« Limerick Winner | Main | By the Way »

Jesusland Flavored Kool-Aid

I do believe the Democrats have just switched one brand of Kool-Aid for another. Their new drink is Jesusland flavored and they are swallowing it by the gallon. koolaidjesus.jpgIf you read them correctly - and I'm not just talking about the fringe elements here, but your everyday journalists, talking heads, bloggers and Democrat on the street - the Christians are coming and they are going to burn crosses on your door and kidnap your heathen babies. Oh, sure, I've said that I don't want to see this administration move towards the religious right. The difference between the Kool-Aid drinkers and myself is that they truly believe this is going to happen while I don't. Despite a rather vocal minority looking to instill their values on the masses and despite the jihad against Arlen Specter, there is no mass movement afoot to baptize everyone in the name of Jesus Christ. The Democrats seem to think that two things lost them the election: Christians and idiots.
I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.
Perhaps the author of that piece, Bob Herbert, and all those who subscribe to his beliefs should take a look at the stats here and check out the swing voter constituent. Funny how those of us who voted for Nader or Gore last time around are now considered too stupid to breathe. What a difference four years makes. And I wonder if the Dems aren't being willfully ignorant in glossing over the other mitigating factors in their loss, the most blatant being that John Kerry was just not electable material. No one is talking about swing voters, the war on terror voters, security moms, first time voters. All we are hearing is how the moral majority sunk their claws into the too stupid to think for themselves hicks and brainwashed them into voting for a religious mandate that would sweep the nation and force us all to kneel down on Sunday and praise Jesus. And what do you get when you put the Christians and the rest of us idiots together? Why, you get the forces of darkness, marshaled in by the great Satan, Karl Rove. Wait. Dark forces? You mean we aren't going to spend the next four years going to church on Sundays and having potluck dinners where we discuss the declining morality of prime time television while our subservient Stepford children read from books on creationism? I'm confused. Are we headed for the rapture or the wrath of hell? In the above linked article, Maureen Dowd mentions that Bush's presidency will stir intolerance. Maureen doesn't know how right she is. In fact, it's already begun. Except the intolerance isn't sprouting out from where Ms. Dowd expects it. Instead, it's coming from the, oh so tolerant, all inclusive, for-the-people left. How else do you explain this? Suddenly, formerly sane blogger Layne and tons of other lefty bloggers are having a grand old time insulting, denigrating and slurring Christians. Just curious, but how do you think those lefty bloggers would feel if I spoke the same way about Muslims? Isn't the whole Jesusland concept just what they get on Charles at Little Green Footballs for when he takes on radical Muslims? Suddenly, the left side of the blogosphere is awash in mass hysteria about how those religious white folks with their bibles and their homophobia are going to destroy your lives. What makes this any different than when a right bloggers says that Islam is the "Religion of Peace" in a sarcastic manner? If I wrote half what these guys are writing about Christians about Muslims, I would be inundated with accusations of bigotry and blind hate. And guess what? Those hurling the accusations at me would claim I was following the lead of the great crowd of ignorant conservatives, that I'm a sheep, a mindless drone who has fallen for propaganda. But look at yourselves. Your guy lost the election so now it's ok to behave in a manner you once found ugly? Now it's ok to be the party of exclusion, to think you are morally and intellectually superior to one specific religious group or culture and to show that contempt in blatant form? Don't even attempt to crowd the comments here with the "but look at what Blogger X said" crap. I don't care what anyone on the right is saying right now because I am addressing specific issues here: 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. Healing? Coming together? Uniting? Forget it. Raw hatred and fear of those who have different moral issues than you is where it's at. Let me reiterate again, before the trolls kick in: I'm no pro-lifer, I'm an atheist and pro gay marriage. Yet, oddly, I'm not afraid that a group of holy rollers is going to knock down my door, put a lock on my uterus, force me to pray and make me read Jack Chick tracts about the gay agenda. Maybe that ignorance finger is being pointed in the wrong direction. ---- More on the Jesusland myth here. And more fresh commentary plus linky goodness here.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jesusland Flavored Kool-Aid:

» Intolerance from Shot In The Dark
Michele Catalano says what I tried to, and does it faster:Just curious, but how do you think those lefty bloggers would feel if I spoke the same way about Muslims? Isn't the whole Jesusland concept just what they get on... [Read More]

» Jesusland from RIGHT ON RED >>
Dear liberals: please, please, please keep referring to half the country as “Jesusland�. [Read More]

