"if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture"
November 11, 2002 12:19 PM   Subscribe

"if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture" a word from bill moyers via drudge on the party now in control of the US government - and a word from garrison kiellor on one of its newest members complete text here. anyone else uneasy with the direction the county seems to be headed?
posted by specialk420 (66 comments total)

 
This is what we all should expect from leftist pundits from here on?
posted by ZupanGOD at 12:23 PM on November 11, 2002


I bet this is going to surprise swing voters. I mean, what did they think they were voting for? From the analysis I've seen a lot went GOP because of national security concerns. Well, welcome to more Cob Country-like creationism in science books, tax cuts for the rich, ultra-conservatice appointees, etc.

Creationism is science, freedom is slavery, etc.
posted by skallas at 12:28 PM on November 11, 2002


This is what we all should expect from leftist pundits from here on?

er, valid concerns?
posted by mcsweetie at 12:29 PM on November 11, 2002


This country will be a theocracy in no time. The way things are going.
posted by tljenson at 12:33 PM on November 11, 2002


It may be a whole lot less tax cuts for the suburban hordes that voted republican this time around, and a whole lot more conservative agenda.
posted by specialk420 at 12:37 PM on November 11, 2002


In a totally, non-snark, non-derail way, here.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:38 PM on November 11, 2002


chicken little.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:38 PM on November 11, 2002


I for one am perfectly happy with the direction our country is taking... bear in mind however, I'm on fistfuls of anti-anxiety meds, I drink a water glass of scotch every morning and I've always wanted to see what a fertilizer explosion looks like from the inside. Not to mention, my venomous nihilism and hatred of humanity makes me super-happy with the thought that all of our descendants will certainly be walking the scorched and blasted remains of a once beautiful world with their swollen, mutated feet wrapped in bloody rags.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:40 PM on November 11, 2002


Bill Moyers is a demagogue. I think the fact he mentions Joseph McCarthy at the beginning of the article is quite ironic, since he seems to have no problem spewing his own brand of McCarthyism.
posted by Beholder at 12:51 PM on November 11, 2002


Bill Moyers is a demagogue

i believe he is also an ordained minister with a degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary - not exactly a hot bed of liberal teachings,
posted by specialk420 at 12:58 PM on November 11, 2002


Remember, any law congress passes must withstand judicial scrutiny. So the Constitution protects you from laws which violate it.

So the next issue is conservative Supreme Court nominees and their interpretation of the Constitution. The democrats can still stop nominees they don't like using a filibuster. It takes 60 votes to override a filibuster, and the republicans only have 51 seats in the senate. So they can't just appoint whoever they want.

And finally, constitutional amendments that could possibly modify and change what "rights" we have need to go through a much more difficult process. First it has the pass the House or Representatives, 2/3rds vote to pass the Senate, and then 3/4 of the states have to agree before it is ratified.

So once again, the republicans cannot just do whatever they want. There are still many checks and balances.
posted by jsonic at 1:00 PM on November 11, 2002


For one thing, links to standard-issue, everyday op-ed pieces aren't really compelling.

For another thing, Bill Moyers is one of the dullest liberals out there. If you're going to say something, link to someone insightful or fascinating.

And one last thing:

Anyone else uneasy with the direction the county seems to be headed?

Yes. Some Democrats were still elected this year, and that makes me uneasy. :-)
posted by oissubke at 1:02 PM on November 11, 2002


The main concern, Jsonic, is the appointment of Borkian judges not to the Supreme court, because most cases don't get that high. Just to the rest of the Federal bench.

It's a valid concern, too. The impact of the Bush 2 administration will be felt for a very very long time.
posted by swerdloff at 1:04 PM on November 11, 2002


jsonic, I think it is horrible how you are trying to derail this thread with facts and common sense. You sir/ma'am are a jerk .
posted by Mushkelley at 1:04 PM on November 11, 2002


freedom is slavery, etc. and country like?

What kind of statements are those? Did you think about what you were saying as you wrote that? You're joking right? Trolling? Looking for a rise?

I love slavery, and everyone who lives in the country is a bassackwards inbred who can't think for themselves.

(I know, I know, it *is* skallas we are talking about here).
posted by tomplus2 at 1:04 PM on November 11, 2002


swerdloff, Interesting point. Do you know if congress gets to vote on these appointments and what type of majority is necessary?
posted by jsonic at 1:10 PM on November 11, 2002


"Cob Country"?
posted by kindall at 1:10 PM on November 11, 2002


And he makes a damn good point, that the radical conservatism of today is different from the more balanced, moderate conservatism of the past. I would agree with those who argue that this is because in the past, conservatives were book-smart whereas today they get their information from ranting & raving radio and tv hosts who pitch extreme points-of-view because it drives ratings.
posted by blamb at 1:12 PM on November 11, 2002


Being hysterical (on either side) seems to miss the point of what could be a good discussion. Is there room for the deeply religious in government? America as a nation is far more religious than many other Western democracies, and yet the overtly religious seem to have played minor roles in government, preferring to be on the sidelines for the most part. Will explicitly religious representatives cause a stir or will they become part of the system seamlessly?
posted by cell divide at 1:13 PM on November 11, 2002


Moyers' commentaries tend to put me off, but his conversation last week with journalist Samantha Power and historian Simon Schama was very interesting and insightful. I don't think they have a complete transcript up yet, unfortunately.
posted by homunculus at 1:14 PM on November 11, 2002


Bill Moyers is a demagogue. I think the fact he mentions Joseph McCarthy at the beginning of the article is quite ironic, since he seems to have no problem spewing his own brand of McCarthysim.

Could you maybe supply some examples of this? I don't seem to recall Moyers ruining anyone's life or making enemies lists. He seems like a pretty harmless left of center op-ed sorta guy to me. Not really even a hot head. So what exactly are you referring to as McCarthysim? Oissubke is right, he's one of the dullest liberals out there. Same goes with level headed Garrison Kiellor, seems like if you were going to get all riled up and start calling someone a leftist McCarthy it wouldn't be these two, but maybe I'm naive. Some examples might sway me...
posted by Pollomacho at 1:18 PM on November 11, 2002


Chill. In 1992 I was horrified that the Democrats had taken control of all three branches, but of course they f'ed it up and lost big in 1994. If the Republicans overreach-they will be similarly chastised.
posted by quercus at 1:19 PM on November 11, 2002


As it happens, James Lileks commented on this issue generally just today. {Scroll down to I'm slipping into bathos to skip the personal stuff.} And Orrin Judd has commented (from a further right perspective) on the strange way that Keillor alluded to political implications of Coleman's private life -- which seems to be nothing more than a seasonally long-distance marriage, unless Keillor has some incredible Page Six hotline to something more substantial.
posted by dhartung at 1:19 PM on November 11, 2002


I'm as worried about this as the next person, but it's nothing new. There have always been cycles of religious conservatism in politics that look towards Armageddeon. Remember James Watt on the environment: "I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns."
posted by hippugeek at 1:22 PM on November 11, 2002


America as a nation is far more religious than many other Western democracies.

A fact which has influenced our foreign policy more than usual lately.

Playing politics with world population

U.S., Pushing for Broader Ban, Blocks U.N. Anti-Cloning Move
posted by homunculus at 1:22 PM on November 11, 2002


I think it is worth noting that people of power generally use religion/morality as rhetoric to advance their own ends.

Bloomberg, in New York City for instance, has launched an attempt to ban all smoking from public places. We hear it is responsible, it is right, other people's rights, etc. In reality the insurance companies are the primary backers of this plan.

As an aside, anyone remember the "Energy Crisis" the spring before the terrorist blow out? Looking back, where was the crisis? There was none. It was manufactured in the name of energy profits.

Look for this again and again. Even if Hussain is without weapons of mass destruction, we'll say he's lying, and watch crosshairs of bombs on CNN instead of the flailing civilians, burning in the streets.

We'll hear of the rights of a baby, then the embryo. Then, say hello to baby. WICA, what's that?

We'll hear we live in a democracy, then we will look around.
posted by four panels at 1:24 PM on November 11, 2002


There's a simple solution to all of this concern for our country's sharp slant to the right: Go vote.

If you don't like the direction that this country is going and you don't like the extremist Christian right agenda of our Republican overlords (and I for one, certainly don't), then it's time to take some action beyond whining on the op-ed pages.

A silent majority is worthless if it doesn't speak up on election day.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 1:25 PM on November 11, 2002


From hippugeek, cycles of religious conservatism

With its deep religious history but no established church, this country welcomes religious free-lancers and entrepreneurs. Both the visionaries and the con artists have access to the altar. It took the shocking events of the last mid-century to draw apocalyptic thinking off the Fundamentalist margins and into the mainstream.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:30 PM on November 11, 2002


To explain what Yelling at Nothing oh-so-gently admonished near the top of this thread:
Metafilter is Matt's house. Matt says Metafilter isn't the place for political posts. He says he has seriously considered shutting down Metafilter, largely because of the political catfights that go on here.
"Here," remember, is Matt's house. Let's be kind to our host and let this thread die. And think twice before posting a partisan link, no matter how compelling we believe it to be.
posted by Holden at 1:30 PM on November 11, 2002


Oh, crap, are we supposed to vote again?
posted by hackly_fracture at 1:31 PM on November 11, 2002


Wow, here I thought all that happened was that Republicans - who already had the House and the Presidency, just won a razor thin (and by no means filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate. Hadn't realized it meant the end of civilization as we know it in america.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:36 PM on November 11, 2002


Two interesting bits from the Keillor article:

Norm got a free ride from the press. St. Paul is a small town and anybody who hangs around the St. Paul Grill knows about Norm's habits. Everyone knows that his family situation is, shall we say, very interesting, but nobody bothered to ask about it, least of all the religious people in the Republican Party.

I find this bit of what can be charitably described as "salacious innuendo" surprising coming from Keillor. He was out front during the Clinton/Lewinski mess reminding us that it was mostly not our business. I agreed with him then. I would argue that such an approach would seem to apply ten-fold here. So why is he the one bringing it up?

It was a dreadful low moment for the Minnesota voters. To choose Coleman over Walter Mondale is one of those dumb low-rent mistakes, like going to a great steakhouse and ordering the tuna sandwich.

I'm a Democrat, and that's just condescending. Intelligent people can and do have differences of opinion when it comes to politics. To suggest that you have the ability to deem one choice a "low-rent mistake" is the height of arrogance.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:36 PM on November 11, 2002


unless Keillor has some incredible Page Six hotline to something more substantial. as he notes were you to ask nearly any regular at St. Paul Grill (any NW Airlines flight attendant, or daughters of former governors for that matter) - you'd get more "substance" than you bargained for. As for the christian right seizing control of the US Government - were they to practice a little of what the bible teaches - compassion for those less fortunate - protecting the earth and the creatures put upon it - I for one would be a little more sympathetic with them.
posted by specialk420 at 1:41 PM on November 11, 2002


Oh, crap, are we supposed to vote again?

Hehe. My urging people to vote comes a little late, doesn't it. So let me just urge everybody to assume the proper voting position until the next round of elections.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 1:41 PM on November 11, 2002


I continue to be dissapointed in the complete and utter lack of any serious Armageddon taking place since the election.

*checks watch, taps foot*
posted by UncleFes at 1:46 PM on November 11, 2002


well, specialk420, since you seem to have a pipeline into this "substantial" info, why don't you let us all in on the secret? After all, if it's significant enough to Keillor and yourself that it should have impacted the election, don't the good people of Minnesota have the right to know about it?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:47 PM on November 11, 2002


I'm just as upset as everyone else is about the impending doomsday we have to look foreward to, thanks to the new republican majority....
....but still, on an individual state basis, if the democratic nominees were so frightful as to lose, why are we so terribly worried? are they all such partisan lemmings that we have no faith in the individual?
and is there such a large contingent of voters who really, truly want republicans in there? if so many people are voting for the fat man, exactly how well are we doing ourselves, and what do we have to protect?
*be nice, it's my first postie*
posted by gsalad at 2:00 PM on November 11, 2002


pardon you - I'm sure colemans repulsive behavior will come out in due course - what sickened me, and many other Minnesota, was the way he paraded his wife and family out of the closet (where im sure they would to preferred to remain) to appear to be the stand up christian family man that he, his family, and much of Minnesota know damn well he's not.
posted by specialk420 at 2:13 PM on November 11, 2002


> "Cob Country"?

Whoops. Cobb county:
n Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.

A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
Nevermind theory is the end of the scientific method and is based on facts and the statement "theory not a fact" really doesn't make sense in the first place.

More:
MARIETTA, Ga. -- The Cobb County school board voted unanimously Thursday night to give its teachers permission to introduce varying views about the origin of life in the classroom, including creationism.

The proposal says the district "believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of species."

Cobb County resident Jeffrey Selman spoke out against the decision.

"I am flabbergasted. All these people want to take a pseudoscientific approach to religion," Selman said. "Let them believe in God. Let me believe in God. But how can they deny that this is bringing religion into classrooms? Science as we know it will lose all its credibility."

Others praised the board's choice as a way to encourage academic freedom and applauded the decision.

"We are not advocating religion in the classroom, but rather a comprehensive presentation both for and against Darwinism," said Cobb County resident Larry Taylor. "We believe teachers should educate, not indoctrinate."
Heaven forbid they have a religious study class where theological cosmologies belong, though I wonder how the Cobb Christians would feel about teaching their kids a "comprehensive presentation' that involves competing belief systems like those expressed by Islam or Hinduism.
posted by skallas at 2:17 PM on November 11, 2002


specialk420: yep those darn Christians don't seem to seem to care one whit for the less fortunate.

Nothing like informed opinions from your FPP'ers.
posted by turbodog at 2:19 PM on November 11, 2002


"christian right" my friend.
posted by specialk420 at 2:29 PM on November 11, 2002


specialk420: you're just playing the same rumors and innuendos game that Republicans played during Clinton's campaigns and Presidency. If you have something substantiative to say then come out and say it.
posted by gyc at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2002


There sure do seem to be a whole lot of generalizations about "Christians" and religion in general here! I don't recall Christian or Religious being synonimous with bible beater or ultra-conservative or fundamentalist for that matter. Remember as someone pointed out Moyers is a Christian minister, he sure doesn't seem to be a bible thumper. I'd bet he may even believe in evolution, but I don't see how that even entered into this debate in the first place. Has someone suggested inputtin creationist policy on the national level in Congress except for a few extremists? Bush would set dept. of Ed. policy anyway and I haven't heard anything like that from him, has anyone?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:31 PM on November 11, 2002


There sure do seem to be a whole lot of generalizations about "Christians" and religion in general here! I don't recall Christian or Religious being synonymous with bible beater or ultra-conservative or fundamentalist for that matter. Remember as someone pointed out Moyers is a Christian minister, he sure doesn't seem to be a bible thumper. I'd bet he may even believe in evolution, but I don't see how that even entered into this debate in the first place. Has someone suggested inputting creationist policy on the national level in Congress except for a few extremists? Bush would set dept. of Ed. policy anyway and I haven't heard anything like that from him, has anyone?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:34 PM on November 11, 2002


How did that happen? I guess what I say is twice as important!
posted by Pollomacho at 2:37 PM on November 11, 2002


An apropos post from Lileks on lumping all the "right-wingers" together. He said it better than I can.
posted by mrmanley at 2:49 PM on November 11, 2002


Pollomacho, this is unsettling, for a US Dept. of Education office....
posted by amberglow at 2:57 PM on November 11, 2002


mrmanley: wow thanks for the link. "Greivance-American community". I love it! And the banishing Twain comment was apropos for me as well.
posted by turbodog at 3:07 PM on November 11, 2002


amberglow: from their FAQ:
Can grants be used to promote religious activities through my organization?

No. Grant funds may not be used for inherently religious activities such as worship, prayer or Bible study. Grants must fund programs that are results oriented and based on the principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality. The funds are to be used to further the public purposes established by Congress such as reducing illiteracy, encouraging children to stay in school, preparing pre-school children for success in school and other efforts.


Aah! Republicans trying to reduce illiteracy. To the barricades!
posted by turbodog at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2002


well, turbodog, will the Jesus Saves little tot learning centers be ensuring that little jewish, muslim, hindu, and non-religious tots also receive the benefits from the grant funds? Will they be using this money at their church or temple grounds or in an real atmosphere of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality? (I've heard that already Hasidic Jews in upstate NY have gotten some of this grant money and believe me, it's not going to the other kids in the region...)
posted by amberglow at 3:27 PM on November 11, 2002


the man said...kill this thread.
die die die you stoopid uninteresting thread with boring little resentful comments that im too bored to bother stopping scrolling with.

let- the-thread-die-suckas-

or-take-it-somewhere-else!

no-one-cares-less-about-what-you-are-writing-ok?

if you want this site to continue -kill-this-thread.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:46 PM on November 11, 2002


Yeah! Kill! Kill! Kill!
posted by Holden at 6:16 PM on November 11, 2002


Remember, every time you post something political, Matt kills a kitten.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:57 PM on November 11, 2002


I don't know whats more fatal to political discussions here: some of it's more irrational participants or the blind contempt for the posts themselves that seems to be vogue to throw around.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:10 PM on November 11, 2002


It's not contempt for the posts themselves. The problem is the contempt for Matt, who doesn't want his guests to make partisan front-page posts.
posted by Holden at 5:58 AM on November 12, 2002


The Moyers op-ed was lame. Keillor's piece was disgusting, although obviously heartfelt.
posted by mediareport at 11:22 AM on November 12, 2002


Preaching to the Choir by Stephen F. Hayes
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:31 AM on November 12, 2002


"For lost in Moyers's tirade is this simple fact: some 53 percent of Americans voted for the Republicans that worry him so."

actually, it's closer to 20% (if you figure it as roughly half of a 40% turnout.)
posted by mcsweetie at 12:28 PM on November 12, 2002


Hey I'm still wondering why the 2000 presidential election didn't seem to renew a dialogue on eliminating the electoral college. Bush shouldn't even be prez. (Was the lack of such an outcry another example of how neutered the Dems have become?)
I know, search the Meta archives and I'll probably find such threads.
And BTW if Meta is trying to ease up on political/news events posts, I'd appreciate recommendations to good forums for contemporary events discussions. TIA.
posted by NorthernLite at 1:25 PM on November 12, 2002


mcsweetie: er, valid concerns?

Well Moyers comments are nothing close to insightfull, or even true for that matter. His comments are nothing more than
demagoguery on the behalf of radical left ideology.
posted by ZupanGOD at 2:03 PM on November 12, 2002


Moyers, a radical leftist? Put the pipe down.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:06 PM on November 12, 2002


His comments are nothing more than demagoguery on the behalf of radical left ideology.

I hate to say er again, but, er, abortion, globalization, and the enviroment are hardly the exclusive domain of the "radical" left.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:43 PM on November 12, 2002


that is, unless you're one of the unfortunate few that thinks everybody is conservative now since 20% of us voted republican.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:59 PM on November 12, 2002


I hate to say er again, but, er, abortion, globalization, and the enviroment are hardly the exclusive domain of the "radical" left.

I was speaking about Mr. Moyers comments, they mirror radical left demagoguery. When the creep Jerry Fawell speaks about Gays, Lesbians, and etc as being responsible for 9/11 he was spewing demagoguery for the radical religious conservatives. I am putting Moyers comments into the same context with what we hear from the radical left. When some religious conservative pundit mimicks the same type of words of Jerry Fawell, IMO there comments fall into the same context as radical religous idiots. Or in your opinion is Moyer just ranting, if so is some conservative idiot who mimicks the same rhetoric as Jerry Fawell they are just ranting as well? Or did Moyers just happend to mimmick the same rhetoric as radical leftest pundits?
posted by ZupanGOD at 10:19 PM on November 12, 2002


I was speaking about Mr. Moyers comments, they mirror radical left demagoguery.
The Moyers op-ed was lame. Keillor's piece was disgusting, although obviously heartfelt.
For another thing, Bill Moyers is one of the dullest liberals out there
Bill Moyers is a demagogue. I think the fact he mentions Joseph McCarthy at the beginning of the article is quite ironic, since he seems to have no problem spewing his own brand of McCarthyism.

Ah yes, the typical thought machine of a few of you at work once more (which work typically consists solely of mindlessly applying a label) without any attempt to refute what Moyers or Keillor et al say.

And then we have....

Preaching to the Choir by Stephen F. Hayes

....a link whose main point is not to show in any form whatsoever how Moyers is wrong -- it's merely more bullshit from our friends on the right to the effect that since "some 53 percent of Americans voted for the Republicans" (sic), Moyers must be wrong.

One marvels at the level of reason at work here. But perhaps it truly reflects America.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:20 PM on November 12, 2002


youre all right . now stfu.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:08 AM on November 13, 2002


« Older Comiclopedia. Not just your father's Comicyclopded...  |  US Soldiers' dogtags... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments