And in one precious piece sums up both the incestuous state of conservative opinion online and it’s very real cliquish power.
Let me summarize the arguments: Perry has governing experience. The other candidates don’t. Except for Romney and Huntsman, who lack Perry’s swagger and drawl and the kind of manly Texas red state appeal we haven’t seen since, well, the last Republican president who made his “compassionate conservative” leanings available. Meanwhile, Newt was booted from a leadership role by his own party. Santorum lost big running as a conservative at a time the GOP was telling us the era of Reagan is dead — which naturally means he can’t win at a time when conservatism is once again ascendant. And Bachmann? Well, you know, Gardasil. Not to mention those eyes. I mean, c’mon.
Look: I put Perry on my list of candidates I’d happily support when I made my own feeble (and largely ignored) “endorsement” yesterday; but watching Perry fumble through the debates — and listening to his most ardent supporters consistently (and often nastily) dismiss strong conservatives candidates — has made me wary, frankly. I mean, the same people who are so full-throated in their support for Perry wouldn’t dream of making a case for Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, or even Cain? Why?
This strikes me as odd. And worrisome. Because it is precisely the kind of counsel that has previously and vocally dismissed as unhelpful the kind of Hobbity True Believers most consistently critical of, eg., Boehner’s GOP leadership and legislative “compromises.” And how’s that working out for us?
— Which isn’t to say such counsel isn’t conservative; rather, it is to suggest that many of its mouthpieces, who would likely describe themselves as “realistic,” aren’t particularly thrilled at being labeled “conservative” if conservatism attaches itself too strictly to the left’s cartoonish portrayal (and definition) of what comes to count as “conservative.”
A losing battle, of course, in that the GOP candidate will always be labeled a conservative extremist — and that the further leftward s/he is when that progressive media tactic reaches its fever pitch, the further leftward we’ll be counseled to position ourselves going forward in order to avoid being tethered to such right wing extremists.
Why?
Santorum and Bachmann aren’t presidential – they’re whores who made their bones the cheapest way imaginable – pandering stridently to undiscerning bigoted evangelicals… Perry’s much the same, yes, but he’s acquitted himself well in actual governance
it’s not apples to apples with those three
what we’re seeing is nobody wants to nominate anyone what’s overmuch gotten their social con freak on
people want a uniter
and the closest one this campaign has produced is Gingrich, followed by, God help us, odious catalog model Wall Street Romney
Shut up, bigotfeet.
Part time Congress is intriguing. Obama would be running against a “Do nothing Congress” and Perry could say, “Right! They shouldn’t be full time. And while we’re at it, the president SHOULD be full time, and I’m not addicted to golf like Bagger Vance here. Here’s some balls. You could use them.”
Priceless.
(sorry Ernst. I’m a needler)
This video is a good one to see both the strength and weaknesses of Perry. Video link is on the right side of the page.
One of the odder things overlooked concerning the insurrection against Gingrich back in the day was who it was the caucus chose as replacement: first it appeared to be Bob Livingston — oops, adulterer alert, do-overs ! — and finally became Dennis Hastert. Both able men, no doubt. But too, let’s notice, both consummate insider types of the sort we have now in John Boehner, Livingston even more so than Hastert. Water-smoothers extraordinaire. And boy-howdy, did Denny give it to ’em smooth and hard.
I’m a Perry supporter- full disclosure – and Jeff, you made some good points. One thing about those debates that hasn’t seen much airplay is the injury and surgery to Perry’s back. I’m in a business where I deal with back and neck injuries all day, every day, and Perry’s demeanor was very much in keeping with someone who had major back surgery. I commented to a friend with whom I was watching the second debate that Perry just didn’t look comfortable up on stage and when the surgery news came out, it made a little more sense. The pain from back surgery can be debilitating and is generally treated with a pretty serious doses of pain meds for the first fews weeks after- and I’m sure he was rejecting pain medication at least during the debate (imagine the scandal – “Candidate debates on Oxy” if that news ever got out). So if the primary debates are the major reason you’re not considering Perry (this is directed to people in general, not at Jeff), I urge you to take a second look. He has some drawbacks, I grant you, but I think in general, we can trust a former governor of Texas far more than we can trust a Mass. “conservative” and a oddly shaped former professor and policy wonk. I’d like to see a Perry/Bachman ticket, personally. However, as I’ve stated before, I will support, volunteer and vote for any Republican who wins the primary not named Ron Paul.
Perry is still their man over at Red State, even if Erick Erickson is still checking to see which way the wind blows before making his endorsement. An endorsement, which of course, will make all the difference. There are several diaries about how Perry is the man. Some are rather simplistic, some are poorly written, some are very well written and make excellent points.
I do not see either Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum as presidential timber. It is the same problem I have with Romney, I just don’t like them. Albeit, in contrast to Romney who is as bendy as Gumby, Santorum and Bachmann and both very strident and inflexible.
Ron Paul, while not necessarily crazy, acts in a crazy manner. He also seems much older than his years. His devotees will vote for him and the rest of us can hope he doesn’t gain any traction.
If Newt gets the nod, I don’t know what I’ll do. I don’t trust him even if he is the smartest guy in the room. Look where that got us last time. And the worst part is, Newt is not a bumbling stumblefuck like Obama.
You know, I want to like Perry. But he’s the guy who keeps insisting that we should institute a no-fly zone over Syria. Which is dumb. Because it would be pointless. Unless you adopt the Obama redefinition of the term which means “blow up anything that moves”.
