A Small Victory

I would like the self-righteous Jesushaters to please explain why in two very blue states they voted Kerry by a wide majority but banned one of its dearly held socially progressive platforms of gay marriage?

They had the opportunity to vote their beliefs and apparently the Jesushaters are against gay marriage, go figure.

For years I've tried to reign in some members of my social circle from their expression of contempt for Christians in general and Catholics in particular.

I've never understood how they can equate people who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens with the Spawn of Evil.

Now it's gotten out of control, and I realized just last weekend that I'm not even being invited to group movie outings. It's pretty painful, but not so much as watching people hate over imagined reasons.

Michele, it was ok for the far left to be exclusive and spew hatred long before their guy lost. Their intellectual superiority trumps all.

Maybe that ignorance finger is being pointed in the wrong direction.

It's more like a thumb, pointed north in a distinctly dark southern cavity. My only concern is that the left's collective depression might turn violent. And not just towards themselves.

How the Democrats, the left, the liberals, whatever they want to call themselves, have suddenly decided it's ok to pass around the jugs filled with smug hatred, to lick their lips as they drool the slobbering bigotry all over themselves, to become everything they always claimed they weren't.

Well, the issue is that some of them WERE what they claimed they WEREN'T. They were bigots, but had the "advantage" of being bigoted in a way that's acceptable in their circles.

Most of them, though, are just latching onto an explanation -- any explanation! -- of why Kerry lost. The less blame it fixes to their party, their positions, or their actions, the better.

I'm not sure which group is more worrisome.

But Michele, Blogger X stole the Mach V and now I have to go deep into the heart of Jesusland to get it back!

Michele, as you may or may not know, I am a Christian, but I don't take the lefty assault on the matter as one of being anti-Christian, or as calling all Christians "idiots". I think there is a genuine concern anytime politicians of power get in bed with powerful Christians. History seems to agree with that over and over again.

Does that mean I think that W is going to escort in the revelations of biblical prophecy? Probably not...but I could see the religious right doing it...and according to that crazy Bible which I do believe in...it is going to happen somehow...One religion will be forced sooner or later and those that disagree will not find their lives very enjoyable. Constitution be damned. Or maybe that is the whole point of the relgious right these days--to take over and to hasten this?

And quite often when you see a person of power (a politician especially) start claiming that he or she is God's choice (or has people claiming that for him or her) that is generally a big fat warning sign that this person should not be in a position of power--maybe instead he or she should be a preacher or an elder of a big church, but not a world leader. Even Christ himself said to render the things to Caeser which are Caser's and to God the things that are God's.,.or something like that...but the silly Christian voter seems to have forgotten that.

Course, it's harder to tell here just who is using God more...W and his staff or the religious right...but either way it's scary how the christian voters are responding. And I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of someone that is using God for personal or political gain come election day.

In short, politics shouldn't involve religious issues. But maybe I am just dreaming that this is possible...but I think we would all agree with that. And now you are defending the Christians who are opposed to this? Church and state should remain on their own sides of the street and not joined together to run people over. Allowing free choice was good enough for God, why isn't it good enough for the religious right? That is what I think the many non Bush voters (like me) are saying...because, as history shows and now as we have already seen...the candidate or the "chosen one" suddenly feels a mandate to do as the religious power that put him or her in office tells him or her to do.

Thanks for posting this topic. I have been waiting for it, as you promised you would do a few days back.

As far as the lefty smear and hate tactics that are out there...well, to me, that is just good old fashioned politics. I seem to remember the right being the same way a few years back when the Democrats were more in control of things. What comes around goes around I guess...and your right it would be a great day if someday the party on the short end of the stick (whichever it may be) genuinely tried to buck up and work with the party in power rather than spawning more sore loser tactics.

Well, being one of those 'right-wing Jesus Lovers' I wanted to make my case here.
My wife and I are believers in Christ. We go to church on Sunday and are raising our children with the values taught at church.

When we went to the polls, we voted for Bush because we felt he carried the same beliefs we have.

Gay marriage? Here's the thing, If that is the way someone wants to live, so be it. You don't have to answer to me. We believe that the union of a man and a woman is the cornerstone of a solid family, and that by changing that, you are changing the very core of the family unit itself.

We have no plans to 'drag democrats out into the streets', or enforce our beliefs on you.

We went to the polls on the 2nd because we saw society veering away from what we believe in.

The use of 'Jesusland' shows the democratic party has no understanding of why so many turned out in favor of Bush.

