Letters to the Editor
-
I'm glad that what happenned, happenned
but someday we are going to have to deal with the question: are non-christians going to be granted the FULL rights of citizenship in this country or not.
-
Still as superior as ever
As a liberal Christian, I tend to cringe at a lot of talk by evangelicals, even more because of the smugness and superiority they betray than their politics. Cizik's statements show that, despite being somewhat agog at their abandonment by the Republican Party, evangelicals continue to insist only their way is correct. Rather than look for common ground with others, they insist the mountain come to them. "We don't need to go like supplicants to the political parties. We say, consider what our agenda is and join us." So much for the respectful discussion and compromise which is at the root of representative democracy.
-
Cheap Date
I think Cizik's "cheap date" metaphor is colorful and useful, but forgive me if I draw the line elsewhere.
Way back, when GWB was sparring for his party's nomination, he was in a televised Q&A session with other primary candidates. The panel was asked, "Who's your favorite political philosopher?" GWB answered, "Jesus Christ."
If the general evangelical response to that pronuncement was positive, they're a cheap date.
In a better world, citing JC as your political guide would then impose incredible expectations on your wit, wisdom, and primitive insight: For Bush, it was only the beginning of a free ride from a cheap date.
The metaphor grows in strength when you consider that, even for a cheap date, enough is eventually enough.
-
Um....
The strategy is not a zero-sum game in which one side has to lose for the other side to win. That is so passé and unfortunate.
Unfortunate it may be, but I'm pretty sure that is in fact exactly how it works.
-
Don't Look to Pawlenty
His win had more to do with his DLF opponent's missteps in the final days of the campaign. Pawlenty is a "snake."
-
yes, but they will be back
Unfortunately, nutball evangelicals never go away - they just skulk around in caves for a while and make new evil plots. While we momentarily have a break from their lunacy, rest assured that they will regroup and re-attack with renewed fervor - cuz the bible tells'em to.
-
It Wasn't A Landslide, Dude
So, Pawlenty, an Evangelical, won in a Democratic state?
The latest figures from the MN Secretary of State's website are:
Republican TIM PAWLENTY AND CAROL MOLNAU 1028581 46.69
Democratic-Farmer-Labor MIKE HATCH AND JUDI DUTCHER 1007466 45.73
He won by less than 1%. And I don't give a happy rat's patootie about Mr. Pawlenty's religious persuasion. The truth is, he doesn't care about outstate Minnesota. He's a Twin Cities suburban boy through and through, and that has become more than painfully obvious since he was first elected. You live outstate? Especially in a blue area outstate? Just shut up and pay your taxes and (greatly increased) fees and consider yourself lucky you're still allowed to live here.
-
Evangelicals want to be lied to
It's clear that evangelicals want to be lied to and that is why they have been such faithful Republicans for the past twenty odd years. They were pissed this year because the illusion of Republican officials sharing their values was lifted briefly. But don't fret, as long as there are no further or continuing prominent examples of how crooked, corrupt and cynical Republican office holders are, the evangelicals will go back to voting for the grand old party of greed and lies. They just want to hear those pols say the soothing words about hating Gays and about being "pro-life" and about giving creationism equal time in our classrooms and so on. They want to continue to live in a fantasy world where they can believe their demonstrably idiotic Christian fundamentalist dogma and where any politician will say anything to get elected. It's time to quit treating these morons with respect and to heap contempt upon their outdated and obviously false religious doctrines and the foolishness required to give any credibility to those childish and laughable beliefs.
-
Faith and word choice
Lauren-
If you use the term "pro-life Catholic" then you sound like you are anti-choice. Are you? As a writer you should think more about language. I am pro-life. Maybe Idi Amin was a pro-death person, I would hope that most people are not that way. People who support a woman's right to chose - people who are "pro-choice" are not also "pro-death." If you think that pro-choice people are "pro-death" maybe you should be writing for the Drudge Report and not for Salon.
Bluehammock
-
wake up.
wake up salonistas.
here you have an evangelical christian coming to you and
saying :
1) christianity is not tied to the GWB's apron.
2) greed is bad (specifically idolatrous)
3) the war is quite possibly wrong
What is the appropriate response for those involved in
building a centre/left platform?
It should be to drive the environment as a wedge between
the GOP and the evangelical christian movement.
It should be to understand and take advantage of the
common ground between, yes, evangelical christianity
and the cause of the centre left.
It should be to use the idea of greed above as a common weapon
against the right.
Instead, we have, alas, the predictable tribal responses.
Some criticize Cizik for being superior. Others
are for being stupid. Others quibble bitterly about
percentage points. I don't see *one* balanced response.
Has your modest victory (is it really 1 senate seat)
really turned your heads, made you even more complacent
about the cause of the disenfranchised in the US?
Wake up. It's past time to evangelize the cause of the
centre/left amongst the evangelists.
-
Get Out of My Tent!
Many of these letters demonstrate perfectly why the Left usually has an uphill battle. This interview describes many people who in 2006 shared the Democrats' vision--opposition to the Iraq war, cleaning up corruption, and fiscal responsibility--and voted red for a change. There were many very close races on Tuesday. If a few thousand Christian voters *hadn't* supported Webb and Tester, the Democrats wouldn't be running the Senate. But these letter-writers seem opposed to finding common ground by embracing the newcomers (some of whom are "anti-choice", Bluehammock, but probably wouldn't have voted for Democrats who used your polarizing fringe dialect). It seems that these folks would have rather lost the election than create the left-center coalition with "these morons"--the coalition that won the House and Senate.
When they're on their game, the Republicans do a much better job accepting other views in their big tent. They generally don't have candidates like Nader and Parker fighting to split the vote for Gore and Webb. This was a critical factor that got Bush elected in 2000. For the Democrats to have a prayer of taking the White House in 2008, we'll have to make more friends, not more enemies.