kulu,

As to economic policies,I could not include in the last post of mine addressed to you,because Truthdig does not allow to be published more than 4000 characters per post. In fact,I had to delete two paragraphs already were typed just to meet Truthdig’s rule.

If you are still interested in reading my views with regards to deregulations,please roll this thread upward until you find the following post of mine:

Sodium,January 19 at 12:44 pm.

Happy Reading….

Re:kulu,January 22 at1:33 am.

kulu has addressed to me the following:

“The values you follow seem to me the very values that defines what a Leftie is except perhaps with regards to economic policies which you do not mention.”

kulu,

I am going to level with what you have said in the above quote of yours and then would take it from there after I finish the leveling.Please understand that I am not leveling with you as a person and a fellow human being,but with your thoughts,ideas or analysis that could be correct or incorrect as well:

(1) If helping the poor and homeless makes me Leftie,then I am a Leftie.

(2) If taking a stand against wars and slaughtering other fellow human beings en masse makes me Leftie,then I am a Leftie.

(3) If pushing for peace makes me Leftie,then I am a Leftie.

(4) If demanding adherence to the letter and spirit of the American Constitution makes me Leftie,then I am a Leftie.

(5) If advocating to live and let live honestly makes me Leftie,then I am a Leftie.

(6) If taking a strong stand against corruption regardless who commit the act of corruption and lying including the President,King or Emir of a country makes a Leftie,then I am a Leftie.

That is how far I can afford to level with your legitimate thoughts.Let me now reveal to you my thoughts:

Since a Leftie exists,there must be “something” opposite in force and oppsite in direction to this Leftie.Just for the sake of this discussion,allow me to invent a name for this “something” and call it Rightie,instead of e Radical Right Winger which is cumbersome to pronounce and write.

Rightie challenges Leftie.
Or
Leftie challeges Rightie

The following examples may stir some thought and may “marginalize” and even negate my OWN leveling with your contention:

(A) President Dwight Eisenhower stopped the Korean War according to the United Nations’s Charter.Does that act for peace makes him a Leftie?

(B) After stopping the Korean War,the pressure on Eisenhower was extreme as exerted by certain forces to start a war,some place else in the globe,he resisted the extreme push for war and no American blood was shed in a foreign country and no en masse slaughter of innocent human beings abroad had taken place during the eight prosperous years as he was President.Does that act of valiant resistant against wars make Eisenhower a Leftie?

(C) Eisenhower had cared so much for the poor as the following quote by John Nichlos,of the Left magazine called “The Nation”.Eisenhower had made the following statements in response to the extreme pressure applied on him to start a war,somewhere in the globe:

” Every gun that is made,every warship launched,every rocket fired signifies in the final analysis,a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,those who are cold and are not clothed.This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,the genious of its scientists,the hope of its children.[...] This is not a way of life at all in a true sense.Under the clouds of war,it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

Does such a profound compassion for the poor who were unfed and unclothed make Eisenhower a Leftie?

(D) Eisenhower’s firm adherence to the Constitution can be found in the way he handled the bigoted white riot against Black students,in Little Rock,Arkansa He enforced the law and used his MORAL AUTHORITY and the Black students were integrated with their white peers.Does such adherence make Eisenhower a Leftie?   

Eisenhower was no Leftie,kulu.He was a moderate Republican,but never a Rightie. The best I can describe him is as such:He was a Centrist,leaning slighty to the Right.

My affinity to Eisenhower and all Republicans, Democrats and Independents who think and act like Eisenhower stems from the word “CENTRIST”.

Thank you,kulu,for your legitimate observatios.

Re:OM

I had already asked the question? It was this:

” Do you mean that YOU do not want to make your religious tenets laws?”

Also, when you say “Christian”, do you mean lefty Christian or rightie Christian?

For example, current pursuits of the Religious Right to legislate religious tenets.

* Personhood at conception

* Ban on Gay Marriage

Now we are getting to some specifics. I think that might help. It might solve the whole argument.

Are you saying if my religious belief informs my opinion on a matter like Gay Marriage, then i should be prevented from engaging in political activies to effect legislative outcomes? Is that why LaHaye should not be allowed to endorse a candidate for President?

Sodium,

You say:-

“I am no Leftie,but Centrist,leaning slightly to the Left when it comes to helping the poor and the homeless,when it comes to war and peace,when it comes to adhering firmly to the letter and spirit of the American Constitution,when it comes just to live and let live honestly and strongly against corruption,regardless of who commits the acts of corruption.”

The values you follow seem to me the very values that define what a Leftie is except perhaps with regard to economic policies which you don’t mention. For a Leftie, I suggest, acceptable economic policies would be those that are most likely to lead to the goals you note.

In my mind the unfettered free market and a deregulated economy have not proven to lead to the achievement of Leftie values - in fact just the opposite. Something else needs to be tried. But what ?

Re: OM

Your comment:“You are IGNORING the fact that your fears and hatred are stirred up by Truthdig for one purpose: to add emotional fuel to your prejudice, which is the hidden force behind your flimsy accusations, and such accusations, no matter how un-historical and un-factual, are given as ‘reason’ why you need to marginalize Christians.”

This is completely false. Do not put words in my mouth or attempt to ascribe to me your pre-supposed teachings of my feelings toward Christianity. I am decidedly NOT prejudiced, my views differ than yours… that is NOT prejudice. Quit claiming victimhood OM, you are not a victim and I am not “hateful”, nor “fearful” nor am I willing to excuse your accusations simply because you falsely claim victimhood under the guise of Christianity. That is a weak and lame argument to invoke, you know it as well as I.

To address your claim, regarding my claim:
Mine:“You are IGNORING the fact that you would like to have YOUR RELIGIOUS TENETS, law.”

