An Email I got tonight from my uncle (DU the theme of it)

[The Straight Story]

(Note: I trade emails a lot with my Aunt's husband, aka my uncle. After mom died they came for the funeral and we got to talking about general things, including DU and politics. Helped to get the topic off sad things. I sent him the DU link sometime in Jan. This is a follow up email to several other ones. I will send him this link to see the replies. He rarely mentioned the site in our general emails so I sent one asking him what he thought about it)


Hi again,
Glad you had a good trip to Byesville and thanks for the photos! Keep me up to date on the whole cemetery project. I can run down a few small ones here but the farm keeps me busy. Least I can do is get you some local maps of them. I will pass on the link for you and hopefully you will get some more data filled in!

I have been reading that DU link you sent me for the last 6 months, though I have less time now to do so. I have not signed up there, not sure I really want to for reasons I will go into below. It is interesting and I will keep reading it, but I wanted to get you a list of things I found wrong with it (or a turn off, inaccurate, etc).

Sorry I have taken time getting back with you on your request on what I felt about DU, and since you asked for specifics I am listing them below. I know you planned on posting it (and I hope you remember to send me the link!) so I spent some time doing research (on a lot of sites, like the google unclesam site you mentioned and blogs). Wanted to thank you too for sending along the newspaper link, XXXXX (removed for her privacy before I posted) loved it and spends hours a day reading papers from other states. I hope you make it out soon too, but I know you are busy with work and want to hit the cross country trip. If you don't make it out at least send some photos of you're garden! From what I hear your mom would have loved it (and XXXXX is still sad over the loss, sad we saw each other last at a funeral).

Last (before I list things) I would like to say I do like that DU place as it has a lot of interesting articles and responses. As I said, I will keep reading it, but here are some things I wanted to go over:

1. Bush and the Downing Street Memo and Iraq in general:
I want us out of there myself, Bush was way off base IMHO on it all but I found myself disagreeing with some things on the site regarding the whole thing. Here are some examples:
A. Bush relied on his intelligence for the war. In my research it was evident that Clinton and the dems were all about Iraq and it's WMD back in the 90's. I did an unclesam search on all this and found tons of intelligence from the Clinton admin that stated Saddam was a threat and had wmd. They even wanted regime change there. Now why is this of any import now? Well here is my line of thought: 9/11 (and there are some weird threads on that at DU, not sure if you read them a lot but man, weird stuff!). Now on 9/11 - I have seen more then once people were saying that Clinton passed on intel that an attack was coming. Ok, I can see that. Which brings up where I have a problem....
Problem: If they were to trust that intel, and be reamed about it later for ignoring it and if the people at DU see it as real - then why shouldn't the same be true for the intel on iraq? I can guarantee you the intel I came across in a simple search showed that saddam was believed to be a threat, that Clinton and Gore wanted him gone, and so on. So which is it? Was the intel passed on right when it fits someone's agenda? You don't like Bush so you say he messed up by not taking intel serious that was passed on and then in the same day you say Bush's intel passed on about Iraq was wrong? It just seems like too many people hate Bush and will twist and use things to promote their view.

2. Religion.
As we are both christians I am sure you have seen the many threads that simply bash people on their beliefs. I don't see people bashing jews (who aren't real friendly in regards to gays and such, and can be real fundie like), or spending a lot of time bashing islam. Reading some of those threads in the religion forum made me feel awful. Why would I want someone in power whose followers felt that way about me? I have never hurt anyone, I have helped many people, and yet I see myself being portrayed as some sort of sick freak.
The democrats accept many people and groups with open arms, but not people like me. If Du represents the average democratic voter it is no wonder there is so much hostility between them and those of us who are christian. Is it ok to hate people like me, call me names, ridicule my beliefs? If I signed up and started slamming muslims and jews I am guessing I would be kicked out. I don't agree with their views, but I don't go on a public posting place and slam them as being stupid, bigots, idiots, and so on.
Why only the bad too? Your grandmother was a devout christian and worked her whole life to help the poor and kids. So was your grandfather - and he even has a gazebo dedicated to him for all the work he did for others less fortunate in Byesville (which I was hoping you got a pic of, did not see it in the batch you sent me). I know some people who call themselves christian can be slimeballs (like that guy you sent me the link about in Columbus, I forget his name, but what a loser) but what I have seen is open season on people without a mention about how many good christians have spent their life, based on their faith, helping others (and Johhny was a dem mayor and a christian and did a lot of good, was he a 'kook'?) (My Note: Johnny refers to my mom's brother who was mayor of Marietta, ohio - mom said he was first dem mayor in 75 years and people loved him. He was also a devout christian)

3. Hate
I have not seen so much hate in all my life. No one seems to want to ever talk about good things, only the worst in humanity and how it all the fault of christians and republicans. yeah, I am voting people into power who think I am evil and my beliefs are stupid. Bush is not by any stretch my ideal president, but I feel a little safer with him in power then someone whose followers hate me. What did I ever do? Does anyone care that this christian republican gave part of his acreage he tilled to a homeless shelter (as the Lord would want us to)? I am hated for the fact that I won't bend to the ways of others.

4. Gay Marriage
I agree with you on this myself, the government needs to get out of people's personal business. I don't want a country run by the pope and I don't want one by anyone who tries to interpret my faith their own way for their own needs. Now, that said, where I think gay marriage is bad for america is not in any way related to religion.
It all comes down to an investment and risk (kind of like the farm in some ways). A man and a woman can reproduce, and if they come together and commit to raising a family to perpetuate society then I can see us giving them some tax breaks and such. They may not have kids, may not want them, but in general such a union has a byproduct which helps to perptuate society. I don't mind gay people being able to adopt, have civil unions, and all that stuff. None of my business really. My only concern is that marriage in a legal and society sense was meant to (imho) encourage people to unite for a common cause - to raise a family and perpetaute the society. Only a man and woman can do that (again, does not mean they will or will want to).
I am not opposed to gay marriage because I think it will kill society or bring the wrath of god and all that crap, I simply think that tax breaks and associated things for marriage are an investment in all of society. Gays can't reproduce and so there is no chance it will pay off in a broad scale. Other then that, I am ok with civil unions as I think it is simple logic that if you choose to live with someone as a partner they should be able to go see you in the hospital and make decisions about your care and so on. I don't hate gays, I don't care what people do on their own time, none of my business. I just think marriage has a common sense place as defined above.

5. Bush
You know I don't like him much, the guy is just a flake. I still voted for him though because it was either him or Kerry. Why didn't I like Kerry? Not so much him as it was what I feared he would bring in with him. People who just hate me. Would you vote for someone whose followers hate you? For people who make fun of you and call you all sorts of names? Bush was wrong on Iraq, and you know XXXXX is in the military and is there now. I don't like it one bit. But I would fear more for myself and XXXXXX if Kerry was in power and the people that despise me and ridicule me were empowered to rule my life.

6. Guns
I own guns. I shoot them. I hunt with them (and have sent you the pictures of my latest outing). The problem is not guns, but the whackos in urban America who use them to kill each other. Do people think banning guns or restricting them even more than they are now will solve our problems in this area? It is already illegal to kill and steal, but that sure has not made it any less common has it? Laws are not the answer, changing people is the answer. You can make laws all day long about porn, prostitution, gambling, and so on but until you change the heart and soul of people you don't change crap.
A gun is a piece of metal with some wood that sends out a projectile at high speeds. I may be wrong but I am guessing more people died of car accidents, obesity, smoking, and so on then did by gun shots.
People are not really afraid of guns - they are afraid of other people. Try and fix that with laws. Mankind has not changed since the old testament, they are still selfish. Murder has been a sin and against the law since old times, and yet we still do it with or without guns. You want to solve the problem? Put morals in a high place in education. It won't stop it, but it sure will help lessen it.

Last - I still like the DU place. There are some good people there, and I don't want to slight them in my email. I just wish I were not seen as the bad guy because we disagree on some policy. As a christian I love my fellow human, I know I am a sinner, and I sure know I can improve and do better for others. It comes down to a simple choice to me - vote for the guy that is not calling you a freak or vote for the one that does. What I see from the liberals is that I am the bad guy, the evil one who wants to make you a christian or kick you out of the country. All I want is to be left alone and not ridiculed, to be able to have my local school have a nativity scene when 99% or more of the kids come from a christian family and pay the taxes for that school. I don't want to force other kids to accept my belief, but I don't see why a community should shun it's roots and core. If it is a mainly jewish area, then I am cool with them celebrating their heritage as a group in a common place they all share. It would not mean they were trying to force me to believe anything- it would just be a simple reflection of the community. Why is that bad? Are people so weak that a simple observance by the majority in the community will crush their beliefs? We are a community here - a community of people with differing beliefs on politics, religion, and even sports :) If the many want to have a hoosiers party does that mean that a kid who likes OSU is forced to accept it all? No, it just reflects the mass of people who came here and settled the land and wanted to celebrate their heritage. We built the schools, the courthouse, and so on. We pay for them, we attend them, and if we want to throw a party at christmas why should we be forced to call it a winter party?

Oh well, I have to run and will cut this short. If you do post this, like I said send me the link. Hope I don't get too flamed and I want to say I was not in anyway trying to be mean to anyone. America is made up of many good people, on both sides of the fence. Calling each other names and hating one another serves no one (and if I did that in my email I am sorry. Been a long day and I tried to be nice while writing how I felt).

[DesEtoiles]

1. And Bush and his followers don't hate us?

I'm sorry, but by and large conservatives are much more nasty and open to enforcing their hatred on others. They seem to enjoy it.

[halobeam]

18. heck, the repubs are even insinuating that judges

should be impeached for making decisions they don't agree with. They also inferred violence toward them. They speak clean air, and dirty it more, they speak fiscal responsibility and skewer the majority of common people for the economic benefit of corporations, they speak compassion and yet cut Medicaid, Medicare. They speak support the troops and cut the veterans benefits. They speak of God, yet steal from the poor and give to the rich. Jesus is crying about that RIGHT NOW.

Thats true hypocrisy and betrayal at best and lethal for our citizens and democracy at worst. It's true hatred and intolerance toward anyone different from themselves.

That's what I hate. That's where my anger comes from. I do not direct these feelings toward a TRUE conservative republican, for they themselves have no representation from this administration. I think they are the ones who will be most surprised when a slap in the face with a lie so bold, enters their front door just because it can.

[seabeyond]

2. what an excellent letter and thank you uncle for sharing

this took some time for you to get it together. i agree with you on some things. certainly not voting for bush., he was my governor first, i knew how bad and a liar he was/is.

but i dont think that du is reflective of how a democratic administration is on your issue of religion and not being liked. you werent hated during the clinton years. why would you think all of a sudden you would be hated with kerry. a christian. a catholic. he was actually a practicing christian, lol unlike bush. anyway there are over 80% of christians in the u.s. there has to be a pretty large quantity in the democratic party. i being one.

as far as the christian bashing of late, the right has abused christianity. a lot of people have been hurt by it, creating a lot of anger. as a christian, i understand the anger, and i know i have a responsibility in my faith to deal with the pain, we are creating for a lot of people

and i will always stand up for your right to own guns.

we will leave it at that. apprecitae your sharing.

[The Straight Story]

4. That is why I sent him a link about a local pastor

Who is well known. There are some bad represenatives of the faith out there, and we should stand up to them.

[Mythsaje]

3. It's a mix

personally I don't care what religion anyone is, as long as they're not trying to convert me or convince me that their belief is better than someone else's. I'm not buying, and I have yet to see any reason while I should.

This doesn't mean I hate Christians or anyone else. I'm just tired of hearing their opinions as if they should somehow be more important than someone else's. Not all Christians are like that and I'm one of the first people to say that.

A lot of people...here, especially, see Bush as a very dangerous person, and most of his administration seems either corrupt or deluded, or both. Ruling the country based upon their religious convictions strikes me as foolish and dangerous for a number of reasons.

I don't own guns, but I don't support most gun control. The ultimate goal, in my eyes, is to take away the most powerful form of self defense available to the most vulnerable of us. I think that's a particularly foolish move, even though I'm not a big fan of guns. Where I'm fairly confident of my ability to fend off a 6' 4" 250 lb guy with bad intentions, this is not the case with most women, especially. It's not fair to decide they shouldn't have the means to defend themselves if necessary.

Yes, sometimes the DUers come across as a little over-the-top, but that's true of many other political pursuasions. I used to post a lot on the About.com Civil Liberties boards, and I finally gave it up, for the most part, because there were too many people there who simply refused to see anything from any perspective but their own. It's useless trying to talk to people like that.