You’d think that he’d have someone in his camp that would straighten him out. Either he doesn’t, or he isn’t listening. I can look past making a mistake. I can’t look past an insistence on making the same mistake over and over.
if we dropped down to one pandery social con instead of three I think that one would at least have a chance to break through
especially if it were Perry but barring him then Bachmann
I’m not super big on charisma but Santorum’s is negative… like he has anti-charisma
Because you Googled him or something.
Again, shut up, bigotfeet. Adults are trying to talk.
undiscerning bigoted evangelicals
heh … talk about pots and kettles …
and since I’ve never seen anything to suggest that Bachmann or Santorum are not sincere in their beliefs, “pandering” isn’t what they are doing.
But, of course, those icky god-botherers shouldn’t have any representation… maybe there should be an amendment that bars people who are church/synagogue members from voting.
Somebody has found a way to deal with The American Taliban one bullet at a time.
Ace and I had an interesting Twitter back and forth about this post. Personally, I think he misreads my motives. And he seems to think I’ve misread Joy’s.
So it goes.
Best I can do is make the argument — which I believe is clearly in keeping with the kind of arguments I’ve long made here and that so interest me (how narratives are disseminated and become ossified, which rhetorical ploys are most effective at driving narrative, how narratives become ascendant and how they are replaced with new ascendant narratives) — and let you all decide.
The idea that I somehow take in interest in these kinds of things because it gives me a chance to point out what isn’t being pushed and why, certainly does hold a personal interest for me; but to therefore dismiss these discussions as thinly-veiled complaints about my own place in the pecking order of conservative opinion is to dismiss the trove of similar posts and discussions that took place well before I saw a certain private email train from a certain lawyer a couple years back.
Truth is, these are the kinds of things that interest those with a background in rhetoric, argument, narrative and interpretation theory, and semiotics. One need not look for ulterior motives. Though one certainly can if one wishes to.
Believing there are such things as moral absolutes will do that to you.
I remember reading a story in Reader’s Digest around about 1964 or so concerning a lady found dead in her crashed car alongside a road running parallel to L.I. Sound in Connecticut: she had been traveling east. Turned out, she had a small bullet hole just behind her right ear, and didn’t simply crash her car. It further came to light through a series of fortunate breaks in the investigation that the bullet had been fired by a fellow on a boat far far away, couple of miles I think, deflected off the surface, then traveled the great distance to pass through the open right rear window of the unlucky lady’s car whereupon to enter her brain and kill her. I think it was calculated that had the window been shut the bullet wouldn’t have had the energy to penetrate her skull.
Not that this is certain to be what has happened in Ohio, but then . . .
Who in their right mind would be interested those things? [grin]
pretty close Mr. sdferr
Which in turn leads to asking if their moral absolutes are absolutely moral. And if so, by whose lights?
Hey grazi hf, hadn’t seen that.
Is the certainty of the moral framework that offends you? Or the fact that they don’t feel the need to apologize for subscribing to it?
As enshrined in the compact that gives our nation its contours.
Seriously. It’s not at all smart to point out the rather pedestrian fact that we have no earthly metaphysical referee to decide on the rectitude of one morality over another. Nor does having done so lead to “all opinions and moralities carry equal weight.”
Whether you accept Judeo-Christian morality because you believe it on a religious level, or whether you must adhere to it because it is written into the laws that inscribe our nation, doesn’t much matter. Such parameters, legally enshrined, are what make sovereign nations.
Neither. I’m just asking since they (Bachmann and Santorum) seem to be coming at their moral absolutes from two polarized sets of Cathecisms. But, perhaps not. They are both splinterers. Bachmann left the already splintered branch of the Evangelical Lutheran Church for whatever it is she is doing now. Santorum has left the RC church for the old Latin Rite church of which he can have only scanty memories since the Second Vatican Council took place when we were tots (he is only some few months older than I).
Jeff, I am well aware that not all philosophies are equal.
And that matters because…?
(And this started with your statement that they’re both strident and inflexible, so you’re not really asking anything, are you?)
it’s a lot demonstrable that at least this batch of moral absolutists has a fairly limited appeal to actual for real Americans
And the country is in such super shape, too!
Definitive!
you’re being sarcastic
Strange how this thread contains a somewhat hidden allegory for the Obama presidency:
“Now my muzzleloader is empty. Look what I’ve accomplished! And in such a short time too!”
It matters because they are running for President of the United States, Ernst. It matters because in their inflexible stridency they will be appointing members of the Supreme Court. They will be overseeing appointees to the Cabinet.
Just proclaiming that they are staunch and will defend the Constitution of the United States means…not too much after the last few years.
For some reason, I have this vision of Jeff tearing his hair out in frustration about now.
alp, I don’t buy Obama’s swift accomplishment was an accident.
That would be unfortunate, Ernst.
Well Lee, the hunter emptied his muzzleloader into the air on purpose. At least that’s how I understand it.
Happy Channuka, y’all.
…..and the rest was unintentional. That’s where you have a point.
leigh I’m sorry but that makes no sense to me unless you believe that conservatives aren’t conservatives, their anti-progressives (in the bearded Spock mirror universe sense of anti-).
True, but he didn’t first say he was going to fundamentally transform the girls skull.
some endorsements are better than others
link
He fundamentally transformed the gun into a club.
Just proclaiming that they are staunch and will defend the Constitution of the United States means…not too much after the last few years.
