Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Do people like this student even realize how bigoted they sound? Makes me wonder how long we'll have to wait for a new Test Act that also bars evangelicals -or people who look and sound like evangelicals- from office. Judging from the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito last year, some people evidently think there's one in effect already.

Tonight I'll probably be working on my apazine for this weekend's StippleAPA, which as usual I've done absolutely nothing with in the last six weeks since Arcana. I did a little background work for Blood Red Skies today which should make writing the battle scenes in the middle chapters a lot easier, but I'm dubious about whether I'll actually get any actual writing done.

As for the weekend, aside from the Stipple collation, a stop by the library to pick up the new David Drake novel Some Golden Harbor (one of the Lieutenant Leary series, featuring the most lethal librarian in the universe) and a programming meeting with thaadd sometime Sunday, I don't have any plans, because those usually require money, and that's going to be scarce for a while.


( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 9th, 2006 11:10 pm (UTC)
> The right person for the job lost, and a woman, who is confused with politics and religion, won.

I sincerely hope that those commas are a sign of illiteracy, not an intentional part of the sentence's structure. Unfortunately, they're probably not.
Nov. 10th, 2006 12:23 am (UTC)
Well, she's going to St. Cloud State (not in and of itself indicative, but they do have a reputation for hard partying there) and she's a Wetterling supporter. That's two strikes against her in my book right away.
Nov. 9th, 2006 11:33 pm (UTC)
I don't think she is right for the office either. I don't think that anyone who is told what to do by God, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or her husband should be in office. Stand up for your own beliefs, stand up for yourself.

You can be as religious as you want, that's fine with me. You can vote the way your religion tells you too, that's okay too. However, don't you dare vote the way your spouse tells you. I don't care if you're Bachmann, Clinton, or Knutson. Stand up for yourself.
Nov. 10th, 2006 12:28 am (UTC)
It's a free country. People elect drunks, murderers, pedophiles, thieves and liars to office all the time and that's just the Democrats so I don't see how being a submissive wife is necessarily a disqualifier. Besides, can you actually find anything that they disagree on? We're not talking another Coya Knutson situation here, after all.
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:32 am (UTC)
Hey, *I* brought up Coya! ^_^

I think being a submissive *anything* is shitty - I want to elect a person, not a family - be it Clinton or Bachmann.

And even if they *did* disagree, how would we know about it? Would he let her say that she disagreed with them? Would she be comfortable speaking or voting without his express approval?
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:57 am (UTC)
Considering which one of them spends all the time in public, we might well ask if he's actually the one that wears the pants in the family.

Aren't you in the 5th CD anyway? What do you care what those God-bothering reactionaries in the 6th CD do?
Nov. 10th, 2006 03:00 am (UTC)
Irony thy number is 433
hmmm against a submissive, I take it then he didn;t vote for a practicing Muslim, after all "Islam" means submission, Literally
Nov. 10th, 2006 03:21 am (UTC)
Re: Irony thy number is 433
Bigot! ;)
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:44 pm (UTC)
Re: Irony thy number is 433
A) I voted for Tammy Lee.
B) Who the hell are you? You've been commenting in my LJ and now here. If you don't have an LJ account (get one, they're free!), at least have the guts to sign your name.
Nov. 11th, 2006 01:09 am (UTC)
Re: Irony thy number is 433
I thought for a minute it might be my friend RS from back East, but he usually appends his initials to his posts. I don't really know either.
Nov. 10th, 2006 04:00 am (UTC)
She has as many votes as Ellison, or McCollum, or Kline, or Walz, etc. do. And every time she appears on TV, she has that little "MN" next to her name.
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:37 pm (UTC)
Your point being what? We don't elect Congresscritters at large, we elect them to specific districts to represent specific groups of people because that's what the House is all about. If you feel some weird sense of shame because she comes from the same state you do, then you're the one with the problem. Me, I have no problem laughing at the nimrods in the 5th District for electing Ellison, but he doesn't represent me so it doesn't bother me all that much that he's the new Congressman from there.
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC)
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. Minnesota has eight votes in the HoR, and I'd like to be proud of them all.
Nov. 11th, 2006 01:08 am (UTC)
You can't always get what you want. [/Mick Jagger]
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:30 am (UTC)
seriously, there is a valid discussion to be had here, if we can keep emotion in check long enough to have it, since some of this is emotional some times. when we hire someone to do a politicians job, we are hiring them to use their judgement, and other things, in our place, sort of as our proxy, or a proxy melange of all of the represented. if a candidate says to me "my faith is part of who I am, and it gives me structure, guidance, and informs me in making decisions" then I can deal with that - if a candidate says "I talk to god and I will do what god tells me to do in performing my job" then I have a problem with it - I didn't elect god to the post, I elected the candidate. there are people out there who may not feel that "the closer to god the better" when it really means that someone is taking "the word of god" and trying to apply it directly to the reality without the buffer of a human mind. in addition, there are those who do not believe in god, or perhaps believe in some god(s) structure which may be very much different from what the politician believes in - these people may feel very much not represented. maybe ascii graphics? god ======= person ====== actions seems OK god ======+person +===== actions seems questionable | | to me +------+ doug
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:31 am (UTC)
my ascii graphics didn't work - sorry - I should have known ;-)

Nov. 10th, 2006 02:55 am (UTC)
Damn this modern HTML crap! It screws up all the cool old shit! ;)
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:54 am (UTC)
I admit to not following Bachman's career all that closely, since she's not been representing my corner of the state, but I don't get the impression even from her critics that she's been claiming to be some kind of prophet or oracle. The main accusation most of her critics seem to have is that she's a fervent member of one of the more socially conservative Lutheran denominations...like several thousand other Minnesotans, but there are a lot of people who think female politicians who don't act like Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are traitors to their gender. So she prays over some of her decisions. BFD. I think the whole thing is symptomatic of the false dichotomy between religious faith and (presumedly secular) intellect that came out of the Enlightenment.
Nov. 10th, 2006 03:22 am (UTC)
This is a bit of a tangent, but it seems to me that the only real problem w.r.t. conflicting faith and reason occurs when a particular faith lays down religious laws which are not predicated on both parties following that faith. Islam clearly does this. I don't think Judaism does - what I remember of the legalistic sections of the Old Testament seems to apply only to Jews, and in the modern sense presumably only to practicing Jews. Most of the other major faiths I'm reasonably familiar with don't, although I don't know enough about many (e.g. Hinduism) to make the call.

Christianity seems to be kind of a special case. As I understand it, most of its legalistic provisions are inherited from Judaism in a roundabout kind of way, and thus should really only apply to Christians, but there seems to be a Western tradition of assuming anyone in a Christian-dominated country is subject to Christian religious law.

For a long time that didn't really matter, since the only significant non-Christians in Europe were Jewish and thus responsible for a superset of Christians' secular obligations. As you imply, it only really started to change during the Enlightenment, when freethinkers, Deists, and occultists of various stripes started popping up.

What I'm worried about isn't faith superseding reason in private life, as even politicians have a right to believe in Great Cthulhu if that's what suits their fancy. It's a belief in the tradition I've mentioned, that specifically Christian prohibitions (and various Christian philosophical positions) apply to non-Christians -- and chatter about faith in public life, the United States as a Christian country, et cetera often seems to be nothing more than shorthand for the same.
Nov. 10th, 2006 03:33 am (UTC)
Well, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that many of the institutional structures of the country were rooted in Christian (specifically Protestant) attitudes and behaviors; James Webb makes the argument a lot better than I can, but he's not the only one. Now, given that the civil and criminal law of the several states is rooted in English common law (except for Louisiana, of course, where it's the Code Napoleon) you can make the persuasive argument that if, say, Utah is predominantly Mormon with a large Catholic minority, then if there's a consensus between Mormons and Catholics on what behavior should be proscribed, then that's the way it ought to be, and if you have a problem with that then maybe you ought to consider moving to Colorado, Nevada, or some other presumably more liberal state.

That argument tends to give a lot of people hives, but it is one way of doing federalism, and was actually the way things were done for most of the country's history.
Nov. 10th, 2006 03:53 am (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to believe that the USA's institutional structures have a somewhat Protestant cast; indeed, it makes a lot of sense. But there's a pretty big distinction between acknowledging Protestant influence on our institutions and granting Protestant Christianity a privileged position within them; if we're going to call the United States a Christian country on that account, then we should equally be prepared to call it a Deist country, an Iroquois country, and an Athenian country.

My understanding of the federal system grants a certain amount of weight to your argument regarding the government of the particular states, albeit with caveats stemming from the supremacy of the equal protection clause. On the federal level, however, you can't get much clearer than Washington's comments on the subject in the Treaty of Tripoli (or Madison and Hamilton's in the Federalist Papers, though those don't have any legal force).
Nov. 10th, 2006 02:45 pm (UTC)
I guess that depends on what you mean "privileged". Keep in mind that some states had established churches until the 1970s, and if some state government wanted to get really hardcore, they could make a case for doing it again. (Though given what's happened in Europe where this is actually done, they'd be fools to, but that's another debate.)

The real influence of the Christian churches, and to a lesser extent the Jewish congregations, is that they set moral guidelines for their people which are ultimately reflected in the laws passed by legislatures. For example, many Southern and prairie states have large populations of Southern Baptists and other evangelicals who don't hold with liquor. Not coincidentally, booze tends to be restricted in a lot of those places, and in some counties you can't buy so much as a can of 3.2 horse piss. More commonly, most Christian religions are against prostitution, and so in most states it's against the law to trade sex for money. Insofar as any religion is privileged in the US, that's how it works - it's privilege in the sense that the diversity wonks use the word, not privilege in the sense that bishops, rabbis and ministers are entitled to seats in various State Senates on account of being considered our Lords Spiritual.
Nov. 10th, 2006 05:08 am (UTC)
to one of wombats points, it is a GOOD THING that states are able to for the
most part do what they want - federalism is GOOD. I know that it is a pain
in the ass sometimes when states all have different rules, and that if there was
just a federal rule than it would all be the same... with the states free to do their
own things, then you (the citizen) are free to vore with your feet. Don't like the
way that MA limits your ability to get a permit to carry a conceiled weapon? If it
means that much to you, at least you have the OPTION to vore with your feet - move
to a state that is a SHALL ISSUE state and bingo you have what you wanted.

also, states can be the experimental grounds - you can try something on a pretty big
basis, but not nationwide, like changed to various social services, and if it works then
roll it out to the rest of the country, or if it sucks, kill it quiety. Yes, it would be
"so much better" if the feds would make it uniform, but only if they make what YOU
want uniform. I will go with 50 tries to roll my dave against government interference
rather that one roll for the whole game.

Nov. 10th, 2006 02:48 pm (UTC)
This is the way the system was set up, and the further we get away from that (whether by Federal laws or Federal judges' fiat) the more fucked up things get. It took fifty years to even begin reversing some of the crap that came with the New Deal, and it'll probably take until at least 2033 for us to weed out the most pernicious socialist aspects of it.
( 24 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

April 2019
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner