Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
trip
Is this you? Claim Profile »
9 months ago
in Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women on The New Mexico Independent
Scot, thanks for your reply.
I certainly do not want to play the my-relatives-are-more-evangelical-than-yours game. I'm not interested in one-upmanship on this topic at this point in my life.
The purpose of my long-winded comment above is, Please don't over-generalize. So many people tend to universalize their own experience, forgetting to take a step back and ask whether indeed their experience accurately reflects a universal truth.
While I don't want to get into a contest over whose relatives are more evangelical, I do want to pass on a story from my life to illustrate the point about diversity among evangelicals.
My mother felt the call to ministry around 1985, but she was denied that path because of a growing movement at the time in the SBC to prohibit the ordination of women. (Prior to the 1980s, there was a nascent movement to ordain women in the SBC, but it quickly died with the fundamentalist takeover of the denomination) Rather than give up on her quest, my mom applied to and was accepted at a Presbyterian USA seminary in Atlanta. During her studies, she became a Presbyterian. Today she is a Presbyterian minister. Now one could say, thank you Trip, for making my point. She had to leave the Southern Baptist convention. But here's the catch: my mom considers herself an evangelical Christian. What's more, my dad -- who was the chairman of deacons (top layperson) at the church where the Southern Baptist Convention started in 1844 -- supported my mother every step of the way toward her ordination.
I also had the occasion along my mom's journey from layperson to pastor to watch people at several congregations, including the Southern Baptist church where I grew up, sidle up to her or my dad to quietly encourage them or to say thank you for what they were doing. Now one could focus on the word 'quietly' in the preceding sentence and say, 'See, those people had to be furtive about their support.' I'll concede that point. But what I choose to focus on is that these people existed in these openly conservative churches and to say that perhaps there are a few people like them in churches all over this country but you may not know it.
So, you see, when I hear crass generalizations about all evangelicals being knuckle-dragging neanderthals it doesn't quite fit with my experience, or the complexity of a very, large community. In an earlier comment I said that growing up I was surrounded by evangelicals who were good, solid people. What I didn't say was that I knew evangelical Christians who didn't fit comfortably into some pre-fashioned mold of what someone else expected an evangelical Christian to be. I realize that my experience may not reflect everyone else's. But I know one thing: it certainly was not unique.
I certainly do not want to play the my-relatives-are-more-evangelical-than-yours game. I'm not interested in one-upmanship on this topic at this point in my life.
The purpose of my long-winded comment above is, Please don't over-generalize. So many people tend to universalize their own experience, forgetting to take a step back and ask whether indeed their experience accurately reflects a universal truth.
While I don't want to get into a contest over whose relatives are more evangelical, I do want to pass on a story from my life to illustrate the point about diversity among evangelicals.
My mother felt the call to ministry around 1985, but she was denied that path because of a growing movement at the time in the SBC to prohibit the ordination of women. (Prior to the 1980s, there was a nascent movement to ordain women in the SBC, but it quickly died with the fundamentalist takeover of the denomination) Rather than give up on her quest, my mom applied to and was accepted at a Presbyterian USA seminary in Atlanta. During her studies, she became a Presbyterian. Today she is a Presbyterian minister. Now one could say, thank you Trip, for making my point. She had to leave the Southern Baptist convention. But here's the catch: my mom considers herself an evangelical Christian. What's more, my dad -- who was the chairman of deacons (top layperson) at the church where the Southern Baptist Convention started in 1844 -- supported my mother every step of the way toward her ordination.
I also had the occasion along my mom's journey from layperson to pastor to watch people at several congregations, including the Southern Baptist church where I grew up, sidle up to her or my dad to quietly encourage them or to say thank you for what they were doing. Now one could focus on the word 'quietly' in the preceding sentence and say, 'See, those people had to be furtive about their support.' I'll concede that point. But what I choose to focus on is that these people existed in these openly conservative churches and to say that perhaps there are a few people like them in churches all over this country but you may not know it.
So, you see, when I hear crass generalizations about all evangelicals being knuckle-dragging neanderthals it doesn't quite fit with my experience, or the complexity of a very, large community. In an earlier comment I said that growing up I was surrounded by evangelicals who were good, solid people. What I didn't say was that I knew evangelical Christians who didn't fit comfortably into some pre-fashioned mold of what someone else expected an evangelical Christian to be. I realize that my experience may not reflect everyone else's. But I know one thing: it certainly was not unique.
9 months ago
in Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women on The New Mexico Independent
I envy your certitude, Chimpy, just as I envy the certitude of so many of those who are religious. In many ways, you remind me of them, in the sense that you are sure that you are right.
I am sympathetic to your view that religious belief is an evolutionary response to existential fear only so far as I'm willing to contemplate various explanations for what I struggle to understand.
Frankly, I am constantly amazed at what science has explained over the last century. What you said sits squarely in the evolutionary biology camp. And as the 20th century is sometimes defined as the century of physics, I've heard that what physics was to the last 100 years biology will be to the 21st century. So I am curious and hopeful to see what comes out of biological research.
But I seem to have less faith in science's ability to answer certain questions than you do. Answer me this, Chimpy. Will science ever be able to absolutely answer what came before the big bang? Or why it's impossible to determine a particle's position and velocity at the same time? (Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle, with which I am positive you are familiar.)
Your answer likely is a simple one: science will one day overcome these quandaries. But that is an article of faith, my friend. You believe in the power of the scientific method, as do I. I just happen to have a more humble opinion of its power. For all I know you are a philosopher of science who will rebut every point of what I have just said. But science is itself based on faith, if not in a deity, then in the hope that the scientific method works.
Just for a little pleasure reading, you ought to pick up The Pensees by Blaise Pascal, the 17th century mathematician, scientist and, yes, religious philosopher. Incidentally, Pascal was such a good mathematician that the writers of the seminal computer program named it after him. He was pretty humble about humans' ability to answer certain questions. But, of course, he does come from the 17th century. If that's a turnoff, try Michael Polanyi. Or maybe Karl Popper.
I am sympathetic to your view that religious belief is an evolutionary response to existential fear only so far as I'm willing to contemplate various explanations for what I struggle to understand.
Frankly, I am constantly amazed at what science has explained over the last century. What you said sits squarely in the evolutionary biology camp. And as the 20th century is sometimes defined as the century of physics, I've heard that what physics was to the last 100 years biology will be to the 21st century. So I am curious and hopeful to see what comes out of biological research.
But I seem to have less faith in science's ability to answer certain questions than you do. Answer me this, Chimpy. Will science ever be able to absolutely answer what came before the big bang? Or why it's impossible to determine a particle's position and velocity at the same time? (Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle, with which I am positive you are familiar.)
Your answer likely is a simple one: science will one day overcome these quandaries. But that is an article of faith, my friend. You believe in the power of the scientific method, as do I. I just happen to have a more humble opinion of its power. For all I know you are a philosopher of science who will rebut every point of what I have just said. But science is itself based on faith, if not in a deity, then in the hope that the scientific method works.
Just for a little pleasure reading, you ought to pick up The Pensees by Blaise Pascal, the 17th century mathematician, scientist and, yes, religious philosopher. Incidentally, Pascal was such a good mathematician that the writers of the seminal computer program named it after him. He was pretty humble about humans' ability to answer certain questions. But, of course, he does come from the 17th century. If that's a turnoff, try Michael Polanyi. Or maybe Karl Popper.
9 months ago
in Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women on The New Mexico Independent
Reading these comments, well, they just crack me up. Wait. Let's review.
Someone named Scot says the headline should read either, "Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women held by sexist religious fundamentalists" or "Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women by those stuck in the 17th Century."
And then Scot adds for good measure in an attempt to rewrite Heath's first sentence: “What the left doesn’t understand is that there are still a buttload of Neanderthals in this country, and they are actually hung up on the ancient question of whether women should just churn butter and churn out babies.”?
And, well, there's Chimpy Whosawhatsit or whateverthehellisyournameis. Chimpy says, "I'm treated to the zillionth analysis of Sarah Palin from the perspective of an evangelical blogger" and then adds "Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women held by massive and frightening subset of population who believe in an imaginary magical father figure in the sky."
OK, wait. I'm a little confused. So who's the intolerant, judgmental bunch? My, my, my. It's so easy to be so smart and smug when we're among friends, isn't it? Are you some of the same folks who said you're interested in intelligent coverage of issues. PLEASE!
If you'll allow me a few remarks.
To Chimpy, I'm happy you've read so many analyses of Sarah Palin on this very point. That is of course one way one could read your sentence: That you've heard this ad infinitum. Or one could read it a different way: that you don't want to hear it at all. Put more bluntly, are you stuck in your little world, my friend?
To Scot, if one were to read Heath's column -- I mean actually read it, and not glance at it on the way to writing your comment -- one would see that Heath talked about diversity in the evangelical community. There are those who have more lenient views of women's role in the pastorate. And of course there are those, likely the majority, who don't.
To both of you, learn to use words such as "likely" or "maybe." I used the word "likely" just now as a qualifier because, you know, I don't know for sure. It's something I picked up in school. Frankly, I think qualifiers are sorely lacking in debates today in the U.S.. Everybody is so sure they know everything, which is of course the first sign that they don't much. As someone wise once said, the more I learn the more I realize I don't know.
I guess I have a problem with your comments because I grew up in an evangelical house in Georgia decades ago. I do not consider myself an evangelical now, and in fact probably would find myself at odds with many beliefs that form the central tenets of evangelical Christianity. But I know one thing: Many of the people I knew growing up, including my parents, were good, solid people, just as many of the people you've known throughout your life no doubt have been good, solid people. And to hear them described as 'neanderthals' and 'sexist religious fundamentalists' who believe in a 'magical father in the sky', well, it's condescending and demeaning. I'm sure you meant it in the best way, though.
But please, save the easy generalizations for somebody else's sandbox.
And, oh, by the way, there's a lot more people across the globe -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus -- who believe in sort form of supernatural being/beings who have power to affect reality than those who think he, she, it, they is/are an "imaginary magical father in the sky."
Maybe one day those who don't believe this way will be in the majority. But until then, you will remain in that enlightened minority that is helping to lead all us poor deluded folks, or more accurately, ignorant slobs, to some form of self actualization.
Someone named Scot says the headline should read either, "Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women held by sexist religious fundamentalists" or "Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women by those stuck in the 17th Century."
And then Scot adds for good measure in an attempt to rewrite Heath's first sentence: “What the left doesn’t understand is that there are still a buttload of Neanderthals in this country, and they are actually hung up on the ancient question of whether women should just churn butter and churn out babies.”?
And, well, there's Chimpy Whosawhatsit or whateverthehellisyournameis. Chimpy says, "I'm treated to the zillionth analysis of Sarah Palin from the perspective of an evangelical blogger" and then adds "Palin pick helps change attitudes toward women held by massive and frightening subset of population who believe in an imaginary magical father figure in the sky."
OK, wait. I'm a little confused. So who's the intolerant, judgmental bunch? My, my, my. It's so easy to be so smart and smug when we're among friends, isn't it? Are you some of the same folks who said you're interested in intelligent coverage of issues. PLEASE!
If you'll allow me a few remarks.
To Chimpy, I'm happy you've read so many analyses of Sarah Palin on this very point. That is of course one way one could read your sentence: That you've heard this ad infinitum. Or one could read it a different way: that you don't want to hear it at all. Put more bluntly, are you stuck in your little world, my friend?
To Scot, if one were to read Heath's column -- I mean actually read it, and not glance at it on the way to writing your comment -- one would see that Heath talked about diversity in the evangelical community. There are those who have more lenient views of women's role in the pastorate. And of course there are those, likely the majority, who don't.
To both of you, learn to use words such as "likely" or "maybe." I used the word "likely" just now as a qualifier because, you know, I don't know for sure. It's something I picked up in school. Frankly, I think qualifiers are sorely lacking in debates today in the U.S.. Everybody is so sure they know everything, which is of course the first sign that they don't much. As someone wise once said, the more I learn the more I realize I don't know.
I guess I have a problem with your comments because I grew up in an evangelical house in Georgia decades ago. I do not consider myself an evangelical now, and in fact probably would find myself at odds with many beliefs that form the central tenets of evangelical Christianity. But I know one thing: Many of the people I knew growing up, including my parents, were good, solid people, just as many of the people you've known throughout your life no doubt have been good, solid people. And to hear them described as 'neanderthals' and 'sexist religious fundamentalists' who believe in a 'magical father in the sky', well, it's condescending and demeaning. I'm sure you meant it in the best way, though.
But please, save the easy generalizations for somebody else's sandbox.
And, oh, by the way, there's a lot more people across the globe -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus -- who believe in sort form of supernatural being/beings who have power to affect reality than those who think he, she, it, they is/are an "imaginary magical father in the sky."
Maybe one day those who don't believe this way will be in the majority. But until then, you will remain in that enlightened minority that is helping to lead all us poor deluded folks, or more accurately, ignorant slobs, to some form of self actualization.
9 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Thomas we will have to take this up at NMI. Many of us on staff did not come from the blogosphere but from newspapers and as such are just beginning to come to grips with issues like this in the comment threads. Thanks for pointing out the issue.
I know this may not be a satisfactory answer but hopefully we'll be able to respond shortly.
I know this may not be a satisfactory answer but hopefully we'll be able to respond shortly.
9 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Thomas we will have to take this up at NMI. Many of us on staff did not come from the blogosphere but from newspapers and as such are just beginning to come to grips with issues like this in the comment threads. Thanks for pointing out the issue.
I know this may not be a satisfactory answer but hopefully we'll be able to respond shortly.
I know this may not be a satisfactory answer but hopefully we'll be able to respond shortly.
9 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Proud Republican, I just wanted to respond to one of your concerns.
You may not know this but the New Mexico Independent tried to win credentials to the Republican National Convention. We were rejected. I don't know why. A person in the New Mexico Republican Party kindly offered to try to help us win credentials. For that we owe our gratitude. But by the time the offer came it was too late. Because we had coverage from the DNC, we wanted to be fair and at least have a presence in Minnesota. Therefore someone who was up there got reaction for us to the major speeches. Feel free to point out the bias in those stories. My belief is that it will be very hard for you to find a particular slant.
As for the observations found in the column that generated this string of comments, I have to reiterate that many of the observations of the writer were also mine in 2004 when I covered both political conventions. Don't read anything into that. I am not ascribing anything sinister to individual Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are TOTALLY COMFORTABLE AROUND ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. But the differences in the types of people who attended the two conventions, at least in a couple of demographic categories, gave me pause too four years ago. (I say this as a white man originally from the South.) I readily admit I do not know what is in the heart of each individual person, so cannot ascribe motives to those I saw at either convention. But what I saw DID raise questions in my mind, my friend. Like why is it that that are many more white people at the RNC than at the DNC? It was a question. And I am not supplying an answer. And neither did the writer of this column. She merely posed questions.
Growing up in the South as I did, it is not so easy for me to ignore questions of race and issues that are related to it, which often are economic in nature. Perhaps I do not reflect many people's opinions when I say that it's not helpful to pretend that race is not an issue in 21st century America. When I say that, please know I am not saying that to bolster one political party over the other. Comparing the history of both parties and how they have done on civil rights, race relations, etc, has convinced me that both Democrats and Republicans leave something to be desired over the past half century as far as I am concerned. People from both parties can point to heroes and they can also point to those who don't deserve that superlative. But the fact is there are many questions that still remain unanswered in 2008 as to the state of race relations in the US. This column, and the comments it generated, did a valuable service in that it provided an opportunity for some Americans to have a discussion, sometimes clumsy, sometimes very pointed, about these very important issues. More Americans should be having these kinds of conversations.
You may not know this but the New Mexico Independent tried to win credentials to the Republican National Convention. We were rejected. I don't know why. A person in the New Mexico Republican Party kindly offered to try to help us win credentials. For that we owe our gratitude. But by the time the offer came it was too late. Because we had coverage from the DNC, we wanted to be fair and at least have a presence in Minnesota. Therefore someone who was up there got reaction for us to the major speeches. Feel free to point out the bias in those stories. My belief is that it will be very hard for you to find a particular slant.
As for the observations found in the column that generated this string of comments, I have to reiterate that many of the observations of the writer were also mine in 2004 when I covered both political conventions. Don't read anything into that. I am not ascribing anything sinister to individual Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are TOTALLY COMFORTABLE AROUND ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. But the differences in the types of people who attended the two conventions, at least in a couple of demographic categories, gave me pause too four years ago. (I say this as a white man originally from the South.) I readily admit I do not know what is in the heart of each individual person, so cannot ascribe motives to those I saw at either convention. But what I saw DID raise questions in my mind, my friend. Like why is it that that are many more white people at the RNC than at the DNC? It was a question. And I am not supplying an answer. And neither did the writer of this column. She merely posed questions.
Growing up in the South as I did, it is not so easy for me to ignore questions of race and issues that are related to it, which often are economic in nature. Perhaps I do not reflect many people's opinions when I say that it's not helpful to pretend that race is not an issue in 21st century America. When I say that, please know I am not saying that to bolster one political party over the other. Comparing the history of both parties and how they have done on civil rights, race relations, etc, has convinced me that both Democrats and Republicans leave something to be desired over the past half century as far as I am concerned. People from both parties can point to heroes and they can also point to those who don't deserve that superlative. But the fact is there are many questions that still remain unanswered in 2008 as to the state of race relations in the US. This column, and the comments it generated, did a valuable service in that it provided an opportunity for some Americans to have a discussion, sometimes clumsy, sometimes very pointed, about these very important issues. More Americans should be having these kinds of conversations.
9 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Proud Republican, I just wanted to respond to one of your concerns.
You may not know this but the New Mexico Independent tried to win credentials to the Republican National Convention. We were rejected. I don't know why. A person in the New Mexico Republican Party kindly offered to try to help us win credentials. For that we owe our gratitude. But by the time the offer came it was too late. Because we had coverage from the DNC, we wanted to be fair and at least have a presence in Minnesota. Therefore someone who was up there got reaction for us to the major speeches. Feel free to point out the bias in those stories. My belief is that it will be very hard for you to find a particular slant.
As for the observations found in the column that generated this string of comments, I have to reiterate that many of the observations of the writer were also mine in 2004 when I covered both political conventions. Don't read anything into that. I am not ascribing anything sinister to individual Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are TOTALLY COMFORTABLE AROUND ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. But the differences in the types of people who attended the two conventions, at least in a couple of demographic categories, gave me pause too four years ago. (I say this as a white man originally from the South.) I readily admit I do not know what is in the heart of each individual person, so cannot ascribe motives to those I saw at either convention. But what I saw DID raise questions in my mind, my friend. Like why is it that that are many more white people at the RNC than at the DNC? It was a question. And I am not supplying an answer. And neither did the writer of this column. She merely posed questions.
Growing up in the South as I did, it is not so easy for me to ignore questions of race and issues that are related to it, which often are economic in nature. Perhaps I do not reflect many people's opinions when I say that it's not helpful to pretend that race is not an issue in 21st century America. When I say that, please know I am not saying that to bolster one political party over the other. Comparing the history of both parties and how they have done on civil rights, race relations, etc, has convinced me that both Democrats and Republicans leave something to be desired over the past half century as far as I am concerned. People from both parties can point to heroes and they can also point to those who don't deserve that superlative. But the fact is there are many questions that still remain unanswered in 2008 as to the state of race relations in the US. This column, and the comments it generated, did a valuable service in that it provided an opportunity for some Americans to have a discussion, sometimes clumsy, sometimes very pointed, about these very important issues. More Americans should be having these kinds of conversations.
You may not know this but the New Mexico Independent tried to win credentials to the Republican National Convention. We were rejected. I don't know why. A person in the New Mexico Republican Party kindly offered to try to help us win credentials. For that we owe our gratitude. But by the time the offer came it was too late. Because we had coverage from the DNC, we wanted to be fair and at least have a presence in Minnesota. Therefore someone who was up there got reaction for us to the major speeches. Feel free to point out the bias in those stories. My belief is that it will be very hard for you to find a particular slant.
As for the observations found in the column that generated this string of comments, I have to reiterate that many of the observations of the writer were also mine in 2004 when I covered both political conventions. Don't read anything into that. I am not ascribing anything sinister to individual Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are TOTALLY COMFORTABLE AROUND ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. But the differences in the types of people who attended the two conventions, at least in a couple of demographic categories, gave me pause too four years ago. (I say this as a white man originally from the South.) I readily admit I do not know what is in the heart of each individual person, so cannot ascribe motives to those I saw at either convention. But what I saw DID raise questions in my mind, my friend. Like why is it that that are many more white people at the RNC than at the DNC? It was a question. And I am not supplying an answer. And neither did the writer of this column. She merely posed questions.
Growing up in the South as I did, it is not so easy for me to ignore questions of race and issues that are related to it, which often are economic in nature. Perhaps I do not reflect many people's opinions when I say that it's not helpful to pretend that race is not an issue in 21st century America. When I say that, please know I am not saying that to bolster one political party over the other. Comparing the history of both parties and how they have done on civil rights, race relations, etc, has convinced me that both Democrats and Republicans leave something to be desired over the past half century as far as I am concerned. People from both parties can point to heroes and they can also point to those who don't deserve that superlative. But the fact is there are many questions that still remain unanswered in 2008 as to the state of race relations in the US. This column, and the comments it generated, did a valuable service in that it provided an opportunity for some Americans to have a discussion, sometimes clumsy, sometimes very pointed, about these very important issues. More Americans should be having these kinds of conversations.
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Ha! Loony is good sometimes.
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Ha! Loony is good sometimes.
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
While I agree with thomasjames on his critique of the rotting structure of organized parties, I feel the need to say that the pursuit of liberty as defined as whatever that means to each individual person invites thoughts of a process that leads in hyper-democratization, i.e., the crowding out of the bonds that compose the social contract -- and I'm not talking about a specific Roussean pact -- that hold us together as a common society. At its most extreme, can't an emphasis just on individual liberty without responsibilities lead to anarchy, no? (I need to go back and brush up on my Bakunin. I believe this very question may have factored in break between Marx and Bakunin. I am open to being corrected on this.)
There is much talk in some corners of pursuing liberty, but sometimes the accompanying idea of that with liberty comes a responsibility to a greater whole is given short shrift. The founding fathers -- by which I mean Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams etc. -- believed in the pursuit of liberty while at the same time they led lives that were focused on public service, i.e, service to something larger than themselves, in this case, society. In pop cultural terms, this plays out in the statement that 'With great power comes great responsibility.' (Spider-Man). :)
Also I don't necessarily find mutually exclusive a belief in the pursuit of liberty and recognizing that liberty may not be spread among everyone equally. Is liberty being able to do whatever one wants? If one wants to define it that way, know that it is not the definition conceived of by the founding fathers. In their minds, such a philosophy ceases to be liberty and becomes selfishness that borders on solipsism. Whether one wants to admit it or not, a main theme of American democracy has been the enfranchisement of various groups -- not just racial minorities, or of women, but also of white men who owned no property.
So to say that liberty does not somehow factor into itself the idea of everyone enjoying its fruits seems to me to be an inherent fallacy (I realize others would disagree with this premise). And if everyone enjoys its fruits there must be rules on how that works -- and rules equal certain limits.
There is much talk in some corners of pursuing liberty, but sometimes the accompanying idea of that with liberty comes a responsibility to a greater whole is given short shrift. The founding fathers -- by which I mean Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams etc. -- believed in the pursuit of liberty while at the same time they led lives that were focused on public service, i.e, service to something larger than themselves, in this case, society. In pop cultural terms, this plays out in the statement that 'With great power comes great responsibility.' (Spider-Man). :)
Also I don't necessarily find mutually exclusive a belief in the pursuit of liberty and recognizing that liberty may not be spread among everyone equally. Is liberty being able to do whatever one wants? If one wants to define it that way, know that it is not the definition conceived of by the founding fathers. In their minds, such a philosophy ceases to be liberty and becomes selfishness that borders on solipsism. Whether one wants to admit it or not, a main theme of American democracy has been the enfranchisement of various groups -- not just racial minorities, or of women, but also of white men who owned no property.
So to say that liberty does not somehow factor into itself the idea of everyone enjoying its fruits seems to me to be an inherent fallacy (I realize others would disagree with this premise). And if everyone enjoys its fruits there must be rules on how that works -- and rules equal certain limits.
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
While I agree with thomasjames on his critique of the rotting structure of organized parties, I feel the need to say that the pursuit of liberty as defined as whatever that means to each individual person invites thoughts of a process that leads in hyper-democratization, i.e., the crowding out of the bonds that compose the social contract -- and I'm not talking about a specific Roussean pact -- that hold us together as a common society. At its most extreme, can't an emphasis just on individual liberty without responsibilities lead to anarchy, no? (I need to go back and brush up on my Bakunin. I believe this very question may have factored in break between Marx and Bakunin. I am open to being corrected on this.)
There is much talk in some corners of pursuing liberty, but sometimes the accompanying idea of that with liberty comes a responsibility to a greater whole is given short shrift. The founding fathers -- by which I mean Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams etc. -- believed in the pursuit of liberty while at the same time they led lives that were focused on public service, i.e, service to something larger than themselves, in this case, society. In pop cultural terms, this plays out in the statement that 'With great power comes great responsibility.' (Spider-Man). :)
Also I don't necessarily find mutually exclusive a belief in the pursuit of liberty and recognizing that liberty may not be spread among everyone equally. Is liberty being able to do whatever one wants? If one wants to define it that way, know that it is not the definition conceived of by the founding fathers. In their minds, such a philosophy ceases to be liberty and becomes selfishness that borders on solipsism. Whether one wants to admit it or not, a main theme of American democracy has been the enfranchisement of various groups -- not just racial minorities, or of women, but also of white men who owned no property.
So to say that liberty does not somehow factor into itself the idea of everyone enjoying its fruits seems to me to be an inherent fallacy (I realize others would disagree with this premise). And if everyone enjoys its fruits there must be rules on how that works -- and rules equal certain limits.
There is much talk in some corners of pursuing liberty, but sometimes the accompanying idea of that with liberty comes a responsibility to a greater whole is given short shrift. The founding fathers -- by which I mean Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams etc. -- believed in the pursuit of liberty while at the same time they led lives that were focused on public service, i.e, service to something larger than themselves, in this case, society. In pop cultural terms, this plays out in the statement that 'With great power comes great responsibility.' (Spider-Man). :)
Also I don't necessarily find mutually exclusive a belief in the pursuit of liberty and recognizing that liberty may not be spread among everyone equally. Is liberty being able to do whatever one wants? If one wants to define it that way, know that it is not the definition conceived of by the founding fathers. In their minds, such a philosophy ceases to be liberty and becomes selfishness that borders on solipsism. Whether one wants to admit it or not, a main theme of American democracy has been the enfranchisement of various groups -- not just racial minorities, or of women, but also of white men who owned no property.
So to say that liberty does not somehow factor into itself the idea of everyone enjoying its fruits seems to me to be an inherent fallacy (I realize others would disagree with this premise). And if everyone enjoys its fruits there must be rules on how that works -- and rules equal certain limits.
10 months ago
in John McCain’s night on The New Mexico Independent
OK, Kwaayesnama, surely there is another way to say what you want to say without name calling -- moron?
And before you start judging people by their grades in school, perhaps you should study the transcripts of all candidates, Democratic and Republican. Also you might want to think through you statement. By using your own logic, I deduce that you supported Heather Wilson in 2006 against Patricia Madrid. Am I right?
Words are important, my friend. Use them carefully.
That goes for you too, Riteizrite. All this name calling is getting out of hand. Is it too difficult for grown ups to treat one another respectfully?
And before you start judging people by their grades in school, perhaps you should study the transcripts of all candidates, Democratic and Republican. Also you might want to think through you statement. By using your own logic, I deduce that you supported Heather Wilson in 2006 against Patricia Madrid. Am I right?
Words are important, my friend. Use them carefully.
That goes for you too, Riteizrite. All this name calling is getting out of hand. Is it too difficult for grown ups to treat one another respectfully?
10 months ago
in John McCain’s night on The New Mexico Independent
OK, Kwaayesnama, surely there is another way to say what you want to say without name calling -- moron?
And before you start judging people by their grades in school, perhaps you should study the transcripts of all candidates, Democratic and Republican. Also you might want to think through you statement. By using your own logic, I deduce that you supported Heather Wilson in 2006 against Patricia Madrid. Am I right?
Words are important, my friend. Use them carefully.
That goes for you too, Riteizrite. All this name calling is getting out of hand. Is it too difficult for grown ups to treat one another respectfully?
And before you start judging people by their grades in school, perhaps you should study the transcripts of all candidates, Democratic and Republican. Also you might want to think through you statement. By using your own logic, I deduce that you supported Heather Wilson in 2006 against Patricia Madrid. Am I right?
Words are important, my friend. Use them carefully.
That goes for you too, Riteizrite. All this name calling is getting out of hand. Is it too difficult for grown ups to treat one another respectfully?
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
ProudRepublican, please read Tracy's stories in the news columns to get a sense of what she did for us before you lambaste the Independent. The news stories, found in the center column, are straightforward and focus on New Mexican Republican delegates' reactions to Sarah Palin's and John McCain's speeches. They seem pretty innocuous. But perhaps you disagree.
The piece in the left column, which you obviously have read, is running as a commentary. As such, people are free to express their opinions, which is what the author did.
Also, surely there are other words and phrases beyond "bigot" that you can use to express your displeasure with the author's observations and opinions. We definitely want to encourage a free exchange of opinions, but name-calling does not foster that.
If for some reason you think the author is implying that Republicans are bigoted, let me remind you that she never uses the word. She shares her experience of attending both conventions and then she throws out questions.
Perhaps to push back on the point of the column you could cite various things the Republican party has done to attract people of color, as in President Bush's campaign to woo Hispanics. Or you could try to answer one of her questions: Do Republicans wonder why there aren't more people of color?
I'm sure some, if not many, do. Perhaps there is something you could say that would add to the discussion and educate all of us on the strategies Republicans are using to reach out to various constituencies. A political party, as you well know, is not monolithic and has many voices competing to be heard.
I know this is a touchy subject for many people. But please, let's try to keep name calling out of this thing. And that goes for everyone!
The piece in the left column, which you obviously have read, is running as a commentary. As such, people are free to express their opinions, which is what the author did.
Also, surely there are other words and phrases beyond "bigot" that you can use to express your displeasure with the author's observations and opinions. We definitely want to encourage a free exchange of opinions, but name-calling does not foster that.
If for some reason you think the author is implying that Republicans are bigoted, let me remind you that she never uses the word. She shares her experience of attending both conventions and then she throws out questions.
Perhaps to push back on the point of the column you could cite various things the Republican party has done to attract people of color, as in President Bush's campaign to woo Hispanics. Or you could try to answer one of her questions: Do Republicans wonder why there aren't more people of color?
I'm sure some, if not many, do. Perhaps there is something you could say that would add to the discussion and educate all of us on the strategies Republicans are using to reach out to various constituencies. A political party, as you well know, is not monolithic and has many voices competing to be heard.
I know this is a touchy subject for many people. But please, let's try to keep name calling out of this thing. And that goes for everyone!
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
ProudRepublican, please read Tracy's stories in the news columns to get a sense of what she did for us before you lambaste the Independent. The news stories, found in the center column, are straightforward and focus on New Mexican Republican delegates' reactions to Sarah Palin's and John McCain's speeches. They seem pretty innocuous. But perhaps you disagree.
The piece in the left column, which you obviously have read, is running as a commentary. As such, people are free to express their opinions, which is what the author did.
Also, surely there are other words and phrases beyond "bigot" that you can use to express your displeasure with the author's observations and opinions. We definitely want to encourage a free exchange of opinions, but name-calling does not foster that.
If for some reason you think the author is implying that Republicans are bigoted, let me remind you that she never uses the word. She shares her experience of attending both conventions and then she throws out questions.
Perhaps to push back on the point of the column you could cite various things the Republican party has done to attract people of color, as in President Bush's campaign to woo Hispanics. Or you could try to answer one of her questions: Do Republicans wonder why there aren't more people of color?
I'm sure some, if not many, do. Perhaps there is something you could say that would add to the discussion and educate all of us on the strategies Republicans are using to reach out to various constituencies. A political party, as you well know, is not monolithic and has many voices competing to be heard.
I know this is a touchy subject for many people. But please, let's try to keep name calling out of this thing. And that goes for everyone!
The piece in the left column, which you obviously have read, is running as a commentary. As such, people are free to express their opinions, which is what the author did.
Also, surely there are other words and phrases beyond "bigot" that you can use to express your displeasure with the author's observations and opinions. We definitely want to encourage a free exchange of opinions, but name-calling does not foster that.
If for some reason you think the author is implying that Republicans are bigoted, let me remind you that she never uses the word. She shares her experience of attending both conventions and then she throws out questions.
Perhaps to push back on the point of the column you could cite various things the Republican party has done to attract people of color, as in President Bush's campaign to woo Hispanics. Or you could try to answer one of her questions: Do Republicans wonder why there aren't more people of color?
I'm sure some, if not many, do. Perhaps there is something you could say that would add to the discussion and educate all of us on the strategies Republicans are using to reach out to various constituencies. A political party, as you well know, is not monolithic and has many voices competing to be heard.
I know this is a touchy subject for many people. But please, let's try to keep name calling out of this thing. And that goes for everyone!
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Wow, there's so much to comment on here in this thread.
I gotta say Freshfromflorida, you probably most closely represent where I'm standing in the good ole U.S.A. at this point in time. I definitely resonate with your sentiments that "this country’s political system draws a line and demands that I step on one side or the other, and the people of this country have bought it hook, line and sinker. It destroys the chance of a productive dialogue; everyone is so busy trying to prove their side is right. And you know who is laughing? Politicians, corporations and lobbyists, because it keeps them in power and it keeps real progression of our country."
Really well said. Thank you.
Let's me point out an example of what I believe sometimes are the limitations of this debate.
We have several references to faith in this thread as well as what I can only assume is an allusion to the Bible -- the phrase "ancient book."
One commenter mentions that he or she (I'm sorry I don't know your gender) is a conservative Christian and says his/her beliefs are "rooted deep in my faith and my understanding of the Bible; kind of like our founding fathers. They were not socialists; they did not advocate gay marriages or abortion, and certainly would never have allowed government to take away their guns, their profits, or their Christianity." I'll leave the anachronisms for others to comment on. For starters, I have to say that conservatives can find much to bolster their beliefs in the Bible. But readers of the Bible also find much to bolster a communitarian way of governing, i.e, more liberal. Remember, the prescription to take care of the widow and orphan -- the least of these -- is mentioned more often than proscriptions against a man lying down with a man. The ancient Israelites -- and the communities that Jesus walked among -- didn't really understand individualism as we do today. There was a much greater emphasis on the community.
My point here is the Bible is not as black/white as many people see it. In fact, the Bible tends to undermine easy characterization. But people of all stripes tend to cherry pick verses and their views of this ancient book.
Which brings me to my next point -- to the person who dismisses living by the ancient book.
Just so you know a lot of the movements in the past century and a half that you likely feel sympathetic to were pushed by Christians who did live by dictates that come from that ancient book, in some form or fashion. I know it's fashionable in some corners to forget that the civil rights movement had a religious undercurrent, but, excuse me, MLK Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Fred Shuttleworth, and hundreds of other leaders were black preachers, and thousands more on the front lines like Fannie Lou Hamer were church-attending, regular folk. Similarly, many abolitionists were Christian. The same goes for many suffragettes.
A lot of this goes back to a little verse in the Bible. It's the point when Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is. It's sort of a trap set for Jesus. But Jesus responds,. He says to love, honor and obey god and to love your neighbor as yourself.
A lot of the philosophical underpinnings of liberal thought hinge on the second part of that response. And it's in the Bible.
My point is things aren't as black/white as you see them.
I know I have strayed from the main theme of this string. And that is the glaring differences between the DNC and the RNC. As wayren pointed out, Tracy wasn't the only person in America to notice it (In the interest of full disclosure, I noticed it too in 2004 when I covered both political conventions for a newspaper.) Having said that, I think ThomasJames makes a valid point: those at the conventions usually represent the power brokers, those who sit on the executive committee, etc. There likely is more diversity among Republicans on the ground across America. The question is how much more diversity. I don't know.
Probably more interesting to me is that this commentary plugs into something deep, visceral and almost pre-verbal for most Americans, and for that reason I think many have trouble articulating their feelings without resorting to shorthand. I remember Bill Bradley in 2000 said that he would make race relations in this country a top priority. This string seems to bear out the need to do exactly that.
I gotta say Freshfromflorida, you probably most closely represent where I'm standing in the good ole U.S.A. at this point in time. I definitely resonate with your sentiments that "this country’s political system draws a line and demands that I step on one side or the other, and the people of this country have bought it hook, line and sinker. It destroys the chance of a productive dialogue; everyone is so busy trying to prove their side is right. And you know who is laughing? Politicians, corporations and lobbyists, because it keeps them in power and it keeps real progression of our country."
Really well said. Thank you.
Let's me point out an example of what I believe sometimes are the limitations of this debate.
We have several references to faith in this thread as well as what I can only assume is an allusion to the Bible -- the phrase "ancient book."
One commenter mentions that he or she (I'm sorry I don't know your gender) is a conservative Christian and says his/her beliefs are "rooted deep in my faith and my understanding of the Bible; kind of like our founding fathers. They were not socialists; they did not advocate gay marriages or abortion, and certainly would never have allowed government to take away their guns, their profits, or their Christianity." I'll leave the anachronisms for others to comment on. For starters, I have to say that conservatives can find much to bolster their beliefs in the Bible. But readers of the Bible also find much to bolster a communitarian way of governing, i.e, more liberal. Remember, the prescription to take care of the widow and orphan -- the least of these -- is mentioned more often than proscriptions against a man lying down with a man. The ancient Israelites -- and the communities that Jesus walked among -- didn't really understand individualism as we do today. There was a much greater emphasis on the community.
My point here is the Bible is not as black/white as many people see it. In fact, the Bible tends to undermine easy characterization. But people of all stripes tend to cherry pick verses and their views of this ancient book.
Which brings me to my next point -- to the person who dismisses living by the ancient book.
Just so you know a lot of the movements in the past century and a half that you likely feel sympathetic to were pushed by Christians who did live by dictates that come from that ancient book, in some form or fashion. I know it's fashionable in some corners to forget that the civil rights movement had a religious undercurrent, but, excuse me, MLK Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Fred Shuttleworth, and hundreds of other leaders were black preachers, and thousands more on the front lines like Fannie Lou Hamer were church-attending, regular folk. Similarly, many abolitionists were Christian. The same goes for many suffragettes.
A lot of this goes back to a little verse in the Bible. It's the point when Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is. It's sort of a trap set for Jesus. But Jesus responds,. He says to love, honor and obey god and to love your neighbor as yourself.
A lot of the philosophical underpinnings of liberal thought hinge on the second part of that response. And it's in the Bible.
My point is things aren't as black/white as you see them.
I know I have strayed from the main theme of this string. And that is the glaring differences between the DNC and the RNC. As wayren pointed out, Tracy wasn't the only person in America to notice it (In the interest of full disclosure, I noticed it too in 2004 when I covered both political conventions for a newspaper.) Having said that, I think ThomasJames makes a valid point: those at the conventions usually represent the power brokers, those who sit on the executive committee, etc. There likely is more diversity among Republicans on the ground across America. The question is how much more diversity. I don't know.
Probably more interesting to me is that this commentary plugs into something deep, visceral and almost pre-verbal for most Americans, and for that reason I think many have trouble articulating their feelings without resorting to shorthand. I remember Bill Bradley in 2000 said that he would make race relations in this country a top priority. This string seems to bear out the need to do exactly that.
10 months ago
in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul on The New Mexico Independent
Wow, there's so much to comment on here in this thread.
I gotta say Freshfromflorida, you probably most closely represent where I'm standing in the good ole U.S.A. at this point in time. I definitely resonate with your sentiments that "this country’s political system draws a line and demands that I step on one side or the other, and the people of this country have bought it hook, line and sinker. It destroys the chance of a productive dialogue; everyone is so busy trying to prove their side is right. And you know who is laughing? Politicians, corporations and lobbyists, because it keeps them in power and it keeps real progression of our country."
Really well said. Thank you.
Let's me point out an example of what I believe sometimes are the limitations of this debate.
We have several references to faith in this thread as well as what I can only assume is an allusion to the Bible -- the phrase "ancient book."
One commenter mentions that he or she (I'm sorry I don't know your gender) is a conservative Christian and says his/her beliefs are "rooted deep in my faith and my understanding of the Bible; kind of like our founding fathers. They were not socialists; they did not advocate gay marriages or abortion, and certainly would never have allowed government to take away their guns, their profits, or their Christianity." I'll leave the anachronisms for others to comment on. For starters, I have to say that conservatives can find much to bolster their beliefs in the Bible. But readers of the Bible also find much to bolster a communitarian way of governing, i.e, more liberal. Remember, the prescription to take care of the widow and orphan -- the least of these -- is mentioned more often than proscriptions against a man lying down with a man. The ancient Israelites -- and the communities that Jesus walked among -- didn't really understand individualism as we do today. There was a much greater emphasis on the community.