Yours: Perhaps you shouldnt speak for me, just make your accusations in your own voice, but I wont halt you on that detail.”

You haven’t said anything here. Do you mean that YOU do not want to make your religious tenets laws? Explain, be specific. Obviously we cannot debate if you are afraid to speak up for your position. Or are you simply seeking to avoid the discussion?

The reason I question this is that the Religious Right is currently ACTIVELY seeking to make religious tenets laws, are you saying you are not of this vein. Also, when you say “Christian”, do you mean lefty Christian or rightie Christian?

For example, current pursuits of the Religious Right to legislate religious tenets.

* Personhood at conception

* Ban on Gay Marriage

It is also why fundamentalism is likened to the Taliban, because the Taliban is a fundamentalist version of Islam and they DEMAND that everyone adhere to THEIR brand of Islam, no others are acceptable. This same premise is also true of Christian fundamentalism….... do you deny it?

Yes, because your premise is false and your reasoning is circular. As accusations go, it doesnt strike true like an arrrow, instead it twists like a pretzel. But I will explain why i deny it anyway. 

You are IGNORING the fact that you would like to have YOUR RELIGIOUS TENETS, law.

Perhaps you shouldnt speak for me, just make your accusations in your own voice, but I wont halt you on that detail. For now I answer your accusations with this statement: “actions speak louder than words”.

When Christians were an overwhelming majority, we never did such a thing. Instead we approved of and supported the Constitution, which has been a blessing for more and more people as the years go by.  If your theory was true, we would have been Talibanized long ago. Instead we started and participated and maintained our share in this nation’s founding.

You are IGNORING the fact that your fears and hatred are stirred up by Truthdig for one purpose: to add emotional fuel to your prejudice, which is the hidden force behind your flimsy accusations, and such accusations, no matter how un-historical and un-factual, are given as ‘reason’ why you need to marginalize Christians.

Read this Truthdig article that has fueled your prejudice. Read it critically instead of swallowing it whole. See what slim connections of unrelated events were strung together to arrive at its conclusion. The title is an assertion which is divorced from reality. No matter. It worked. It got the cicadas buzzing! 

Meanwhile, the object of your attack, the common American Christianity, which Leefeller calls ‘ugly’, was described by Alexis De Tocqueville this way:

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other…

The intertwining of Liberty and Christianity qualifies them as Fundamentalist, since according to your definition they apparently cant separate church and state.

Outraged, please explain how those first generations of American Fundamentalists were so dangerous that you feel a need to marginalize them for the sake of liberty. Keep in mind that they shed their blood for Liberty and that as a majority of the population they refused to ratify the Constitution until it had some rights for all citizens attached to it. Their actions speak far louder than your accusations. 

Explain why our forefathers need to be marginalized. Then I will understand why you need to marginalize me today.

Re: Om

If “yes” is your answer, how so OM?

Re: OM

Here is the link to that quote (and others) from Washington. I inadvertently clipped the “n” from the link.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm

It is also why fundamentalism is likened to the Taliban, because the Taliban is a fundamentalist version of Islam and they DEMAND that everyone adhere to THEIR brand of Islam, no others are acceptable. This same premise is also true of Christian fundamentalism….... do you deny it?

Yes.

Re: OM

cont.

Quote:“It is you who must ‘marginalize’ me, because you wish to sunder and rearrange the foundational concepts of our society.”

Dead wrong. We wish to maintain the foundations of the principles of the Constitution. And those principles allow you to exist as an equal BUT NOT as a more than equal. The fact that you can find those who see the religion in American society means nothing. And it is the very LAW of the “separation of church and state” which allows this diversity to exist that fundamentalists wish to change. No one is claiming that there isn’t religion in America! What we are claiming is that it is AGAINST THE LAW FOR RELIGION TO DETERMINE OUR LAWS SINCE THAT WOULD MAKE US A THEOCRACY AND IS ANATHEMA TO DEMOCRACY!

George Washington:
“Of all the animosities which have existed in among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

—George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, also James A Haught, 2000 Years of Disbelief”
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washingto.htm

It appears pressing that YOU… not I, should engage ALL of Washington’s perspectives instead of the one-sided interpretation you appear so readily to accept. To consider only one side because it happens to align with your ideology is dishonest. There are many sides to Washington. He was not an ideologue, nor a fundamentalist - nor was he a right-leaning politician as is evidenced above.

Re: OzarkMichael

Your comment:“I think Truthdiggers are being manipulated. You are fed a web of innuendo and falsehood here at Truthdig, and you absorb it readily. You allow yourselves to get so worked up that you are always edging closer to removing the rights of Christians who you deem to be too dangerous.  I see it over the years. It is getting worse.”

No. That is not the case. You are IGNORING the fact that you would like to have YOUR RELIGIOUS TENETS, law. And yes, that is dangerous. You see manipulation but I see debate and argument. Is it possible that you see manipulation because you believe that there is a “Christian” nation premise to our founding? There is not! You ignore this aspect in favor any comment you can find which purports your view. This is NOT an accurate portrayal of America. It is a ONE-SIDED view.

Quote:“Outraged is not marginalizing a Christian per se, but only if our beliefs influence political action. The concept that ‘God has blessed us with a Constitution’ is such a dangerous blasphemy to the secular order that the only way our republic can protect itself is the ‘marginalization’ of folks like me.”

IF your political action is intent on CHANGING the Constitution to what YOU consider Christian, it is dangerous and you should be marginalized. YES. That is against the law and the founding principles of the Constitution.

