Join 3,376 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


And libertarians want to ban the sun!
September 25, 2004 9:39 PM   Subscribe

"Liberals want to ban the bible!" Guess I missed that meeting where "liberals" decided on this.
posted by mathowie (123 comments total)

 
I got the memo.
posted by padraigin at 9:44 PM on September 25, 2004


Really? And are gay marriages getting the green light when Kerry wins, just like the flyer says?
posted by mathowie at 9:46 PM on September 25, 2004


hell, they couriered it over to me.
posted by quonsar at 9:47 PM on September 25, 2004


they emailed me : >

What's really weird about that mailing is that it was actually sent out by the RNC themselves and not a cover group, like Swift Boat Liars. Usually they wouldn't sully themselves--i think it's a sign of worry about their base.
posted by amberglow at 9:47 PM on September 25, 2004


"dubyuh sang base, laura sang tenor, lil' jen and barby joined right in there..."
posted by quonsar at 9:52 PM on September 25, 2004


Huh? How can we ban the bible? The republicans haven't even finished editing it yet. Every time they get a new idea, they go back and make revisions.
posted by fleener at 10:00 PM on September 25, 2004


fleener, that just reminded me of Republican Jesus : >

(archive here)
posted by amberglow at 10:03 PM on September 25, 2004


Oh snap: nobody tell eustacescrubb.
posted by The God Complex at 10:07 PM on September 25, 2004


Also, all the bibles should be burned in a huge pile and the fires should be accelerated by "gay juice" with is highly flammable (that's why they call them flamers).
posted by The God Complex at 10:07 PM on September 25, 2004


Why would we want to ban the Bible? It's our primary source for information about a second W term. See Revelation, The. Cross-reference Anti-Christ.
posted by junkbox at 10:18 PM on September 25, 2004


Meh... I'm more about banning the Koran... then work our way up to the Bible...
posted by wfrgms at 10:20 PM on September 25, 2004







deep linked images courtesy of Eschaton
posted by LimePi at 10:22 PM on September 25, 2004


If liberals really want to ban the bible, are they like the evil opposite of the Gideons, who put bibles in every hotel room? The Anti-Gideons?
posted by mathowie at 10:23 PM on September 25, 2004


deep linked

More like giganto linked...
posted by wfrgms at 10:26 PM on September 25, 2004


Guess I missed that meeting where "liberals" decided on this.

Funny how Matt conveniently misses those meetings when he's supposed to bring the doughnuts.
posted by RavinDave at 10:34 PM on September 25, 2004


I was promised there would be punch & pie at this meeting.

I also like the part about: 'conservative judges who will "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.'" Because we all know conservative judges like Scalia would *never* legislate from the bench.
posted by falconred at 10:39 PM on September 25, 2004


Jesus, if I could actually get this on the liberal agenda I'd be all over it ...
posted by rks404 at 11:15 PM on September 25, 2004


"Liberals want to ban the bible!"

Hmm... Well, you know; now that... Err, never mind.
posted by NewBornHippy at 11:19 PM on September 25, 2004


I've read those bullet points over and over again, and I don't see where they mention "ban the bible" -- odd. Maybe somehow they are meaning something else with the big 'BANNED" over the picture of the bible?
posted by sycophant at 11:20 PM on September 25, 2004


Look. George Soros, MoveOn, John Kerry and the Hollywood Liberal EliteTM got together and drafted this memo months ago. First we ban the bible, then we send the Christians to the reeducation camps. Eventually, after a steady diet of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Alec Baldwin (5th Level Viceroy of the Hollywood Liberal EliteTM) they can be reintroduced to society and fulfill their mission of electing Hillary Clinton to the White House. She, in turn, will return communism to its rightful place at 1600 Penn after the Great Chinese Surrender of '09.
posted by owillis at 11:27 PM on September 25, 2004


Now if we could just get the word out to those voters in Arkansas and West Virginia that it's really all lies and stuff. Maybe we could email them all this. Thanks, quonsar and happy 4th blortiversary!
posted by Lynsey at 11:44 PM on September 25, 2004


I was there and was really psyched about the plan to ban the bible. think of the trees we'll save by not having to print them anymore!
posted by mcsweetie at 11:45 PM on September 25, 2004


Who are the fuckin' Gideons? Ever met one? No! Ever seen one? No! But they're all over the fuckin' world, putting Bibles in hotel rooms... What are they ninjas? Where are they? Where are they from, Gidea?
posted by keswick at 11:50 PM on September 25, 2004


i dont think god will let you to ban the bible, its public domain
posted by Satapher at 11:54 PM on September 25, 2004


Who are the fuckin' Gideons? Ever met one? No! Ever seen one? No! But they're all over the fuckin' world, putting Bibles in hotel rooms... What are they ninjas? Where are they? Where are they from, Gidea?

