Never fails! When Bush has poll problems they use the "under God" thing.

[madfloridian]

Always, they do it every time. It is so obvious. They have done it for 4 years now, every time he slips in the polls. Every damn time.

You would think they would be smart enough to see that we had caught on, but it just shows they are not very clever about such things.

Here is the Dear Howard Dean letter, urging him to stop the bad people from doing this. It is like they time it...perfect timing. Bush goes down, the words "under God" are at crisis again.

Here is the article. Heck, I have not seen Governor Dean's letter about John Roberts yet except in the Providence Journal. But they are expecting him to take up the pledge mantra.

http://www.pressconnects.com/today/opinion/stories/op091805s191512.shtml

Memo to Howard Dean, chairman, National Democratic Party and enemy of all that real Americans hold dear.

DAVID ROSSIE Commentary
Dear Dr. Dean:

As you may have already learned, a judge with the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that requiring school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, thereby bringing our great Republic once again to the brink of moral if not physical collapse.

The judge, Lawrence Karlton, ruled in response to a suit brought by a busybody named Michael Newdow who is an avowed atheist and who had sued earlier, on behalf of his daughter, to have the pledge declared unconstitutional. That suit was tossed because Newdow doesn't have custody of his child. This time he sued on behalf of the children of some other people who were apparently too busy to do it themselves.

Why am I bringing this to your attention, Dr. Dean, you may ask? I'll tell you. It is because of silly lawsuits like this and your crowd's failure to capitalize on them that Democrats are on the outside looking in -- government-wise, that is."

PS: Keep an eye out in your papers the next few days. See if they print his letter about Roberts. Just curious if they do. I have a feeling if it does not get printed the media is doing it on purpose.

Here is his letter:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_verdict_on.php

[applegrove]

1. I would be curious to find out where the money comes to fund

the "stop god" movement. I know it is ACLU or at times other groups. But do they know where their money comes from?

Cause we know Nader got some from the Repukes last time.

Just curious.

[Kenroy]

3. The legal work here is all being done

by an individual, Michael Newdow, an outspoken atheist.

[applegrove]

5. I think atheists can handle mention of god.

[Kenroy]

7. And I think believers

can handle not having it in the pledge. But it's not about what you or I think - it's about what's constitutional.

[madfloridian]

10. You are missing my point.

I don't care what is in the pledge, I remember back when those words were not there. There was a lot of controversy when they were put in.

The point is that it gives the right wing something to be outraged about instead of focusing on Bush as a total complete failure.

They drag out the righteous indignation.

[Kenroy]

12. But you're missing my point, too

you imply in your original post that the timing of this is suspect - as if it's a right-wing plot to somehow drive support back to Bush.

I have asked a few questions about how this occurred, but you've ignored them.


I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm just trying to understand how a legal process that has gone on for many many years was timed to coincide with Bush's falling poll numbers? How as involved? Newdow? The Judge? The entire 9th Circuit?

Seems pretty elaborate.

[madfloridian]

15. I have no clue.

I know it from experience. You need to research the chain mails. If you don't know the sites to do that....look up chain mails.

[Kenroy]

16. This is about chain mails?

Do I have to pass this on to 20 people?

I'm kidding.

But seriously, I'm asking about your assertion. Do you believe last week's court decision was PLANNED to coincide with Bush's falling poll numbers? If so, HOW was it done, and WHO was involved?

[madfloridian]

19. Am backing off.

I feel there is an effort to bait, backing off.

I think such issues can be brought forth whenever and wherever they wish. The right wing as immense power. They have the power to squelch and the power to bring forth.

[Kenroy]

21. I apologize

I wasn't baiting. I made a lame joke about chain mails.

I'm simply asking you to explain yourself. I very honestly don't understand how it a legal process that has gone on for five years now was intentionally coordinated to help Bush's poll numbers.

I'm just asking you to explain how it was done. And why it was done? Bush can't run for re-election. What does it matter?

[applegrove]

23. Chain mails do carry propaganda. There was one out there in

freeper land that was written as if by a democrat who used patronizing and hateful slurs against Jewish people & Israel - via racial slurs normally use by white southerners against black Americans.

It happens.

Chain mail happens.

So do Repukes exploiting fear.

So do Repukes funding far left causes (Nadir) to divide Dems or scare their base.

It was a perfectly good question. Where does this fight to do something many of us are not overly concerned with come from.

The answer could be that Dems are just not as much of a fascist "tight bundle of wood" as Repukes - so some people say & do what they want with no prompting from the Right Wing machine.

But it is a perfectly normal thing to worry about others having fears provoked in them.

It happens all the time in the USA.

It happens here at the DU. It happens in chain mail.

[applegrove]

20. He is just saying that Repukes exploit fears. You can bet that on

that email - they didn't talk about how many Dems really don't think it is an issue.

[Kenroy]

22. I have said three times

that they exploit fears. That's not news.

The original poster, however, has implied that the court decision was deliberately timed to help Bush's falling poll numbers, and I don't see how that was accomplished. I'm just asking for some more insight into how and why this was done.

[applegrove]

25. And then the discussion blossoms into how that could happen and

who is this person who went to court and where did his money come from. And we think it through.

You work through your fears. You learn to be more discerning. It is a whole long course in how to think critically about liars and how to figure it all out without falling into traps.

Work it through with people. Relax.