The separation of church and state PROTECTS your right to practice religion as well as everyone else’s right to practice THEIR religion. Also, this protects my right NOT to practice religion, yet ALL OF US are equal as citizens. But this is something fundamentalists wish to take away from other citizens, their right to be equal. That is why fundamentalism is dangerous to DEMOCRACY. It is also why fundamentalism is likened to the Taliban, because the Taliban is a fundamentalist version of Islam and they DEMAND that everyone adhere to THEIR brand of Islam, no others are acceptable. This same premise is also true of Christian fundamentalism….... do you
deny it?

Quote: “But, dear reader, you do not have a right to your own ‘facts’. I know your bosses and thought leaders are busily expunging the founding principles of this nation from your squeeky clean Leftist brains, but you can resist them.”

Here you confuse what you call a “leftist” political stance with religion. Many religious people are leftist politically, so a leftist political philosophy is not at all anathema to Christianity. How are you coming to the conclusion that leftism is anti-Christianity? I would definitely like to hear your position regarding that.

The accurate stereotyped ugly American seems a circus clone to ugly religiosity, it is always about them!

The issue here is the lie OM, not who LaHaye votes for. LaHaye is claiming that Gingrich would, “return this country to the constitutional principles that God has chosen to bless”. There isn’t anything factual about that comment.

You made your case. The sentence or two that I quoted is the pivot point. I also read Sodium’s post several times, as requested by Elisalouisa.

I think Truthdiggers are being manipulated. You are fed a web of innuendo and falsehood here at Truthdig, and you absorb it readily. You allow yourselves to get so worked up that you are always edging closer to removing the rights of Christians who you deem to be too dangerous.  I see it over the years. It is getting worse.

At issue is what Outraged called a lie, namely,  that a Christian can “return this country to the constitutional principles that God has chosen to bless for over two hundred years.” Apparently this error is so dangerous that we must kept away from the state, per Outraged:

I would not marginalize you because you are Christian but I would marginalize you if you attempt to undermine the democratic principles of our Constitution and that is what….. by the language LaHaye uses, he implies he wants to do.

Outraged is not marginalizing a Christian per se, but only if our beliefs influence political action. The concept that ‘God has blessed us with a Constitution’ is such a dangerous blasphemy to the secular order that the only way our republic can protect itself is the ‘marginalization’ of folks like me. 

You of course have every right to that opinion. But, dear reader, you do not have a right to your own ‘facts’. I know your bosses and thought leaders are busily expunging the founding principles of this nation from your squeeky clean Leftist brains, but you can resist them. You might have to visit a conservative website to view the info since Truthdig will never publish it.

Read the following, meditating upon the question of whether it is treason to view our Constitution as a blessing from God. 

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1789-by-george-washington?xg_source=activity

Now consider the common American, according to the observation of Alexis de Tocqueville:

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other…

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.”

Dear Reader, you have every right to your opinion about religion. To whatever extent your religion(or whatever) informs you about how things ought to be, you have a right to think and to act upon it, a right to influence the course of events, equal in every way to my rights. I happily accept this arrangement for you and desire that it remain permanently established. It is you who must ‘marginalize’ me, because you wish to sunder and rearrange the foundational concepts of our society.

Indeed, our public education ensures that fewer Americans understand that the notions of Liberty and Christianity are intertwined. There certainly arent any here who considerate it that way(except me). But the historical fact remains: thats how our Liberty started and developed.

You wish to “marginalize” Christianity in the name of Liberty? That has been and continues to be a dangerous experiment upon the foundation of our society, resulting in a weakened liberty and a less liberal Christianity.

It is more than ironic when doing the opposite of what one preaches.
It is especially deplorable when it is a religious preacher doing so.  It
is profound pharisaistical hypocrisy.

When a politician mixes his “professed” religion, or when he presses
his religious beliefs into his reason to run for public office, he exactly
misses the point of representative office in this country, which is
emphatically as Outraged remarkably articulated, on what with regard
to the separation of church and state this country uniquely in the history
of the world up to that time, was founded.  It has been as a chronic
malaise since then a struggle against religionists whose passion,
irrationally and fiercely have tried to nullify.  It is an encroachment on
individual rights that needs to be repelled and defeated to the utmost
with every affordable ounce of energy.

The most important question seems to be what exactly is it we “owe”
each other, what is it that is due to people either individually or as a
society?  Seems to me from reading comments on every Truthdig forum
for a very long time, it is obvious there are polarizing ideologies from
which people cultivate all of their views whether they are social or
political and that what is not defined precisely enough is what is the
social, political, and legal obligation in our common social order.  While
many are well-said, very few arguments are persuasive to those who
hold differing views.  Verbal thuggery, name-calling, and flimsy, tenuous
personal opinions are the devices of the weak arguer.  Giving evidential
points of view shows those with opposing perspectives defensible
convictions that will get closer to reliable conclusions.  If whatever
is undeniable is dismissed then further interaction is useless and
superfluous.  Not worth further exertion.  Unless, of course, you
enjoy spinning your wheels.

Great posts Outraged, speaking the truth to unenlightened dost seem wasted treats on a dogma!

One of the most divisive politician ever,.... posing as a human being would probably be Newt Grangrich, he is a well known Ahole who seems more than adequate to play the game with expert manipulation.  Newt should have the Supreme Court decided he is people too, then things would fall into place like those ever present logs in hypocrites eyes!

Yes, I have known many good Catholics who have been married three or four times, I also know some who have been married once.  One thing I know about Catholics they seem to be a country club mentality who happen to embrace…. ‘pomp and circumcision’.

I do not know any evangelicals, though I attended a KKK cross building get together once! You know all the information I have heard about evangelicals has been hear say;  like I heard they are waiting and praying for the Acupuncture to start up in the Middle East and what about this,..........I had to look it up; “rapture
1600, “act of carrying off,” from M.Fr. rapture, from M.L. raptura “seizure, rape, kidnapping,” from L. raptus “a carrying off” (see rapt). Originally of women and cognate with rape (v.). Sense of “spiritual ecstasy” first recorded 1629.” Well Maybe the evangelicals and Newt are into that too? 

Well one thing I believe in, is the separation of Church and State, and if someone wants to believe in something which I do not happen to want to believe in, I will embrace their right to believe in it, but please do not force, annoy or bother me by knocking on my door with one of those ‘Witch Tour’ pamphlets!

Re: OzarkMichael

cont.

“God” didn’t “chose” to “bless” this country and we simply can’t return to some “god-blessed Constitution” because such a thing doesn’t exist! That is something LaHaye and Gingrich are inventing. Those are buzzwords OM, and they are directed at you, not people like me. He is USING them because he knows YOU will be affected by this type of bogus banter. This is how he uses you to support issues which are not in your best interests (nor mine for that matter).

Gingrich supports tax cuts for the rich. Unless you are rich OM, why would you support this man? For that matter OM, all of the Republican candidates support tax cuts for the rich, so why do you support them (unless of course you are a rich person).

You shouldn’t vote for someone because they say “God this” or “God that”, unless you are attempting to usurp democracy and turn the nation into a theocracy. This is politics…. and those are politicians, not religious leaders. If you want to hear about God you attend a religious service of some type. But “God” has no place in our system of government. That does not mean a Christian can’t be elected, in fact many are. It means that that person has to do his/her job as an elected official representing the whole country and abide by the Constitution, NOT as a religious leader seeking to remake the Constitution to fit their religious tenets.

Again OM, if our political leaders acted as religious leaders then we would not have a democracy and it would be anathema to everything America stands for!

This goes back to what I was saying before, and that is that YOU want a theocracy, not a democracy. When I or others disagree, you claim victimhood as if we are not being fair to you somehow because we will not practice your religion. You are wrong, we have every right and in fact, have an obligation to keep religious tenets out of our government.

If you support people simply because they are Christian, you are not doing your CIVIC duty as it stands in our American DEMOCRACY. You are supporting a person for RELIGIOUS reasons, not for civil ones. If these same then lead or legislate using religious tenets, that is AGAINST the Constitutional principle of “separation of church and state”. That is against American law, for this reason it is MY CIVIC DUTY to stop (or at least attempt to stop) anyone who attempts to usurp the Constitution and turn our democracy into a theocracy.

I would not marginalize you because you are Christian but I would marginalize you if you attempt to undermine the democratic principles of our Constitution and that is what….. by the language LaHaye uses, he implies he wants to do.

He implies “God” is in our Constitution, but SPECIFICALLY “God” is not! That is what the “separation of church and state” spelled out distinctly and our founders provided for specifically in the Constitution.

Re: OzarkMichael

Your comment:“Outraged, you may not know where your Truthdig leaders and fellow bloggers are taking you, but i do. I know how ‘marginalization’ works, i have been ‘marginalized’, of course it was by the most kind-hearted lefists, but as a result I had to fight against it in order to advance in my profession.  You support the people and the concepts that would lead to eliminating rights for people like me. I know it when i see it. I see it here and now. To remain silent is not an option for me.”

First of all OM, I do not have “leaders” here at Truthdig. Why do you insist upon making such ridiculous claims?

You continue to suppose that you are being “marginalized”. I still have not seen this. You consistently voice your opinion, how is that being marginalized?  I voice my opinion, you voice yours… we disagree. To disagree is not marginalization. If we debate a point to the max, it does not mean that I will agree with you in the end. I think that you think that I should, if I don’t you cry “marginalization”, marginalization”!

You are skewing the facts when you say “You support the people and the concepts that would lead to eliminating rights for people like me.” No one is trying to eliminate your rights. You have it backwards OM, but you refuse to own up to that fact. YOU want to silence anyone who says there is no place in politics for religion. YOU claim that it is fine for religion to be in politics and I disagree.

This country OM, was founded upon the principle of the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. This principle allows you to practice your religion as you see fit as long as you do not break the law. That is not marginalization, those are the laws of the land, one of the principles of our Constitution.

Your comment:“Answer me this: What is it that so threatens our Constitution, our nation, our future… that it garners so much buzzy hysteria and invokes promises to “marginalize” the Other(in this case, the Christian)?”

Again OM, this country WAS NOT FOUNDED UPON RELIGION, it was founded as a democratic republic. A country founded upon religion would be a theocracy. Those are two very different things. You take offense to the article quote:

“LaHaye called Gingrich “a proven conservative who has the best chance of replacing the present occupant of the White House.” LaHaye, who is taking a post as national co-chair of Gingrich’s Faith Leaders Coalition, also said that Gingrich would “return this country to the constitutional principles that God has chosen to bless for over two hundred years.”

The issue here is the lie OM, not who LaHaye votes for. LaHaye is claiming that Gingrich would, “return this country to the constitutional principles that God has chosen to bless”. There isn’t anything factual about that comment.

Many points in your January 20 4:06 am post are in agreement with my views Sodium-Na. I hope Michael reads your post more than once and considers your words seriously.

Here is another link you my find of interest although I am certain you already know all the facts that are presented on this wiki site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_LaHaye

Lafayette! Today is the one year anniversary of an interesting dismissal you made of my prediction very early in the Arab Spring. Here was my prediction written under Juan Cole’s article about the Tunisian Revolution:

The way the article is written, you would think that something really good has happened.

I am not so sure. Partly because Tunisia is in transition to god-knows-what, and what the widespread effects in Middle East will be, that is even less clear.

“Leftists and Fundamentalist Muslims” cheering together. Thats a picture we see more and more often. This is an alliance that I think Truthdig hopes for and encourages here at home and abroad.  But it seems obvious to me that both groups have completely different agendas, and in governance you really cant have both at the same time. One will use the other, bending the other to its will. 

I think Leftists are clueless about how smart and committed the Muslims are to Islam. The Fundamentalist Muslims understand the Left better and play them pretty well. So put your money on the Fundamentalist Muslims to come out on top. Think of Iran in 1978.

That was written one year ago. How did Lafayette respond to my warning? One year ago, what did Lafayette say? He said:

This is far-fetched nonsense.

My concern about the revolt in Tunisia was well founded, it turns out. Here is the result of their first election: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45038538/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TqhP1t4r2sp

And recently the leader of that victorious Islamic party was slow to condemn the chants “Death to Jews!” at a rally. From the AP report:

Ennahda was at first slow to condemn their actions, earning the criticism of leftist and liberal groups which already regard the Islamist party with suspicion.

“I think if Ennahda doesn’t come up with some way of being unequivocal in its rejection of some of these ideas and tactics it really does risk damaging its credibility with some of its coalition partners, progressive voters and international donors,” said Chris Alexander, an expert on Tunisia from North Carolina’s Davidson College, noting the danger of the party’s slow response up until now.

“I think a lot of people will see that hesitancy as a mark of their true intentions.”

And what of the effects of Tunisia upon the Arab world? That was my main worry. Was I right to be concerned about it?

Outside of Tunisia, is the alliance of Leftist and Islamist a happy one? We see in Egypt the initial Leftist/Islamist alliance leading to what appears to be an Islamist state. Are the Leftists there happy with it? No, I dont think they are. I expressed my concern about that one year ago quite clearly.

Again, how did Lafayette respond to my warning about this? what did Lafayette say one year ago? He said:

This is far-fetched nonsense.

Why do i bring this up? Well, somebody here understands what Fundamentalism is and how it works and the rest of you dont. Someone here takes great pains to get to the bottom line while the rest(and especially Lafayette) say that ‘all Fundamentalism leads to Taliban’ and ‘Fundamentalism kills’ without having the faintest idea of the stupidity of such declarations.

Dear reader, you never even hesitate about the direction you are being led, just like your fellow traveller Lafayette who dismissed my warnings with the same self-assured thoughtlessness that you exhibit here. Thats what Truthdig inculcates.

Finally, realize that “marginalizing the effort” of someone is nefarious and hateful. It is very different from competing against their effort with your own effort and defeating their ideas with your own. Very different. Even Rush Limbaugh doesnt talk about a strategy for “marginalizing” other people’s efforts. You are crossing lines that Limbaugh hasnt crossed yet! Are you proud to be more prejudiced than Limbaugh?

Leefeller:  Maybe it’s fear that is swamping reality.
If so, it wouldn’t be the first time.  Any port in a storm, as they say, especially if it offers mystical rewards and punishments (not that there aren’t enough real ones to go round!).  And the guarantee of life after death—at least for some people. The worse this world looks, the better the next one appears.  And as the story goes, this world is lost from the beginning, so no effort or elbow grace or sympathy need be exerted to try to save this one. The more you think about it, the easier it gets.
  Besides, there’s a long history that justifies religious sacrifice—of both self and others, even helpless infants.  It purifies everybody.  It rewards tenfold etc.  It strengthens the spirit.  That’s why poor people are so rich, so strong, so beatified, so pure. Yet, oddly enough, almost nobody wants to go forego three meals a day.
  All in all, this constellation of beliefs is so bizarre that there is only one reason to justify it:
The fear of not believing it.
  And there’s more:  When such ancient stories get mixed in with contemporary politics, the result is a witches’ brew of certainties that if you doubt one tenet, the entire contraption falls down around your ears.
  P.S. Nothing in this diatribe means that I am not religious, by the way. So please don’t anyone come back at me with any of this communist/atheist twaddle.

Using the word marginalizing as some sort of club dost not work, especially for those who know what disenfranchisement means!  (Marginalizing Ron Paul is another article)

Delusion does seem to be swamping the shores of Reality!

The Truthdig article spawned hearty buzzing agreement from the cicadas, as I am sure the Truthdig editors hoped for. These articles and blog responses drive towards particular goals. Support that effort and i will call you what you are, whether you are aware or not aware, whether you are rude about it or kind about it. i will call you out for it.

Outraged, you may not know where your Truthdig leaders and fellow bloggers are taking you, but i do. I know how ‘marginalization’ works, i have been ‘marginalized’, of course it was by the most kind-hearted lefists, but as a result I had to fight against it in order to advance in my profession.  You support the people and the concepts that would lead to eliminating rights for people like me. I know it when i see it. I see it here and now. To remain silent is not an option for me.

You say you want logic or reason? Fine, I will give it to you but it wont make any difference:

Answer me this: What is it that so threatens our Constitution, our nation, our future… that it garners so much buzzy hysteria and invokes promises to “marginalize” the Other(in this case, the Christian)?

Allow me to quote from the meaty part of the endorsement, which supposedly is what the article is about:

LaHaye called Gingrich “a proven conservative who has the best chance of replacing the present occupant of the White House.” LaHaye, who is taking a post as national co-chair of Gingrich’s Faith Leaders Coalition, also said that Gingrich would “return this country to the constitutional principles that God has chosen to bless for over two hundred years.”

I absolutely support LaHaye’s right to endorse whomever he pleases. To the hilt! And if he supports the Constitution, then at least he is paying lip service to a good thing, unlike many OWS protestors who want to trash the Constitution in favor of God knows what… and i must interrupt my discourse and ask: who is the real danger here anyway? How dare you cicadas buzz about LaHaye’s endorsement as if it ruins our system of government while you applaud OWS? Such hypcrisy!

However, most of the Truthdig article was about Paula Jones and her Christian lawyer. Think about what that implies, as if she(a Christian) was butting in where she doesnt belong. 

I absolutely support Paula Jones(or anyone else) employing a lawyer to bring her case forward effectively. To the hilt! Furthermore, I absolutely support Christians who wish to be involved in every and any profession or process or politics in this country. 

This Truthdig article makes the most scurrilous connection between Gingrich and some sort of fanatacism. As usual Lafayette and others take the bait.

We are “Taliban”? Really? We need to be “marginalized”? really?

Against the wave of hatred and prejudice I will not back down. Not one inch! Not for anything.

Maybe we need to talk about marginalizing YOU, and see if you take that as mere political debate.

Re: elisalouisa,January 20 at 2:21 am.

elisa,

Thank you for the link about Irving Kristol,one of the founder of the neoconservatives group within the Republican Party. It is an informative piece by Max Blumenthal who was not shy,at all,in calling a spade a spade,ranging from citing the human weaknesses of Irving Kristol and his alliance with the well known Anti-semites,to Bill Bennett’s addiction to gambling in which he had already lost $8 million between Atlantic City and Las Vegas.

I have appreciated reading Blumenthal’s piece,since it has reconfirmed what I have known about both Irving Kristol and Bill Bennett,the pretending preachers for morality. It is really ironic when some people do the opposite of what they preach. Amazing and amusing,at the same time! Again,thank you,elisa.

The Rapture and Religion are especially in Newt Grangrapes case, more made to order perfect excuses not to be held ACCOUNTABLE for his EVER slimy actions!

It is fascinating that Gingrich uses the accusation of his immorality
(at least immorality according to his religion) as an opportunity to
bat off attention towards everything else except turning it into
an honest moment.  We have to judge it as a foul.  But then there
are times when one ought to be more religious than others?  It is
like a light switch, right?  Why he looks more Mormon than Romney
in his desire to have an open marriage.  M’’thinks he needs a good
long session of self-reflection to seriously consider what is the
meaning and intentions of religion, his religion.  Perhaps he thinks
he is the deity?  An interesting twist there.  The interview of debate
attendees is really very curious that the religious would use their
religion when it is politically convenient.  What gives here?  Is this
hypocrisy at its zenith?

By Lafayette, January 20 at 2:50 am

At least they vote, Arabian Sinbad.

And you, on your Salafist Arabian peninsula (?), have you a right to vote?

Have you a choice of candidates? Have you any candidate at all? And, if you are a woman, can you go alone to the polling booth?

C’mon - get off your high-horse. You are the pot calling the kettle black, from a country that is head-locked by a family gerontacracy - not much better than a Sicilian Mafia.
=================================================
Lafayette,

You must be one of those with a knee-jerk reaction to a name that has “Arabian” in it; and this hides a racist, bigoted attitude.

In your ignorance and knee-jerk reaction you assumed I am a so-called “Salafist” from Saudi Arabia. Little did you know that all my life I’ve been a strong critic of the Saudi regime, and many a time I wrote about this on these very threads of Truthdig. In fact, I abhor all monarchy-based regimes, considering them outdated medieval system, and that includes the so-called very democratic regime of colonialist British.

One important reason why I abhor the Saudi monarchy is because they are the puppets of America and Britain, and this is the same reason I abhor the monarchy regime in Bahrain, Jordan and Morocco. It seems, in your stupid ignorance, you haven’t heard about the Arab Spring revolutions, and again, in your stupid ignorance, most of these revolutions are motivated by Islamic religious feelings and principles.

Obviously, you are one of those fanatic so-called “secularists” who don’t want to recognize the positive role of religion in the lives of those who choose to adhere to one.

And to enlighten your ignorance and stupidity, may I remind you that in the two predominantly Muslim countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh, there were two women prime ministers who were elected to office. In these too democratic USA, after almost three hundred years of democratic experiment, we still have not experienced a female vice-president let alone a female president!

You say, “At least they vote.” I say, “Voting per se is not indicative of a democratic process. How many votes were bought or rigged in America and other countries that hold election?! And how many of the qualified voters don’t vote either because they don’t care or because the know it wouldn’t matter?! 

Talking about getting off a high-horse and the pot calling the kettle black, do yourself a favor and look yourself in the mirror and work on your hidden racism and bigotry before it becomes an serious deadly cancer!

Re: OzarkMichael,January 19 at 7:39 pm.

OzarkMichael wrote:
“Truthdig serves to make Leftists feel justified in trying to limit the rights of others,and I do not allow such prejudiced,hateful and nefarious plans to go along unmarked.”

Ozark,
Operative angry words in your above comment are:

* Prejudiced.
* Hateful.
* Nefarious.

If I fail to tell you that I am not disappointed by such words of yours,I will be less than an honest man.Only I and my wife know that I have no time for an argument with you,Ozark,or anybody else,nor do I need to start an argument with you or with any body else.I could have ignored every word you have written in your response to my earlier post.Perhaps,that was the course I should have followed,but did not.Can you wonder,just wonder,why I did not ignore what you have written?

Although Outraged’s post,(Re: Outraged,January 19 at 11:33 pm.),has expressed precisely how I personally feel about you and your fellow Rapturists,(Thank you,Outraged),I wish to respond to your unwarranted use of angry words such as the operative words listed above.I do so out of profound respect to our once,in time past,constructive dialogues and exchange of views,with the participation of Shenonymous and that wonderful blogger,who is no longer with us,the wonderful cyrena.That was about four years ago,immediately after you started posting on Truthdig.

First:I have not called to marginalize you,nor called I to marginalize your rights and the rights of others who they might be. Never.I did call,however,to marginalize the EFFORTS of the right Wingers,including the EFFORTS of the “Rapturist crazies”.I still strongly do. EFFORTS mean point by point refutation,in constructive dialogues and exchange of views. There is a huge difference between what you have claimed I have written and what my obvious INTENT has been. May I suggest to read what I have already written more carefully! Thanks.

Second:The Right Wingers’ radio talk shows have continuously attempted,around the clock,365 days a year,to marginalize EFFORTS in every human edeavor the Left has tried to achieve,whether in politics,economics,constitutional legality,abortion,guy rights,the human rights of the poor,healthcare,wars and foreign policies. And yet,I have not heard or read or seen one single Leftie has tried to accuse those masters of such Right Wingers’ radio shows as trying to marginalize the persons of the Left,in the same degree of anger as you have expressed in your operative words cited above.Therefore,I suggest to look in your own “backyard” first,Ozark,before you start pointing your accusing finger at me or at others who hold similar views and approaches to mine.I say this with NO hard feeling,whatsoever,toward you or toward others of your fellow Rapturists.

Third: You know very well that I am no Leftie,but Centrist,leaning slightly to the Left when it comes to helping the poor and the homeless,when it comes to war and peace,when it comes to adhering firmy to the letter and spirit of the American Constitution,when it comes just to live and let live honestly and strongly against corruption,regardless of who commits the acts of corruption.You know very well I follow no specific ideology,I follow no man or a woman and all my four heroes are dead.You also know very well I follow only what my conscience and critical mind dictate on me to follow and eventually write,if my time allows me to do so,as I am doing right now.Since I believe that you know all of the foregoing and you even know more,I wonder what was the main reason that compelled you to write such operative and angry words,beside losing your cool!

Fourth: May the future human events show you that the operative words in your post referred to above were wrong and were written under duress and in an ungaurded moment all of us,sometimes, might have experienced.I,for one,had experienced.

All of us are human beings and all human beings make mistakes.No Exception.

sincerly,
sodium,an old friend.

AS: My point is that the California voters must be the most stupid voters on earth

At least they vote, Arabian Sinbad.

And you, on your Salafist Arabian peninsula (?), have you a right to vote?

Have you a choice of candidates? Have you any candidate at all? And, if you are a woman, can you go alone to the polling booth?

C’mon - get off your high-horse. You are the pot calling the kettle black, from a country that is head-locked by a family gerontacracy - not much better than a Sicilian Mafia.

Very good Outraged.

The rapture is a reference to the “being caught up” referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, when the “dead in Christ” and “we who are alive and remain” will be caught up in the clouds to meet “the Lord”

To my knowledge this verse is in all New Testament versions. Most branches of Christianity do not place emphasis on it. It seems as if the Evangelicals are committed to help bring about conditions that will hasten “the rapture” that “the scriptures be fulfilled.” As I have said more than once here Michael, evangelicals are being used. Follow link below.

http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/09/irving-kristols-alliance-with-anti-semites/

Re: OzarkMichael

Your comment:“As one of those “Rapture crazies”, I consider it my civic duty to stop you from ‘marginalizing’ anyone. 4 years ago I started posting here with that very theme. Nothing has changed!”

I disagree with you, OM. No one is “marginalizing” anyone for their CIVIC response. What you desire is everyone to consider your RELIGIOUS response. Those are entirely different things, OM. I was once a “Rapture crazy” but now am not. Why…. do you suppose that others should enamor your religious tenets any more so than anyone else’s religious tenets? It is obvious that that is what YOU truly aspire to. Most people are about bring justice and sanity to an out of control situation. But that does not mean we need to consider YOUR religious tenets, in order to do so. Your supposition that “we” are against you is wrong. I for certain am not against you and I certainly can’t speak for others, but just the same, I am not against YOU.

I am against you attempting to require me to live by the religious tenets that YOU have chosen to live by, but that is a very different thing than ME being against YOU. Think OM. Is it even legitimate to DEMAND faith? By your own teachings you must know this is untrue or at the very least a completely bogus venture! What would it MEAN if I were to have “faith” in your religious tenets if in fact, I did not truly feel that way? Would they not be found lacking? Is it possible OM, to DEMAND that I “believe” or more precisely to DEMAND that I believe what YOU believe simply because you DEMAND it?!

You are wrong, OM…. at least as regards to me. I do not hate nor despise you, I think you are wrong. And that is a very different thing than hating you or wishing your demise or any other such matter one might invent.

I once was very much like you OM, and at that time in my life I did not hate who I was…. so why should I hate you? I disagree with you, as I disagree with the right-wingers who….. in my view, are USING you and others like you…. who, at another time in my life, were just like me.

“As one of those “Rapture crazies”, I consider it my civic duty to stop you from ‘marginalizing’ anyone. 4 years ago I started posting here with that very theme. Nothing has changed!”

Gee, that really explains a lot. But not why you’re so proud of it. Most people are ashamed of displaying their stupidity and gullibility. The whole rapture thing is as one with the goggle-eyed superstition that ruled the Middle Ages and the very same thing led to the burning of ‘witches’ and the Inquisition. I don’t think we need any of that demented ignorance back again. I can see how useful it might be to the desperadoes in the Republican party but that doesn’t make it anything other than what it is.

Hmmmmmmmm….... Newt has been a Catholic
since his latest marriage, so Rapturists and
their ilk should abhor him—according to
their (surely educated) world view, JC is
god, while Catholics see JC as Junior,
mediating between us sinners and the Chief.
Whatever. If it´s profitable, they´ll go
along with anything and anyone.

Sodium said:

If those Rapture crazies are allowed to mix religion with politics and hence determine who should be elected and who should not,they would make “SHAWERMA”,out of our Bill of Rights. Therefore,the Left must marginalize the rapturists’ efforts,at every turn.

Truthdig serves to make Leftists feel justified in trying to limit the rights of others, and I do not allow such prejudiced, hateful, and nefarious plans to go along unmarked.

As one of those “Rapture crazies”, I consider it my civic duty to stop you from ‘marginalizing’ anyone. 4 years ago I started posting here with that very theme. Nothing has changed!

Lafayette said:

As I never tire in saying, there is no place for religion in politics. It can make of us no more nor any less than fundamentalist Talibans.

As I never tire of saying, Lafayette doesnt know what he is talking about.

Thankfully his ignorance doesnt have the power to rewrite our nation’s history or destroy its founding concepts. Whether any of you like it or not, we “Rapture crazies” are going to exercize our rights and be involved in politics just like everyone else.

Gingrich is just another insane fat fuck with an ego the size of his bloated head. Would any sane person take him seriously? Seems like a lot do. And there is the real insanity on a national scale. Pathetic.

I extremely enjoyed reading this article to the point that I giggled at times and was at the verge of crying at other times.

What I found fascinating, but also contradictory, about California is that it is considered a blue state, yet it produced two political personalities to high offices whom I consider the most stupid and dumb personalities in American History, who are actually a disgrace to America and to its much bragged about democracy. I am referring here to Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California, and then this same dumb stupid was elected as President, serving two terms. The other stupid was the second rate dumb actor known as “Swashnigger”- sorry I can’t even remember how to pronounce or spell his name, which is perfectly okay- but you know who is that womanizing immoral governor of California who drove the last nail in the coffin of California economy!

My point is that the California voters must be the most stupid voters on earth, for it seems they go after the false glitter of Hollywood, forgetting that not all that glitters is gold!

Going back to Gingrich; if Gingrich, another stupid immoral asshole, who is a bigot and a racist, wins the elections, then I will openly declare that Americans, in general, are the most stupid voters on earth, and I will put myself on fire in protest!

Don’t panic guys, seriously. There was a book a few years ago, the author’s name and title escapes me, but it had to do with a White House staffer who joined the Bush team out of religious conviction and was shocked to discover that Karl Rove and his guys considered the Rapture Ready, evangelical crowd to be a bunch of loonies good for manipulating to get votes. If Scientology could get Newt elected he would convert to an alien vessel over night.

If those Rapture crazies are allowed to mix religion with politics and hence determine who should be elected and who should not,they would make “SHAWERMA”,out of our Bill of Rights. Therefore,the Left must marginalize the rapturists’ efforts,at every turn.Otherwise,this country will end-up like Iran,ruled by a bunch of radical “Mullahs”,except they are evangelical"Christian Mullah”. America has done very well,as it kept,by a wise design,the State affairs seperated from the Church ones.

Off the cuff: the “moral Majority” of the late Rev.Jerry Falwell was allowed to tip the election in favor of Ronald Reagan,for the 1980 election. Sadly,since then the deregulation madness started at the American airports,(against flight controllers unionists). Ever since,the trends have been so obvious that an economic disaster was in the making. It has showed its ugly face in the 2007-2008,when the “smart boys” of Wall Street could no longer hide the huge loses that resulted from both excessive deregulations and corruptions. Even some Democrats went along for the deregulations madness until the economy went crashing so badly in 2007-2008,during George W.Bush’s second term.

Deregulations are the flourishing seeds for corruptions,not only in the United States,but world wide.

As the wise saying says: those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Rapturists and Ginrich? Too two extremes!

Please,give me a break!

The last sentence struck me particularly:  “After all, it’s the state where the entire population is born again, where everyone goes to start over, reinvent, make up stories about the past, present and future,...”  because it reminds us all that between those quotes lies the entire history of the USA, no less.

And so, looking at where the USA is today and where it is headed, the lesson should be crystal clear to all of us immigrants:  No matter where you go or how fast you run, there will be factors awaiting you which will get out of control if you let them.

as Obama himself did when he asked Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County’s Saddleback Church to give the invocation at his inauguration.

As I never tire in saying, there is no place for religion in politics. It can make of us no more nor any less than fundamentalist Talibans. (Taliban = students of the Islamic religion - aka “indoctrinated”.)

In God We Trust, yes - but in politics it is up to grassroots America to decide what is best for its interests. 

And that means education in policy making both economic and societal - which can be as boring as warm pee but is nonetheless necessary in order to obtain an educated opinion. Otherwise one is reduced to the mindless sound-bites of Fox News or even some intensely populist Leftist propaganda.

Gingrich’s ex-wife leaves LaHaye in the dust.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-wife/story?id=15392899#.TxhBYRyBWIw

at this point trying to make sense of what is senseless, is the basis of our lunatic
national political discussion. That’s what makes people crazy.

Did you ever think that going crazy keeps them from going insane?

So don’t bother…it is what it is.

Although people like LaHaye are lunatics and theocrats, the Newt endorsement isn’t much of a threat. Gingrich is a stone-cold opportunist who would sell his children to gain more votes. Consider that he switched denominations from Baptist to Catholic to please his wife, not exactly the sign of a die hard believer (and anyone who’s lived in or known Protesant homes or clergy knows what someone like LaHaye thinks about Catholicism behind closed doors).

If Gingrich were to go to war with Iran or someone else it would be for the same reasons Dick Cheney pushed for conflicts: Imperial expansion, oil, control of resources, geopolitical strategy against China etc. George W. was another matter…but it’s not as if he was really in charge of anything.