C-SPAN Right-wing Loon Call of the Day: " . . . Mr. Wallis is a religious humanist . . . ."

[Alric Knebel]

Jim Wallis is the editor of SOJOURNER magazine, and he's a left-leaning
minister. Once again, just like when Howard Zinn was on, I knew this man
would generate some right-wing loon's ire. The bozo from Michigan didn't
call (not that I've heard so far), but the motivation would be the same.
Wallis is deeply religious, but he's politically on the left. That means
that right-wing religious zealots will resent Mr. Wallis coming along and
depriving the right-wing loons from feeling so sanctimonious. They NEED to
think of Democrats as not having any values, because this is the source of
the right-wing loon's false sense of moral superiority. You see, some
Democrats believe in their left-leaning ideas BECAUSE of values, not because
they lack them. But this fruity caller will have none of that. Instead, he
goes off into character assassination:

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html

. . . or go directly to the file:
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_9.mp3.

The man makes assumptions about all sorts of things. Lacking a better way
to undermine Jim Wallis's credentials, he tags him with the term "religious
humanist." He says that religion is just a VENEER for Wallis. When I hear
calls like this, I know there's no way the left and the right will ever see
eye to eye again. The bozos on the right have been handed talking points
that have nothing to do with reality, not based on anything they've observed
directly, but they have this disrespectful vocabulary that's been taught to
them, words meant to demean Democrats and make them undeserving of
consideration, based on a false piety held dear by right-wing loons.
Whether the idiots want to believe it or not, the spirituality of
God-believing Democrats is more genuine than that espoused by the religious
right. Religious Democrats tend to forego the judgment of other people's
character -- taking to heart Jesus' saying about the beam in your own eye in
relation to the speck in your neighbor's eye -- and get right down to
implementing the ideas described in the Bible, creating policy that
facilitates social progress. And, yes, we believe that social progress is
essential as a collective actualization of spirituality, and the evidence
shows that the programs succeed more than they fail, the few failures being
hugely exaggerated.

Anyway, the caller is a sanctimonious asshole, talking from a sick need to
feel morally superior, resenting the idea that he and his ilk don't have a
monopoly on values. Wallis challenges the caller's reality, his view of
himself and being infallible. If he loses that, what's left? Nothing but
his Taliban-like desire to foist his beliefs in the public square, ignoring
the precept about praying in front of others. If you listen to this call,
at one point, he says that an evangelical believes in the Bible as God's
word, and you can't pick and choose. Surely, no intelligent person can take
everything in that book as factual or even spiritually inspired. However,
while accusing Wallis of picking and choosing, and masking humanism behind
religion, the man ignores how he misses the BIG issues on his way to the
polls to make sure the Lord's Prayer is recited in school and gay's can't
get married. Screw the poor; he's got a prayer meeting to go to. They're
an insufferable lot.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Alric Knebel
Jim Wallis is the editor of SOJOURNER magazine, and he's a left-leaning
minister. Once again, just like when Howard Zinn was on, I knew this man
would generate some right-wing loon's ire. The bozo from Michigan didn't
call (not that I've heard so far), but the motivation would be the same.
Wallis is deeply religious, but he's politically on the left. That means
that right-wing religious zealots will resent Mr. Wallis coming along and
depriving the right-wing loons from feeling so sanctimonious. They NEED
to think of Democrats as not having any values, because this is the source
of the right-wing loon's false sense of moral superiority. You see, some
Democrats believe in their left-leaning ideas BECAUSE of values, not
because they lack them. But this fruity caller will have none of that.
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html

I forgot to tell you what button. It's Line 9.

[A***@getit.com]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:53:53 -0600, "Alric Knebel"

Post by Alric Knebel
Surely, no intelligent person can take
everything in that book as factual or even spiritually inspired.

Surely you jest that no one considers the Bible literally inspired by
the hand of god?

Because that's exactly what nearly all of the christian
fundamentalists believe.

Not to worry, however.

This SAME trend of religious/political invasiveness happened about 90
odd years ago---with hallmarks such as Prohibition, Shutting down the
Miss America Pageant (immorality), the Scopes Trial, etc.

