"Good wishes and better wishes...until you wish for the best!"

November 18, 2006 8:20 AM

A concession e-mailto returning House Rep Satveer Chaudhary from loser Rae Hart Anderson. [via]
posted by bardic (187 comments total)

Unbelievable arrogance.
posted by spicynuts at 8:30 AM on November 18, 2006

Hmm. More weird than arrogant. But very, very weird.
posted by JekPorkins at 8:35 AM on November 18, 2006

Yeah Jesus!
posted by HyperBlue at 8:39 AM on November 18, 2006

I think creepy is what you're looking for, Jek.
posted by Alex404 at 8:39 AM on November 18, 2006

What's unbelievable about the sanctimony of the self-righteous?
posted by taosbat at 8:40 AM on November 18, 2006

this will end well. but first it will get ugly, judgemental and self-righteous.
posted by quonsar at 8:42 AM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm not using unbelievable in the literal sense. In the literal sense, absolutely nothing is unbelievable or surprising about anything in that email.
posted by spicynuts at 8:42 AM on November 18, 2006

Stinks of a break-up email. Note: don't handle important statements by email unless you're a big pansy. Religion and politics are actually secondary to this fundamental rule of non-jackassery.
posted by cortex at 8:51 AM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

So a conservative Christian who believes that one of the primary mandates of his faith is that he tell others about salvation through Jesus Christ does so in a gracious concession email to a political opponent. This is newsworthy why?

If you thought that God wanted everyone to know about Jesus, you'd be doing the same thing. So go ahead and start another Metafilter pile-on of conservative Christians and keep talking about how creepy and arrogant he is. I don't get the point. The guys's just doing what he thinks he's supposed to. He's a hell of a lot more gracious to his opponent than a lot of Mefites would be to him.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:51 AM on November 18, 2006

So go ahead and start another Metafilter pile-on of conservative Christians and keep talking about how creepy and arrogant he is.

Okay. Sounds like fun.
posted by MythMaker at 8:54 AM on November 18, 2006

Pater, Pater, Pater...if you'd read it, you'd know: he is a she...
posted by taosbat at 8:56 AM on November 18, 2006

who cares?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:58 AM on November 18, 2006

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 9:05 AM on November 18, 2006

this will end well. but first it will get ugly, judgemental and self-righteous.

What's the line on "ugly, judgemental, self-righteous, doesn't end well?"
posted by dw at 9:06 AM on November 18, 2006

The guys's just doing what he thinks he's supposed to.

The "guy" is a "girl" for starters, which you would know if you had clicked on the links.
and "gracious" -- telling your Hindu opponent to find Jesus is "gracious"? I'm sorry, but "arrogant" really does fit this email. And if she is like this to her political opponents how is she going to be to common garden-variety Hindus, atheists, Moslems, and other assorted fools?
posted by Rumple at 9:07 AM on November 18, 2006

“Grandma has one dimensional pictures.... If it wasn’t for Grandma I wouldn’t be here in ‘my space’!"
posted by Huplescat at 9:08 AM on November 18, 2006

in a gracious concession email to a political opponent

Gracious, huh? Gracious in my book means, "I wish you success in serving the people of Minnesota," not "your lifelong religion is the wrong one."
posted by mkultra at 9:08 AM on November 18, 2006

one of the primary mandates of his faith is that he tell others about salvation through Jesus Christ does so
...
The guys's just doing what he thinks he's supposed to

That's the creepy part. I mean, I understand that's what some sects say their followers should do, but to most people not involved with that church, it comes off as pretty weird. Her email reads like she's speaking in code, not having a conversation, but talking at him. On top of that, he's not christian, so it's offensive to force your faith on others like that, as if he's following the "wrong" religion and she has the One True Answer.

That email is kind of like that dude in college everyone knew that was really into snakes and lizards and would turn every conversation about anything on earth back to his snake collection and cool lizards, and how people would avoid him for seeming creepy and obsessed with his hobby.
posted by mathowie at 9:08 AM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

ugly, judgemental and self-righteous.

Seems like Anderson already has those covered.
posted by Rumple at 9:08 AM on November 18, 2006

I actually think it's more than "arrogant" to somehow know that the email was "gracious" without reading it and to then chastise "a lot of Mefites" from the perspective of that imagining.
posted by taosbat at 9:12 AM on November 18, 2006

this will end well. but first it will get ugly, judgemental and self-righteous.

Wow, q, was that your prediction for this election from a few months back? Great work, if so.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:19 AM on November 18, 2006

I won't pile-on Christians -- only on people who believe that they have to "sell" their religion to others. Idiots.
posted by davidmsc at 9:20 AM on November 18, 2006

You could be a temple of the living God, by invitation---yours, TO GOD. :)

Needs more OMG!!1!!1111 amirite???//?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:21 AM on November 18, 2006 [3 favorites]

eh. asking you to convert is these peoples way of saying hello. Heck, when I switch trains at Times Square, I have Jesus Couple, Screaming Jamaican Jesus Lady, Falun Gong, the Scientologists with the tin can contraption, and occasionally the militant catholic rosary squad and the Nation Of Islam. It's an underground mall of belief. I've had people of all faiths try to get me to 'see the light.' I try to treat it the same way I treat a gay man flirting with me: feel flattered, but politely decline.
posted by jonmc at 9:21 AM on November 18, 2006

Pater, Pater, Pater...if you'd read it, you'd know: he is a she...

Actually, there seems to be nothing in the first link to indicate Rae is female.

And while I agree that this is weird and inappropriate, I think Pater has a point: it doesn't smack of sanctimony or arrogance to me, just someone who genuinely believes every single communication is a vehicle for talking about the particular gospel she believes in and can't get outside that viewpoint to see how odd it looks to someone else.
posted by namespan at 9:22 AM on November 18, 2006

The guys's just doing what he thinks he's supposed to.

So was David Berkowitz -- and with instructions from an equally reliable source.
posted by JackFlash at 9:23 AM on November 18, 2006 [3 favorites]

and can't get outside that viewpoint to see how odd it looks to someone else.

... and therefore she is manifestly unsuitable for public office. Which, fortunately, she doesn't hold.
posted by Rumple at 9:25 AM on November 18, 2006

Turnabout is fair play: can we expect to see some of Representative Chaudhary's outgoing messages, too?

Perhaps we need sunshine laws that require elected officials to publish all of their incoming/outgoing email in public forums. Sort of like TIA in reverse.
posted by cenoxo at 9:26 AM on November 18, 2006

Looks to me like the people of the Minnesota 50th Senatorial district made right choice. Again.
posted by mmahaffie at 9:26 AM on November 18, 2006

In sum:

"I lost, but you're going to hell. Sucks to be you."
posted by arcticwoman at 9:29 AM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Looks like someone got Left Behind.
posted by four panels at 9:30 AM on November 18, 2006

it doesn't smack of sanctimony or arrogance to me, just someone who genuinely believes every single communication is a vehicle for talking about the particular gospel she believes in and can't get outside that viewpoint to see how odd it looks to someone else.

...which is sanctimonious and arrogant.

I really do wonder if American Christians really do understand how utterly offensive it is to have any sort of proselytizing tossed off at you, because beneath the veil of "I'm just trying to help you" is an underlying accusation that you're foolish, ignorant, or callow.

GRACE is what is exhibited by those of us who have to put up with this crap, yet restrain ourselves from kicking you in the nuts.
posted by mkultra at 9:33 AM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

...just someone who genuinely believes every single communication is a vehicle for talking about the particular gospel she believes in and can't get outside that viewpoint...

That certainly seems to describe "the sanctimony of the self-righteous."
posted by taosbat at 9:34 AM on November 18, 2006

Good race, ya beat me, now go find God and we'll call it even. I'm glad that Bible-humper lost.
posted by fenriq at 9:35 AM on November 18, 2006

I Love the Practice of Capitalizing Key Words. I'm going to do it in Every Case Study that I Do from Now On.
posted by dobie at 9:40 AM on November 18, 2006

She's just trying to help him.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:41 AM on November 18, 2006

Arrogance and sanctimony are the new salvation.

I'm really sick and tired of Jesusification of America.
posted by fenriq at 9:44 AM on November 18, 2006

Douche.

Bag.

Extraordinaire.
posted by docpops at 9:48 AM on November 18, 2006

Heck, when I switch trains at Times Square, I have Jesus Couple, Screaming Jamaican Jesus Lady, Falun Gong, the Scientologists with the tin can contraption, and occasionally the militant catholic rosary squad and the Nation Of Islam

God, I miss New York!
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:48 AM on November 18, 2006

fenriq, my friend, I'm fine with Jesus-folk (and Allah-folk, and Pope-folk, Jehovah-folk, and I-worship-the-pickle-folk as long as they keep it out of politics and keep it to themselves unless asked*. On the bus and subway, I see people reading Bibles and Korans and if that helps get them through the night, more power to them. But I'll find my own way.

*if you can't keep it to yourself, at least be entertaining about it. sing a song, give a fiery sermon, or work out some synchronized dance moves like the Hare Krishnas in the East Village have lately. I think they've been watching MTV
posted by jonmc at 9:50 AM on November 18, 2006

Actually, there seems to be nothing in the first link to indicate Rae is female.

Well, I thought the name would be a fairly decent clue. That, and on the right-hand side there's a link to a voters' guide about here, which leads to her site... all within the three-click rule, so.
posted by qcubed at 9:51 AM on November 18, 2006

God, I miss New York!

Heh. The Rosary Squad is the best. Usually 4 or 5 carefully multicultural but identically galze-eyed folks saying the rosary in unison. One time in the subway station adjoining Grand Central Terminal some commuter got into a loud argument with the token booth clerk and as the voices and curses ecalated the Rosary squad started praying louder and louder. The resulting cacophony was very Apocalypse-In-A-Cereal-Box.
posted by jonmc at 9:54 AM on November 18, 2006

Death came upon all and was defeated by the superiority of Jesus' life and His tomb is empty.

Cuckoo!
posted by furtive at 9:55 AM on November 18, 2006

jonmc, true but thisisn't keeping it to herself, this is throwing it at the other guy. Made all the more arrogant because its extremely likely that he's already got his own set of religious beliefs.

Religion, like sexuality, shouldn't be shouted from street corners, something is lost in the shouting. Unless it can be done with a hook, as you note, and isn't just incredibly annoying.
posted by fenriq at 10:02 AM on November 18, 2006

all within the three-click rule

beg pardon?
posted by cortex at 10:02 AM on November 18, 2006

I got an email almost exactly like this one, only it wasn't personalized. After my 10 year high school reunion, one of the girls in my class decided to send out a group spam to everyone in the class about Jesus and how she found Him and how we should all do the same.

I always find it amusing/annoying that when fundies want to "prove" their point about the Truth of the Lord/Jesus, they quote scripture, often from the King James version. Is there anything less engaging than that archaic language? Even when it's contemporary language, phrases like "take Jesus into your heart" and "he died for your sins", etc. only resonate with those folks who are already hardcore Christians. I guess for a jaded raised-Christian-but-only-go-to-church-on-Christmas agnostic like me, gospelspeak really falls on deaf ears.
posted by zardoz at 10:04 AM on November 18, 2006

jonmc, true but thisisn't keeping it to herself, this is throwing it at the other guy.

Eh. She sent an email, she didn't stretch him on the rack. If she kept it up, it'd be time to call her out, but I'm willing to bet he took the approach I mentioned in my first comment.
posted by jonmc at 10:14 AM on November 18, 2006

Is there anything less engaging than that archaic language?

Not if you're preaching to Tolkien fans.
posted by jonmc at 10:15 AM on November 18, 2006

Good point, jonmc, good point.

But I'll pass on the flattered part, unlike when a gay gent tries to pick you, this isn't selective, its opportunistic. Unless the gay guy is working the entire room.
posted by fenriq at 10:21 AM on November 18, 2006

quonsar: "this will end well. but first it will get ugly, judgemental and self-righteous."

OMG, your psychic capabilities are simply stunning!
posted by mijuta at 10:25 AM on November 18, 2006

I've enjoyed much of this race, especially the people I've met...even you!

Pay attention...this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself...at some moment in time, yet???

I don't grasp how people can fail to recognize the seething rage Anderson feels toward Chaudhary, and which she is trying to use her religion to contain and cover, but which only becomes more malignant and disturbing in that attempt.

The problem here is not Anderson's religion, it is her vicious and vindictive underlying character, which her religion seems only to have served to enlarge and intensify.
posted by jamjam at 10:27 AM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

unlike when a gay gent tries to pick you, this isn't selective, its opportunistic.

Depends. Streetcorner preachers aside, I usually haven't gotten the 'Have you found God?' until I'm at least casually friendly with the person. And running a political race against eachother, I figure these two were at least casually acquainted.
posted by jonmc at 10:38 AM on November 18, 2006

This is intrinsic to Christianity.

A core belief is that nothing you can do, murdering babies, killing thousands, you name it, is a sin even vaguely comparable to not believing in Christianity.

You can be a professional child murderer, but if you convert to Christianity in the last minute of your life you go right to heaven.

Conversely, you can be the most decent, honest, caring person, a person who helps the world, but if you are a Hindu(*) then when you die you are tortured with infinite pain for an infinite amount of time.

It's sad that so many otherwise kind and decent people have such barbaric, cruel beliefs.

(* -- the Church had to concede that people who never heard of Jesus weren't put in Hell but were put... well, somewhere, it isn't so clear where since Purgatory was recently abolished. However, it's a moot point as you'd be hard-pressed to find a place these days where Christians haven't tried to convert people.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:38 AM on November 18, 2006

I'm a Christian - yeah, I'll say it - and I still think this was incredibly arrogant e-mail, not to mention really bad timing. "I lost. You won. You need Jesus." Whuh? People who send out messages like this simply don't think about how effective their message is going to be in anything other than offending the recipient. They tend to not really care, either. It's like they're out there filling a quota. "Gotta convert more people. I'm down this year!" And when said recipient *is* offended, the sender feels all the more justified. That's despicable.
posted by katillathehun at 10:44 AM on November 18, 2006

Well, I thought the name would be a fairly decent clue. That, and on the right-hand side there's a link to a voters' guide about here, which leads to her site... all within the three-click rule, so.

so... one still could in fact have read the entire text of the letter without having a clue of Rae's gender. As anyone who'd actually read it would have known, right?

"...just someone who genuinely believes every single communication is a vehicle for talking about the particular gospel she believes in and can't get outside that viewpoint..."

That certainly seems to describe "the sanctimony of the self-righteous."

"sanc·ti·mo·ny n. Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness."

That's certainly different than what I described, and whether it applies to Rae would probably require first person acquaintance if not third person omniscience.

"Self·-right·eous a. Righteous in one's own esteem; pharisaic."

Again, different from my phrase, and the only way you can read the letter this way is if you assume the relatively sparse references to the portions of her own life that she's pleased with as being some kind of boast or gloating.

There's a difference from being so unfortunately immersed in your own perspective that you can't see how awkward and potentially offensive your particular overtures might be, however well intended, and, say, being the asshole evangelical history teacher who started telling his students "you belong in hell." and then lying about it. The latter has sanctimony and self-righteousness. The former may be really weird and is certainly nothing for which to reward someone with a U.S. congressional office, but it's essentially a well-meaning mistake.
posted by namespan at 10:45 AM on November 18, 2006

Metafilter: Very Apocalypse-In-A-Cereal-Box

jonmc, is that an original? Because I am so borrowing that...
posted by JaredSeth at 10:47 AM on November 18, 2006

I send this same letter to most of my ex girlfriends.
posted by smackwich at 10:54 AM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

jonmc, is that an original?

Yes. I promise to use my powers for good and not evil.
posted by jonmc at 10:55 AM on November 18, 2006

There's this amazing thing called "context", which informs people when and where certain messages are appropriate. For example, at another friend's birthday party, you don't jump up and shout, "I need someone to loan me 3 thousand dollars!" Likewise- for a custom that is a political courtesy, you don't throw several paragraphs about religion at someone.
posted by yeloson at 10:56 AM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

This is like the amway version of Christianity. Love is not loving your neighbor or anything like that, love in the fundamentalist mind is presenting the "Plan" to "sinners" and telling them that they're going to "Hell" if they don't conform to the fundamentalist's expectations.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 10:58 AM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

This is intrinsic to Christianity.

A core belief is that nothing you can do, murdering babies, killing thousands, you name it, is a sin even vaguely comparable to not believing in Christianity.

You can be a professional child murderer, but if you convert to Christianity in the last minute of your life you go right to heaven.

This is intrinsic to one type of Christianity. There are plenty of individual Christians and Christian denominations to which this is not intrinsic.
posted by thirteenkiller at 11:02 AM on November 18, 2006

The Christian candidate deserved to lose simply for her ellipsis abuse.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:03 AM on November 18, 2006

so... one still could in fact have read the entire text of the letter without having a clue of Rae's gender. As anyone who'd actually read it would have known, right?

It's true! I was arrogant in my assumption that, since the 3d link in the FPP, the one that says "Rae Hart Anderson," goes to hartanderson.com, a commenter would have easy access to the basic facts of who's whom here. Mea culpa.

sanc·ti·mo·ny-- the quality of being hypocritically devout (That's quite similar to "hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness," don't you think?)

Self·-right·eous-- excessively or hypocritically pious (ok, I like "Righteous in one's own esteem" better.)

Ms. Anderson's email and that history teacher's story both seem to me to exhibit "the sanctimony of the self-righteous." Whose behavior is more egregious, the woman who would make law or the man would damn his students?
posted by taosbat at 11:27 AM on November 18, 2006

Actually, Pater Alethias, you are not defending conservative Christians but insulting them by claiming their religion compels them to behave to other people like this. I have had the pleasure of working with good people from much more conservative traditions than my own and I have rarely seen any of them behave to someone of another religion with this sort of unwanted witnessing in a professional situation. I can think of only one case where a baptist lady tried to convert two of my colleagues on the spot in a studio right after an interview, but even the other baptists from her church thought she was way over the top.

It's possible to believe in carrying out the Great Commission to preach the gospel without believing you have to carry it out like a bull in a china shop, so please stop making excuses for someone who decided it was appropriate to discourteously rub their political opponents face in their religion in a concession message.
posted by Flitcraft at 11:27 AM on November 18, 2006 [3 favorites]

...and exclamation point abuse!
posted by hutta at 11:29 AM on November 18, 2006

Why do I keep getting these strong feelings?
1. That those who most vehemently profess a "close personal relationship with Jesus" (and insist on sharing it with others) are the least interested in hearing your views on the subject?
2. That if those same people were to stumble onto His private phone number, and dial said number, and if their names were to appear on His caller ID screen, His response would be "WHO???!!!"
3. Oh, and Rae? That's one nasty-ass website, hon!*

*Now I'm piling on.
posted by rob511 at 11:36 AM on November 18, 2006

Wow, you people have a lot of time on your hands.
posted by neuron at 11:37 AM on November 18, 2006

neuron writes "Wow, you people have a lot of time on your hands."


Well, we're not busy bringing people to Christ.
posted by orthogonality at 11:41 AM on November 18, 2006

returning House Rep Minnesota State Senator

As of yet, there are no Hindus in the U.S. Congress.

Anyhoo:

What. A. Jerk.
posted by dhartung at 11:44 AM on November 18, 2006

Eeewww! I looked at the link Huplescat provided and I realized that, to Rae, "Strong Families" means, "put Grandma in one of those nice 'homes.'"*


*Now I'm piling on, too.
posted by taosbat at 11:50 AM on November 18, 2006

"this will end well. but first it will get ugly, judgemental and self-righteous."

Just like the Bible!
posted by klangklangston at 11:51 AM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

Who Farted?
posted by stenseng at 12:08 PM on November 18, 2006

Makes me wish I was a christian instead of an atheist. Yeah. Right.
posted by notreally at 12:31 PM on November 18, 2006

Oh. My. God.

"If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in His name, He'd never stop throwing up." --Woody Allen.
posted by Quiplash at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

(* -- the Church had to concede that people who never heard of Jesus weren't put in Hell but were put... well, somewhere, it isn't so clear where since Purgatory was recently abolished. However, it's a moot point as you'd be hard-pressed to find a place these days where Christians haven't tried to convert people.)

It seems to me that the ethical thing to do--if these are the "rules"--is not to try to convert anyone, and not to ship bibles around the world. If you're confronting someone who already has a religion to your religion, it's likely they'll resist conversion, and thus, go to hell.

If your mission is to keep as many people out of hell as possible, you should keep the savages from ever hearing about Jesus, because then they're guaranteed not to go to hell, eh?
posted by interrobang at 1:00 PM on November 18, 2006

"this will end well. but first it will get ugly, judgemental and self-righteous."

Just like the Bible!

Doesn't Earth get blown up at the end of the Bible or something?
posted by thirteenkiller at 1:10 PM on November 18, 2006

I think that was Beneath the Planet of the Apes but I could be wrong.
posted by Grangousier at 1:16 PM on November 18, 2006

This is intrinsic to one type of Christianity. There are plenty of individual Christians and Christian denominations to which this is not intrinsic.

The Bible is rather clear that the only way to be saved is through Christ.

Certainly there are a lot of individual Christians who don't hold such beliefs -- my mother was a fine example (of a lot of the best of Christianity, in fact) -- but it's not clear to me that there are Christian denominations of any great size that believe you can enter Heaven without believing in Jesus Christ.

In particular, the Catholic Church, the Southern evangelical churches and the Mormons do hold such beliefs; conceivably the Anglican Church/Church of England does not but I was unable to find any proof of that.

It's pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of Christians do belong to a denomination that expects all non-Christians to go to Hell.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:16 PM on November 18, 2006

I'm tired of Christians telling others to find Jesus. He's theirs. They lost him. They should find him.
posted by srboisvert at 1:22 PM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

This is intrinsic to one type of Christianity.

You know what is intrinsic to ALL types of Chritianity?

That Christians can't make up thier minds what is intrinsic to them. That is the problem.
posted by tkchrist at 1:28 PM on November 18, 2006

If christians actually acted like someone who had found jesus I would be very interested in hearing what they had to say.
But I usually just end up wanting to punch them in the fucking face for acting like a douche nozzle.
posted by 2sheets at 1:37 PM on November 18, 2006

Even if you think proselytizing in a concession email is appropriate, it is nasty, aggressive and unpleasant. This is not the Christianity I grew up with, though it is certainly is what we've heard in recent years from rightwingers.
posted by etaoin at 1:37 PM on November 18, 2006

lupus, you're tilting at windmills. Nobody said that what you're arguing against.

Te assertion that was actually made was in essence that conversion wipes out all sin. thirteenkiller was correct that this is not intrinsic to all types of Christianity.

In any case, there are certainly forms of Christianity which downplay or even ignore the concept of Hell -- among them, Unitarianism. Certainly also Roman Catholicism does not equate Jesus with God, due to the concept of the Holy Trinity. Adventists, Christian Scientists, Latter-Day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses all reject the conception of Hell you have just stated.
posted by dhartung at 1:39 PM on November 18, 2006

It's true! I was arrogant in my assumption that, since the 3d link in the FPP, the one that says "Rae Hart Anderson," goes to hartanderson.com, a commenter would have easy access to the basic facts of who's whom here. Mea culpa.

Oh, c'mon. I suppose you're going to argue when you said "it" you obviously meant "the whole FPP" rather than the email. This whole argument could turn on an ambiguous antecedent! Or... you could just tell us. Did you actually read the email carefully before you criticized Pater for not reading it, or didn't you?

sanc·ti·mo·ny-- the quality of being hypocritically devout (That's quite similar to "hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness," don't you think?)
Self·-right·eous-- excessively or hypocritically pious (ok, I like "Righteous in one's own esteem" better.)

Maybe we've uncovered the root of the problem here. You seem to perceive the devotion is hypocritical. Most people are in fact hypocrites on some level -- quick to criticize others for failings they also posses -- but I don't see the evidence in any of that in the links presented.

But I'm beginning to realize people see all sorts of things in that letter:

I don't grasp how people can fail to recognize the seething rage Anderson feels toward Chaudhary, and which she is trying to use her religion to contain and cover,
posted by namespan at 1:50 PM on November 18, 2006

Cool, found my trolling motor.

Jesus was a Gay Black Hippie Jew

Jesus was a Jew till the day he died
And his followers too for many years beside
Till going to Damascus Saint Paul decides
That the gentiles ought to come along for the ride.

Jesus was a gay black hippie Jew,
And if you hate that then I guess he will forgive you.
Jesus was a gay black hippie Jew;
Some say he was a secret Buddhist too...

With his sandals and his beard and his messy hair
He'd be shunned by rednecks everywhere
And he'd turn the other cheek if you hit him there
Yet a pacifist Christian is pretty rare.