No. It means EVERYTHING. The current crop of candidates either will not, or in the past have not defended the constitution. That’s the entire problem.
For some reason, I have this vision of leigh clutching her pearls in horror about now.
Let me put it this way Lee, since we’re starting to sound like two dudes arguing over whether the roach looks like a TR-7 or Nixon’s head: The hunter said, “I will empty this gun and make it safe for everyone. And after this gun is emptied there will be no danger of anyone ever getting hurt by it again. Blam!! See how I’ve made the world safe from this gun.”
And Obama’s an idiot.
Actually the entire problem is MEANING itself, which is why I suggested Jeff might be fundamentally transforming his pate about now.
Karl Maldin, not Nixon.
Geez, you’re messed up…
Obama’s idiocy, like Pelosi’s and Reid’s is ephemeral. It’s the systemic idiocy that we have to worry about.
I’m not a pearl-clutcher, Lee. But thatnks for thinking of me, sweetie.
people want a uniter
Mind you, this comes from the vermin who has done more to divide this community than anybody since Thor.
Heh. The crux of it is that I don’t trust any one of them to mean what they say in the mad rush to get elected. Well, maybe Ron Paul, bless his isolationist anti-semitic black heart.
People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling, as said Dr. Cox on Scrubs.
It matters because in their inflexible stridency they will be appointing members of the Supreme Court. They will be overseeing appointees to the Cabinet.
Appointees needing to be confirmed by the Senate.
Really, why the clutching of pearls over sincere Christians? They have a lot more in common with American principles then the radical Obama and his anti-religious fellow travelers who merely wink and nod towards The Creator while supporting the Bowlderization of the public square of all those icky god-botherers.
Except for the inflexibly strident stuff, right? I mean, they must mean that or they wouldn’t be unelectable.
For some reason, I have this vision of leigh clutching her pearls in horror about now.
Whoops … I stepped on Lee’s line!
I didn’t say they were unelectable, Ernst. Obviously, they are electable or they wouldn’t have been elected prior to this race to the White House. I said I won’t vote for them. I already started not voting for Rick Santorum when I lived in Pennsylvania. I have a head start.
What the fuck is wrong with being stridently inflexible?
Would you compromise by reinstating slavery in a few of the states? Or would you remain stridently inflexible in your stand against slavery? Does that make a divider?
Good for you, coming out for Obama this early. You’ve managed to beat Frum to it, and that was no small feat.
I didn’t say they were unelectable[.] I said I won’t vote for them.
Then I misunderstood your reasons for not seeing Bachmann & Santorum as being of presidential timber.
No room in the public sphere for unvarnished expressions of a faith-based worldview, eh?
Does that make YOU a divider?
Bah. Too little sleep, too much work.
“What the fuck is wrong with being stridently inflexible?”
Leigh is stridently inflexible when it comes to voting for a social con, so…it’s subjective.
And really, how could you be more flexible than that?
Principles are inconvenient.
That’s not accurate. I’ve been rather vocal in my support of Governor Perry.
“I’ve been rather vocal in my support of Governor Perry”
Yes you have. He’s very rigid you know.(back surgery, bada boom!)
We were talking about Santorum though, and why you wouldn’t vote for him. Something about Supreme Court nominees and inflexibility?
Nah, I’ll hazard a guess and say it’s ‘cuz of the evil evangelical bigot christianist thing.
Wanna read a beautiful celebratory urging, rightly in keeping with the spirit of America and the spirit of the hour? Try James Madison, Federalist 14, conclusion:
*Hint* The title of the thread is “Blogger Makes the Case for Rick Perry…” regardless of the thread having frctured into discussions of muzzle-loaders, &c.
Perry is an Evangelical Christian while Rick Santorum is a Tridentine (Latin Rite) Catholic. I support Rick Perry and I am a Catholic. You may now set fire to your strawman.
The other morning I was stridently inflexible because I slept in a bad position. Took me half an hour to regain flexibility, but I stayed strident pretty much the whole day.
Now I regret not having had the opportunity to appoint somebody to Obama’s Cabinet during that half hour. That would have been entertaining.
Ron Paul Says Accused Traitor is a Patriot
“Perry is an Evangelical Christian while Rick Santorum is a Tridentine (Latin Rite) Catholic.”
Did not know that. Personally, I don’t care.
Why exactly don’t you like Santorum? I’ll admit, now you have me confused.
I think it’s the Perry is of presidential timber while Bachmann and Santorum are not, presumeably because presidential timber is soothing and flexible, that has people curious leigh.
Into this thread I’m going to insert this highly entertaining Mark Steyn essay (BIRM). Some gems:
As long as Santorum isn’t a Lefebvre-ite, I don’t see the problem, it’s not like the Tridentine rite is prohibited.
And even if he were that would by itself only be disqualifying if this were an officially Catholic country with a religious test for public officers.
Same for Bachmann. Or Romney for that matter, whose Mormonism isn’t the problem; at least as I see it.
baracky to have an interesting june
link
people want a uniter
Under what banner, feets? One that we can all get behind? How about something neutral like HOPE? Or CHANGE, mayhap?
The only way to unite 300 million free people who believe that they have a right to live as their conscience dictates is to force a sizeable portion of them to drop their beliefs and accept the “consensus.”
Cheer it on, feets, while you say adios to our little Republic.