If you really step back and cogitate on this a minute, you'll
understand that in order for "progress" to be made, you have to have
something to compare it to. When the last of the fundamentalist crap
was dying out in the late 20's, FDR's administration ushered in nearly
60 years of unbroken progressive/liberal social policy culminating
with the Civil Right legislation, War on Poverty, War on Hunger, Equal
rights, etc.

Just prior to that SHORT period of conservative control of government
in the 20's, we saw Roosevelt whacking on Trusts, Women given the
right to vote, establishment of national park systems, etc. Granted,
the depression excerbated the national problem, but conservative
policy would/will NEVER address problems. Conservatism only works
during short period when things are "good" (as in surplus at the end
of the clinton era)

So sit back and watch this runny-shit brained idiot start the demise
of conservative government.

It will be fun to see all the Advancement when they're gone.

Post by Alric Knebel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------

*Try* it, you crappy little faggot bitch.
Don't just sit there: >come try it. > >
I'll take your fuckin' life, instantly, and sleep like a baby.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by A***@getit.com
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:53:53 -0600, "Alric Knebel"

Post by Alric Knebel
Surely, no intelligent person can take
everything in that book as factual or even spiritually inspired.

Surely you jest that no one considers the Bible literally inspired by
the hand of god?
Because that's exactly what nearly all of the christian
fundamentalists believe.

That's true, and I guess I should elaborate. What I meant to emphasize was,
no INTELLIGENT person can take everything in the book as factual or
spiritually inspired. What I meant was, even the caller will "pick and
choose" what he wants to accept as applicable from the Bible, and his
comment to Wallis means one of several possibilities, none of them good for
the caller's character. If he doesn't realize he's picked and chosen what
he wants from the book, he's either never read it or he's dishonest or he
simple hasn't the level of self-awareness required to make a judgment of
Wallis's character. The Bible commands, "Do not lend money for usury" (in
the Old Testament), but according to a modern Christian -- and personified
by the likes of Billy Graham and Pat Robertson -- wealth is one of the
critical manifestations of God's blessings. There are other commandments --
especially in Leviticus -- that are absolutely absurd. The tedious law
concerning the rape of a women, how the rapist need but pay the father of
the virgin a certain amount of money and the rapist is allowed to take the
virgin as his wife; no punishment for the crime. So what I meant was, no
one takes the entire Bible as infallible, as something to be followed
unquestioned in modern times, and anyone making such a claim to the contrary
is either a liar, is ignorant, or is shamefully unaware of themselves.
Christians who make a contrary claim are hypocrites, afraid to look at
themselves. Looking at themselves with real criticism and honesty would
deliver them to the plain truth, that the Bible requires thinking, which in
the end will require picking and choosing. In other words, right and wrong
is a lot simpler than all of that burdensome biblical stuff. Once they
accept that this is what they've been doing all along, they'll have to do it
more consciously, thereby assuming greater responsibility for their own
morality, and how to practice in collectively. This is harder, and requires
something other than all the showy speech and public-square posturing. But
it is also much kinder, and they won't be able to blame their harsh,
judgemental, unyielding attitudes on God.

As for the rest of your post, yes, I agree wholeheartedly that these are
dark times, and the nation has experienced similar periods in the past. But
I hope that the damage isn't too severe before we once again walk in
enlightenment.

Alric Knebel
--
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html

Post by A***@getit.com
Not to worry, however.
This SAME trend of religious/political invasiveness happened about 90
odd years ago---with hallmarks such as Prohibition, Shutting down the
Miss America Pageant (immorality), the Scopes Trial, etc.
If you really step back and cogitate on this a minute, you'll
understand that in order for "progress" to be made, you have to have
something to compare it to. When the last of the fundamentalist crap
was dying out in the late 20's, FDR's administration ushered in nearly
60 years of unbroken progressive/liberal social policy culminating
with the Civil Right legislation, War on Poverty, War on Hunger, Equal
rights, etc.
Just prior to that SHORT period of conservative control of government
in the 20's, we saw Roosevelt whacking on Trusts, Women given the
right to vote, establishment of national park systems, etc. Granted,
the depression excerbated the national problem, but conservative
policy would/will NEVER address problems. Conservatism only works
during short period when things are "good" (as in surplus at the end
of the clinton era)
So sit back and watch this runny-shit brained idiot start the demise
of conservative government.
It will be fun to see all the Advancement when they're gone.

Post by Alric Knebel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

*Try* it, you crappy little faggot bitch.
Don't just sit there: >come try it. > >
I'll take your fuckin' life, instantly, and sleep like a baby.

[A***@getit.com]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:55:14 -0600, "Alric Knebel"

Post by Alric Knebel
As for the rest of your post, yes, I agree wholeheartedly that these are
dark times, and the nation has experienced similar periods in the past. But
I hope that the damage isn't too severe before we once again walk in
enlightenment.

Which was my point.

Ya gotta have darkness to "see the light"

[Alric Knebel]

Post by A***@getit.com
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:53:53 -0600, "Alric Knebel"

Post by Alric Knebel
Surely, no intelligent person can take
everything in that book as factual or even spiritually inspired.

Surely you jest that no one considers the Bible literally inspired by
the hand of god?
Because that's exactly what nearly all of the christian
fundamentalists believe.

More to my point, fundamentalists CLAIM to believe that the Bible is the
inerrant word of God, and you can't pick and choose. But here's a few
scriptures (on top of my other comments) that prove fundamentalists do in
fact pick and choose:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Genesis 29: 17-28; II Samuel 3: 2-5)

"Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in
addition to his wife or wives." (II Samuel 5: 13; I Kings 11: 3; II
Chronicles 11: 21)

"A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife turns out not to be a virgin, she shall be executed."
(Deuteronomy 22: 13-21)

"Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden."
(Genesis 24: 3; Numbers 25: 1-9; Ezra 9: 12; Nehemiah 10: 30)

"If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe." (Genesis 38:
6-10; Deuteronomy 25: 5-10)

Man, it doesn't get any simpler than this proof, that they do in fact pick
and choose what to believe, and WHAT they pick and choose reveals volumes
about who they really are. Whenever this sort of thing is posted, no
Christian ever speaks out against it. The truth is, most Christians learn
just enough scripture to beat someone on the head with it while ignoring
Jesus' edicts that require growth to be a very private matter, which
eventually leads to the projection of a better personality. Call after call
to C-SPAN shows an extremely hostile and judgmental Christian, espousing
nonsense they can't possibly know. I've got countless of these calls stored
as MP3s, many I never got around to posting, or they weren't loony enough to
displace the loony examples already posted. They're ignorant people, and
what is so disheartening is, instead of educated, enlightened people
reaching down and lifting up the benighted, politicians have instead sought
to reduce the mentality of the country to the lowest common denominator,
pandering to the simplest and most primitive ideas. Religious
fundamentalism and its base hostility have been the bane of humanity since
the creation of religion itself. But in modern times, the baseness of it is
once again asserting itself. Instead of the cosmopolitan areas with their
concentration of creative, sensible people influencing the rest of the
country, the rural people are encouraged to wallow in their backwards
hostility toward "city folks," a backwardness that esteems its simplicity as
honest and moral. Being moral doesn't preclude sophistication and
education.

In Jon Stewart's book AMERICAN: THE BOOK (a brilliant satire, packaged as a
facsimile of a high school civics text book), a chapter on the American
political process includes a picture of George W. Bush. The caption beneath
the photo reads, "This Connecticut-born, Yale- and Harvard-educated
multi-millionaire son of a former president ran as an outsider in 2000.
Many experts still wonder how the fuck he pulled that off." Because he
understood how ignorant and unsophisticated fundamentalists are, that they
can swallow obvious contradictions whole hog.

[unknown]

Post by A***@getit.com
So sit back and watch this runny-shit brained idiot start the demise
of conservative government.

Not that the so-called "liberalism" of today will do much better. After
all that "war" on poverty, poverty rates barely paused for a breath
during the 90's. Hunger is as rampant as ever, and race relations
hardly took a turn for the better during the '90's. The only thing
accomplished by all that "liberalism" that stagnated in Congress for 50+
years was that it now takes billions of dollars to get a President
elected, and we DARE NOT talk about empowering people to care for
themselves.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by unknown

Post by A***@getit.com
So sit back and watch this runny-shit brained idiot start the demise
of conservative government.

Not that the so-called "liberalism" of today will do much better. After
all that "war" on poverty, poverty rates barely paused for a breath
during the 90's. Hunger is as rampant as ever, and race relations
hardly took a turn for the better during the '90's. The only thing
accomplished by all that "liberalism" that stagnated in Congress for 50+
years was that it now takes billions of dollars to get a President
elected, and we DARE NOT talk about empowering people to care for
themselves.

You misunderstand what the concept of liberalism is. The programs weren't
ever intended to eliminate poverty. They can't. They can only alleviate
the suffering of poverty. Someone has to have the low-level jobs. Someone
has to do them. At least, that's the rule according to the way capitalism
works. It's up to the private sector to eliminate poverty, by paying
livable wages. Everybody can't get promoted to high-paying job. Just look
at your own work place. Not everyone is making the big bugs, and more than
likely, some of them are making a livable wage, and others are making a
subsistence, and sometimes less. What liberalism does is, it acknowledges
the flaws in the current system and seeks to minimize the side effects.

Now, what all of that has to do with the billions it takes to get a
president elected is a conundrum hermitically sealed within the cavern of
your skull. Truly, you're desperate to blame everything on liberalism. I
could easily turn the argument on its side and say, the problem is,
Americans oblivious to the real causes of poverty -- Americans hungry for
any excuse to despise liberal solutions -- were constantly bitching about
the programs, and they made sure they failed by being so resentful and
stingy. Also, there was a constant resentment of people on welfare,
creating a shame and hostility. Because the stubborn, selfish Americans
never understood what was going on, they looked at the fact that the
programs continued as an indication that the programs had failed. What did
you expect to happen? When welfare assisted people with food bills through
the food stamp program, did you expect employers to suddenly begin paying
$15 an hour? I know I didn't. Employers were still going to pay the same,
so the need for the programs would continue. In reality, the programs went
a long way toward raising the standard of living for a lot of people. The
programs succeeded in eliminating the suffering of poverty; their failure is
a right-wing myth, foisted on the ignorant voters. In truth, EVERYONE
benefited by those programs. All of us, through a better economy.

There were other things it did. Section 8 provided better housing, as both
renters and buyers. Grants allowed some people to go to school.

You want to look at poverty? Take a look at what's happening now.
Capitalism is motivated by greed. Some of the adherents like to say it's
motivated by "enlightened self-interest," but they don't believe that,
really, and they certainly don't practice it. Look around in your work
environment and see how enlightened everyone really is. People who work for
large companies are constantly afraid -- unless they've got some inside
track -- afraid something is going to happen, afraid they'll get demoted, or
worse, fired. Because we all know what the bottom line is, that our whole
society is resting on the backs of a certain class of people. The driving
force in our society is, you don't become one of those people. Because once
you're there, it's a nightmare, and a bitch to get out of. Work will take
everything you've got and you'll get nothing out of it. You work
environment will be hostile, and you'll be expected to be thankful for this
opportunity to "feed your family" -- as if you're living in a third world
country. Your employer will expect you to be humble and thankful for the
privilege of letting him suck the life out of you, and resent having to pay
you as much as they do.

God fucking bless America. What a country! Look at us, the SUPERPOWER.
The "light of the world." What a joke. We're the last hold out for this
way of thinking we have. We have yet to join the modern world.

[unknown]

Post by Alric Knebel
You misunderstand what the concept of liberalism is. The programs weren't
ever intended to eliminate poverty. They can't. They can only alleviate
the suffering of poverty. Someone has to have the low-level jobs. Someone
has to do them. At least, that's the rule according to the way capitalism
works. It's up to the private sector to eliminate poverty, by paying
livable wages. Everybody can't get promoted to high-paying job. Just look
at your own work place. Not everyone is making the big bugs, and more than
likely, some of them are making a livable wage, and others are making a
subsistence, and sometimes less. What liberalism does is, it acknowledges
the flaws in the current system and seeks to minimize the side effects.

No one said subsistence living would, or even should, be easy in a free
society. Freedom isn't just license to do whatever one wants, even when
that something might otherwise be laudatory, like raising a family. The
family should be postponed until AFTER one has reached the ability to
provide for it. And if that means sacrificing a few minutes of pleasure
disguised as love, then so be it.

The real truth is that "liberalism" has been turned on its ear over the
past decade. The concept of a minimalist government, that's the truly
liberal ideology. A centralized authority, declaring who should do
what, and taking from the populace to do it, that's the older,
conservative, ideology. The politics that has coopted that term, does
more than "acknowledge flaws". It creates them. It surrenders freedom,
it abandons the idea of liberty. It denies the potential of people to
meet challenges, and to even thrive in the face of them.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the
people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to
take it from them, but to inform their discretion."

Amen, Thomas Jefferson.

Post by Alric Knebel
Now, what all of that has to do with the billions it takes to get a
president elected is a conundrum hermitically sealed within the cavern of
your skull. Truly, you're desperate to blame everything on liberalism. I
could easily turn the argument on its side and say, the problem is,
Americans oblivious to the real causes of poverty -- Americans hungry for
any excuse to despise liberal solutions -- were constantly bitching about
the programs, and they made sure they failed by being so resentful and
stingy. Also, there was a constant resentment of people on welfare,
creating a shame and hostility. Because the stubborn, selfish Americans
never understood what was going on, they looked at the fact that the
programs continued as an indication that the programs had failed. What did
you expect to happen? When welfare assisted people with food bills through
the food stamp program, did you expect employers to suddenly begin paying
$15 an hour? I know I didn't. Employers were still going to pay the same,
so the need for the programs would continue. In reality, the programs went
a long way toward raising the standard of living for a lot of people. The
programs succeeded in eliminating the suffering of poverty; their failure is
a right-wing myth, foisted on the ignorant voters. In truth, EVERYONE
benefited by those programs. All of us, through a better economy.

What it has to do with those massive election costs is this: how much
money do you think those "big special interests" would pay to influence
a government with minimal involvement in the lives of the citizenry?

I have no resentment for people on Welfare. I have much more for a
system that forces people to repeatedly declare their helplessness, and
then punishes them when they exercise the initiative to get out of that
helplessness. Once in such a system, it becomes like a whirlpool,
sucking people down and dragging at them if they seek to continue on
their own.

Employers pay what the market bears. If we as consumers refused to do
business with an employer paying substandard wages, that employer would
change its ways rather quickly. But you can't get people to do that,
can you? Ask Mr Jefferson above about that. And Mr Friedman below.

Post by Alric Knebel
There were other things it did. Section 8 provided better housing, as both
renters and buyers. Grants allowed some people to go to school.

Both of which are administered at local and state levels.

Post by Alric Knebel
You want to look at poverty? Take a look at what's happening now.
Capitalism is motivated by greed. Some of the adherents like to say it's
motivated by "enlightened self-interest," but they don't believe that,
really, and they certainly don't practice it. Look around in your work
environment and see how enlightened everyone really is. People who work for
large companies are constantly afraid

Not I. Nor have I any "inside track". I'm just a worker. One who
believes in my ability to make my way in the world, if federal
government would just get out of my way.

Post by Alric Knebel
-- unless they've got some inside
track -- afraid something is going to happen, afraid they'll get demoted, or
worse, fired. Because we all know what the bottom line is, that our whole
society is resting on the backs of a certain class of people. The driving
force in our society is, you don't become one of those people. Because once
you're there, it's a nightmare, and a bitch to get out of. Work will take
everything you've got and you'll get nothing out of it.

I can find NOTHING about freedom that ever guaranteed that life would be
easy. In fact, it's the act of overcoming that challenge that renders
freedom so precious.

Post by Alric Knebel
You work
environment will be hostile, and you'll be expected to be thankful for this
opportunity to "feed your family" -- as if you're living in a third world
country. Your employer will expect you to be humble and thankful for the
privilege of letting him suck the life out of you, and resent having to pay
you as much as they do.

Any employer that ever made me feel like they resented paying me lost me
within a month, at the most. Certainly, it's scary at moments like
that, but I refused to shy away from the power I had to fix it myself.

Post by Alric Knebel
God fucking bless America. What a country! Look at us, the SUPERPOWER.
The "light of the world." What a joke. We're the last hold out for this
way of thinking we have. We have yet to join the modern world.

Is this the same "modern" world that sits in the streets and goes on
strike simply because the government dares to allow private enterprise
to compete for a service previously monopolized by government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4182961.stm

If that's "modern" (and it isn't), then I dont' want it.