Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Godless Backside

[Eve]

Just what we need, another religious fanatic in politics! I read in the Times this morning a speech Lieberman just gave in Michigan: "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY [my emphasis] for a moral and religious people . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." He also added that the Constitution "guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."

Well, bite me. And bite me again. Does anyone know the best address for me to get in touch with this guy so I can tell him he has just lost a life-long Democrat? Should I write to the Democratic National HQ, or to his Senate office in CT? I mean, why the hell should I support someone who calls me immoral and bad for the country, and says the Constitution is not for ME?

Bastard. Can I marry any of you Brits or Aussies so I can leave this beknighted country?

[Eve]

OK, I found his Senate address and just sent him the following letter. I'm sure he'll never even see it, but at least it makes ME feel better:

Dear Senator,

I was disappointed and disturbed by the text of your Michigan speech, as reported in the New York Times this morning. As a lifelong Democrat, a good loyal American and an atheist, I don’t know how I can, in good conscience, support you for Vice President.

You are quoted as saying, “As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY [my emphasis] for a moral and religious people . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” You also added that the Constitution “guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

Why should I vote for someone who publicly states that I am immoral, bad for this country and have no constitutional rights, simply because I don’t believe in religion? I pay my taxes, do volunteer work, am kind to my family and friends, I pick up earthworms from the sidewalk after a storm and put ’em back on the grass. I Remember Pearl Harbor and I Look for the Union Label!

Will you please explain why I am not a good American?

[Profane]

Put my name on there too Eve! I totally agree.

[Green Bean]

Eve, I completely agree with you.

I guess I count as part of the "Jewish vote" that they think that they are going to get with Lieberman on the ticket. And I admit, when I heard that Gore had chosen a Jewish running mate, I thought to myself "wouldn't it be nice to have a Jew in the White House?" But as soon as I learned a little more about him, any urge that I had to vote for him vanished. Last thing we need is another politician cramming religion down our throats--even if it is a religion that I am ostensibly a part of.

And no, I am not an atheist.

Would you mind posting his Senate address?

[Eve]

If the Mods want to edit this out, feel free—I don't know what the rules are about posting public addresses, so I won't be offended if this is cut. Write to him at either of these addresses:

Senate Hart Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

One State Street, Suite 1420 Hartford, CT 06103

[London_Calling]

I caught a couple of interviews with this guy and he does seem to imbue a lot of High Morality into his spiel. I actually quite liked the mild shot across the bows he gave the Hollywood death and gory film makers a couple of weeks ago but this association with 200 year old morality does seem a little uncomfortable.

I wonder if the context is quite accurately reported – where does the NYT stand on the Demo’s this time around ?

Also, I’m out of touch but, as a long shot, I guess the Demo’s are thinking Gore isn’t going to pull in any of the righteous vote so someone’s got to go for it. Isn’t it just electioneering...

Originally posted by Eve


Bastard. Can I marry any of you Brits or Aussies so I can leave this beknighted country?

Don’t think you can escape over here, Eve. Your reputation is shot asunder after the incident with the dusty wobbly desk and the librarian at Westminster Abbey. The police are saying they don’t have fingerprints but they’d like to take a look at your knees.

[Satan]

Please someone post a link to a transcript of the speech or news coverage of same? I would like to see everything in context.

If I see exactly what I think I will see based upon the quotes in the OP, I will write letters until the cows come home.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

_{I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, five days, 12 hours, 54 minutes and 53 seconds.
5661 cigarettes not smoked, saving $707.69.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 45 minutes.}

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
_{Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!}

[sdimbert]

OK, Eve, I understand your point and applaud both your efforts and indignation.

But here's my question. You quote Lieberman as saying:

[list][*]“As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purpose . . .[*]John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY [my emphasis] for a moral and religious people . . .[*]George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

There are three statements there. The second two are not Leiberman's, they are John Adams' and George Washington's, respectively. So, obviously, you're not taking issue with them, right?

So, let's take a look at his first stamement. If I understand you, you take offense at Lieberman's suggestion that we, "as a people," renew our dedication to God and his purpose.

You do know where you live, right? I mean, I feel odd (as a Jew) pointing this out, but this is a de facto Christian country. Seperation of Church and State exists as policy because it needs to; ours is a deeply religious nation, both in its politics and it constituents.

You accuse Leiberman of calling you, "immoral" and, "bad for this country." You say he denies your constitutional rights, simply because you don’t believe in religion.

Where does he say these things?

I admit that religion is a touchy point in politics... I am not sure how I feel about a candidate selected because of his religion (and not despite it). Nevertheless, I don't see how the vitriol of your OP can be defended.

[Weirddave]

Do you really think Dubba is going to be any better? His idea of freedom of religion is chosing what type of Baptist you wanna be. Both these guys suck, what a choice. I think I'm gonna write in a vote for Mickey Mouse.

[Eve]

"The police are saying they don’t have fingerprints but they’d like to take a look at your knees."

—Oh, if I had a dime for every man who's said THAT . . .

Satan—I wish I had a link, but I clipped this out of today's NYT. It was a weekend speech, though, so I'll bet most of the online newswires would have covered it.

sdimbert—I found his quoting of outdated 200-year-old morality offensive. Yeah, I'll bet I WOULD argue a few points with Washington and Adams today!

I'll pull an old trick here to show how horrifying I found his speech. Pretend you're black and you heard Lieberman say, "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to white people and the Aryan purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY for white anglo-saxon Protestants . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without untainted white blood." And that the Constitution "guarantees freedom of racial discrimination, not freedom from racial discrimination."

OK, I admit that's not QUITE the same thing, but as an atheist, it's just as scary.

[oldscratch]

Here is one story on it for Satan and others. Also, thank you Eve. I was going to post almost exactly the same subject, but you beat me to it. Do we really want a religous freak like this in a position of power? One who said he doesn't want atheists running the country.

Joe's Godly Agenda This is the actual title, I swear it.


Just goes to show, you can't trust either canidate.

[BeerDog]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eve


Can I marry any of you Brits or Aussies so I can leave this beknighted country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Does this rule out Canadians? If not,

<bad Morrocian accent>

"Come with me to the Casbah."

</bad Morrocian Accent>

In this case, the Casbah is a small town in Atlantic Canada. It's kinda boring, but we can have whatever religiuos views we want (including none at all).

[lawoot]

Originally posted by Eve

I'll pull an old trick here to show how horrifying I found his speech. Pretend you're black and you heard Lieberman say, "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to white people and the Aryan purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY for white anglo-saxon Protestants

But he DID. Remember the only people who were able to vote when this country was formed were free, white 21 year old males. Wonder if Joe wants to return to THAT idea of the founding fathers, as well.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Damn. I was afraid of this.

I think Ralph Nader may be getting my vote after all.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by Eve
I found his quoting of outdated 200-year-old morality offensive. Yeah, I'll bet I WOULD argue a few points with Washington and Adams today!

Good. That's the way our government works.

I'll pull an old trick here to show how horrifying I found his speech. Pretend you're black and you heard Lieberman say, "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to white people and the Aryan purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY for white anglo-saxon Protestants . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without untainted white blood." And that the Constitution "guarantees freedom of racial discrimination, not freedom from racial discrimination."

OK, I admit that's not QUITE the same thing, but as an atheist, it's just as scary.

Eve, you are right. The preceeding statement, while fictional, is scary. And it is, definitely not the same thing at all.

What you are forgetting is that between Adams and us is over 200 years of American political history.

You can kick and scream and shout from your soap box all you want, but the fact of the matter is that America Loves God. Look at our currency, our foreign and domestic policy, etc etc etc. Ours is a religious country.

Of course, it must be said that ours is a religious country that practices freedom of religion. This means that Joe and I are just as free to practice as you are not to.

So, you object to his language? Fine. Write him a letter, as you have. Form a lobby. Hell, don't vote for him if you want.

I just wanted to alert you to the fact that, as an univolved outsider, I didn't understand exactly what remarks Joe made that upset you. I still don't. I don't see where he called you (as an atheist) names or denied you a thing.

[sdimbert]

Eve,

What of this, taken from Lieberman's speech:

Let us reach out together to those who may neither believe nor observe and reassure them that we share with them the core values of America, that our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom, and that our mission is not one of intolerance but one of love.

I personally find some of his rhetoric distasteful, but what of the message? Faith is not inconsistent with freedom from faith.

[BunnyGirl]

I typically don't post in the pit but I've got to add my $.02.

As a Christian, I don't think I'd want a person who runs on the platform of "being a Christian" in the White House. Why? Because I am a firm believer that you cannot mandate morality (I mean belief systems, etc, not the general laws. Let's not get too technical). If you are a Christian, then live like one, vote for what you belive is good and let your life speak for itself. Once you make "being a Christian" part of your campaign, it becomes simply that - a platform.

[Eve]

sdimbert—Yeah, I read that other part of his speech as well. I found it a little hard to swallow after the past few weeks of hearing him cram the Old Testament down my throat.

You really can't understand how an atheist would find his remarks offensive and frightening? I don't know what else I can do to explain it for you. Anyone else wanna jump in?

And yes, I agree that—unfortunately—this is a bible-bangin' country, and neither I nor anyeone else is going to change that. And yes, I agree that the Republicans are even worse. But that doesn't make me feel any better about the Democrats suddenly going all holier-than thou.

It's all very depressing—I'm certainly not going to vote for Bush, or the Mini-Me candidates (Nader, Buchanan). So what do I do? I wish they had an "I don't want ANY of 'em!" space on the ballot.

[Gaudere]

Sdimbert, what if a Christian Veep canidate had said: "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to Christ and Christ's purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY [my emphasis] for a Christian people . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without Christianity.” Wouldn't a non-Christian feel that the prospective Veep had deliberately excluded non-Christians from the consititution and any claim to morality?

I'm rather pissed with Lieberman too. I wanted to like him, but it looks like he's going for the conservative Christain vote at the expense of those of us who do not worship any deity, and don't like being told I can't maintain morality without religion.

[Nen]

Originally posted by sdimbert
I don't see where he called you (as an atheist) names or denied you a thing.

sdimbert, pay attention to the following.

Lieberman stated, "We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

Does that statement not imply that atheism will not be tolerated?

Lieberman stated, "As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes."

Does that statement not imply that religious overtone will heavily color political positions should Lieberman be elected?

Lieberman stated, "John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,"

Does that statement not exclude atheists from United States citizenship?

Lieberman stated,"George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition ‘that morality can be maintained without religion.’"

Does that statement not imply that atheists are immoral?

Lieberman stated, "I want to talk to you this morning about another barrier that may fall, as well, as a result of my nomination," which I assume was in conjunction with this statement, "I hope it will enable people, all people who are moved, to feel more free to talk about their faith and about their religion. And I hope that it will reinforce the belief that I feel as strongly as anything else, that there must be a place for faith in America's public life."

Does that statement not imply that religious overtones will color public life as a result of executive order (barring those already conceded by the first amendment)?

Lieberman stated, "Let us reach out together to those who may neither believe nor observe and reassure them that we share with them the core values of America, that our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom, and that our mission is not one of intolerance but one of love,"

Does that statement not seem inconsistent with the others? Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps we can continue to live the way we wish provided we subject ourselves to an inundation of religious propaganda. Perhaps atheists, agnostics, buddhists, et cetera are okay provided our beliefs aren't represented in the government and Lieberman's are. If he considers a belief in god to be a core value of America which does not differ from my belief, he's got another thing coming.

Does this post clarify how one might take offense at Lieberman's statements?

[Revtim]

I was very disappointed to read this thread about Lieberman. I was hoping that as a Jew, one of the most persecuted peoples in all of history, he would tolerate all views.

The problem is, if freedom of and from religion is key to you, who do you vote for? I thought I read that it was likely that there would be some Supreme Court justices retiring in the next term (I will have to verify this), and I sure as shit don't want a conservative administration appointing new justices if I can help it. (Not even a "compassionate" conservative).

If it turns out that it's likely there will be new Supreme Court justices appointed, I'm going to have to still go with Gore/Lieberman. My gamble is that long-term this will be better for freedom of/from religion than if Bush appoints new justices.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by Eve
You really can't understand how an atheist would find his remarks offensive and frightening? I don't know what else I can do to explain it for you.

You know what I think the problem is? As an observant Jew, I am used to politicians saying religious things that I don't agree with.

I mean, yeah, I agree with you in theory... politics and religion shouldn't mix. But, I'm more pragmatic about the whole situation.

And, I don't see why Leiberman's remarks offend and frighten you more than Bush's. Or Buchanan's. Or Carter's. Or any other politician's.

Also, remember to whom Lieberman was speaking at the time. This address was given to a Church audience... I think you can cut the man a little slack. When speaking to Church groups, he emphasizes religion. I'll bet that if he was invited to DavidB's house, his tune would be different. That's politics.

Ignoring his beliefs, what do you think of the man's stand on issues?

[QuickSilver]

As unpleasant and distasteful Joe's speach was to me, I find that I can rationalize his motivation for making these statements. Politics is a dirty game and not a single successful politician exists that cannot speak out of both sides of his face. I think this was simply a calculated attempt at trying to win over the undecided leftish conservative voters. Perhaps even an attempt to lure away some left leaning republicans.

I find it crass. Disgusting. Immoral. And entirely political. You cannot trust any of these bastards farther than you can throw them. They'd sell their mother for a hundred votes.

[Eve]

Thanks, Nen, you explained it better than I could.

This whole thing is very depressing—like Revtim, I just don't know what to do. I guess Gore/Lieberman ARE the lesser of the evils, but still . . .

Sdimbert—His other views? Well, I don't like how he was the first Democrat to attack Clinton, and I don't like his voting for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. But that just puts him in league with just about every other pol.