As an evangelical christian, I do not feel insulted when I see things like the "Jesusland" email. Instead, I just smile because I know it will drive our congregation and like-minded people to the polls in droves.

We have been emboldened by our recent victory. Now we can pass some of our desired legislation. Texas has already ordered text books to include creationism and exclude sex ed. A friend who is a state legislative assistant in South Carolina said a bill is being revived that would make sure emergency room doctors are hetersexual. Thanks to George Bush's conservative judiciary, we can uphold these state laws.

Let the United States of Canda pas the laws they want. Let them wallow in delusion, blasphemy, sodomy.

I see the trolls are out in full force. I've already deleted three comments and I'm sure there will be comments from people who claim to be one thing but are another. Disruptors, I call them.

Most of the commenters here are regulars, to an extent. Take any comments from unrecognized names or names with obvious fake email addresses with a grain of salt.

Michele I think you managed to wake up every Christian lurker you had.

Good job!



Now off to find Blogger X!

I got to see a lot of this tension when I was in law school at Harvard. HLS had a fair number of serious religious folk - evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and even Mel Gibson-style Catholics who drove three hours each way on Sunday for the Latin Mass (no Muslims I can recall, but maybe they kept a low profile). And, of course, a gigantic population of secularists with Ken Layne's brand of hatred for the religious. Now, I'll admit that evangelicals who attend Harvard probably aren't the most representative of their flock, but the visceral contempt mostly ran one way - it was always the secular-extremist types who booed and hissed at dissenting views in class and staged theatrical protests of speakers they disagreed with, while the religious people or various stripes were almost all unfailingly polite and respectful of differences of opinion (nobody even tried to disrupt Harry Blackmun when he spoke).

Sure, some awful things have been done in the name of religion in general and Jesus in particular. Some equally awful things have been done by godless Nazis and Communists. Personally, I find great comfort in the fact that Bush seeks strength and guidance in prayer, and people whose saliva glands go into overdrive at the thought are the ones who need to reflect on their own intolerance.

Better Jesusland than the Islamic Republic of America, I always say.

Ah yes, Jesusland. Where people make assumptions about others based on their religious beliefs.

(Sad thing is, the folks throwing around the name "Jesusland" will probably respond to the above with "Right on!" instead of "Yeah... hey! You trying to say something about me?!") :/

Unfortunately, I've seen this sort of thing from various (as in not all but enough to find annoying) Democrats, liberals and leftists long before 2000. The recent elections have only brought it further into the open.

I voted for Bush due to the Democrats’ shift away from anti-authoritarian liberalism towards the totalitarian-tolerant left. The left is, and always has been, opposed to liberal democracy. A shift in their direction would be a very bad idea for the country.

We heard the same hysterical ‘moral majority Christians will destroy the world!!' routine when Reagan was elected. Guess what – Jesusland' didn’t destroy the separation between church and state, and they didn't bring on Armageddon. I believed the hysterical left back then, but not now. If they expect us to fall for the same con again, they really do underestimate our intelligence.

Jeff Jarvis (a Kerry supporter) believes that loud lefty spokesmen for the Dems, like Michael Moore, are to blame. I don’t doubt it.

OK, so I see we're back to dumping all non-righty types into the same till, Michele. "Democrats, the left, the liberals, whatever they want to call themselves..." Is this one of those times where I'm supposed to, as you suggested, assume you're not talking to me? But if I'm one of the above, then why should I assume you're NOT talking to me? I guess this is all too complex; you may just be writing over my head. I'm certain that lumping you in with the extreme excesses of "the Right" would not be okay with you, but maybe there are different rules now.

Today's Washington Post has a story about the Evangelical Right, and how they had a very big role in helping Bush get elected. This should give any of us pause who prefer a strict separation of church and state. It isn't a matter of "Christians" having a role or say in public policy; it's the politically-motivated, radical Envangelicals who are pretty damn well expecting a reward from Bush for their efforts. (See, some of us on "the Left" make distinctions, rather than lumping.) The question to ponder is how much they will demand and what they will get.

This election cycle's been all kinds of useful at shaking out the moonbats. Unfortunately that makes it harder to dial up your old favorites and find out what the left is thinking, because they're all pretty moonbatty at the moment. Now, I never thought Willis was particularly sane even while Glenn was pushing him as the Great Moderate Hope, but seeing Welsh and Layne in full-on Howard Dean mode is pretty disquieting. You'd think folks that familiar with Eastern Europe wouldn't be so cuddly with wannabe Marxists.

Funny how the left, even the moderate left, has a problem when evangelicals vote as a bloc--but no problem when (in the past) Jewish voters, Catholic voters, and Black Christians voted predominately democratic. Kerry even had campaign rallies during actual church services and thats OK with them.

I think Victor said it best, "We have been emboldened by our recent victory. Now we can pass some of our desired legislation. Texas has already ordered text books to include creationism and exclude sex ed. A friend who is a state legislative assistant in South Carolina said a bill is being revived that would make sure emergency room doctors are hetersexual."

This is what scares us Michele. The replacment of biology with fantasy in our schools and the vetting of a persons ability based on sexual preference.

Sure, this isn't quite the same as hauling the heathens off to the river for a Rove administered baptism, but if true (and I have my doubts) it certainly speaks to the erosion of the barrier between church and state. If this kind of legislation becomes the norm I'm afraid all we have to look forward to is a generation of ignorant pregnant kids unable to obtain decent medical care. Of course the upside is, they're all going to Heaven in the end and the end always justifies the means in these folks eyes.

For now, I'm looking at Victor as a red herring.

Has anyone here ever heard of a such a bill (requiring emergency room doctors to be heterosexuals)? I can't find anything on it and, honestly, can you imagine such a bill ever passing?

Like I said, vocal minority.

spd rdr wrote My only concern is that the left's collective depression might turn violent.

Might? Example: the attempted arson of GOP state HQ in Raleigh, NC, Friday night:

GOP headquarters vandalized Three are arrested after protesters break windows, spray-paint slogans, burn an effigy

Or do we filter this out because destruction of property isn't 'violence'?

In sporting events at all levels it is extremely rare for the opponents to play flawlessly and for one to simply be better than the other. More often it comes down to which executes their plan best and which makes the fewest mistakes.

Bush, via his campaign genius, Karl Rove, ran an excellent campaign. Kerry ran a disjointed, fractured campaign complete with management changes and infighting.

Bush had a strong and consistent message. Kerry bopped all over the place.

Bush ran on his record. Kerry ran on his, except for the part about him being a US Senator for the last twenty years.

Democrats like MoDo, and others making arguments similar to her's, are doomed to this fate until they take responsibility for the loss by accurately assessing their ideological and tactical failures, and properly analyzing the success of their opponent(s).

I, for one, am experiencing schadenfreude.

The replacment of biology with fantasy in our schools...

Texas has already ordered text books to include creationism and exclude sex ed.

I didn't realize that include really meant replace.

a different bill--exactly. since when is it news that the left is making fun of Christians? Any episode of South Park will confirm that. But they might not just come for the uterus this time--if we let puritans run their course there is little doubt that America will find out a whole new meaning to "Religious Freedom"...in other words it will be a religious brand of freedom and that could effect your TV, your your "internetS" or even what you are allowed to do or say. What was the reason the pilgrims came to this land in the first place...to escape a government overrun by religious fervor? Or was it to just come to a land where they could set up their own version of such government?

Victor--Exactly what I think many people are most concerned with--this moral majority legislation that you speak of. If you can't get people to accept the Gospel by preaching it, just take over the government and force it? And we wonder why secular society despises Christianity so much?

Mary--Reagan didn't bring about Armageddon because he didn't control the other two branches of government like W now does. The jury is still out. And speaking of Reagan...since you brought him up...his own son had this to say...

"Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference." 

Maybe another reason, Armageddon didn't occur? Look, like I said before--the Christian believes that God will send his son to come at a time of God's choosing, and God is powerful enough to fight his own battles--political or otherwise. And again, the Christian believes--we are asked to share the Gospel WITH THOSE INTERESTED IN KNOWING MORE ABOUT IT and not MANDATING IT.

Crank--awful things done in the name of the godless are expected in a sinful world and are worth fighting against, awful things done in the name of God are an abomination, an example of the worst abuse of power, AND ARE EQUALLY WORTH FIGHTING TO PREVENT. I find great comfort in prayer and seeking consul from God too, but when someone makes such a public

Gabe--Anyday Michele defends us Christians is worth comments (and now I have pushed my luck by making two long ones)--She knows I would read her fine daily work no matter her stance--she thinks for herself which is the way I think God wants us to think and the way Americans should be free to do at any cost. But I will take the hint and go back to lurk mode now. Thanks to all for an excellent discussion. I will try to support our President elect (I am a loony Libertarian). I just worry a little bit about the agenda of such a strong religious base that seems to have been a big part of getting him re-elected. Hopefully, I am all wrong. And just to let you all know, the Bible does talk about the world being as it was in the days of Noah (sinful, Godless) when the second coming of Christ shall occur. I guess with such a strong religious base in power we at least know we are safe from that freaky event happening for another four years! (heh heh).

Oh and bethyl--AMEN SISTER--it shouldn't be tolerated in any campaign, left or right. Great point (and I fought that too).

And Steve--atta boy! You are bringing it back to politics and that is what political discussions should be about (not religious underpinnings). Unfortunately, "the experts" are telling us he won because of the moral majority. Or maybe this is more left wing media biased (seriously--maybe they are trying to anger people against Bush and Christians at the same time--worth considering).

For sure lurking this time.

Dammit!
How many times do you people need it pounded into your skulls?
THE FORCES OF DARKNESS WEAR PINSTRIPES.
Our HQ is the corner of 161st and River Ave, Bronx, NY.

I'm with michele on this. The "religious right" will not take over.

And frankly, this new meme from the Dems is idiotic. We heard all of this before when Reagan was in office.

It didn't happen then, it won't now.

The "religious right" is not a monolith.

Peat - speaking of Reagan...since you brought him up

I also brought up the fact that Leftists like Moore are, and always have been, opposed to the American system of liberal democracy. You responded with another diversionary shout that ‘right-wing Christian boogymen are gonna get you if you don’t watch out!!'

Speaking of mandates, here’s a quote from one of those scary Christians:

"So we see that we have a mandate not only to conquer sin but to conquer ignorance. Modern man is presently having a rendezvous with chaos not
merely because of human badness but also because of human stupidity. If Western civilization continues to degenerate until it, like twenty four of its predecessors, falls hopelessly into the bottomless void of liquidation, it will be due not only to its undeniable sinfulness, but also to its appalling blindness. If American democracy should gradually disintegrate,
it would be due as much to a lack of insight as to a lack of commitment to right."

That Christian was Martin Luther King.

At our community pool, the middle of the pool is 10 ft deep and the outside edges are shallow. If you want to play in the middle of the pool, you have to swim harder. Around the outside you can just stand there with no effort needed. It's a great area for lazy people.

Bob Hebert really digs one of the shallow ends of the pool, for his writing reflects an effortless barrage of anti-Bush crapola.

And of course Victor will not be needing floaties because he stays at the end where one ancient writing is the unerring word of the one true God and there's a good smiting for anyone who challenges that.

But how much effort does it really take to push away from the side of the pool and get out there where Jesus may have welcomed gay folks around his campfire? Or how tough is it to jump off the low board into the area where George W. Bush does not lay a big hunk of lamb's wool on the porch of the White House and cry "Yaweh, if in the morning there is dew on the Rose Garden but no dew on this here lamb's wool, I will take it as a holy sign and attack France"?

I say come on out. The water's fine and you might drop a few pounds.

Jack Chick rules. I want to have like, 10,000 of his manbabies.

Third Edition: Tool of Satan?

Al

If this is the "Victor" I've seen from other posts on this blog... we've got a moby here.

The MSM, almost in total, were blatantly pro-Kerry especially in the last couple of weeks up to the election. Wasn't one exec with Newsweek that boasted the MSM would deliver up to 15 points to Kerry? Now they are scrambling to "explain" the Bush win of 51+% of the vote (even Clinton couldn't do it) while assuaging the suffering of the intellectually/morally superior leftist/liberals who look around their neighborhoods and don't know anyone that voted for Bu$hitler. So the MSM has latched onto this Xtian radical "explanation" bandwagon. This is akin to the "angry white male" explanation of Republican gains in 1994. It makes it so much easier to dismiss the vote of the pro-Bush side if you paint it as a pitchfork and torches mindlessness of the peasants.

Keep on slamming 59 mil voters as a bunch of guntoting-gayhating-femalehating-biblethumping Xtians, Dems. Maybe the Republicans will then gain a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2006.

David Brooks echoes Jay thoughts in the NYT today. He states that the religious right did not win this election.

But then again, Kerry was their kandidate. The left refuse to see logic and balance in anything but their own rhetoric. your right Michele, sKerry was unelectable.

Mark, in response to comment - Al says:

The replacment of biology with fantasy in our schools...
When the line that he quoted was:

Texas has already ordered text books to include creationism and exclude sex ed.

