Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and the Right Wing Christianists
Tweet
Any time these chuckleheads start caterwauling you know you’ve made a considerably honest hit.
50 Responses to “Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and the Right Wing Christianists”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Tenure really is a bad thing to hand out too soon and undeservedly. And tenure decisions should only be for a limited (renewable) period of time, say 10 years. It’s also not clear in a world of the Internet and Blogs that tenure is ever needed at all.
It would be interesting to ask Blogger Ann Outhouse and Blogger Glenn Instafluffer and the originator of the blog itself, Jeff Jarvis what they feel is the value of tenure in a world of blogs.
Check out what an idiot Outhouse is. She has this to say about Sullied:
AND: I just noticed that last-linked post is titled “The Mormon Question.” Wow. Is that tone deaf!
She says that Sullied didn’t realize that the “Mormon Question” could refer to the Nazi’s “Jewish Question”.
But here is what Sullied actually says in that post:
He will be the candidate for the Christianist right, but he’s not a Christian. And many Christianists may well recoil at the man’s Mormon faith. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that 53 percent of evangelical Christians would not even consider voting for a Mormon president.
Sullied clearly knows what the title “The Mormon Question” refers to, and Outhouse clearly does not understand Sullied’s post.
I don’t like Sullied, I don’t like being called a traitor, and I don’t accept his apology, and I think he can go fuck himself.
But Outhouse is a moron and doesn’t deserve her position.
Greenwald says:
Oliver says:
Then Oliver says that Greenwald’s point is an “honest hit”.
Does that mean that Oliver’s point that the Republican party is not controlled by the religious right is not “honest”? Or does OW just want to have it both ways?
The Republican ideological leaders are very much in control of the party and are the main christianists. The actual elected officials tend to not be this brand of crazy, much moreso at the executive and senate level versus the house.
So, Oliver, are you agreeing with Sullivan’s definition of “Christianist” that they are not “real believers”?
Be careful…because you also have to consider if “Islamists” are “real believers” of Islam.
Sullivan also defines his term based on the following:
Don’t most Muslims oppose gay marriage and abortion based on religious belief? Wouldn’t that make most Muslims into Islamists?
How about Christian opposition to the death penalty? Wouldn’t pushing for laws banning the death penalty based on Christian principles make one a “Christianist”?
If you base a policy position on a religious position regardless of what it is, yes, you can probably be called an Islamist, a Christianist, Hinduist, whatever.
One can think that abortion is wrong and that women should be covered and not be an ideological warrior until he or she advocates that the state’s monopoly on violence be used to coerce others.
To paraphrase, your religion ends where my nose begins. Pass judgment on me all you like, expound to the heavens on my hellworthy trespasses, but don’t try to stop me with legislation.
You are stopped from doing all sorts of things with legislation.
Sullivan: Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque.
JWG: Don’t most Muslims oppose gay marriage and abortion based on religious belief? Wouldn’t that make most Muslims into Islamists?
Talk about missing the point!
By your tortured reading of Sullivan, anyone who bases any opinion about politics on personal religious values becomes a radical. Do you really think that’s what Sullivan was saying?
I don’t. A person can base his or her own opposition to the death penalty or gay marriage on the Bible, the Koran, or the latest issue of Popular Mechanics. That’s your right.
But when you begin to say that only true believers should serve as leaders, that only laws that conform to the written authority should prevail, and that only citizens who live in accordance with the revealed truth should enjoy full rights, that’s when you earn the “-ist” after your name.
Provide a quote from a Republican leader that fits your description.
Provide a quote from a Republican leader that fits your description.
If opposition to gay marriage makes one a Christianist, then the states (including the blue ones) are full of Christianists. Does opposition to polygamy make one a Christianist?
I also didn’t realize that there was some sort of religious test being proposed to ammend our current marriage laws. As far as I know, ALL men and ALL women currently have the exact same rights to marry, regardless of whether they are living in accordance with the revealed truth. I have even heard of athiests getting married, though that was just a rumor.
