Comments on: A Pernicious Blend

By: Stephen Leigh

Stephen Leigh — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:09:58 +0000

Amen to that, Sister!

By: Jason Powell

Jason Powell — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:03:01 +0000

I seem to recall reading a Harlan Ellison quote that went something along the lines of: Freedom of religion is nice, of course, but freedom FROM religion would be pretty great as well.

By: Steve Stirling

Steve Stirling — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 05:47:19 +0000

“Personally I think there is only freedom when you can be free from the tyranny of churches, popes, prelates, preachers and gods.”

– Melinda, as far as I can see nobody’s attempting to force you (or me) to believe in God, or give our allegiance to popes, prelates or preachers.

True, our outspoken unbelief would mean you or I would have a chance of being elected President or pretty much anything else somewhere between zip and nothing, but that’s not news, nor is it in any way an infringement on our rights.

Unpopular people don’t get elected to public office, virtually by definition. We don’t get to have an atheist president because we’re outnumbered.

Most Americans are religious believers and dislike and distrust atheists in principle, if not always on an individual basis.

They won’t elect one President, and very many of them care deeply about the religious convictions of candidates because they think that’s an important indicator of character and fitness for public office.

I think that’s an incorrect opinion, but that’s just _my_ opinion. Everyone’s vote counts the same.

Note that Edwards, Obama and Hillary Clinton all make a point of being regular churchgoers, despite the fact that virtually all the people in the US who think the way you do about religion vote Democratic. If one of them said in public “there is no God”, they’d be instant political pariahs.

A secularist party in the US might just as well call itself the “Unelectable Skunk Party”. This is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Nor has it ever been any different; Presidential candidates have always been careful to appear as believers and respecters of religion — even Jefferson, who was probably a Deist at most.

By: Melinda

Melinda — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:35:51 +0000

You obviously did not listen to or read this speech. Romney’s not talking about “leaving us alone to disbelieve”, he was exhorting the masses to rise up against secularists and “defeat” them.

I don’t care what people believe as long as _they leave me the f**k alone_ and don’t pass laws that legislate their morality or religion. I don’t know why I can’t get this across to you.

I’m not talking about running an atheist for president. I’m talking about being _left the f**k alone_. And a man who is running with this agenda is _dangerous_.

By: William H. Stoddard

William H. Stoddard — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:33:25 +0000

He basically said that if you are not religious, and I mean, go to church on Sunday religious, you have no business holding office in America. He then said that he would appoint judges who would interpret the Constitution from a Christian background.

“Interpret” is not the word I would use for that. The Constitution says, in so many words, that there shall be no religious test for holding any office of trust and profit under the United States; it says it again specifically about the presidency. I wonder if Romney has ever read the document he is offering to swear to uphold?

By: Melinda

Melinda — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:08:58 +0000

Apparently not. It’s strange because the Right used to be fierce defenders of the Constitution. That said the real rightwing wingnuts were never too fond of the Bill of Rights. But now they all seem to feel that way. I guess consider it “quaint”, like the Geneva Conventions.

By: Laurie D. T. Mann

Laurie D. T. Mann — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:14:11 +0000

The “Right” (sic) hasn’t given a flying fuck about the Constitution in a very long time…maybe not since Eisenhower? Clearly, Nixon, Regan and the second Bush haven’t. The first Bush at least seemed to have a nodding acquaintance with what it meant.

I know some Mormons who are fine people. Romney sounds like the worst combination of Fundamentalism and Mormonism. And Huckabee is even worse.

By: Melinda

Melinda — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:08:47 +0000

I agree about Nixon and Regan, but they never pushed it as far as the Chimp in Chief, and there were Republican statesmen back in the day. It was a Republican who went to Nixon, and made it clear his presidency was over.

There are many reasons to not like McCain, but on the torture issue he is the only one speaking truth while all the rest of the Republican field talks about how they’d torture even harder then their opponent.

I’m just depressed because there seem to be no statesmen/women left, and the right seems to have elected a bunch of lunatics, especially in the House.

By: S.C. Butler

S.C. Butler — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:50:13 +0000

Romney’s just pandering to the right - he doesn’t believe in anything. I guess Massachusetts specializes in producing strong-jawed narcissists, from the left and right, who will do anything to get elected.

I think Huck ‘Finn’ is the one we have to look out for.

By: Melinda

Melinda — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:42:39 +0000

Frankly, everyone of the Republican candidates scares the crap out of me. Only Ron Paul seems remotely sane. (Which when you look at that statement is kind of nuts.)

McCain is on the right side of history on the torture and immigration issues, but on nothing else, and he has become a brown noser to the fundies too.