[Kenroy]

29. Please help me work it through

As far as I know, the only "financing" in this is having one amateur lawyer work on it. But let's presume you're right - Newdow is a right-wing tool.

How did they KNOW 5 years ago that Bush's polling numbers would be falling last week?

How did they get to Judge Karlton? Was he a right-wing plant when Carter put him on the federal bench? Or is Carter in on the deal himself?

I'm willing to be educated, but I need more than a blatant assertion that has absolutely zero evidence behind it.

[applegrove]

31. Someone asked a question. I didn't know the answers. i asked

another question. Got some answers. Now we back off the question.

The discussion could and did turn into one about Chain mail and circulated propaganda. It evolved. Some of us learnt something we didn't know.

We'll do it again sometime.

And again.

And get to be really discerning along the way. It takes practice. And using adult tools of might, compassion, discernment, experience and the like - we'll get better and better at getting through the bullshit.


And we will not be so easily divided by the propaganda. And well come together and be able to work really hard in the next elections.

If you show up for work and are handed a volunteer who knows nothing but fear about Bush and will believe just about anything - what are you going to do? How are you going to work together? I would hope that you in your wisdom and the power that comes with that - would be able to help a little chick along the way and explain why perhaps mentioning diebold to people on their front suburban landscape is not the way to go. And you would be excellent at this because you have been through it so many times. And you know they come from an honest but less discerning place than you.

How I see it anyway...

[Kenroy]

33. I don't understand

how do we cut through bullshit if we rely on rumors, innuendo, outrageous conspiracy theories and silly accusations?

I thought cutting through bullshit meant exactly the opposite.

[applegrove]

36. Discernment is learned. And needs to be practiced. It is one of those

things that takes a while. So give it a while. And walk a chick through it. Or someone who may be older than you - and very scared about social security. People's fears are different - and trust me all our fears have been activated. Those with experience with people who practice the darker arts - or more intellect - or even something as simple as fearlessness - may not find the discernment issue as tough as others.

When you come across an asshole who is just arguing for some other reason - go at them with all guns. Mano et Mano. But I and many others come to this tough nut from a nicer place. And sometimes you need to appeal to who we are, what fears we are facing, to keep the discussion and the lessons of discernment going.

I have the patience of a saint. Always have. If it isn't for you - great. But that is what I do.

[Kenroy]

40. So

by not asking questions, I will learn discernment?

But believing what I'm told without question, I will gain wisdom?

[applegrove]

43. No - ask the questions. And the discussion continues. Or takes

a turn. But teach as you ask. And learn to be a teacher. Teach it!

So that in a while - maybe a few months/in a year - we will be closer to being on the same page. All together almost. And ready for election time. And discernment more widespread than before. And even if it isn't - it will not be such a shock to our systems that we cannot work through it come elections.

IMHO

[Kenroy]

45. I have asked the questions

many times. Maybe you can answer them without getting all Kung-Fu Master on me.

Was this timed to help Bush?

Was Judge Karlton purposely trying to help Bush?

Was this suit filed 5 years ago in order to help Bush today?

Was the entire 9th circuit in on it?

All simple yes/no questions.

And here's an essay question: WHY would they do this? Bush can't run for reelection. WHY would so many people be involved in such a huge, long conspiracy for the very miminal gain it gives Bush by having his minions send out chain letters?

[applegrove]

49. I asked and the questions were answered. I no longer worry in this

case. Sounds good to me. But it does bring up the whole issue of fax trees and chain mails. And bush using fear to wedge his base & fear to wedge the democrats.

I'm glad this guy didn't accept money from the GOP like Nader did.

I wish there was a way to stop people minding their own lives to be forced to listen to chain mail rumor.

I wish we could teach the discernment we talk about & yell about & but on the whole moves the discussion along here to a more adult & sharp one - on to people who are getting GOP talking points.

Democrats do not control their base in the same way the GOP does. So messages and variety erupts - and is healthy. But it gets easily exploited by the GOP.

[Kenroy]

51. I missed your answers

Was this a plan to help Bush's polling numbers, 5 years in the making?

Was Newdow involved? Was Judge Karlton? Was Jimmy Carter? Was the entire 9th Circuit? Were the families Newdow represents?

All yes or no questions.

[applegrove]

56. I answered in the wrong place. Sorry. Yes - the question was

answered by the person who pointed out that the guy is a real atheist. That is all I needed to hear. And then the discussion continues. I worry not one lick about any of those other questions. Because they have no meaning to me. My questions has moved on to other issues. Since I understand the complainant to be a true atheist activist - I have the answer to the original worry posted.

So in this case - it is not germaine to even think about the follow-up questions. Because I have moved on from there.

Logic doesn't follow that I would have more questions when I got a satisfactory answer. One - I assume is based on reality and truth because I have no reason to doubt the person who gave me the information.

[Kenroy]

57. I'm glad you have moved on

That's a very nice way of saying you cannot answer any of the questions put to you at least 5 times.

I thought this would be the case. For all your Kung-Fu Master condescension, you can't even make the barest attempt to back up the silly assertion you're supporting, and you realize that it would be embarrassing to even try.

Well since I'd hate to embarrass you, I'll just move on myself.

But first, you must snatch the blade of grass from my hand...

[Rich Hunt]

84. exactly

It has nothing to do with "stopping God".

Unless one means "stopping people who have appointed themselves God's regent on earth". :evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I can "handle" a lot of things, but forcing my KID to pray to them in

PUBLIC SCHOOL is a whole nother matter, thank you very much.