Heretic! Channeling the spirit of Bill Hicks! Ban him!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:17 AM on September 26, 2004


I can't speak for the liberals, but I'm strongly against banning any book, even bad books.
posted by rushmc at 12:20 AM on September 26, 2004


I'm close to sending out fliers to Republican areas claiming that if you vote, your name will be put on a list and the ATF will come to take your guns. Or not.
posted by RobbieFal at 12:31 AM on September 26, 2004


Who are the fuckin' Gideons? Ever met one? No! Ever seen one? No! But they're all over the fuckin' world, putting Bibles in hotel rooms... What are they ninjas? Where are they? Where are they from, Gidea?

When I was in the sixth form at school (no idea what that is in American money), we used to have guest speakers turn up on a friday. One time, a man from the Gideons arrived to speak. He explained that the main function of his organisation was to make sure that people could always get their hands on a bible, wherever they might particularly feel the need. Like in a hotel room, for instance. "Oh Lord, why hast the trouser press forsaken me?"
posted by chrid at 3:14 AM on September 26, 2004


A major political party just put their name to that pamphlet.

The time for joking around is over. This is the time for going to the streets. Like, every day. Until your voice is heard.

Luckily I'm British. G'luck guys!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:45 AM on September 26, 2004


Dear Great Britain,

You were right, we were wrong. You can have the country back if you promise to get rid of Mr. Blair.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:00 AM on September 26, 2004


Liberals want to ban the bible. Conservatives want to ban the constitution. Together, they fight crime.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:01 AM on September 26, 2004


I'm against pie and punch served together.
posted by kamylyon at 4:12 AM on September 26, 2004


"Activist judges?" This from the folks that support Roy Moore? HA HA!
posted by moonbiter at 4:17 AM on September 26, 2004


Todays civic lessons:

"Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (/Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States/, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation.""
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/janfeb04/?ft=bolton.txt

If the goal was to throw a wrench into the "America is a Christian nation" - America has a law on "on the books" that says "nope"

As for the change to the pledge, again, a minor measure. Why not state 'America needs to "get back to basics" and have a pledge that matters!" ' Then offer up:
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic that it established: one Nation out of many Peoples, with Liberty and Justice for all.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:41 AM on September 26, 2004


The inmates at a juvie jail in the south of Seoul, kids that I knew that ranged from rapists to jaywalkers but were incarcerated because that's the thudtard way that the system deals with those who trangress here (as elsewhere, with different triggers), well, those kids used to use the supa-thin pages of the bibles that do-gooders left them to roll smokes.

I smoked a few with 'em. Tasted holy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:51 AM on September 26, 2004


Sorry, what?

VOtE NadEr!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 AM on September 26, 2004


Just kidding. Shoot that prick through the temple with great alacrity and joyful assassin culture-cachet!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 AM on September 26, 2004


At least they didn't uncover out plot to change the Ronald Reagan to the Paul Lynde International Airport!



On preview: Oh, stav, you're such a hoot!
posted by squirrel at 6:33 AM on September 26, 2004


Second that new pledge... Thanks rough one.
posted by LouReedsSon at 6:35 AM on September 26, 2004


Well it has got RNC printed on it ? That's so sad.

When reporters asked about the mailings on Sept. 17, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said he wasn't aware of the material and did not confirm that it was distributed by the GOP. However, Gillespie said it "could be the work" of the party.

Contacted Friday by The Associated Press, party spokeswoman Christine Iverson said the GOP had already acknowledged it was the source of the mass mailings.

Well I guess it's going to be total insanity from now till the end of the election ; wonder what scared the RNC sooo much that they had to send booboo scare letters to religious nuts to win their votes....and what will the western equivalents of talibans ask to RNC if they win ?

I mean we know, Reps broke promises and Dems broke promises countless times..but what if Rep this turn decide to keep promises made to religious nuts ? Evidence is mounting from FCC bans of "dirty words" on TV and the more serious ban on stem cell research ..from this it can only go downhill I guess.
posted by elpapacito at 6:58 AM on September 26, 2004


wonder what scared the RNC sooo much that they had to send booboo scare letters to religious nuts to win their votes

Apparently some recent polls have Kerry ahead in Arkansas. I guess they're not all a bunch of rednecks. [insert lame Clinton joke here, Repubs].
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2004


if I were a religious person, I'd be twenty kinds of offended about this. does the GOP think christians are stupid?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:14 AM on September 26, 2004


mathowie... you are indeed, really horrible at "crafting" front page posts. This is pathetic.
posted by Witty at 7:15 AM on September 26, 2004


Shut the fuck up, witty.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:44 AM on September 26, 2004


well, it IS true. the only reason THIS particular partisan one-link newsfilter cite from CBS hasn't been dragged to meta is the magnificent craftsmanship, right?
posted by quonsar at 8:06 AM on September 26, 2004


Are we really banning the bible? Sweet!