I didn't realize that include really meant replace

What part of exclude sex ed don't you understand?

This whole thing is a perfect symptom of why the democratic party is disintegrating. There is ZERO disapline in the party leadership and talking heads. Dems have this idea in their head that demographic shifts are always on the horizon to save them, so they take their base for granted.

Guess what? 45% of hispanics voted for Bush, and hispanics tend to be very religious. There's a strong chance that this wave of anti-christian rhetoric will drive the hispanic vote into the Republican fold completely. All this 'cathartic' lashing out has a pricetag. Blacks and jews tend to be very religious as well, and Bush made modest gaines amongst those groups. So who exactly is left in the party? Hollywood elites, media pinheads, and Michael Moore? Thats maybe 5000 votes (does Moore get 2?), great way to build a coalition.
Demographics are against the Dems now. Unions are evaporating and their votes if not their money is about evenly split. Minorities feel taken for granted, and the militant lefties still prefer Nader. The trend will continue, and ripping apart the people you need to convince to come back to you maybe isnt the best course of action.

Funny, but last night I picked up The New Thought Police by Tammy Bruce, former Presicent of L.A. NOW, and in 2001 she was on about the same thing. It's not bigotry when it comes from the Left, it's moral superiority.

By the way, that Jesusland map assumes that Canada is all monolithically liberal and anti-Bush. I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but I gather that the western, Rocky Mountains parts of Canada (like Alberta, which has all that oil) is a lot like the American states below it, Montana, Wyoming, etc.; it's just that they're outnumbered by Quebec and Ontario. I suspect that if Canada had to choose between Bush and Kerry we'd be coloring at least a few chunks of our neighbor to the north as Jesusland as well. (Liberal as it is, I doubt that Vancouver, where Vietnamese immigrants are a dominant segment of the population, would have voted for Kerry).

As Mark Steyn and many others have pointed out, Liberals have an Established Church, the coercive theocracy of political correctness enforced by a secular episcopate (pundits, Hollywood, publishers, MSM, etc.).

Established Churches don't welcome serious competitors. Traditional religion is tolerable so long as it's in the closet; come out of the closet and its shaming time, the daily Two Minutes of Hate.

michele, Darleen - Yeah, I'm pretty sure Victor is a Moby.

I have seen the more extreme evangelicals pushing such an agenda, but I'm also seeing them getting slapped down by the moderate evangelicals.

Most of them just want to be left to themselves and not have morality definied by activist judges.

We're not heading for a new dark age, folks. Or at least, not because of the Religious Right.

Crank

Not only that, but US of Canada also includes all of California.

Look at the county map, outside of Los Angeles and the north coastal area that has Frisco as its center, the rest of California is decidedly red (this almost mirrors the pro-Schwartzenegger vote breakdown).

BTW... I've been doing a search on "texas textbook creationism" and I'm not finding a thing on a supposed decision by the State of Texas on this...oh, I'm finding some histrionics from al-Guardian about mindless/hypocritical Xtains poised to take over, but heck, they're still smarting from being flipped the bird by Americans that didn't take kindly their attempt to interfer with our election.

Darleen- I found this:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=1513

but I'll take it with a grain of salt since I don't know who or what discovery.org is.

Mary--

Fair point and quote from King Jr. which is why it was good of him to stay in relgion or at least outside of public office (even if those of the "God abiding religious right" of that day gave him very little choice to actually run for office if he wanted to because of his race).

I have no problem at all with "fighting sin" so long as it remains a fight fought by those outside of political office.

Thanks for replying.

RE: Texas exluding Sex Ed. assuming it's even true.

This is not necessarily a Christian concept. Some people just prefer to teach their own kids about sex when they think they are mature enough to handle it. My kids (when I have them) should learn about sex from me and my wife when we think they should, not from the state when the state thinks they should.

Michele is an atheist but has posted before about her problems with the sexualization of children. This is not a Christian only concept. It is an individualist/freedom concept.

Bob Herbert's line explains why I kept seeing all the Republican candidates in the pulpits on Sundays. Oh wait. Those were Dems. Nevermind...

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I am a Christian, an ardent Bush supporter and very conservative. I welcome the left's persecution of us "Jesus freaks" and view it as an opportunity for Christians.

For anyone who would like to pervert the following passage to include your enemies as "governments" please think twice. Enemies here most certainly means your personal advisaries. I, for one, believe their hatred and anger can be neutralized by applying these teachings.

Matthew 5:43-48

43 You have heard that it was said, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

• waves * Another Christian here.

I have been personally frustrated by the intollerance of the left towards Christians for a long time. The majority of us just want to have equal rights, and not have other folks telling us our beliefs are wrong or ignorant. And one more thing, just because we think something is wrong doesn't mean we're afraid of it, or intollerant towards it. Those concepts are different and should be treated as such.

Hmmm, those were supposed to be two asterisks around the word "waves" up there. Something got screwy tho'!

I think it was on Scarborough over the weekend that Geraldine Ferraro was asked by Joe Scarborough if the Left really wanted to secede and he hinted at "go ahead". She said essentially: but what are you left with? All the talent is in the blue states!

Peat

All law is derived from and subservient to morality.

The question then is whose morality and how much of it is the perview of the law.

The desire to tax the rich more than others is just as morally based a decision as the desire to ban partial-birth abortion.

BTW .. I'd please ask those that have genuine worries about conservatives (and as a headsup to the more rightwing of conservatives) even IF Roe v Wade were overturned, that does not make abortion illegal. Just kicks it back to where it belongs (IMO) in the first place ... the states.

Michele,

Who is leading this anti-Christian jihad? Is it John Kerry (Catholic)? One of the more fired up lefty candidates like Rev. Al Sharpton? Can Ralph Nader be crowned King of the Athetists ... even though he's a Christian?

To coin a phase, despite a rather vocal minority, there is no mass movement afoot to demonize Christians. I supported John Kerry, but I'm not upset at the idea of 4 more years of President Bush either (although I do really hope he flip-flops on his policy of creating a huge nanny-state government). In my experience, the vast majority of the left feels the same way.

President Bush supports civil unions (although a majority of his supporters think he doesn't) and John Kerry never supported gay marriage (although a majority of his supporters thought he did). Since both sides agree on that issue, just like they agreed on: Iraq, al Qaeda, and a pathetic lack of fiscal discipline (amoung other things), I don't see where this "divide" is coming from except from those "lefty" vocal troublemakers who, as accurately you point out, are not true to any principle of actual liberalism (and another identical force of ignorance and hate which you don't want me to mention).

I think I'm missing the boat as to how Christians don't have equal rights. No one is forcing anyone to stop praying in their homes. You can still pray, silently, at schools. You just can't force me to hear your prayers or recite something I don't believe in.

No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.

No one is forcing anyone to watch Will & Grace.

Darleen,

You know more about legal stuff than me, so maybe I've got this wrong, but doesn't it have to go in this order:

1) Someone makes a law declaring abortion illegal.
2) Someone with standing sues, claiming the law is unconstitutional (or someone is prosecuted for violating the law).
3) They appeal to the US Supreme Court and lose, thus overturning the Roe v Wade precedent.

There certainly is hyperbole and vitriol coming from the left, but for anyone to use that as a pretext to dismiss the serious concerns many of us NOT on the far left have about Republican intentions for future judicial nominees is highly disingenuous, at best.

There are obviously a lot of people in America, and a lot of people here at ASV, for whom no judge who possesses the basic scholarly credentials to be nominated to the Supreme Court would be too conservative. That is not the case for me, or for the vast majority of Americans - including many, many Christians - who believe in a secular society.

I'm not asking for Bush to appoint any of those "liberal activist judges" some of you love to rail against (considering how many of Clinton's appointees were blocked by the Republicans, along with the fact that the rest of the time since Carter has been spent with Republicans in the White House, I'd really like to know where all these supposed liberal activist Federal judges came from). What I am looking for are appointees who will not vote to take away our EXISTING civil rights, whether it involves Roe v. Wade, the rights of gays apart from the gay marriage issue or the right to privacy that some Republicans such as Robert Bork seem to find so intolerably offensive.

Basically, I'm looking for Bush to nominate people who are not extreme conservative activist judges. Unfortunately, with outfits like the "American Family Association" now calling the shots in the Republican Party, the chances of that happening seem very remote.

If anyone has the idea that moderate Democrats are going to just cower in fear while Bush packs the Supreme Court with more Scalias, well, you've apparently gotten hold of some bad acid. The fundamentalists are the ones trying to take away our existing rights - trying to somehow morph that into a liberal war against all Christians is nothing more than an outright lie intended to obscure the truth.

I was one of those very rare Evangelicals at Harvard Law School, from 1989-1992, and I remember talking to Prof. Alan Dershowitz about diversity. He pleased and surprised me by arguing that Harvard ought to be recruiting people like me to help the rest of the law school understand how Evangelicals think. It is obvious from the post-election punditry that our media needs some remedial work in "Understanding Evangelicals."

For what it's worth... I took Harvard Law's first ever "Gay Rights" course (the only straight person in the room) in 1991, where we spent a lot of the course arguing the pros and cons of a push for "gay marriage." The consensus of the class in 1991 was that gay marriage COULD be achieved, if the gay and lesbian community really, really wanted to push for it, but that gay men weren't that thrilled with the idea and they feared a potential political backlash. The fact that I was present and very active in the discussion may have influenced the outcome of that discussion. I believe the class was right to steer away from pushing for that objective at that time, and I think that my participation helped them gauge the risks better than they would have if there hadn't been an Evangelical in the room.

Moral: listen to what the other side is saying. If you're a Christian, do it because it's all part of that "love your enemy" thing. If you aren't a Christian, do it because you're much more likely to win if you really listen.

As a moderate pomo Christian, I keep track of the "religious right" and (GASP) even agree with them on some things, primarily abortion. But then, I'm an adopted person, so that hits home rather personally.

Being in Texas, the sex ed. thing has received more print here in this comments thread than it has in the local paper (Dallas). There might be something about abstinance, but there's still sex ed. in the curriculm. It would be irresponsible for there NOT to be. They present Creationism as an option and evolution isn't replaced, contrary to prior posters. But don't let any facts get in the way of good old anti-Christian rants now.

In so far as the left's demonization of Christians (that's almost funny: Christians are demons) is concerned: This has been going on for decades. Since the Prayer in Schools decision, if not longer. It is nothing new, but it might be a little more vocal, but hopefully not more violent. It's the same general practice of intolerance by those demanding tolerance. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

My take on the exit polls ("morality" being a driving force for Bush's re-election) - who says morality directly translates into Jesus and gay marriage? Well, the MSM says. This past year, we heard every slut in Hollywood stump for Kerry (how many people were voting against Hollywood's values?). We heard/read Whoopie's crotch/Bush jokes (and the applause from the left.) I'm sure that there are some who are pro-choice, that really wondered about Kerry voting against partial-birth abortion. Many might have considered the morality of Kerry being less-than-truthful about the whole Vietnam/swiftboat venture, and then his protesting. Morality isn't something owned by the "Jesus freaks."

Finally, I would say that moral relativists live more on the liberal side anyway ... and vote Democrat regardless - they would never state "morality" as an issue. The question was loaded, imho. And the media's hanging so much on this issue (and all the stupid stuff being written by Smiley, and Dowd and a million others) - just shows how weak minded they are.

I think I might be the only non-lefty who thought Layne's Jesusland post was kind of funny (I still stand by the assertion that he's slipped a few cogs, though).

I'm not getting the cause for offense by some on that particular point. I can see non-Christians, atheists or practitioners of other faiths, being resentful about being automatically dumped into Jesusland, but I'm not getting all the complaining about lefty intolerance of Christianity.

I freely admit that maybe I'm just being dumb here, but isn't the message of Christianity that you take up the cross and follow Jesus? And look how much tolerance he got from others for doing it. I think complaining about being called a few names when the genesis of your religion was in excruciating agony--in turning the other cheek and loving thine enemy in the throes of that agony--is a little on the lame side. But that's just me. I hope I didn't just inadvertently threadjack this into a comparative religions argument. That's like the last thing anyone needs.

Rox

Maybe I missed the argument, but I haven't heard anything about Christians claiming they don't have equal rights..

Oh..they've had to legally fight for them in public schools ... one example in the So. Cal. school district of San Juan Capistrano (IIRC) they banned all school clubs rather than allow a Christian fellowship club... and the snarling anti-Christian comments from the teachers supporting the decision was amazing.

I'd also remind you of the ACLU's threat against the county of Los Angeles who has the audicity to have a county seal with a tiny cross on it as a symbol of CA's Mission history.

We have a secular government, as is proper, but we don't have (and shouldn't have) a secular society. To marginalize, demonize, dismiss and discriminate against people of faith in the public square robs our society of its richness and a certain amount of societal expectations of behavior. Isn't ironic as the more secular society has become, the more laws we've had to enact to regulate the social interactions between men and women.

