Conservative Libel, Liberal Inaction

by Chris Bowers, Mon May 02, 2005 at 12:01:23 PM EDT

From the Family Research Council email advertising the now infamous Louisville conference: Many of these nominees to the all-important appellate court level are being blocked, not because they haven't paid their taxes or because they have used drugs or because they have criminal records or for any other reason that would disqualify them from public service; rather, they are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction.Pat Robertson:"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218. OK, so the theocons think that it is perfectly fine to block some religious views, such as Islam, from being held by people serving in the US government, but that it is wrong to block other views, such Christianity, from being held by people serving in the US government. This is an obvious case of bigotry against people of certain faiths, and it is coming from those who often claim they are oppressed because of their faith.

This post is not just about this contradiction, however. Living in the political blogosphere, as I tend to do, I feel as though I run across posts pointing out stuff like this several times a day. Heck, I feel like I've run across this stuff severall times a day for years. To tell you the truth, I'm actually getting a little bored with it. I mean, conservatives frequently take contradictory positions? Wow. That's a real stunner. The theocons are really just about promoting their version of Christianity above all other religions and versions of Christianity? Again, that is a real stunner, and I am surprised to learn that.

It is not just that it is repetitive, however. It is that it is repetitive and nothing ever happens. What are we doing in pointing all this stuff out? No one seems to ever do anything about it. As John writes as Americablog:

Will the lefty organizations take advantage of this golden opportunity to finally destroy Robertson and Sheldon? Don't hold your breath. This is about more than just press releases, this is an action campaign now. Demanding an apology. Demanding Bush and any politician who's dealt with these men publicly distance themselves from them. Demand that Bush and all politicians reiterate their support for Muslim-Americans. Hell, I'd create a tolerance pledge that politicians are asked to sign that they will not discriminate in hiring and firing of Muslim-Americans.

There are tons of things the civil rights groups and fight-the-right groups could do.

But will they? Ha.

Yeah, really. This is the sort of thing that should happen when this stuff is pointed out, but it never does. Instead ABC is going to run Focus on the Family ads after rejecting ads from the United Church of Christ last year because their message of tolerance was too controversial.

So, seriously, what is the point of all this? If left-leaning groups never take any action on stuff like the rancid Robertson comments, while right-leaning groups can get messages of tolerance toward homosexuals off the air because they are "too controversial," what the hell are we doing? Sometimes I think that instead of at lest bringing a knife to a gunfight, we are just bringing a blindfold and standing up against the wall. If we do speak when we show up, it is to criticize the others standing next to us for smoking before we all get shot. Arrrggghhh.

Tags: Activism (all tags)

  • 4 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

4 Comments

Shadow_head_small
It's not just contradiction and...
hypocrisy. Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Frist, and the rest openly opposse and do not believe in The Constitution of the United States of America.

Article VI, paragraph III:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And no, this is nothing new. Any simple googgle search of this people that exhort their followers to oppose The Constitution of the United States, the People of the United States, and the Government of the United States of America, these people that do not believe in this nation and all that it stands for, any simple search will show the proof of their treasonous beliefs and incitement against this nation.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-02 12:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's not just contradiction and...
Why do Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Frist, and the rest hate America so much?
by wayward 2005-05-02 04:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Typical Right-wing Authoritarian Behavior
This is typcial of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA).  So typical, in fact, that we can supplement the flood of anecdotal evidence we have all seen with some hard experimental data.  This was reported in The Authoritarian Specter, by Robert Altemeyer (on pp. 115-117), the reaseracher who developed the RWA scale.

In one experiment, half the subjects were asked about a law "requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools"--Christianity, of course. The other half were asked about a similar law being passed in a modern Arab democracy, teaching Islam, of course.  Those scoring low in RWA were not inclined to think either was a good idea--just 5% like the first one, and 7% like the second.  Those high in RWA also disliked the second law--just 5% liked it--but were much kinder toward the first law-48% supported it.

A second experiment using Israel (and teaching Judaism) in place of an unnamed Arab democracy produced similar results--0% of Low RAWs supported the law at home, and 2% supported it in Israel, while 62% of High RWAs supported the law at home, compared to 20% in Israel.  

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-05-02 01:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
So What Do We Do?
America Blog writes:

There are tons of things the civil rights groups and fight-the-right groups could do.

But will they? Ha.

So what do those of us who aren't professional members of activist groups do?  I have a full-time 'plus' job, so what can I do on a sustained basis other than point out conservatives idiocies?

I agree that I gets very repetitive to read the same arguments over and over again (even if they are  valid).  Some of us even go further and send an email objecting to media coverage.  But what else can we do?  (and don't tell me to go to a protest-most aren't very effective).

I'm sorry to sound so snarky or bitter, but I mean this seriously.  The only thing the Democrats seem to really want from me is money, not input.

by mfeld356 2005-05-03 09:17AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------