My well-intentioned friend, the Commie Pinko responded to my previous post. My responses are interstitial within his:
wow. okay, this will be easy:
1. obama's campaign did not approve the publication of the prayer nor did they distribute its contents beforehand. it's clear the paper is trying to find a defense against their possibly-illegal violation of privacy charges. the offending student who took the note has since apologized and the note has been returned.
EVR: And yet, Obama hasn’t denied it and the spokesman’s line, "We have neither confirmed nor denied the prayer to anyone" is pretty damn hazy.
2. while despicable to me (as both a political junkie and a secular humanist) the politicization of faith in american politics is nothing new. see such exhibits as:
A. GWB's lying about his conversion with billy graham, in order to curry political favor with evangelicals and be elected president.
EVR: Read the article and it doesn’t convince me that Bush lied. Graham didn’t outright say that he wasn’t the one to convert Bush (plus, I wouldn’t expect Graham to disregard humility and take credit for something as subjective as, “the moment I truly accepted jesus.”
This is in Stark contrast to Obama’s clearly political “come to jesus moment” when he was “interviewing" churches that could provide him with a black political face card: (click view single page, then word search for "Trinity United Church") http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
B. lieberman's embrace of a fundamentalist christian who preaches a gospel that praises the destruction and painful death of lieberman's very people via the rapture.
EVR: This is the most complex topic of the bunch. As a Jew, I understand the cognitive dissonance that a relationship with the fundamentalists inspires. I believe that Lieberman is a good man and an honest man and while I disagree with 90% of his politics, I’ll trust him that this wasn’t a political move. You may disagree, but I think it is highly subjective. What I know for a fact, is that in a world in which it seems that you’re still everyone’s scapegoat … in a world in which the land that we belong to (and belongs to us is questioned daily, threatened daily) we are faced with choosing friends that make strange bedfellows. I’d also say that since we don’t really believe in the fundamentalist version of the apocalypse, it’s easier to take their hand in friendship. Only the future knows the philosophical (and perhaps political) cost of this odd symbiosis.
C. and most galling of all, mccain's complete and utter flip-flop regarding jerry falwell and other "agents of intolerance". i strongly support mccain's 2000 position on this issue. this reversal is most disturbing.
EVR: Blah blah blah … McCain betrayed some values here for sure. But it’s different to accept support from one of these crazies than to sit in their church every Sunday for 20 years. This is no subtle distinction.
all-in-all, this entire "god triangulation" charge smacks of typical right-wing campaign smear jobs, where issues are not debated honestly (see: mccain's current crop of dishonest TV propaganda) and personal attacks on one's character substitute for political discourse (see: mccain's "would rather lose a war" nonsense).
EVR, i'm disappointed to hear your voice in that echo chamber.
EVR: I'll see you at 8p for dinner tonight you damn Commie Pinko. We'll slug it out more then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the internet makes disagreeing so much fun!
ReplyDeletegreat response (especially the lieberman question), but i have to add one thing regarding your response to my point C, expressed here in SAT form as:
mccain : agents of intolerance :: obama : "god damn america"
if we are to assume they both have compromised themselves politically in the these two situations and that both have "flip-flopped" on their respective positions, then we are left with the question (in so much as one could answer): which once is "worse".
i submit that flip flops can be "ok" (no matter what the late tim russet said) as long as the resulting change leads to the "more correct" stance. that change can be based on changes in underlying circumstances surrounding the issue, or solely on the ideals of representative democracy, or (more nefariously) raw political gain.
here, mccain was right when he labeled those fundamentalists as anti-american before, and now he isn't.
obama was wrong to countenance the views of an anti-american preacher for local political gain, and now he isn't.
to assume the worst, they both acted purely political. which is the better result?
and, yes, i'd maintain the exact same position if the results were reversed.