I repeat, I want to lobby for a "none of the bastards!" choice on the November ballot . . .

[Nen]

Originally posted by sdimbert
Also, remember to whom Lieberman was speaking at the time. This address was given to a Church audience... I think you can cut the man a little slack. [snip] Ignoring his beliefs, what do you think of the man's stand on issues?

Sure, Lieberman was speaking to a religious congregation, but does a politicians platform change as a result of the audience to which he addresses. Lieberman stated, "As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes." I'd be damn confused if Lieberman felt that the nation needs to dedicate itself to god only while he addresses the theistically oriented. His stance on the nation and god seems like an issue which is an integral part of his platform. You can't ignore his beliefs in that regard.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by sdimbert

And, I don't see why Leiberman's remarks offend and frighten you more than Bush's. Or Buchanan's. Or Carter's. Or any other politician's.

Speaking for me. They don't. they do illustrate that atheists and those who favor not having prayer in schools can't trust him anymore than they can trust bush. It simply shows how much the two canidates and they're Veeps are alike.

Ignoring his beliefs, what do you think of the man's stand on issues?

Also fairly conservative, moral, and scary. His stand on the entertainment industry is frightening.

[divemaster]

This statement was reported in the Washington Post immediately after Gore named Lieberman as his VP pick:

"He (Lieberman) believes, as I do, that the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof," Mr. Gore said..."And as I stand next to him today, I believe in my heart that we are one step to truly being one nation under God."

One Nation Under God???

I bet it doens't stop the ACLU and the People for the American Way (et al.) from contributing to the Gore/Lieberman campaign, however.

[Gaudere]

You know what I think the problem is? As an observant Jew, I am used to politicians saying religious things that I don't agree with.

As an atheist, Izzy, I bet I have to deal with a lot more politicans saying religious things I don't agree with than you do. Most politicians go for a generic "God" reference, which is not antithetical to *your* beliefs, but it is for mine. I'd like to think that if a major politician implied that Jews couldn't be moral, you'd be up in arms, and rightfully so--and I'd stand beside you. And if Bush, Carter or Buchanan makes comments excluding a group from genuine morality based on their religion, I'll be pissed at them too. I'm mostly angry at Lieberman because I expected better from him; I already know Buchanan's an ass.

[Nen]

Originally posted by Eve
I wish they had an "I don't want ANY of 'em!" space on the ballot.

Those votes should deduct one vote from each candidate. I'd love to see a politician with a negative vote count.

[sdimbert]

Gaudere:
Nice to see you! Haven't debated with you in a while. Here goes...

Originally posted by Gaudere
...what if a Christian Veep canidate had said: "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to Christ and Christ's purpose . . . John Adams wrote that our constitution was made ONLY [my emphasis] for a Christian people . . . George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without Christianity.” Wouldn't a non-Christian feel that the prospective Veep had deliberately excluded non-Christians from the consititution and any claim to morality?

First of all, politicians have been saying things just like that for a while. See my earlier post to Eve - I'm used to it.
Secondly, while your theoretical point is a good one, it is only theoretical. John Adams and George Washington never said those things. And, if they had, the 200+ years of American political history since them would have dealt with the issue already.

I'm rather pissed with Lieberman too. I... don't like being told I can't maintain morality without religion.

I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole. I've been over that with you before. Suffice it to say that, yes, Lieberman is a religous candidate. I would love to see a Jew on the ticket despite his religion instead of because of it. But, I believe that he's a more reasonable man than the media is making him out to be. I am willing to wait and see. After all, I have been warily watching religious politicians for a long time. At least this time he's my kind of religion!


Nen:

Lieberman stated, "We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

Does that statement not imply that atheism will not be tolerated?

Honestly? I don't think so.

I read his statement to be saying that religion is not a taboo in politics despite what some hard-line Seperationist might believe.

Lieberman stated, "As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes."

Does that statement not imply that religious overtone will heavily color political positions should Lieberman be elected?

Honestly? I don't think so (again).

Look, this is a county where schoolchildren recite, "One nation, under God..." isn't it? Nobody clamors over the Seperation of Church and State on that one, do they?

Don't get caught up in his rhetoric. As I said earlier, politicians have been saying things like this for a long time. This time, it happens to be a Jewish one. BFD.

Lieberman stated, "John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,"

Does that statement not exclude atheists from United States citizenship?

No, literally, it excludes them from the group of people for whom the Constitution was made. Whatever that means.

Look - The statement isn't Leiberman's, it's Adams'. You got a problem with John Adams? You're blaming the wrong person! For better or for worse, that statement is part of the cannon of American Political Literature. If you're unhappy with that, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Lieberman stated,"George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition ‘that morality can be maintained without religion.’"

Does that statement not imply that atheists are immoral?

It implies that George Washington felt that morality can not be maintained without religion. The fact that Lieberman used it in a speach implies that he is like-minded.

Good thing he's not running for the office of Vice-President of Morality.

Lieberman stated, "I want to talk to you this morning about another barrier that may fall, as well, as a result of my nomination," which I assume was in conjunction with this statement, "I hope it will enable people, all people who are moved, to feel more free to talk about their faith and about their religion. And I hope that it will reinforce the belief that I feel as strongly as anything else, that there must be a place for faith in America's public life."

Does that statement not imply that religious overtones will color public life as a result of executive order (barring those already conceded by the first amendment)?

No. It implies that Lieberman wants more people to be able to feel comfortable with their religions. Did you skip the part where he said, "all people who are moved"?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you're taking an alarmist viewpoint here, reading too much into his statements. Again, nothing he said here is new. It's just Jewish this time.

Lieberman stated, "Let us reach out together to those who may neither believe nor observe and reassure them that we share with them the core values of America, that our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom, and that our mission is not one of intolerance but one of love,"

Does that statement not seem inconsistent with the others? Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps we can continue to live the way we wish provided we subject ourselves to an inundation of religious propaganda. Perhaps atheists, agnostics, buddhists, et cetera are okay provided our beliefs aren't represented in the government and Lieberman's are. If he considers a belief in god to be a core value of America which does not differ from my belief, he's got another thing coming.

Sarcastic much?

Does this post clarify how one might take offense at Lieberman's statements?

Yes, it does. It illustrates that if one takes every statement at face value, ignoring those that are inconsistent with one's thesis and ascribes an evil motivation to ideas that are as old as the US itself, one might take offense.

[Eve]

Sdimbert—you may think I am just getting hysterical over Lieberman, but I get upset when ANY politician tries to cram religion down my throat (ANY religion).

As someone else here pointed out, it's particularly disappointing coming from a Jew and a Democrat. Just reminds us atheists how really despised and alienated we are in this country, still.

[Gaudere]

First of all, politicians have been saying things just like that for a while. See my earlier post to Eve - I'm used to it.

If they've been saying that a person can't be moral without worshipping Christ, they were wrong to say that, and if I were you I'd be pissed off. I'm "used" to having atheism blamed for everything from pot-smoking to murder, but I'll be damned if I let politicians go on their merry way denigrating other religions or the irreligious without me making my opinion of that rather loudly known. Why do you allow politicians to imply that non-Christians are less moral than a Christian, and not only do you not do anything about it yourself, you counsel others to do nothing either? Remember, "turn the other cheek" is a Christian tenet--us atheists and Jews *can* fight for respect. And I think we should.

But, I believe that he's a more reasonable man than the media is making him out to be.

I thought he was a reasonable man; I'm no longer terribly impressed with him. It's not "the media" that said those things--he did.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Gaudere
As an atheist, Izzy.............

Gets hard to tell these Orthodox Jews apart, sometimes...

[Gaudere]

Huh? I know you're Jewish--I was saying, "Speaking as I am as an atheist, Izzy, blah blah blah blah..." I was not saying you were an atheist, I was simply referring to you by name. Sorry if I was unclear.

[sdimbert]

Eve.

Again, lay off the extremist rhetoric.

Nothing Lieberman has said even approaches suggesting that he despises atheists. Or anyone else for that matter.

He didn't cram religion (or anything else) down your throat.

Hell, he wasn't even talking to you.

EVERYBODY CALM DOWN!

• Stop labelling.
• Stop ascribing motives and motivations that are not obvious.
• Stop reading things into other people's statements.
• Stop alarming others when no alarm is justified.

All of these things are exactly what the media does wrong.


Gaudere,

If they've been saying that a person can't be moral without worshipping Christ, they were wrong to say that, and if I were you I'd be pissed off.

First of all, just for clarity's sake, you mentioned Christ, not Joseph Lieberman.

Why do you allow politicians to imply that non-Christians are less moral than a Christian, and not only do you not do anything about it yourself, you counsel others to do nothing either?

Look - Joe Lieberman doesn't need my permission to say anything. I didn't "allow" him to say what he said any more than I "allowed" the sun to rise this morning.

I reiterate the first point I made in this post (to Eve): Calm down. Lieberman wasn't talking to you when he said the things he said.

Of course you have the right to frame your opinions of him based on everything he says and does. But do yourself a favor and stop End-of-the-Worlding every statement he (and others) make.

USA Today and TV Newsmagazines do a good enough job of over-reacting, reading out of context and reading into people's remarks. Let's let our discussion here be of a more civilized nature.


(And, BTW, Izzy was pointing out that the remarks to which you originally responded were mine, not his.)

