Hey David, who is a larger threat to the US? 1) James Dobson or 2) Kim Jong Il?

This argument is getting as old as the tax cuts for the rich argument. Taliban theocracy....sheeeeeeshhhhh. They better hurry up, Bush is only in office for two more years.

To include Fred Phelps as being a fundamentalist Christian is ludicrious. Westboro Baptist Church is a decieved cult that is far from mainstream.

"Hey David, who is a larger threat to the US? 1) James Dobson or 2) Kim Jong Il?"

This is a choice? Should I take the devil I know over the devil I don't? Um... no. I say a pox on both houses. Why don't we try choosing leaders who aspire to the values that make this nation great. "Freedom of religion" that does not include ALL religious views is no true freedom. It's that simple.

Yes it is a choice Nemo. There are tyrants developing nuclear bombs, they could sell them to anyone, and there are people would would detonate a nuclear bomb here given the chance. I consider this more of a threat to our country than James Dobson. I didn't realize you knew Dobson.

This notion of a Taliban style govt. here is ridiculous. If Bush wanted a Taliban style govt. here then why did he oust them in Afghanistan?

More pre-election fear mongering from the left. Vote Republican and your wives, mothers and daughters will be wearing Burkas.

"More pre-election fear mongering from the left. Vote Republican and your wives, mothers and daughters will be wearing Burkas."

Now who's doing the fear-mongering? Why not throw in that if you vote for a Democrat that all the Gitmo prisoners will move to Guilford Co, and we'll all have to marry someone from our own gender?

I agree that Kim Jong Il is a greater threat to our safety than Dobson, but that doesn't remove the fact that Dobson threatens the principles our nation was built upon.

"Yes it is a choice Nemo. There are tyrants developing nuclear bombs, they could sell them to anyone, and there are people would would detonate a nuclear bomb here given the chance. I consider this more of a threat to our country than James Dobson. I didn't realize you knew Dobson."

I know Dobson enough to recognize a would-be tyrant. I refuse to accept that we should be in a position where we have to choose between differing types of tyranny. I think it's high time we decided to stick with liberty, rather than trying to decide who would be the more benevolent stand-in for God.

I was just simply asking who is a greater threat that's all, plain and simple.

Dan,
Once again, you put your foot in your mouth and then try to weasel out.
Dobson is a threat from within, and Kim Jong Il from without. That's the real scenario.

Would someone please tell me what James Dobson has done that would put him in the "tyrant" category?
That is riciculous.
Come on people....equating Dobson with Phelps and Jong Il doesn't even make sense. If you don't agree with something he's said, then don't agree. But to put him in a category with an idiot (Phelps), and an evil despot (Jong Il) is just intellectually dishonest. You can do better, just try.

Thanks observer, that is what I am trying to say. I don't see Dobson as an inherent threat to this country and to equate him with Kim Jong Il (only difference being one is here and one is there) is not only intellectually dishonest, it reveals how out of touch the far left is.

As for Phelps I don't see him as a threat either. He and his band are wackos, but the group is primarily limited to their family.

We all agree .. no one wants a Taliban or Kim Jong style govt. - to suggest that is ridiculous.

.. and it would be changing subjects to remind Dan that Bush has yet to oust Taliban style govt. in Afghanistan ... we know the war is going very well; the lame stream media has the story all wrong ....

Consider what some Wacky Christians seem to be asking vs. Taliban Leaders .. things like ...

Jesus as the one path to Heaven
vs.
Allah as the one path to Heaven

No Shtuping before Marraige
vs.
No Shtuping before Marraige

You must believe me because I never lie
vs.
You must believe me because I never lie

If you challange me, you are unpatriotic
vs.
If you challange me, you are an infidel

OK - the penalty for being an infidel is greater than being unpatriotic - the vector is longer - but the directions are similar.

Consider what the LTE said:

"fundamentalists ... who pervert the teachings of Jesus and fail to follow His precepts in their quest for power."

Consider Bush's Islamic Fascicts:

"fundamentalists ... who pervert the teachings of Allah and fail to follow His precepts in their quest for power."

... and just to pusha a button:

Please advise what the heck GWB has accomplished to make Kim Jong LESS of a threat to the US.

Good points, folks. We seem to be comparing apples to oranges. While they are both fruits, they are not the same. Some like apples..some like oragnes. Those who think that their way is the ONLY way scare me. I also hate fearmongering from anyone.

I've read a few James Dobson books and have found them to be okay. Not the greatest but with some redeeming qualities.

I'm wondering exactly what Dobson has done to pervert the teachings of Christ?

Any examples?

I do not recall which Russian leader made the comment, regardless the comment went something to the effect that America would crumble without the Russians ever having to fire a shot. I believe we are seeing the beginnings of that today.

I have grave concerns over what I hear Phelps, Dobson, Falwell and their likes saying! These people are like a time bomb waiting to explode. The ramifications of which would destroy this country as it has been known!