The folks in the region of Palestine
Were mostly fairly dark-skinned in Bible times
Yet he's straight-haired and blue-eyed in our painters' minds
Making god in our own image is a telling sign.

Christ always preferred the company of men
And he never was ashamed of his love for them
There are some who think Saint John was his 'special friend'
But many more the idea would just offend.
posted by HyperBlue at 1:54 PM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

Is this the part where it ends well?
posted by HyperBlue at 1:55 PM on November 18, 2006

I don't grasp how people can fail to recognize the seething rage Anderson feels toward Chaudhary, and which she is trying to use her religion to contain and cover,

"i imagined it, so it must be true!"
posted by quonsar at 2:00 PM on November 18, 2006

There's this common misconception among fundamentalists that it is faith "in" Christ that saves us, that if we believe really hard in "Jesus" that we'll be saved from "Hell". It is the faith "of" Christ that has saved us, with "of" being the operative word. The difference between "in" and "of" might seem small, but it can make a world of difference. Fundamentalists have made the whole thing transactional, we have to buy into something to get saved. That's in opposition to the idea that Jesus creates us anew, Jesus comes to us. The arrow is reversed.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 2:07 PM on November 18, 2006

As a Christian... I do not approve this message.

But I have to admire the depth of her description of Christianity: "it's the best!"

I predict "Christianity: It's the Best" will be the new bumper-sticker hotness, outselling all versions of peeing Calvin and Jesus/Darwin fish combined.
posted by The Deej at 2:07 PM on November 18, 2006

Oh, c'mon. I suppose you're going to argue when you said "it" you obviously meant "the whole FPP" rather than the email. This whole argument could turn on an ambiguous antecedent! Or... you could just tell us. Did you actually read the email carefully before you criticized Pater for not reading it, or didn't you?

Are you serious, namespan?

I've known or heard of at least 30-40 people with a first name of 'Rae,' none of whom have been male as far as I know. It looks very much as if Pater did not read or even glance at the first link, the title of which reads, Concession E-Mail From Rae Hart Anderson in gigantic type, and not only that, he couldn't be bothered to read as far as the 12th word of the FPP itself!

Did you make any effort whatsoever to get the facts straight here, or didn't you?

Oh, c'mon.
posted by jamjam at 2:21 PM on November 18, 2006

I hear Rae Dawn Cong is a guy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:27 PM on November 18, 2006

vietnamese too.
posted by quonsar at 2:30 PM on November 18, 2006

babynamewizard agrees: Rae is exclusively pink
posted by Rumple at 2:33 PM on November 18, 2006

What's the line on "ugly, judgemental, self-righteous, doesn't end well?"

I think the over/under is about 45 posts.
posted by frogan at 2:55 PM on November 18, 2006

Oh, c'mon. I suppose you're going to argue when you said "it" you obviously meant "the whole FPP" rather than the email. This whole argument could turn on an ambiguous antecedent! Or... you could just tell us. Did you actually read the email carefully before you criticized Pater for not reading it, or didn't you?

Well, yeah, my bad, I meant "the whole FPP." Sorry, I looked at all three pages linked in the FPP before I posted my first comment. Then I got a guilty feeling and checked the [via] link, too, before I saw Pater's comment. It's just a bad habit to read the whole thing...sorry.
posted by taosbat at 2:58 PM on November 18, 2006

Forget the Find Jesus stuff.

I started rolling my eyes when she told him: Your line was "busy."
Was that some kind of odd snark? Does she think he took the phone off the hook to avoid her? (Can't imagine why he would want to.)
Or is she just one of those people who uses inappropriate punctuation?
posted by NorthernLite at 2:59 PM on November 18, 2006

Yes, I Agree. I too thought it was "weird" that she would Put Quotes around Busy.
posted by The Deej at 3:15 PM on November 18, 2006

As always, when you call Christians on misbehaving, they complain that you're oppressing them.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:16 PM on November 18, 2006

Are you serious, namespan?

Is that a rhetorical question?

I've known or heard of at least 30-40 people with a first name of 'Rae,' none of whom have been male as far as I know.

You have been blessed with many Raes in your life, I see. You know how many Rae's I've known personally? Ze-ro.

It looks very much as if Pater did not read or even glance at the first link, the title of which reads, Concession E-Mail From Rae Hart Anderson in gigantic type, and not only that, he couldn't be bothered to read as far as the 12th word of the FPP itself! Did you make any effort whatsoever to get the facts straight here, or didn't you?

If there's a portion of the email I missed and the strength of your case doesn't rely on the fact that of course everybody who's anybody at all knows that "Rae" is a female name, then maybe we can wrap up this particular point and we can move onto your assumptions of "seething rage" in the email.

As it is, I think it's pretty safe to assume that taosbat and a few others called out Pater for not reading the email without giving it enough scrutiny to realize that pretty much clue of her gender contained therein is the name.

And I think it's pretty safe to assume that a reading hypocrisy (much less "seething rage") into Rae's letter -- as situationally inappropriate as it is and loony as it may be -- requires a bit of coloring in the mind of the reader.
posted by namespan at 3:25 PM on November 18, 2006

Sanctimonious? Self-righteous? Hypocritical?

Maybe, but I'd look at this email as more passive-aggressive than anything else.
posted by leftcoastbob at 3:30 PM on November 18, 2006

The "About Rae Hart Anderson" page is pretty spectacular.
posted by the_bone at 3:37 PM on November 18, 2006

Safe assumptions are comforting, aren't they? Meaningless, but comforting....
posted by taosbat at 3:39 PM on November 18, 2006

Later in the afternoon, Anderson's former campaign manager, Barbara Black, told us Anderson wrote the e-mail because "Chaudhary is not Christian, and he needs to find his soul."
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:08 PM on November 18, 2006

Wait, Raekwon has become a politician?

What will Big Baby Jesus think?
posted by JekPorkins at 4:26 PM on November 18, 2006

Thanks for the link , Astro Zombie, it sure speaks to that sanctimony of the self-righteous thingy.
posted by taosbat at 4:36 PM on November 18, 2006

As always, when you call Christians on misbehaving, they complain that you're oppressing them.

Hmm. You know, if you replace the word "Christians" with "gays," it kinda makes that statement seem moronic. Interesting how that works. Hey, I know: Maybe we should acknowledge the fact that a) people in general have very different beliefs and b) they all think that others should believe as they do -- because if they didn't think they were right, they wouldn't believe it.

What if a fundamentalist christian had been elected, and the loser had sent an email admonishing the winner to put aside his intolerance toward gay marriage -- calling it "the best!" and using the same kind of hyperbolic language that was used here? Would we be calling that email arrogant, self righteous, etc? Not that this one isn't bizarre, but come on.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:46 PM on November 18, 2006

"Chaudhary is not Christian, and he needs to find his soul."

How gracious!
posted by mediareport at 4:46 PM on November 18, 2006

I lost my soul
At the Harp and Bowl
When I won the pit
On a seven ten split
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:48 PM on November 18, 2006

Please tell me where that's from, It's Raining Florence Henderson, I can almost hear a tune echoing faintly.
posted by taosbat at 4:51 PM on November 18, 2006

Hmm. You know, if you replace the word "Christians" with "gays," it kinda makes that statement seem moronic. Interesting how that works.

Do homosexuals do that when they're misbehaving? Or are you flinging around the word "moron" based on a very dodgy argument?
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:00 PM on November 18, 2006

Because obviously JekPorkins, this isn't about an unhinged Christian who, at best, is incredibly tin-eared, but all about teh gayz yet again.
posted by bardic at 5:00 PM on November 18, 2006

Oh and this:

What if a fundamentalist christian had been elected, and the loser had sent an email admonishing the winner to put aside his intolerance toward gay marriage -- calling it "the best!" and using the same kind of hyperbolic language that was used here?

Is an inexact parallel. Imagine, instead, that the gay person had written an email telling the loser that their soul is damned unless they become a homosexual. I think we would all agree that there is some misbehavior inherent in such an action.

Interesting how that works.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:01 PM on November 18, 2006

Do homosexuals do that when they're misbehaving?

Sometimes, yes.

Or are you flinging around the word "moron" based on a very dodgy argument?

You thought I was making some kind of argument? What argument do you think I was making?

this isn't about an unhinged Christian who, at best, is incredibly tin-eared, but all about teh gayz yet again.