*takes tongue out of cheek* I hope this does backfire. I believe that this election will be determined by new voters. This is a big gamble on the part of the RNC. I'd like to see moderate Republicans intervene. If there are any left.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:08 AM on September 26, 2004


This is one of the most depressing things I have ever seen. It was funny in a sad kind of way until I thought about the fact that some people will look at this and agree with it, and that it was actually put out by the RNC, and not some crazy, Chick-tract-reading fringe group who worries about their precious bodily fluids being sapped and impurified. It's muddled thinking on top of hysterical bigotry (I'm still waiting to hear a single logical argument against same sex marriage, by the way, I find it hard to believe that it doesn't bother the anti-gay-marriage folks that there doesn't seem to be one). And the fact that they'd choose such a sweet picture of a gay couple in such a hateful bit of propaganda is truly awful. The dark ages are coming if we're not careful, in some places they're already here.
posted by biscotti at 8:25 AM on September 26, 2004


The dark ages are coming if we're not careful, in some places they're already here.

I know what you're trying to get at, biscotti, and I agree. However, I can't help chuckling at an argument against religious fanatics that ends with and apocalyptic warning.
posted by jonmc at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2004


Not to derail this fun group rant with any facts, but a whole country of liberals right near here does want to ban the Bible, and there's no shortage of Americans who agree (fuller points to innumerable anti-religion diatribes on Metafilter.) It's not even a little bit paranoid to predict that if the Democratic Party is returned to power, efforts to cleanse all mention of religion from any form of public discourse on the grounds of church-state separation will be vigorously stepped up and given State support. Consider, for example, the current steady drumbeat of public schools that have to be sued because they banned Bible clubs (Miami, Seattle, Portland, plenty more on demand.) Not the slightest doubt that support for banning is there, nor any doubt that it's heavily concentrated among Democrats (of conviction or of anybody-but-Bush convenience.) It may not be in the party platform but it's on the agenda.
posted by jfuller at 8:41 AM on September 26, 2004


Shorter jfuller:

If you are for the separation of church and state you want to ban the bible.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:45 AM on September 26, 2004


That Canadian case is NOT about banning the bible, but about enforcing their laws against hate speech. It's the AD that violated their laws (the combination of the quotes and visuals), NOT the Bible itself.

Maybe it's time to give the Koran and other holy books the space, attention, giant monuments in courts, and faith-based preferential financing, etc that the Bible now gets here. Then we'd see who was doing the complaining.

How about some Islamic faith-based prisons? If Christian ones are allowed, why not Islamic? How about daily prayer meetings for Muslims in the White House and Justice Department?
posted by amberglow at 8:50 AM on September 26, 2004


the impetus to ban the bible couldn't be related to the constant attempts down through history to brutalize and butcher innocent people in its name. nope.
posted by quonsar at 8:54 AM on September 26, 2004


As opposed to brutalizing people in the name of other books?
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on September 26, 2004


Cheney and Ashcroft in prayer position on their rugs. There's an image for ya.
posted by mss at 9:03 AM on September 26, 2004


How to spot a liberal: just look for the little devil horns on the head and the prehensile tail.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

How cute, jfuller linked to world nut daily, your most dependable source of news.

"You'll get my bible when you pry it ..." eh, wrong talking point, "Try and take my bible and I'll give you the business end first!" There, that's it.

Onward Christian Soldiers!! I hear they're about 5,000 short for Iraq duty so don't hesitate, go before some low life minority or poor person beats you out of a position in W's holy crusade!!

Sorry I missed the meeting guys. Which version is it that we're gonna ban again? Don't you just hate the one with Macabees in it?
posted by nofundy at 9:09 AM on September 26, 2004


"does the GOP think christians are stupid?"
If the shoe fits....

But I wouldn't think of banning the bible. It's how you keep the sheep together.
posted by 2sheets at 9:32 AM on September 26, 2004


Geez, I'm as atheist as they come and even I own a bible ... oh wait, that's the 'PHP Bible'. Well anyway, those liberals better not take away my bible, at least until after I've memorized the operator precedence table.
posted by boaz at 9:41 AM on September 26, 2004


> How cute, jfuller linked to world nut daily, your most dependable
> source of news.

nofundy, of all the links that Google provideth reporting the passage of bill c-250, I picked the WorldNetDaily one just to make your day. I watch out for your mental welfare like I was your mom.