Theocratic governments, in prinicple, are nice. However, when looking at them closely, one will find that it is not the principals that are what have to be lived with on a day-to-day, minute-by-minute basis. That is where the problem arises. Think about that and consider what the LTTE writer states.

Shalom

A few minor adjustments, James:

Jesus as the one path to Heaven
vs.
Allah as the one path to Heaven or else we'll chop your head off

No Shtuping before Marraige
vs.
No Shtuping before Marraige unless it's a young boy and you're the pitcher.

You must believe me because I never lie
vs.
You must believe me because I never lie because the Koran allows me to if it's to decieve an infidel.

If you challange me, you are unpatriotic
vs.
If you challange me, you are an infidel, off with your head.

"I have grave concerns over what I hear Phelps, Dobson, Falwell and their likes saying! These people are like a time bomb waiting to explode. The ramifications of which would destroy this country as it has been known!"

We have a winner! Congratulations Darryl, you and your guest have won an all expense paid trip to P'yŏngyang. While there, you will receive a tour of the beautiful N. Korean countryside, visit with starving families, tour the test site of a nuclear explosion (radioactive protection suits included), all in a horse drawn carriage! (no cars available at this time).

In the capital, you will feast on canine delicacies, stay in the best lodging facilities available (mud hut complete with 6 candles and a flashlight) and visit ALL of the monuments of Kim Jong Il and his daddy Kim Il-Sung!!

Also included in the tour is a visit to the military war room. There you will see nuclear targets including Seoul, Tokyo, and Los Angeles! Visit the spectacular port, complete with a tour of vessels shipping arms to Iran and Syria! Sorry no nuclear shipments yet, please visit again next year.

Transportation provided by Aeroflot. Parachute included as there are no landing rights. Exit pass through the DMZ back to S. Korea and civilization included as well. Taxes and fees additional, flashlight batteries not included.

Orrrrr, if you are not the travelling type our second prize is a meeting with James Dobson.

As the writer of the book review in question, I would urge folks not to dismiss the notion of a movement toward Christianist theocracy before reading the book. You might not like what Goldberg documents, but you'd be delusional to deny it.

nitpicker: I'm wondering exactly what Dobson has done to pervert the teachings of Christ? Any examples?

Here ya go.

nemo: I refuse to accept that we should be in a position where we have to choose between differing types of tyranny.

Precisely. North Korea and the Reconstructionists pose different kinds of threats, but each threat is real and requires addressing.

OK, that didn't work.

nitpicker, your link is here:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116018345802691019

It is awesome that folks are finally waking up to the dangers of the nationalistic "christianity" espoused by Dobson, Falwell, et.al.

What bothers me is not what these folks are doing to our Country, but what they are doing to the church. Anytime religion and politics mix, someone gets burned at the stake.

The church in America is and will continue to suffer as long as people equate "god and country" with the God of the Christainity.

Here Lex, every story has two sides.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0042242.cfm

That's your evidence against Dobson? One blogger's opinion? Please.
To disregard all of the good that Focus on the Family has done because you disagree with someone's politics or religious beliefs is asinine.

Eh, I can see the threats of both, but they are of much different threats.

With Kim Jong Il, the threat is that he, or an affiliate or someone who purchases his weapons in the near future causes DC, New York,or LA (or all of them) to erupt suddenly into a nuclear (or nucular) fireball causing the death of millions, which would trigger a response from us killing millions more, and leaving a good portion of the world devastated for more than a couple of years and setting humanity as a whole back an immeasurable amount of time.

Very scary, short term threat. Can directly affect us and is a measurable threat, as I see it.

Many see a threat in fundamentalists. I can see where they are coming from. It is a less direct, in your face type of threat. Not one that can happen overnight, but an insidious threat that could weaken us and change us from within. Change who we are and what we accept.

Think about the current goals for the fundamentalists, where they to gain power. They want only "good" things, I have no doubt. They want morality, peace, prosperity and the like. They want adherance to a God that most in this country believe in. But I am concerned that my method of worship and belief is incongruent with theirs. That my strictures of morality and beliefs are different than theirs. That my brand of Christianity is different from theirs. I am a convert to my religion. I grew up, in my old religion, hearing about the dangers of my current religion and being taught how we are barely more than heretics.

So, if some of these fundamentalists take charge, I can see how a gradual shift towards their policies would occur. And I can see how concerning this would be for people who are not of their flock.

An extreme example I see for this would be Nazi Germany. I think that very few Germans in the early 1930's would have supported a government like the Nazi's had. But Hitler didn't gain control and open up the camps overnight. It was in stages. It was a well orchestrated plan to weaken opposition and to garner support until you are able to gain control of an entire people and change their whole outlook on issues to the point that the state can do damn near what they want to whomever they choose.