Sorry -- should I have picked another non-Republican issue for my hypothetical? I guess it figures that one mention of the word "gay" and readers get derailed from the point. I should have used global warming or something like that. My apologies.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:04 PM on November 18, 2006

Is an inexact parallel. Imagine, instead, that the gay person had written an email telling the loser that their soul is damned unless they become a homosexual. I think we would all agree that there is some misbehavior inherent in such an action.

Yeah, again I apologize for using gay marriage for the hypothetical. I guess I should have picked something that wouldn't distract people so much. Sorry to distract you from my point. But I'm glad to see that we agree.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:06 PM on November 18, 2006

I kinda figures that you weren't making an argument, as it made no sense, but I also kinda figured that you thought you were making an argument.

Babble on. I now know to ignore you.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:07 PM on November 18, 2006

And the insults don't stop!
posted by JekPorkins at 5:10 PM on November 18, 2006

I will always vote for Raekwon. For anything. Raekwon/Ghostface '08!
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 5:11 PM on November 18, 2006

It's so hard to be you JekPorkins. So misunderstood.
posted by bardic at 5:20 PM on November 18, 2006

Meh. I'm not misunderstood. Some people just want to argue no matter what -- Look at Astro Zombie, who will now ignore me because I wasn't arguing with him and in spite of the fact that he agrees with me.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:23 PM on November 18, 2006

I'm just happy to be agreeing with Jek. I don't really know what we're agreeing about, but finding a common ground is so pleasurable.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:26 PM on November 18, 2006

Pleasurable, eh?

Are you sure it's not a sin?
posted by Hildegarde at 5:30 PM on November 18, 2006

We're agreeing that your statement that "As always, when you call Christians on misbehaving, they complain that you're oppressing them" was, in your words, "a very dodgy argument." Just like when I suggested replacing the word "Christians" with the word "gays" and it became obvious to you that the statement was a moronic overgeneralization without any real basis.

Really, you could replace the word "Christians" in that sentence with pretty much anything, and the statement would be equally hyperbolic and pointless.

And I'm glad I could pleasure you so much. That's just so hawt.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:31 PM on November 18, 2006

Jek, comparing oppressions is really crude and generally very ignorant. You feel as though you've made a point here, but you really haven't. You've just thrown a card in that upsets people.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:44 PM on November 18, 2006

Who's comparing oppressions? I'm comparing stupid hyperboles.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:48 PM on November 18, 2006

Alright, let me rephrase to get you off this dopey tangent:

As always, when you call some Christians on misbehaving, those selfsame Christians complain that you're oppressing them.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:52 PM on November 18, 2006

FFS JekPorkins, you're a living, breathing, walking derail. You define the term. Hell, the term is actually jealous of you. We need to invent a new word for your verbal lard spewing -- "blackholeofrhetoric," or "idon'tliketheramificationsofthisthreadsoi'mgoingtomakesureitgetshorriblyofftrack."

Something like that.

More to the point, this ain't 3rd century Rome, and Christians are no longer being fed to lions. Christians are a majority group in America. Christian teenagers don't get beat up for looking "Christian." They don't consider suicide due to a lack of groups and organizations catering to their situation. They don't have to hide their Christianity for fear of retribution.

So yeah, you were an idiot for making that comparison.
posted by bardic at 5:53 PM on November 18, 2006

First, thanks for the insults. Really, I do appreciate them.

Second, derail from what? It's the blue. Not exactly a structured academic panel discussion. Please.

Third, who's saying that Christians are being persecuted? I'm saying that before berating someone for zealously advocating beliefs that we don't agree with, we should think about whether we would equally berate someone for advocating beliefs that we do agree with. In short, is the self-righteous tag applied only because we don't agree with the version of "righteousness?"
posted by JekPorkins at 5:59 PM on November 18, 2006

Hmm. You know, if you replace the word "Christians" with "gays," it kinda makes that statement seem moronic.

Brilliant! Yes it would. Because it is actually a Christian who is trying to push her religion on other people, whereas there appear to be no gay people involved in this story; and even if there were, they are typically just looking for equal rights not to convert their political opponents to the other team. So yes, it would be Moronic. Very much so. Good point.
posted by Rumple at 6:00 PM on November 18, 2006

In short, is the self-righteous tag applied only because we don't agree with the version of "righteousness?"

No.

Hey, that was easy.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:03 PM on November 18, 2006

Certainly also Roman Catholicism does not equate Jesus with God, due to the concept of the Holy Trinity. Adventists, Christian Scientists, Latter-Day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses all reject the conception of Hell you have just stated.

All of these groups believe you cannot be saved if you are not a Christian. Verbalisms about faith in Christ vs faith of Christ are irrelevant, if you aren't on their team you don't get saved. The degree of punishment for not being saved varies from group to group but the best you can hope for is to be destroyed forever, which is an infinitely great loss compared to eternal paradise.

(I realize that the Mormons do have a mechanism where you can be saved after you are dead if your descendants convert and bring you along, but it's the same idea -- you have to be on the team or you suffer an infinite loss.)

So, yes, I concede that not every Christian believes a Hindu will literally burn in Hell (though the letter-writer clearly does) but the overwhelming majority of them do believe that non-Christians will be destroyed after death regardless of any other virtues they may have.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:06 PM on November 18, 2006

Self-righteous does not appear in the tags for this FPP.
posted by taosbat at 6:10 PM on November 18, 2006

OMFG.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:11 PM on November 18, 2006

I admit it would be funny and post-worthy if Barney Frank lost an election and sent a concession e-mail saying, basically, hey good race there buddy but what really matters is that you suck more cock, because you'll never get to heaven without slobbering on a few dozen poles.

So JekPorkins, when and if this ever happens, I sure hope we'll get to hear more of your wisdom fuckwittery on the subject.
posted by bardic at 6:19 PM on November 18, 2006

Do you miss the point intentionally, or are you just completely stupid? I mean, I can see that if you are that bent on insulting me you could be doing it intentionally. But why would you be bent on insulting me? And why to the extent that you would completely miss the point like that?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:26 PM on November 18, 2006

Well, let's see.

I think it's because you started this whole shebang with the description "moronic." And thern you threw in an "idiotic" for good measure. And you moved right on to "are you just completely stupid."

If you're going to sling shit, some is going to come right back atcha. Or did you miss out on the fact that you were being utterly prickish?
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:31 PM on November 18, 2006

Ah. So, my use of the words 'moronic' caused you and bardic to intentionally miss the point and fling insults. Got it. Sorry about that. But for the record, what I called moronic was your moronic statement, which I maintain is moronic.

But where did I say "idiotic?"
posted by JekPorkins at 6:35 PM on November 18, 2006

Your right, you didn't say idiotic.

Let's move on, shall we. I'm not sure anybody cares about this point enough to belabor it any longer. You maintain my point was moronic.

Got it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:38 PM on November 18, 2006

Help! Help! JekPorkins is being repressed!

Wait, does this mean he's gay? Or does it mean he's a Christian? I get confused with those two sometimes.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:38 PM on November 18, 2006

Do people this messed up ever have 'awakenings' or 'moments of clarity' when they realize what pricks they've been?

Anyone have any good 'recovered/ing fundamentalist' links? I imagine some of them must have amazing stories.
posted by rokusan at 6:39 PM on November 18, 2006

What if a fundamentalist christian had been elected, and the loser had sent an email admonishing the winner to put aside his intolerance toward gay marriage -- calling it "the best!" and using the same kind of hyperbolic language that was used here? Would we be calling that email arrogant, self righteous, etc? Not that this one isn't bizarre, but come on.
posted by JekPorkins

Sending an email asking a winner "to put aside his intolerance toward gay marriage" is light years away from, "I've enjoyed much of this race, especially the people I've met...even you! I see your deficits--not all of them, and your potential--but not all of it. Only your Creator knows the real potential He's put in you. Get to know Him and know yourself...you'll be more interesting even to you!"

Maybe we are all missing your point because your analogy is wrong.

And I still think that this whole email has more to do with passive-aggressive behavior than it does with religion.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:40 PM on November 18, 2006

Well, Rae Hart Anderson is from Minnesota, perhaps the most passive-aggressive state in the Union.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:41 PM on November 18, 2006

"Maybe we've uncovered the root of the problem here. You seem to perceive the devotion is hypocritical. Most people are in fact hypocrites on some level -- quick to criticize others for failings they also posses -- but I don't see the evidence in any of that in the links presented."

Well, if you use the definition of "affected" faith, I think it still washes.

"I admit it would be funny and post-worthy if Barney Frank lost an election and sent a concession e-mail saying, basically, hey good race there buddy but what really matters is that you suck more cock, because you'll never get to heaven without slobbering on a few dozen poles.

So JekPorkins, when and if this ever happens, I sure hope we'll get to hear more of your wisdom fuckwittery on the subject."

No, you and Astro Zombie are off your feed and having a little Liberal Hallmark Moment.

The point was that representing all Christians with the statement that "they complain about being oppressed when called on misbehavior" was over-broad and not particularly applicable.

And the analogy that followed would be that there are gays who do things like bareback with strangers, yet will cry about oppression from teh straights if they're called on it.

From there you get the very simple idea that these Christians do not represent all Christians, and that those gays do not represent all gays.

I trust that I've layed that out clearly enough to avoid the completely retarded retorts over the tragic life of homosexuals or any other fallacious appeals to emotional high dudgeon.
posted by klangklangston at 6:44 PM on November 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

(And that, kids, is why having all of Metafilter to chime in about how great teh gays are and how evil teh Xtians are doesn't mean that your venom isn't totally groundless. Echo chamber what?)
posted by klangklangston at 6:46 PM on November 18, 2006

Wow, today, sending rude email is like barebacking with strangers! I'd never seen the connection before, but suddenly it's all clear.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:48 PM on November 18, 2006

Well, Rae Hart Anderson is from Minnesota, perhaps the most passive-aggressive state in the Union.
posted by Astro Zombie

You're probably right. I grew up in Duluth so I know passive-agressive when I see it. (Which means that Minnesotans actually show remarkable restraint; you'd think that growing up in Duluth would make one homicidal instead of just passive-aggressive.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:50 PM on November 18, 2006

Sending an email asking a winner "to put aside his intolerance toward gay marriage" is light years away from, "I've enjoyed much of this race, especially the people I've met...even you! I . . .

I guess you missed: ". . . using the same kind of hyperbolic language that was used here"

And thanks, klangklangston.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:50 PM on November 18, 2006

I see you missed my restatement, klangston. Yes, it was hyperbole. But, yes, there are a hell of a lot of Christians who engage in very public misbehavior -- of which this is but the smallest example -- and then claim they are being oppressed for not being allowed to do so.

And, of course, the difference between them and, say, homosexuals, is that there misbehavior consists of trying to make other people conform to their ideas of how the world should run, by pushing for their religion to become law. Homosexuals aren't trying to make the whole world gay, and then claiming that they are oppressed because they are not allowed to.

Of course there are Christians who do not do this. I was addressing myself to the Christians who do.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:50 PM on November 18, 2006

Sorry, taosbat, just saw your comment. That was just a little something I whipped up for the occasion.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:12 PM on November 18, 2006

Faith is a great thing. Religion is an evil thing.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on November 18, 2006

I understand, It's Raining Florence Henderson. I kind of thought that might be the case since the echo never grew up. Yet, it's a verse with potential...maybe, one day, music.metafilter.com, it could be good...
posted by taosbat at 7:27 PM on November 18, 2006

Is there a chance the whole world might in fact be converted to teh gay? Think how well dressed we'd all be!
posted by maxwelton at 7:39 PM on November 18, 2006

"Wow, today, sending rude email is like barebacking with strangers! I'd never seen the connection before, but suddenly it's all clear."

Yeah, barebacking with strangers is probably worse. You got me.

Or did you need the Venn diagrams drawn for you to be able to contribute something worthwhile to the conversation?

"And, of course, the difference between them and, say, homosexuals, is that there misbehavior consists of trying to make other people conform to their ideas of how the world should run, by pushing for their religion to become law. Homosexuals aren't trying to make the whole world gay, and then claiming that they are oppressed because they are not allowed to."

No, though the argument that this particular Christian is going out of her way to make her religion law is kinda tortured, wouldn't you say? She sounds more like a delusional soccer mom than a particularly viperous theocrat. I do agree that there are plenty that believe that whenever they aren't allowed to impose their set of beliefs on everyone else that they're being oppressed, and I do think that generally there are less gays that do it than Christians, but I'm also going to say that often I believe that when gays try to force other people to support their lifestyle, that they're justified. While I'd be happy with no quasi-religious state institution of marriage, I can understand that gays petitioning to, say, have full partner health benefits IS in a very real way forcing their views to be supported by all through law. I just happen to agree with those views— I do think that gays should have equal rights under the law.
And, of course, it's much easier to tolerate ideas that I agree with, but it's necessary to tolerate ideas (even some actions) that I don't agree with, even if that means tolerating ideas that are intolerant of my tolerance. Toleration doesn't mean endorsment, and being told that your ideas are stupid is not intolerancce (which is where I think a lot of people, especially those in the majority, disagree tacitly).

And I'll also say that the tactic of "only addressing myself to the Bad Christians" is a rhetorical dodge on two levels. First off, you're not really addressing them. You're addressing us. So keep in mind that several of the members here just might not be the droids you're looking for with that comment. Second off, it's used in the same way that child molestors and homosexuals are equated too often in fundamentalist talking points. I know it could be an ironic parody of their rhetoric, but it feels much more sincerely sneering. Of course, the worst Christians are these terrible ones that we can use as a straw man for all Christians, but expending all that energy decrying such a minority is like decrying the homosexual child molestors as homosexuals. There are gay child molestors, but there are a lot more straight ones, and there's no real implication one way or the other that a gay or lesbian is a pedophile logically. But emotionally, the tactic works.
posted by klangklangston at 7:43 PM on November 18, 2006

Again: I restated my point, klangston, so we wouldn't get distracted by it. The hyperbole was unfair. Some Christians misbehave and complain when their caught. A lot of them. A huge fucking number of them, who happen to be making policy and running for office. But not all of them.

Obviously, others get in a tizzy when lumped in with them.

God, and you called me off my feed.

And by, the way, Hart Anderson is not merely a soccer mom. She was a candidate who argued against gay marriage and against abortion. Her public statements, even on education, are explicitly Christian.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:57 PM on November 18, 2006

I admit it would be funny and post-worthy if Barney Frank lost an election and sent a concession e-mail saying, basically, hey good race there buddy but what really matters is that you suck more cock, because you'll never get to heaven without slobbering on a few dozen poles.

interesting how this statement frames homosexuality and religiosity as antitheses. mefi gays are the most vociferous dogmatists i've encountered.
posted by quonsar at 8:36 PM on November 18, 2006

Interesting how you know about my sexual history when I've said nothing about it. But tell us all quonsar, how do you feel about "mefi blacks"? Or "mefi Jews"? Or "mefi chinks"?
posted by bardic at 9:00 PM on November 18, 2006

Anderson on her most important issue:

Citizen health is my issue. If you don’t take care of your body, where will you live? Minnesota boasts of good health care — yet more than 45 percent of us die, one by one, early, from vascular diseases like heart and brain attack. What if Charles Mayo, Helen Keller or Grandma Moses died early? What if we do? Who will take care of our responsibilities? When a job stops, should health-care coverage stop? We can provide a health safety net for disastrous events, along with “basic health care” for citizens who have no current access to health care.

Do Charles Mayo, Helen Keller, and Grandma Moses have anything in common?

"Heart and brain attack"?

"If you don't take care of your body, where will you live?"
posted by roomwithaview at 9:17 PM on November 18, 2006

Do Charles Mayo, Helen Keller, and Grandma Moses have anything in common?

They're all famous and dead.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:28 PM on November 18, 2006

"If you don't take care of your body, where will you live?"

um, with jesus? ... but here's the funny thing ... she phrases that as if it's the most terrible thing that could happen ... and, yeah, if one doesn't believe in an afterlife, it certainly is terrible

but she DOES believe in one ... why the disconnect between her faith and her attitude towards death?

people can say some rather self-contradictory and revealing things ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 PM on November 18, 2006

They're all famous and dead.

.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:23 PM on November 18, 2006

interesting how this statement frames homosexuality and religiosity as antitheses.

As opposed to this bomb, of course, which somehow bizarrely equated the act of Christian proselytizing with support for gay marriage. It's a huge stretch, and what prompted the initial derail, but when you've got nothing else, what can you do?

mefi gays are the most vociferous dogmatists i've encountered.

In the face of threats of capital punishment, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, hate legislation, banal demands to "tolerate hate as just a different point of view", etc. perhaps consider walking a mile or two in another's shoes, as Jesus once did.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:03 AM on November 19, 2006

Interesting how you know about my sexual history when I've said nothing about it.

interesting how you assume my use of "mefi" as a qualifier was anything but a specific reference to the situs of my experience of dogmatism among gays. you assume it was a reference to your sexual history. very interesting.

But tell us all quonsar, how do you feel about "mefi blacks"? Or "mefi Jews"? Or "mefi chinks"?

that's simply a repugnant, and quite deliberate, misrepresentation. also very interesting.
posted by quonsar at 7:05 AM on November 19, 2006

"As opposed to this bomb, of course, which somehow bizarrely equated the act of Christian proselytizing with support for gay marriage."

Please quit with the disingenuous protests over the "bomb." Support for gay marriage is, in a very real way, asking others to support a lifestyle they may not agree with. And activism for it really isn't that different from activism for Christianism once you get past the muddying issue of which you agree with.
posted by klangklangston at 9:27 AM on November 19, 2006

Rae is a University of Minnesota graduate in Speech Communication, Education, the Humanities and Journalism--a multidisciplinary degree.

For someone with a lot of communications training, Rae is remarkably unskilled. Her webpage is a grammatical and punctuational nightmare and her proselytizing letter is utterly unconvincing.

Still, it seems she's done a lot of good stuff in her life, on a supporting-individuals level. Raised a bunch of kids, done a lot of nursing and support stuff, etc. A good person, perhaps even a great person, who shouldn't be anywhere near a position of actual power.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 AM on November 19, 2006

I will never cease to be amazed at how any post can be derailed by just mentioning the word "gay." (Hmm. You know, if you replace the word "Christians" with "gays," it kinda makes that statement seem moronic.)

This email has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, and yet some people seem to be so obsessed with it, that it pops up (no pun intended) in any discussion that mentions Christians as frequently as Hitler comes up in a discussion of Bush.

I have an idea--let's not "Gaywinize" any more of these threads. Kay?
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:18 AM on November 19, 2006

I know it's a derail and it's stupid, but...

Support for gay marriage is, in a very real way, asking others to support a lifestyle they may not agree with.

Okay, let's take that to it's logical resting place, shall we? If asking that someone not block gay marriage rights is asking someone to support a lifestyle they may not agree with, does that mean we can also shut down all the churches and disallow praying? Because, you know, that lifestyle doesn't have my support, and the majority of people in my area don't attend church. Can we outlaw Christian expression too? Isn't that my right? Is that our right as a democratic society, or do you think we shouldn't get involved with people's personal lifestyle choices, particularly when they have no negative effect on us personally?

Making sure an oppressed group doesn't have the same rights as you do is a mission of hate and cruelty. Fighting for the right to make personal life choices (like practicing a religion other than yours, or living your life as you see fit with the people you love) is not the same thing as taking part in an organized effort to take away the rights of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens (or make sure they never get them in the first place). And the fact that anyone thinks there's a relationship between those two things, that an analogy can be made at all, just strengthens the intial "moronic" assertion that many Christians tend to think of themselves as oppressed.

You don't let me oppress the fags! I'm so oppressed!
posted by Hildegarde at 11:04 AM on November 19, 2006 [2 favorites]

Since when did "allowing other people the same rights as you" mean the same as "supporting their lifestyle"?

Would you say that allowing Hindus to get married using the rituals of their religion and not Christianity would be "supporting Hinduism"?

After all, organized Christianity has always taught that Hindus are committing a sin by continuing to practice their religion, and for that sin they will be punished by destruction after they die.


Christ did not teach intolerance. Unfortunately, the church very quickly went in that direction. I blame Peter. I feel that Christianity went off on a very wrong track when Christ was crucified and that had he lived to a ripe old age, we'd have a religion of Life rather than one of Death.

The next two thousand years included the Crusades, the forcible conversion of Central and South America (reading a history of this process contains atrocities that make Iraq seem quite tame), the eternal maltreatment of the Jews, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition and of course the endless Catholic vs. Protestant wars that persist even till this day.

I'm sure 90% of the world saw the Iraq war, where an outspokenly Christian President destroyed an Arab country on a pretext, as the logical next step (and this probably included a lot of Christians who were proud of this shameful record and saw Iraq as the Next Crusade -- I have certainly met several of those people too).


Now, I fully, fully understand that there are many Christians who simply follow the spirit of Jesus' teachings and I love these people dearly. But they aren't really Christians in the modern sense of the word -- I think most if not all denominations would have serious doctrinary problems with their beliefs, as they depart from the idea of Christ's teachings being the sole and unitary truth and the only way to escape eternal destruction.


I wonder what the Bible would have looked like if Christ had lived to write it! He might have said, "I am a way and a life."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:21 AM on November 19, 2006

IMO, there's probably a lot of money to be made mining the meme of Peter as Satan successfully derailing Christ's attempt to bring heaven to earth.

He might have said, "I am a way and a life."

He would have said, "Be good to each other."
posted by five fresh fish at 12:04 PM on November 19, 2006

Ugh. The worst thing, in my mind, is the obvious regurgitation of phrases that might have made sense at one point, but are totally out of sync with today's American English. I'd be willing to bet that on the few times she's not talking about God, she talks like a normal person.

I can't wait for His return. The real world will be so much better for the rest of us.
posted by hoborg at 12:34 PM on November 19, 2006

And the fact that anyone thinks there's a relationship between those two things, that an analogy can be made at all, just strengthens the intial "moronic" assertion that many Christians tend to think of themselves as oppressed.

I had a response about how this non sequitor was a derail, probably intentional as well, but Hildegarde pretty much nails the problem.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:36 PM on November 19, 2006

"If asking that someone not block gay marriage rights is asking someone to support a lifestyle they may not agree with, does that mean we can also shut down all the churches and disallow praying?"

The difference is that the public policy that surrounds marriages costs taxpayers money. When partner health benefits are provided, say at a university like the one I attend, that comes out of the pocket of citizens, and is a positive cost (as opposed to the opportuniy cost of tax exempt status for churches).
It's the same argument as opposing "obscene" art from the NEA.
And than an atheist or someone against marriage as an institution can make the same argument about the benefits for opposite sex couples doesn't undermine the argument, in that then the "fair" option would be to simply eliminate all marriage benefits in order to be equitable. Given the choice between eliminating something that Christians believe in versus tacitly supporting something that they think is abhorrent is a pretty fair starting point for activism, even if you disagree with their point of view.

But hey, if you had anything more than the "We're Here, We're Queer" party line to regurgitate on the subject, you'd have gotten to it already, right?
posted by klangklangston at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2006

The difference is that the public policy that surrounds marriages costs taxpayers money

Any prospective marriage provides tax benefits at cost to the public, whether gay or straight. Virtually no one is arguing against equal marriage on the basis of monetary cost.

As such, that's no argument at all to justify the initial comparison with proselytizing, and at best is a post hoc rationalization for the derail.

It's the same argument as opposing "obscene" art from the NEA.

Except that the core issue there is the notion of obscenity — and the moral calculus involved — as opposed to cost, which is a red herring.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:05 PM on November 19, 2006

When partner health benefits are provided, say at a university like the one I attend, that comes out of the pocket of citizens, and is a positive cost

Except that your university already pays same-sex partner benefits, and that implementing a policy that required marriage among same sex couples rather than covering any old cohabiting partner would decrease its coverage costs. That is, they could do that if same sex marriage was legal. In the real world, your university, by covering all same-sex domestic partnerships, is paying more taxpayer dollars to compensate for the bigotry inherent in your state laws.
posted by boaz at 1:07 PM on November 19, 2006

Support for gay marriage is, in a very real way, asking others to support a lifestyle they may not agree with.

Whoa. Define "support."

First. There is no such issue as Gay god-damned marriage. There is your problem right there.

There is the equal right for ALL consenting adults to marry the person of their choosing.

If I think that marriage is a viable institution — and one that should be recognized by the machinery of State — at ALL, it doesn't mean I offer any kind of support for the "lifestyles" for the individuals who participate in it. Just that I must "tolerate" their participation so that they "tolerate" mine. What we think about each others lifestyle is irrelevant.

The second problem about comparing the oppression of religious persons with the oppression of homosexuals is that, of the two, RELIGION is the one we know for a fact is a life style CHOICE. We do not know this of homosexuality. There is sufficient evidence that it is not an individual choice in many cases. Most people are likely born homosexual.

That people who CHOOSE to follow the a particular philosophical course should not be as protected on the scale of rights OVER what people ARE that exist in the minority. Because people can change beliefs - they do all the time. People cannot change what they are born to be. Not without serious damage.
posted by tkchrist at 1:09 PM on November 19, 2006

"Any prospective marriage provides tax benefits at cost to the public, whether gay or straight."

Right. Which is why, to be equitable, there should be marriage for all or for none.

"As such, that's no argument at all to justify the initial comparison with proselytizing, and at best is a post hoc rationalization for the derail."

The comparison came from the the idea that if you replace one vocal minority with another (because, frankly, fundamentalists aren't the majority and aren't treated as such by the vast middle of America), both are willing to cry "oppression" when it suits them. Everything else has been a circle-jerk of gay marriage affirmation.

"Except that the core issue there is the notion of obscenity — and the moral calculus involved — as opposed to cost, which is a red herring."

Eh, not really. If you feel that something is obscene, any public monies going toward it are offensive. It becomes, again, a matter of personal politics.

"Except that your university already pays same-sex partner benefits, and that implementing a policy that required marriage among same sex couples rather than covering any old cohabiting partner would decrease its coverage costs. That is, they could do that if same sex marriage was legal. In the real world, your university, by covering all same-sex domestic partnerships, is paying more taxpayer dollars to compensate for the bigotry inherent in your state laws."

Except that the Michigan constitution as of 2004 forbids those benefits. We were one of the retarded "no such similar arrangment" states.

"That people who CHOOSE to follow the a particular philosophical course should not be as protected on the scale of rights OVER what people ARE that exist in the minority. Because people can change beliefs - they do all the time. People cannot change what they are born to be. Not without serious damage."

Again, I realize that this is one of those times when MeFi feels that it can just spout the talking points of progress and be assured of a round of back-patting, but please try go back and read through my comments and see if you can come up with something a little bit more substantive.

JekPorkins original point has been well-supported, and my general contention that the arguments here are based much more on which side you support more than any real understanding seems to be more and more true with every reply I get.

But hey, don't bother reading my comments. Just go on and have another round of trying to convince me to support gay marriage. That'll be real fruitful.
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on November 19, 2006

Except that the Michigan constitution as of 2004 forbids those benefits. We were one of the retarded "no such similar arrangment" states.

Except that they're still listed on the newest form as well. Which suggests they're actually, you know, paying them. Maybe you should consider a lawsuit over how frivolously your tax dollars are being wasted.
posted by boaz at 1:47 PM on November 19, 2006

They want you to be Jesus
They'll go down on one knee
But they'll want their money back
If you're alive at thirty-three
posted by The Deej at 2:07 PM on November 19, 2006

Right. Which is why, to be equitable, there should be marriage for all or for none.

Okay, you missed the point twice, now: Practically no one argues against equal marriage because of the money. It's always been a moral issue, namely disgust with gay sex. Introducing cost into a moral argument is a red herring. The complaint is a moral issue, not a cost issue.

JekPorkins' original point, as such, was that it should be okay to proselytize for Christ because some other people support the notion of equal marriage.

While on the surface that comparison seems to score cheap rhetorical points — while starting a nice, tasty derail! — as usual, this comparison sucks flying eggs when you actually look into the details.

Namely, proselytization is an active, disrespectful attempt to change someone else's core beliefs — to decide for someone else what religion he or she must follow.

The call for equal marriage is, at its core, about letting people make their own decisions for themselves. Equal marriage does not change how straight Christian couples get married, and, so far, all arguments to the contrary — be they on cost, criticism of "rhetoric", or whatever other false premise presented so far — are dishonest, because at its core the reality is about Christian disgust with sexual behavior.

Christians can imagine they suffer when same-sex couples get married. But the reality is that they don't really suffer, because it doesn't affect them. Christians (and non-Christians) continue to enjoy all the same legal rights and protections they had well before Massachusetts began marrying same-sex couples. Nothing has changed in that respect, and claiming otherwise is simply dishonest.

Publically shaming politicians for not finding Jesus Christ, however, does legitimize a xenophobic attitude and does affect any person's right to decide his or her own religious beliefs. I point you to this recent story for more evidence of government-sponsored religious discrimination.

From the start, JekPorkins' "point" was built upon scoring cheap points. A critical look at the details shows it is based on faulty premises that don't hold water. Worse, its defense is just more post hoc rationalization.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:13 PM on November 19, 2006 [1 favorite]

Klang you really gotta knock off the constant condescension. This is the first post of yours I have read in a long, long time. And now I remember why I stopped. You’re a dick 75% of the time. And this ME saying this. President of Dickhead Central.

Jedprokins was issuing another sophomoric "hey your using generalities and that's not nice" refrain. He said:

Just like when I suggested replacing the word "Christians" with the word "gays" and it became obvious to you that the statement was a moronic overgeneralization without any real basis.

It doesn't wash as a comparison. When you say generalization about a Christian your merely drawing generalizations about the CHOICES a group of people have made.

Yes. It may be ignorant of the exceptions. But it's not the same as say racial stereotypes or other kinds of discrimination based on identity.

This argument Jed makes is the new way of crying racism, minus race, every time somebody doesn’t like the choices the group YOU identify with is criticized. To me he is basically saying “Ummmm. I’m telling! You called Christians niggers!” to shut down the criticism of a group.
posted by tkchrist at 2:27 PM on November 19, 2006

When I read that email, I got the sense it was a political maneuver, couched in passive-aggressive clothing. Now Anderson's in the news as a Christian policitian in a Christian land, while her opponent—who won the election—is accused of being, well, un-Christian, which usually means unelectable. Am I alone in having read it that way?

How was the thing collected and published as news, anyway? Does anybody know?
posted by cgc373 at 3:15 PM on November 19, 2006

And this (from Anderson's website) is great:

Disclaimer: Corrections by Rae Hart Anderson cannot happen in a timely fashion due to the fact she has no access to her web pages. When you see a problem area please send a comment or a correction! Thank-you. Help with spelling, grammar and fractured comments are requested!

posted by cgc373 at 3:18 PM on November 19, 2006

Why are we still talking about gay marriage?
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:29 PM on November 19, 2006

Namely, proselytization is an active, disrespectful attempt to change someone else's core beliefs — to decide for someone else what religion he or she must follow.

no, it's not ... it's an attempt to persuade someone to change their beliefts ... the decision is made by the listener, who is free to choose for or against

Publically shaming politicians for not finding Jesus Christ, however, does legitimize a xenophobic attitude

it quite possible illustrates one, but ...

and does affect any person's right to decide his or her own religious beliefs.

no, it doesn't ... one still retains that right ... one does not lose it because someone exercises their free speech rights to persuade you otherwise ...

it's a public marketplace of ideas and you do not have the "right" not to hear certain ideas in public

meaning if someone wants to proselytize you in public they can ... and yes, if your email is public, they are free to send you an email proselytizing you until you ask them not to send you any more email

your rights are NOT being violated by that, so quit acting like they are
posted by pyramid termite at 3:31 PM on November 19, 2006

It certainly was not a violation of Chaudhary's right. But it was ill-timed, rude, and inappropriate.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:06 PM on November 19, 2006

agreed ... idiotic, too ... but consider the source ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:11 PM on November 19, 2006

Looks like our buddy Rae here has struck back at us non-believing blog-slop consumers!!

If you thought the previous email was lunacy, then boy oh boy this one's the money shot!
posted by basicchannel at 1:21 PM on November 20, 2006

Can the bowl say to the Potter...why have you made me thus? The bowl doesn't have a heart or a mind or an education...just a purpose known to the Creator. Until the bowl becomes a living creature with will and ability for self-evaluation, the bowl is just inanimate, although somewhat useful by someone until broken into dust. But what if the Potter breaks the unawareish bowl, and makes room for more, even giving the bowl insight into itself to know it is now useless and fragmented?

this shows a real misunderstanding of those bible verses ... it doesn't mean that people don't have hearts and minds or educations unless they're "saved" ... it just means "who are you to tell god what he should do?"

(of course, the answer, "we are that we are" rarely occurs to anyone ... and certainly not people who parrot bible verses without even thinking about them)
posted by pyramid termite at 2:03 PM on November 20, 2006

basicchannel is right: batshitinsane.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:33 PM on November 20, 2006