So you get those kinds of people nearly everywhere you go...but here, as opposed to some places on the web, you find far fewer of the intolerant asshole types. At least from my experience so far.

[The Straight Story]

9. My Experience as well

I find some intolerant but overall a good group of folks.

We all try to share our ideals and beliefs, political and otherwise, and often share with others how we feel about bush in an attempt to convert them to our beliefs (ie, to get them to see the light). Christians do the same thing on a different scale and level - ie, they see something as wrong/bad/evil/bushlike and try to make others aware of the evil and it's impending consequences.

[Mythsaje]

13. I've discovered

in my years on the message boards, that's it's practically impossible to 'bring someone around' to your way of thinking. If they agree with you already, it's pretty pointless, and if they can't see where you're coming from, you'll never convince them.

Part of my reason for doing this is because I enjoy learning other points of view. I'll argue my p.o.v., but more because I enjoy the debate rather than because I except to change their minds.

[The Straight Story]

39. A good insight

I read a lot of different sites myself to get a larger view and to try and understand people who see things differently then I do.

I may not sway anyone, but we can oppose poor facts and in that way perhaps get someone thinking.

Those on the right would do well to ask themselves this: If clinton or gore were in power during 9/11 and the iraq war - would you give em a pass or be on their ass trying to get to the truth? You are either for truth or for partisan politics.

We all lose when we give those in power a pass because of letter they have after their name. bush was wrong, has done a poor job, and he is employed by us and paid by us. He damn well needs us to examine his job and how he is doing.

bush was wrong, our people are dying, and what have we gained for his actions?

[Mythsaje]

71. Exactly

I think this is what DOES tick me off about the whole thing. If a Democrat Administration did even a fraction of what this administration has done, the Republicans would be screaming like a barrel of banshees. After all, wasn't it the right that was living in fear of black helicopters and UN concentration camps right here in the US only a few years back? Are they so partisan that they can only see tyranny if it comes from someone they don't like?

It's frightful how blind some people can be.

[zanne]

90. But Clinton "lied to the nation"!

How many times did we hear this from Republicans? Bill Clinton went on television and said "I did not have sex with that woman"? According to the people who wanted him impeached, it WASN'T ABOUT SEX--it was about "lying". Even after the impeachment, alot of Republicans wanted jail time for him. Bush lied about his reasons for attacking another country and he's responsible for thousands of deaths. When Clinton sent bombing missions over Iraq, Republicans were outraged and accused him of "wagging the dog".
This has to be a huge issue with us and we can't just be quiet about it because it's "too hard". Don't let this just fade away like all the other issues we've abandoned.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Tell him that he can put that Nativity scene in his yard

Why do we have to have them at public schools also?

I also dare him to find a public school that is 99% Christian.

[seabeyond]

11. my brother was talking today

about god and church. i told him, cant keep god out of the schools. is in the heart. cant just close a door on him. but, all this get the prayer back into schools. 60' and 70's we never once prayed in school. my father 40's and 50's never once prayed in school. what is this getting prayer back into school. never was in school.

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. It was in some rural districts

There are districts in WV that still have bible studies classes.

[The Straight Story]

14. I think the reason would be

that growing up we had christmas parties at school (and jewish ones for the jewish kid, Mike) and we all learned from it. He and I discussed this to some extent as he was here right after christmas (Mom went back into hospital christmas eve and died new years eve).

His point to me was, how did it hurt anyone? And since the kids all have to go to school, why can't they have some recognition of the things which make up their lives at school?

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. We still have Christmas parties at school

Saying we don't is just a silly RW talking point.

[cornermouse]

61. Public schools that are 99% christian are in the small towns.

[proud2BlibKansan]

103. And not for long

We are a nation of immigrants. Our society is rapidly changing.

[cornermouse]

119. True.

But in this area, the change is largely mexican, probably catholic. This area won't change for quite some time.

[DesEtoiles]

6. Why the feelings of persecution? NO ONE is saying that religious

people are bad in general, and no one is discounting their good works.

The only objection is an objection to supplanting the Constituion with the Bible. You are saying that if I voice my objections to that, then I hate all Christians? That is very unfair. I have a right to say that I choose the Constitution over the Bible with respect to how this country is to be run. I'm quite sick of being called unAmerican and unChristian, thank you very much. Quite sick.

[seabeyond]

12. well a lot of people on this board do, as odd as it seems

but then i am surprised the number of people that dont like children and dont think children should be anywhere in public that might come in contact with them. color me purple, i didnt know. isnt indicitive of our party. a few extreme views. or agitators. gotta take it for what it is on the internet, and not take it personally

[paulk]

7. tell him that DU doesn't represent,

for the most part anyway, the mainstream of the Democratic party.

[The Straight Story]

10. LOL hence the name

DemocraticUNDERGROUND :)

[wtmusic]

8. I agree with him about Christian bashing around here

And as an atheist I'm not defending anything or anyone, but...

Holey moley people. Not every Christian is a fundie. Fundies are a *very* small percentage; unfortunately they have very loud voices and a lot of financing. I have so many Christians in my family who are hard-working, honest, tolerant people.

DUers are not doing the board or the cause any favors by blindly slamming Christianity or religion in general. It's ugly and it's wrong.

[seabeyond]

15. i heard like 14%

on edit: i think it is higher, probably in the twenties. but an athiest friend who is pretty factual gave me that number

[The Straight Story]

21. I grew up in a fundie household in some ways (not bad ones)

We went to a baptist church and my parents had strict feelings on faith. But they let us be us and were simply there to answer our questions. My parents stopped going to church when the pastor changed. Years later when I was 15 I went myself to an evangelical church twice a week, which my parents referred to as a holy roller church. Too deep for them, but they let me be me.

I later went agnostic, then atheist, buddhist (Tibetan), new ager, then one night something just clicked in me and I found myself changed and went back to my roots as a christian. Was good for me though as I learned alot about other faiths and peoples (from the American Indians to the buddhists of tibet and I count my books by the dali llama as amongmy favorite works).

I have problems with some fundies, like my sister. But she has worked hard to help many other people. She and I don't see eye to eye on her fundie ways and what I see as a hypocritical stance on some things, but I still love her and respect the hard work she has done to help many people.

[funflower]

26. Thanks a lot, Straight Story! People who believe differently can actually

be friends and loving family members. Wow!

[Devlzown]

16. Yoy're uncle seems like an affable fellow.

He probably should skip over some of the threads here. There are plenty that I choose not to read.

[The Straight Story]

22. He is a pretty cool hippie looking guy

And pretty open really. He has been my uncle for a few years (since my Aunt married him about 6 years ago). He loves the land and is torn between parties on issues.

[WillowTree]

17. Bravo to your uncle, most especially...

....the part about hate. It's a vicious, negative thing which benefits no one, least of all the one who harbors it in his or her heart. WAY too much hating going on all over DU, and it's destructive.

[faithnotgreed]

28. very agreed. hate is wrong no matter what! and as someone who loves God

i do have to say that i skip over lots of religion threads here because they are filled with lots of accusatory and angry exchanges

however i must say that i dont really blame people. it is little wonder that Christ is not a favorite subject of many people (not just specifically du). He is bludgeoned by those who call themselves Christians (see: the radical right) and He is used by many to bludgeon those who are different.
so i cant say that im upset with anyone on here for their sometimes very angry and condescending posts about God. if i hadnt had the upbringing i had (evangelical teachings and social justice combined) then i would probably be right there with you! it does hurt sometimes but i really do understand why this goes on

im glad to hear the original poster and his uncle can have such an honest and caring conversation. this is how it should be done - by all of us....

thank you for sharing this and our best to your uncle. please keep reading what interests you and know that this is a left of center board, so please do skip over that which you dont care to read. there is so much good stuff here.
were just all so upset about what is happening to our country, and that is reflected in the threads

all our best.... hope to see you around

[redqueen]

100. I wholeheartedly agree -- WAY too much hate. n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. Interesting

Has your uncle ever seen Freeperville?

If I were to judge half the country based on views expressed in an online community, I'd want to pay attention the side that was supposed to represent mine before I came to any conclusions. Just a suggestion. :)

Thanks for sharing, Straight Story.

[The Straight Story]

25. Yeah, he has seen it :)

He felt that people there were too ass kissing to bush though. He generally does not like a lot of politicians, bush is just another president who lies and cheats and screws the little guys to him. My mom was same way really. She didn't like the lot of em.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Only thing I wanted to say with this is

about the Bush apologists. If you don't like either or nobody is making you vote! You can stay home y'know. Last year around early November we saw my dad's side of the family and my brother asked my uncle (dad's sisters husband) if he was voting and who for. He said (my uncle) "I'm not voting for either of the losers." So you don't have to vote. That's one less vote for either/or. That whole line of "I just voted for Bush because he was lesser of two evils" is total bullshit and just crap.

[JohnyCanuck]

23. Send him this link (Kwiatkowski interview)

There was a link posted in GD to the video of an interview of Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (USAF retired) with author Saul Landau. Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon and the NSA and also dealt with the neo-cons in the Office of Special plans. In the interview she explains how she and other intelligence agency personnel felt that the neo-cons had hijacked the US government's policy making apparatus to implement their PNAC/neo-com empire building agenda, and they definitely were manipulating the intelligence to get the results they wanted in order to justify the war.

Saul asked her during the interview if Clinton didn't think Saddam was a threat, and she replied no he didn't because he was getting accurate intelligence, (i.e. not filtered through the neo-con OSP)and knew that Iraq was not a threat to the US. She also happens to describer herself politically as a traditional conservative. Here's the link to the video The first link plays on a Windows Media Player embedded in the web page.

http://www.blip.tv/link/59 or alternate link http://video.csupomona.edu/HotTalk/KarenKwiatkowski-245.asx

DU thread on the Kwiatkowski interview video.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3793125

Also in 2001 both Powell and Condiliar were saying Saddam had no WMDs and was not a threat. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

[The Straight Story]

31. How does that jive with this:

"But Clinton also emphasized: "So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world." The best way to end that threat, he said, "is for Iraq to have a different government." He pledged to intensify US engagement with Iraqi opposition groups, use Radio Free Iraq to help news and information flow freely into the country and "stand ready to help a new leadership in Baghdad that abides by its international commitments and respects the rights of its own people." "
http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/WF981221/epf104.htm

And tons more links on clinton and gore's remarks on it all.

I can see his point to some extent. Clinton and Gore and the dems saw saddam as a threat who had WMD back in the 90's. Obviously they and bush were wrong though :)

[evlbstrd]

44. You just highlighted two drastically different approaches to the same

problem. Clinton didn't invade. Bush did. Clinton wanted inspectors to find out what was there. Bush wanted an excuse.

[Lex]

45. EXACTLY. Clinton didn't shove this country into a freaking quagmire

without an exit strategy, while lying about the reason in the first place--Bush & Cheney kept linking 9/11 and Iraq even though they knew it was Bullshit.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

[leftchick]

65. exactly....

Keep him cornered and impotent worked pretty fucking well. Can no one see the difference between that and an illelgal pre-emtive war of aggression? That just happens to follow the PNAC bluprint for ME domination by the US? Just read some of the most recent insane rantings of Perle for an idea.

:shrug:


No Perles of Wisdom

by David Corn

~snip~

Before the Iraq invasion, Perle claimed that Saddam Hussein posed a WMD threat to the Untied States and that Hussein's nuclear program was particularly frightening. Blitzer quoted from the now-infamous prewar Downing Street memo--noting that the memo said the WMD case against Iraq was "thin and that Iraq's WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran--and he asked Perle if the intelligence had been "manipulated to fit the policy whims of the Bush administration."

Not at al, Perle replied: "It's worth remembering that the intelligence that was presented with respect to what Saddam was believed to have in the way of weapons of mass destruction was the same intelligence that had been presented to the previous administration." But that intelligence--as summarized in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq produced in October 2002--said that Saddam Hussein was not likely to gain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon for another ten years as long as he remained checked by international sanctions. Yet Perle, a member of the Defense Advisory Board, did not stick to this intelligence when arguing for war against Iraq. In an August 9, 2002, op-ed piece entitled "Why the West must strike first against Saddam Hussein", Perle claimed, "Saddam is working feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraqis who know him are convinced he would not hesitate to use them." Perle said the same thing in various media appearances.