» It seems full scale introspection from scrawlville.com
Is completely off the menu. The Dem's have decided in their nuanced and higher than high thought process that the real reason John Kerry lost the election was because Jesus said so. Got that? If not, let's go to the... [Read More]

» Live from Jesusland from dustbury.com
What the hell have the Democrats been drinking? Michele knows: I do believe the Democrats have just switched one brand of Kool-Aid for another. Their new drink is Jesusland flavored... [Read More]

» Pardon Our Dust from INDC Journal
The recent software upgrade has caused some oddities in the site's style template. Renovation is underway and will hopefully be completed by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. In the meantime, check out Ace's parody of "The Apprentice:" TRUMP: All rig... [Read More]

» Jesusland Flavored Kool-Aid from Chasing the Wind
At A Small Victory in an article called Jesusland Flavored Kool-Aid, Michelle can't help but notice that the left (the far left fringe *and* the middle left) think this country is turning into a theocracy: If you read them correctly - and I'm not ... [Read More]

» Who Is The Doofus? from my thoughts, without the penny charge :: political ::
Susan Estrich continues her breakdown with her latest column in which she too labels those of us in middle America as stupid, religious fr... [Read More]

» Jesusland Kool-Aid? from Far From Perfect
This is a good article about the over-reacting the "progressive" liberals are doing after the election. Unfortunately, its getting to an unbelievable point. They just can't seem to move past this and have begun engaging in the same t... [Read More]

» Bob Herbert Catches Up from Running Scared
The election is over. Attempts to educate the Bush supporters failed, and they voted based on what they thought they knew. Nothing is going to change the past at this point, and pointing out such ignorance isn't going to do anything but anger the maj... [Read More]

» Slouching Toward Theocracy? from annika's journal
You know i think the liberal mass hysteria about the "evangelical vote" is totally overblown. But then i'm a churchgoing Catholic, so that makes my opinion suspect to secularist ears. But celebrity blogger Michele Catalano, an atheist, is not convinced... [Read More]

» Excerpts from Ken Layne's Jesusland notebook, 1 from protein wisdom
**** Ken Layne's Jesusland, essay 1; for more, see ASV , Jay Caruso, Shot in the Dark, Right on Red, scrawlville, dusbury, INDC Journal, Chasing the Wind, My thoughts, Running Scared, Annika's Journal. [Read More]

» 5@5 from Running at the Mouth
Finally, a British television program that American producers won't copy (God willing): [Read More]

» Moral Values from The Command Post Op-Ed Page
Despite my vow to quit it with the political crap, if I don’t get this off my chest, I’m going to develop a brain aneurysm and start acting weird. And we wouldn’t want that, now, would we? A lot of... [Read More]

» Law, morality and 'Jesusland' from Darleen's Place
Saturday and Sunday were a bit of kick-back days for me. The weather was perfect, I puttered about the house and garden ... occasionally joined in on some online discussions. I very much enjoyed a discussion of law and morality... [Read More]

» If only it were true from Dan and Angi Have Something to Say
I'd sure like to live there. What's not to like? Love one another - the Golden Rule - charity - kindess- generosity - forgiveness. If only we REALLY lived in Jesusland. Plus imagine living in a country without Hollywood,... [Read More]

» Blogosphere Daily News: November 9, 2004 from The Truth Laid Bear
This morning's top headlines from the Blogosphere Daily News: How Bush Won the Election - 19 links by Kevin Drum HOW BUSH WON THE ELECTION....So what really made the difference in this election? Most of the attention has been on... [Read More]

» Jesusland? More Like Moonbat Colonies from Infidel Cowboy
It seems that the moonbats think that they lost the election because the hicks in the sticks like Jesus and don't like gay marriage and not because of their own embrace of the likes of Michael Moore and other America... [Read More]

» Jesusland? More Like Moonbat Colonies from Infidel Cowboy
It seems that the moonbats think that they lost the election because the hicks in the sticks like Jesus and don't like gay marriage and not because of their own embrace of the likes of Michael Moore and other America... [Read More]

» Jesusland from it comes in pints?
I don't know where this Jesusland map started started but it seems to be getting some mileage, mostly at the expense of Ken Layne for his unseemly meltdown. That particular map is mildly amusing, but this one from Kim du... [Read More]

» If only it were true from Dan and Angi Have Something to Say
I'd sure like to live there. What's not to like? Love one another - the Golden Rule - charity - kindess- generosity - forgiveness. If only we REALLY lived in Jesusland. Plus imagine living in a country without Hollywood,... [Read More]

» Whither the poor democrats from Hellblazer
Oh, we be puttin' on sack cloth and throwing ashes in acts of despair. Imagine! We could have had some voters for a song. (Via Roxanne)I've been telling my Democrat brother for over a year now, "We're here--Bush voters who... [Read More]

» progressive slot from progressive slot
progressive slot [Read More]


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.