Space Coyote:

> Shorter jfuller:
>
> If you are for the separation of church and state you want to ban the bible.

Only slightly longer jfuller: if you are for separation of church and state you better be careful not to be absolutist about it. Telling religious persons to keep it absolutely in the closet is on all fours with telling gay persons the same.
posted by jfuller at 9:50 AM on September 26, 2004


When you use your church and bible to criminalize other Americans and deprive them of rights, it's very much not the same.

And your loaded language: on all fours? Pray tell, what does that infer?
posted by amberglow at 10:05 AM on September 26, 2004


> Pray tell, what does that infer?

It implies "equally beast-irrational." What the reader infers is of course his own business.
posted by jfuller at 10:12 AM on September 26, 2004


You can't claim that the evil atheists are just as bad until the government decidees to put "in the notion that there is no god we trust" on US money. Until then, secularism != enforced atheism.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:18 AM on September 26, 2004


I don't think they need to ban the bible to comply with c-250, just redact certain passages. Since they're among the most idiotic, embarassing ones in the bible anyway, that should make everyone happy. Well, everyone who's not a homphobic bigot at least.
posted by boaz at 10:18 AM on September 26, 2004


jfuller, don't be a fucktard. The passage of Bill C-250 has nothing to do with banning the bible, and the Canadian government and judicial systems both have no interest in controlling personal faith.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 AM on September 26, 2004


As a liberal, I try to do unto others what many supporters of President Bush would never do unto me: I respect their right to hold religious beliefs different from mine.
Pray and Let Pray — that's my motto. Or Pray and Let Not Pray. But even liberals shouldn't tolerate the Bush administration's attempts to enshrine religious beliefs in government agencies, especially those that deal in science and health. ...
--from here
posted by amberglow at 10:26 AM on September 26, 2004


Telling religious persons to keep it absolutely in the closet

So, jfuller, keeping religion out of the government (and government-funded facilities and activities) is the same as forcing it into the closet?
posted by billsaysthis at 10:27 AM on September 26, 2004


If I could find the font that the word "BANNED" is in, I would photoshop up a "TOO HOT FOR TV" version.

All right, I wouldn't. I'm too lazy.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:32 AM on September 26, 2004


I don't know whether to sit back with a bucket of popcorn or a bottle of cyanide when I think of the next six weeks...
posted by jokeefe at 10:54 AM on September 26, 2004


I don't think we should ban the whole bible, just the Old Testament. The parts with Jesus are OK. Too bad more Christians don't read those parts.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:06 AM on September 26, 2004


Depends on what country you currently live in.

If you ARE in the U.S., you may wanna hold on to that cyanide.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:07 AM on September 26, 2004


hot fish loaf
posted by quonsar at 11:13 AM on September 26, 2004


> So, jfuller, keeping religion out of the government (and government-
> funded facilities and activities) is the same as forcing it into the closet?

We live in a time when government is so far-reaching and invasive, and government funding is so widespread, that there is no area of life left that is entirely free of some connection to some government entity or gets some amount of funding from the same. There is simply no part of modern life that is not state-connected one way or another. The absolutist position on church-state separation requires that religious expression be excluded from any venue, event, or occasion that can be shown to have some connection to the state, and that covers everything. Therefore I say you better not be absolutist about it, unless you're really eager to see the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 get reborn as a Constitutional amendment.
posted by jfuller at 11:19 AM on September 26, 2004


From jfuller's link:
opponents fear if Robinson's bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature"
Well, that's certainly equivalent to "a whole country of liberals right near here does want to ban the Bible"! Did you think nobody was actually going to read your link?

quonsar, is that the fish in your pants? That's got to be uncomfortable!
posted by languagehat at 11:20 AM on September 26, 2004


Falwell says evangelicals control GOP, Bush's fate
posted by homunculus at 11:23 AM on September 26, 2004


> Did you think nobody was actually going to read your link?

Maybe you could read both links? The first link shows that Canadian courts are interpreting laws already on the books to construe biblical quotations as hate speech. The language of the new law makes the same interpretation much easier to arrive at. Quod erat demonstrandum.
posted by jfuller at 11:46 AM on September 26, 2004


Miracles do happen!!
Hallelujah!!
Falwell finally spoke the truth!

September 25, 2004

WASHINGTON – The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.
...

Falwell was among roughly a dozen speakers at the Christian Coalition workshop, which was held in a Senate auditorium, a courtesy arranged by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority whip, the No. 2 Republican position in the Senate. The speakers included:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said Bush's re-election is critical because "the next president is going to appoint two, perhaps four, Supreme Court justices," making it possible to reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion-rights ruling.

The Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, who, in announcing a $1 million campaign to mobilize church-going voters, likened politicians who support abortion rights to people who support terrorism.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who said "preachers must be free to speak out" in favor of anti-abortion office-seekers because liberals are attempting to "eliminate the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this country was founded."

The "Road to Victory 2004" conference ends today at a Washington hotel with several hundred Christian activists attending training sessions for registering new voters and getting those voters to the polls on Election Day.


There you have it. Fundamentalist extremists control our political process, just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan and they call themselves "Republicans."

Worry. We are also the creators of terrorism in the world. All in the name of God.
posted by nofundy at 11:52 AM on September 26, 2004


So, now jfuller says that if people don't just lay down and let the fundamentalists infest the government, they'll pass a law to let them do the same thing. Essentially saying: if you don't let us win we'll keep fighting. Well, d'uh.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:02 PM on September 26, 2004


We live in a time when government is so far-reaching and invasive, and government funding is so widespread, that there is no area of life left that is entirely free of some connection to some government entity or gets some amount of funding from the same.

And this would include, say, churches and other places of worship, offices of publishing companies, private organizations and private homes? Or are you continuing to exaggerate in hopes that others will simply be fooled by your lies?

Again, what is so terrible about simply living your life by the rules of your religion without imposing them by law on the rest of us? Can you give me a direct answer to that simple question?
posted by billsaysthis at 12:28 PM on September 26, 2004


I would settle for banning the The Books of Daniel and Revelation, myself.
posted by y2karl at 1:33 PM on September 26, 2004


The GOP's rantings aren't the sad thing in this story... far sadder is the fact that some people who can vote are stupid enough to believe them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... democracies get the government they deserve.
posted by clevershark at 1:46 PM on September 26, 2004


> Again, what is so terrible about simply living your life by the rules of your
> religion without imposing them by law on the rest of us? Can you give
> me a direct answer to that simple question?

Nothing at all, and I wish both sides could let it rest at that. You guys just stop passing laws that assume and enforce secularism and I'll ask any fundie I ever happen to meet to cease doing the opposite. But both sides have to play nice and stop trying to win, and I am not holding my breath.
posted by jfuller at 2:06 PM on September 26, 2004


You guys just stop passing laws that assume and enforce secularism

You do know the difference between secularism and enforced atheism, don't you?
posted by Space Coyote at 2:17 PM on September 26, 2004


billsaysthis:

>private organizations

Thank you. A really superior example of exactly what I'm talking about. You want people to leave you alone and tolerate what you think is right, you can bloody well leave the Boy Scouts alone and tolerate their doing what they think is right. Whether they meet in a school auditorium or not.
posted by jfuller at 2:20 PM on September 26, 2004


> You do know the difference between secularism and enforced atheism,
> don't you?

I do, very clearly. Let me format my advice to emphasize the difference.

A) Do not pass laws, or indeed create a society, that assumes and imposes secularism on all its participants, willing and unwilling alike. After you have carefully not done A), proceed to ...

B) Do not pass laws, or indeed create a society, that assumes and imposes atheism on all its participants, willing and unwilling alike.

B) is not yet much of a problem in the US. A) is a great and constant problem for spiritual persons with well-integrated personalities, who cannot leave their spirituality behind them when they go out into the public arena. Asking such a person to do so is precisely comparable to asking an entirely different sort of person to detach his penis and leave it behind when he goes out.
posted by jfuller at 2:36 PM on September 26, 2004


>Shorter jfuller

Shorter jfuller: An unrelated piece on Canada's strict hate speech laws somehow has any connection to this. (obligatory world nut daily article tossed in for good measure)

>Thank you. A really superior example of exactly what I'm talking about.

How about keeping Nergos and Jews out of Country Clubs? Same priciple.

>you can bloody well leave the Boy Scouts alone and tolerate their doing what they think is right.

This whole "you should be tolerant of our intolerance" 'logic' is wearing thin. Sorry, but racism, bigotry, discrimination etc are no longer protected in the US. It all started with this clearly anti-American bible-banning law we call the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ideal of all men being created equal isn't some illuminati conspiracy, but is actually the US constitution! Go figure. The "private organization" defense doesn't work as well as it used to and will continue to fail as people get fed up with bigotry, be it public or private.
posted by skallas at 2:44 PM on September 26, 2004


You can leave your religious beliefs behind when appropriate, and at this point in our history these beliefs are brought out in inappropriate ways all the time. Cathy Young makes a good case as for why here - with a bit of a "pox on both sides" feel.
posted by raysmj at 2:49 PM on September 26, 2004


I think many of us would like to play nice with religious figures (I liked being raised in a church, and feel no bitterness), but the fear mongering of the right frightens us. There is constant repetition of misinformation.

