« (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”
OK, Heraticlus would like to distinguish between the concepts of tolerance and respect. Fine.
But perhaps that’s why Marcotte’s disrespectful diatribes were largely ignored (ahem…tolerated, we might say) by the people she seeks to offend until she was chosen to be a mouthpiece for a mainstream political candidate. At that point, some of us chose to say that the candidate was in effect endorsing those disrespectful comments.
So where’s the problem, exactly? Isn’t this working exactly the way Heraticlus thinks our system should work? Everyone has the right to free speech, we’re just now seeing that someone had to take responsibility for the reactions that she intentionally provoked.
Seems the Wingnuts have done a Lieberman and hacked the Panda.
Can we call her posts insenitive and ignorant, instead, or is that phrase reserved only for those who mock non-Christian religions?
Michael, kindly explain to me the difference between Marcotte’s rantings against Christians and the Danish cartoonists drawings which so offended some Muslims.
I would love to know why it is that religion has this…ejem…holy… spot on a pedestal of special treatment. You can say pretty much anything from the basis of religion. You can claim that women are lesser to men, homosexuals are condemned, women who don’t cover their hair are harlots. An amazing range of utterly unfounded beliefs are tolerated and even “respected” (or not challenged) if someone claims that it’s their religion. Saying that the whole of that religion is a bunch of hogwash on the other hand is condemned utterly. You can say conservatism or liberalism, or communism or capitalism are BS, and give reasons, without being called insensitive or evil, but questioning religion is somehow worse. I have my own ideas of why this is, but they are shaded by my own worldview and aren’t very nice, so I won’t go there.
Even more maddening, not all religions are equal. Recently on YouTube an atheist got his entire account erased with all his videos because of one video he did quoting some of the less than peace loving verses from the Koran. Now, YouTube has done nothing about the plethora of videos making fun of or insulting Christianity and Christians, but suddenly it’s Islam and we get all antsy. Ugh.
Mind you, I don’t think being insulting is good. I don’t think being disrespectful is good, but where people draw the line of “respect” and “insult” is important. I personally believe that Christian opposition to homosexuality is a way of cherry-picking from the Old Testament one of the gazillion rules it has, while conveniently ignoring others (like not shaving, or even some of the commandments) to support you’re CULTURAL prejudice and pretending that rules made thousands of years ago should still be valid today, even assuming they are the word of God, which I personally think is ridiculous. Now I could be condemned for not having the proper “respect” but how do you criticize a belief based simply of faith, not reason, without crossing that line?
I’d be happy to explain the difference Pat, after you explain the difference between the vile language used in the hate mail to Amanda from these so-called Christians and her posts that they find so offensive.
I’m not defending the hate mail Marcotte received, Libby. I’m pointing out a double standard that Michael seems to have between offensive attacks on Muslims and offensive attacks on Christians. That exists whether any of Marcotte’s critics sent her hate mail or not.
Lynx, you just showed how to criticize religion without being offensive. Yes, some thin skins on all sides are going to be offended no matter what, but you didn’t go out of your way to be so. You just said “I think they’re cherry-picking their quotations to justify their distaste for homosexuality.” Perfectly fine and valid. You did not go on to say “they’re a bunch of ignorant, misogynist, hypocritical, unthinking morons.” That’s offensive, and it deals in stereotypes rather than facts and argument. Much of the offensiveness of Marcotte’s postings (besides their foul, foul language) was because of her broad and insulting stereotypes. One can believe in basic Catholic doctrine without being a misogynist. Marcotte, however, condemns all who don’t support her preferred policy view of abortion on demand, with ready access to Plan B, as Bible-thumping, freedom-hating misogynists.
Ms. Marcotte is entitled to her opinion, and also entitled to the consequences of voicing it in public: that is, she went way out of her way to deliberately offend a large majority of Americans. She should not be too surprised that stating controversial opinions in an offensive manner will result in harsh criticism.
I look forward to her return to obscurity.
Sen. Edwards, on the other hand, is clearly someone who does not know how to do background checks on employees, and this incident says a lot about his fitness as a Presidential candidate.
I also look forward to his return to obscurity.
What double standard Pat? I don’t see it. The Muslim cartoons were meant to offend all Muslims, not just hypocritical ones. Amanda’s posts specifically target the hypocrites who cloak their hate under the mantle of Christianity and seek to impose their “moral” standard on all of us by dint of a state sanctioned theocracy. What’s the difference between these psuedo-Christians and the Muslim extremists that seek to impose the same?
Amanda’s language may be offensive to many, but the point of her posts are specifically targeted to the hypocrites and don’t seek to paint all Christians with a broad brush – despite your protestations to the contrary.
Aren’t you also cherrypicking out of context when you quote a partial phrase like “they’re a bunch of ignorant, misogynist, hypocritical, unthinking morons.” I’d say that describes the false Christians to a tee.
Libby -
So your point is what, exactly? That if there are crude, bigoted people on one side, that excuses crude, bigoted behavior on the other? Even when her comments came first?
I am not excusing anything said to her that was outside the bounds of respective criticism, even forceful but respective criticism, but if a bunch of nut-jobs fired off inappropriate comments, how does that lessen her own responsibility for her comments?
Lynx,
I second what Pat said…but I’d also point out that when you state your objections to some of the beliefs of religious people in this way, you also leave open the possibility of rebuttal. For example, when you say:
I could, if you wanted to hear the theology behind it, explain to you how the Catholic church’s teaching on this is nothing like what you have portrayed it to be. It is not based on any particular Bible quote, it is part of a coherent understanding of how we believed God created man and woman as two parts of a whole. You don’t have to agree with that, of course, or even have an interest in better understanding it. But part of the reason that critical statements toward religion should be made in that more respectful way that you illustrated, is that it leaves room for an actual discussion to see whether or not the religious belief is as illogical or intolerant as you think it is. That is the essence of respect; allowing the other side to present it’s argument instead of stating a foregone conclusion that the other side is composed of whackos.
By pointing out instances where you believe that the religious belief is illogical, and then allowing people who may disagree with you to present their case.
You read the minds of the Danish cartoonists, Libby? You know that they were intending to offend all Muslims? How exactly do you know that? Do you recall why the paper held its cartoon contest?
And how is use of language like “hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit” aimed solely at “hypocritical” Christians? You don’t think almost all Christians would find that offensive? Or do you think that all Christians who believe in the virgin birth are hypocritical? Exactly what “hypocrisy” was her “Plan B” post aimed at?
I am in favor of all offesive comments directed towards all religions. If the religious can’t deal with verbal attacks on their beliefs, maybe those beliefs are just a Ptomkin village. In ‘Good Morning Vietnam” RW gives a Vietnamese priest in his English class a hard time(can’t remember exact details), the priest responds with the statement(I believe),”then I am waiting to die”. My disbelief in your beliefs shouldn’t question your beliefs in the Spahgetti god. Jesus wasn’t a White Norwegian, he was Arabic or Black – I made this statement to a believer and the sh** hit the fan. A Black Jesus shouldn’t threaten anyones belief, just like a Black Santa.
BTW, Lynx, I think the same rules should apply to criticism of a political belief system. Point out your areas of disagreement and explain them. Allow other side time for rebuttal and listen to the rebuttal.
The fact that this usually isn’t what happens explains why we’ve become so polarized, IMO. And sadly, that means that even when the two sides agree on what the problems facing society are, they can’t formulate potential solutions that tap into the strengths of solutions from both sides of the aisle.
Very well explained, C Stanley. Hey, drop me an e-mail (you can find a “contact” button over at Stubborn Facts) sometime, would you? We Tiger alums have to stick together…
I am trying to figure out the context that this could have been taken out of that makes it constructive criticism, but I admit I am failing.
Let’s try the original one again:
Sorry, same problem.
Perhaps that is because this time the problem isn’t with who is criticizing her and her comments, but the comments themselves.
Someone else said it, and I can’t remember who, but it hit the nail on the head. Leftists think that by definition nothing they say can qualify as hate speech.
Pat- will do.
LOL, exactly.
By the way, I’ve expanded my comments above into a lengthy post of my own at Stubborn Facts.
C Stanley while I certainly agree that a discussion can be had about religious beliefs without falling into insult, I still maintain that religious conversation, much like racial conversation, is given a special treatment not alloted to other debates.
Another problem with debating religion is that in all debates the debatees must start from common assumptions, and in religion this is often not the case. Don’t get me wrong, we certainly can debate the biblical justification for opposition to homosexuality, how the religious belief is justified. You’d kick my butt, doubtlessly, since you know much more about Christian belief than I, but eventually we’d hit a wall. At a certain point we get to the fact that you believe that there is a God that has interest in who you fall in love and are intimate with and I do not. Debate is impossible beyond this point, because our assumptions are different. I cannot reason with you because your reasons are based on faith. You can’t justify homosexuality as bad to me because the whole issue requires a faith that I lack.
I agree…I think you are absolutely correct, we’d only agree to disagree. But we’d come away from the conversation with a better understanding of each other, no? And that would then prevent us from making untrue statements about each others’ opinions or beliefs in the future, or having pointless arguments about our differences of opinion.
And one more thing, Lynx: again I’ll point out the reason that this kind of respect is important. Although you and I would likely never agree on certain topics, we do have areas of common beliefs and interests. Preserving respect for each other allows us to find that common ground and work together in those areas. That’s what I see missing in today’s world.
becomes offensive when sex is a bad, dirty thing. It has nothing to do with whether one believes in Christianity or not. I mean, how do you think Moses came to be?
(But no, I have nothing to contribute to the main discussion. I’m a little amused that, once again, much derives from our being prudes.)
egrubs, I think intent is as important as semantics. Do I care about a phrase that links the holy spirit to semen? Personally, for me, no. I don’t believe in the first and think there’s nothing wrong with the second. Now then, I find it awfully hard to believe that no offense was meant. I could say “Yes, Obama, a fine race-hybrid. He’s got a whole plantation of ideas I’m sure he’s bucking to tell us”. Would anyone in the world believe that my choice of words was merely chance? That no offense was meant? C’mon.
I absolutely support the right of anyone to say what they please, and do think that certain religious people have awfully thin skins, but that phrase is offensive, if only because it clearly has the INTENT to be offensive.
No argument on that.
CS, your last comment made me thing about something I had posted in an earlier thread about Marcotte.
Now obviously it is up to Marcotte and Edwards to decide if the level of lack of respect is a deal breaker, but I think it would have been a much more heartening sign if they had come out and said that while they don’t see eye to eye on religion, the share common values in x, y and z, and therefore are willing to work toghether towards those shared goals.
Oh, and I’d like to second PatHMV’s request for a clarification of the distinction between the Mohamud cartoon and what Amanda said, althought I’ll pass on the tone accusing him of hipocracy and anti-christian bias.
Personally I’d label them both very insensitive, tho the ignorant distinction is harder to say. I do not find Amanda’s comments ‘ignorant’. While she probably doesn’t know as much as CS about Biblican passages or Christian theology, I believe she certainly knew the general effect her statement would have on Christians, and therefore not a comment made out of ignorance.
The cartoon’s ignorance is more uncertain. I certainly did not know of the Muslim prohibition against depicting the prophet mohamud before the controversy errupted, but I have no knowledge about how much the cartoonists knew before publishing the cartoon. That prior knowledge would determine how ignorant the cartoon was.
Not all followers of Islam believe that it is wrong simply to draw an image of Mohammed. There are many examples of such art throughout Arab Muslim history. There’s a brief discussion of the various interpretations of the Hadith (not the Koran) which might prohibit such images, here.
Further, there is no reason not to believe that the Danish cartoonists were simply making fun of the “hypocritical” followers of Islam, the ones who do not practice its clear commands for non-violence.
I have to admit I don’t regularly read pandagon and I haven’t read the posts in question so all I see is one quote out of context and I still don’t know what it’s about. I think the outrage is based too much on the abrasive way she speaks, not so much on what she said. I would note I’ve read worse language from the right describing everything from homosexuals to Democrats.
However, I’m a Christian and I’m not offended by that remark even out of context. She has a right to her opinion. But I am very offended by so-called Christians that would use their faith to deny another person the right to make decisions over their own body, which I assume was the gist of the post and the target of those remarks were Christians who seek to prevent other’s use of contraceptives based on their own religious standard. If you’re not one of those people, then why take offense?
As I recall God didn’t counsel that we use our faith as blungeon to exercise power over our fellow man. Seems to me the rule was more like love one another and the implication is to accept your fellow humans as they are.
The difference between Amanda and the Allah cartoons is Amanda is mocking a specific subset of Christians whose actions belie the tenets of their faith – not their God. Even in this white hot comment, she mocked a specific belief that is not universally held, not God himself. A lot of religious people don’t believe in the Virgin Mary.
The cartoons were specifically targeted at the diety and not at some specific sect or specific belief of Islam. That’s where I see the big difference.
Quoting PatHMV from a different thread:
I think this very accurate point underscores one of the least offensive (and therefor least commented upon) aspects of the now-infamous quote.
The first part was offensive. The second part might (or might not) speak to some truth about the situation.
It’s not the religion justifying the (perceived or real) misogyny, but the person.
Marcotte as victim…..how exactly is that different from her normal persona?
In fact it is her paranoid victim complex that she has always used to justify her bigotry. (“Oh! the patriarchy is out to get me.” “Oh those believers in ancient mythology just hate women!”)
If Amanda isn’t treated as if she is intelligent I think a safer answer is it’s because she doesn’t act intelligent. If Amanda isn’t shown respect, I’d say it is because she herself has so damn little for anyone she disagrees with.
Calling Catholic or other Christians “misogynists” is exactly on a par with calling Jews “money grubbing,” or Japanese people “shifty eyed,” or whatever vicious stereotype you want to add to the list. Its not a matter of opinion. Its a prejudice. Defending people’s prejudices says a hell of a lot more about Michael and Heralitus.
And to claim religious folks should acknowledge how “respectful” Marcotte is to them is beyond belief.
All I could think about after that comment was Woody Allen’s famous q & a:
Is sex dirty?
Only if it’s done right.
Libby, you didn’t answer the other part of my question: why don’t you assume that the Danish cartoonists were simply aiming at the violent, hypocritical followers of the Religion of Peace? Why should all the peaceful Muslims take offense, if they don’t themselves go around blowing other people up?
I thought I did answer that Pat. It’s because they were directly mocking the diety and not just the practitioners.
And just to be clear, I am not defending Amanda’s confrontational style. I don’t like it on either side of the fence. I think it’s detrimental to civilzed debate. But that’s the price you pay for living in a place that so far allows free speech. If the Donohues of the world had their way, we wouldn’t be allowed to voice our opinions unless they agreed with him. I don’t see Amanda trying to shut him up. She’s just trying to drown him out. I think that’s the difference.
Libby Spencer said:
February 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I have to admit I don’t regularly read pandagon and I haven’t read the posts in question so all I see is one quote out of context and I still don’t know what it’s about. I think the outrage is based too much on the abrasive way she speaks, not so much on what she said. I would note I’ve read worse language from the right describing everything from homosexuals to Democrats.
Wrong Libby . If you read her Blog you will find she is even more vitriolic when it comes to Christianity. She would never have backed down on this had she not been involved with the Edward’s campaign.
In this situation she is trying to make herself out to be a victim of a right wing religious fanatic. The battle between marcotte and donahue is one of two extremists who hate eachother.But make no mistake about it. Marcotte is to the left of Karl Marx. She considers patriarchy and capitalism as the true evils.
The dustup over her piece on religion caused the Edwards people to look closer at her writings. In another thread a commenter on this blog brought up the situation regarding the Duke case. Despite all the evidence concerning the case as late as this January she made highly offensive remarks which assumed guilt by those accused. She then SCRUBBED her site clean of the offensive comments and replaced them with one which didn’t even reflect
on the remarks she removed.
Here is a screen shot of her actual post .
http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/marcotte.jpg
Compare that to the fraud she tried to pass off as an honest dipiction of her feelings on the matter
UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word
Libby -
I just can’t see it your way. He didn’t say she should be banned from expressing her point of view, he said her point of view and her way of expressing it should not acceptable in a mainstream candidate.
As others have pointed out, how tolerant would the left be of a right-wing candidate who directly employed someone expressing equally inflammatory and derogatory language discussing blacks, women, etc.? They would (rightfully) call for the same thing.
Whomever a candidate employs directly, as compared to someone who purports to speak for a constituency of a candidate, says something about that candidate.
And just to be clear, I am not defending Amanda’s confrontational style. I don’t like it on either side of the fence. I think it’s detrimental to civilzed debate.
Well Libby, it would have been nice if you had said this to begin with. But you didn’t… instead, right up front, you burst with glee into one of the left’s favorite tunes, “Every Christian On The Right Is a Hypocrite.” The left has been using that old canard for so long it no longer has any meaning, Libby. Every human being on the face of the planet is a hypocrite about something, and if you don’t see that then you are truly a child living in an adult’s body. Here’s a tip: if you really want to promote respectful debate, give up the ‘hypocrite’ habit. (Just out of curiosity: have you ever met a Republican politician or individual you didn’t think was a hypocrite? Would love to know. Honest question.)
If the Donohues of the world had their way, we wouldn’t be allowed to voice our opinions unless they agreed with him.
Funny, because it’s obvious to me that the same could easily (and far more truthfully) be said of Stalinists like Marcotte. And it’s truly disturbing to me to see still-somewhat-reasonable lefties such as yourself defending people like Marcotte when her hateful rhetoric only (a) needlessly hurts decent, law-abiding Christians and other believers who have every bit as much to their beliefs as you do to yours, and (b) only serves to deepen the left-right polarization of American politics, which I would hope you would be as concerned about as many others here at TMV.
QDP – Lefties don’t tell you that you have to have abortions, or if ID is taught as science, or if you want can stop tube per your wifes wishes. The militant Religious Right wants a fatwah on all that don’t believe as they do. Untill the Lefties kick down your door to see what you are doing in your own home, don’t give us the RR talking points. I don’t care if you play with snakes to affirm your crazy-religious beliefs, the snakes might not like the taste of the Haggart crowd.
Typical irrational lefty response. I didn’t name a single GOP issue, but of course that won’t stop partisans like Rudi from defining the simple human need and request for respect–shared by left-leaning and right-leaning individuals alike– as a GOP talking point.
Also Rudi, what would people like you do if you didn’t have the great boogeyman of the Religious Right to scream and yell about? Or have you missed the multitudes of posts, here and elsewhere, illustrating how the RR is increasingly a minority of GOP members that’s been losing traction on a daily basis? Just look at the rise of Giuliani for instance.
But hey, keep making snarky anti-religious comments like this Rudi. Karl Rove needs people like you to help scare the centrist electorate into voting the GOP to victory in 2008!
Hmm, Rudy, what do ‘Lefties’ tell us?
That if we don’t agree with them on any given social issue, it is because we are ignorant bigots, and we should not be allowed to express those opinions, particularity on campuses, hence the spate of rules and laws regulating ‘hate speech’, which has turned into ‘speech that could give offense’ rules and laws.
Lefties want to tell us what kind of cars to drive; what kind of food to eat; how to raise and discipline our children; what conduct we can do in front of our kids; when and how sex education should be taught to our children; when the government can take our land (whenever the damn well feel like it); what schools we should send our kids to; what stores we should shop at; that if we don’t agree with every tenet of the current global warming hysteria, we are fools or in the pocket of big oil; how great socialized medicine is; that simply being male is to be suspect; distrust all religious believers; that Israel and George Bush represent the greatest evils and threats to the world today; that the UN is morally superior to the United States (and should be legalistically superior as well; and that Cindy Sheehan should be held up as a hero.
“Lefties want to…” followed by some of the worst BS ever written on TMV. Congrats, AR.
AR and QDP,
Only the second and last setence are snark. I am taking a Libertarian stance taht says ‘police thy self’ and ‘stay out of my buissness’. (But I do like the snake snark.) Billy Donohue sticks his nose in others buissness, he should have enough to do keeping the pedophiles in the Catholic church honest. If the ‘Left’ truly was kicking down your doors, the snake fundamentalist would be declared illegal, immoral and alot of other im’s.
The UK is now prepared to take any your kids if they are obese. Only NYC and others worry about trans fat, while the homeless dig through the trash. A court in Virginia(I think) was ready to remove a kid from his loving parents because as a group/family they had enough of conventional chemotherapy.
I don’t care what you do as long it doesn’t involve Liberal human sacrifice during your religious practise. I don’t care if you strangle your wife to deprive her of oxygen if it makes your sex better. You can even smack your kids around, as a form of discipline, in the privacy of your own home. The Amish and Quakers practice their fiath in private, I just wish you would allow people to live their lives in private. I don’t see a bearded Amish man screaming BS like Billy Donohue. The Amish in Penn forgave the man who slaughtered their children in a school. If most Religious Wingnuts were as tolerant as the Amish I would be happy. The Wingnuts were happy with the anti-sodomy laws, it’s not any of their buissness. If my girlfriend and I want to: roll around in shit, do 20 Kama Sutra positions, and do what ever we enjoy with inanimate object, but harm no living creatures, it’s our buissness, not yours or that demogogue Billy Donohue.
End of rant, PEACE LOVE and UNDERSTANDING (EC)
(Just out of curiosity: have you ever met a Republican politician or individual you didn’t think was a hypocrite? Would love to know. Honest question.)
qdpsteve, I’ll give you a honest answer. I’ve never met any professional politician in either party that I didn’t think was a hypocrite with the exception of Robert Reich. I do however know many, many indivduals who are hardcore Republicans who I not only think are not hypocrites, but consider to be my dear and cherished friends.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant. My beef is with religious hypocrites and it goes back decades. It has nothing to with which particular faith they profess or their political afiliation.
Jim Satterfield said:
February 13, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“Lefties want to…� followed by some of the worst BS ever written on TMV. Congrats, AR
Followed by an empty retort by you Jim. In fact, I bet you know full well you are being dishonest. I would guess that you could supply an example of each and every accusation Austin Roth has made.