[applegrove]

28. If you are doing an oath to anything - that is one matter. If you are

doing and oath and god's name is included - that is another. Praying is something else entirely. The oath is political no?

[Kenroy]

30. Forcing school children

to acknowledge God is a violation of the first Amendment.

I can't believe it's even debatable.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Not the "Under God" part, no.

It was not part of the original pledge, and anyone with a decent understanding of the establishment clause should be able to grasp why it doesn't belong in a coerced daily recitation foisted on CHILDREN. Hell, *I* knew it didn't belong there when I was in grade school, back in the stone age, and at that point "Atheist" was NOT an acceptable answer to the question "What religion are you?"

People who don't see any problem with it should ask themselves, honestly, if they would feel the same if it was "Under Buddha", or "Under Krishna", or "Under Mohammed", or "Under Zeus", or "Under Eris", or "Under Satan", or, my personal preference, "Under The Flying Spaghetti Monster"

[applegrove]

37. That is the whole point. God can mean the creator. God is just a word.

To the religious it means something specific. To agnostics it means - okay - whatever it is and I don't know - under that mystery. To an atheist it means - under whatever the hell these people are all talking about because it means something to them. - but it is a human thing to believe this way so i will relax and just say "under humanity & all its variations cause boy are their some".

It isn't terribly hard to do. You can even keep your mouth shut and learn to be a stand-out individual if that is the way you have to go.

It is about being under something greater than you. And if that thing is compassion than that is fine.

Oaths used to be a big issue when you had to pledge to something specific you absolutely didn't believe in or get kicked outside the country. Ask Louisianans about that sometime. They lived in the garden of eden in NS for two hundred years and had to pick up and leave because they were incapable of pledging to the oath the Brits said they had to.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. If that's what one needs to do to make their 12 step program work

then more power to 'em.

Sure, you can play all kinds of semantic gymnastics with the word "God" and "being under something greater than you". You know, "God" as a doorknob, or a tree, or compassion, or what-have-you. That's great- FOR YOU.

But we're still talking about forcing kids to say something every day, and "God" is a SPECIFIC, RELIGIOUS concept. Try explaining to a six year old that what you really mean is "compassion", or "humanity in all its infinite variations". If that's what the pledge is trying to impart, then it should say those things.

Or, If you want to impart respect for the concepts the country was founded upon, I think "One Nation With Liberty and Justice For All" does just fine.

(Shit, I'd rather have kids take that time every day to learn the Constitution, instead of saying a pledge by rote. Much more patriotic and meaningful.)

While you seem to be saying that atheists and other unbelievers in "God" (which you know perfectly well means the western, biblical concept of "God". It's not "Gods", and it's not "Jah", it's not "The Force", and its not "The Great Spirit" or "Compassion", or "The Universe".) should just 'suck it up' vis a vis the pledge.... or, better yet, we should be more humble- about the whole thing. (jeez, like I've never heard that backdoor attempt from a would-be proseltyzer before! :eyes:)

what you don't seem to want to get is that there is absolutely no need for "Under God" to be in the pledge. No religious person is going to be harmed by taking it out, no virginal young women will be deflowered because it isn't there, and contrary to what mr. head-up-his-ass letter writer is saying, taking it out won't cause the "moral collapse of the republic".


Hey, here's one more for ya- how would you feel if it was "Under Goddess?"

[applegrove]

41. In a democracy if it matters to some people - and doesn't take

economic opportunity or rights away from others - you let it slide.
You try and get along. Some people win some things, some others. If you walk around and want everything exactly so - how are we different that the rich who don't want to pay taxes to be part of their greater community?

If the issue is not so important to you or your kids, but is to others - you let it go.

The point is you do not get everything you want in democracy. You get what you need most you hope. Church and State should be separate. A pledge - under god? Well why not expose your kids to other religions. It may be inherent & within them. And they usually decide that for themselves as teens. If they are agnostic or atheist or religious to one degree or another.

Keep the Ten Commandments away from the courts. Yes!

IMHO.

[Kenroy]

44. How come

your line in the sand should be OUR line in the sand?

You want the 10 commandments out of courts.

Some of us want God out of the pledge.

Why is YOUR position OK, but ours is a case of "not letting the small things slide"?

You think it's a matter of degree - so do we. We think there should be NO state-imposed religion on schoolchildren. You believe a small amount is acceptable, in the interest of "getting along".

But you must realize that many people believe that allowing the 10 Commandments in courtrooms should be acceptable in the interest of just "getting along". And many people believe organized prayer in schools in Jesus' name should be allowed in the interest of "just getting along".

Everybody has a line in the sand - how are you so sure that yours is drawn in the right place and everybody else's is wrong? Wouldn't it be simpler just to say the line is at the end zone - NO religion enforced by the state anywhere, anytime, for anybody. Why try to accommodate SOME exceptions in the interest of "getting along"? We'd all get along just fine and dandy if we all agreed to keep God out of our government altogether. We only fight when people (like you) tell us to accept some degree of your religion.

[applegrove]

46. I am saying there should be compromise. If we scream at rich people

who want to not pay a rate of taxes different than the middle class - are we not hypocrites? If we draw a line and say - I do not want to have to give up a little - to live in a democracy.

Fact is - democracies only work when you give in a little (occasionally alot) again and again and again.

I don't have kids. Being an agnostic I might feel differently and less philosophical if I did. I like the mix of democracy. I also think it is very human to believe in god. So human that it is universal almost by culture. Not by person. But it is part of the deal. As is fighting off elites who when they get too high on the mountain try and make themselves god or at least control it to serve their narrow & narcissistic ends.

[Kenroy]

47. But you didn't answer my question

why is forcing school-children to acknowledge God an acceptable compromise, but having the 10 Commandments in court unacceptable?

Why is YOUR line in the sand correct, and ours is wrong? You have condescended to me repeatedly here about my youth, lack of discernment, lack of patience, etc. But what you have NOT done is answer any of the concrete questions that the original post raises.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this court case was designed, planned and implemented so as to give George Bush a bump in the polls in September, 2005?

[applegrove]

50. Because the law says separation of Church & State and a Court

House is the law. The ten commandments are particular to the Jewish and Christian faiths and deny all others. None of the laws apply to the rule of law that will be discussed inside the court house. Justice is blind.

Schools - public ones you hope - teach kids about the world outside their homes. And in doing so - teach kids about themselves.

[Kenroy]

53. You seem incapable

of answering any questions put to you, but you expect me to accept your silly assertion that a 26-year old conspiracy was finalized last week, all in the interests of possibly giving a lame-duck president a 2% bump in the polls.

I think I'll pass.

[applegrove]

59. I didn't assert there was a conspiracy someone else did. I asked

question. With Nader the GOP did get into some future oriented divisiveness. Got a satisfactory answer. I've moved on. Why would I answer questions about something that isn't an issue for me. And that I don't care about.

I never knew anything about 26 years. Or Jimmy Carter. Those were not the in the original thread. Someone asked something. I wondered. I got great information to my particular worry. The worry is gone. Worry discounted that GOP had anything to do with encouraging hate against their own people. They will just go back to exploiting that worry amongst there own people like they always do. Conspiracy or 26 years are not an issue for me. They don't follow where this discussion has gone or my feelings on it. That is why I don't answer you because your questions are not germaine.

It is a non-issue for me. Why can't you let go? Everyone else has moved on to more discussion that has meaning.

[Kenroy]

60. I will let it go

because it's very obvious that you can't defend your position beyond some shao-lin psychobabble bullcrap.

You haven't answered ONE single question, even the simplest of them. You can't because even YOU know you would embarrass yourself if you tried.

[applegrove]

61. I don't answer questions that are off topic. I did answer the question

about church & state. That was on topic.

[Kenroy]

62. I see

so the original post of this thread states that this court decision was a deliberate right-wing attempt to help Bush, but when I ask for evidence of that, it's off-topic.

I do not believe you. I believe you have a gut-feeling about something that you can't express without fear of embarrassing yourself, because you realize there is no evidence for it, and you have no evidence.

And you did not answer any of my important questions on church/state issues. You simply stated where YOUR line in the sand is drawn and ignored every other question and point I made.

It's been like having a discussion with my cat. I sometimes thinks he understands me, but mostly all I get back is a lot of mewling.

[Az]

63. The notion that it was deliberate is ridiculous

The procedures were in motion long before the storm ever showed up on radar.

[Kenroy]

66. ah

but you ignore the fact that H.A.A.R.P. was used to create the hurricane in the first place in order to divert attention from the Downing Street memo. Or Plamegate... I forget which.

The fact is, if the right-wing had 1 one-thousandth of the nefarious power people here believe they have, Bush wouldn't be in any trouble in the first place. He'd be President-for-life with a 99% approval rating, and the remaining 1% would be shot.

[Az]

68. Its a big group of people with wide array of opinions

Some of them are going to have ideas that others find out there.

[applegrove]

73. That is my whole point with this person. They say they don't believe

my answer - so what am I to do?

I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories. And I talk about that all the time.

George Bush being nepharious & having nepharious friends? They admit it. They write about it. Read up on Neocon history. Watch the news.

They did fund Nader in the last election. For fun.

They didn't - obviously - have anything to do with an athiest activist. And had i known that from the thread title I would never have asked the question that told me so. And answered any worry I had that the GOP had anything to do with this decision. They'll just exploit it. Like they do with any other fear.

[applegrove]

72. I don't believe in any of those things. And bush did lie and use the

attacks on 9/11 to get compliance. It has already been done. Don't say it hasn't. Everyone in the free world knows that.

[applegrove]

71. Yes thank you. I got that with my first question. And then tried to

move on to the related topics of "how to be discerning in a political world filled with talking points" "how do we fight against lies that get sent to us here at the DU or lies that get sent to others".

[applegrove]

70. Well if you do not believe me then there is no possible way i could

ever answer any question of any kind that you ever asked of me. Because you didn't believe my first answer - you made up that i was secretly lying or hiding. And I wasn't. So you kept asking me follow - up questions. And why would someone answer a question when you refused to believe my response to the first one. That is just plain rude. You don't know me. Think how it felt for me. You did not listen to my response to the first question. So no wonder I felt like not answering anymore.

This sentence here:

"I do not believe you. I believe you have a gut-feeling about something that you can't express without fear of embarrassing yourself, because you realize there is no evidence for it, and you have no evidence."

You are putting quite a lot on me when you don't know me at all. You are assuming lots. You are going with your gut. But good that we know - because now we can agree that it isn't something you should always go on. Especially on the boards. It is hard to know everything about a stranger. I clearly told you what my answer was and repeated it. You choose not to listen or hear me. I chose not to answer any more questions. Because the first one didn't go too well.

And i didn't know exactly why you refused to hear the answer I gave you. And I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply replied that you were not listening to me and my answer. And tried to keep the discussion going so that we could get to the bottom of it finally.

I am very discerning. I know stuff about the world. I am not naive enough to assume nothing ever goes on behind the scenes with politics or any other situation where nefarious liars congregate. And I am not inexperienced enough to not ask quick questions and get quick answers. I did. As is my routine.

And outside - from someoone who I don't know is a person who was asking and not listen ting. So i took the time to explain myself. And how hard i try to listen. And how hard I try to follow the argument when it is possible. I explained how the logic of answering more questions didn't make any sense since I had on the whole completely answered all of those questions myself - by asking them to someone who answered me. And now we know that it was something going on with you that made you incapable of hearing me. We know that.

Guts are often right. Sometimes - when we make assumptions about things we go off track. And communication breaks down as it did here.

I am not one for conspiracy theories. Even as a child i laughed at JFK conspiracies in a book. Age & experience has taught me that there are bad people in the world. And not everything is as it seems - some people - a rare few - lie every time they open their mouths. That is scary and rare - a bad lesson. So I ask questions to get answers. And then I am closer to the truth. I skeptical of much. That makes me discerning. But I listen - or try to - i am not perfect and am better at that online than in person. But I wouldn't have lied to you or myself with my answers. That does nothing for me.
Now you know me. Hopefully we will not lock horns again and understand each other better the next time.

[Kenroy]

77. What's not to believe?

you won't tell me what you believe.

Buried beneath all your words is... a void.

Do you believe the timing of this was part of a right-wing conspiracy?

I honestly don't know what you believe because I've asked you that so many times and you won't answer. How can we have a discussion if you won't even state the most basic belief about the truth or falsehood of the assertion made in the original post?

Oh... that's right. You moved on a long time ago. But yet you keep responding, but not with any answers to simple questions.

Do you believe the timing of this was part of a right-wing conspiracy? It's such a simple, obvious question and entirely pertinent to the topic at hand - it's the assertion made by the original poster.

There can be no misunderstanding if you refuse to provide me with something to either understand or misunderstand. Right now, all we have is avoidance, obfuscation, condescension and disingenuousness.

I would relish the chance to actually discuss the topic at hand with you, but you refuse to even make the most benign claim about it, so I guess we're at a standstill.

[applegrove]

79. I have answered you again and again. No. I've answered you

so many times. No. I do not believe. And I have not from the 4th post. Why won't you accept that?

And on to the next points since somehow I think it will sink in this time.

What about the chain mail? Cause the fact that some atheist did get a law overturned will be used by the GOP machine to inspire fear. And I hate tribalism that is being created. Don't you?

[Kenroy]

82. Tribalism?

Political disagreements are tribalism?

Yes, they'll use the cause for their advantage. Just like we'll use their anti-choice position against them. It's politics - that's how it works. You appeal to your side by magnifying the things about the other side that your side hates. They do it, we do it, and probably to little effect on issues like this one.

I don't know why people are so excited over this issue. It's a mundane constitutional issue, and removing it from the pledge would really be a very minor change, and a simple restoration of the pledge as it was originally adopted.

I don't understand why that position is considered radical, but the position that the state should compel children to acknowledge "God" is considered mainstream. I think YOU'RE buying into the Republican propaganda.

I've never met a single person who thought it was vitally important to keep "God" in the pledge, and would change their vote in order to make that happen. It's meat to the hard-core, but so what?

WHY on Earth should democrats kow-tow to the hard-right on this issue? It's like abortion - people SUPPORT choice in this country, but you'd think that half the party would be willing to sell it out just to win some congressional seats. It's not only bad morality, it's bad politics.

Democrats should stand up ssquarely against all forms of fundamentalism in this country, and they can EASILY make the case that it's not anti-god, or anti-religion, but PRO-CONSTITUTION.

[applegrove]

85. Inserting wedges is tribalism. Yes. Especially when one party

in particular sees the might in getting a big tent by causing bickering. GOP philosophers write about their love of Disraeli. And he wrote about how the conservative party in Britain - to get people to vote against their own best interests if they were poor (conservatives in Britain were very elite and on represented the needs of a very few) by making issues out of Patriotism. By inventing patriotism (or perhaps copying from the french) you get people to vote against economic interest and for something that can be exciting & sexy and doesn't cost much to deliver on (or may fit the needs of the elite like empire expansion).

The poor in 19th century england were poor. They only benefited from colonial wars when they moved and took land away from home.

That was the 19th century in England.

And outside of England the British instituted a policy of tribalism. Indirect rule it was called. Throughout the empire they played up differences between cultural groups. And gave power to the tribal chiefs. So the people couldn't get together and say "hey - this is our country - why do the english own everything". It worked like a charm in Africa, India, Canada, & elsewhere. For a long, long time.

And often - when those countries were finally free of colonial control - they imploded. The groups fighting for something - a country - that they had never shared with each other. One group or another got power. Violence still erupts.

The same as when the neocons decided on a policy of playing one group off against the next. The neocons identified cultural protestants as one group. They identified religion as a way to rule from above. They identified "gays" and an unresolved issue in the churches they could exploit to keep churches away from Liberals. They could exploit tax cuts (which was the issue they were really interested in being conservative) as something that would play to the racist base in the south. And then they went to work. They used patriotism too.

Abortion has always been there as an issue. Racism too - but not expressed as tax cuts and hatred for those not consuming products.

And unlike a benevolent government that tries to fix problems - the neos use and encourage the issues that make great wedges.

Expedient for sure. Ruling different electoral groups through a hierarchy of leaders who get paid handsomely with power. Not democratic at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. It's not a front burner issue for me

but that's not the same thing as rolling over and saying "It's o.k. to have it in there, why not?"

[charlie]

8. Oddly

he's an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. He's also begun a second "religious" institution, the First Amendmist Church of True Science.

[Kenroy]

9. LOL

good for him.

He's a bit too humorless for my tastes, but I respect his dedication. I also happen to believe it's unconstitutional to force schoolchildren to acknowledge a God.

[Rich Hunt]

83. I get the ACLUs newsletters

I don't think "stopping God" is high on their list of priorities.

They take civil liberties cases as they come.

[Kenroy]

2. Judge Karlton was appointed to the court

by Jimmy Carter. He was upholding a previous court ruling - in fact, he could do nothing else. The Supreme Court did not vacate the 9th Circuit's ruling, so it still stands.

A lawsuit was brought again by Michael Newdow, representing two families with children in public schools.

How is this a right-wing conspiracy to protect Bush? Did this judge and Michael Newdow and the entire 9th Circuit start this process 5 years ago in anticipation of a slump in the President's poll numbers?

[madfloridian]

4. We have followed this pattern on some mailing lists I belong to.

Not political lists, other. Suddenly we would all start getting these chain letters about the evil liberals who are taking God out of the pledge, or the evil liberals who are trying to stop prayer in schools.

Pretty soon it was very obvious. It is just not getting as much attention now. And it is not just Newdow. It is involving a mass release by the right wing of chain mails....same ones are recycled.

[Kenroy]

6. I think republicans

have been circulating that stuff non-stop for years. Maybe people just notice it more at these times?

How do you suppose they orchestrated this? They put Karlton on the court 26 years ago (having duped Jimmy Carter) and then persuaded Newdow to file his first lawsuit many years ago, ALL knowing that Bush would be in trouble in September of 2005?

Things happen all the time that are independent of the President's poll numbers.

[madfloridian]

11. How do they orchestrate it?

Through their spin machine. Read David Brock's book, The Republican Noise Machine.

The word goes out, then it is spread out through right wing radio and emails.

[Kenroy]

13. I've read Brock

My question is not about how the Right Wing takes these issues and magnifies them to their own benefit.

My question is how is the timing of this suspicious, as you imply in your original post?

Was the judge involved? Is Newdow a tool for the right wing conspiracy? Was Jimmy Carter in on it? The entire 9th Circuit, or just a majority of them?

[madfloridian]

14. We have discussed it here before.

I am sorry but they do this every time. When the polls are down for Bush they come out with the pious outrage.

It is just too coincidental. I could go to the chain mail sites and find them, but I am not going to do that.

We almost had to close down one list to some people when Bush had problems. It is a technique.

I feel pretty sure I have made my case, just from my experience and the experience of our mailing list. I don't know how they do it, but they do.

Sometime it is prayer in school also.

[Kenroy]

17. I've already said

that of course they spin these things and magnify them in order to benefit themselves. I would hope the Democrats do the same exact thing - that's how politics works.

So we AGREE that they magnify these issues. My question is do you believe the TIMING of the Judge's decision last week was intentionally set to match Bush's falling poll numbers?

[applegrove]

27. Grover Norqhuests Wednesday Meeting with the GOP pundits,

direct mailers & politicos. Then out onto the fax tree.

[Kenroy]

32. Yes

of course they send out talking points. I would be very disappointed to learn the Democrats don't do the same thing.

But the issue is not whether they use these issues to their own (perceived) advantage, but whether they ORCHESTRATE them to their own advantage. If the latter is true, then Newdow, the entire 9th Circuit, the two families Newdow is representing, and possibly Jimmy Carter are all part of the right wing conspiracy that has spent 26 years planning to prop up George W. Bush's polling numbers in September of 2005, despite the fact that he can't run for President again.

Or... sometimes things just happen independent of the President's polling numbers.

Which is more likely?

[applegrove]

38. Oh - I think since we know that the guy is a real atheist - we are

satisfied.

Let's continue on the discussion and talk about how the GOP does do some bad stuff. And what things should we look out for.

[Kenroy]

42. I keep asking and asking

and nobody has offered any answers.

Is Judge Karlton a tool of the right wing?

Is the entire 9th circuit a tool of the right wing?

Is Jimmy Carter a tool of the right wing?

Is Michael Newdow a tool of the right wing?

Was all this planned 5 years ago, in order to help Bush?

WHY was it planned, considering Bush can't run for re-election?

You can philosophize all you want about discernment and patience and gods, but do me a very small favor and answer the questions above.

[applegrove]

52. I asked and the questions were answered. So we move on.

I no longer worry in this case. Sounds good to me. But it does bring up the whole issue of fax trees and chain mails. And bush using fear to wedge his base & fear to wedge the democrats.

I'm glad this guy didn't accept money from the GOP like Nader did.

I wish there was a way to stop people minding their own lives to be forced to listen to chain mail rumor.

I wish we could teach the discernment we talk about & yell about & but on the whole moves the discussion along here to a more adult & sharp one - on to people who are getting GOP talking points.

Democrats do not control their base in the same way the GOP does. So messages and variety erupts - and is healthy. But it gets easily exploited by the GOP.

[Kenroy]

54. Perhaps you can

point me to the answers.

Simple yes or no questions:

Was Judge Karlton part of a right-wing conspiracy to help Bush's poll numbers?

Was Newdow a part of it?

Was Jimmy Carter a part of it?

Was the entire 9th Circuit part of it?

Four simple yes/no answers will be sufficient.

[applegrove]

65. No. Like I said at the start - all I wanted to know was who funded

the guy who made the complaint. And who the complainant was. I didn't know the answers to these question. I got them. That makes all the other questions No, no, no, no, no. But I haven't actually read them or know what you are talking about or which district or who hired the judge because the issue was asked and answered before. There never was a conspiracy. Someone else asked that question. I asked follow-ups and the rest of us went on to other things.

What i was interested in is that there was a question on the trends associated with the GOP and exploiting fear. And they are trends and patterns. That is where my interest lied. Do you understand. I got my answer before you and I began to discuss it. And so I've moved on. Why would logic lead you to think that if i believe the guy is an atheist activist - after the first question - why would I need to consider any more questions having to do with the worries of someone else - and how you define those worries of someone else - why would I need to answer those questions.

I don't understand why you want me to answer questions that are not about what we are discussing.

Your logic implies that having answered no, no, no, no & no to questions I didn't want to answer because they didn't follow, your logic implies that you will now have forty more along the same conspiratorial lines.

The first question asked and answered answers all of your follow-ups. So why can't you follow that. In my case you had the answer when I said I was sure the guy was an atheist activist. I had no questions anymore. My first answer answered all your other questions.

You didn't need more information from me. You didn't need answers to that question. You had your answers. The questions didn't follow.

[Kenroy]

67. OK...

I'll answer. The funding comes from Michael Newdow. He's a volunteer in this case. It really doesn't cost much to file lawsuits.

See how easy it is to answer direct questions?

Do you believe the timing of this legal decision was orchestrated by the right wing? Why can't you answer that one simple question?

Oh right... you've moved on. But yet you're here. Another zen riddle.

[applegrove]

74. Because i am frustrated you will not listen to my answers. There

never was a conspiracy. Someone asked - I said - he'll lets see. I asked one question. Got the answer I needed to discount it - mostly for them. At that point it was over.

I answered no, no, no, no, You tell me you keep asking cause you don't believe my answers. The answer is no. The first answer answers all of that. I know nothing about these people or the trial nor do I care. I do care that the GOP will find a way to exploit it.

I care that I can come here and ask and answer a question and be heard. I care because i am patient. I didn't know why you couldn't hear. And now you have answered. Because you are not listening to me or hearing my answers.

So when does this end? I have no beef with you. Personally I'd like you to answer my question on Democracy: the rich not sharing their wealth in the GOP to be part of the greater community so does not sharing spiritual space make us any less selfish when it is a little thing that will not affect the outcome of a child's livf or the lifestyle of the family?

I would like to say I'd like you to answer that question of mine - but i fear - since you do not believe in my answers, how will you believe in my questions.

[Kenroy]

78. Those are all fine topics to discuss

but not in this thread.

This thread is about the assertion that this pledge case was orchestrated to give Bush a bump in the polls.

I'm trying to figure out what you believe about that topic. It's become very very clear, though, that you're not going to tell me what you believe about that topic in any simple way.

yes or no? Such a huge waste of effort on both our parts here.... it could be answered with two or three keystrokes and then we could all move on, as you said you did an hour ago

[applegrove]

80. Threads have a life of their own. They ebb and flow. Questions

get asked and answered and the discussion moves on.

Does talking about 'atheism as a conspiracy' despite nobody is on that topic give you a payoff?

Cause threads move around and people move on. People talk about their worries. I hope you understand that. I hope you understand that nobody has to answer your questions when you don't listen to their first answers.

By. We are not interested in the same discussion. I tried to get to the bottom of it. But you just want to talk about some long past worry. i hope you find someone. I may have been way too patient.

[Kenroy]

86. Yes

I apologize for repeating the question after it was answered, but it's been difficult to follow all the sub-threads here.

But it DID take some effort to get answers, especially when your initial answers were very round-about (What does Nader have to do with this?)

Now... to the topic under discussion:

I'm glad we now agree that such a conspiracy did not exist.

[applegrove]

88. Nadir has to do with it because the GOP has a record of encouraging

divisiveness within the democratic party - and in Nadir's case they even went so far as to fund his 2004 run.

The Nadir point was that "it happens". GOP does shit like that.

[Az]

69. Go here to find out about the case and who is behind it

http://www.restorethepledge.com/

[applegrove]

75. I got my answer. An atheist activist. That is all i needed.

[gulfcoastliberal]

18. That letter is horseshit. Pushes RW talking points. They want "under god"

removed from the pledge - restoring it to the way it was originally written. Not have the entire pledge ruled unconstitutional. This lawsuit has been going on for some time - I highly doubt the 9th circuit is doing anything to help out *. This is just something I don't believe. The SCOTUS could've ruled that the phrase is constitutional but didn't - they punted on the technicality that Newdow doesn't have full time custody of the daughter - so other families sued. People should get their facts straight on this.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. *YAWN*

Let them TRY to push this as an "issue", along with flag burning...

while kids come home in boxes from a bullshit war based on lies, the deficit flies through the roof, and bodies are still being fished out of the streets of New Orleans.

Oh yeah, don't 45 Million Americans not have health coverage?

How are those gas prices?

I support the separation of church and state and the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE of the CONSTITUTION, but more importantly, I support the party that is trying to offer REAL SOLUTIONS to REAL PROBLEMS instead of this meaningless BULLSHIT.

***

Oh.. and a pledge ruling is going to cause the moral collapse of the Republic?

Lets be clear on what this cranial-rectal invert is saying... The prospect of schoolchildren NOT RECITING TWO WORDS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE is going to, and I quote, "bring our republic to the brink of moral if not physical collapse"

...

Wow. Well, at least he qualified the part about "physical" collapse. I mean, otherwise I might have to accuse this asshat of hyperbole.

What a fucking imbecile.

[Kenroy]

34. LOL

your ending actually made me laugh.

I agree, that letter is a right-wing propaganda piece.

[Az]

48. Spineless, cowardly, and biased.

Good grief. Do you think the right sits around and tells themself they better lay off the Intelligent Design stuff cuz it makes them look crazy? Do you think they worry about demanding women be denied the right to choose because it makes them look like a bunch of neanderthals?

You worry about how things turn out because of this issue? Then stand up and demand what's right. Instead they call a man that put a great deal of his life on the line to do what he believes to be the right thing a busybody. I have met this man. Busybody? He is a passionate man with a sense of what he believes is right and what is wrong.

Back away from this issue and the Dems continue to be spineless cowards. The repugs will be able to make the Dems dance with the merest suggestion of religious fervor. Show some freaking spine. Stand up for the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Its the first thing mentioned in the first ammendment. Maybe, just maybe it's important.

[shance]

55. Do you ever wonder who spawned these people?

'the brink of moral if not physical collapse"???

Dead bodies. Illegal wars. Outsourcing jobs. Gas Gouging. Everything gouging. Greed and hedonism.

NO PROBLEM.

But words that may have some symbolic, but no consequential meaning?

THERE'S OUR BATTLE!!!

(Trumpets roar)

[Az]

58. Ever think its all connected

The right is in power. They didn't get there by playing short games. We keep playing short games and only backing things that we can win with little effort and our power is waning.

If you want to change the course of things you have to stand up and lead. The whole thing is interconnected. If you want people to listen to your ideas you have to show them that you stand up for ideals. That you stand by things because you believe it is right and not because it is politically advantageous.

Yes, its likely that the right can easily make a stink about this. Standing up for it doesn't mean putting everything on the line. Sometimes you lose political battles. But how you carry yourself in a losing battle gives people far more trust in you than weasling your way to a victory.

[shance]

64. Now THAT is something to sleep on.

Great post.

Will ponder tonight.

thanks AZ :)

***

[applegrove]

81. I worry about the right exploiting religious fear over this. Should

we get some activist Duers to reach out to religious sites and say - I'm a Dem and I think the world "god" is fine in and oath. It is such a little thing for me the agnostic. And it means to much to you. And that is what living in a democracy means to me.

[Kenroy]

87. And I'm a man

and the thought of an unwanted pregnancy means little to me, so perhaps we should get some activist DUers (presumably men) to reach out to religious sites and say "abortion is such a little thing for me, the man, and it menas SO much to you... so go ahead, outlaw it."

One shouldn't capitulate on constitutional rights just to please those who would take those rights from us.

What other rights are you willing to bargain away because they're not important to you, personally?

Native-American rights? Rights for the disabled? Gays and Lesbians?

I know you think having "God" in the pledge is not a big deal. That's what a lot of people on the right say - It's not a big deal - let it go.

If it's not a big deal, remove it. It doesn't belong there, it's a modern addition, it's a relic of the cold-war. If it's not a big deal, let's just go back to the old pledge.

[applegrove]

89. Do you really think that abortion is a little thing? Shouldn't we all

work to make sure women have as much choice that means abortions would be rare. Aside from the fact they are very sad - potential life is lost - they are traumatizing to some.

And I don't see what your being a man has to do with birth control not being an issue. I would think an army of men going in for an invasive operation or insisting on a pill for themselves is about due. Women had to do all the birthing and the invention of the pill themselves. As they had to do most of the necessary abortions over the years. Couldn't you guys for once - a sea of liberal men say - "Hell - we are not going to take it anymore - this reproductive rights thing should be on my shoulders too". If all you men did that - the number of unwanted pregnancies and the trauma in that - would drop tons. I know many men try. Especially married men who have as much stake in it as the women do. And certainly men who don't want kids - lay it on the line. But couldn't you try? Instead of assuming you are out of that part of the game.

[Kenroy]

90. I was using your logic to make a point

You're willing to bargain away issues that aren't important to you in the name of compromise, but there are issues that are unimportant to others, that MIGHT be important to you.

Would you be OK with it if those people bargained away some right that YOU held to be important?

That's what you're doing - you're taking a constitutional right that is important to a lot of people, and saying we shouldn't fight for it for the sake of "getting along". I think that's wrong-headed.

We should defend all rights for all people. And for the record, I am staunchly pro-choice.

[applegrove]

76. I don't think church ministers on the whole were pleased with

Katrina. I think it was a wake up for many people.

[onager]

91. Time to hear from another Howard...

Howard Beale ranting in the movie "Network:"

"And when all the other bullshit fails, they drag out the God bullshit! That one works every time!"