Michele

As most have heard, the current estimates of Jewish support for Bush in the election were 25%, up from 19% in 2000. This may be a serious underestimate. The following is only preliminary (more stats are being broken down) but it comes from ... of all places... BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA - perhaps the most Jewish incorporated city in the state and also the home of many of Hollywood's supposedly left/liberal personalities (as well as numerous Iranian Jews who would tilt to Bush). Bush's support in Beverly Hills was up 22 percentage points (more than double) from 2000. Caveat: these stats are still unofficial but they are obviously very significant.

Here is the breakdown for Beverly Hills:

2004 UNOFFICIAL

BUSH 42.38% KERRY 56.98% OTHER .64%

2000 OFFICIAL

BUSH 20.47% GORE 76.51% OTHER 3.02%

Of course, these could be just guntoting-gayhating-redneck Jews....

Garrison Keillor is quoted on Power Line as advocating:

"I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. [enthusiastic audience applause] Just a little project of mine. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where there citizenship is, [laughter] is in heaven, it's not here among us in America."

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008555.php

(Sorry, don't know how to do the linky thing here.)

Mea culpa...

I was indeed confusing two recent issues. First, the replacement of sex education with abstinence in text books by the Texas Board of Education:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4136177

And the inclusion of a disclaimer in text books in Georgia (which Glenn Beck happened to coincidentally mention today!)

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=54433

So, I'll admit my error--this was not one story but two. But in my defense, I get so many emails and newsletters proposing faith-based education initiatives that it is sometimes hard to keep the details of these things straight (no pun intended). In the near future, I will also try to find some online documentation about the ER docs thing.

I hope you will excuse my exuberance, this really is a very exciting time for us.

I hope you will excuse my exuberance, this really is a very exciting time for us.

For Mobys?

Not to worry, lefties. Here are some Reasons to Be Cheerful.

/linkpimp

Don't you love when you own amistake and someone craps all over you anyway?

Btw, your site is aesthetically challenged.

I used to have a boss who kept having "Come to Jesus" meetings over issues he thought were important but I thought were stupid.

I should have beaten him with a chair and filed a religious intolerance grievance with ABC.

I hope you will excuse my exuberance, this really is a very exciting time for us.

Don't get your hopes up, Victor. Those of us who voted for Bush in spite of his standings on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are already preparing to enlist any reasonable lefty assistance we can get to ensure a Religious Right agenda doesn't get crammed down our, or anyone's throat. My vote for Bush was cast in the belief that he would best keep us safe and stong (defensively and economically), but I already know I will have to oppose him on many issues.

I like what William F. Buckley wrote a few years back in one of his columns. He said that if we woke up tomorrow and the entire agenda of the Religious Right, from pillar to post, had been enacted overnight, the America we would then find ourselves in would look not much different from the America of the 1950's...the America our parents grew up in. Minus the endemic racial bigotry, though.

Anyone have an address I can return my Ken Layne CDs to? I have no desire to listen to them ever again. Scrub Jay Records does not have a listed address, either. Thanks.

The JesusLand graphic is at Moore's site front page. Doesn't that define it as hostile, condescending, and irrelevant? Didn't take long. Blogtime is a wonderful thing.

ilyka:
The point isn't necessarily about complaining that the world hates us. Jesus told us that before the world hated us it first hated Him. So, no, we shouldn't be surprised by it. But that's not the same as saying "Thank you sir, may I have another".

At the same time, given that the biggest complaint about Christians, and indeed Christianity, is hypocracy, don't you find it a little ironic that those same people who claim to be "more tolerant than thou" are quite hypocritical themselves?

A year and one-half ago, I loved reading Ken Layne and Andrew Sullivan. I'm not surprised with Sullivan's changes but I am stunned by the venom and hatred that Layne is dredging up. He has totally gone over the line.

Hm. Funny thing, my blog doesn't have any Jesusland criticisms and I'm about as far over on the left as a person can get. In fact, my blog is mostly full of criticisms of Democrats and John Kerry for doing such an execrable job of addressing the economic and political concerns of rural voters.

I guess that's why you banned me two months ago, huh?

Joshua, some day you will realize that not everything is about you.

"Basically, I'm looking for Bush to nominate people who are not extreme conservative activist judges. Unfortunately, with outfits like the "American Family Association" now calling the shots in the Republican Party, the chances of that happening seem very remote."

Would Robert Bork be on that list of activist judges?

Just a note to David R. Block. I'm also adopted. I'm pro-choice. A lot of us are. Any person, adopted or not, could