do what I want. Also, three percent of the population are Native Indians so we should also sensitize the world to them, and teach people how they have sex too... It ain't democratic but its fair.

Having read Mr. D'Souza's little satirical screed,
I must say that it was over the top. However, it was far less so than virtually anything Peter Singer has written in recent years, he of interspecies romance infamy. So it seems to me that everyone is overreacting.
As to the matter of his sentence lumping together a series of alleged moral privations, such a grouping could be read as implying that D'Souza regards them as morally equivalent. On the other hand, one could with equal warrant read the sentence as implying nothing of the sort, but as a sort of laundry list of alleged moral privations, without any implications as to which are more or less serious in D'Souza's mind. After all, in a laundry list analogy, one would certainly lump dirty socks and pants together as laundry items, but would not neccesarily regard them as equally filthy or their cleaning as of equal importance. So I can see no reason to imagine that D'Souza regards someone who has been divorced as equivalent to someone who fucks pigs.
And, really now, to write that D'Souza might well exempt spousal battery from judgment as a moral evil, well, that sounds suspiciously like a straw man, and a scurrilous one at that. It would be rather like the risible notion that homosexuals only seek greater tolerance from the wider culture in order to facilitate the seduction of our little ones. No, in fact, judging from his many essays and articles, I would say that D'Souza's position is that of a general opposition to divorce, on the grounds that it usually undermines families and results in a decline in the well-being of children. In other words, his is a generalized opposition to divorce; it is for him a general moral principle. To imagine that he would seek to apply a general principle like, "divorce is morally wrong" to the case of a wife abused by an adulterous, fucking asshole of a husband, a case obviously unsuited in its particulars to the application of the principle, would not only be logically fallacious (fallacy of accident), but sort of slanderous. I mean, I'd be pissed if someone insinuated that I was the sort of moral degenerate who would defend the sort of pseudo-man who beat my sister....
As to his inclusion of homosexuality in his litany of alleged moral privations, well, those are his convictions, undoubtedly conditioned by his belief that such behaviour is a matter of volition. Is D'Souza mistaken in that belief? I cannot answer that question, except to say that if all behaviour is genetically and biochemically determined, perhaps it is also the case that certain persons don't just wake up in the morning and decide to protest homosexuality by embracing a moral system within which homosexuality is regrded as wrong and acting on that basis. Perhaps they are just born that way; it is a part of their way of being, such that to condemn them is to attack them heart and soul and being. If such is the case, any preference for one biochemical sequence over another amounts to little more than a grown-up game of "because I say so". Special pleading with no more claim upon our minds than D'Souza's satire need be accorded.

peace, hope and love
Jeff

Jeff, I don't believe for a minute that his words in that paragraph were satirical as I pointed out other quotes from him that say the same thing.

Michele,
We must be employing different understandings of the nature of satire. As I understand satire, it is an inescapably moral medium, in which an author attempts to strengthen his point by reducing that of an opponent, real or imagined, to absurdity. In that sense, the satire is only successful if a reader shares the opinion of the author, or is persuaded by it to adopt the position it embodies. If the reader regards the opinion of the author as repellent, or even simply considers the presentation to have been ludicrous, then the satire fails for that reader. D'Souza won't convince many, if any; but those who agree with him will probably find his piece worth a few chuckles.

peace, hope and love
Jeff

Once again, Jeff, I fail to emit even the smallest chuckle when he has said the same things before, in a non-satiric venue.

Well, Eklektos, whether you like it or not, that is the common usage of the saying. A lot of biblical sayings have been pulled from their original context and used to illustrate situations that they may not have originally been intended for. As a matter of fact, the colloquial usage of the "judge not" saying is not at all inconsistent with the meaning of the full passage, i.e., cautioning against hypocrisy. The colloquial usage, such as mine and Michele's, is also directed at hypocrites. D'Souza is a hypocrite, for using the same smear tactics that voices on the right were condemning the Dems for using. How is that using the passage wrongly?

In any case, you basically stated that Michele should not use the biblical saying because she was an atheist, not because she was using it wrong. There's a word for that attitude but I am trying to be polite.

I thought of a word or two also, but refrained.

Thanks for telling him what I wanted to but in much nicer words, Andrea.