WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

I heard Ralph Reed, smooth as oleo, on talk radio this afternoon and stayed tuned in (more or less), thinking of Lola. What struck me is that the guy tossed off (and I mean this seriously, not as a casual slur) lie after lie after lie with the utmost "sincerity" and above all slickness. The lies? They had to do with his being able (miralculously!) to get inside the mind of a secular liberal and tell his listeners exactly what they really meant. It was all done convincingly, if you are easily convinced. It was like a very well printed book about a new diet in which it became quite easy to understand why, if you'd just stick with butter, undercooked Tyson's chicken and chocolate, God no less than your physician would be proud of you.

Perc,

It's civil liberties they protect. But I believe they protect the civil liberties of all. The ACLU has been supportive of all civil liberties. I'm looking for an example, back later with it.

tart

Reed is very slick indeed. His appearance (unusually boyish and Norman Rockwell innocent) helps a great deal in this era of tv. And as those quotes (plus others I've heard from him, where he enjoins members of his side to keep close to the ground and not arouse ire and suspicion) reveal a political intelligence of high calibre.

Unfortunately, what he is up to is deeply ugly for those of us who think liberty an agreeable state.

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/rel1st.html

ACLU Strongly Supports Religious Freedom Restoration Act; Urges Congress to Act Quickly to Restore Protections (1993)

Oh, I see, it's not the same as the Religious Liberties Restoration Act. (2003).......... Interesting.

Goebbels could have trained Reed.

This is the Religious Liberties Restoration Act

http://www.stopliberaljudges.com/

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1216964.html

tart

yes, I think he's one of the most dangerous guys around. do you see him, up the road, looking to office and the presidency? I think it's quite possible.

he was already fantasizing about serving in the administration of this White House

He'll have the option of what Rove is doing...working effectively, but out of sight. Or going for the trumpet blare. Unless, of course, I see him on a crosswalk.

Lola

I have no quarrel with their charter which they say is to protect our civil liberties but it's their mode of operation and their agenda of changing the culteral face of America that really is chilling to me. Religion is not for everyone but for a large majority of the World (not just the US) religion is as important as life itself(Islam is a good example). When you destroy a persons values and belief systems confusion is created and the end result could be disastrous----as a psychoanalyst would you not agree with this?

Society is ever changing and perhaps our society would eventually change along the same path that the ACLU is pushing us but NEVER changing human nature resists change. All I'm saying is that the ACLU is pushing too hard too fast but of course it is a devilishly clever way to destroy a country from within.

Please note: I'm saying this in the same vein as those who develop conspiracy theories about the religious right taking over the gov't :wink:

Blatham this little goodie is for you---Tartarin will eventually understand it but for the moment her brain is too twisted with hate for Ralph Reed:

I've increasingly become convinced that in order to be any kind of a public-intellectual commentator or combatant, one has to be unafraid of the charges of elitism. One has to have, actually, more and more contempt for public opinion and for the way in which it's constructed and aggregated, and polled and played back and manufactured and manipulated. If only because all these processes are actually undertaken by the elite and leave us all, finally, voting in the passive voice and believing that we're using our own opinions or concepts when in fact they have been imposed upon us.
Christopher Hitchens: The Nation, 12 February 2001

Percy, do the voices tell you to do things?

Bush and Jesus
I am breaking into this amazingly heavy discussion to bring you what I think may be a new insight into the mind and religion of Bush. You all doubtless recall his famous answer during the campaign to the question, "Who is your favorite philosopher?" He answered, "Jesus." At the time we all wondered what Jesus might have said that had any relevance to politics or the campaign. We assumed he was pandering to the religious right.

However, last night as I was dropping off to sleep, it came to me why it was that Bush favors Jesus over the likes of Thomas Hobbs or Edmund Burke. Was it not Jesus who said, "To him who hath shall more be given, and from him who hath not, shall be taken away even that which he thinkith that he hath"? Somehow it seems to fit.

Alright, now back to matters of substance.

Perception -- Have you seen Hitchens around lately? He seems to have dropped out of sight since his Nation drop-out article.

His website declares him alive and well but I can't find anything current.

I think that may well be because he's made an ass of himself and no one's hiring.

God damnit Tart will you stop forcing your conclusions down everyone's throat. Everyone here knows exactly where you stand------you've told us 10,000 times.

Why don't you bring something "fresh" to the table? You might do well to actually read what Craven said about you on this thread----it won't be hard to find----it's a couple of pages long.

perc,

Voicing an opinion does not mean others have to ingest it. If you weren't aware of that I can see why you'd be angry, heck I'd hate to force myself to swallow others' opinions only to find out that it was optional.

But now you know.

perception wrote:


In answer to this question, perc, .........yes and no. Religion serves a very important integrative function for many people, I agree. (This is not a comment on the truth or untruth of any particular religion.) Whether it's true or not, it does serve an important function for many and when it's questioned, it does cause internal disequilibrium......anxiety and the treat of depression. I've never advocated denying anyone their religious beliefs. Nor do I think it productive to expect sudden change. I personally am better off without religion. For me religion is too confining and I believe I function better with the recognition that it is me I'm depending on, whether I call it God or not. This is my view. And my idea is as important to me as anyone's religion. It serves an integrative function for me as well. I take comfort in the idea. So I want to make it clear that I am only upset with fundamentalist evangelical right-wing politics because I think it's an attempt on their part to take from me what they believe I want to take from them. They are free to believe as they do. As I am...........and I would like to protect that freedom. Believe me, perc, this group has no good intentions about freedom of religion. They intend to impose on us what they themselves fear.

I know from my personal experience with them that they need, and intend to get, a confirmation of their beliefs in the form of forcing others to believe as they do. They have no understanding of the concept of individual perceptions and function. They believe there is one true way and they fear any demonstration of the falseness of this claim. It is this belief of theirs, which is intrinsic and fundamental in their system, that concerns me. They are not able to allow, and do not intend to allow for individual differences. Their method is one of coercion and control. Influence for them is not enough.

So in answer to your question above. As I said, yes and no. Yes it's destructive to try to force others to give up their internal system of integration, of meaning, but no, it's not unreasonable to expect a respect for the beliefs of others and to leave room for those beliefs to be expressed. I think also it's reasonable to expect rational thought and debate on issues such as abortion, gay rights, environmental concerns, over population, human rights in primitive cultures (such as the subrogation of women and minorities.)

I know their objection to homosexual marriage and abortion, etc. is based on their belief that these are evils that threaten the fabric of our society and they are a crime against humanity. But my problem with that is that they do not take a rational approach to the question. They close their eyes to a massive injustice (over population and the violation against the rights of women in third world countries, for instance) in favor of some absolute rule, appealing to authority (interpreted according to them). This primitive form of religion is destructive, IMO and I will work to counteract it. How to solve this problem, I don't know. Public debate and an appeal to reason is all I know how to do........that and the democratic process. And when I fear that even the democratic process is threatened, then I get upset. (And to be specific, the threat to the democratic process in this case is because they are not being honest with their agenda, so voters do not know what they are voting for.)

Whatever a person's religious beliefs, there has to be provision for us all to believe as we do, not as we are forced to believe. Respect for individuality is the over riding principle for me. Take the whole issue of "family values." Or of "pro-life." I value the family and life. I am pro both of these. But listen to the insistence on their parts that I do not, simply because my family values and idea of enhancing life is different then theirs. If the debate were framed as a difference in family values or a difference in a belief system about what constitutes life, then I would be happy as a pig at the troth. If they were content to let those who need an abortion and have no ethical qualms about it get the abortion they need, letting each person struggle within themselves to answer this question and to not have an abortion if they believe it's wrong, then I would be fine. If they don't want to be homosexual or marry someone of the same sex, that is fine with me. But to tell others they cannot because they think it's "wrong" is not fair IMO. I'm willing to give them their freedom, but they are not willing to give me or others who disagree with them ours. That's my beef.

Hazlett,

Interesting dropping off to sleep thought. Yes, I believe Bush has his own self interest (at the expense of the rest of us) in mind. And he rationalizes it with his "belief" in Jesus.