I don't think that Faldwell would do anything like this, don't get me wrong. But I can see how this issue would be concerning and see it as a reason to always be on our guard.

Two different threats, one direct and one indirect. One aimed at our physical selves, the other aimed at our nature and identity as Americans. One could possibly happen tomorrow, the other may take many years and many stages.

But, if quantitativness (is this a word, or if it is am I even using it correctly? :) ) is needed, I would guess that, for right now, the more serious of the threats is the immediate, on our doorstep threat of instant, massively destructive attacks.

Good points, folks. We seem to be comparing apples to oranges. While they are both fruits, they are not the same. Some like apples..some like oragnes. Those who think that their way is the ONLY way scare me. I also hate fearmongering from anyone.

Posted by: Carol Dunn at October 10, 2006 10:32 AM

NEED I REMIND YOU 'friend' carol, FROM THE THREAD JUST LAST WEEK, where Darryl Shalom "CLEARLY AND CONCISELY" stated that Matthew 5 and Quakerism/Pacifism was "THE WAY TO LIVE" for "ALL HUMANITY" and I believe you chimed in next with something to the effect that "how can any common man disagree with that? thank you Darryl for putting it so clearly and concisely".

GO MAKE SOME SHALOM

"OK - the penalty for being an infidel is greater than being unpatriotic - the vector is longer - but the directions are similar."

Well said, old chap!

“But I am concerned that my method of worship and belief is incongruent with theirs.”

Excellent post Swanks. You should read or see "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood, if you have not already. In this story, a nationalistic theocracy takes over and even the Baptists become resistance fighters against them. The fact that the regime the theocrats got, was not what they expected is made brilliantly in this story. Be careful what you wish for.

Okay.

I've gotten one response for evidence on how evil Dobson is. Lex sent me the link above. I looked at it and it states that Dobson is against 5 year olds across the nation being shown a film that tells them that being in a gay relationship is natural and okay. It states that 5-year olds are very impressionable (they believe in Santa Clause and Easter Bunnies) and that this is not an appropriate action.

Does anyone disagree? Should not those values and conversations be something for parents to show their children.

As far as contrasting that to statements made about Foley, the two issues are totally separate. I agree 100% with the first issue and that has nothing to do with the second.

I think there is more danger that this country become ruled by the PC police or the church of tolerance than by any one religion.

Focus on the Family also shed light on the UN's Child's Bill of Rights that has been signed off on and enacted by every country besides the United States and Somalia (?).

Clinton actually signed off on this during his administration but the Congress did not approve of it.

Enacting this UN treaty would give the UN power over individual States. An 18 member committee would decide what rules our country would have to follow.

In place already:

It would make it a crime for parents to use any form of corporal punishment.

It would make it a crime for parents to tell their children that Jesus is the son of God or force them to go to church. As a parent, you'd no longer be able to make your 5 year old go to your church on Sunday.

Basically, it would take away almost all parental rights and give children power over parents.

Of course, it also does some good things or nobody would sign it.

Of course, I'm sure there are some here who feel that parents should not be able to make their kids go to church with them. They'd probably cite that as an example of the dangers of our country becoming a theocracy.

Nit,

Evil is obviously a subjective evaluation in many cases, though some aspects of evil we can all agree on. Therefore, seeking "evidence" that Dobson is evil does not really make sense. At best it is a fruitless argument. Focus on The Family can do what they please. However, I think it's interesting how they focus on gays more than say...divorce. Which threatens family more? I think it's obvious.

"It would make it a crime for parents to tell their children that Jesus is the son of God or force them to go to church."

I seriously doubt that. What proof do you have? The Focus on the Family website will not cut it either. Do you have an official link to the actual treaty where it states that?

Stevie D,

Here's the link to the treaty. Check out Articles 14, 28, and 37.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Other things that this treaty would ensure is that home schooling would be outlawed, government run health care would be required for all children, and other dangers.

The link below, while not unbiased, does discuss many of the potential dangers involved in ratifying this treaty.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000020.asp

I've read many links that detail the issues that Great Britain has had after ratifying this treaty. They are available on the internet.

All I'm saying is that the ramnifications of this treat could be HUGE for our way of life in America.

Without Focus on the Family, I would have never learned of this treaty. Which is kinda scary, regardless of what one's take on it is.

Nit,

OK I don't see what you are talking about in there. I did a quick keyword search of the treaty and did not see the word Jesus in there anywhere. Maybe I missed it. I did not read the other link yet either.

I for one support the U.N. as a peacemaking body, not a world government. Don't want you to think I am coming from a different angle than I am.

However, I still suspect the ideas you expressed may be exaggerations or deceptions about the treaty espoused by groups like Focus on the Family. If I really thought they were trying to outlaw believing Jesus is the Son of God, I would be outraged. But, common sense tells me this is probably a hypersensitive or deceptive interpretation of what is actually there. Again, I took a quick look. I will check it out further.

Stevie D,

We both know that they aren't going to come right out and say "belief in Jesus is against the law". However, I think if you read the second link, you can imagine the possibilities.

Could there be exaggerations and Chicken Little fears? You bet. Could they be reading more into it than is there? Yep.

But could you see how some of that terminology is ambiguous? That, to me, is the danger. The document itself isn't nearly as scary as the procedures of who has the authority to enforce it or make recommendations based on it. Together, with the way our Constitution is written, the treaty would have more power than it might in other countries that have adopted it.

In my opinion, this is about a WHOLE lot more than just belief in Jesus. It's about our nation's sovereignty and our ability to parent our children.

I think the UN site itself is the best place to find information about how this would be implemented. Of course, it's going to make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread, but I believe you're smart enough to look through the marketing.

Anyway, I think it is pretty interesting. And I'm surprised it wasn't made into more of a big deal than it was when it first came up years ago.

One more question. Had you ever heard of this treaty before today?

Yeah I have. I have not discussed or studied it very closely though. However, I know quite a bit about the Christian Identity movement and the New World Order conspiracy theory. I believe this is just a fear tactic used by like-minded people in the church.

Ya know, the Illuminati started the United Nations to subvert us into world government led by Satan, of course. I don't fully trust the U.N. and I actually don't think all aspects of the New World Order conspiracy theory are totally crazy. Though, some of the fears and ideas that arise from this ideology clearly are. This is simply the “United Nations is trying to subvert your children” bit.

BTW, I don't think it’s irrational to be concerned about such things. I just think it’s possible that irrational thought prompted the original raising of red flags on this particular issue.

I get concerned as well. Also, we shouldn't have to choose between anyone or any people who want to "lord it" over anyone. This is another reason why I get concerned when people of power,be it political, religious, philosophical power, can move peoples' minds and hearts to the point that they don't think for themselves. Everyone can quote something or someone and it's just a perspective, otherwise we get into the quagmire of "my god is bigger, better, smarter than yours". I for one don't want to go there. I get concerned about what I see as the blurring of lines of Church and State. The government should never support a particular type of morality or propose any type ofmorality; morality comes from the people and government should be a reflection of the mind of the people.

I agree with Lex. Many injustices have been done in the name of religion throughout history; so no matter how religious something sounds, look much further and deeper and see what is really involved. There have been many chrismatic people throughout history who "possessed the gift of tongues" and who also have brought humanity to its knees.

NitP,

Help me out with these "HUGE" ramifications. Here are the three articles you referenced in full, and I fail to see how you could have issues with any of them. I've added comments after each to show my interpretation. Please feel free to point out the errors of my ways.

"Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."
--Sounds like it's right up your alley

"2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."
--Means you CAN take your children to church, contrary to what you wrote.

"3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."
--Means the gov't can impose the same laws with respect to children and religion as it imposes with respect to adults and religion. What's the problem here?

"Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates."

--Compulsory primary education, diverse (vocational/academic) offerings for secondary, and encouragement of higher education. Where's the problem?

"2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention."

--Doesn't outlaw corporal punishment, even in schools.

"3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries."

--Encourages literacy. What's the harm here?

"Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age; "

--Really, help me out here. What's the harm in not putting children to death or torturing them?

"(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;"

--Give children access to laws that adults are allowed access to? OK with that?

"(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; "

--Give children accused of crimes access to adults within their families.

"(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action."

--Again, same legal rights for kids charged with a crime as adults.

Thanks Howie G!

J4J, it is ok, I forgive you.

Shalom

Swanks,

Excellent post. The only thing I would like to add is, although your illustration of the Germans and the Nazi mindset was well taken, you did not have to leave the good ole USA for a good example, imho. Just think of what happened during the McCarthy era. Who would have ever thought one man could cause such destruction here in our "Christian" nation?

I agree we have cause for concern from extremists, whether they be faux Christians or terrorists. People who think in concrete terms, the all black or all white mentality, scare me. It is not a matter of either/or when rationally discussing threats to our freedoms.

It has been my experience that history has proven radicals/extremists to be dangerous. And the radicals/extremists do NOT all wear turbans or headdress of any kind. They do not all have brown or olive skin. And they are not all located outside the US.

Great points Howie! Are you and C. Tew related? ;-)

I do however understand Nitpicker's apprehension. However, make take is different. For example, the ambiguity of the treaty bothered Nitpicker. I see how it could. Some might see this as opening the door for abuse.

I for one see the ambiguous language as an indication that it is just another fluff document by the U.N. that has no teeth anyway. Politicians around the world would simply use its passage as political capital. That's all.

"make take is different"

Make that, "my take is different". I'm getting tired. I need to take a profundity break for sure! :-)

I'd lean toward the "fluff document" categorization myself. I think it's design is to encourage members to sign, signifying that the world recognizes the importance of children and their well-being. So it becomes a tool to discourage child labor and abuse, though I'm skeptical as to how useful a tool it would be.

But what perplexes me, and the reason I responded, is 1) what it says about us that we refuse to sign it, and more important for this discussion 2) why FOF would use this as a devisive mechanism. Dobson and Nitpicker have chosen to use this as an illustration of the threat to our way of life, hinting at imprisonment for home-schooling and spanking. Yet the evidence that Nitpicker provides does not support the argument he makes. I give him benefit of the doubt because he's usually fairly balanced, but on this one I think he's drinking the kool-aid. If there is a threat posed by this treaty, I need it explained to me. I haven't read the whole thing, only the passages he pointed two and a few others, but from what I can see, it's virtually impossible to make the case that a country as advanced as we are has anything to fear from such a treaty.

And no, I've never met Mr. Tew, and I'd say we might differ on more than one point.

[[Dan: Every story has two sides.]]

Actually, Dan, I would make the general observation that some stories don't. Or they *seem* to, but the "other side" is a misunderstanding, a misrepresentation or a lie. And as a reporter, I do you, the reader, no good by pretending there are two sides to stories that actually have no second side.

In the particular piece you link, Dobson criticizes Mark Foley -- but then pretends that the House leadership has done no wrong, when in fact it sheltered a known predator for years. Forget politics; if *any* 50-something e-mailed my teenage kid asking for photos, I'd be on his/her doorstep with my Henry Aaron model Louisville Slugger within the hour. Well, actually, I'd be on the phone to the police, but I would *want* to be on his/her doorstep with my Henry Aaron model Louisville Slugger within the hour.

LEX,
As Darryl would say, "You speak my mind".

[[interested observer: That's your evidence against Dobson? One blogger's opinion? Please.
To disregard all of the good that Focus on the Family has done because you disagree with someone's politics or religious beliefs is asinine.]]

No, that's not my *evidence*. That's one example, which is what nitpicker asked for. If you're looking for a body of evidence, Google is your friend.

And it's not a question of my agreeing or disagreeing with Dobson's political beliefs. It's a question of my agreeing or disagreeing with him on whether this country should and will be based on the Constitution or on the Old Testament.

"And as a reporter, I do you, the reader, no good by pretending there are two sides to stories that actually have no second side."

That is the problem with reporters these days, they take the one side they pick up from Reuters, NYTimes, AP and other sources and report it. They also will tend to take the side that fits their ideology, (code word liberal) hence the dinosaur MSM is not the power it used to be. Ask Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.

You cited an anti-Dobson blog as your evidence, I cited a link with actual quotes from the accused. This story does indeed have two sides, do don't deny it. You simply choose the side that fits your needs and have the gall to call yourself a reporter.

As for the Foley scandal, let the investigations continue and let the facts be known. Other than the fact that Foley is a creepy pervert and I'm glad he is gone, who knew what and when isn't known yet.

I've also heard that Dems knew of this prior but waited one month before the elections to reveal it for maximum political damage. I'm saving judgement on that as I don't know what the truth is, so I will wait to find out. You should too instead of jumping to conclusions.

As for your baseball bat scenario, do you know if the kid's parents knew of this prior to the whole world knowing it?

BTW, I called Dobson and he is not running for president. The last "reverend" or person of faith I remember running for prez was the reverend Al Sharpton in '04. Of course the "reverend" (I use the term loosely) Jesse Jackson ran twice. Now we can't have these "reverends" running for elected office can we? Hell they might toss out the Constitution and replace it with the Old Testament!!! Or is that only conservative "reverends"?

Dan, aside from the extremely sarcastic way an earlier posting was replied, I will not go there in like fashion.

What I will say is that few "liberal" reverends seek to gain political standing wanting to disregard the Constitution and replace it with the Hebrew Scriptures. That is folly pure and simple, regardless whether liberal, moderate, conservative, fundamentalist, etc., et al.

The point is that seeking to circumvent the Constitution with ANY religious text defies why the USA was founded! I believe that is the underlying point that several posting here (including myself) have sought to make.

I would no more likelihood vote for a James Dobson than I would an Al Sharpton. You can replace any name there you wish; if the person has formerly had ties with a religious denomination as a standing clergyperson, then I cannot in clear conscience vote for that person to represent me in a political arena. Sadly though, there are far too many that ARE elected who have "sold their soul" to religious organizations (as a whole) that do get elected for that simple reason. I personally prefer to have my spiritual life taking place in consultation with the Meeting House, not the State House or Congress!

I expect the elected leadership of my city/county/state/nation to work for the betterment of ALL people, regardless of that elected person's religious or non-religious beliefs. That is because every person in said representatives area may or may not hold to same/similar religious beliefs, if any at all.

So, with that thought in mind, would you want a person of Islamic faith representing you in any of the aforementioned arenas with that person voting according to Islamic faith principals? Just food for thought!

Shalom

Darryl, Greetings from Richmond, VA. Back on the site from my hotel room with my wi-fi laptop.

I'm glad you recognized my previous post as pure sarcasm, as it certainly was. Your previous post was a bit of chicken little and the sky falling, so I had to respond with a bit of humor. You can go to Estonia instead of N. Korea, it's an awesome country, I'll join you.

I agree with you Darryl, I would no sooner vote for Dobson as I would Sharpton. Guess who ran for prez?

As for politicians who have "sold their souls" to religious organizations, I could just as easily say leftist politicians have "sold their souls" to the pro-abortion lobbies such as NOW or NARAL, union lobbies, social spending lobbies, etc. Works both ways doesn't it?

Most politicans have religious views and that is a fact of life. Some views are contrary to the faith of the politician. Remember John Kerry, a Catholic, being pro-choice? That is anathema to the Catholic faith, but Kerry, a Democrat, obviously couldn't come out against abortion so he comes out with the "abortion should be rare" speech. Trying to have it both ways.

Sorry, forgot to post the reference.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/kerry.abortion/

[[dan: That is the problem with reporters these days, they take the one side they pick up from Reuters, NYTimes, AP and other sources and report it]]

Dan, please prove it. With, you know, evidence.

And, although you might not want to admit it, there ARE indeed some stories that only have one side. For example, evolution isn't a two-sided story; it has science on one side and political hooey on the other. The question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq isn't an "issue" with two sides: There simply were none. Even the administration has conceded that fact.

[[dan: You simply choose the side that fits your needs and have the gall to call yourself a reporter.]]

Dan, you implied by linking to Dobson's piece that what he was saying is factually accurate. It is not, as a variety of sources have come forward to attest. Acknowledging that fact doesn't make me "liberal" or one-sided; it makes me nondelusional, an attribute we have reason to believe our readers value.

[[dan: who knew what and when isn't known yet.]]

Not completely, but we do know enough to know that Hastert and Reynolds, at the least, were aware of Foley's problematic behavior months before they claim to have been first informed, so they not only left a predator in place, they also, for whatever reason, said things about that behavior to the American people that were not true.

[[dan: I've also heard that Dems knew of this prior but waited one month before the elections to reveal it for maximum political damage. I'm saving judgement on that as I don't know what the truth is, so I will wait to find out. You should too instead of jumping to conclusions.]]

Given that the lead reporters on this story have positively identified their sources as Republicans, and that some of those Republicans have themselves come forward, I don't think we need to save judgment anymore.

Moreover, for the scenario you allege to be true, we would have to believe that Democrats, a party that couldn't even organize a filibuster on torture (just typing that makes it sound like the punch line to a joke) could organize an intricate ensnarement on grounds of personal misbehavior on the part of most senior House GOP members and execute it flawlessly, setting it into motion many months, if not several years, before the 2006 elections.

Possible? Sure, I guess. Likely? Please.

[[dan: As for your baseball bat scenario, do you know if the kid's parents knew of this prior to the whole world knowing it?]]

No, but what the kid's parents knew and when they knew it isn't the point. The point is what Hastert, Reynolds et al., most of whom have kids, knew. Instead of reacting like parents, they reacted like politicos covering up an inconvenient secret.

[[dan: BTW, I called Dobson and he is not running for president. The last "reverend" or person of faith I remember running for prez was the reverend Al Sharpton in '04. Of course the "reverend" (I use the term loosely) Jesse Jackson ran twice. Now we can't have these "reverends" running for elected office can we? Hell they might toss out the Constitution and replace it with the Old Testament!!! Or is that only conservative "reverends"?]]

The issue isn't someone who's religious, or even ordained, running for office. The issue is tossing out the Constitution in favor of Leviticus.

Lex,
Again, you have spoken my mind!
*************
Dan,
In deference to your reading deficiency, James Dobson DID run for President....through one of his minions, Gary Bauer. Separated at birth, Gary Bauer is the embodiment of Mr. Dobson's political aspirations, but his running allows Dobson to continue to run his empire of publishing and broadcasting. Mr. Bauer went over like a turd in a punch bowl, but he certainly wanted a seat at the table of power. While Sharpton and Jackson make good overt fodder, it is Dobson and Bauer who are the most dangerous. Power is their opiate. For Sharpton and Jackson, it is a vanity play from the word go. I have listened to hours of Dobson as I travel down into eastern North Carolina. He is one scary fellow who would love for our country to be run by "Christians"....of his liking, of course.

Lex: "And, although you might not want to admit it, there ARE indeed some stories that only have one side. For example, evolution isn't a two-sided story; it has science on one side and political hooey on the other."

You just proved my point. To you it's a one- sided secular progressive opinion that is fact, nothing else. For the Christians (and others) of the world who may have a different opinion , almighty Lex dismisses it as "political hooey". Thanks for helping me out there Lex, you just beautifully illustrated your one sided bias. I just thought you were a blogger. You are a reporter? Scary, but not at all uncommon with dinosaur media types.

Lex: "Given that the lead reporters on this story have positively identified their sources as Republicans, and that some of those Republicans have themselves come forward, I don't think we need to save judgment anymore."

Oh I see, we accept what lead reporters say as fact and dismiss any findings from an investigation? Who are the "lead reporters", can you tell me? Now there's seeking out the truth.

BTW, I didn't allege anything to be true so don't put words in my mouth. I said let the investigation continue and the facts be known. If it is proven that Hastert or anyone else, (R or D) committed any wrongdoing then they should pay the price. I thought that's what reporters do instead of jumping to conclusions that fit their myopic ideals sans facts.

Where is your FACTUAL proof that Hastert and Reynolds knew of this prior? Where is your factual proof that no Dems knew prior?

Can you please tell me whom running for office is tossing out the Constitution in favor of Leviticus? You know....evidence!!

*************
Dan,
In deference to your reading deficiency, James Dobson DID run for President....through one of his minions, Gary Bauer. Separated at birth...."

At least Lex, despite his obvious lack of objectivity, can post something intelligible. Well....I'll leave it at that.

[[dan: You just proved my point. To you it's a one- sided secular progressive opinion that is fact, nothing else. For the Christians (and others) of the world who may have a different opinion , almighty Lex dismisses it as "political hooey".]]

Dan, there's a world of evidence in support of evolution. Just Google for it and you'll find it. Where's the direct, probative evidence for creationism or intelligent design? Where, in fact, is the circumstantial evidence? Show me one artice in any reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Go on. I'll wait.

[[dan: Oh I see, we accept what lead reporters say as fact and dismiss any findings from an investigation? ]]

And the sources themselves? Remember them?

For the record, I'm generally in favor of waiting for the results of investigations, too, but in this case we already know certain things that no investigation is likely to change, and there's no sense pretending otherwise.

[[dan: Where is your FACTUAL proof that Hastert and Reynolds knew of this prior?]]

Gee, let's see, aides and other congresscritters have come forward to say they told Hastert and Reynolds. Hastert's story has changed about six times since the news broke. It isn't ironclad proof, but it certainly is far more supportive of that scenario than it is of yours.

And why should I prove the Dems didn't know? The burden is on the accuser to offer proof.

Finally, if you want proof the nationalist movement exists, do as I suggested in the original review: read the book. Then read its source material; it's amply footnoted, and unlike Ann Coulter, Ms. Goldberg appears able to understand and accurately represent her source material.

"I have listened to hours of Dobson as I travel down into eastern North Carolina. He is one scary fellow who would love for our country to be run by "Christians"....of his liking, of course."

Posted by: DemonDeacon at October 11, 2006 06:04 PM

YOU ARE AS FUNDAMENTAL IN YOUR INTELLECTUAL RELIGION AS as he is in his...are you yet not as scary as him? you are to me, and that is regardless of having DEMON as part of your handle, and certainly you are no church deacon...

youre right and he's wrong?

you are as entitled to your opinion as i am, i believe it scary (frightening actually) to live in a nation lead by secular fundamentalists, you disagree...

the only comfort (for me anyways) is knowiing that G-d will accomplish what G-d wants to accomplish, and it is He who is in control, not the fundamentalists on either side...

Lex, nice jump off topic, I'll put you back on it.

Here is my point, read carefully: you deny the fact that most stories have two (or more) sides, take the version that fits your ideological needs and dismiss anything else.

First example, you imply with a link from and unknown blogger that his/her viewpoint about Dobson is factually accurate. I provide a link from Dobson who explains his viewpoint in his own words. There are two sides to the story. You may not believe Dobson, but he still presents a second side to the story. Why not present both sides and let the reader decide?

Second example, not sure why you got off on evolution, but I'll go with it. I'm not a scientist nor a theologian and my point is not to prove or disprove the theories of evolution, creationism, or intelligent design.

My point is that there are a myriad of sides to this story, yet you select the ONE side that fits your ideology, ignore billions of people who have other beliefs and callously dismiss it as "political hooey". Why not present both sides of the story and let the reader decide?

"For the record, I'm generally in favor of waiting for the results of investigations, too, but in this case we already know certain things that no investigation is likely to change, and there's no sense pretending otherwise."

I don't find reporters generally in favor of waiting for the results of investigations, that takes too long and deprives the reporter of a juicy story. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are the hallmark of this phenomenon. With Foley, there were Democratic calls for Hastert to resign before Foley even hung up his jacket in his rehab facility. Waiting for the results of an investigation would likely require waiting past Nov. 7, bad news huh? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

A very recent example of not waiting for an investigation to take place is a USA Today piece http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/post_11.html regarding yesterday's NYC plane crash. The writer attempts to instill fear about small planes flying around skyscrapers holding millions of people or being only seconds away from national monuments in Washington. Oh my Toto!! And there are 220,000 of those planes in the US just waiting to inflict massive damage!!!

As a pilot and owner of one of those massive 120 mph single engine missles that weighs the same as a Honda Civic, I just have to laugh at such so called reporting. There have been two instances of planes hitting skyscrapers in the last five years, yesterday's crash and the one in Tampa, which was intentional.

"For the record, I'm generally in favor of waiting for the results of investigations, too, but in this case we already know certain things that no investigation is likely to change, and there's no sense pretending otherwise."

Using this logic: we know "certain things" 1)A Cirrus SR20 crashed into a building and 2) two people died, both of which are unlikely to change. Case closed, no need for further investigation.

Bottom line Lex, IMO reporters are supposed to report the news in a nonpartisan fashion and let the viewer or reader decide. Those days are long gone, folks like you take the side that fits your ideals, jump to conclusions, dismiss other opionions, and report your "facts" regardless of what a future investigation may reveal.

[[dan: My point is that there are a myriad of sides to this story, yet you select the ONE side that fits your ideology, ignore billions of people who have other beliefs and callously dismiss it as "political hooey". Why not present both sides of the story and let the reader decide?]]

No, Dan, there are not "a myriad of sides to this story" where evolution is concerned. Lots of *people* might think there are, but very few *scientists* believe there are, as witnessed by the fact that there aren't any studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that support any of the supposed alternatives. (And you have to know a little about science to understand the significance, which is huge, of that fact.)

In this case, "telling both sides of the story" creates the false impression of a lack of consensus in the scientific community. In fact, the consensus is overwhelming. If you can't wrap your head around that, either because your religious beliefs prevent you from doing so, because you know too little about science to understand the significance, or for whatever other reason, we're not going to have much to talk about.

And by the way, I didn't say no stories has two sides, I said some stories don't and pretending that one does when it doesn't misleads readers.

But I will say this: Your posts in this thread strongly suggest that you think you understand what goes on in a reporter's mind and how the typical reporter works. I don't know your basis for thinking this, but I can assure you, based on almost a quarter-century of daily newspaper experience, that you're wrong.

I know that a lot of people are used to being able to criticize the news media and some of them, like you, get a little upset when, much to your great surprise, we rise up and refuse to take your BS. But here in the fact-based world, most of us are actually pretty good at our jobs. And while you might think you know how I work and find my work process flawed, the final test of how I work is the stories I've produced. Pretty much everything I've written since 1/1/1990 is available online through Nexis, you can find the rest in various public libraries, and I'm content to let that work stand for itself.

"But here in the fact-based world, most of us are actually pretty good at our jobs."

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes couldn't have said it better.

Face it Lex, the liberal view from the media that we have been forced to gulp for decades is gone. Not that I don't mind different points of view, but not one point of view. Some folks can't stand the fact that people want to hear other points of view other than liberal. The smashing success of talk radio, the Internet, the blogosphere, and FNC illustrates that fact. The failure of Air America does too.

Never said I was an experienced ivory tower reporter or scientist, but I do recognize flawed reporting when I see it. For example, I do know alot about aviation as a pilot of 20 years. Most times when a story relates to aviation it is incorrect conjecture at worse, incomplete at best. The USA Today piece illustrates that fact.

I'm glad you are proud of your work and can make a living from it. I will probably start reading your blog. Just try to be respectful of different opinions and don't dis them as "hooey" or BS just because you don't agree.

[[dan: I'm glad you are proud of your work and can make a living from it. I will probably start reading your blog. Just try to be respectful of different opinions and don't dis them as "hooey" or BS just because you don't agree.]]

Thank you for your kind words, Dan. And I am quite respectful of different *opinions*, as my work covering religion will show, particularly when, as is often the case with religious viewpoints, those opinions become the functional equivalent of fact in people's lives.

It's when people conflate fact with opinion, or vice versa, that I feel the need to take issue. Even then I try to be respectful, but in the particular case of evolution, the issue has been intentionally miscast and manipulated so many times that I perhaps react a bit too strongly to honest differences of opinion or levels of background knowledge. In re-reading my comments higher up, I think I may have done so in this case, and I apologize for that.

No problem Lex, enjoyed the conversation. This thread will probably go away tomorrow. Hope to see you again in some future threads and perhaps I'll hop on yours sometime.

What I object to regarding Mr. Dobson is that he is passing judgment on how dedicated a christian Fred Thompson is. I'm sorry but that judgement is NOT Mr. Dobsons to make.

Do all Republican candidates have to pass the "how christian are you compared to me" administered by the Falwells and Dobson's of the world?? Ridiculous.

Where is the seperation of church and state?