[Nen]

sdimbert,

Gaudere stated:

I...don't like being told I can't maintain morality without religion.

To which you responded:

I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole.

However, you responded to my similar remark:

Lieberman stated,"George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition ‘that morality can be maintained without religion.’"

Does that statement not imply that atheists are immoral?

With this statement:
[/quote]It implies that George Washington felt that morality can not be maintained without religion. The fact that Lieberman used it in a speach implies that he is like-minded.[/quote]

Since you touched it with your ten-foot pole, as it were, you have stated that Lieberman maintains Washington's belief, ergo, Lieberman believes atheists are immoral.

Originally posted by sdimbert
Honestly? I don't think so.

I read his statement to be saying that religion is not a taboo in politics despite what some hard-line Seperationist might believe.

That's a valid interpretation; however, I believe in complete separation of church and state, so I still find it offensive.

Originally posted by sdimbert
Honestly? I don't think so (again).

Look, this is a county where schoolchildren recite, "One nation, under God..." isn't it? Nobody clamors over the Seperation of Church and State on that one, do they?

I sure as hell do. I got reprimanded for not pledging my allegiance.

Originally posted by sdimbert
This time, it happens to be a Jewish one. BFD.

I don't care what his religious orientation is, I just don't want it interfering with government.

Originally posted by sdimbert
No, literally, it excludes them from the group of people for whom the Constitution was made. Whatever that means.

And the Constitution was made for whom?

Originally posted by sdimbert
Look - The statement isn't Leiberman's, it's Adams'. You got a problem with John Adams? You're blaming the wrong person!

Lieberman implied that he adhered to Adams' beliefs in the same fashion as he did Washington's.

Originally posted by sdimbert
No. It implies that Lieberman wants more people to be able to feel comfortable with their religions.

Lieberman mentioned nothing of comfort. I personally have no problem with people being comfortable with their respective religions; however, executive mandates regarding religions in a public forum are unnecessary and offensive.

Originally posted by sdimbert
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you're taking an alarmist viewpoint here, reading too much into his statements. Again, nothing he said here is new.

Regardless of whether or not it is "new", it is unsettling. I am very critical of politicians. Their words bear heavily on the future of this society. Politicians should be capable of placing precise meaning into their statements.

Originally posted by sdimbert
Sarcastic much?

Frequently, but how is that relevant to my statement?

Originally posted by sdimbert
Yes, it does. It illustrates that if one takes every statement at face value, ignoring those that are inconsistent with one's thesis and ascribes an evil motivation to ideas that are as old as the US itself, one might take offense.

I utilized all quotations availble from the referenced media. I ignored nothing; moreover, I ignored nothing inconsistent with my thesis.

[2nd Law]

Yet another reason to vote Libertarian (and I'm not referring to the poster by that name). I just looked at their website and their position on religion is acceptable to me, and I'm an atheist.

[Gaudere]

::slapping self in head:: Ok, I get it. Forgive me, I'm a moron. I always get confused when two people argue the same side, since I rarely look carefully at who is posting, and you two don't have distinctive enough "voices" that I can tell you apart without your SNs. I could use my Secret Moderator Powers to fix the name, but I can't do that invisibly. Curses, I guess I'm left looking like a twit.

First of all, just for clarity's sake, you mentioned Christ, not Joseph Lieberman.

Well, I'd hardly expect him to. You said you were used to religious politicians saying things like Lieberman, except denigrating your beliefs instead of mine. I then stated that it would be wrong for a person to imply that either non-Christians or non-theists cannot be truly moral. I'm not sure why you are pointing out that Lieberman did not mention Christ, except to note that he is not excluding Jews from being capable of genuine morality--just atheists, agnostics, Buddhists...

Look - Joe Lieberman doesn't need my permission to say anything. I didn't "allow" him to say what he said any more than I "allowed" the sun to rise this morning.

No, of course not, but if someone was implying that you couldn't be moral without worshipping Christ, I'd expect you to get a bit peeved. Since politicians have actual power over our lives, a belief that non-whatevers cannot be truly moral seems a dangerous belief for them to hold, and I feel we should point out to them that their voters do not all agree with them on that issue. It may make them less likely to do things to help make non-whatevers into whatevers, for the good of society of course, since non-whatevers can't really be moral.

[IzzyR]

Gaudere:

I always get confused when two people argue the same side

Strangely enough, I've not actually posted any arguments to this thread. As I said, these Orthodox Jews are hard to tell apart....

[Gaudere]

Dammit, don't argue with my attempt to look slightly less clueless! Ok, I guess I just must have been thinking of you since I was just reading your posts in GD and so I used the wrong name. This'll teach me to pay better attention.

[Eve]

Sdimbert—I don't think I am being alarmist or extremist; a politician has made statements I strongly disagree with and which make me uneasy, so I am writing him a letter to tell him. I haven't used any unladylike words or even the blessed Wally's "putz"—I guess I am Unfit for the Pit . . .

Gotta get back to GD, where I am mud-wrestling Libertarian . . .

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Strangely enough, I've not actually posted any arguments to this thread.

Oh come on Izzy you should be flattered. You've made such a dent in the board that the mods can't keep their minds off of you.

[sdimbert]

Nen:

I said that:

It [Washington's remark, quoted by Lieberman] implies that George Washington felt that morality can not be maintained without religion. The fact that Lieberman used it in a speach implies that he is like-minded.

You responded:

Since you touched it with your ten-foot pole, as it were, you have stated that Lieberman maintains Washington's belief, ergo, Lieberman believes atheists are immoral.

No. Again, you are reading into my remarks. I said that Lieberman implied that he feels that morality can not be maintained without religion." I did not say that I think he said that "Atheists are immoral."

I believe that there is a difference between those two statements.

Moving on, your post establishes that you believe in a total separation between Church and State, you think the wording of the Pledge of Alliegence is offensive and you don't care at all what religion Lieberman practices as long as it doesn't interfere with his governing.

That is all fine. The point where you and I disagree is that point at which (I think) you over-react. You said:

I personally have no problem with people being comfortable with their respective religions; however, executive mandates regarding religions in a public forum are unnecessary and offensive.

I'm not even sure where to begin my response to that remark. Taken out of it's context and momentum, doesn't it look a little excessive?

What "executive mandate" has Lieberman made? He has no executive power yet! And, even if elected, he will not have power to make "executive mandate" (whatever that is) because he is running for Vice-President!

You go on:

Politicians should be capable of placing precise meaning into their statements.

I agree. They should also be capable of solving difficult problems related to world peace in a fortnight. And fly. (Now I guess it's me being sarcastic )

Look, everyone is misunderstood sometime. I am not suggesting that you misunderstood me, or Lieberman or that I misunderstood you. All I want everyone to do is calm down and stop automatically pigeon-holing a man who is unlike any political figure who ever came before him.

You say that you, "utilized all quotations availble from the referenced media" and that you, "ignored nothing inconsistent with my thesis." Yet you neglected to touch upon his, "our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom" remark in your original attack.

I find that inconsistent.


Gaudere:
You points are well-made and well-taken.

You are correct to point out that those who find Lieberman's remarks troubling should point out to him that they feel this way.

It will be interesting to see how he chooses to deal with the Atheist constituency.

But I feel the need to point out again that he is not the first candidate to run on a religious platform; far from it, in fact.


Also, could you chime in on the point I'm trying to make with Nen, above? I don't want to re-open the whole "Can Atheists Be Moral" Debate, but can you speak to my point that there is a difference between the following statements:

• Morality can not be maintained without religion
• Atheists are immoral

Eve:

You're right. I think I have committed the same sin as the illustrous Gaudere, confusing your posts for Nen's.

Nice to be in such good company!

[Drain Bead]

Look, this is a county where schoolchildren recite, "One nation, under God..." isn't it? Nobody clamors over the Seperation of Church and State on that one, do they?

Somehow, I think you're
mistaken.

I could have found more, but I'm lacking time.

[Nen]

Originally posted by sdimbert
I said that Lieberman implied that he feels that morality can not be maintained without religion." I did not say that I think he said that "Atheists are immoral."

I believe that there is a difference between those two statements.

I don't see a difference between the two statements. If morality cannot be maintained without religion, where religion is operated by the religious, then those without religion cannot maintain morality. Gaudere, catch sdimbert's drift, please enlighten me.

Originally posted by sdimbert
Taken out of it's context and momentum, doesn't it look a little excessive?

No.

Originally posted by sdimbert
What "executive mandate" has Lieberman made? He has no executive power yet! And, even if elected, he will not have power to make "executive mandate" (whatever that is) because he is running for Vice-President!

None. True. He will have significant influence.

Originally posted by sdimbert
I agree. They should also be capable of solving difficult problems related to world peace in a fortnight. And fly. (Now I guess it's me being sarcastic )

Sarcasm aside, being a politician requires that one must be able to convey one's ideas. Frequently, such expression is the arena of public speaking. I simply feel that such statements, which can be easily misconstrued, should be omitted from one's speech if the content does not infer the intended meaning.

Originally posted by sdimbert
All I want everyone to do is calm down and stop automatically pigeon-holing a man who is unlike any political figure who ever came before him.

I am calm. If I got irate over this stuff I'd be dead.

It's irrelevant, but:

[sarcasm]

Lieberman is "unlike any political figure", yet his statement are "nothing new."

[/sarcasm]

Originally posted by sdimbert
You say that you, "utilized all quotations availble from the referenced media" and that you, "ignored nothing inconsistent with my thesis." Yet you neglected to touch upon his, "our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom" remark in your original attack.

If you read my first post once again, you'll find the referenced quote. Secondly, I offered an explanation regarding how Lieberman's statements could be considered offensive; I did not attack, but that's irrelevant.

Originally posted by sdimbert
Gaudere:
You points are well-made and well-taken.

Wait a second! I make the same points pertaining to the same topic and you understand her but not me?! Well, she is more eloquent, but I must protest.

[Spiritus Mundi]

I am an athiest. I find Lieberman's statements offensive.

I find similarly statements from other politicians equally offensive. That in no way invalidates any complaints I have against Lieberman.

I take a hard line on the separation of church and state. I object to the presence of religious ideas in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency. Even if I did not, it would not invalidate a complaint about Lieberman's words.

there is a difference between the following statements:

Morality can not be maintained without religion
Atheists are immoral

Yes, there is. One addresses the qualities of morality, the other addresses the qualities of athiests. However, both statements depend upon the position that no basis for morality can be found without religion. I find this position both incorrect and offensive.

Most importantly:

Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Godless Backside

Um, Eve, I thought you were mad at him? Isn't this sending mixed signals?

[Eve]

"Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Godless Backside

Um, Eve, I thought you were mad at him? Isn't this sending mixed signals?"

—Not at all, dearest. Nen will be taking a photo of our encounter and we will send it to the Washington Post. Let's see how THAT effects his campaign!

[John Corrado]

Eve, I cannot possibly believe that you said that. I am just *shocked* by the ignorance you're showing here. It just amazes me that you can hold such a position.


It would affect his campaign. It would have an effect upon his campaign.


Sorry; I just expected better from a writer.



(::ducking and running like hell:

[Nen]

Thanks, John, you just have to bring up holding positions while I have to take photographs and try not to make a wise comment about needing a wide angle lens for the shot.

"Yeah, just hold that pose--I need to switch lenses."

[sdimbert]

Nen:

Originally posted by sdimbert
I said that Lieberman implied that he feels that morality can not be maintained without religion." I did not say that I think he said that "Atheists are immoral."

I believe that there is a difference between those two statements.

Originally posted by Nen
I don't see a difference between the two statements. If morality cannot be maintained without religion, where religion is operated by the religious, then those without religion cannot maintain morality.

Let me try it this way:

• Religious people believe that Morality exists, as directed by God.
• Atheists don't.
• A Religious Person says, "Morality can not be maintained without religion."
• Atheists get upset.
• Religious Person explains what he meant: Religious people believe that Morality = "What God Says It Is." Without religion to tell us what that is, Morality can not be maintained.
• Does this mean that Atheists are not Moral? Yes, according to the definition used by Religous Person and his Religious Friends.

In other words, I don't think that George Washington was saying that Atheists are immoral. He was saying that, according to religious people, atheists are immoral.

Is this a big secret? Nen, Gaudere, DavidB, Eve, does it shock you that some religious people feel that those who deny God's existance are incapable of Morality? I have seen this issue argues in GD many times!

If I were an atheist, I might find Joe Lieberman's announcement of support for Washington's statement troubling, unless I also heard him say, in almost the same breath, that room exists for those who believe differently.

Joe Lieberman said both of these things.

Drain Bead,

Thanks for the links. You are right, of course, many people here have debated whether or not God belongs in the Pledge of Alliegence. I maintain, however, that in general society, God's place there is a fairly well accepted thing.

Back to Nen:

You are also right - of course Lieberman, if elected, will have "significant influence." I objected to the term "executive mandate." I still have no idea what it means; it is not a political or legal term I have heard before.

You posted:

being a politician requires that one must be able to convey one's ideas. Frequently, such expression is the arena of public speaking. I simply feel that such statements, which can be easily misconstrued, should be omitted from one's speech if the content does not infer the intended meaning.

:sheepish grin:
I forgot what we're arguing about. Which statements are you referering to?

Regarding my apparant self-contradiction ("nothing new" and "unlike any figure before"): Joe Lieberman's comments regarding religion are "nothing new." He, as a candidate, is "unlike any figure before him" because he is an Orthodox Jew.


Spiritus Mundi:

Thanks for clarifying my remark.

However, your assertion that, "both statements depend upon the position that no basis for morality can be found without religion" should be appended with the words, "for the religious."

Finally, Nen, I just cruised over to the People Pages to take a look at Eve pic. Uhhh... can I have a copy of those shots of her and Lieberman?