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.

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.

How many times do you people need it pounded into your skulls?
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?


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.


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:


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


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!


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.


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.


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.


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.


Another linky of interest: Bush Not "Down and Out in Beverly Hills"
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:


BUSH 42.38% KERRY 56.98% OTHER .64%


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."


(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:


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


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.


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.

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 have been aborted, or even never conceived because of proper use of birth control.

Any person, for that matter, might not exist today if their parents hadn't been in the mood that day. Should we pass a law requiring every married couple to have sex daily?

Think again. Base your opinion on something besides "my mother didn't want me". Mine didn't want me either. A lot of unadopted people of married parents weren't wanted either. Get over it.

I'm really getting tired of the "if you are adopted you must be anti-abortion" BS.

Sorry about that previously totally off-topic post, Michele -- a button got pushed.

As for the 'Jesusland' thing, I'm about halfway between you and Layne (and, yes, I did vote for Bush). Perhaps, being a techie, around the whole 'Y2K' scene, I may have had too much exposure to the Christian Reconstructionist movement. But I do worry about the possibility that the Republican party may skew as far to the right as the Democrats have to the left.

The basic, core belief behind teh Leftie dislike for out-of-the-closet Christians in government is founded in the concept that people with religous beliefs have NO RIGHT to actually make decisions based on those beliefs. In short, it is based on the concept that religous people should not be allowed to hold office because they might actually practice their beliefs, instead of holding it in a (proper) contempt and only making hypocritical gestures of affirmation.

Freedom of religon... just not around here, and not yours.

I adopted a child and am now even more in favor of abortion rights. Adoption is not an "answer" to abortion. It is an alternative, but it can be just as flawed, emotionally difficult, filled with uncertainty, tragic, hopeful, selfish, selfless, physically painful, controversial, and politically-charged as abortion.

To suggest that someone opt to put a child up for adoption can be as tasteless as suggesting that someone abort. An unwanted pregnancy is a tragic occurrence 100% of the time. Nothing will ever make is 100% simple. Nothing.

Kathy K

You have a hell of a lot more to fear from the Aryan Brotherhood, NLR's, Crips, Bloods, or any gangbangers in your neck of the wood then you do a tiny whacked out pseudo-Christian cult as "Reconstructionists". Kinda like the tax-protestors and Posse Comitas groups.

Please, they have as much credibility with mainstream Christianity as "Jews-for-Jesus" has with mainstream Judaism.

An aside... I got from David's post he was speaking for himself, not all adoptees. I always wonder why the more adament of "pro-choicers" are threatened by people who bring up adoption as an alternative to abortion? (I classify myself as reluctant pro-choice)

Something to think about only!!! I don't want to derail this thread either!

apologies Michele

Thanks, jon.


When #3 daughter was 15, her best friend got pregnant. It was a difficult decision for her, but she put her child up for adoption. She gets letters and pictures of her delightful little girl from the parents even as she has gone on to college and success in her life.

I salute her extraordinary courage in the face of all the pressure for her to just "solve the problem."

Yeah, that's a cute cliché but it's completely misleading.

You said: I am addressing specific issues here: 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.

To which I responded that I'm an exception to your verdict about the left. Lots of Democrats are exceptions to that verdict. I saw Paul Begala on TV the other day and weirdly enough he wasn't talking about religion and values. He was talking about how Clinton screwed the Midwest with NAFTA and how Kerry and Edwards failed to address the economic concerns of those people in their campaigning—that Democrats mostly tried to ignore rural America whenever possible, and that their attitude contributed immensely to their losses in this election.

Right there on national TV.

Not religion: economics.

There are plenty of Democrats who are aware of this.

Of course, now that I'm explaining myself I realize immediately that this is the same argument we've always had:

MICHELE: The left are all blah blah blah! Hate hate hate! Vitriol, spew, rage!

JOSHUA: No they're not. You're ignoring other opinions on the left.

MICHELE: Don't start splitting hairs with me you sanctimonious prick. You don't tell me what I should blog about. You wanna do that, go start your own blog. This is my blog!

So then I go talk shit about you on my blog and you get all pissed off and ban me.