I have never met a Democrat who advocated banning the bible, nor can I think of one who doesn't express religious sentiment and respect for relgious faith. And C-250 is so far from stigmatizing the Bible it isn't funny. Canada (where I am writing this) funds faithbased schools , allows displays or religious symbols everywhere, and generally bends overbackwards to make everyone feel safe to display their cultures and religious sentiments. Painting it as an anti-religious nation is just ignorant fear-mongering.

I'd prefer it if George Bush would just come out and tell us what he intends to do with the supreme court. Many of us can guess, but many voters don't seem that interested.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:58 PM on September 26, 2004


raysmj links Cathy Young in Reason. Cathy Young asks "When will secularism be allowed in the public square?" The answer is it's perfectly welcome right now--as long as it doesn't try to hog the whole place for itself. It must learn to leave room for those who are not secular.

skallas, I guarantee I'll never recommend patience, forebearance or tolerance to you. I know when I'm wasting breath. What you're interested in is fighting evil, which puts you in exactly the same class of people as GWB (with the obvious difference that GWB is wrong while skallas is right)
posted by jfuller at 3:05 PM on September 26, 2004


It all started with this clearly anti-American bible-banning law we call the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Which was passed due mainly to the efforts of a bible totin' minister.

Now jfuller, skallas, and the rest of you join hands and sing "What A Freind We Have In Jesus" followed by John Lennon's "God" and we can all relax.
posted by jonmc at 3:07 PM on September 26, 2004


jonmc, and this minister planned the killings of civil rights activists. The lone juror couldnt convict him because she couldnt convict a preacher. Religion is a complex thing indeed.

Things are much more complex than your simple jesus vs. secularists nonsense.

The meltingpot that is the US doesn't want bigots like jfuller, the boy scouts, et al hiding behind religion or ANY ideology. Gays, atheists, non-Xtians, etc should not be discriminated against. Period.
posted by skallas at 3:11 PM on September 26, 2004


jonmc, and this minister planned the killings of civil rights activists. The lone juror couldnt convict him because she couldnt convict a preacher. Religion is a complex thing indeed.

Things are much more complex than your simple jesus vs. secularists nonsense.


skallas, I agree with you. That was kind of the point of putting the hymn next to Lennon lyrics: that I can embrace both of 'em. Just trying to defuse this always emotional subject.
posted by jonmc at 3:15 PM on September 26, 2004


Would jfuller be satisfied if Judge Roy Moore got to put large monuments in all the courtrooms?
Would that satisy the "leave the fundies alone" approach?

How about we just make sure that the darkies can't sneak into the country clubs of the south while we're at it?

Let's be honest here, this pamphlet is just a variation of the Southern Strategy.

Everyone knows that subhumans don't have a soul and therefore can be banned from the scouts and other "faith based" clubs, correct? [retch]

I'm quite sure that God is not happy that His name is on our currency as one cannot serve two masters. And equating patriotism with faith in the Pledge probably pisses God off too since we should "render unto Caesar."

It takes a sick puppy to defend this RNC baiting tactic.
posted by nofundy at 3:17 PM on September 26, 2004


I'm not defending it, nofundy. As far as I'm concerned I think the pamphlet is insulting to everyone involved.
posted by jonmc at 3:21 PM on September 26, 2004


jfuller: It's not welcome, and Young made a worthy argument as to why, with cited examples of all sides using religion in their favor. If you want to give specific examples as to why she's wrong, please do. But if I wanted to run for a city council seat in Georgia, in anywhere but the Atlanta or Athens (and maybe Savannah), it's safe to assume that I'd be rejected on the grounds of not being religious enough. It's the same nationally in many cases. Why is every politician expected to go on and on about his or her faith? I don't give a rat's ass, frankly. Politicians deal with earthly affairs, not the Lord's work.

The Time reporter's question to Dean (of whom I was not a supporter, but still ... _) that Young listed was frankly insane, just completely inappropriate.
posted by raysmj at 3:23 PM on September 26, 2004


"Render unto Caesar" was more or less the same as saying, "Whatever, y'all. This is not my world. Next issue ... "
posted by raysmj at 3:24 PM on September 26, 2004


I thought as much jonmc and was not directing fire at you.
posted by nofundy at 3:44 PM on September 26, 2004


> it's safe to assume that I'd be rejected on the grounds of not being
> religious enough.

You know this because it's "safe to assume?" Ahem, cough cough.