JWG | Nov 26, 2006 6:38:05 PM
“don’t try to stop me with legislation”
“You are stopped from doing all sorts of things with legislation.”
Unless, of course, you’re The Decider or his babysitter (Rove) in which case their playmate (Gonzales) finds way to sidestep legislation so they can do whatever they damn well please.
You are stopped from doing all sorts of things with legislation.
*ZOOM*
Did you see that? That was the point. Try not to miss it next time. I’ll clarify. Legislation that restricts a person’s rights based solely on religious principles is a symptom of the problem I was referring to.
An example would be Alabama’s ban on sex toys. That’s a symptom of Christianism. On the other hand, the prohibition on running red lights is not.
Provide a quote from a Republican leader that fits your description.
George H.W. Bush, as presidential nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: “No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.”
As far as I know, ALL men and ALL women currently have the exact same rights to marry
Well, not really. I have the legal right to marry Scarlett Johansson (if not a chance in hell) but my sister doesn’t.
(Neither one of us has the legal right to marry a 10-year-old, or a houseplant, or a chinchilla, if I may preemptively counter a frequent anti-marriage argument)
Provide a quote from a Republican leader that fits your description.
Why? Is it your opinion that Republicans are “Christianists”? I certainly never said so.
I’m talking about your argument that drawing your personal beliefs from your religious values is the same thing as wanting to enforce religious orthodoxy in government.
Now, either you didn’t really belive what you said, or you got Mr. Sullivan’s remarks entirely wrong.
If it’s the first, then you’re too dishonest for me to continue this conversation. If it’s the latter, let me know and I’ll explain it again.
Remember, JWG, we’re talking about your definition of “Islamist”:
JWG: Don’t most Muslims oppose gay marriage and abortion based on religious belief? Wouldn’t that make most Muslims into Islamists?
Are you disagreeing that most Muslims want abortion and gay marriage to be banned by government enforcement?
I am using what OW said: “The Republican ideological leaders are very much in control of the party and are the main christianists.”
ALL men have the same legal right to marry, as I already said. They are bound by the same restrictions (gender, relatives, age, number, species) as every other man. There is no discrimination within the male population that prevents one man from marrying any differently than any other man. Therefore, everyone has the same rights. Those who support gay marriage (which includes me) want to expand those rights.
It is YOU who has missed the point. Otherwise, we have Joshua on record as opposing the abolitionists, MLK, and the work being done to ban the death penalty.
The problem with Sullivan’s definition of “Christianist” is that also defines those Christians who have worked to legislate things beyond abortion and gay marriage.
I don’t know if this is an accurate quote, but let’s assume it is for the sake of argument.
According to Quaker, this statement is a “personal belief” unless you can point to any legislative attempt to reclassify atheists as non-citizens. I’m not aware of any such legislation, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
But when you begin to say that only true believers should serve as leaders, that only laws that conform to the written authority should prevail, and that only citizens who live in accordance with the revealed truth should enjoy full rights, that’s when you earn the “-ist” after your name.
If that is the case, then why does Sullivan refer to the movie ‘The Passion of the Christ’ as a ‘Christianist’ movie and not a ‘Christian’ movie since he clearly says there is a distinction?
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
Sounds to me like there were a lot of “Christianists” in both parties during 1990, if we are to use Michael’s example.
Sounds to me like there were a lot of “Christianists” in both parties during 1990, if we are to use Michael’s example.
Or a lot of professional politicians who figured the cost of slighting the atheist community was a pittance compared to running afoul of the Christian[ist] bloc.
Are you disagreeing that most Muslims want abortion and gay marriage to be banned by government enforcement?
No, I’m not. And I suspect your misunderstanding is the result of design and not error.
If you wish to dispute what Oliver wrote, then take it up with him. I’m addressing what you wrote (and since I’ve quoted the exact phrase twice already, I’ll spare myself the additional exercise).
What is the difference between “Christian” and “Christianist”, or the distance from “Muslim” to “Islamist”?