Don't know how I could have failed to recognize it. Guess I must have just forgotten the lay-up.

Good for her, but she's not everybody. I know quite a few women who have had a horrible time after giving up a child for adoption. It's not an easy option, not for everyone, and that's all I can say.

If your daughter's friend and her former child turn out well, good. I sincerely hope her extraordinary courage holds out. I've seen what can happen otherwise, and it's not pretty.

And I don't think abortion is pretty, either, but I can't just stand on the sidelines as adoption is touted as rainbows and unicorns when it's not. I wasn't singling anyone out, but that attitude is out there.

Joshua – You say:

MICHELE: The left are all blah blah blah! Hate hate hate! Vitriol, spew, rage!

JOSHUA: No they're not. You're ignoring other opinions on the left.

As Google's cache recalls, your dialogue usually sounded something like this:

[Joshua: I love it when this happens. I say, "those protesters aren't evil, they're just profoundly mistaken," and the next thing I know I've got some foaming twat slavering all over me about how I'm defending the protesters or, better yet, how I'm defending the protesters' tactics...

...Got that? Take some time and let it really percolate through your brain, then we can come around to the next set of points. And I'm afraid these are going to be some longer sentences with some bigger words, but please make the extra special effort to keep up, because I don't think I can make it any plainer..

...So how 'bout this for an idea: how 'bout you read my fucking post next time and make sure you understand it before you start crawling up my ass for advocating the death of American soldiers you illiterate knee-jerking prick...

..Here endeth the motherfucking lesson."]

That's not very reasonable.

So, Joshua, maybe you can answer this question. The Left always been entirely opposed to the American form of liberal democracy. Since you are our ideological enemies, then why do you constantly give us advice, pretending that you DON’T wish us harm?

More than your abuse and bad manners above, this lack of respect for our intelligence is disappointing. You are our ideological enemy. The Left hopes to do more harm to our democracy and to our economy than the Christian Right could ever dream of, (if they dream of such things), but they refuse to admit it.

Why not be honest for a change?

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?

I've noticed that hypocrisy for years now, yes. I'm basically in Kathy Kinsley's corner, though: Observing that a few overzealous practitioners of the faith can really drag things down for the mainstream does not necessarily equal wholesale contempt for Christianity. I think one can be concerned about preserving a strict separation between church and state without being labeled "anti-Christian."

Where Michele is absolutely right, however, is that Herbert and Layne have gone beyond concerned to hysterical (in Layne's case it's hard to offer much response to that beyond, "hear, hear" and "duh").

Isn't stereotyping Democrats/liberals just as bad as them doing it to Republicans/conservatives? Let's not be hypocrites, people...

Wow Kathy K. Project much?

It is MY opinion, and I did not require that you or anyone else own it.

Thanks for the insult anyway.

Victor is so obviously a moby, I can't believe he fooled anyone.
Look at the verse his email address references:
"Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;" Lev. 21:11

Victor hates Christians--and is frustrated that everyone else doesn't--and so he masquerades as an obnoxious caricature of a Christian to try to win others over to his way of thinking. Way to go, Victor.

That's not very reasonable.

No Mary, what it is is, it's not very nice. But it's perfectly reasonable. Anyone who goes back and reads the exchange you're quoting from will probably agree with me that the guy I wrote those things to was being a complete asshole and pretty much deserved what he got. You're also leaving off the apology I posted two comments later. And you're conveniently failing to mention that Michele herself mixed it up in that comment thread with,

Get your head out of your ass, Kevin. Next time you want to take apart my words, you would do best to actually try to understand them first.

Sometimes, that's just the tone of the debate. If you scroll down in that same argument you'll find me saying things like,

In any event, I try to avoid condemning either side. As I believe I suggested above, condemning is, by and large, an unpardonable waste of time and energy. As far as that goes, my post from last night was very poorly executed. But, as I said, it had been a long day at work.

And hey— additional irony points for choosing to pull quotes out of context from a debate that started because some dipshit was quoting me out of context. Good job!

But that's neither here nor there. Let's address the real meat of your comment:

The Left always been entirely opposed to the American form of liberal democracy. Since you are our ideological enemies, then why do you constantly give us advice, pretending that you DON’T wish us harm?