Possibly if more thoroughgoing secularists ran for office, instead of not running because they assume they'll be rejected, more secularists would find they were electable after all. Or possibly we just need candidates with the guts to tell the voters "my religion or lack of it is my own business."
posted by jfuller at 3:46 PM on September 26, 2004


I don't want God, Allah, Budda or otherwise in my government. Keep it in your family, keep it in your house, keep it with your friends, but keep it the hell away from our courts, our schools, our government. The Boy Scouts want to preach hate? That's their perogative. But then they shouldn't get tax breaks, preferential treatment, etc. The founders of this country, for all their outright contradictions and slaveholding, etc. had it as right as rain.

And no, secularists and athiests have no chance of being elected in this country. Its one of the things that hurt Howard Dean and will be an ongoing problem.
posted by owillis at 3:47 PM on September 26, 2004


jfuller: How about the poll Young cited? How about the way Dean was treated (before he sold out and started yakking about Jesus all the time)? Running for office takes a lot of money, a lot of personal time. Why bother when the evidence points in this direction? It's an assumption, yes, but based upon a more than decent amount of solid evidence.

People who don't want to wear their faith on their sleeve have their work cut out for them. It will take a large amount of time, money and effort for attitudes to change.
posted by raysmj at 3:57 PM on September 26, 2004


Actually, jfuller, they believe that because 45-50% of Americans in poll after poll say that they would never vote for an atheist candidate. It takes a lot of sac under those conditions to claim religious people are being persecuted, especially when your Exhibit A is a law that doesn't do that, passed in a whole different country. I realize that "spiritual persons with well-integrated personalities" have considerably lowered standards of proof, but you win the prize.
posted by boaz at 4:02 PM on September 26, 2004


jfuller: And here we also have as evidence your opinion that people who are religious can't keep their religiosity to themselves when entering the public sphere. Maybe they can't do away with it entirely, but they can refuse to let their spiritual side affect how they view public policy, or refuse to act as if God's on their side. Or do you have to go flaunting your superior moral values around, like the penis used in your comparison?
posted by raysmj at 4:02 PM on September 26, 2004


would just come out and tell us what he intends to do with the supreme court

Very simple. Put in a couple of very young, very right-wing judges. Overturn Roe v. Wade. In the parade of happiness and outrage that follows, pass a giant tax cut that no one will notice. Proft.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:06 PM on September 26, 2004


> Actually, jfuller, they believe that because 45-50% of Americans in poll
> after poll say that they would never vote for an atheist candidate.

Atheist? Where'd that come from? I thought we were talking about secularist. Didn't Space Coyote just finish asking if I could distinguish between secularism and atheism? I claimed I could. How about you?
posted by jfuller at 4:21 PM on September 26, 2004


Atheists are a subset of secularists, jfuller. It's like how saying one's only for discriminating against black men doesn't mean that person's not a racist.
posted by boaz at 4:35 PM on September 26, 2004


Or possibly we just need candidates with the guts to tell the voters "my religion or lack of it is my own business."

Which of course won't work because attending church is a public act, part of the dog-and-pony show required of politicians. Combine that with the fact that a far higher percentage of religious people would refuse to vote for an atheist than vice versa, and it's pretty hard to get worked up about all this terrible secular discrimination.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:12 PM on September 26, 2004


Uhhh, "secular discrimination against the mixing of church and state", that is.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:14 PM on September 26, 2004


boaz:

> I don't think they need to ban the bible to comply with c-250, just
> redact certain passages.

That sounds so very simple. But, see, you've got a hidden (or more likely unconscious) assumption there, namely that the Bible is assumed not to be the word of God. That introduces certain, uh, complications. Because if it's not God's word then the whole problem just vanishes, we don't need any editing because nobody cares about the issue any more. But if it is God's word, you can't redact God--not a single word, not even the embarassing passages where He surely ought to have known better.

So your simple solution requires that you first persuade those who thought The Bible was the word of the Almighty that they were mistaken, which is unlikely, or else that you go ahead and chop the passages you don't like in spite of what they may think, and somehow enforce your cuts--which is banning.

posted by jfuller at 6:44 PM on September 26, 2004


> jfuller, don't be a fucktard. The passage of Bill C-250 has nothing to do
> with banning the bible,

Don't mind me, fff, I haven't t thing to say to that, I just wanted to read it over again.
posted by jfuller at 6:50 PM on September 26, 2004


But, see, you've got a hidden (or more likely unconscious) assumption there, namely that the Bible is assumed not to be the word of God.

Alternatively, one could reach the same conclusion by assuming that the Bible is the word of God filtered through us oh so very imperfect humans. Those that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are already accepting human edits, as (speaking just about the New Testament) there are a large number of gospels that didn't make the final cut into the Bible. See the Gospel of Thomas for some really interesting philosophical sayings, the Gospel of Mary for a bizarre gyno exam involving flames, or one of any number of wonderfully weird gospels purporting to tell the childhood of Jesus and how he opened more than a few cans of whoopass on his opponents.
posted by TungstenChef at 7:15 PM on September 26, 2004


Clearly anyone who reads the Old Testament in any other language than Hebrew, or the New Testament in any other language than Greek or Aramaic (sp?), must accept that the "Word of God" has definitely been edited by human persons.
posted by clevershark at 8:14 PM on September 26, 2004


But if it is God's word, you can't redact God--not a single word, not even the embarassing passages where He surely ought to have known better.

Good catch, jfuller. I propose a test; some Canadian minister in charge of redacting will run a permanent marker over the offending passages. If the permanent marker disappears on contact or the minister drops dead, then they'll admit that it's the word of God and can't be redacted. OTOH, if the minister succeeds in blotting out the passages, then they'll assume that God either didn't write it or doesn't care and leave it redacted.

On preview: right you are clevershark, and they even added those cantor marks to the Hebrew OT, so it'd be tough to find something really pure. For all we know, God's more pissed about this than Harlan Ellison is about City On The Edge Of Forever.
posted by boaz at 8:29 PM on September 26, 2004


jfuller, if the Bible is the Word of God, how come their are so many different versions including translations down through the centuries? Even if not everything in it is intended to be read as literal, why wouldn't the Big Guy have at least only allowed one version? And if--I'm just guessing one possibility here--the differences are due to the Hand of Evil, then how does one know which version is the right one?

I remain immensely confused by the proliferation of Christian denominations. My own tribe, the Jews, have a few divisions but those differences are a little more obviously understood even if similar reasoning could be applied to question them.
posted by billsaysthis at 8:38 PM on September 26, 2004


My Invisible Friend is better than yours.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:16 PM on September 26, 2004


a great and constant problem for spiritual persons with well-integrated personalities, who cannot leave their spirituality behind them when they go out into the public arena. Asking such a person to do so is precisely comparable to asking an entirely different sort of person to detach his penis and leave it behind when he goes out.

Hopefully you are not equating a lack of "spirituality" with emasculation. I'm sure it was just a randomly-chosen analogy with no deeper meaning...

But, see, you've got a hidden (or more likely unconscious) assumption there, namely that the Bible is assumed not to be the word of God.

But they've already decided that it's not. Christians have in the past thrown out entire books of scripture. I don't see why further changes should be any more problematic.
posted by kindall at 9:43 PM on September 26, 2004


For all we know, God's more pissed about this than Harlan Ellison is about City On The Edge Of Forever.

Thanks for making my morning, Boaz!
posted by mkhall at 3:21 AM on September 27, 2004


> Those that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are already accepting human
> edits, as (speaking just about the New Testament) there are a large
> number of gospels that didn't make the final cut into the Bible.

I know that. You know that. I'm not the one that needs convincing. I read the Diamond Sutra at bedtime anyway, not Leviticus. You'll be wanting to convince folks who've either never heard of the Council of Nicaea or else who believe the bishops and the Emperor had the benefit of direct Divine guidance which the Canadian courts, parliament and PM rather lack.
posted by jfuller at 3:50 AM on September 27, 2004


So: Political leaders do not have divine guidance, if you believe in such a thing. Exactly! They are not clergy. Put your religion back in your pants.
posted by raysmj at 5:59 AM on September 27, 2004


jfuller: It's also worth pointing out that the U.S. and Canada are not the same country, and that they have certain differing traditions and ways of viewing the government's role in society. It's too much to get into, but you're generalizing about liberals based on actions taken in another country.
posted by raysmj at 6:10 AM on September 27, 2004


I don't believe any book should be banned. However, those people who are intent on banning books (particularly on the grounds of protecting the omnipresent children) are hypocrites if they choose to not ban the Bible.
There's more murder, genocide, adultery, paedophilia and misogony in the Bible than any SE Hinton book I've read (admittedly I haven't read them all).
posted by infowar at 7:38 AM on September 27, 2004


You just keep reading, jfuller, over and over, until you understand that Bill C-250 has absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with repressing religious faith, and everything to do with stopping hate speech and incitement to violence.

Asshole.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:06 AM on September 27, 2004


No one told me about the meeting either. And I'm not Christian, so you think they'd invite me! Bastards. ; )
posted by SisterHavana at 12:19 PM on September 27, 2004


"...everything to do with stopping hate speech and incitement to violence.

Asshole."


I believe the correct terminology is "Asshole-American".

Unless that was some sort of hate speech, or incitement to violence, or something.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:06 PM on September 27, 2004


?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 PM on September 27, 2004


Posterior person, please.
posted by squirrel at 9:03 AM on September 28, 2004


« Older Why straights shouldn't marry....  |  Front Design... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments