« (Updated) Another Republican Fitted For a Frog Suit
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Want Iraq War Congressional Troop Cap »
Tolerance, Respect, Blogging
In light of Amanda Marcotte’s resignation from the Edwards campaign, Heraclitus looks at one of the supposedly prejudicial posts from Pandagon that so outraged Bill Donohue and her other critics on the right. (Presumably many of her critics a) don’t know her; b) don’t know her blogging; and c) didn’t read the posts in question, let alone with an open mind.)
What it comes down to, in his view, is the difference between tolerance and respect. What Amanda was doing was examining the sources of religious belief, and religious belief more generally. And she was doing so with more respect than those who would condemn her to hell, literally. She was accused of bigotry, but in reality she was the victim of intolerance — the sort of intolerance that permits no difference, that abhors difference, the intolerance of hubristic righteousness.
But I can’t do the post justice here. You can read it yourselves here.
76 Responses to “Tolerance, Respect, Blogging”
All these various posts, and I forgot to post what I originally wanted to say:
Michael -
What a load of crap that comment was. Her, a victim of intolerance? Yeah, like David Duke is, and pretty much for the same reasons.
It is proof of what I wrote earlier – Leftists think that by definition anything they say cannot be hate speech.
I forgot to add that is because both they tend to believe that anyone from the right side of the spectrum is evil, and that anything they say is enlightenment personified.
Rudi said:
February 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Rudi , it’s fine for the religious right to express their opinions.
But they do more than express opinions, they push for their moral agenda as law for eveyone. If they express opinions and live to themselves I don’t care what they do.
That’s called political action and both sides engage in it . Did you miss the list Austin provided above?
I already mentioned that I am against laws such as the ones you list. But they pale in comparison to ones the far left would like to enact. The most egregious is the fact that they would like to steal the value of my labor to give it to someone else. They would attempt to tell me how to raise my children or what I can put in my body.
I would like to see a true Bill Of Rights which would prevent the government from interfering into peoples lives . Sadly, the fringes on both sides prefer to get into my business
AR Sorry for the incoherence, but what I was trying to get at, under US law marriage is a civil transaction. A marriage in any church or government office is deemed legal. Two divorced Catholics can marry and the government validates it, their Catholic church doesn’t. Religious groups put in there requirements, these have no legal standing. A JoP will marry two Wiccans and it’s legal in the eyes of the law, no religious group can deem the Wiccan marriage illegal.
What laws have the Far Left enacted in the last ten years? W and the Republicans have controlled the Federal gov for years.
AR and MF,
I am missing something if either one of you blame the “Left” for mandating what schools your kids go to. Public schools are local to the community, the school boards determine content and such. Are all school boards Bleeding Heart Liberal, I think not. And you don’t have to use Public schools. Private or home schooling are other options.
Now emminent domain does suck, but the Supreme Court allowed it to continue. Your telling me this SC is more Left than the Warren Court?
What more…
AR and MF, You both claim to be Libertarians, well it’s the RR that pushes the War on Drugs. True Libertarians and Liberals don’t favor the WoD. Whats Right and Left here?
“Yeah, like David Duke is, and pretty much for the same reasons.”
This statement doesn’t build up any confidence in your sound judgment, Austin…
Dear God what a clusterf@#k. I go to sleep for the night and the thread becomes about which side is more interventionist and evil.
Here’s a bi-partisan centrist position: EVERYONE is interventionist, the differences lie merely in what subjects they are.
The minute the government is saying you can’t commit murder, or imposing speed limits, or age-of-consent laws, or ANY law, it is imposing limitations on society. Government as the vehicle of other people controlling the way one conducts ones life is everywhere, every day and in almost every aspect of our lives. It’s what gives structure to society, and the vast proportion of these impositions, these rules, are uncontroversial and aren’t even noticed by people. When was the last time you resented a pedestrian crossing? A routine saftey check on a plane? A doctors certificate of aptitude?
Left and right diverge on a tiny minority of the rules they would like imposed. Issues that are on the border (it’s placement in and of itself a matter of societal consensus) between personal liberty and societal good. At which point does the right to a students free speech impinge on the right of another student to not feel threatened? To what extent does the government, having created a civil institution inspired in a religious one, have the right to change the definition for civil purposes (like they did when they allowed divorce)? Each side sees the others issues as impositions and their own as basic rights. Personally, I lean left, but in no way wish to imply that the rules I want are not impositions and the rules the Right wants are.
“I go to sleep for the night and the thread becomes about which side is more interventionist and evil.”
Hehehe, Lynx, I know that feeling!
Wow, I felt the same way, Lynx, and you expressed the exact opinion that I wanted to share.
Rudi, the problem I have with your comments here is that you are righteously indignant about the RR elements who push for legislation on social issues but when AR gives you a whole laundry list of leftist interventions, you only grudgingly admit that you don’t like seeing this either. Lots of excuses and downplaying of those activities from the left while you erupt with anger over BD and his ilk. And do you not see the obvious ironical contradiction in these statements:
When exactly did BD comment on your bedroom activities? I don’t defend some of the stuff he says- so if he actually has proposed ANY legislation that restricts your right to engage in ANY sexual practice whatsoever, I will concur with you that he is wrong to do so. But if I take you literally on the part where you say “but harm no living creatures”, isn’t it obvious that this is where the RR might see a need for laws to prevent harm to those “living creatures” that occasionally result from sexual activity? I’ve really had it with the canard of “stay out of my bedroom”. Frankly I’ve never had the slightest interest in being involved in your bedroom in any way, shape or form.
Uh, state legislatures, anyone? That’s where most of the leftist wacko agendas have been fulfilled during the last decade, obviously.
Well, this may be your opinion, Rudi, but a lot of people are opposed to religious people even expressing their opinions of their personal beliefs because this is viewed as “condemning other people to hell.” Plus, as Lynx said, EVERYONE is pushing for their moral agenda as law. If religious people do so for issues that strictly have a theological basis then they should be called on it(take blue laws, for example: ridiculous- if people don’t think they should drink on the Sabbath, there is no secular basis to say that they should be able to force this belief on others. Abortion: different story because it involved the belief that a pre-born human is a human, which is not strictly a religious belief)
Gray -
Sorry if the obvious SNARK wasn’t apparent, but at the same time you have been on this board for some time too, and I find it hard to believe that you would really think I was claiming David Duke is a victim.
The point I thought I was making obvious is DD is no victim, and has been rightfully rejected by ALL reasonable (not nut-cases) people on the right (and the left, obviously).
Amanda deserves the same fate, based on her expressed viewpoints and rhetoric.
Rudi -
Where did I say I support the WoD??
I am firmly against it, and think it has been one of the most socially and society-destructive programs of all time, even more destructive than the Prohibition, and possible in some ways as destructive to minorities and blacks in particular as slavery was in its day.
I commented on the second part of her comment when this story first broke here, because it’s actually the most offensive part IMO. The first part that is more often getting quoted, is gratuitously raunchy in order to provoke response, but the second part is where she uses a stereotypical (and ignorant) view of Catholic teaching to make a joke and to make her point about birth control. This is what led me to quip that I thought I might get together with a few women from my church and photograph ourselves holding up a sign reading: “Halp us Jon Edwurdz, we’re being brainwashed by misogynists.” The offense here (though I admit, not uttered directly by John Edwards) is similar to that taken by soldiers to Kerry’s ‘botched joke’. In both cases, the offensive statements presume something about the reasons that people adhere to a belief or subscribe to a practice, and that presumption is offensive, untrue, and patronizing. I believe in the Catholic teaching about birth control because I’ve studied it and I believe it to be the best way to live my life. I understand that this is a theologically based belief therefore I do not wish to impose it on anyone via legislation. I realize that some people do take it to that extent and I understand that these are the people that Marcotte is railing against. However, she conflates me with those people with her remarks and she presumes that only misogynists (or those oppressed by them) would hold the beliefs consistent with the Church’s teaching. This is where I take issue with those kinds of comments. I think that when people like Marcotte make them, they believe that they are criticizing specific policies but they are also expressing contempt for people who believe in or adhere to those policies, and they are making assumptions about those beliefs that are based on ignorance.
Rudi -
Sorry to burst your bubble, but talking about SCOTUS in general is a dis-ingenious way of skirting the fact it was all 4 of the Liberal justices with one Conservative that made up the Kelo majority.
And for schools, I am talking about vouchers and school choice, which is vehemently opposed by the left.
And CS is correct that it is at the state and local level that the Left has wielded its agenda control, and I should have made that clear.
C S… that would have been a funny picture! Would have loved to see it. You’re right, of course, that the second part of the statement is much more substantively offensive, particularly to Catholic women, than the obscene first part. I alluded to that earlier, but you make the point much more clearly.
LOL, yes, Pat, let’s see, I’ll have to include a friend of mine who teaches natural family planning- I’m sure she only devotes her time to this because she wants to enable the patriarchy! Then there’s the OB-GYN whose practice doesn’t issue prescriptions for artificial contraceptives nor do she and her associates perform abortions- yep, they must be part of the conspiracy too!
One thing I find intriguing…I actually am beginning to think that people like Amanda use the gratuitous gross out comments specifically because they can hide behind them. In other words, this allows her to bury the actual offensive comment within the muck of obscenity, so that when her statements are criticized she can say, “Some people just don’t like to hear dirty language”.
You can see how some people take it that way; look for example at egrubs’ comment:
See what I mean? The trash talk is a way for her to slip her actual bigoted comment in there and then have people defend her statement on the basis that those who complain are really just prudes.
I think you’re right about the obscenity bit, C S. And if you’re anywhere near Atlanta, my Catholic sister will be happy to join in the picture, too. She and her husband have been married for two years using NFP, and no nieces or nephews for me yet! She’s obviously such a woman-hater.
LOL, yes, no doubt about it, that sister of yours must have terrible self esteem! And sheesh…she and her husband are playing roulette with their family planning…sheer luck that they haven’t had an unplanned pregnancy yet. What’s that? NFP is actually almost equal in efficacy to the pill (and in some studies, more efficacious)? Nah, it can’t be! Why if that were true, there would be no basis for the belief that the Catholic Church Magisterium was oppressive toward women…so it can’t be so!!!
AR says:
And for schools, I am talking about vouchers and school choice
Michigan and many states have limited school choice. The city of Milwakee ahs had choice and vouchers for a while. While think tanks like AEI and Hudson or Hoover trumpet it’s success, via BalloonJuice the local Milwakee newspaper dicredits the school choice succcess’.
I didn’t say you support WoD(emmient domain). ED isn’t left or right, it’s developers and such using political influence to steal peoples property. In Warren Michigan this happened to two families over twenty years ago( 1 to car dealership/ 1 to party store). Wrong then, wrong now, but why a story now?
CS and AR claim:
Uh, state legislatures, anyone? That’s where most of the leftist wacko agendas have been fulfilled during the last decade, obviously.
I believe that before the November election Republicans controlled many state houses. I know that the Michigan Leg swung back to the Dems, after years of Republican control. Elrod posted or commented on the results. The midwest and mountain west areas also switched. Look up Ohio at the state level. Romneyland and Cailflornia don’t count, been loony for ever.
Rudi -
WoD = War on Drugs, not eminent domain. Don’t support that either, though!
OK Rudi, let me see if I’ve got the rules of engagement straight now. State legislatures that have promoted left interventionism are in the minority and the couple of prominent examples have “been that way forever” so they don’t count.
However, every example of RR activism must be counted. The more radical groups must be held out as examples that depict what the entire RR wants to accomplish. No matter that there is a more moderate contingency there that has more reasonable goals and has legitimate complaints. If these people agree with Bill Donohue on any one issue, then they are radicals.
But the more radical groups on the left are just anomalies. They aren’t dominant right now so no need to complain about them.
Is that about it?
CS The interventionist Left is a canard. I give you two links with a map and article to dispell that strawman. The state Leg have slowly been moving Right since 1950. Many states have split government (gov and legis).
http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/statevotemaps2006.htm#;
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/analysis.htm
I should clarify, I don’t care about individual or local RR or fundamentalists, their leadership is corrupt just like JJ and AS.
Follow the history of Ralph Reed and Christian Coalition for leadership and politics. Groups and individual leaders of the RR recently split on the Enviroment and Helping the poor. The powerfull leadership of the RR(Donohue and Reed) are the problem, not the members.
Where was BD concern as Clark and Hudson died in Texas, wasn’t a media cause and he ignored their “murders” by official decree of the Texas powers. Little black baby doesn’t mouth,”I wanna live”.
Rudi,
I’m talking about intent, not current success levels. I acknowledge that you seem to justify a double standard for the two sides of the political spectrum based not necessarily on a preference of one over the other but based on which side you currently feel is more powerful. I just happen to think that’s a dangerous attitude. If the left has intent that is just as misguided, to impose their views of morality, I feel it’s just as important to be vigilant against those who lead that effort. Just because the most successful ones so far have been confined to a couple of states doesn’t mean that their efforts won’t spread. As superdestroyer constantly reminds us, the Democratic party has a lock on certain demographic groups and while I don’t share his belief that this will lead to one party rule, I do think that in the short term the Democrats’ stars are rising. That makes it important to watch closely to see how they seek to yield that power.
What a bunch of bull. MichaelF, AustinRoth made a dumb bigoted statement about what lefties want to do. Not some leftists. He used no qualifier to indicate that the thought there were any exceptions to his Limbaugh moment statement. He also purposefully used the term leftists which has become a pejorative term in modern political discussion. You stood up for this bigotry. Yes, bigotry. That’s what they call it when you paint an entire group of people with one broad assumption based on the actions or words of some part of the group. You two have been screaming about other people saying nasty things about conservatives and how dishonest they are and you turn around and just do the same thing in another direction. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.
CS,
When Rudi says this:
This is your response:
Then you say this:
Having a bit of a memory problem? Your comment had nothing to do with intent but a lot to do with “agendas being fulfilled”. That means success.
Jim,
I stated that liberal agendas have been pushed in state legislatures in recent years. Rudi’s response to that was to 1) exempt certain states from the discussion- which tells me that basically he admits that this is happening in a few places but that he isn’t worried about it, presumably because he thinks it’s an anomaly that won’t spread elsewhere, and 2) to give me links to state legislative maps to show that there are not a majority of D controlled state houses.
To which I then replied as you’ve shown, that I wasn’t trying to assert an overall dominance of this type of activity.
No memory problem, and these statements are not inconsistent as you are trying to make them out to be. Success in some locations, which proves intent by SOME people on the left (see, I chose a fine brush there, not a broad one). Rudi doesn’t seem to think it’s important to call those people out on it, but focuses a lot on calling out the RR. That’s a double standard that he justifies based on the relative current power of each side of the spectrum. My argument is that if you give the other side a pass, they’ll eventually gain power, so we should hold both sides accountable for extremist interventionism. Anyone with libertarian ideals (like Rudi) should be just as concerned about laws that intrude on dietary choices, parenting, owning weapons, smoking, etc, as he/she is about laws that would restrict the option of aborting one’s progeny.