Would you like to deny the fact that lefties are pressing for laws to outlaw certain foods? Who do you think is pushing sex education in the schools complete with morality lessons? Do you really need Austin to paste dozens of examples here for proof?
MichaelF – But it’s OK for the Religious Right to peek in bedrooms and affect family decisions on life and death?
Libby, thanks for your response. Like I said, it was an honest question, so no ‘gotchas!” or anything like that.
I can see defending Marcotte’s statement on First Amendment grounds, but I just can’t see how you can defend her on the terms you were discussing (as I understand it, against ‘hypocritical Christians’). Last time I checked, to be a Christian–or a human being–is to be a hypocrite. It’s part of our nature and it doesn’t further the debate; to me, it just ends up sounding like an excuse for people like Marcotte, so long as they’re supportive of your political aims. But I’ll say that if your beef was simply with Bill Donahue, I could understand as his rhetoric certainly had a demogogueic (sp?) tone to it. It’s just that extending the criticism to others on the right who were genuinely offended… didn’t sit well with me.
Just to be clear, I’m a conservative but I also deliberately don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show for several reasons– not the least of which is his coo to the audience: “Don’t you worry your little heads about what’s the right way to think, now. Good ol’ Uncle Rushbo will tell you the right way to think!” I have similar problems with Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage. I’d rather listen to Alan Colmes than any of these four. But irresponsible partisan speech, however constitutionally free, is still irresponsible partisan speech, IMHO.
Rudi , it’s fine for the religious right to express their opinions . The left has every right to respond . I can show you reasonable people on both sides who can engage in a spirited debate on the issues. If the fringe element on each side wants to engage in mudslinging I say get out of the way and let them have at it. That is what free speech is all about. Marcottes rights are in now way being infringed upon.
Note: I am a Libertarian and an atheist. Without derailing the thread let me just say that I prefer to have the least amount of government intervention into peoples private lives.
This is a situation where you have two fringe lunatics involved. Even if you separate Donahue from the situation and read Marcotte’s bog you will see she has an unhealthy loathing for Christianity. She is still attacking the accused Lacrosse players and claiming that they are rapists. Read her remarks where she attacks patriarchy and Capitalism
and you will get a better picture of what this woman is about. I am disappointed that she didn’t remain with Edward’s so that the much more inflammatory rants could have been brought out. Actually. Donahue did the Edwards camp a favor by bringing this out too early.
BTW – quit calling me Religious Right. I will accept the ‘right’ label (even if I am more Libertarian than I post), but Religious I most certainly am not.
I am a proud atheist, don’t hide it, and have no need for a deity of any sort. But I carry no inherent hostility towards those that do believe.
I accept there is a small, vocal portion of the RR that makes the majority look bad, but the same is equally true on the left, and of atheists in general, with our dear Amanda as example ‘A’.
Austin ,anyone who has paid attention knows where you fall. Well stated as always I might add
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. But they are just as bad, if not worse than the dead MM Ohare (the atheist). Example:
1) Constitutional amendment to define marriage to their liking. A civil marriage is done by a judge, no religious implications. If two Wiccans want to marry, a Judge says OK. Those two Wiccans cannot be married in most religious ceremonies in a church. This is a religious union, not a civil union.
2) Terri Schiavo and Billy Donohue. Where was BD when they wanted to pull the plug on Clark in Texas?
3) Dead Wiccan soldiers cannot have their monuments at government or military cemetaries, can’t anger the RR.
4) ID Why did God design BD?
The RR is just as obnoxious as the old Hare Kristna that used to infest airports. Do the Amish, Quakers or Buddists demand a conference with John McCain to annoit him as their candidate? These three don’t bother me, I don’t bother them. The same can’t be said of the RR and BD.
Rudi -
You are getting a little incoherent. Two Wiccan’s cannot marry in most churches? Well, duh!
And no version of any proposed Constitutional marriage amendment I have heard of says crap about having to marry in a church. What the hell are you ranting about?
And the equivalent of the RR on the left (Hollywood) does the same thing to Democratic candidates.
You just hate religion, it seams, if it doesn’t fit your definition of what they should be saying. You are saying go believe in God, but please don’t try and act on your beliefs.
I don’t agree with those beliefs, and most of them I don’t really want to see become law, but man, I don’t go off the deep end like you, and I accept their right to petition for their point of view.
And when I do disagree with them, I don’t have to hate them.