My point here is the Bible is not as black/white as many people see it. In fact, the Bible tends to undermine easy characterization. But people of all stripes tend to cherry pick verses and their views of this ancient book.
Which brings me to my next point -- to the person who dismisses living by the ancient book.
Just so you know a lot of the movements in the past century and a half that you likely feel sympathetic to were pushed by Christians who did live by dictates that come from that ancient book, in some form or fashion. I know it's fashionable in some corners to forget that the civil rights movement had a religious undercurrent, but, excuse me, MLK Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Fred Shuttleworth, and hundreds of other leaders were black preachers, and thousands more on the front lines like Fannie Lou Hamer were church-attending, regular folk. Similarly, many abolitionists were Christian. The same goes for many suffragettes.
A lot of this goes back to a little verse in the Bible. It's the point when Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is. It's sort of a trap set for Jesus. But Jesus responds,. He says to love, honor and obey god and to love your neighbor as yourself.
A lot of the philosophical underpinnings of liberal thought hinge on the second part of that response. And it's in the Bible.
My point is things aren't as black/white as you see them.
I know I have strayed from the main theme of this string. And that is the glaring differences between the DNC and the RNC. As wayren pointed out, Tracy wasn't the only person in America to notice it (In the interest of full disclosure, I noticed it too in 2004 when I covered both political conventions for a newspaper.) Having said that, I think ThomasJames makes a valid point: those at the conventions usually represent the power brokers, those who sit on the executive committee, etc. There likely is more diversity among Republicans on the ground across America. The question is how much more diversity. I don't know.
Probably more interesting to me is that this commentary plugs into something deep, visceral and almost pre-verbal for most Americans, and for that reason I think many have trouble articulating their feelings without resorting to shorthand. I remember Bill Bradley in 2000 said that he would make race relations in this country a top priority. This string seems to bear out the need to do exactly that.
I gotta say Freshfromflorida, you probably most closely represent where I'm standing in the good ole U.S.A. at this point in time. I definitely resonate with your sentiments that "this country’s political system draws a line and demands that I step on one side or the other, and the people of this country have bought it hook, line and sinker. It destroys the chance of a productive dialogue; everyone is so busy trying to prove their side is right. And you know who is laughing? Politicians, corporations and lobbyists, because it keeps them in power and it keeps real progression of our country."
Really well said. Thank you.
Let's me point out an example of what I believe sometimes are the limitations of this debate.
We have several references to faith in this thread as well as what I can only assume is an allusion to the Bible -- the phrase "ancient book."
One commenter mentions that he or she (I'm sorry I don't know your gender) is a conservative Christian and says his/her beliefs are "rooted deep in my faith and my understanding of the Bible; kind of like our founding fathers. They were not socialists; they did not advocate gay marriages or abortion, and certainly would never have allowed government to take away their guns, their profits, or their Christianity." I'll leave the anachronisms for others to comment on. For starters, I have to say that conservatives can find much to bolster their beliefs in the Bible. But readers of the Bible also find much to bolster a communitarian way of governing, i.e, more liberal. Remember, the prescription to take care of the widow and orphan -- the least of these -- is mentioned more often than proscriptions against a man lying down with a man. The ancient Israelites -- and the communities that Jesus walked among -- didn't really understand individualism as we do today. There was a much greater emphasis on the community.
My point here is the Bible is not as black/white as many people see it. In fact, the Bible tends to undermine easy characterization. But people of all stripes tend to cherry pick verses and their views of this ancient book.
Which brings me to my next point -- to the person who dismisses living by the ancient book.
Just so you know a lot of the movements in the past century and a half that you likely feel sympathetic to were pushed by Christians who did live by dictates that come from that ancient book, in some form or fashion. I know it's fashionable in some corners to forget that the civil rights movement had a religious undercurrent, but, excuse me, MLK Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Fred Shuttleworth, and hundreds of other leaders were black preachers, and thousands more on the front lines like Fannie Lou Hamer were church-attending, regular folk. Similarly, many abolitionists were Christian. The same goes for many suffragettes.
A lot of this goes back to a little verse in the Bible. It's the point when Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is. It's sort of a trap set for Jesus. But Jesus responds,. He says to love, honor and obey god and to love your neighbor as yourself.
A lot of the philosophical underpinnings of liberal thought hinge on the second part of that response. And it's in the Bible.
My point is things aren't as black/white as you see them.
I know I have strayed from the main theme of this string. And that is the glaring differences between the DNC and the RNC. As wayren pointed out, Tracy wasn't the only person in America to notice it (In the interest of full disclosure, I noticed it too in 2004 when I covered both political conventions for a newspaper.) Having said that, I think ThomasJames makes a valid point: those at the conventions usually represent the power brokers, those who sit on the executive committee, etc. There likely is more diversity among Republicans on the ground across America. The question is how much more diversity. I don't know.
Probably more interesting to me is that this commentary plugs into something deep, visceral and almost pre-verbal for most Americans, and for that reason I think many have trouble articulating their feelings without resorting to shorthand. I remember Bill Bradley in 2000 said that he would make race relations in this country a top priority. This string seems to bear out the need to do exactly that.
10 months ago
in The DNC drifts into history on The New Mexico Independent
Mark, I appreciate your comment, but as a seminary graduate I am always amused when someone accuses another individual of cherry picking biblical verses. From my experience, people on all sides of political debates, right and left, religious, atheist, often cherry pick biblical verses ad nauseum to bolster their positions. Using the Bible as a resource for your public policy toolkit is dangerous. The second you adopt an approach, there always are verses to undermine your position. Case in point: yes, the Bible does prohibit a man lying down with a man (Leviticus) but it also has God punishing King Saul for not putting King Agag of the Amelakites to the sword, which the prophet Samuel then does, which is basically the equivalent of finishing off the last member of a tribe. So is God advocating the extermination of a tribe but prohibiting acting on same-sex attractions? That's a question a serious reader of the Bible must ask himself or herself. I'l leave that up to much smarter people to decide the answer. Just so you know, I am a big fan of the Bible. I just get sick and tired from a lot of people spouting biblical verses without acknowledging the complexity inherent in the text.
As for mutual responsibility, that's a very biblical theme. I am sure you know the Bible makes many more references to taking care of the widow and the orphan than it does to prohibiting action on same-sex attractions. The debate, of course, in American political debate is how to execute that very human action -- taking care of the least of these -- through government intervention or through the bonds that we as human beings feel toward one another and the community. One could argue that the debate is complicated by America's emphasis on individualism throughout its history. But again I will leave that to much smarter people to find the answer to striking a balance.
As for mutual responsibility, that's a very biblical theme. I am sure you know the Bible makes many more references to taking care of the widow and the orphan than it does to prohibiting action on same-sex attractions. The debate, of course, in American political debate is how to execute that very human action -- taking care of the least of these -- through government intervention or through the bonds that we as human beings feel toward one another and the community. One could argue that the debate is complicated by America's emphasis on individualism throughout its history. But again I will leave that to much smarter people to find the answer to striking a balance.
10 months ago
in The DNC drifts into history on The New Mexico Independent
Mark, I appreciate your comment, but as a seminary graduate I am always amused when someone accuses another individual of cherry picking biblical verses. From my experience, people on all sides of political debates, right and left, religious, atheist, often cherry pick biblical verses ad nauseum to bolster their positions. Using the Bible as a resource for your public policy toolkit is dangerous. The second you adopt an approach, there always are verses to undermine your position. Case in point: yes, the Bible does prohibit a man lying down with a man (Leviticus) but it also has God punishing King Saul for not putting King Agag of the Amelakites to the sword, which the prophet Samuel then does, which is basically the equivalent of finishing off the last member of a tribe. So is God advocating the extermination of a tribe but prohibiting acting on same-sex attractions? That's a question a serious reader of the Bible must ask himself or herself. I'l leave that up to much smarter people to decide the answer. Just so you know, I am a big fan of the Bible. I just get sick and tired from a lot of people spouting biblical verses without acknowledging the complexity inherent in the text.
As for mutual responsibility, that's a very biblical theme. I am sure you know the Bible makes many more references to taking care of the widow and the orphan than it does to prohibiting action on same-sex attractions. The debate, of course, in American political debate is how to execute that very human action -- taking care of the least of these -- through government intervention or through the bonds that we as human beings feel toward one another and the community. One could argue that the debate is complicated by America's emphasis on individualism throughout its history. But again I will leave that to much smarter people to find the answer to striking a balance.
As for mutual responsibility, that's a very biblical theme. I am sure you know the Bible makes many more references to taking care of the widow and the orphan than it does to prohibiting action on same-sex attractions. The debate, of course, in American political debate is how to execute that very human action -- taking care of the least of these -- through government intervention or through the bonds that we as human beings feel toward one another and the community. One could argue that the debate is complicated by America's emphasis on individualism throughout its history. But again I will leave that to much smarter people to find the answer to striking a balance.
12 months ago
in Obama’s move to the center on The New Mexico Independent
Thanks for your comment. It's obvious you took a lot of time and effort to respond to my commentary.
But there are some things I don't quite understand. You say Obama is co-opting "very right wing frames." Perhaps you meant to say "less progressive," or "moderate." For you to say that he went from progressive to very right wing implies that he covered vast amounts of acreage, but I only see a day trip, not a around-the-world tour.
So that leads me to my first question: Do you know what the "very right wing" looks like?
If you think Obama's speech on the role of religion-based groups in government-financed programs was embraced by conservatives, go ask the Family Research Council or Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention for their take. I'm not sure they'd get your take on the situation.
Here's Richard Land quoted in the NYTimes about Obama's pitch, which would prohibit religious groups from considering religion when hiring people to work in government-financed programs: âIf you canât hire people within your faith community, then youâve lost the distinctive that is the reason why faith-based programs exist in the first place,â said Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Also, I encourage you to read Peter Steinfels' On Beliefs column that ran in Saturday's New York Times. It's interesting, and it takes a step back from the fray to examine the issue.
Furthermore, your suggestion that Obama is co-opting right-wing frames, especially in the issues related to religion-based groups, can be viewed as ceding religion and all it stands for to conservatives whether you meant it that way or not. That, of course, plays into the over-used and incorrect stereotype that liberals and religion never mix. You ever hear of Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
As for the FISA bill, the sticking point appears to be whether or not to grant immunity to the telecoms. The bill itself restores the FISA court's authority, does it not? Obama said it in his response:
The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
So your contention that Obama is somehow moving to the opposite end of the political continuum in America seems a little overwrought. Those are nuanced positions, not total giveaways. Obama and his advisers probably realize that taking toward the middle after having to appeal to Democratic primary voters -- who are more liberal than general election voters -- is smart politics because McCain is already cultivating that group of voters, and has been for years. And Obama and his advisers are probably saying to themselves it's better to be in the real game rather than dreaming of the pre-season game victory that is the primaries.
Which brings me to my next point. The language you use to describe the middle is interesting. You say ... "the âmiddleâ so sought after by so many is really a collection of mostly uninformed or poorly informed voters who generally donât pay attention to indepth policy analyses or other wonkish debates. Many of them vote for candidates because they âlikeâ their personality traits. Many donât vote in anything but presidential elections. They arenât necessarily stupid, but they are usually uninterested in the inner workings of politics, inside baseball or the fine points of policy."
I know you didn't intend to, but your description of people who inhabit the middle is almost condescending. They "aren't necessarily stupid," you write. Thank goodness for that.
What's more, the world you lay out here by implication is nearly Manichean in its simplicity -- there are the righteous (the progressives), the evil ones (conservatives) and for a little complexity, you throw in the great ill-informed masses whom the left and the right are fighting to lead to enlightenment or to perdition.
With that worldview, you seem not to acknowledge any middle ground populated, in part at least, by individuals who truly think about things or who pay attention but struggle because they are wrestling with complexities. Yes, there are people in the middle who are ill-informed, but I have personally experienced people on the left and the right who are woefully ill-informed because they only listen to people who agree with them, leaving them to exist in the modern version of Plato's cave or -- for a pop cultural reference -- the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix.
One last thought: As for Obama taking to task Wesley Clark's comments, here's a pragmatic read of the situation. Such attacks make the Obama campaign look like any other campaign at a time when Obama is trying to persuade many people that he can transcend the politics of the last 15 years. Secondly, Clark's questioning of McCain's war-hero status as a qualification to be president opens up a debate Obama doesn't want, and that is whether his experience of being a one-term Senator is qualification enough. Obama doesn't want to fight on that battlefield.
But there are some things I don't quite understand. You say Obama is co-opting "very right wing frames." Perhaps you meant to say "less progressive," or "moderate." For you to say that he went from progressive to very right wing implies that he covered vast amounts of acreage, but I only see a day trip, not a around-the-world tour.
So that leads me to my first question: Do you know what the "very right wing" looks like?
If you think Obama's speech on the role of religion-based groups in government-financed programs was embraced by conservatives, go ask the Family Research Council or Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention for their take. I'm not sure they'd get your take on the situation.
Here's Richard Land quoted in the NYTimes about Obama's pitch, which would prohibit religious groups from considering religion when hiring people to work in government-financed programs: âIf you canât hire people within your faith community, then youâve lost the distinctive that is the reason why faith-based programs exist in the first place,â said Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Also, I encourage you to read Peter Steinfels' On Beliefs column that ran in Saturday's New York Times. It's interesting, and it takes a step back from the fray to examine the issue.
Furthermore, your suggestion that Obama is co-opting right-wing frames, especially in the issues related to religion-based groups, can be viewed as ceding religion and all it stands for to conservatives whether you meant it that way or not. That, of course, plays into the over-used and incorrect stereotype that liberals and religion never mix. You ever hear of Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
As for the FISA bill, the sticking point appears to be whether or not to grant immunity to the telecoms. The bill itself restores the FISA court's authority, does it not? Obama said it in his response:
The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
So your contention that Obama is somehow moving to the opposite end of the political continuum in America seems a little overwrought. Those are nuanced positions, not total giveaways. Obama and his advisers probably realize that taking toward the middle after having to appeal to Democratic primary voters -- who are more liberal than general election voters -- is smart politics because McCain is already cultivating that group of voters, and has been for years. And Obama and his advisers are probably saying to themselves it's better to be in the real game rather than dreaming of the pre-season game victory that is the primaries.
Which brings me to my next point. The language you use to describe the middle is interesting. You say ... "the âmiddleâ so sought after by so many is really a collection of mostly uninformed or poorly informed voters who generally donât pay attention to indepth policy analyses or other wonkish debates. Many of them vote for candidates because they âlikeâ their personality traits. Many donât vote in anything but presidential elections. They arenât necessarily stupid, but they are usually uninterested in the inner workings of politics, inside baseball or the fine points of policy."
I know you didn't intend to, but your description of people who inhabit the middle is almost condescending. They "aren't necessarily stupid," you write. Thank goodness for that.
What's more, the world you lay out here by implication is nearly Manichean in its simplicity -- there are the righteous (the progressives), the evil ones (conservatives) and for a little complexity, you throw in the great ill-informed masses whom the left and the right are fighting to lead to enlightenment or to perdition.
With that worldview, you seem not to acknowledge any middle ground populated, in part at least, by individuals who truly think about things or who pay attention but struggle because they are wrestling with complexities. Yes, there are people in the middle who are ill-informed, but I have personally experienced people on the left and the right who are woefully ill-informed because they only listen to people who agree with them, leaving them to exist in the modern version of Plato's cave or -- for a pop cultural reference -- the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix.
One last thought: As for Obama taking to task Wesley Clark's comments, here's a pragmatic read of the situation. Such attacks make the Obama campaign look like any other campaign at a time when Obama is trying to persuade many people that he can transcend the politics of the last 15 years. Secondly, Clark's questioning of McCain's war-hero status as a qualification to be president opens up a debate Obama doesn't want, and that is whether his experience of being a one-term Senator is qualification enough. Obama doesn't want to fight on that battlefield.
12 months ago
in Obama’s move to the center on The New Mexico Independent
Thanks for your comment. It's obvious you took a lot of time and effort to respond to my commentary.
But there are some things I don't quite understand. You say Obama is co-opting "very right wing frames." Perhaps you meant to say "less progressive," or "moderate." For you to say that he went from progressive to very right wing implies that he covered vast amounts of acreage, but I only see a day trip, not a around-the-world tour.
So that leads me to my first question: Do you know what the "very right wing" looks like?
If you think Obama's speech on the role of religion-based groups in government-financed programs was embraced by conservatives, go ask the Family Research Council or Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention for their take. I'm not sure they'd get your take on the situation.
Here's Richard Land quoted in the NYTimes about Obama's pitch, which would prohibit religious groups from considering religion when hiring people to work in government-financed programs: “If you can’t hire people within your faith community, then you’ve lost the distinctive that is the reason why faith-based programs exist in the first place,” said Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Also, I encourage you to read Peter Steinfels' On Beliefs column that ran in Saturday's New York Times. It's interesting, and it takes a step back from the fray to examine the issue.
Furthermore, your suggestion that Obama is co-opting right-wing frames, especially in the issues related to religion-based groups, can be viewed as ceding religion and all it stands for to conservatives whether you meant it that way or not. That, of course, plays into the over-used and incorrect stereotype that liberals and religion never mix. You ever hear of Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
As for the FISA bill, the sticking point appears to be whether or not to grant immunity to the telecoms. The bill itself restores the FISA court's authority, does it not? Obama said it in his response:
The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
So your contention that Obama is somehow moving to the opposite end of the political continuum in America seems a little overwrought. Those are nuanced positions, not total giveaways. Obama and his advisers probably realize that taking toward the middle after having to appeal to Democratic primary voters -- who are more liberal than general election voters -- is smart politics because McCain is already cultivating that group of voters, and has been for years. And Obama and his advisers are probably saying to themselves it's better to be in the real game rather than dreaming of the pre-season game victory that is the primaries.
Which brings me to my next point. The language you use to describe the middle is interesting. You say ... "the “middle” so sought after by so many is really a collection of mostly uninformed or poorly informed voters who generally don’t pay attention to indepth policy analyses or other wonkish debates. Many of them vote for candidates because they “like” their personality traits. Many don’t vote in anything but presidential elections. They aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are usually uninterested in the inner workings of politics, inside baseball or the fine points of policy."
I know you didn't intend to, but your description of people who inhabit the middle is almost condescending. They "aren't necessarily stupid," you write. Thank goodness for that.
What's more, the world you lay out here by implication is nearly Manichean in its simplicity -- there are the righteous (the progressives), the evil ones (conservatives) and for a little complexity, you throw in the great ill-informed masses whom the left and the right are fighting to lead to enlightenment or to perdition.
With that worldview, you seem not to acknowledge any middle ground populated, in part at least, by individuals who truly think about things or who pay attention but struggle because they are wrestling with complexities. Yes, there are people in the middle who are ill-informed, but I have personally experienced people on the left and the right who are woefully ill-informed because they only listen to people who agree with them, leaving them to exist in the modern version of Plato's cave or -- for a pop cultural reference -- the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix.
One last thought: As for Obama taking to task Wesley Clark's comments, here's a pragmatic read of the situation. Such attacks make the Obama campaign look like any other campaign at a time when Obama is trying to persuade many people that he can transcend the politics of the last 15 years. Secondly, Clark's questioning of McCain's war-hero status as a qualification to be president opens up a debate Obama doesn't want, and that is whether his experience of being a one-term Senator is qualification enough. Obama doesn't want to fight on that battlefield.
But there are some things I don't quite understand. You say Obama is co-opting "very right wing frames." Perhaps you meant to say "less progressive," or "moderate." For you to say that he went from progressive to very right wing implies that he covered vast amounts of acreage, but I only see a day trip, not a around-the-world tour.
So that leads me to my first question: Do you know what the "very right wing" looks like?
If you think Obama's speech on the role of religion-based groups in government-financed programs was embraced by conservatives, go ask the Family Research Council or Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention for their take. I'm not sure they'd get your take on the situation.
Here's Richard Land quoted in the NYTimes about Obama's pitch, which would prohibit religious groups from considering religion when hiring people to work in government-financed programs: “If you can’t hire people within your faith community, then you’ve lost the distinctive that is the reason why faith-based programs exist in the first place,” said Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Also, I encourage you to read Peter Steinfels' On Beliefs column that ran in Saturday's New York Times. It's interesting, and it takes a step back from the fray to examine the issue.
Furthermore, your suggestion that Obama is co-opting right-wing frames, especially in the issues related to religion-based groups, can be viewed as ceding religion and all it stands for to conservatives whether you meant it that way or not. That, of course, plays into the over-used and incorrect stereotype that liberals and religion never mix. You ever hear of Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
As for the FISA bill, the sticking point appears to be whether or not to grant immunity to the telecoms. The bill itself restores the FISA court's authority, does it not? Obama said it in his response:
The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
So your contention that Obama is somehow moving to the opposite end of the political continuum in America seems a little overwrought. Those are nuanced positions, not total giveaways. Obama and his advisers probably realize that taking toward the middle after having to appeal to Democratic primary voters -- who are more liberal than general election voters -- is smart politics because McCain is already cultivating that group of voters, and has been for years. And Obama and his advisers are probably saying to themselves it's better to be in the real game rather than dreaming of the pre-season game victory that is the primaries.
Which brings me to my next point. The language you use to describe the middle is interesting. You say ... "the “middle” so sought after by so many is really a collection of mostly uninformed or poorly informed voters who generally don’t pay attention to indepth policy analyses or other wonkish debates. Many of them vote for candidates because they “like” their personality traits. Many don’t vote in anything but presidential elections. They aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are usually uninterested in the inner workings of politics, inside baseball or the fine points of policy."
I know you didn't intend to, but your description of people who inhabit the middle is almost condescending. They "aren't necessarily stupid," you write. Thank goodness for that.
What's more, the world you lay out here by implication is nearly Manichean in its simplicity -- there are the righteous (the progressives), the evil ones (conservatives) and for a little complexity, you throw in the great ill-informed masses whom the left and the right are fighting to lead to enlightenment or to perdition.
With that worldview, you seem not to acknowledge any middle ground populated, in part at least, by individuals who truly think about things or who pay attention but struggle because they are wrestling with complexities. Yes, there are people in the middle who are ill-informed, but I have personally experienced people on the left and the right who are woefully ill-informed because they only listen to people who agree with them, leaving them to exist in the modern version of Plato's cave or -- for a pop cultural reference -- the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix.
One last thought: As for Obama taking to task Wesley Clark's comments, here's a pragmatic read of the situation. Such attacks make the Obama campaign look like any other campaign at a time when Obama is trying to persuade many people that he can transcend the politics of the last 15 years. Secondly, Clark's questioning of McCain's war-hero status as a qualification to be president opens up a debate Obama doesn't want, and that is whether his experience of being a one-term Senator is qualification enough. Obama doesn't want to fight on that battlefield.
1 year ago
in The Santa Fe Reporter endorses who? on The New Mexico Independent
Thanks Johnny Neuron and Dave Maass for catching my flub. I know Shendo is in the 3rd but clearly my fingers wrote something else. I guess if you're going to have some fun you better make sure the info is correct. Julia, duly noted, re: your comments.
1 year ago
in The Santa Fe Reporter endorses who? on The New Mexico Independent
Thanks Johnny Neuron and Dave Maass for catching my flub. I know Shendo is in the 3rd but clearly my fingers wrote something else. I guess if you're going to have some fun you better make sure the info is correct. Julia, duly noted, re: your comments.
1 year ago
in God or evolution? That’s serious on The New Mexico Independent
To continue my thought, by compatible I do not mean that they should share the same classroom. I mean it is unfair to expect science to answer questions that religion tries to get at, and vice versa. Because of that, some people see little conflict in believing in a higher power and in believing in the power of the scientific method to reveal certain things about the human experience. (For those who dismiss religion as nothing but fairy tales, it is worth nothing that religion has been around a lot longer than science. Yes, it has led to horrible things in some cases. But to define religion by those episode alone is as unfair as defining secularism by pointing to the Soviet Union as representative of every secularist society. It is also worth wondering what people in 500 years will think of our science [will it be the same as the view of some in our society of the Mayan culture -- marveling at their mastery of geometry but dismissing their cosmology as simplistic? Science, after all, does not exist without a philosophical foundation]) Unfortunately, the battle over whether to teach intelligent design in the science classroom is not a thoughtful debate where many of the participants actually debate ideas because the debate is not about ideas, but about power. It is about who gets to define what is knowledge and what is not knowledge. And that is a titanic struggle.
12Next 
