November 28, 2004

Department of OMG!

Cutting taxes for Jesus.

A Congressman says that the will of the courts should not be enforced, also for Jesus.

It's funny, but I just can't remember the part of the bible where Jesus said 'thou shalt give nothing to Caesar, for my sake.' I also can't remember the part where he said that secular authorities should be wantonly disregarded. I know I fell asleep in church sometimes, I've never been much for long meetings of any type, but not that much. In fact, I distinctly remember this passage speaking about the things that should be important to Christians regardless of what society they lived in:

(Galatians 5:22-23) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, {23} gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Maybe some of these pompous, self-righteous nitwits could spare a little indignation for the wholesale rape of the women of Darfur? Naaah. Too distasteful to talk about in public, unless they could manage some way to blame the Democrats for it.

Posted by natasha at November 28, 2004 12:04 AM | US Politics | TrackBack(2) | Technorati links |

Hostetter is just the latest example of wingnut to crawl forth from the slime after this debacle of an election. They feel emboldened, energized; their 'mandate', however imaginary, is becoming realized.

The war begins with a whimper and ends with Armeggeddon.

Start making preparations now. In the next few years, it's gonna get real bad.

Posted by: David Aquarius at November 28, 2004 10:26 AM

I am very worried. With Christian Jihadists imagining that they are bringing forth and battling for the 'End of Days,' those of us that are secular and humanists are often caught in the middle and left to defend reality and the welfare of our nation. Jerry Farwell and his ilk are the spitting image of Savonarola and other religious fanaticals, who fought for a purely religious state during the Renaissance. There are so many parallels between the Renaissance and our time. I think we will make it through, though, and our society will advance due to the backlash against the religiously absurd. We just need more people like you that keep this in the lime-light through your blog. Grazie!

Posted by: TABS at November 29, 2004 01:41 PM

The democratic party... are you really this bitter? Christian jihadists? wingnuts? this debacle of an election? slime? You lost. Instead of examining why you lost? Instead of beginning the march to 2008, you have been reduced to spitting platitudes about the religious right.

I voted for George W. Bush and I am not a member of the relgious right. Yes, I worship God, yes I believe that Janet Jackson was wrong. However, I also watch desperate Housewives and I am pro-choice. We are not battling the crusades. You know that. You also are smart enough to know that Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell dont speak for the entirety of the Republican party.

I loate both of them. I also loathe everyone else who stands up and screams about Desperate Houswives or God being pro-life. I would like them all to shut up, as I know you would. But, please do not paint all republicans with platitudes about the Falwells of the world. They do not speak for me. They will not speak for me. And I am sure there are republicans they do not speak for.

I have family members, including my own father that our democrats. I deeply respect the democratic party. Please respect us in turn.

On a personal note, please visit the home of my organization Republicans and Democrats for Positive and Issue Oriented Politics ( We have launched our Revolution 06 campaign, so please feel free to visit, sign up, read stories, from 150 newspapers daily, and correspond on our blog as well.

Posted by: Raymond Smalley at December 1, 2004 08:24 PM

Raymond - Regarding the term debacle: If you hadn't noticed, and I suspect you haven't, we've all been sitting around the last few weeks figuring out who in the leadership of our party we'd like to see tossed out on their ear so that we can try something new next election cycle. Like winning. The term debacle could be replaced in this context with rout, defeat, thorough kicking, etc. So thanks for coming over, rubbing salt in the wounds, and then saying that we're being mean for not being thrilled about it.

Regarding the religious right: I do not like them. At all. I will make no excuse or apology for criticizing them, because they're taking this country to a very bad place. They're misusing religion in a disgusting way, and the leadership of your party is actively cooperating.

Don't try to tell me they aren't there, aren't a real presence. There have been articles in Israeli newspapers decrying the support that country gets from End Times wingnuts in the US. They're moving an anti-science agenda in the schools. They're being appointed to reproductive health policy boards in lieu of people who actually know something about health. Jerry Falwell may not speak for all of you, but he is a personal friend of Bush's who's been invited to dinner at the White House, and he said after 9-11 that liberals were responsible for it. And let's not get started on the influence of Washington Times owner Sun Myung Moon. What should we think about all that?

If you wish to self-include in that category of wingnut or Christian jihadist, I won't stop you. Though I imagine you'd find that in most circles I'm aware of, the distinction between the lunatics who've hijacked the public face of your party and the more moderate majority is plainly understood. Which is why instead of saying 'Republican', specific terms are used denoting the religious right and other ideologues in positions of elected or opinion leadership in the Republican and conservative movement.

But still. All the self-described moderate Republicans implicitly support them. If you're someone who has time to pay that much attention to the news, you can't have missed any of this. Numerous moderates, and even staunch conservatives, spoke out against Bush's policies before the election. Yet like Pat Buchanan, who's been vocally furious over Iraq, I bet most still voted for Bush. How full are the ranks of those who can't stand various Bush policies, dislike the religious right agenda that so fully characterizes his presidency, and champion the fiscal restraint and individual liberties that Bush has run roughshod over, but still wouldn't vote for a Democrat. Not even one who would practically have been a Republican in the Nixon era, which is deeply ironic.

So you can protest all you like, but you voted for this reckless, faith-based presidency. You voted for congressional candidates who will return Tom DeLay to the Majority Leader post. You voted for a president who is restricting choice and life-saving assistance to women around the world, so I can't bring myself to believe that it's a very important issue to you.

If you don't like the religious right or want to be tarred by association, quit voting for their handpicked candidates. Or maybe you could start a dialogue within your party about why embracing a pseudo-Christian nationalism as a public front is bad policy. But as long as people vote for them anyway, it will continue, so until you fix it, you have part ownership. Enjoy.

Democrats have spent years worrying about what Republicans think of us, and Republicans have spent years offering us 'helpful' advice on how to be better people. Somehow it always manages to come off as condescending, fancy that.

I don't advocate never talking to each other, and comments and discussion on policy issues are always welcome, but I officially do not give a damn about whether or not Republicans think we're 'nice.' When you complain about Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, and the host of others who paint us as an outright fifth column of immoral communists, I'll be listening. Until then... not holding my breath.

Finally, there are Republicans in my family as well, but you are not a member of my family. I advise you not to go there.

Posted by: natasha at December 1, 2004 11:27 PM