As it turns out, Hussein was not working--feverishly or unfeverishly--to acquire nuclear weapons. His nuclear weapons program, dismantled years earlier by UN inspectors, had come to a halt. And there was no definitive intelligence that showed otherwise. The classified NIE suggested a much less alarming situation than that which Perle depicted in public. Clearly Perle was doing--and saying--all he could to push for war. Shouldn't his credibility now be shot? Apparently, it's not.

http://mathaba.net/news/print.shtml?cmd<40>=i-42-f0140c2c041733a79aac3b6773d8314a

[OnionPatch]

127. Yep

I heard an interview with Janet Reno last year and she said, yes, Clinton thought Saddam was a danger and needed to be removed. However, their plan was NOT to invade to do it! They realized an invasion would have the results that we are seeing now.

[Eloriel]

24. Hate -- Please send him to Free Republic

that's my only comment.

[housewolf]

27. I wish every DU'er

had the openness of mind to read your uncle's feedback with an open heart and an open mind, and have the courage to resist the knee-jerk defensive reaction so that they could at least let in some of the legitimate feedback your uncle gives.

Criticism is difficult to let in. Yet your uncle offers honest feedback from a loving perspective. It would serve us well if we could find the honesty and courage to reflect on what he has to say re: our constant bashing, hate and intolerance.

We say only the repubs constantly bash, hate and are intolerant. Yet so often, what we accuse others of is what we need to look at in ourselves.

We have heard over and over that many christians think that the dems despise and disparage them. There will be no end to the intensity of hatred and distrust between the parties as long as they think this of us. It strikes me as not so different from the way many Arabs view the US - and just as the US needs to mount an aggressive "hearts and minds" campaign in the Mid-east, perhaps we need to mount a "hearts and minds" campaign into red America.

Thanks for sharing your uncle's letter with us.

[Sushi-Lover]

55. At some point we have to learn to turn the other cheek.

It is tough to just let hate directed at you pass and not respond in kind, but at some point we need to just rise above it. Very difficult but rewarding in the end and, of course, the right thing to do.

[housewolf]

59. You're right, it is hard to do. It's also hard to have the humility to

look at the feedback/criticism received from others and having the strength of character to take it in and give it some consideration. Not that it has to be accepted without questioning, but to allow that there might be some truth in what someone else has to say about us and do some honest and deep soul-searching.

Tere is wisdom to be found in not being a slave to our defensive reactions that automatically reject anything that doesn't fit our favored perceptions of ourselves.

You're right, it's hard. It takes maturity and a strong sense of self.

[marions ghost]

92. and have the Christians

who think that the Dems "despise and disparage them" ever bothered to look into WHY that may be true? No, it's always 'poor little me.'

I don't think we are obliged to try to convert those who have drunk the kool-aid long ago, no matter how nice they are about expressing their views. Let them drift along in their self-absorbed fog. In fairness, many well-meaning Christians have no idea how they have been used to advance political agendas that have nothing to do with them. Most attempts to bring this to their attention fail. They have to come to it themselves. We cannot be evangelists to them--the gap is too wide. When people are operating out of fear and self-interest they fall prey to smokescreen "family values" issues, instead of defending the things that are really in jeopardy. The things that are REALLY in jeopardy you don't need a gun to defend, for example: integrity in govt, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, fair elections, health care for all, responsible media, workers rights, civil rights of all kinds, and a justice system that actually works to protect citizens against the exploitation of corporate interests. This is true patriotism instead of what's in it for me-ism.
:patriot:
-------------------------------------
I am MUCH more concerned with reaching those who have been excluded, disenfranchised, abused and subjugated by the rethuglican powers that be and their bogus image of "God" (which looks more like the Golden Calf). I'm concerned about those who have no voice, nowhere else to turn. Those who have dropped out, out of disgust and despair and apathy. Those groups that have been viciously targeted. Those are the voices that have been stifled in this country. And we should be boiling mad about it. Mad enough to work to change it, not waste our time pandering to those who are not on our wavelength. Let them undergo their own epiphanies--we're here if they want to join us. We'll be here, with a lot of Christian--and other styles--of forgiveness.

[katinmn]

128. Thanks, housewolf. Very insightful

My takeaway is that we need to practice more tolerance.

Peace. :)

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

29. Byesville? Ohio? My father was born there.

Small world. :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

34. Cool!

My grandpa was Clarence Hammond. Down near the dollar store (used to be A&P grocery) there is a small gazebo with his name on it. The city park there was built by him and he maintained it as well (as noted, he was mayor and police chief).

My folks knew more then half the town in their day. Griffiths, Hammonds, Burnworths, Callihans and some others were all part of our family there (and kochurs, howells on dad's side).

Heh, we may end up being related!

[senegal1]

30. Very interesting post.

I have to say though if most of the Christians were as tolerant and outspoken as your uncle, I wouldn`t have a problem. Unfortunately there is a serious sub-sector (like my sister) of very fundamentalist Christians for whom nothing will be acceptable until their point of view is first and foremost. I mean that they will not accept a democracy with a Constitution that insists on a separation of church and state. They want religion -- their version of it -- to be the one practiced in schools, in offices, in state houses. They are very serious that they are right and that means everyone who doesn`t believe as they do are dead WRONG. There is no tolerance and understanding such as your uncle`s post shows. The main problem I see is that this group - which is not indicative of the majority of Christians - is the most vocal and the most organized and the most determined to get their way no matter anyone else. I suggest that if you uncle doesn`t like the way some people feel about the "Christians" he can do something about it. Next time he is in a group of ~Christians~ and someone starts going on about "those awful gays" he should speak up that he is a Christian (in the best sense of the word) and he doesn`t believe what they are saying. Tolerant and loving Christians have a responsibility beyond creating soup kitchens to speak out to intolerance in their own circles. Without this the only thing the rest of us can see is the 700 Club and the Christian Coalition. Here for example is an interesting quote:

When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

[The Straight Story]

36. Right you are

My sister is a fundie who cares more for her friends in the church she goes to then family. When my brothers wife was layed up with a broken ankle she never went once to offer her help - and she lived about 5 houses away. But when someone who goes to her church needs anything she packs up and helps them all the time with anything they need. Cooking, cleaning, and so on. My brother and his wife were mormon at the time, kept it to themselves too, but she did not like their ideals and just avoided helping them at all on anything.

I love her dearly, but it irks me that me and my brother get nothing from her in these ways because we don't go to her church. Family is family to us, and we would be there for her in a sec. But we are nothing to her because we don't go to her church.

She has done nice things for us time to time, but looks down her nose at us. On mothers day (which was rough, first one without mom) all she did was bitch at my wife and I for not showing up at her church. Sigh.....

[marions ghost]

75. yes, I see that hypocrisy and how about this one...

--have a family member (in-law) who manipulates others, has a caustic tongue, is very greedy and grasping and narcissistic. She would definitely screw you over if she thought she could get something out of it. And yet she's the first to come running with chicken soup if anybody is sick. If somebody has a bad illness she will get even more involved. She gets kind of a charge out of this do-gooder posturing. There is a kind of smarmy, take-charge "I'm your noble savior" quality to this help. The attitude is --we must help those less fortunate than ourselves because it reminds us how special we are (and you can get points with God too). She fools a lot of people.

Just because somebody "does a lot for others" doesn't necessarily mean they are doing this out of a pure heart. I'd have to know more about how they lived their whole life.

[The Doctor.]

32. A thanks to your uncle for his thoughtful letter...

He raises excellent points.

But he should perhaps be made aware of the difference between Clinton's intelligence and the intelligence from the 'Office of Special Plans' set up by Rumsfeld to circumvent the CIA analysis and vetting process.
It also wouldn't hurt to make sure he understands the PNAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

As for the hatred and religion -

I'm not going to defend abject hatred, but there are reasons many here despise this administration so deeply.
Many of those reasons stem from DUer's seeing the rank hubris, hypocrisy, and disdain for Americans in general by this administration as an ultimately destructive thing for America.
They hate this administration because they are patriots who believe that this administration will be the downfall of their beloved country.
Republicans held a similar hatred for Clinton, but the level of damage his administration caused is quite demonstrably negligible in comparison with Bush.

I rarely see a poster here claim hatred for Christians... just for and towards Christians that hate.
The distinction between regular Christians and 'fundies' (Militant Christian Fundamentalists), is sometimes missed, but I've never seen a real DUer express despise for a regular Religious individual. Most of that spite is directed at the leaders of Christian groups who manipulate otherwise good people into legislating their moral position into law, and worse than that - calling for the death of Judges, Doctors, or Lawyers who do not have those same moral beliefs.

If you want to hear hate sometime - Just listen to Anne Coulter;
http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html

Thank your Uncle for sending along his concerns and views.

[Jane Eyre]

33. As a Christian, and a former Republican, I think we should listen

I switched parties in 1992, partly because of the fiscal trainwreck that the Republicans were causing in our country and partly because I was offended by a couple of family members who equated being a Christian with being a Republican. I am equally offended by some of the Christian-bashing I've seen here recently, mainly because it means that some Democrats seem to be agreeing with the Republican party that all Christians are rightwing Republicans.

My mother has attended the same small rural Methodist church for most of her life. Before the presidential election in 1992, her minister distributed Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition literature and all but said in his sermon that Christians should not vote for Bill Clinton. Some people in the congregation walked out. My brother stopped going to church after that. My mom stayed because it was her church, but refused to give any money to the church while that particular minister was there. There are other ways in which you can give to do the Lord's work, and paying for Republican literature wasn't something that she wanted to do with the Lord's money!! Methodists change ministers every four years anyway, so she just waited that one out.

My point is that it works both ways. There are churches which want to make people feel un-Christian if they vote a certain way, and that should not be. By the same token, we should not make people feel un-Democratic if they worship a certain way.

[faithnotgreed]

37. true. and i agree that we should listen to people like ss and his uncle

we are the big tent after all
and that tent is going to get torn down (or at least torn) if we dont all come together on the main points that make us not republicans
there is too much at stake

we need to learn to listen to one another and talk about the real ways we can make this country better and not just spend all our time in verbal wars with those we dont agree with
i think many who are disaffected with the new republican party dont see us as a viable enough alternative so they just stay where they are
but if we consistently talked about what we really believe in and the many ways we can help peoples lives (and not tearing down the opposition) then theres no doubt people would come running!

its right there....

[deacon2]

40. Hard to go to any house of worship here in O.C. if non-GOP

Godliness is next to Republicanism here in Orange County. On Sundays, the church lots are full of cars still sporting the W stickers and other mementos of the past "election."
While I appreciated the sincerity of the gentleman's letter, he's quite mistaken. The clearest hate I've ever felt has been from his "people" over the last several years. They've gone out of their way to make me miserable and to attack my beliefs at every opportunity. The "Christians" have been the worst and I've had more than a stomach full of these people and their smug, self-righteous bullshit. I didn't understand for the longest time why people say the things they do, including some of the intensity here at DU... but I'm catching on fast. When one is made to feel a pariah by the mindless herd, one starts to harbor any number of negative thoughts and ill will toward it. Simple folk wisdom tells us that if you torment a dog long enough, he gets mean.

[Lex]

46. The KKK believe themselves to be good Christians.

Raw hate in the name of Christianity has a long and healthly history in this country.

On the other hand, I do see that there are some liberal Christians--which is much more in keeping with how Jesus taught and lived.

[Merope215]

35. Thanks for sharing

Your uncle seems like a fair, open-minded, and intelligent person. And I agree with him about the hate, though I occasionally succumb to it myself (although in my own defense, I tend to reserve it for the likes of the people who oppose the HPV vaccine, preferring that women get cervical cancer rather than have premarital sex. I know they aren't representative of most Republicans). It is hard, when we feel as though we're being attacked on all sides, to remain rational and levelheaded about things.

I do believe that this country is composed of people who are, by and large, decent human beings. Those who are not are willing to make people's lives miserable in order to enforce their own narrowly interpreted views - and I include in that group fundamentalists of all stripes, including Christians, Muslims, communists, and free-market libertarians. People above politics. That's all it comes down to for me, and I see it as far more important to support universal health care for every citizen of this country than to oppose that goal based on fear of ridicule of one's religious beliefs.

But that's just me. I can certainly understand where you're coming from, Mr. Uncle to TSS, and since you clearly wrote your email with the intent of having us read it, thank you for your thoughts. They have provided me, at least, with some breathing space and a thoughtful perspective, and I wish you the best.

[Misskittycat]

38. This board serves many different purposes for us.

Part of it includes exchanging constructive ideas, keeping up on news we don't get from the corporate media, etc. But also an important function of this board is that it's a safe place for us to rant and to express legitimate anger and deep frustration. People visiting DU need to realize that this is an important safety valve for our sanity -- in a world where few other avenues exist for us to vent and share our intense concerns about the diretion our country is heading.