Sowell and McCarthy as counter-points to the Steyn piece di linked.
another pundit implodes
Ann Coulter: I Would Prefer Ron Paul Over Newt Gingrich (Video)
whose Mormonism isn’t the problem
Thing is, most Mormons are more like Sen. Mike Lee. We believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired to protect religious and other liberties. The Book of Mormon is rife with examples of people having to fight for their liberty (and their rule-of-law gubmint) against all kinds of enslavers, including the intellectual elites, who more often than not opened the gates to their enemies in exchange for power in the new order of things.
Romney claims that he was pro-choice because a relative of his bled to death after a botched abortion. Most Mormons would wonder what the Sam Hill she was doing getting an abortion in the first place.
One of BYU’s mottos is “Enter to learn; go forth to serve,” and it’s jokingly said to be “Enter to learn; go forth to earn.” The LDS are almost TOO capitalist in some ways (as long as I put God first, I can get as rich as I want [but for many, the money is actually first]), but take a good look at the LDS welfare program and you’ll see something that strives to help the helpless without creating dependency.
Mitt is really frustrating for many of us, because he seems to be trying to have it both ways: be Mr. Wholesome Mormon Guy without fighting tooth and nail for the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Rick Perry has executive experience as the governor of the great state of Texas. Texas, like California, is a mini-nation within the United States and thus presents unique challenges to its governance and part of the challenges it presents are in its vast land mass and lengthy border with a foreign country. Over the past ten years, Texas has suffered two huge hurricanes, absorbed the refugees of Hurricane Katrina, dealt with wildfires and a fearsome drought.
Texas has no state income tax. It has a balanced budget amendment. It has a part-time legislature. It is business friendly.
Neither Pennsylvania nor Minnesota can boast any of the above. And, most importantly (to me), neither Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum has exectutive experience. Their states are not business friendly. Pennsylvania never met a tax it didn’t love. Occupational Privalidge Tax? You’re on! That’s right, you pay a $10 fee annually for the right to go to your job in the private sector.
Is it an open question whether the political principles of America are fundamentally religious as such? Or is even the question not in order?
No, the Tridentine Rite is not prohibited. I have some old school relatives who attend a Tridentine Church.
The question is most definately in order, sdferr. Thank you for the Madison piece.
Sdferr, the question is of course in order.
But please define “religious” in that context.
So Perry’s had it easy, is what you’re saying? [grin]
Shit stirring aside, what’s the bigger problem, the lack of a check mark next to the “State Governor” box on the questionaire or the fact that they represent(ed) blue states?
The question is in order, but there is no doubt that a certain vocal segment tries it’s hardest to make any association between religion and politics a taboo.
Neither Pennsylvania nor Minnesota can boast any of the above.
You take that back! I’m the only thing standing between you and the ravening hordes of Winnipeg.
I’d prefer the religious to define religious Lee, as that would seem to be much safer ground on which to build.
*Hint* The title of the thread is “Blogger Makes the Case for Rick Perry…” regardless of the thread having frctured into discussions of muzzle-loaders, &c.
Not “of muzzleloaders” but of a man who empties his ml into the sky, thinking he’s doing something good, but the unintended consequence is an innocent killed, which, in one’s opinion, could be an excellent analogy for Obamacare, which Rick Perry would repeal and he would also try to make government inconsequential in Americans’ lives, thereby preventing anymore idiot-bullet-in-the-sky-incidents.
So really, the muzzleloader was right on point.
The question is in order, but there is no doubt that a certain vocal segment tries it’s hardest to make any association between religion and politics a taboo.
As with all things, it’s largely a matter of the Left perverting and redefining history to suit its own desires. What should properly be understood as a framework that prevents the establishment of a state religion in order to allow all citizens to worship as they please, has been twisted to become a framework that prevents the devout of any faith from serving in the government.
The “No Religious Test” clause of the Constitution was meant to protect the rights of every faith and creed against religious persecution and bigotry. The Left would prefer the clause to mean that religious people of any stripe shouldn’t be trusted to serve, which is precisely the opposite intent. Go figure.
I’m inclined to strangle sdferr’s line of inquiry in it’s crib by pointing out that, for some, politics is a religion; that, for others, secularism is a religion; that the Enlightenment was a substitute for religion, and therefore a religion, and thus the question is moot regardless of whether the Framers looked more to Athens than to Jerusalem (or vice versa) for their guiding principles.
[…] Ace hates “innocent little 12-year-old girls” . . . But I hate to talk about “the incestuous state of conservative opinion online,” when the easy way out is to blame Ladd Ehlinger Jr. for stirring up trouble again.Because […]
ho ho ho
School District Bans Santa Over Religious Concerns
Umm, well I ask because I don’t consider myself particularly religious, though I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and I worship Him.
Religion is a system of worship, but it’s also a ritual observance of…whatever.
If it’s the first case, the answer to your question is no. One doesn’t worship government if one adheres to it’s founding principles. If the second, a conditional yes. The founding principles should be strictly observed, and rituals have their place.
Maybe I’m missing the point of your question altogether? =)
Oh, #89 for #83.
That’s a good way to close it out Ernst. Thanks.
Here’s where your analogy fails alp: Obama is Beyond Good and Evil, so it doesn’t really matter what you think he was thinking, because you’re incapable of thinking like him, and thus cannot appreciate why he does the things he does.
Bow before the Lisan al-Gaib, lest Shai-Halud take you!
We might as well sdferr unless we’re going to define our terms up front, don’t you think?
Might as well what, Ernst?
Some on the right like to suggest that any mention of religion by politicians is a pander to the uneducated Jesus rubes. Principles are fine unless they are expressed as sourced from some branch of Abraham’s school of “He da one yo”. In which case just give us your vote and shut up.
School District Bans Santa Over Religious Concerns
Why? Did somebody put him in a Manger? Learn the jolly old elf shared a name with 4th century saint? Fear there might be an outbreak of sudden Jihadi syndrome?
Some on the right like to suggest….
That would be the fucking idiot right Makewi.
Santa must die. Long live “the Holidays!”
In the most general sense, a religious belief is any answer to a religious question.
For example: “Is there a Supreme Being?” qualifies as a religious question; ergo, any answer to that question—yes, no, I don’t know, maybe, who cares?—constitutes a religious belief.
Other religious questions include:
• Is there another existence for us besides this mortal one?
• What is the purpose of life, if any?
• What is ethical and why should we care?
The DoI and Constitution establish some very definitive givens about what is ethical vis-à-vis government:
1) The worst political evil is tyranny.
2) A government is legitimate (ethical, valid) only insofar as it derives its powers from the consent of the governed.
3) Every human is born with inalienable rights, endowed by their Creator (be it God or Nature), and a government that impinges on those rights is unethical and illegitimate.
4) Governments are a necessary evil to ensure that citizen rights are not impinged.
5) Humans cannot be trusted to not abuse power, so only the barest power should be allocated to government, and what is allocated should be divided up to inhibit power monopolization.
Etc.
Those can be construed as religious beliefs because they answer religious questions about the nature of man and what constitutes the ethical and legitimate use of government power.
Of course, there is considerable overlap with what people call secular philosophy, but that doesn’t mean it’s not also religious.
Might as well close it out, sdferr.
Of course that only makes sense if the question was a topic for discussion for tonight’s meetin of the PW master debaters club. Having reread the question, I think it safe to say that you weren’t asking what I thought you were asking. So never mind me.
I wouldn’t frame it that way Ernst, and he certainly isn’t the only one. But yes, the one to whom you refer would certainly be an example. I should point out that while I have had my differences with a certain little Pikachu, I do generally like him.
He just seems to have an irrational fear of white Jesus cock blocking. And vaginas.
I wonder whether the lawgiving founders themselves looked at the political principles — such as the application of the aforementioned theory of the separation of powers — as religious as such? I don’t know, but don’t incline that way so much, if only because as Madison himself puts it “they pursued a new and more noble course.” To be sure, novelties do arise on religious grounds, and perhaps Mormonism is one such example. But I don’t believe this sort of phenomenon was what Madison had in mind when speaking of “new”.
[…] least, not for Jeff, whose blog I can’t comment on for what are probably technical reasons. (When I signed in, it […]
On the other hand, I’m also aware of Lincoln’s formulation in the Lyceum Address:
“But I don’t believe this sort of phenomenon was what Madison had in mind when speaking of “new”.”
What phenomenon is that?
The rise of Mormonism.
I’d suggest that the new course is meant to protect religious expression as much as it is to protect political expression from being co-opted by the strongest group claiming the one true message.
The degree of cynicism and/or condecension you described is symptomatic of a kind of fucking idiocy found more often on the left but no unheard of on the right. I was referring to the species more than any particular specimen, Makewi.
Sdferr, are suggesting Madison was speaking specifically to a secular “new”, to the detriment of any faith that may “rise”?
He was a federalist, wasn’t he?
are you. Sheesh…
“. . . that the new course is meant to protect religious expression as much as it is to protect political expression from being co-opted by the strongest group claiming the one true message.”
That could be Makewi, and I’d bet you or others could make a good case for it too. I think religious tolerance, however, was a reasonably widespread idea in America for a fairly long time prior to the rebellion against the King and the writing of the Constitution, though there were controversies embroiling Madison himself in Virginia, contra Patrick Henry, among others, on questions of religious tolerance even after that time. But again, I’m thinking Madison had other things in mind (as for instance in particular the architecture — so to speak — of the Constitution as the question at hand), things not exclusive of religious tolerance, but not confined to it either.
“. . . are suggesting Madison was speaking specifically to a secular “new”, to the detriment of any faith that may “rise”?”
I don’t think any thought of detriment was involved Lee. I just don’t think Madison saw the political cobbling done in Philadelphia in the light of religious revelation — even allowing for claims of “providential” blessings in the event. It’s pretty clear nearly everyone, if not all, of the men involved were nothing short of astonished at what they had done, but I’m still not persuaded that they saw the doing as something done to them or by an agency outside them, as opposed to, by them and on their own agency.
Michigan has your back in fending off the ravages of the Ontario Naval Forces.
from they haven’t done it right dept.
Whoopi Goldberg: Communism Is ‘a Great Concept’ That ‘Makes Perfect Sense’ on Paper
I am eternally grateful to Squid and geoffb for protecting us from the Canadian menace.
If you’d ever spent any time in either da UP (eh) or da Rainge, you’d know you’re not as safe as they want you to think you are.
Commies aren’t the only sneaky infiltrators.
Perpetual-motion machines also make sense on paper, plus can you imagine what a clean source of energy they’d make?
Even da Vinci tried to make one, but he obviously wasn’t advanced enough to do it right.
You’re right Ernst. We even had one of the snowbacks as Governor till last year. Detroit however is the weak point in the defensive line.
Here’s the thing though: If you think communism makes sense on paper, you’ve never actually looked at it on paper.
