Skip

Petition Against Ashcroft
January 16, 2001 9:53 AM   Subscribe

Petition Against Ashcroft
Yet another anti-Ashcroft site. Complete with a petition and scary Ashcroft quotes.
posted by snakey (47 comments total)

 
Dueling Ashcroft links! Woo hoo.

I found out something new from that anti-Ashcroft site. He actually praised Southern Partisan in his interview, saying that it "helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that ..."

If we take him at his word, Ashcroft was familiar with the magazine when he gave that interview. As a result, it's a fair subject for discussion about what he thinks of some of virulently racist articles it has run, which were discussed previously here.
posted by rcade at 10:13 AM on January 16, 2001


I get a kick out of the Southern Partisan quote, "Southern Patriots like Lee, Jackson and Davis." The term "Southern Patriots" is such an oxymoron. The South declared themselves a sovereign nation, and declared war on the United States. One could argue that "Southern Patriot" is synonymous with "American traitor". (I wouldn't argue that, but if the tables were turned, you can bet that the conservatives would. After all, Abbie Hoffman was called a traitor for exercising his First Amendment rights, etc.)
posted by jpoulos at 10:26 AM on January 16, 2001


A book that I took with great seriousness is Edmund Wilson's Patriotic Gore. He makes it abundantly clear that the end of his study, though a Northern with roots back to our earliest days, he has great sympathy for the South because we had emphasized from the start that we were states confederated, that is, brought together for a common good but that each state had the right to leave this confederation if it saw fit. In other words: states rights.
But in a later book about Abe Lincoln, the author made the point that Lincoln, during the Civil War, changed the rules of the game and that the Union (all the states, federated) would no longer allow for leaving and hence the war itself.
We have, then, some (conservatives, largely) calling for the rights of states and others, usually Democrats, calling for the centrality and authority fo the federal govt.
I note, merely because it is amusing, that those states usually arguing for supremacy of individual states are more often than not those states getting more money back from the federal government than they send in as taxes; and many states that seem to go Democratic , often pay more into the central government than they receive back in various forms, including, alas, my state, Connecticut.
posted by Postroad at 10:44 AM on January 16, 2001


I don't think that anti-Ashcroft sites will do much good (right-wingers will just scream 'liberal bias' like they always do when someone has an opinion that differs from their agenda)The man's record speaks for itself.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 11:00 AM on January 16, 2001


Kinda like the left-wingers scream "racist" like they always do when someone has an opinion that differs from their agenda.
posted by CRS at 11:12 AM on January 16, 2001


If the shoe fits. . .
posted by snakey at 11:18 AM on January 16, 2001


From the BBC article

He angered Democrats in 1999 by accepting an honorary degree from South Carolina's Bob Jones University, which until last year banned interracial dating. Students still have to have parental permission

I'm sorry?
What did you say?

banned interracial dating. Students still have to have parental permission

oh.
posted by fullerine at 11:29 AM on January 16, 2001


I have yet to see any proof that Ashcroft is a racist. In fact, I see on his record that he appointed blacks to office when he was governor. I see that he supported blacks for positions on the bench as a Senator. Where does it ever come out, by his actions, that he is racist? Accepting an honorary degree from Bob Jones University is NOT proof of that. Was every person who served in the U.S. government before the Civil War a racist? Is every person who contributed money to Sinn Fein a terrorist? Am I a racist if I think that a particular black person is unsuited for a position because of his history or just because I don't like him for political reasons?

I assume it's only a matter of time before a liberal stands up before the cameras and says, "I have in my hand a list of 205 cases of individuals who appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party." Oops, just substitute "racist viewpoint" for Communist Party in the above.

Welcome to the new McCarthyism.
posted by CRS at 12:05 PM on January 16, 2001


Gosh, this is the witty conversation I joined Metafilter to take part in...

The following is an article a friend of mine wrote about his wife's days as a student at Bob Jones University. I think it is a great read, and have not had a good place to post it, this seems to be as good as any to cram it in.

Amy then, and now. Interesting.

You can all go back to yelling at each other again now.
posted by thirteen at 12:09 PM on January 16, 2001


Another skeleton rattles out: Ashcroft, like Bush and Clinton, found a creative way to stay out of Vietnam.

To answer your question, CRS, no. But if you give an interview to Southern Partisan praising the magazine, you're going to raise a lot of doubt about your racial tolerance.
posted by rcade at 12:21 PM on January 16, 2001


I think Ashcrofts insane religious beliefs are a little more disturbing than the fact that he may be racist by association. I mean, even taken out of context, "They say you can't legislate morality. Well, you certainly can," is a pretty chilling quote.
posted by Doug at 12:37 PM on January 16, 2001


Come on, Doug, we've been legislating morality here in the U.S. for decades. Civil rights, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. are all legislated morality.

And what, exactly, is "insane" about Ashcroft's religious beliefs? They're certainly fundamentalist, but hardly insane.
posted by CRS at 12:46 PM on January 16, 2001


"They say you can't legislate morality. Well, you certainly can,"
Technically you can, it just won't do any good.
posted by thirteen at 12:53 PM on January 16, 2001


CRS,
You really think that, for instance, not allowing the quartering of soldiers in civilian homes is legislating morality, huh?
I find it kind of crazy that anyone would have a literal interpretation of the bible. But that's just me.
posted by Doug at 1:13 PM on January 16, 2001


CRS, “religion” and “morality” do not necessarily go hand in hand. Passing laws under the guise of holy precedence is little more than evangelism.

My favorite Ashcroft quote so far was in last week’s New Yorker.

“Now, the opera gets subsidy from the National Endowment for the Arts, but by and large, Willie Nelson and Garth Brooks don’t. Those of us that drive our pickups to those concerts don’t get a subsidy; but the people who drive their Mercedes to the opera get a subsidy.”
— 9/17/97

What a scary man.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:16 PM on January 16, 2001


Civil rights and equal protection under the law, which is the basis for the ADA, are Constitutional freedoms--not the imposition of personal morality. Prayer in school, for example, is an example of personal morality coming into conflict with Consitutional law. Outlawing discrimination is not.
posted by jpoulos at 1:17 PM on January 16, 2001


They're certainly fundamentalist, but hardly insane.

Ummmm.....
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:18 PM on January 16, 2001


Okay, so John Ashcroft opposes Ronnie White's judgeship and that's racist. But Doug and Mars Saxman refer to Ashcroft's religious beliefs (he is a member of the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal Christian denomination, and his views align with that of the church) as insane and that's fair discourse?

Hypocritical much? You guys can do better than that.
posted by Dreama at 1:25 PM on January 16, 2001


You guys can do better than that

What gives you that impression? :p
posted by cell divide at 1:34 PM on January 16, 2001


Ah, excuse me, Doug. I meant the Civil Rights Legislation such as the 14th Amendment and subsequent laws forbidding discrimination based on race. Not allowing soldiers to be quartered in civilian homes is not legislating morality. Not allowing someone to refuse to serve a black person solely because that person is black IS legislating morality.

And I never said religion and morality went hand in hand. In fact, some of the most egregious violations of morality as I understand it were committed under the umbrella of religion. I was simply addressing comments about Ashcroft's religious beliefs.

I don't even have a problem with legislating morality. I would just like everyone to realize that we indeed do so.
posted by CRS at 1:36 PM on January 16, 2001


Believing that someone is intrinsically inferior because of the area of the world their ancestors came from is the same as thinking someone is insane for their beliefs? If you really believe that, Dreama, I think you're inferior, and would never let you marry my sister.
But seriously, if someone told you that they believed absolutely in Superman comic books, and that there is a man who can fly and do all that kooky superman stuff, you'd think he was insane. For some reason, replace the Superman comic with an old book about talking snakes and giant monsters and suddenly I'm supposed to be tolerant? I dunno. I don't see the hypocrisy. But maybe that's just because you're clearly racist. Just kidding.
posted by Doug at 1:36 PM on January 16, 2001


So lemme get this straight Doug, because you reject the religious beliefs that Ashcroft (and millions like him) hold, you can dismiss and insult him because of those beliefs, and it's not intolerant at all.

But Ashcroft rejects Ronnie White as a nominee for a judgeship for reasons wholly unrelated to White's race, but because White is an African-American, it was a racist thing to do.

Gotcha. Now, tell me again, what colour is the sky in your world?
posted by Dreama at 2:12 PM on January 16, 2001


Dreama, even if Doug were being unjustly judgemental and intolerant (which he isn't), there's a huge difference between him doing it and the Attorney General of the United States doing it. I'll defend Ashcroft's right to believe stupid things, but he'd make a lousy AG, because the AG is supposed to be FAIR. Your argument is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I."
posted by jpoulos at 2:17 PM on January 16, 2001


I assume that the National Endowment for the Arts, um, endows the arts. That should answer Ashcroft's query over why Garth Brooks doesn't get a subsidy.
posted by holgate at 2:25 PM on January 16, 2001


Okay, one more try, then I'm giving up.

What exactly is it about having strong beliefs on issues that renders Ashcroft incapable of being "fair?" Everyone has issues they have decided their position on, and stated so without qualification. Does that mean that they are incapable of putting their beliefs aside when they don't coincide with doing their jobs?

Does anyone believe that John Ashcroft was able to rise through the ranks of power, from local elected office to the U.S. senate without realising that he was not going to be able to impose his ideals upon the people with impunity?

Does anyone take him at his word when he clearly states that it is against his religion to impose his religious values upon anyone who is not interested? Can anyone offer one bit of evidence from Ashcroft's +/- twenty years of public service to suggest otherwise -- or that shows him acting at a level of "extremity" as suggested, so far to the right of center as to make him the danger that he has been painted to be?
posted by Dreama at 2:42 PM on January 16, 2001


Regardless of Mr. Ashcroft's views on race, we should probably focus on Asscroft's tactics to keep Ronnie White off the federal bench. Slandering him with labels like 'pro-criminal' although he had the support of law enforcement agencies, including the fraternal order of police, and calling him 'anti-death penalty' -- even though he upheld the death penalty 2/3 percent of the time. I don't think we need an AG who twists the facts and resorts to outright fabrication to slander his opponents.
posted by snakey at 2:45 PM on January 16, 2001


uh. . sorry, that's:

... upheld the death penalty 2/3 of the time.
posted by snakey at 2:47 PM on January 16, 2001


What exactly is it about having strong beliefs on issues that renders Ashcroft incapable of being "fair"?

That's a good question. Someone should have posed it to Sen. Ashcroft when he strongly opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Division.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Bill Lann Lee is an excellent lawyer," Ashcroft said in a press statement at the time. "He has a compelling personal history, and I have every reason to believe that he is a man of integrity who believes deeply in the civil rights work to which he has dedicated his professional life. ... Unfortunately, however, the answers Mr. Lee gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrate that he is better suited to the role of zealous advocate than to the role of the nation's highest ranking civil rights law enforcement officer. ... We need someone who will enforce the laws, not circumvent them."

Ashcroft's Senate service was defined by his opposition to executive nominees on ideological grounds. If the Senate plays the same game with him, who can blame them? Payback's a bitch.


posted by rcade at 3:45 PM on January 16, 2001


fullerine:

From the BBC article

He angered Democrats in 1999 by accepting an honorary degree from South Carolina's Bob Jones University, which until last year banned interracial dating. Students still have to have parental permission

I'm sorry?
What did you say?

banned interracial dating. Students still have to have parental permission

oh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the story is a bit more complicated than that
(although in the end, Bob Jones U. is just as sleazy).
After the controversy sparked by Bush's speech during
the South Carolina, Bob Jones University made a public
statement that it was ending the ban on interracial
dating.

Then, during a school assembly, a Bob Jones official
said that the new policy would be to allow students
to date interracially only if they got express
written consent from their parents. Essentially, the
good folks at Bob Jones were trying to keep the ban
but con outsiders into thinking that they had lifted it.

Unfortunately, a reporter was in attendance at that
assembly, and the "policy change" was seen for
what it was: a sham. Then, after facing a second
wave of criticism, a spokesman for Bob Jones said
that the assembly was meant for the Bob Jones U.
community only, and that it was a working meeting,
and the "parental consent" was only a draft proposal,
which they decided against anyway.

Right. Of course, the folks at Bob Jones U. were lying
through their teeth, having conveniently forgotten that
they aren't supposed to bear false witness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS:

I have yet to see any proof that Ashcroft is a racist. In fact, I see on his record that he appointed blacks to office when he was governor. I see that he supported blacks for positions on the bench as a Senator. Where does it ever come out, by his actions, that he is racist? Accepting an honorary degree from Bob Jones University is NOT proof of that. Was every person who served in the U.S. government before the Civil War a racist? Is every person who contributed money to Sinn Fein a terrorist? Am I a racist if I think that a particular black person is unsuited for a position because of his history or just because I don't like him for political reasons?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've heard this bogus canard tossed around quite a few
times over the past couple of weeks or so. I don't know
whether Ashcroft is a racist. I can't read his mind, and
I doubt there's a smoking gun here (like him being
caught on videotape using racial slurs).

But who cares? Even if Ashcroft fully believes that
African-Americans are in no way inferior to Caucasians
in the aggregate, it doesn't change the fact that he
sees nothing wrong with cozying up to racists for
perceived political gain. Ashcroft was considering a
run for the Republican presidential nomination, and
his quotes in Southern Partisan and his
lobbying on behalf of the CCC were surely meant to
shore up his support from racists within the Republican
party.

If you send money to Sinn Fein, it doesn't make you a
terrorist, but it does make you an apologist for
terrorism. If you accept an honorary degree from a
racist and anti-Catholic institution, you're an apologist
for racism and anti-Catholicism. The fact that you
appoint some blacks to some positions does not change
this fact in the slightest. (And not all politicians
before the war were apologists for the Confederacy,
so I don't understand your point there.)

Opposing Ronnie White, on the other hand, doesn't
make him a racist, it makes him a weasel and liar. His
stated reason for opposing White (Ashcroft said he
was notoriously soft on crime, and was acting on
behalf of law and order groups) is a lie. He and his
office were instrumental in fomenting opposition to
White among police groups (marginal ones, the
mainstream Missouri police organizations ignored
Ashcroft). And by no stretch of the imagination was
White as soft on crime as Ashcroft wishes to pretend.
His real reason was likely that White fell on the wrong
side of the abortion issue. Do I know this for a fact?
No, but taken at face value, his arguments against
White are bogus.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 3:46 PM on January 16, 2001


What exactly is it about having strong beliefs on issues that renders Ashcroft incapable of being "fair"?

It's the issues that he's chosen to have strong beliefs on that makes him unfit for the job of Attorney General. The job requires the ability to apply the law equally to all people, which I think most people who don't support him think he won't be capable of.

It's almost analogous to appointing an Anarchist to be the head of Federal Reserve...
posted by Neb at 4:25 PM on January 16, 2001


If you accept an honorary degree from a racist and anti-Catholic institution, you're an apologist for racism and anti-Catholicism.

Do you drive a car? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't that make you an apologist for Big Oil? Have you ever seen a John Travolta movie? Does that suddenly make you sympathetic to the tenets of Scientology?

I don't particularly like John Ashcroft's religious beliefs, but I don't think that automatically precludes him from enforcing the law.


posted by MrBaliHai at 5:18 PM on January 16, 2001


It's not driving the car that makes you an apologist for Big Oil. It's giving money to Big Oil on a regular basis. ;)
posted by kindall at 5:33 PM on January 16, 2001


USR> If you accept an honorary degree from a racist and anti-Catholic institution, you're an apologist for racism and anti-Catholicism.

Mr.BH> Do you drive a car? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't that make you an apologist for Big Oil? Have you ever seen a John Travolta movie? Does that suddenly make you sympathetic to the tenets of Scientology?


Gee, I guess 1) accepting an honorary degree from an openly bigoted institution, 2) praising a blatantly racist magazine for its handling of such "patriots" as Jefferson Davis, and 3) doing political favors for blatantly racist institutions such as the Conservative Citizens Council, are as essential to getting by in everyday life as using gasoline-powered vehicles. Why, just this morning I was forced to accept an honorary degree from Bob Jones University just to get to work! Sure, I could have gone fifty miles out of my way to avoid those Bob Jones folks who insisted on thrusting an honorary degree into my hands, but coward that I am, I took the easy way out. Mr.BaliHai, you have shamed me into a full retraction of my previous position. Here's my new one: anyone who opposes Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States is a bald-faced hypocrite, and should remove the log in their eye before casting the first stone. Or something like that.

As for the Scientology/John Travolta, you're not actually criticizing Scientology in any way, are you? Because if you are, I'm not going to let myself be drawn into a conversation with a Psychlo-lovin', thetan-hatin' bigot.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 6:06 PM on January 16, 2001


It wasn't the parental control thing, I was genuinely shocked to read the words "until last year banned interracial dating" at the end of the twentieth century.

Does no one else see this as odd?
posted by fullerine at 6:14 PM on January 16, 2001


fullerine> It wasn't the parental control thing, I was genuinely shocked to read the words "until last year banned interracial dating" at the end of the twentieth century. Does no one else see this as odd?

I wasn't criticizing your main point, which is that the ban was obtuse and their stated reason for it (God made different races for a reason, and by engaging in miscegenation, we're undoing God's work) loathsome. I was just noting that their partial about-face involving parental consent was especially weaselly.