[Lex]

41. A response. Not a flame.

1. Intel on Iraq and Clinton. Keep in mind that Clinton DIDN'T start a war on Iraq while telling the country it was for something else (like Bush did). That is a BIG difference between Clinton and Bush on handling Iraq.

2. It's hard to feel sorry for Christians whining about being bashed when people like Fred Phelps and his ilk are running around using Christianity as a reason to spread hate about everyone and everything that they disagree with. Are all Christians like that? No, but I sure don't see very many liberal Christians out front condemning the hate being perpetrated by people like Phelps.

3. Hate? LOL! Been to Free Republic to see what they think of all DemoCRAPS and DUmmies? Give me a break. If you want to see raw hate, take a little time and go over there.

4. Bush. What can I say about someone who KNOWS they are voting for a guy that they themselves call a FLAKE? Again, as for the ridicule, don't act like DU has a corner on the market for that--as if Free Republic wasn't out there criticizing everything that the Democrats do.

5. Gay marriage. Civil unions. Separate but equal? Whatever-- families should be protected equally, regardless of whether the parents can have children. I know lots and lots of gay families with children that they either had before they came out, or with children that they brought into the world through artificial insemination (as hetero couples do as well). All of those families should be treated equally, and certainly their children should all be protected equally under the law as to their family rights. Doing it any other way is just twisting logic, and bringing 'separate but equal' back.

6. Guns. Look at the number of gun deaths in countries where guns are regulated and then get back to me about whether having easily obtainable guns makes a difference in death rates by guns. Who cares if more people die in car accidents? That is a logical strawman. When Vioxx was causing people to die, they took it off the market. They didn't say, well, more people die of car accidents.
And the "whackos in urban America" sounds like code words for black people if you ask me. The "whackos in urban American" didn't kill 6 of their family members in Ohio last week, or kill all those hunters in rural Wisconsin, etc. Let's be real--all senseless gun deaths aren't just occuring in 'the ghetto.'

And why are Christians so upset about having a religious neutral government? Are their religious beliefs so shaky that they can't hold up to having a neutral government when it comes to religion? I don't understand it. You can have a private party and worship whomever you want to, including Jesus. Just don't include the government in it. Why is that so hard? I'm sure if your religious convictions are strong, then having a neutral government when it comes to religion is not a big deal.

[cornermouse]

64. Actually, you don't even have to go someplace as extreme

as Free Republic to see hatred of democrats. Certain posters at Slate are a fine example of hate toward democrats.

[Occulus]

42. fucking homophobic heartless sonofabitch

Here, I'll construct something for your reply to this section:

"4. Gay Marriage
...A man and a woman can reproduce, "

Not all of them. Many people from either gender are infertile for one reason or another.

"and if they come together and commit to raising a family to perpetuate society then I can see us giving them some tax breaks and such."

He means, like MY parents, right? (keep reading)

"They may not have kids, may not want them, but in general such a union has a byproduct which helps to perptuate society."

He means by working and paying taxes and obeying laws, right?

"I don't mind gay people being able to adopt, have civil unions, and all that stuff. None of my business really."

How nice of him.

"My only concern is that marriage in a legal and society sense was meant to (imho) encourage people to unite for a common cause - to raise a family and perpetaute the society."

So raising a family is the only legitimate purpose for a marriage, in his opinion?

"Only a man and woman can do that (again, does not mean they will or will want to)."

So, it's not the only legitimate purpose to marriage. I'm confused. And, one man can raise a child, or one woman can raise a child. It's called adoption. Like my own parents did with me. He just illegitimized, not my desire to have a family, but my parents' desires to raise children. Both myself and my sister were adopted. Does that make our family that I grew up in 'illegitimate' in his mind somehow?

"I am not opposed to gay marriage because I think it will kill society or bring the wrath of god and all that crap, I simply think that tax breaks and associated things for marriage are an investment in all of society. Gays can't reproduce and so there is no chance it will pay off in a broad scale."

Being gay makes me sterile? I can't do an in vitro fertilization and a surrogate mother, or actually have sex with a woman exactly once in my life in order to procreate and for no other reason, and then raise that child with my husband? I can't reproduce, at all? According to whom, exactly?

"Other then that, I am ok with civil unions as I think it is simple logic that if you choose to live with someone as a partner they should be able to go see you in the hospital and make decisions about your care and so on."

How nice of him.

"I don't hate gays, I don't care what people do on their own time, none of my business. I just think marriage has a common sense place as defined above."

An interesting conclusion, given there was no common sense present in those quoted passages. His only justification appears to be blind bigotry, as he self-contradicts, repeatedly, and 'talks down' to gays throughout.

Fucking bigot.

[Sushi-Lover]

51. Pretty strong language for someone that was trying

to put forth his ideas in a thoughtful and civil manner. Here is one of those handy cliches you should write down 'You will catch more flies with honey, then with vinegar'. Those are words to live by, even when you are POed.

[Occulus]

53. I'm not POed.

I feel as if I'm being emotionally and psychologically raped by these people. I dealt with these attitudes from my very own parents. It cost me my home and the lifelong career in teaching I was preparing myself for. Since, I've been legislated against in my home state, blamed for 9/11, and a whole long list of other equally degrading statements and political or politically motivated bigotry.

I'll be civil no longer. Besides, according to you, when should I stop being civil about my responses to this kind of hateful homophobic shit? When is that okay with you?

POed? No. I hold in myself the white hot anger of a thousand exploding suns, and it's directed squarely at the people such as this guy. I'll take it no longer, I'll be 'nice' no longer, and woe to those who cross me on this.

I'm done tolerating this shit in silence, or by being nice. If it repulses the people who hear it, and they shut up and leave me the hell alone too, good. And it's about fucking time, too.

I. Have. HAD. It. I'm not taking it anymore. Period.

[Sushi-Lover]

54. That is understandable, but

it will not get you what you want. It will feel good and it will feel righteous, but it won't get people to change their beliefs or even to leave you alone. It will not help change things so that what happened to you will not happen to other people in the future or to you again in your own future. This is one of those 'don't give into the dark side' things ... when you feel white hot anger the right thing to do is either fight it or make it work for you. Exploding at people isn't furthering anything ...

I think it is reasonable to be civil when someone is doing their best to be civil to you and to be angry or nasty when someone is being a jerk to you. I do not think it is reasonable to give the same response to people who may have some qualms about gay marriage as you would to someone who is actually being hateful. You can point out to someone you think their belief or attitude contributes to discrimination without 'yelling'. Of course, you may do as you please and lump them all together, but it is not right and it is not effective.

[TorchTheWitch]

68. I disagree

I'm with kgfnally on the gay issue. I'm straight, and I can clearly see the hypocritical bigotry in the OP. Bigotry NEEDS to be pointed out. And I'm not seeing how she was being the least bit "hateful" in what she said. She has a RIGHT to be angry and respond in a way that makes it clear that she IS angry. Absolutely nothing would ever have been accomplished in the civil rights movement if people didn't clearly express that discrimination made them ANGRY. Without the anger, nobody would have CARED what other people felt and would not have been moved to search their soul and re-assess their views. You DON'T change anyone's view by politely claiming "let's just agree to disagree"... NOTHING gets accomplished that way. Nobody LISTENS to the point of view of someone who doesn't clearly show how much it MATTERS. This is exactly why the Dems have so little a voice and why we constantly express on DU why we're fed up with our views being ignored... Dems NEED to get a spine and EXPRESS THEIR ANGER SO THOSE WHO DISAGREE WILL EVEN BOTHER TO LISTEN.

I'm NOT going to make nice-nice with a bigot even if they don't realize that's what they are... making nice-nice with bigots has NEVER and WILL NEVER move them to examine their beliefs in order to change. If Martin Luther King didn't express his anger and righteously call a bigot what they are over and over again, African Americans would STILL be sitting on the back of the bus.

If me, a WHITE girl, didn't notice how angry it made people when it came to the discrimination of African Americans, I wouldn't have bothered to listen to them, and I'd hardly be moved enough to stand up for them.

If me, a STAIGHT girl, didn't notice how angry it made people when it came to the discrimination of gays, I wouldn't have bothered to listen to them, and I'd hardly be moved enough to stand up for them.

Strong emotion is necessary to MOVE people. That's been plainly obvious to the Republicans, and look where it got them.

[Occulus]

83. thanks.

Oh... 'he', not 'she'. :)

But... thanks for "getting it" all the same.

[Sushi-Lover]

96. Martin Luther King

was able to express his anger and call out bigotry without publically calling anyone a fucking sonofabitch. He was far more eloquent and his words would not fall under 'vinegar' in my view. He harnessed his outrage and made it productive (something I specifically said). Other then that, you read a lot into my post that was not there.

[noiretextatique]

130. MLK was murdered anyway

even though he was a nice guy...and a righteously angry man. sure he learned to use anger constructively. but even he admitted he was human, not a saint. he was also an exception in the larger struggle, as was the movement he was a part of. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers had some different ideas and without them, MLK's movement would not have been as successful.

[foreigncorrespondent]

123. Oh please...

...say this to someone who isn't queer. You know someone who hasn't faced bigotry all their life for who they happen to fall in love with.

Queers have been nice all their lives. We have tolerated a hell of a lot of shit, and where has it gotten us? Here is Australia, no right to marry period, that's where.

What you are preaching here isn't right, and isn't fair. I am currently working in a job where I am IN the fucking closet again because of people telling me to be nice. You know what it does for me? Causes me lots of sleepless nights. And let's not mention that isn't at all fair or just for me to remain in the closet (because people expect me to be nice) for my partner or our five year and counting monogamous binational relationship.

So please, try directing your nice lecture to those people who give us the bigotry rather than those of us who are tired of hearing the bigotry day in day out.

[noiretextatique]

129. civility is a part of the problem

remember the photo of bush and a bunch of old, white men all laughing and smiling as he signed a bill to limit reproductive rights? sorry...civility isn't all it's cracked up to be. if you qualms about some people having the same rights that you take for granted and feel entitled to, here's the remedy: get over yourself.

[LSK]

43. im sorry, but your uncle is a life long republican

I am not even sure if he really reads too much DU. He seems to have all the pre-concieved notions that most republicans have. Maybe he reads DU looking for things to dislike here.

The part about democrats picking on him because of his being a christian or the hate part??? Does he not see all hate coming from the right.

As far as religion goes, I believe it is your own business, and there are plenty of places and opportunities to practise your religion in a place that will not conflict with other people. Whatever religion you want to practise is fine with me, I just dont want to know about it when it comes to politics and government.

Im sorry, but you have a lot - and I mean A LOT of work to do with him for him to read DU with a clear head.

[cestpaspossible]

93. Yeah, the idea that this letter is based on what he read on DU is BULLSHIT

rather, this letter is based on someone's preconceived opinions of what liberals think.

[senegal1]

47. I think it has to be clear that the reason why "Christians"

come up frequently in DU linked to Bush and the anger with him. It is that I and probably others feel that the very fundamentalist Christian groups like the Christian Coalition are closely linked to his success. Its not like I don`t like Bush and I don`t like Christians. It more that there is the feeling that this group is funding and is part of the power structure of the Bush dynasty. Check out this quote:


THUNDER FROM THE MIDDLE

Members of Team 100, an elite group of Republicans who have given more than $100,000 to the party, received an extraordinary letter this week from John Moran, finance chairman of Bob Dole's presidential campaign and former finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. As first reported in the Washington Post, Moran charges that the R.N.C. has been hijacked by the Christian Coalition "and others who are adamantly opposed to a moderate agenda"; that these forces (led by Coalition executive director Ralph Reed) engineered the election as R.N.C. chairman of Jim Nicholson, who "will now be beholden to the far right for their support"; and that as a result, the members of Team 100 ought to be "giving consideration to throwing our financial support to a committee or organization that has a more moderate Republican political philosophy." Saying the Coalition is at a point where it is "exercising significant control" over the R.N.C., Moran suggests that the G.O.P.'s future "is in jeopardy."--TIME magazine notebook, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 VOL. 149 NO. 8

And that is from 1997. I can`t imagine its better today.

Check out Hoover Business Site info on the Coalition:


Sales are $5.4 million
America
499 S. Capitol St. SW, Ste. 615
Washington, DC 20003 (Map)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

http://www.cc.org



Founded in 1989 by Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition advances its conservative political agenda by lobbying Congress, local councils, school boards, and state legislatures; distributing literature; organizing and training community activists; and hosting major religious events in Washington. The group's grassroots network includes nearly 2 million members and 1,500 local chapters in all 50 US states. The group supports what it says is a pro-family, non-partisan agenda while educating "people of faith" to influence all levels of government. Issues include ending abortion rights and supporting the nomination of conservative judges.


And from an interesting website:

Pat Robertson is quite plausibly the best known of the Religious Right, through his abortive 1988 challenge to George Bush for the Republican Presidential nomination, and through his daily appearances on his television program - The 700 Club. Robertson survived his own political demise, and the demise of the original religious right, centered around Falwell's "Moral Majority". He retrenched, brought in Ralph Reed to head the Christian Coalition, which he founded in 1989, pioneered the stealth campaign, and now wields more raw political power than any other leader of the new religious right.

Pat Robertson has often been the victim of his own intemperate statements, perhaps nowhere so evident as his 1991 book The New World Order, in which he espouses a highly conspiracist point of view, one that would be quite at home in many of the extremist fringes of the far right. By contrast, Ralph Reed, titular head of the Christian Coalition, has appeared considerably more moderate, reaching out to Catholics and mainstream Jews in his efforts to build a broad base of political power. Reed has masterminded the grassroots campaigning tactics, as well as the art of advocating extremism with moderate language, which have gained the Christian Coalition their present power base.

http://qrd.tcp.com/qrd/www/rrr/pat.html

Or you can check out a quote from a letter from the Interfaith Alliance: (note that the Interfaith Alliance boasts 150,000 members verses the Coalition`s 2 million members...)

"Senator Frist, I suppose it was bound to happen. Leaders of the religious right and politicians pushing a partisan agenda in the name of religion have so intermingled politics and religion that, now, even you, the leader of the United States Senate, appear unable to discern the difference between authentic faith and partisan politics. I can think of no other reason that you would address a group of people and even offer encouragement to people who have announced that opposition to the elimination of the filibuster signals antipathy toward religious faith, thus fostering a redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition of democracy that is scary."
Read the entire letter here: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=551063

By the way if your uncle is serious about his concern about why there seem to be so many people linking nasty republican politics and Christians he should join the Interfaith Alliance or a group like it. They could use one more thoughtful vocal member.

[Sapphire Blue]

48. Perhaps your uncle might be interested in another DU thread

... posted in Religion & Theology:

The Jacksonville Declaration - taking back Christianity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x21105

[EFerrari]

49. Thank your uncle for giving us his thoughts.

And here's two for him.

I agree that hate has replaced dialog in this country, and it's all too easy to do that. It has no place in the life of ethical people.

And I honestly have to disagree that the Kerry campaign put out anything like a message of hate toward people who are a)Christian and b) practicing Republicans. Rather, the media sensationalizes to draw an audience. And the hired PR guns know that and try to manipulate us that way.

[G_j]

67. yes, the bit about Kerry

didn't make sense to me.
I am not aware of a single instance where Kerry's campaign voiced hatred or intolerance toward Christians and citizens such as this uncle. It simply didn't happen.
This is a RW talking point/fabrication with zero basis in reality. Remember the Republican literature that said Kerry would ban the bible?

[Sushi-Lover]

50. Your uncle sounds like a great guy.

Someone else already said that DU is not representative of the Democratic party and I would have to agree. Most Democrats have no idea DU even exists and they are not as far to the left as the avg person on DU.


There is a lot in that letter and I am trying to keep this short, but it will be long anyway.

Not quite in order:

1. Iraq intel: The argument, in my view, is about how immediate the threat was based on the intel collected in the Clinton years and on the changes in Saddam's capabilities as a result of sanctions and inspections. I think everyone wanted him gone and recognized he was a potential threat, the question was about when and how to take care of the problem (some solutions would have taken longer then the swiftness of an invasion or would have involved more time before the choice of war).

4. Gay marriage: If the concern is about promoting uniting to make a family and gay people can and do make families, then what is the issue again? If there is any difference in payback to society at all, I don't see how it is going to make a very large impact seeing as how you are speaking of min 3% max 20% of the population, depending on the area and the study (the impact on the lives of the individuals who want to get married is far greater, though immeasurable).

5. Bush: My more general response to the 'hate' will apply here too. You could take those words 'why should I vote for someone who's constituents hate me' and many on the left would see them as applying to Bush as well (see am radio exa further down). Further, I think that there has been an increase in the anger at the opposition that sky rocketed with the whole Clinton impeachment thing ... part of that is coloring how people see Bush.

6. Guns: Pretty much agree, except I think it is more complicated then that. Guns make for easier killing and messier wounds, thats why Cops and Doctors worry about them more then other commonly used weapons. If someone is in the mood for a crime of passion, having a gun around just makes it more likely they are going to carry through with the violent feelings they are having. I think those are legit concerns that are not going to change very easily by changing behavior. That being said, the right to bear arms may outweigh those concerns (still up in the air on this, lean toward the states rights compromise).

3. I think that understanding the hate, anger or name calling requires looking at more then DU. Right now partisan bickering is inflamed. People on the right and on the left react to the language used by the other (exa those on the left listen to am radio and they are reacting to the venom directed at them with more venom .. and vice versa I'm sure). Also, boards in general seem to be way more negative and angry then people are in real life, because they are where people frequently vent.

2. Religion is the source of a lot of tension in society today because religious people feel like they are not being allowed to bring their faith into all aspects of their lives. Non-religious people (or people of less numerous faiths) feel like a religion/belief that they do not share may be forced on them. I think we must defer to the constitution and government should not show preference through law to any of the religions or agnostics/atheists. It does not mean removal of faith in the public square (faith cannot be prohibited), as long as each is treated fairly. The problem we have is that we do not seem to be able to fairly promote all faiths in a manner that does not force or pressure anyone to participate in something they do not believe in. Thus the people in charge have sometimes erred on the side of not allowing anything and that made religious people feel like they were favoring agnostics/atheists. I do not know how to solve this. We have to find a way where all can bring faith into their lives both public and private, or not, as they choose and yet not allow any to be favored over another or allow anyone to be pressured .. very difficult to do. Getting back to DU, Christianity bears the brunt of the debate because it is the majority religion in this country and the one most people have experience with. It carries more weight in our culture then any of the others and so people tend to think of Christianity when they think of religion in general. There are those who are guilty of generalizing, which is just wrong, when they should be responding to a specific belief or a specific Christian or Christian group. I would hope everyone recognizes the good that Christians as a whole have done and are doing, when they stop focusing on a specific bad thing that has been done or a specific belief they disagree with.

[NMMNG]

52. Thank your uncle for this very well thought out e-mail :-)

I'm glad he took the time to visit DU, observe and actually digest before making a decision on how he felt about it.:thumbsup:

About some of his observations...my opinions on them:

Religion:

Some of us do have a tendency to bash religion, typically Christianity, fundamentalism specifically. I admit I can be one of the big offenders at times. However, I have no qualms with religion as a whole, and am an ardent supporter of freedom of religion. What I find intolerable is the practice of using religion as a tool, or as a weapon, against others. This seems, particularly in recent years, to be the domain of the evangelical, fundamentalist, "religious right".

These individuals are using their power to blur (or even eradicate) the line between Church and State, to have restrictive laws and constitutional ammendments passed, to prevent the advancement of scientific research and more. They are also doing all they can to advance the voice of their religion over all others in this nation.

Again, this is not indicative of all Christians...they are a minority, albeit a very powerful, noisy minority who are gaining too much ground.

Hate

Hate at DU? Yes, there is some hate and some anger but also a lot of efforts directed at changing things for the better. If you want to give your uncle a good look at hate give him a link to Free Republic.

Gay Marriage

Inability to procreate through "regular" means is not sufficient reason to deny gays the right to marry. A lesbian need only get semen and she can become pregnant. A lesbian or gay couple can adopt, and a gay couple can hire a surrogate mother. Adoption is an excellent option as it gives an otherwise parentless child a home.

Bush

There are only a million reasons not to have elected Bush, all of which have been discussed at length on DU. Your uncle said he didn't elect Kerry because he didn't want to vote for someone whose follower's hated him.

I am an atheist lesbian. Why would I have voted for someone whose followers want me to die and burn in hell, after they have stripped me of all civil rights here in the US?


*********************************************************************


Now the big picture: According to overall demographics, the US is 76.5% Christian, 1.3% Jewish, 0.5% Muslim, 0.5% Buddhist, 0.5% Agnostic, 0.4% Atheist and 13.2 "No religion specified". This is why there is so much emphasis on keeping things generalized in the public schools...so nobody gets offended or feels left out . (Demographic information from http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The%20Big%20Picture )



Everyone pays taxes...not only the Christians but the Buddhists, the atheists, the Muslims, the Pagans, the Wiccans, etc. Should the school have a party for all of them? It would be pretty chaotic...


Are people so weak that a simple observance by the majority in the community will crush their beliefs?


If anybody's religious belief is so weak that not having it observed in a public school party is going to destroy it, they have a serious spiritual problem, IMHO.


With metta

[wookie294]

56. Why are religionists so offended by atheists ?

It is not "hatred" to show the inconsistencies and falsehoods of religious teachings. The Bible, like all religious books, has many inaccuracies.

As for Clinton and WMD -- Clinton never claimed Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks (but Cheney did). Clinton never said Saddam had weaponized drones that could reach Europe in 45 minutes (but Bush did). Clinton didn't quote a forged memo claiming Saddam sought uranium from Niger (but Bush did -- against the advice of his CIA). Clinton never said Saddam possessed "reconstituted nuclear weapons" (but Cheney did). The Cheney presidency hyped the intelligence to scare the public into an unnecessary war. Clinton didn't do that.

Here's my favorite Cheney lie....

In 2001, Dick Cheney said it was “confirmed that (Mohammed Atta) did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." See link....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

Eight days later, the Pentagon awarded Halliburton its most lucrative contract in history. See link....

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2001/kbrnws_121701.jsp

Then, in 2004, Cheney was forced to say: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." See link...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134636,00.html

[Demit]

57. Is your uncle the kind of christian who doesn't think I am?

I'm Catholic. I grew up thinking that of course that meant I was Christian. Only in the last few years did I learn that "christians" meant something else entirely, and apparently the definition excluded me. That's not right.

Yes, threads about religion here get very heated, but I don't have the sense that there is a prevailing view of christian-bashing. Christians in general, that is. What there is is a resentment--even a horror--of the kind of christians who want to mingle religion and government so thoroughly that it turns our country into a theocracy. And these christians are being very aggressive, and pugnacious, and loud.

It's an if-the-shoe-fits kind of thing. If your uncle isn't that kind of christian then the criticism does not apply to him.

[ebayfool]

58. No comment, yet - just a (few) questions?

What is the time frame for his reading at DU? Did you give him the link before the election, after the inauguration, during the whole Schiavo mess, etc? I can see alot of potential in several of these times for him to be seeing things here that were heightened during periods of extremely high stress & emotion ... & I don't think he'd be getting a fully squared snapshot of what DUer's are like at times of rational discourse. There have been so many days where the outside world was going apeshit, it is impossible for that to not be reflected here as well! That would also affect how to respond to the concerns that he's voiced in the email.

I'm more curious @ when he started reading here, it has to be a factor in how he made his list (at least that's what I'm seeing, anyway).

[Bunny]

60. Is your uncle familiar with artificial insemination?

Does he realize that lesbians can be artificially inseminated and give birth? Does he realize that a lot of infertile straight couples use AI to get pregnant and bear children?

Does he know about surrogate mothers? Egg donation? Gay men can have a surrogate mother conceive through donated eggs, and bear a child for them. Interestingly enough, so can straight couples.

The whole marriage as baby-factory thing, and therefore only open to straight couples, is pretty shallow. Maybe he should rethink that one.

[TOhioLiberal]

69. Don't forget...

...post-menopausal women and impotent men. Should they not be allowed to marry anymore?

[xchrom]

62. why is he feeling persecuted?

i'm christian -- and there has been nothing here that makes me feel persecuted.

yes christians have done good things -- and as a history of the whole -- they have done horrifying things in the name of god.

just a few:

1. conversion of native americans
2. conversion of pacific islanders
3. conversion of native people in california
4 support of slavery in the u.s.
5. spread of hate toward gay folk
6. it's hateful to believe that liberals would ever persecute anyone based on their religion -- that is anti-thetical to even the most anti-religous person on here.
7. any belief that christianity is the only path to spirituality and to salvation is filled with hate -- i.e. the parable of the good samaretan -- the good guy in that parable is not of the ''right'' faith, ''tribe'', ''race'' or anything else.

christians feel persecuted based projection.
and an inability to accept the flaws inherent in christian institutions.

[TorchTheWitch]

63. a word about gay marriage

I don't get the statement about gay marriage...

A man and a woman can reproduce, and if they come together and commit to raising a family to perpetuate society then I can see us giving them some tax breaks and such. They may not have kids, may not want them, but in general such a union has a byproduct which helps to perptuate society. I don't mind gay people being able to adopt, have civil unions, and all that stuff. None of my business really. My only concern is that marriage in a legal and society sense was meant to (imho) encourage people to unite for a common cause - to raise a family and perpetaute the society. Only a man and woman can do that (again, does not mean they will or will want to).
I am not opposed to gay marriage because I think it will kill society or bring the wrath of god and all that crap, I simply think that tax breaks and associated things for marriage are an investment in all of society. Gays can't reproduce and so there is no chance it will pay off in a broad scale.

Basically, what's being said here is that you're against it due to reproduction - i.e., that two persons of the same sex can't reproduce. So what? Marriage has ALWAYS been about uniting families in finance. All this about reproduction adding to society, blah, blah, blah, is a bunch of crap. If that's the excuse to be against gay marriage, then you should also be against anyone being able to legally wed if they're beyond their reproductive years or unable to reproduce or even UNWILLING to reproduce.

Especially considering how 50% of marriages in America end in divorce, I fail to see how even male/female marriages (particularly those that produce children) are beneficial to society. In fact, considering that it is more likely that a divorced couple with children will seek government help as a result of the failed marriage, it could be argued that it is more beneficial to society to LIMIT marriages between men/women BECAUSE they can produce children as it is more likely that if/when the marriage fails, government help will be needed... thereby being a burden to society to be responsible for contributing to the feeding, housing, clothing, baby-sitting and education of those children.

If one is to be against gay marriage due to a reproductive issue, then logically, one must also be against ANY marriage that can't/won't result in reproduction. But it's clear that this is not your true feelings.

It doesn't need to be said that banning gay marriage is totally unconsitutional... just as it would be to ban ANY group of people from benefitting from whatever perks people can receive who are NOT part of that group. We went through this with African Americans as I recall (remember the civil war?)... what is the difference of the past discrimination against African Americans and the discrimination of any OTHER specific group? First it was the Jews/African Americans/women, and now its the homosexuals... it's all discrimination, and it's all unconstitutional.

And kindly spare me the excuse of "that's not what the founding fathers had in mind" crap... the founding fathers kept African Americans as slaves, and women had zero rights as well. They wrote the constitution for WHITE MEN only, but society changes, doesn't it? As it has, we've recognized that fact and adjusted the laws accordingly. If America wants to go backward toward a WHITE MEN only constitution, then I want no part of America, and I would suspect that you wouldn't either. I would have far more respect for you if you just admitted that gays marrying makes you uncomfortable, and/or a flood of marrying gays alarms you because you believe it would deplete the resources of other groups already allowed to receive perks/tax breaks/assistance... thereby making less available perks/tax breaks/assistance for YOU.

I'm going to repeat this so you'll be sure not to miss it:

I would have far more respect for you if you just admitted that gays marrying makes you uncomfortable, and/or a flood of marrying gays alarms you because you believe it would deplete the resources of other groups already allowed to receive perks/tax breaks/assistance... thereby making less available perks/tax breaks/assistance for YOU.

That's it, isn't it? THAT'S your real problem with accepting the right of gays to marry... because one way or another you believe it will effect YOU PERSONALLY. After all, if we let them suck up a lot of perks and tax breaks that makes less for YOU, right? You WANT to exclude fellow American citizens from thinning out the bennies that YOU are already allowed to get. Rather selfish, don't you think?

PC excuses are historical... you recall the excuses of people being against freedom for the African Americans because they weren't intelligent enough to take care of themselves, that they needed and would be better off being under the control of whites? How about those politically correct excuses people used against women being allowed to work or vote or even have their own bank account because they needed to be "looked after" by men? They were just excuses people used to avoid being revealed as bigots... but that's exactly what they were, PC excuses or not. Your reproductive issue as an excuse is just as illegitimate as the age old excuses against African Americans and women. If you are really honest with yourself, that cannot be denied. It would actually be preferable if you just admitted that you PREFER a specific group of people to be discriminated against due to your bigotted views and/or fear of there not being enough perks or assistance to go around for you and the others in your group of "worthy people". Drawing dividing lines between AMERICAN CITIZENS according to who you or your group or your party believe are "worthy" is pretty damn anti-American, isn't it?

[sendero]

66. I have a few quibbles...

....with your uncle's letter.

First off, yes I agree with him that the Dems also saw Saddam as a threat. That is not the same as saying you'd launch a full scale invasion with disastrous consequences. The fire ants in my back yard are a threat, I'm not going to napalm my back yard. The Dems had ample opportunity to invade Iraq, they didn't. Bush did.

On Christians. How does your uncle feel about Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc.? If you think there is hate here against Christians, what are you doing to counter the non-stop hate coming from the mouths of professed Christians? The "hate" you read here is outrage at people using religion as a shield to justify their base words and actions. The aforementioned have nothing to do with Jesus, yet large numbers of "Christians" seem to think these malignant greedy assholes represent them. And you wonder why we are angry?

Also, anyone who cannot understand the basic reasons why church and state separation are necessary will certainly understand it when Islamists, Buddhists, and even Satanists get to have their meetings on the school grounds. There are reasons some things are the way they are, and those who don't get it are in fact part of the problem. The founding fathers were all too well aware of what happens when you allow the mingling of state and religion.

[DistressedAmerican]

70. Just More From The Majority About How Oppressed They Are By The Minority.

Bush followers and especially the religious right (NOTE: I Do Not Speak Of All Christians. Just those from the extremem fundie right that feel the need to force their views on others) hate liberals.

I am tired of those that CREATED the current highly polarized situation acting like our reacting to their forcing religion down our throats is somehow OPPRESSING THEM. Please. As Mopaul pointed out this morning Atheists are 2 percent of the American population. Yet the Christian right acts as if we are out conducting witchhunts. Get your side's hate and oppression in line then come talk to me about my response!



His comments on gay marriage are both false and insulting. I have many gay friends that have had children and are raising them in loving homes. Denying these people the right to marry and all of the legal advantages associated there with based on his line of reasoning is homophobia pure and simple.



His comments about Clinton and their belief that Saddam was a threat seem to conveniently miss the fact that Clinton was working for regime change for years through sanctions, etc. He NEVER invaded a country in the heart of the middle east. Even while believing Saddam was a threat, Clinton pursued a prudent course of action which had effectively contained and neutralized any thread they once posed. I would suggest the difference is that Bush arrived with invasion in mind. He knew it would make his friends and largest donors rich and it would once and for end discussion of why Poppy didn't do the job 13 years earlier.



"But I would fear more for myself and XXXXXX if Kerry was in power and the people that despise me and ridicule me were empowered to rule my life."

Well, if he can internalize the fear of how the right MIGHT be despised, ridiculed, etc. by us when we get back, he should damn well be made to realize that IT IS A REALITY WE ARE LIVING. Not just some vague fear. If we did the same back it would be a reaction not our provocation.

Yes, POOR, POOR Majority! So oppressed by the minority while controlling ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government! Please!




On Edit: That all being said, I appreciate his willingness to enter into a dialog. More on the right shut such discussion right down.

Oh yeah, I also am a responsible gun owner. I totally agree with his stance there. I was raised around guns in a region where deer hunting was both a sport and a source of food for many poor people. I had so many gun saftey and education courses I can't even remember how many, well over 10. For that I thank my father who taught me the propoer uses of guns and how to use them safely.

Hope you uncle isn't too put off by my comments. Sounds like a descent guy on the whole. Just a little reactionary and failing to see how our loud comments are primarily in reaction not provocation.

Like one poster noted, Christians and the right in general were not attacked and despised during the Clinton years. I'm nort sure why he is so worried other than the fact that the climate has been so poisoned by the right that some may consider turn about fair play.

[Kingshakabobo]

72. Beautiful. A leaving DU post and he never joined.

How boring. Another MEpublican.

"I'm an oppressed christian.....bla bla bla.... Bush keeps me safe bla bla bla.....Clinton did the same thing bla bla bla..... I don't hate gays I just don't think they deserve rights bla bla bla.......democrats will take my guns away bla bla bla"

Sure, go ahead and tell me if we just coddled this guy he would vote democratic. Save it.

On edit: He mentions the Downing street memo but totaly ignores it and falls back to freeper position number one: "Clinton thought he was a threat bla bla bla"........how VERY interesting.

[immoderate]

87. Bingo! We have a winner.

That letter is typical DU bashing by someone who is not here to defend their nonsense.

Most of his assertions are just unsupportable.

Two issues that I find most irritating: (not that they are more important, just that they are ones I participate in frequently.)

Religion. It's not that Christians get bashed here, it's that there are those who want to control our lives and use Christianity as their authority to do so. Otherwise I don't care what people believe.

Guns. It's pretty easy to see that DU is pretty much split down the middle on RKBA issues. This is something that originally surprised me, but I see about half of DUer have guns or, at least support peoples' right to have guns.

--IMM

[mopaul]

73. he puts a lot of weight on being ridiculed

he should get used to it. everybody gets riduculed at some point in their life, and they shouldn't be crushed by the experience. in fact, if they are resolute in their beliefs, ridicule should roll off them like water off a duck's back

[Walt Starr]

74. He voted for Bush

That tells me all I need to know.

[Armstead]

76. Too bad he misses how most of us feel about people like him

Interesting letter. The overall tone I got was a guy who is conservative, but basically tolerant and not into "hate politics."

That's why his reaction bothers me. For example, I don't think most of us on the left dislike Christians. Personally I couldn't care less about someone's religious beliefs.

But what does rile us is the insistence by certain facets of Christians that God is a Conservative Republican. And the sanctamonius hatred they have to anyone different than them. Which means all librals, gays etc.

And the otehr thing, as has been mentioned, is that much of what he interprets as scorn for people like him is merely a response to the scorn they give to people like us.

Anyway, he seems reasonable, and I hope he keeps reading DU.

[Dawgs]

77. I'm sorry. That email is just scary.

All I'm reading here is right-wing talking points. I can listen to Hannity if I want to hear this bullshit.

What I'm reading...

Bush and DSM: Clinton agreed with Bush. It's just as much his fault as Bush's.

Interesting how he never mentions the DSM... which says BUSH is going to war even though the most RECENT intelligence says Saddam is not a threat. Remember, we are fighting a war against terrorists, not a weak dictator.

Religion: Democrats hate Christians.

Interesting, considering most Democrats are Christians.

Hate: Again, Democrats hate me because I'm a Republican.

Talking about all of the bad things in this world is not hate. This guy has obviously never spent more than a few minutes on DU

Gay Marriage: Reproduction is the only reason I can think of for Gays not to get married. Actually, I despise gays, but I don't want to come across as someone who HATES.

This part of his email is the most disturbing and scary

Bush: I better put that the guy is a flake so I look credible, but I really love him. Democrats hate me is also a good excuse.

If this guy really knew how Democrats felt, he would realize that we are the only ones who care for EVERYBODY... not just the rich and powerful. I'd like to know what he thinks the Republicans have done for the poor and those without health-care. I guess to him it doesn't matter... just as long as he can keep his gun, hate gays, and blame everything on Clinton.

Guns: Why don't Democrats hate automobiles, they kill too.

Scary, and not surprised!!!

Finally,

"It comes down to a simple choice to me - vote for the guy that is not calling you a freak or vote for the one that does." - When did Kerry ever call anyone a freak(or anything even close to that)?

"If it is a mainly Jewish area, then I am cool with them celebrating their heritage as a group in a common place they all share." - They do. It's called a church or sinagog.... just like you.

"I still like the DU place. There are some good people there, and I don't want to slight them in my email." - I just generalize about hate to justify my reasons for voting for Bush.

Whatever...

[Snotcicles]

78. Why do so many Christians equate criticism with hatred?

Heck, if you were to close your eyes, you would think it were a Muslim's talking about televangelists.

[foreigncorrespondent]

79. Interesting email!

A few points though:

1. If he thinks DU is so full of hate, then he truly needs to take a gander at Freeperville, or that other right wing unmentionable site. That is where he will see true hatred.

2. The religious threads. Yes it can get out of hand every now and then. However, the majority of DUers will defend the religious left, myself included.

3. Gay marriage, and for me, this is a biggie. You uncle did piss me off a tad here. He stated that only heterosexual married couples should get the tax breaks regardless of whether or not they have children. Yet, doesn't want a gay couple getting those same tax breaks because they cannot have children? There is something very wrong with that kind of thinking. If Jo and Mary can go down the road and get married and decide to not have children but still enjoy tax breaks, then to make things equal in every respect, Bob and Bill should receive those same tax breaks.

By the way, for me, marriage isn't about a lousy tax break. It is about my wanting a full life long commitment to the person I have fallen in love with. It is my need to spend the rest of my life with that person regardless of what sex they are, or whether or not we have kids.

[DistressedAmerican]

80. Not To Mention What You Already Know, Which is that many Gay Couples

DO have children. I know several who have gone the sperm donor route, etc.

[Dawgs]

81. Like I said, it sound's like a good excuse for someone who's trying...

not to sound like a gay basher. Well guess what, I'm not buying it. That line of thinking is HATEFUL.

[foreigncorrespondent]

124. Exactly that, DA...

...but this jerk doesn't care about that. But believes that just because someone is straight, they have the right to marry, and with that, receive those tax breaks. Regardless of whether or not they have children in the process.

[Bunny]

82. Also, your uncle wrote:

"5. Bush
You know I don't like him much, the guy is just a flake. I still voted for him though because it was either him or Kerry. Why didn't I like Kerry? Not so much him as it was what I feared he would bring in with him. People who just hate me. Would you vote for someone whose followers hate you? For people who make fun of you and call you all sorts of names? Bush was wrong on Iraq, and you know XXXXX is in the military and is there now. I don't like it one bit. But I would fear more for myself and XXXXXX if Kerry was in power and the people that despise me and ridicule me were empowered to rule my life."

So, your uncle believes these unknown others would "hate" him, therefore, it's okay for XXXXXXX to remain in Iraq? And all the other soldiers currently in harm's way, in Iraq, just so some people won't "hate" your uncle? And fear of some "unknown" that Kerry would bring with him trumped the KNOWN DISASTER that is George W. Bush??? That is really lame, sorry.

Look, I'm sure your uncle is a nice person, I have Republicans in my family too, and they are all nice people. Unfortunately, they are also uneducated about the current situation in this country. Perhaps if your uncle continues to read DU, he can begin to see past his biases and get a better grip on the reality that is America in 2005.

[DemonFighterLives]

84. Hi Straight Story and Uncle

I've been a Christian all my life, but am open to hear from all types. DU can get raucous at times, but I have never felt hatred for my Christianity. In fact people do get upset from time to time and you need to overlook it. Sometimes people get over it or are straightened out by the group.
I would think that anyone confusing Clinton's intel with the stuff cooked up by OSP and Cheney will have trouble seeing the truth. It gets to the point of looking for any excuse for why one voted for B*sh. He was a terrible choice and one can look back at the whole family tree of evil, corrupt, enriching policies of the junta.

As Big Ed Schulz would say, "it's all about God, gays and guns with republicans".

I feel sorry for anyone who swallowed the B*shco lies and can follow his lead. Uncle, just look at the mess Dubby has made of this country. He is the original divider/non uniter. He creates hatred on both sides. Kerry was sure not perfect, but he offered a road out of the deep dark woods.

[ProfessorGAC]

85. Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, . . .

Platitudinous drivel masquerading as caring. Every sentiment in the letter drips with selfishness. The world is NOT all about your uncle and he made his decisions because of how everything impacts HIM personally.

Your uncle might not be the "Nice" guy you think he is.
The Professor

[marions ghost]

114. yes--it's all about Me = the bottom line

n/t

[Blue Belle]

86. Has he even shecked out Free Republic??

The freepers spew much more hate than we do... and as far as the lot of DU'ers hating him, that simply isn't true. WE don't lump sum all Christians together here... we do lump sum ultra right wing Fundie Extemeists together because they've hijacked the bible and feel the need to judge others based on their cherry picked passages. We're also tired of the Republican Senators and Congressmen pandering to this ilk.

[cestpaspossible]

88. Not sure why you posted this.

So your uncle has decided that the views of certain posters or strawmen represent the views of 'DU' and he wrote you a letter saying what he thinks of them.


Who cares? Your uncle is an idiot who doesn't understand a lot of simple concepts (the establishment clause in the first amendment being one glaring example), and there's no way we are going to be able to educate him in this format. Oh and btw, I don't believe this letter is based on 6 months of reading DU - that is an obvious falsehood, based on the contents - they don't seem to have much in common with the lively discussion and wide variety of views found on DU.

[welshTerrier2]

89. Dear Uncle

My first statement in reaction to your letter is that I truly hope the Democratic Party never tries to win your support ... doing so would require a move to the right that i would never condone ...

Your post, though i'm not fond of labels, would earn you one nevertheless ... many refer to views like the ones you hold as a "god, gays and guns" republican ...

Most disturbing in your post was the ignorance you showed about gay marriage ... i have a gay sister who is raising two fantastic, very well adjusted twin boys with her partner ... no, there was no immaculate conception but you seem unaware of the possibility that gays can have children ... well guess what? they can ... i know this because my sister and her partner do ...

so what is your enlightened prescription for how these fine boys in this very stable family (they've been together more than 25 years) should be treated by society? you don't want this family to have the same rights and privileges of families headed by heterosexuals ... well uncle, excuse the language but you can just fuck off !!! when will you learn that we need to respect all families equally? your views are totally bigoted and you are ill-informed on the subject ...

as to your discussion of religion, to the extent that you see bigotry and bias on DU (it is not representative of most DU'ers) or in the Democratic Party at large, i fully agree with you that there is just no excuse for disrespecting another person's religious views ... HOWEVER, i strongly disagree with your interpretation of how your religion should be imposed on others ... specifically, let's take the case of the nativity scene in the public schools ... public schools should be for the entire public ... trying to argue that 99.44% are christians fails to protect those who are not from the tyranny of the majority ... if you want to accept federal and state funding for your public school, you should not use that setting to display religious artifacts ... if your school has 99% christian students, why not make the school a private religious school ... you're free to do that and could teach religion throughout the entire school day ... no one objects to the full practice of your religion and your right to raise and teach your children any way you choose ... but public means all of the public ... not just the christians ... but that's not OK with you apparently ... you want federal funding; you want state funding; you want to be able to impose your religion in a public school on children who don't follow your religion ...

as for the good deeds you talked about, including donating land to a homeless shelter and working with the poor and kids and doing other things to make the community better, i applaud all these activities ... all of these things are elements of the good citizenship and concern for others that progressive values embody ... what's disturbing is that at its core, republicanism emphasizes personal responsibility and the "free market" over such societal and community values ... if these are the things you value, you're voting for the wrong ticket ...

but the above discussion was meant to specifically respond to a few of the points you raised ... let's talk about the big stuff ... let's talk about lofty ideals like democracy, PEACE, national poverty and valuing all citizens of the world ... and at the outset, let me say that i am not very happy these days with the Democratic Party ... i think to a very tragic extent, they have sold out to centrism and even some republican views just to gain votes ...

anyway, let's start with democracy ... seen any lately? because without democracy, the freedoms you have now, or think you have, can be taken away with the flick of a pen ... perhaps you trust that the wealthy and powerful in this country cherish the ideals of our Founding Fathers ... perhaps you see talk about excessive corporate power and shadow governments as nothing but left-wing hysteria ... freedom is a very rare commodity, sir ... look back in history as far as the eye can see and you will find ZERO examples of sustaining democracies ... power corrupts and massive money correlates to massive power ... citizens in America have lost control of their own government ... most policies are designed for the "aid and comfort" of the super-wealthy ... the republican party has done a really fine job exploiting the religious right in this country ... they fight to let you have your manger scenes while they gain the right to declare martial law and suspend your rights when THEY determine it is necessary ...

let's talk about PEACE ... seen any lately? the republican party that doesn't attack you because you're a christian is sure busy attacking everybody else ... what does your religion teach you about global war? what war would Jesus be fighting? we have been warned by presidents all the way back to James Madison and presidents like Ike to fear the military-industrial complex ... American foreign policy and American militarism are being waged to benefit a handful of trans-national corporations ... have you read the PNAC website? Project for a New American Century ... here's a hint: they are not the good guys ... I've recently read books called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and Sorrows of Empire that outline the tangled web between American foreign policy and American corporations ... you called for teaching "morals" in our public schools but you didn't call for a moral American foreign policy ... in our names, yours and mine, under both Democrats and republicans, our government has murdered democratically elected foreign leaders, created disinformation campaigns to weaken them, raped the rain forests and foreign cultures vulnerable to massive American money and might and acted in a wholly immoral way ... this conduct has occurred under both major parties but it's important to understand that the neo-cons under bush have raised it as their primary purpose for existing ... things have never been this evil ... bush has declared an eternal global war for the benefit of those who empower him ... Iraq is only the beginning ... bush's neo-con, empire-building war will never end until we sweep the republicans from power ... and so, you should not vote republican, certainly not a neo-con republican, if you value PEACE ...

and we should talk a little about poverty in America ... seen any lately? because our national deficit is running at around $4.3 TRILLION ... that's a whole lotta red ink ... you talked about people in your family working with the poor ... do you understand that many families, the ones you want to help with tax breaks, are working two and three jobs and cannot afford to take care of their children ... do you honestly believe the republican party, especially the neo-con wing of the republican party, gives a damn about them? look at the disgusting values embodied in the recent bankruptcy bill ... do you think the Congress really stuck it to a bunch of freeloaders??? something like half of those who filed for bankruptcy did so because of massive medical bills for which they had no insurance coverage ... do you think the republican party is likely to do anything to solve the healthcare crisis??? trust me, they're not ... the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer ... perhaps this is the natural order of things ... but voting republican won't change that order; that's for sure ... our nation is in decline, uncle ... and you keep voting for the party that has total control of the government ... it seems to me when deficits are sky-rocketing and the nation is being bankrupted, you vote for the other party ... your narrow focus on mangers and guns seems to pale by comparison ...

and finally, let's talk about good global citizenship ... seen any lately? because the US has never been more hated in the world ... is it justified? we've had bush show total disrespect for our long-term allies in europe by referring to them as "old europe" ... we are at war with the nation of Islam ... we have toppled democratically elected regimes all over the world ... have you seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? we've propped up dictatorships and repressive regimes whenever it suits our corporate interests to do so ... we refuse to sign global environmental treaties ... we pollute the air at a wildly disproportionate rate to other countries ... we refuse to seek alternative energy sources but prefer to drill in natural habitats for oil and invade countries rich in oil ...

this is not the America i grew up in ... we used to be the good guys ... we used to be the heroes coming to rescue europe from the nazis ... we used to emphasize the PEACE Corps and instill an idealism in the young to go out in the world and make a difference ... now, especially based on core republican values, we teach our young to go out in the world and "it's every man for himself" ... we have lost our sense of community ... we have lost our sense of idealism ... we have lost a deep respect for our own fragile democracy ... the Democratic Party is far from perfect, uncle ... very far from perfect ... but to vote for bush and his neo-con agenda is truly misguided ... you are putting our nation at risk ... our country is in great peril under a regime that sees democracy as an obstacle to their own power ... and some don't see this danger and are bought off with handgun laws and manger scenes ...

[marions ghost]

95. beautiful post

n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

97. Extremely WELL DONE!

Me, Me, Me is not the answer to anything. Thinking about the BIG PICTURE is. Uncle has clearly lost sight of the forest for the trees (if he ever saw the forest in the first place).

[Tsiyu]

91. Justifications are always interesting

I believe that the hatred for liberals has been going on a loooooong time, and that the ranting on DU is merely a backlash situation. This person fails to listen to all the bashing of liberals going on, and fails to ask himself- "Why should Democrats vote for politicians who say they are bad?" Exactly. This person voted in people who are doing terrible things - killing innocents, using soldiers for greed, attacking the poor - because they love money and violence and hate the poor and anyone who isn't Christian, straight and pro-War and torture.

Should I admire this person because he voted for a madman? I would not persecute him the way his leaders are persecuting MY friends! But I will surely call his choice STUPID and he will just have to deal with that. His own pride has hurt others yet he will not see it.

And the gay issue really killed me. First, he says he accepts gays as parents, then he says their unions aren't valuable because they can't "add" to the next generation. Is this person saying that only the children raised by their two biological parents have value to our society? Gee, all those kids in foster care and orphanages are happy to hear this. No value whatsoever in placing those kids in permananet homes and giving tax breaks to their adoptive parents? None whatsoever, because only the children raised by their original biological parents count to this dude.

Well, I believe if gays could marry and raise children, maybe our foster care system wouldn't be so screwed and maybe our children would all find loving, caring homes and we wouldn't have so many lost kids out there. Because one healthy kid is no more valuable than any other healthy kid. I want ALL KIDS to have a chance at good homes and I want a government that helps ALL parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

As to the guns, I just laugh. Democrats aren't taking anyone's guns, as much as many froth at the mouth to do so. Kerry can use a gun. * would shoot himself.

Sorry, but I find this e-mail to be just the same old, same old crap spewed by Righties to justify the murders they have helped cause. the blood is on this man's hands as well, but he wants to talk about how wonderful he himself is and how DU sometimes "hurt his wittle feelings." Make me puke....people are dying, Dude. Wake up.

[progressivebydesign]

94. Illuminating. But why don't republicans see their own level of hate?

It's wierd to me that everyone buys into the idea that Dems are haters. If your uncle watches TV, which I'm sure he does, can he not see what is spewed forth in 99% of political programming on television? Has he not listened to Rush? Has he not seen Coulter?

I guess average folks miss the nuances when it comes to the religious threads here. We are not anti-Christian, as most people on DU are Christian. We are anti-hypocrite, anti-inserting religion into politics, we are against using religion to control people and make money, we are against people trying to impose THEIR religion on us. The reason few other religions are discussed so vehemently here, is that the other religions are NOT trying to insert themeselves into our daily lives, our schools, our government, and our relations with the world.

I won't go into everything in his email, blow by blow, but he seems well-intentioned, but not thorough in this thought process. My hint for your uncle, who seems to be somewhat willing to learn, DIG DEEPER than reading DU or watching TV. READ the real newspapers and READ media outside America. You'll learn a lot.

[earth mom]

98. Your uncle attempted

to frame his letter in a thoughtful way, but reading between the lines, the underlying theme I got from it is that he wants Christians in power-PERIOD. He wants Christian's to have majority rule, ie. 99% at the school-which is public mind you-or forgetaboutit. :eyes: There was also some mild Catholic bashing going on-comments about the Pope and Kerry. C'mon now, Kerry and the people who supported him are NOT gonna persecute your Uncle and his Christian buddies. That's absurd! :eyes:

The anger your Uncle sees about religion on DU is a direct reflection of the frustration a good many dems feel who want to keep religion OUT of public places such as schools and the government and are fed up with Christians like your Uncle who are too stubborn and blinded to see how this issue is dividing us all. There is NO happy medium.

How much clearer do we need to be about it?

[redqueen]

99. They hate people like me.

Why should he expect any different from this side of the aisle?

Has he looked at Freeperville or the place that sniffs our collective panties? What's he got to say about THEIR hate?

[DistressedAmerican]

106. I Wear Boxer Briefs Thank You!

:evilgrin:

[Skidmore]

101. I would like to ask your uncle about his statement

"I would fear more for myself and XXXXXX if Kerry was in power and the people that despise me and ridicule me were empowered to rule my life."

I find it at once myopic and disconcerting. Has he considered that this very scenario is exactly what liberals and progressives are living out each day of their lives under *? I'd like to know that. Secondly, I'd like to ask him exactly who are "people like me" in his estimation. From what I read, he seems to totally be focused on guns and God in general.

[undeterred]

105. ..

"As we are both christians I am sure you have seen the many threads that simply bash people on their beliefs. I don't see people bashing jews (who aren't real friendly in regards to gays and such, and can be real fundie like), or spending a lot of time bashing islam. Reading some of those threads in the religion forum made me feel awful. Why would I want someone in power whose followers felt that way about me? I have never hurt anyone, I have helped many people, and yet I see myself being portrayed as some sort of sick freak.

The democrats accept many people and groups with open arms, but not people like me. If Du represents the average democratic voter it is no wonder there is so much hostility between them and those of us who are christian. Is it ok to hate people like me, call me names, ridicule my beliefs? If I signed up and started slamming muslims and jews I am guessing I would be kicked out. I don't agree with their views, but I don't go on a public posting place and slam them as being stupid, bigots, idiots, and so on."

[info being]

107. He's no good guy.

Because of his beliefs, he supports and enables evil. Then he wonders why we hate his beliefs? He could use a dose of logic.

[Qanisqineq]

108. I agree with him in some areas

I think Christianity is bashed entirely too much here on DU. And I agree, if Muslims or Jews or Buddhists, etc. were being ridiculed for their beliefs then that poster would be banned. Yet, there are plenty of things to bash Islam about when it comes to women's rights and so many other things. I agree that I don't want religion forced upon me, but their beliefs are their beliefs and I just leave it alone.

Note: This is coming from an atheist.

[Bunny]

110. Well, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists aren't trying to turn America

into a Christian Taliban nation, either.

[The Straight Story]

115. Well the point was about fairness

Religious discussions about other faiths and their lackings are seen as anti-semite or ignorant when it comes to islam (you don't like it, fine, critize islam or muslims and you are a neo-con).

So yeah, attacking fundies is ok - especially in the context you mentioned. But there is a diverse religious view in this country and many other faiths have things worth discussing.

Why try to change but one view and preach to them about how they should change to your beliefs and not do the same for others. If we must preach a belief we hold why limit to one group and attack them only? Preach your belief to them all and use the same measure to measure them all.

Jews, islam, and yes even some american indians are on the wrong side of the gay marriage/rights issue. Lets focus it on the core of it and why we think they are wrong and we are right.

As a christian myself I often feel uncomfortable with the terms here used to refer to me - terms that if I used about other groups would probably get me alerted. Why is that? Is right only right for some?

[Behind the Aegis]

109. The forbidden topic

Seems your uncle may be a tad anti-Semetic. The statement: "I don't see people bashing jews (who aren't real friendly in regards to gays and such, and can be real fundie like)..." is not even accurate. Jews are among the most progressive as far as religious people go. Yeah, there are a few nutjobs, but the VAST majority are progressives, who believe in civil rights for EVERYONE! As for no Jew bashing here.... I will just say :eyes:.

And if he ever finds himself in a mainly Jewish area, he will not have to worry about conversion or proselytizing, can he say the same if he goes to a highly Christian area, where his version of Christianity is not the norm?

[pacalo]

111. I like that your uncle seems to have a sense of fairness.

I was struck by his misconceptions & bias against Democrats, though. Since he didn't mention it, I'm wondering if he listens to Limbaugh & some of the other hate-talk radio hosts who -- to put it nicely -- aren't honest; in fact, they're propagandists who are largely responsible for the lack of common sense we're seeing in Republican-think.

The Democrats may seem full of hatred, but please, put yourself in our shoes, uncle. We have no representation in Washington, & this administration, with help from the fundie radicals, are trying to make sure our courts are filled with extremist, narrow-minded judges, too. We feel that our government was hijacked by my-way-or-the-highway neocons & we (ALL of us) are being held hostage. Hostages do tend to resent their captors & those who aid & abet them.

If you can't understand why we feel the way we do, you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on. When you learn the facts of all the lies (substantial lies that affect our lives, not lies about an affair that had no bearing on this country's direction), then we'll talk & maybe get somewhere other than tit for tat.

[DistressedAmerican]

112. Neocons! Your Are With Them Or You Are Against Them!

I for one will be against them until the last one of them is sent to prison! War criminals and thought police!

[pacalo]

122. I hear ya, DA!

:hi:

[fishnfla]

113. I think your uncle makes some good points

I tried looking thru DU today from his point of view. He makes some valid observations.

[RevCheesehead]

116. I agree.

I won't even enter the Religion and Theology forum anymore.

I will say that I have seen people make an effort to distinguish which Christians they hate, and believe me, that makes a huge difference for someone like me.

I sometimes wonder if we're a bit myopic here, since some people are quick to criticize an opposing view. Yes, there IS Christian-bashing on DU, and some of it is not as "innocent" as people claim. Some of it is posted with the direct intent to inflame. By Dems.

I think we all can learn from this letter, if we read with an open mind and an open heart. We're big enough to do that, aren't we?

Thank you for posting this letter.

[cry baby]

117. This letter proves that FEAR was the major factor in the 2004 election.

In almost every paragraph, your uncle says liberals hate Christians. FEAR!

FEAR of a terrorist attack
FEAR of Christian hating liberals
FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!

I think your uncle is a very nice person, he certainly sounds like it. But I must say something that may sound mean-spirited and I realy don't mean it that way. But SUCK IT UP, MAN, OUR COUNTRY IS FALLING APART AND IT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE OF BUSH AND HIS PEOPLE! We liberal are for live and let live.

Liberals and their people aren't going to do anything to Christians, most liberals and Democrats are Christian, real Christians that want to help their fellow man.

[LightningFlash]

132. It was the F word....

But it wasn't just fear, it was proven fraud.
http://www.votersunite.org

[LightningFlash]

118. Clinton made alot of this BS an issue.

I remember Clinton was apart of PNAC indirectly. The fact is there was lies then on everything regarding nuclear weapons, but all they did was sanction. Yet all of it was still wrong how that was handled.

But it was shortly after Clinton was going to be leaving, that the Iraq program was dismantled. It had already been disarmed during the 90s. So the truth is there was none whatsoever and the small white lie became a huge bold faced lie, by the PRESIDENT.

So the fact is your friend needs to wise up right now, because the lie is real and he purposefully lied to start an illegal war. Since its a documented FACT the nuclear weapons were gone, the lie was forced down the world's throught, and now there's a hellhole with no end in sight and they must be impeached.

[leesa]

120. What's all this poor me crap?

He feels safer with an idiot boy President whose followers don't hate him? What kind of junk is that? I am so sick of their 'poor me' game!

[Misunderestimator]

121. Well, he's definitely a republican, no wonder he doesn't want to sign up.

As for his not minding "gay people being able to adopt, have civil unions, and all that stuff"... um... that's big of you. Thanks.

Oh, and I'm really glad that he feels safer with his fake-Christian president... and if he voted for him in 2004, I'm wondering what the intention is of posting this? To convince him not to use his vote as a weapon next time? To convince us to stop criticizing the Pope? To convince us to stop fighting for equality? I don't get it.

[Guy Fawkes]

125. " I don't see people bashing jews..."

"(who aren't real friendly in regards to gays and such, and can be real fundie like)"

WHA!? Hello! Gay Jew here!

[Lexingtonian]

126. he seems like very nice person

but the Modern world doesn't make sense to him...he wants it to stay in that order, man-made or divine, it has been for fifty or sixty or seventy years.

What is notable about this piece of writing is what is not in there. No notion of how the future should rightly, even Christianly, be made to be truly different from the past.

There's really a certain lack of power, or willingness, to distinguish the moral and the fraudulent there. A lot of acceptance of barbarity and unwillingness to question and a reliance on authority.

It's very traditional, people live that way in societies that are colonially organized. But it certainly doesn't have that prophetic quality of "Justice, justice shalt thou seek." It accepts that might is right, assumes the Natural order of things that paganism revolved around to be beyond question. I wonder if he reads the words of the Prophets as "hate" rather than as angry sorrow and passion.

I guess the bottom line is that he senses the paganized Christianity that is largely the norm in the United States is under threat from the Modern world, and he doesn't quite understand that all the parts taken from 'tradition', i.e. pre-Christian European paganism, are what troubles people of our stripe. Not the actual Gospel and Pauline teachings, but all the accretions from fertility cultism and death cultism and other forms of nature deity. We have no argument with the Sermon on the Mount, the Law of Love, or the Ten Commandments in unadulterated form. But that would be to admit to the syncretism and corruption inherent in European and American Christianity, indeed post-Pauline Christianity in most of its forms.

This is hard to bear if one has lived without questioning the interpretations one was given of these things for all of one's life. But that is what the politics of the present is all about- the testing of all the society's conventions and the razing of all that is not truly solid. A transformation is taking place and a lot of crutches are being kicked out from under people, on the Right and on the Left and in the Center too ultimately.

[retnavyliberal]

131. Great Post. I think your Uncle and I could share a beverage...

and have some very nice debates.

Please pass to him that there are many people here and I think that sometimes the ones that I would call fringe tend to be more vocal so it seems they are everywhere. Dems in my world are tollerant of others.

Please pass along that I, for one, would welcome a person like him here to provide insite to other points of view. I totally understand why he would not want to join. I have seen (and been on the asbestos wearing side of) the flamewars. Not that much fun.