September 25, 2004

• Is it my imagination, or is the RNC nastier than ever before this time around? Or is it just that I'm seeing the worst of it online?
• It is true. As a liberal, I think everyday as I'm jogging back from my suicide bombing lessons: damn these infidels and their heretical religion! Then I check my mailbox and find yet another fundraising message from Al Qaeda. Didn't I just send them money last month?!
• Of course I want the bible banned! In fact, I want to see the whole Patriarchal Judeo-Christian Tower of Babel razed. Razed, I say! And while were social engineering, anyone who is crazy enough to run for public office will be immediately banned from holding ANY office and will be heavily medicated and forced to undergo treatment. Treatment, I say! Also, I pronounce a ban on mosquitos, blackflies and horseflies. (all species of bees are of course exempt) Fleas. Did I mention fleas? They're out. Out, I say! I know there is more, but I have to confer with my comrades before I issue the Manifesto. Which reminds me. Manifesto will hereby be called Womanifesto. It is understood that 'woman' is inclusive of 'man'
• ...all species of bees are of course exempt... /appreciative buzz!
• How did people manage to change the meaning of the word liberal to its exact opposite? I bet its those damn liberals fault
• How did people manage to change the meaning of the word liberal to its exact opposite? They same way they can call legislation that screws poor children "No child left behind" and legislation that relaxes pollution controls "Clear Skies". Me, I'm going to campaign in a swing state in October, since California is pretty much sewn up for Kerry. That way, at least I'll feel that I *did* something.
• Make sure the state you campaign in has an appreciable number of electoral votes, ambrosia, lest your energy be wasted.
• I keep wondering how ridiculous it must get before the majority of the American public wakes up. At least my Republican brother has now become a "conversative Demnocrat."
• Liberal response. Or rather, a liberal responds.
• Curious George: every copy of the Bible I've seen has been titled 'The Holy Bible'. Could this mailing be referring to the The Bible (according to Jeff)? In that case I wholehartedly support the bannination.
• Somewhere I read 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Law' And then I read a bunch of other stuff about adventures YHWH had with man and argued about with Law (who is female)
• fuyugare: the difference between that liberal response and the Republican mailing is that almost no liberal would be stupid enough to take it seriously (I don't know whose side you're on - just sayin'). Banning rock music? Permitting lynchings? Right. Actually, I have met several southern conservatives who wholeheartedly support the re-legalization of lynchings. But that's another story.
• That's right mfpb, but the conservatives ARE stupid enough to believe that the Bible would be "banned". If you recall, conservatives are the ones responsible for book burnings. Unlike conservatives, "liberals" are actually known to Advocate public discourse on the nature of existence. This discourse, when it hits the topic of the Bible, naturally devolves into "the problem" of the faithful interrupting "the solution" of the discourse. Were that religious conservatives ever allowed for such a process of public discourse (instead of their lone preacher throwing around moral judgments and accepting money for it), there would need not be any "banning" per se. The Bible would perish out of a collective shrugging-off of so much useless old skin.
• I don't consider myself a liberal, but that last link showing the mailer has me painted as one. Of course 'Under God' should be removed from the pledge -- separation of church and state, and all that pretty much cinches it. And, same-sex marriages are neither a 'liberal' nor a 'conservative' concern: people from all walks of life fall in love and want to share their lives. Is it the business of anyone else what genitalia the people getting married have? Abortion is a trickier issue for me, but that 'teenager' thing concerns me. Are we discussing thirteen year olds or nineteen year olds? Why should someone who can vote, go to war, drive a car and own business and property not be able to determine whether or not she wants to carry a fetus to term? And, why would I want to ban the bible? As an atheist, I have no interest in the holy books of any religion.
• but, coppermac, holy books of all major religions encourage...or really, mandate, violence against non believers. You want to keep that circulating if you have a chance to stem it? (or whatever the metaphor is)
• I got one in the mail that had the same picture of the Bible with "Banned" over it, but over on the side instead of the sodomites it had a picture of a witch, cauldron and all, and the text said "Not Burned". Stupid liberals won't burn anybody these days.
• PatB: utterly FALSE. Point me to Buddhist or Jain texts that advocate any kind of violence whatsoever, be it against believers or non. (And I am sure there are other examples; those are just the ones that come to mind ATM.) ((You might argue that Buddhism or Jainism are not religions in the same way that, say, Islam is a religion, in that there is no overarching deism in these religions, but such an argument would be highly parenthetical.))
• 'deism' may be the wrong word there; what I meant is 'belief in an external agent, including some combination of codified beliefs about creation/benevolent maintenance/judgement/etc.'
• fuyugare: maybe take a look at In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka.
• Brief article on war, violence and Buddhism here.
• These are hardly Buddhist texts that advocate violence. If you want to argue that humans will corrupt any damn thing into an argument for fighting and killing, you'll win the argument hands down.
• We must meet the Buddhist threat! I'll bet they're working with the liberals.
• Falwell says evangelicals control GOP, Bush's fate
• you know, as soon as I posted last night I knew i should have clarified that statement. Its pretty much solidly in my head that Buddhists don't do war but I have no idea where I got that. As far as Jainists go, I once saw a photograph of a leathery man in a loincloth with a whisk broom. The broom was to sweep the way before him so he wouldn't accidentally kill any bugs. I can't imagine anyone like that making war. I expect his was a more extreme form of the faith than most practice. My experience in religious matters is limited and skews west. Sorry for painting all religions with the same brush.
• PatB, you are a credit to your honourary beeship!
• let me get this straight... this is a party political, approved statement. and your american-type people are going to vote for george w. bush because of it? and you wonder why there's so much anti-americanism in the world. you guys. you wacky, crazy guys. GET THE FUCK OFF MY PLANET.
• "Evangelicals shall be 'born again' as fundie Muslims." --Vishnu

• These are hardly Buddhist texts that advocate violence.

  Did you even read In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka? Even before the section entitled Sinhala-Buddhist Just War: Texts and Contexts, there is the paragtaph which explains how some Buddhists interpret the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta as advocating just-war.
• PatB, I don't favour censoring or banning any books, even those that overtly or covertly advocate violence. Holding the authors accountable for encouraging specific acts is fine by me (though it doesn't really apply here), but banning books is a dangerous practice.
• Did you even read In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka? Yes I even read it, and it is not an example of a Buddhist text advocating violence. It is, at best, an example of a particular local strain of Buddhist thought. Your linked study has the specific purpose of establishing that violence is permissible in Buddhism; thus it seeks out a violent area of the world and reports on how Buddhists justify the violence. It may be a valuable article on the social history of Sri Lanka, but it does not contradict the claim that Buddhism is a pacifist religion. (The article even says as much in the second paragraph.) I just went through that sutra you linked, and I don't see where it says that Buddhists should be fighting anyone. In fact, the words 'violence', 'fight', etc. are not anywhere in the text. (I am, of course, not a rules lawyer hellbent on finding the 'violence loophole' in this sutra.)
• Each time I see the GOP pull this kind of nonsense, I always wonder what happened to truth-in-advertising laws and why these laws are not applied to political parties. After all, they are all pretty much selling soap of one brand or another, right? Why won't our laws protect us against false political advertising? Are there legal steps that citizens can take to protect themselves from the lies of the Republican machine?
• It's difficult proving a statement of belief to be a lie. If they said, "Little Rock liberals have introduced legislation to ban the Bible," well, that's a statement of fact and easy to establish as a lie. If they say, "the liberals want to ban the Bible and will succeed if they win the elections this year," well, they can always frame that as a statement of legitimate belief -- we really do think that that's what liberals are out to do, etc., so we want to warn people. There's nothing illegal about being an alarmist nutjob, after all. On a side note, I saw these things when they first came out, and I am damn glad that they've hit national media. These damn lying Philistines need to be revealed for what they are.
• Curses! And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids and your elephant!
• Here's a question in light of the Falwell link, specifically for our more right-leaning monkeys: First, do you think that Falwell's right about how badly the Reeps need evangelicals and fundys; second, does it piss you off/make you happy/lead you to want to create a third party/etc.? I know we've got some conservatives here who aren't necessarily part of the religious right, and I honestly don't know what you think about the current state of your party. Could you enlighten me?
• The flier doesn't actually say anything about banning the bible. It just has "banned" superinposed over the Bible, so TECHNICALLY, they aren't saying that liberals want to ban the bible. They are just HEAVILLY implying it. (I also like how they say liberals and not democrats)
• Just like they never "said" Saddam was connected to 9/11. They just heavily implied it. They've always got an iron-clad "we never said that" alibi. Very weasely, these republicans.