It’s a simple matter that seems to flummox conservatives only when it is convenient. It is only the difference between the state and the citizen. When a citizen’s personal values, drawn from whatever source, inform that person’s beliefs, you have a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Popular Mechanics subscriber.
When that citizen wants the state to subordinate law to faith, then you have a Christianist, and Islamist, or a Popularmechanicist.
According to Quaker, this statement is a “personal belief” unless you can point to any legislative attempt to reclassify atheists as non-citizens.
You really ought to give up trying to rephrase other people’s arguments. You’re not very good at it.
The President of the United States (or was he only a candidate at the time? No matter.) says that there should be a religious test for citizenship?
No, that steps beyond personal belief. Mr. Bush the elder is proposing a determiniation by the state that citizenship relies on faith.
One may argue that he’s not necessarily being “Christianist” here if he’s being inclusive of other religions. But he’s clearly speaking about the role of the state. Insisting that the sincerity of his remark can only be measured with proposed legislation is an artifical–and silly–criterion.
If that is the case, then why does Sullivan refer to the movie ‘The Passion of the Christ’ as a ‘Christianist’ movie
Beats me. I don’t read him often enought to have seen that remark. Point me to it and I’ll take my best guess, but only if we both understand that we’ll be practicing mind reading.
Nope. Where is the “proposal”? Maybe it got lost in the mail?
You are refusing to provide any evidence for your assertions. Where are these “Christianists” (in the Republican party according to both Oliver and Sullivan) that are stating that “only true believers should serve as leaders, that only laws that conform to the written authority should prevail, and that only citizens who live in accordance with the revealed truth should enjoy full rights”?
Clearly most Muslims are indeed “Islamists” if they support the force of the state to promote religious belief. Therefore, Christians who seek to outlaw the same beliefs must be “Christianists”.
As are Christians who sought to outlaw slavery, polygamy, and the death penalty based on their biblical beliefs.
With all these Christianists walking around, it should be easy for you to point to some quotes in which these Christianists are pushing for “only true believers should serve as leaders, that only laws that conform to the written authority should prevail, and that only citizens who live in accordance with the revealed truth should enjoy full rights”.
Remember, they have to be calling for state enforcement rather than personal beliefs.
How can it be a silly criterion if it is the basis for the distinction? Either the distinction matters or it doesn’t. Either there is a call for state enforcement or there isn’t.
Now you’re claiming that we can’t expect to understand what a professional writer really meant based on his words?
Quaker/JWG
Good discussion/debate.
Quaker, here is what he said:
Look at the Christianist movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” It united Catholics and Protestants and Mormons in the culture war.
And here is the link.
Frankly, I am not sure how it ‘united’ anybody in the ‘culture war.’ The movie didn’t have anything to do with politics. There were two debates about it and that was whether or not it was anti-semitic and whether or not the violence was too much.
I don’t object to the use of the term ‘Christianist’ so much as I object to Sullivan’s dishonest reasoning for using it. Clearly, he reserves it for conservative Christians and their views with regard to gay rights (as that is the be all end all with Sullivan these days) more than anything else. I sincerely doubt he would refer to those in Catholic Charities who push for expanded welfare benefits for the poor as ‘Christianists.’ After all, their reasoning comes from their biblical based view of Jesus’s attitude towards the poor and giving to the poor.
Yes, that is part of the point I’ve been making. He does not apply it to those who have used biblical teachings to support legislation favored by him.
Similarly, he uses his definition to draw a distinction between “Muslims” and “Islamists” when his definition clearly puts most Muslims in the Islamist camp.
Based on his definition of “Christianist” he should be labeling many more Christians with that term as well.
Quaker has tried to make the term more specific, but he then fails to provide information that would identify those who would fall into that category.
And while Sullivan and Oliver agree that Christianists are Republicans (but disagree as to their power within the party), Quaker disagrees that there are Republican leaders who are Christianists.
Look at the Christianist movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” It united Catholics and Protestants and Mormons in the culture war.
Well, perhaps I’ll have to go back on my word on that one. I have little clue what he means by that unless he’s discerning a political motive in the making of the movie. (Didn’t see it, and don’t read Sullivan, so I’ll leave that to others.) The only other possibility I can come up with is that the movie drew enthusiastic acclaim from many of the same quarters that Sullivan calls “Christianist,” so he’s assuming that the movie must be “Christianist” too.
On the other hand, maybe Sullivan (as the coiner of the term) is exercising his prerogative to change the meaning of “Christianist” at his whim.
Take your pick.
Quaker has tried to make the term more specific, but he then fails to provide information that would identify those who would fall into that category.
Really, you should stop trying to rephrase. You are inept.
It is not my responsibility to supply you with examples of a negative. I am quarreling only with your characterization that basing your personal politcal views on religious belief makes you a “Christianist” or an “Islamist.”
Sullivan’s use (in this case, but not in describing Passion) is clear. He’s talking about those who would have government exercise the authority of the church, who would have the state enforce religious doctrine.
I think you and Jay are exactly right that he’s referring to a subset of what we generically call “the Religious Right.” If you must have specific examples (and no fair saying “Well, they don’t count!”) I give you Katharine Harris, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,and either of the esteemed Senators from the state of Oklahoma.
And while Sullivan and Oliver agree that Christianists are Republicans (but disagree as to their power within the party), Quaker disagrees that there are Republican leaders who are Christianists.
For mercy’s sake man, stop! Once again, you attribute things to me that I have never said.
I entered the discussion to take issue with your interpretation of what makes one a “Chrisitanist” or “Islamist.” It was you who responded with a challenge to correlate my position with that of the Republican party.
Then and now, I pass.
Do you not pay attention at all to the words that you write?
First you say: “Is it your opinion that Republicans are “Christianists”? I certainly never said so.”
If this argument was NOT to deny associating the Republican party with Christianists (an association made by Sullivan and Oliver with which I was criticising), then why would you make this point?
Then you turn around and say: “I give you Katharine Harris, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,and either of the esteemed Senators from the state of Oklahoma.”
Maybe when you get your own thoughts in order it will be possible to have a sensible discussion.
In the meantime, if you want to declare people as “Christianist” without providing evidence to support your own definitions, then don’t get upset when you get called on it.
If this argument was NOT to deny associating the Republican party with Christianists (an association made by Sullivan and Oliver with which I was criticising), then why would you make this point?
Because. You. Asked.
Now I know you’re pretending to be this thick. You’re attributing your statements to me.
In the meantime, if you want to declare people as “Christianist” without providing evidence to support your own definitions, then don’t get upset when you get called on it.
It was not me, but you who was declaring who was or was not a Christianist, and at the risk of boring us both to death, here it is once again:
How about Christian opposition to the death penalty? Wouldn’t pushing for laws banning the death penalty based on Christian principles make one a “Christianist”?
Goodbye.
Abolitionists, MLK, those who oppose the death penalty may have couched their positions in religious terms, but they were largely arguing in terms of the classical liberal notions of one’s right to life, liberty, property, and due process.
We owe our allegiance to the Constitution and classical liberal values. That is what this country is based on. Any attempt to make policy based on religious values is contrary to democracy. Even if that includes the death penalty, sodomy laws, and laws against working on Sunday. If you want to argue that the death penalty is applied unfairly, cruel and unusual, or whatever, you can do that. But don’t tell that me it should be banned because you think that God finds it distasteful. That opens up a Pandora’s Box where something as exterme as Dominionism can flourish.
But don’t tell that me it should be banned because you think that God finds it distasteful. That opens up a Pandora’s Box where something as exterme as Dominionism can flourish.
I’d go a little farther than that, Joshua.
If I, as a citizen, participate in the democratic process, voting and urging my representatives to end capital punishment, the source of my belief isn’t relevant to anyone but me. It could be religious belief, moral upbringing, or something I read on a T-shirt.
Where I draw the line is when someone advocates that government should be constrained in its decision making or that citizens should be included or excluded from participation in the process based on religious doctrine.
In short, citizens can get their beliefs anywhere they choose. The state can get its laws only from its citizens.
You seriously cannot follow your own thinking process.
I asked a question about using the term for those who advocate religious mandates on the Left, and YOU countered with a more specific definition of “Christianist” because you said I was misreading Sullivan (I wasn’t, and you admit you don’t keep up with what he writes). You said:
Maybe you were drunk at the time and forgot? Anyway, I challenged your definition to fit the way in which Sullivan and others are actually using it. You repeatedly failed to back up your claim and now you’re running in circles and claiming I can’t nail down your words.
And if the majority of citizens get their ideas for laws from religion and vote to have them enforced we have come full circle. Your statement means nothing.
And if the majority of citizens get their ideas for laws from religion and vote to have them enforced we have come full circle. Your statement means nothing.
Still puzzling at “separation of church and state” JWG?
As before, I believe you’re pretending. If your words reveal your true density, light does not escape your orbit.
You clearly do not understand what that phrase means if you think it prevents voters from pushing legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, or any number of other values-based issues based on biblical interpretation.
You clearly do not understand what that phrase means if you think it prevents voters from pushing legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, or any number of other values-based issues based on biblical interpretation.
And no one who reads written English would ever suspect I have said that.
Your excuse?
Sullivan
links to a pretty clear cut example of what I consider a Christianist stance and who I consider a pretty good example of the idiot Christianist right,local LA radio host Dennis Prager:
If you think swearing an oath office on the Koran undermines American civilization you’re a Christianist and an idiot.
My test of a Christianist is a simple question:
“If you had to choose one, which document is best suited to governing the affairs of American society, The US Constitution or the Christian Bible?”
Prager would obviously choose the Bible over the Constitution. As he writes:
Prager believes the Bible trumps the COnsitution because, essentially, “it came first” and it came from God.
Should Ellison be allowed to take his oath using the Koran? I don’t know. Maybe everyone should take their oath on the Constitution itself. I would be for that. But should Ellison be refused because Americans have chosen to revere the Bible because it is, as Prager writes, “what America holds as its holiest book?” FUCK NO.
Prager is a Christianist and the real threat to American society.
Again, you have no freaking idea what the words you write actually mean, do you?
You QUOTE my statement about citizens voting for enforcement of ideals based on religion and accuse me of “puzzling” over the separation of church and state.
I reply that my statement has nothing to do with church/state separation, and then you claim you DIDN’T say it did?
Do you have any clue as to what you are writing? You can’t be that freaking stupid, can you? Are there two Quakers posting here?
To go further, if you are opposed to the death penalty or abortion or birth control on Constitutional grounds, then you are not a Christianist.
If you are opposed to them because God is opposed to them because God says they are wrong, you’re a Christianist.
You understand that Prager is Jewish, right? He denies the Christ?
I agree with this.
Sullivan only uses the term to label Republican viewpoints. That has been the major point of my argument with his definition. Evidentally, you and I agree with how the term should be used.
“You understand that Prager is Jewish, right? He denies the Christ?”
I did know that and it doesn’t matter. He, much like another idiot on the radio, Michael Medved, spends the vast majority of his energy pushing a clearly Christianist, conservative agenda.
If you spend any time listening to either of them, they are so deeply ingratiating to Christians and Evangelicals, going out of their way to defend even the nuttiest of shit, it’s like deep down inside they are still grovelling not to be thown in an oven or something.
I know that sounds harsh but these guys are really weird when it comes to defending Evangelicals and pusing their agenda. They are Christianists for all intents and purposes probably because someone way back when called them a name and now all they want to do is be liked by their Christian betters.
“Sullivan only uses the term to label Republican viewpoints.”
Where has Sullivan said that it applies only to Republican viewpoints?
He himself is a religious conservative who is opposed to torture, for instance, but does he base that opposition on constitutional grounds or biblical grounds? I’ll wager constitutional grounds. if a liberal priest protested the death penality because of Biblical teachings, I don’t how Sullivan would describe that person but I bet he’d put them in the Christianist camp. Unless I missed something somewhere.
Further on Prager,
Prager is arguing that Ellison should submit his faith, in this instance, to the authority of the Christian Bible because of the supposed role that the Bible played in the shaping of the Constitution and this country.
Not only is the role of the Bible in influencing the revolutionary period, born of the Enlightenment, a subject of consdierable debate and dubious validity, Prager’s position is totally contradicts the principles and articles of the oath of office itself. According the oath, Ellison must submit his faith and evertyhing else, to the authority of the Constitution, not any other document. But according to Prager, it is the Bible, not the Constitution itself playing the active role in the ceremony. Without the Bible, it’s a meaningless oath, in his mind, which is utter, unconstitutional horseshit.
It is easy to surmise form that this position that Prager must consider his own faith as secondary to Christian faiths in America, because America is, in his mind, a Christian nation. It is easy to see that Prager considers himself, as a Jewish American, still only a tolerated guest in this Christian country.
That’s seriously fucked up and seriously Christianist.
I happened to hear Medved support Ellison’s use of the Koran on the radio on the way home this afternoon.
All of his uses have been in reference to Republicans who oppose gay marriage. When others have brought up the logical implications of his “Christianist” definitions, he has dismissed those arguments. I have no problem with the term as long as it is used to represent everyone who uses the bible to frame (no pun intended) his or her legislative agendas.
“I happened to hear Medved support Ellison’s …”
I just heard him say the same thing when I went to lunch. Credit where credit is due.
I reply that my statement has nothing to do with church/state separation,
Really? Where? Here?
You clearly do not understand what that phrase means if you think it prevents voters from pushing legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, or any number of other values-based issues based on biblical interpretation.
Which part says your statement had nothing to do with church and state?
Let me tell you: none. There is nothing in your reply that even hints at the meaning you imagine.
I have no more time to chat with your imaginary friends.
You’re all missing the point. It’s really got nothing to do with religion today. Yes, it’s true most people of religion reject homosexuals because their faith teaches them it is wrong according to Gods rule. But, in today’s society, the men and women of faith/church often and usually do step off their pews to enforce our laws and constitution.
The issue comes to play, when liberal and often lunatic judges attempt to re-write the constitution via what they often refer to as an “Interpretation” to suit their biased and often politically driven agendas to support Gay Marriage/rights.
In fact our left/right political houses are split on this issue considerably, and yes most of christian faith reject homosexual rights. Our constitution does not offer them any in fact unless some wacko judge try’s to twist what our for-fathers wrote when our country was formed with it’s independence from the English. I challenge anyone that can demonstrate they gave any special consideration of marriage to same sex couples. It did and does not. That is why in fact after these low level and medium level judges always get shot down by their respective state supreme courts. Not one, ever has been successful.
Finally, if you don’t like the laws then it is up to our legislatures to amend the laws and our constitution — it’s never the job of a single judge to make that call on a law from any state, that can have an over reaching impact of the greater part of the nation. It is our elected laws officials that must change the laws regarding Gay marriage if it is ever to be accepted. It’s just not likely going to happen since the majority of American’s support marriage as being the union between one man and one woman.
Let’s face it, it’s only an issue with Gay’s because they want the same employee rights of marriage as married men and women get. I say , if that’s true they “the gays” would be best off seeking laws that provide them with similar benefits as married couples but under the terms and conditions of a civil union…
If that happens though, watch out. It open a pandora box of all kinds of people that will claim if like for like marriage is allowed, then a man with 77 wives is and should be ok too… It could create cases where man wants to marry beast — you know horses, cows, dogs, you name it…
I say it’s simple… Marriage is something that should be reserved between men and women. It is sacred and that is the only real reasons liberal lunatics and gays are chasing after it. They like to point the fingers at the evil christians while they ignore and reject their nazi like tactics for attention.