Governor Jenny should have cemented the idea of amending your state constitution to preclude that happening in the future, geoffb.
I think the reason they closed the Soudan mine down was because we delved too greedily and too deep, and accidently awoke something that was best left asleep beneath the Canadian shield.
And the Edmund Fitzgerald? They only want you to think that the November winds came early.
And the Canadian river way the hell down there in Okie-land? You know what they have planned for that, right?
It’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers man:’ they’re already here!
Benedict Arnold turned traitor after he invaded Canada.
You know what I’m saying?
We tried to fend them off back in the day, at least the Fenians did. And an ill-fated try it was, charging the Canucks on their own land.
That’s probably where it all started, the infiltration, I mean, so that we never tried that stuff again!
Don’t forget how “Terrance and Phillip” have undermined an entire generation of Colorado’s children.
All those Canadian beers that were trendy 25 years ago probably had something to do with letting our guard down.
on the top 40 tonight. here’s ernst’s request.
The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald
You can take tours in the UP to see all of the shipwrecks. Pretty cool.
Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum. Visited there in 2005 during a UP vacation.
Don’t forget “Terrance and Phillip”
Or what Canadian TV has done first to syndication Da Vinci’s Inquest? really?) and now summer “first” runs (Flashpoint, Rookie Blue) Next thing you know, the Canadians are gonna have us thinking their cities are their cities instead of cheap stand-ins for New York or Los Angeles!
I thought you went to the UP to take in the color and maybe the waterfalls.
That plus get the picture I use on my Twitter page.
The Latin Rite is part of the Catholic church, Santorum has not left the Church merely chosen how to celebrate the Mass.
That’s correct, ThomasD. I was typing too fast since I had a lot to do today and not a lot of time to edit my replies.
My point was to be that the Tridentine Church clelbrates the Mass in latin as well as having some stricter interpretations of church doctrine.
clelbrates=celebrates
I need to trim my nails.
Santorum is ahead of the curve, apparently.
Everything old is new again, etc. Except Disco, blessedly.
Leigh, are you Catholic?
Could you please tell me where this Tridentine Church that Santorum attends is located? Or where any Tridentine Church is located?
Yes, I am a Roman Catholic.
Pablo, that story is behind a paywall. Is it referring to the new liturgy?
I’m not getting a paywall, leigh, but yes.
Leigh, you might want to visit your Parish and obtain some guidance on what constitutes a Church and a Rite. You are woefully misinformed. There is no Tridentine Church within the Catholic Church, and the Tridentine Rite does not differ substantially from the Western Rite in matters of Catholic Doctrine. It can’t – they are merely different manners of expressing the exact same faith.
link
I know that, Thomas. It was a mistake on my part. After all, I knew what I meant.
it is difficult to get back to the written word. go penumbras!
What was a mistake?
Misrepresenting the facts regarding Santorum?
Or misrepresenting the facts regarding the Church?
It wasn’t a willful misrepresentation of either.
Santorum and his family attend a Catholic church that celebrates the Latin Rite Mass. He himself has mentioned many times in interviews both past and present.
Sheesh Thomas, leigh referred to the Rite in her first mention of the subject.
No one expects the PW Inquisition!
“Perpetual-motion machines also make sense on paper, plus can you imagine what a clean source of energy they’d make?”
Maybe in some other universe, dicentra, but not this one.
No Sdferr Leigh first mentioned a “Latin Rite church“. There is no such thing.
She then proceded to double down on the misinformation with these
Santorum has left the RC church…
Tridentine Church clelbrates the Mass in latin as well as having some stricter interpretations of church doctrine.
Neither of which are remotely accurate. For a non Catholic to confuse these issues would not be particularly noteworthy. That an ostensible Catholic is making these misrepresentations is not something that should be allowed to go unaddressed, lest no-Catholics mistake them for the truth.
Last paragraph HTML fail
blossom of snow may you bloom and grow! bloom and grow
forever.
It just looks a petty pursuit to this non-Catholic. But do carry on.
Yes matters of faith often strike non-believers as petty.
Your point was?
My point was merely that it doesn’t look that picayune has the thunder it used to have, I guess.
I’m just a member of the Church, not an official. In the fashion of most human beings, I tend to make mistakes and I have already stated that I didn’t mean to mislead and am sorry if I did so.
I don’t think anything will come of addressing leigh’s putative misunderstandings of the latinyness of the masses what radical social con Rick Santorum attends or does not attend with his creepy lumpen stepford family
But do carry on.
Rick Santorum has about as much chance of becoming POTUS as I do.
Sdferr, calling someone an apostate is picayune???
Leigh, I took no particular offense, I just wanted to get the fundamentals addressed.
Are you calling someone an apostate Thomas? I didn’t think so, anyhow.
I wonder if something would come of you being an irredeemable bigot, ‘feets.
An apostate would be someone who has left the Church. The reference is to #23.
Sdferr, Santorum was described as having left the Roman Catholic Church.
I just don’t understand this idea we should elect fervently religious people to high office. I don’t think that’s the safest place to put them.
Asked and answered, Thomas.
Sure Pablo, but it’s relatively plain to me, after the middling series of exchanges that leigh had somewhat garbled her thoughts on the subject, misspeaking at least a little, confessing that and so on. All in all, not exactly raining a claim of outright apostasy down on Sen. Santorum (and I think clearly not at the late point at which I entered that conversation).
my favorite jesusy person likes to have me over for martinis in her garage where she can smoke and we talk about cormac mccarthy and ideas for her garden
wow that stock market sure did get in the egg nog today wot
Happy, you can buy egg whites in a carton at Walmart for the Tom & Jerrys. I saw them there today.
Sdferr, to put this in perspective you might relate to, consider the ‘garbling’ was something akin to confusing nomos for phusis. Perhaps that is not an ideal analogy, but to the uninformed, or otherwise causal reader of Greek literature, these are merely picayune ancient Greek terminology. While to a student of classical philosophy such confusion would be a rather telling deficit of understanding.
I have carton egg whites already! I probably should google the recipe. But not tonight cause of tonight I have (small) bottle of Tito’s new other guy bought me. Gack.
So then I had to get him something.
I spent more than he did plus I got it professionally wrapped.
That’s how much I can’t stand him.
Thomas, I don’t misunderstand the importance of getting the fundamental distinctions down correctly, if my own impoverished expression of my distaste for your pursuit of leigh be misunderstood for any dismissal of the crucial importance of those distinctions themselves. Indeed, I welcome the clarity of purpose, though I’d welcome it better in a cheerier context. What I found trivial was the focus on leigh, not the distinctions between doctrine and Rite, Rite and Church, or Church and church building or congregation.
peeps that don’t do html are funny
plus can you imagine what a clean source of energy they’d make?”
Maybe in some other universe, dicentra, but not this one.
Defeatist. Denier. I suppose you also want people to freeze to death in the winter, you shill for Big Entropy, you.
Sdferr, Leigh issued the statements. Hence Leigh was the focus.
You are perhaps not aware that Leigh has previously displayed a propensity to play fast and loose with allegations regarding Santorum.
That a certain other was standing ready to note the ‘ickiness’ that inevitably follows discussion of persons of faith, such ickiness’ being predicated on the perpetuation of falsehoods by people otherwise committed to the proposition of non-stridency being, at the very least, curious when considered that the error always seems to fall in one direction. Birds of a feather and all that.
Good cheer is predicated on good will, your apparent display of distaste cannot overcome that.
This video of a fifteen year old playing guitar is worth a watch. I can’t decide if I wish I had this type of brain or if it’s better not to so that it’s easier to be completely impressed by such talents.
Ace says it’s super-important that Rick Perry is still fucking some hoochie he met at an elementary school and he should be president.
Ace decides who should be president different than how I do it.
omg if he’s not autistic he should be made an honorary one
the guitar kid not Mr. Perry
omg the chick behind the autistic guitar kid should be made an honorary something too
In that case Thomas, clarifying those fundamental theological distinctions appears to be subordinated, either to making a stalwart defense of Rick Santorum or to bashing leigh for sloppiness with church teaching, if not outright intentional misdirection regarding Santorum’s decision to follow a particular Rite (which she seems to deny), or to bashing happyfeet preemptively, if that’s who you’re referring to by “certain other”, which, if it must be done — by your lights — is your right to do. Possibly taking rhetorical whacks at leigh in pursuit of bringing her intentions with respect to Sen. Santorum to light is the best means to bolster Santorum’s standing hereabouts or elsewhere, I don’t know, but it’s at least dubious on the professed theological grounds.
Modern right hand technique, and the musical styles that accompany it, are so far beyond my own experience it is really hard to tell how good he might be. Watching clips of young Joe Bonamassa tear it up were pretty obvious, since he was doing what the (now) old folks did, and doing it well. This stuff? I have no idea.
One thing is for sure, the kid’s got rhythm.
basheth not the happyfeet preemptively rather, sheweth him glad tidings and bid him a happy merry christmas!
and also don’t covet his manservant or his maidservant or his ass
No Sdferr, it does not follow in that fashion, no one is subordinate to the other for our purposes here.
Santorum needs no particular defense, other than the defense everyone is entitled to, that one being adequate representation of the truth about that person.
Same goes for the Catholic faith. It is of particularly concern that misconceptions be corrected when they are being offered by someone who might otherwise be thought knowledgeable on the topic. Beyond that it is also important to convey an understanding that these errors are not of a frivolous or inconsequential nature, and may indicate additional concerns.
That Leigh’s particular propensity regarding Santorum has been noted in other threads, and repeated here, is also of general concern to these discussions regarding the candidates. It is a pattern. That her errors regarding a particular person were also compounded by rather categorical errors regarding her professed faith only reinforces what you clearly do not like to have on display.
I have made no representations as to the specific reasons behind her behavior. She has offered her own reasons, and everyone can judge them for themselves.
People are challenged here, rhetorically and factually, on a daily basis.
It is nice that you seek comity.
I have been accused of conducting an ‘inquisition’ for the crime of asking direct questions regarding matters of fact, and now you accuse me of ‘bashing’ for noting another common pattern of repeated behavior that was again displayed in this very thread? Heaven’s to Betsy!
I wish you luck in your endeavor.
And here I thought the inquisition comment was a joke.
Did he really say Kim Jong 2?
I’ve been prepping for the holiday, so I don’t know if this has been covered.
Now let’s finally settle the debate from The Name of the Rose: “Did Jesus carry a purse?”
‘Cause I say no. He carried an Aluma-Wallet. Like a man.
Who’s “we” in this scenario? Is there anyone else on the planet that would let you speak for them?
The fervently religious should be kept in care facilities for the mildly deranged, I’m guessing. Not so strictly ruled that they can’t share the occasionaly appletini with the disdainful.
I just don’t see why we can’t just nominate normal people… Team R has three whole candidates what are rapidly pandering and extremely bigoted holy rollers from central casting plus Newt Gingrich who probably doesn’t give two shits about Nascar Jesus issues but lashes out cause he’s embarrassed about all these tacky tacky naughty little sluts he keeps marrying and on the other hand we have utterly unprincipled Romney who, bizarrely, mostly wants to downplay his faith, which might be the one thing he actually believes in
*rabidly* pandering I mean
brb I have to order my hubcap finally
ok done and done I’m very excited I think I have all my x-mas shopping done plus personal shopping stuff done for this year except I have to real quick see if I can find the christmas dishes and then stop by the salvadoran place on the way to work and see if they have the bread puddings and then stop at Ralph’s and get the lechera stuff to drizzle on it
ok the dishes aren’t happening
There’s no such thing as a normal person. There are normal people, but as individuals we are all uniformly whack. It’s high time you just learned to deal with that.
The presumption that “normal” is mutually exclusive of “religious” is risible, to say the least.
Rick Perry is still fucking some hoochie he met at an elementary school
Is there some reason, other than unreasoning bigoted hate, for that?
hi Darleen and merry christmas!
so about the shoppings.. my sister was mostly done with for the year cause I really went big on her wedding so I just got her some fun stuff for when she comes tomorrow and one of the thingers is a wallet from these people
how cool is that it’s inspired by asian kitsch I think it should be a thing
I also finished all of my Christmas shopping. The last thing to do was order floral arrangements for my parents and the husband’s daughters. Done.
good job
next christmas we might could have a new president or…. we’ll be settling in for four more years of bumble, and that will be a grim time for us all
so we all need to focus on making this christmas bright bright bright
while(1) do
{
if(noresponse)
{
HeapingOfNaselessAbuseOnCandidatesAndTheirSpouses();
}
else
{
NewGirlOrCupcakesOrChristmasShoppingOrStupidJapaneseGirlPopMusicVideos();
}
}
Apparently not.
Alternate answer: You had to ask?
no that’s exactly what Ace said – we should vote for Rick not Newt cause Rick picked up his hoochie at an elementary school and not vote for Newt cause he’s divorced, which makes him damaged goods in the eyes of women
is what what Ace says
Bad enough that Ace said it, but you had to take that, make it worse, and repeat it.
Stupid is as stupider does.
here
see this is how serious-minded Rs approach the voting decisions
we should all emulate Ace for so we Choose Wisely
Who has mistaken Ace for a Serious-Minded Republican, again?
Oh. But I mistook happyfeets for a for reals human bean with real intelligence.
I can see the “reasoning”, now.
hf
Ace says something you don’t agree with and that allows you to use the most vile of bigoted and misogynist language against Perry and his wife how?
wow that was caustic
merry christmas anyway!
Slart, there has actually been a drumbeat on the talk radio waves about how America will not tolerate a divorced president. Philandering? If it’s the Big Dog. The last divorced president that we had, indeed the only one, was Ronald Reagan. And! It gets pointed out a lot his wife left him!!
Slartibartfast posted on 12/21 @ 9:05 am
+10
Clearly, Obama’s your guy, ‘feets. Embrace it.
no I like Newt the best if I have to pick
after that I like Perry
after that the whole exercise becomes pretty silly
[T]here has actually been a drumbeat on the talk radio waves about how America will not tolerate a divorced president
We must not listen to the same talk radio waves.
He wears Mexican boots
and a Stetson hat
his gun slung low
with the hammer tied back
these are the marks
of a fighting man
the kind they call
a Texican
Oops, the trigger tied back…
We must not listen to the same talk radio waves.
I generally don’t listen to much talk radio, especially Sean Hannity’s show. However, my son has wrestling practice every afternoon after school and I have to go fetch him when it’s over. It’s either listen to Country or Talk Radio. Hannity’s guest host was blathering on about this for two days in a row. That and taking calls from Ron Paul supporters who all sound rather like The Dude in The Big Lebowski.
I think it was Levins guest host said the other day Newt has three times more ex wives than all the previous presidents combined.
Made me lol.
That’s actually pretty funny. I’ll have to remember that one.
“Drumbeat” may have still been a gross exaggeration though…
1) Hannity isn’t Mr. talk radio
2) that’s what they do (meaning guest hosts take call after call after call and Paulbots re-dial and re-dial and re-dial)
Newt has three times more ex wives than all the previous presidents combined
Wonder what a mistress tally would turn up. And really, isn’t that the problem? Mistresses are no longer content being mistresses. Damn feminists and their easy divorce laws.
Hard to know Ernst. JFK had many, so we’re told, but they didn’t talk about that stuff back then. Everybody didn’t use to be all up in everybody else’s bidness…
[…] it begins through its very posing to address the trajectory and influence of an opinion matrix I pointed to yesterday (offending some with my use of the word “incestuous,” though it strikes me from my […]
Talk radio only serves to concentrate the normal political stupidity, as far as I’ve been able to tell.
But I’ll listen to Clark Howard. Finance doesn’t intersect well with folks’ belief systems, so there’s not much room for subjectivity, there.
[…] Goldstein at Protein Wisdom looked at the spate of Perry endorsements by high-profile bloggers and mused aloud about it possibly reflecting a groupthink mentality of the big boys and girls attempting to force […]