To quote the late Bill Hicks, "there are some serious pockets of humanity out there." This disturbs me. But what really bothers me is the willingness of national politicians to cozy up to these scumbags (note, I mean scumbag in the colloquial sense, not as a literal description of them as used condoms). Bush didn't even have the guts, like Alan Keyes had, to denounce the racism and anti-Catholic bigotry of the Bob Jones charter. He gave a speech and kept quiet about those policies.

However, I actually agree with Ashcroft on the following:

Capt.Crackpipe> My favorite Ashcroft quote so far was in last week’s New Yorker. “Now, the opera gets subsidy from the National Endowment for the Arts, but by and large, Willie Nelson and Garth Brooks don’t. Those of us that drive our pickups to those concerts don’t get a subsidy; but the people who drive their Mercedes to the opera get a subsidy.”
— 9/17/97
What a scary man.


I concur that anyone who would dare equate Garth Brooks to Willie Nelson is evil and deserves a good flogging. He should have used Johnny Cash or Dwight Yoakam or another talented musician. In fact, people who go to a Garth Brooks concert using any form of transportation should be punitively taxed.

However, I think his general point is correct. I realize that many opponents of the NEA are playing on an anti-intellectual streak in parts of the American public. I also realize that the yearly grant to the NEA is a little less than the operating budget of the Armed Forces marching bands. But why should operas be subsidized? Or any other artwork? As to the argument that there will be some loss of great art and art appreciation as a result of defunding the NEA. Here would be my solution: decrease the tax burden on the poorest citizens (maybe even up the EITC for those who pay no taxes) so that they can use the extra money to patronize art as they see fit. Yes, I know that this would require more money than is spent on the NEA. The advantage is that there'll likely be more support for true American folk art and less for performance artists shoving tubers up their nether regions. Also, said artists can no longer claim that they are martyrs to Jesse Helms's crusade, which is also a plus.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 6:46 PM on January 16, 2001


from mr.skullheads link:

Mr Ashcroft's record as a senator helps explain why he is so controversial. The conservative Christian Coalition gave him a 100% rating for the year 2000.

I'm convinced. He is scary....other people who scare me Love him.


posted by th3ph17 at 6:59 PM on January 16, 2001


They're certainly fundamentalist, but hardly insane.

Convince me there's a difference.
posted by rushmc at 7:57 PM on January 16, 2001


Thanks, thirteen, for the link. That was fascinating.
posted by rushmc at 7:57 PM on January 16, 2001


Urine, sad to see your otherwise impressive logic was penerated by the radical conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.

Giving money to artists and artistic institutions has comparatively little to do with patronage, and much to do with creation of unprofitable art. Garth and Willie have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t need endowments (Willie could use an accountant, though) because they do rather well with their productions. Operas, modern dance and orchestras, however, are rarely profitable but extremely useful for communities. The NEA has an entire class of “Leadership” grants meant to improve the communities by giving an artisitic outlet to underprivileged children. More people will not necessarily attend the opera if the NEA is defunded and tax credits given to the working poor, but these defunded Leadership grants would harm the communities they serve: It would close another avenue of artistic expression.

The NEA was founded to “...encourage the public to support art programs in schools, facilitate art festivals in the countryside, and establish the image of a nation that loves and respects the arts, for that is one of the hallmarks of a first-rate civilization.” However, in a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1998 over the constitutionality of 1990 forcing the NEA to limit its endowments to “decent” art producers. Effectively, it made the NEA an extension of homogenized, sanitized values. Since a diversity of art isn’t being funded, there isn’t a diversity of thought.

The NEA has little power to cultivate “freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry” when it is forced to operate within the tight confines of a conservative culture.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 10:10 PM on January 16, 2001


capt.crackpipe> Urine, sad to see your otherwise impressive logic was penerated by the radical conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.

Actually, by the essays written by Ted Rall, as much as I disagree with him on many issues.

Giving money to artists and artistic institutions has comparatively little to do with patronage, and much to do with creation of unprofitable art. Garth and Willie have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t need endowments (Willie could use an accountant, though) because they do rather well with their productions. Operas, modern dance and orchestras, however, are rarely profitable but extremely useful for communities. The NEA has an entire class of “Leadership” grants meant to improve the communities by giving an artisitic outlet to underprivileged children. More people will not necessarily attend the opera if the NEA is defunded and tax credits given to the working poor, but these defunded Leadership grants would harm the communities they serve: It would close another avenue of artistic expression.

I do realize that defunding the NEA would certainly hurt worthy institutions, especially on community levels. I'm not one of those guys who believe that popular culture represents the absolute wishes of the people, and that corporate interests don't distort public tastes at all.

But ... (you knew there was a but coming) I'm not convinced that the NEA helps the creation of American folk art (although I'm willing to concede that it does help fund performances of plays, opera, concerti, etc.) Here's a hypothetical example: someone wants to write the great American novel, or at least some really good American short stories. She needs a cheap computer, stationery, caffeine and nicotine. Likely she wouldn't get a grant. Or, to use an example that Ted Rall likes, an aspiring comic artist needs ink, pens, a drafting table, brushes, and paper. Since the NEA doesn't really consider comics an art form, he's out of luck.

The NEA was founded to “...encourage the public to support art programs in schools, facilitate art festivals in the countryside, and establish the image of a nation that loves and respects the arts, for that is one of the hallmarks of a first-rate civilization.” However, in a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1998 over the constitutionality of 1990 forcing the NEA to limit its endowments to “decent” art producers. Effectively, it made the NEA an extension of homogenized, sanitized values. Since a diversity of art isn’t being funded, there isn’t a diversity of thought.

Yes, but what's important isn't the diversity of thought of NEA grantees, but the diversity of thought of American artists. It is troublesome that provocative art can't get government funding, but the government does have to make some distinctions of what art it will and won't fund. If the NEA got fully defunded tomorrow, there will still be exhibits of Mapplethorpe photos, and people will still pay to see Sensation. I'll concede that education, art fairs, local theatre groups, etc. would likely suffer, and that many people wouldn't use their tax savings to support the arts. Then again, the art that does get supported is better protected against Helms and his philistine ilk.

The NEA has little power to cultivate “freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry” when it is forced to operate within the tight confines of a conservative culture.

Sorry, capt.crackpipe, I don't think that the NEA has much power to do all that even if the culture is more liberal. We'll have to agree to disagree.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 11:24 PM on January 16, 2001


Then again, the art that does get supported is better protected against Helms and his philistine ilk.


Ok, let's just stop this right now. I am SO tired of people bashing Jesse Helms. Why, one look at the man's voting record will show that...oh, wait.......nevermind....proceed with bashing....
posted by Optamystic at 12:14 AM on January 17, 2001


[Doug] I think Ashcrofts insane religious beliefs are a little more disturbing

[Doug] I find it kind of crazy that anyone would have a literal interpretation of the bible.

[Doug] For some reason, replace the Superman comic with an old book about talking snakes and giant monsters and suddenly I'm supposed to be tolerant?

Doug, your attitude in this matter is a crowning example of closed-mindedness. Do you even know what, exactly, Ashcroft, as a member of the Assemblies of God, believes in and why?

It's one thing to rationally debate the ideals and values of Fundamental Christians and the reasoning behind them. But your oversimplification of their position and subsequent judgement is really distasteful.
posted by daveadams at 8:22 AM on January 17, 2001


MeFi is debate-by-snippets, and so oversimplification helps to emphasize things....
posted by th3ph17 at 12:43 AM on January 18, 2001


Helps to emphasise things perhaps, but in this case, serves to promote a fallacious picture of Ashcroft vis a vis his religious beliefs. FWIW, the Assemblies of God are a Pentecostal denomination, not a Fundamentalist one. There is a major difference.
posted by Dreama at 6:57 AM on January 18, 2001


This site [which is named after Ashcroft's father] has some information about the A/G beliefs.

The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).

That is close enough to Fundamentalist to have made that error i think...from Outside all of the sects look the same anyhow.


posted by th3ph17 at 7:05 AM on January 18, 2001


FWIW, the Assemblies of God are a Pentecostal denomination, not a Fundamentalist one. There is a major difference.

Depends upon your perspective, Dreama. In my view, for example, there's no "major" difference between any flavor of Christianity, only minor evolutionary differentiations.
posted by rushmc at 9:15 AM on January 18, 2001


[Dreama] FWIW, the Assemblies of God are a Pentecostal denomination, not a Fundamentalist one. There is a major difference.

Dreama is right of course, but this distinction had no real basis on my point, which was that Doug was displaying a really despicable attitude in this thread. :)

[rushmc] In my view, for example, there's no "major" difference between any flavor of Christianity, only minor evolutionary differentiations.

And yet these "minor" differences have a tremendous impact on how members of various denominations deal with reconciling their personal faith with their public responsibility as government officials.
posted by daveadams at 11:15 AM on January 18, 2001


« Older   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post