All I can say in response is that your calm and incisive analysis forces me to admit that yes, indeed, we on the Left have always hated freedom and been entirely opposed to the American form of liberal democracy. Why just the other day I was drinking Vodka with Joseph Stalin (still alive, you know—we've been keeping him alive by transplanting his brain into the bodies of helpless young redstaters that we kidnap from mensa conventions), and we were reminiscing about the damnable luck of FDR dying before the Soviet Master Plan reduced all you contemptible capitalist pigs to slaves in the salt mines of our Leftist workers' paradise. If only he had lived a little while longer! We would have ruled the world!

Now that I've posted the truth on the internet it is only a matter of time before the Liberal Media uses their advanced telecommunications capabilities to track me down and detonate the mind-controlling transceiver in my spinal column.

My only regret is that I allowed your damnable Freedom Mind Powers to force the truth out of me. My only regret in dying is that, as we on the Left do not believe in an afterlife, I will not be able to continue hating freedom from the nonexistent pits of your decadent capitalist mythological "hell".

Blah blah blah.

Somewhat baffled by your accusation.

HOWEVER, I am glad I got you to open up your Bible. Read the verses that follow--they are meant to show a Biblical justification for allowing Catholic priests to marry, a cause I am trying to advance. But that's another story...

My apologies if I have been percieved as obnoxious. I would never want to be thought of as not "speaking with Grace." I will tone it down and play nice.

My view? It's all a vast left wing media conspiracy. Relying on the same exit polls that predicted a Kerry win, they're now spinning the "religious" aspect out of control. Two problems. Faulty data. Faulty application thereof.

I'm on vacation and I'm not supposed to be here. ;)

Faith, totally agree. When I hear secular liberals talk about Christians (or, "Jesus freaks") - I just want to know what they are basing all their wild accusations on. And, if it is all so wrong that Politicians appear in a church ... where the heck was John Kerry every Sunday during the campaign? Of course ... religious pandering is only wrong when it's done on the right. In addition, I bristle every day I hear someone who is NOT religious parse Bush's religious statements ... because obviously they just don't get it. d. A garbage collector can say he is doing what God wants him to. That Bush says he is doing what God wants ... doesn't mean he is a megalomaniac with a messiah complex. It is a matter of a person using whatever talents and abilities God gave them to try to serve.

Joshua – LOL. Cheesy ripoff of the 'Communists for Kerry', but funny anyway.

Almost as good as the CFK’s Original draft of Kerry's Concession speech - "We have lost this election because Americans obdurately continue to believe in old myths and archaic nonsense about themselves. We shall continue to scorch it out of their murky sculls with our red-hot burning Pravda!"

Or their support for a "people's revolution," which includes fighting "entrenched ferocious capitalism that is in this country today."

Ooops, that wasn’t a parody from Communists for Kerry. That was yesterday’s sworn testimony from Leftist ex-librarian and helper of the oppressed, Lynne Stewart, a NYC lawyer who is currently on trial for aiding terrorist attacks in Egypt.

Stewart, who also says: "I believe that entrenched institutions will not be changed except by violence” is employed by Ramsey Clark, former attorney general under Lyndon Johnson, who is famous for defending Slobodon Milosevic.

He even signed a petition that’s labeled, without a hint of irony, Free Slobodon Milosevic. Leftist/Anti-American Playwright Harold Pinter also signed it. What a coincidence.

Some Leftists are irony-free Marxists like Clarke. Other, more ironic modern Leftists are influenced by fascist philosophers like Carl Schmitt who said:

"the concept of "liberal democracy" is semantic nonsense. In its place, Schmitt seems to suggest both a new definition of democracy and a new notion of the political. According to Schmitt, "democracy requires, first homogeneity and second-if the need arises-elimination or eradication of heterogeneity."

The Left pretends to be pro-democracy while basing their ideals on a fascist philosopher. I guess that’s their version of post-modern irony. I think it’s kind of rude. In any case, general rudeness seems to be the reason why you were banned.

Michele: if this is too far off topic and should be moved to ilyka's blog just let me know. My usual stomping grounds don't get much comments from other bloggers so I'm not up on that part of the etiquette.

I think one can be concerned about preserving a strict separation between church and state without being labeled "anti-Christian." - Posted By ilyka

In general, I agree with your sentiment. War protesters aren't necessarily Anti-American. There are many proper ways to protest war, but calling the supporters (not that you have done this - I actually don't know where you stand on it) "stupid bible-thumping barbaric mysoginistic fascist baby-killing sheeple following the military industrial complex" isn't one of them.

The problem comes in discussing actual tactics given that a lot of people misunderstand the religion part of the first amendment due to the difference in the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The 2 clauses of the first amendment essentially say that gov't won't create laws that promote religion but it won't create laws that demote religion either. This says that gov't can use religious symbols or not, so long as it's not legislated one way or the other. It doesn't create the "strict seperation of church and state".

The spirit of the 2 clauses, however, is different and can sometimes be in conflict. If you accept the premise that a city mayor praying at the high school football game is an implicit threat of force to pray, then actually taking steps to prevent the mayor from praying is an explicit use of force against praying. So you are either enforcing a particular religion, or you're enforcing atheism. Now the argument isn't really about enforcing morality or not, it's just about who's morality gets enforced.

I think this puts us in a very bad position.

Since implicit threats of enforcement can be imagined, I reject the premise of implied threats in these matters. I have no problem if our mayor happened to be Hindu and offered a Hindu prayer for safety before the football game. I would not pray with him, I would just say my own prayer and go about enjoying the game.

The LA county seal with a small cross in the background isn't going to force convert anyone. Neither is the pagan goddess (I think of the harvest) that is large, front and center. However, we see which one is to be removed by force of gov't. I think it is perfectly acceptable for them both, just one, or neither to be there. If the citizens don't like it, let them vote for candidates who will change it. Just don't write the law (or have judges essential create law) that they can't be there.

In general, I don't really care until the law (or the actual enforcement) starts saying that gov't either must have particular religious symbols or that it can't have them.

Victor, yeah, yeah, you're not fooling anyone. You're a coward who doesn't have anything persuasive to say. Since Christians don't give you enough ammunition to use against them, you have to pose as one to make your own. Pathetic.

If I am posing, why would I repost the two articles about the two issues that would seemingly make my argument weaker? Why would I want...whatever, I am a little flumosed how to debate this issue. Either you think I am sincere or not. Makes no difference to me.

What I think is really going on is that your "Big Tent" maybe isn't so big after all just because your religious views are more mainstream than mine.

You said "non-persuasive" so I will make a succinct argument on a single issue (and leave others to later):

Why shouldn't a community who funds their schools through their hard-earned tax dollars have a say in what curriculum is taught in those schools without interference from judges hundreds of miles away?

Ya know, I spent 20 min writting a whole rigga-marol, trying to explain why the concept of "jesusland" isn't so far fetched. But then I realized it would be pointless. You have your dictator. Enjoy your oppression, because you all deserve it.

I was struck by Lawrence O'Donnell griping about how unfair it was that all these net tax-receiving states were overruling the net tax-paying states. Of course, were a Republican to say the same thing but about people instead of states, he would be accused of hate-mongering.

Is the "Jesus" of this so-called "Jesusland" the Jesus of the Jefferson Bible (also called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels")?

I know many of you feel it is wrong to paint the people who voted for Bush with a single, large brush, calling them the Religious Right, and stereotyping them as ignorant, etc. And I agree.

But, on the other side of the issue, is it not then equally as wrong to paint the people who voted for Kerry as hating religion, anti-American communists?

I am a conservative Catholic who contributes to her parish community every week. I'm married and I have a small baby to take care of. I belive that abortion is morally reprehensible and I believe that marriage is a sacrement of the Church, not an institution of the state. I have two brothers in the military, many cousins serving overseas. I have seven brothers and sisters.

I voted for Kerry, and I regret the election of Bush.

I have been derided by Bush supporters for doing what I believe was right. I've suffered that far more than any sneering I've seen done by the left. But that doesn't change the need that both sides seem to have to feel like they're the picked on minority...even when they're the majority and are running all branches of government. We Americans love to root for the underdog, so we try to make ourselves out to be the underdog no matter what. We also love to feel like we are superior...intellectually, or morally, so we try to make out that 'the other guys' are not, no matter what. I don't blame anyone...it's human nature. But it's sad anyway.

I voted the way I did because the abortion rate went up under Bush, as did poverty. I voted because 100000 Iraqi and over 1000 US soldiers were killed in a war we never should have begun. I voted because I would rather stop the sin of taking lives in my name by my government before I try to prevent other people from commiting a sin...removing the log in my own eye before going after the splinter in theirs. I voted because the president has to be accountable for his actions and lack thereof, and his failures regarding our budget, our foreign policy, our protection of the environment, and our protection of civil liberties is worthy of being fired. I voted because it is irresponsible to vote only about one issue...it's like hiring a pianist who can only play one note, or having a surgeon who only knows how to make incisions, but not how to close.

I voted for moral reasons about moral issues. If you feel picked on by the left, be grateful that your voice is being heard where it counts. Because for half of this country, our voices are not being heard at all.