Is Bachman 1) an Anti-Catholic or 2) a Godless Heathen?

[Profound Gibberish]

Let's all remember from the last presidential campaign that, as an individual that belongs to a church, you are completely responsible for, and agree with, everything your pastor says, does, has said, has done, will say and will do. Absolutely no exceptions to that rule, correct?

So now we have this:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...rch/?hpt=hp_t2

If we apply the rule above, Bachman is a radical anti-catholic, but now that she has quit that church, she is a Godless Heathen.

My question, if there is one, is "Which is Worse?"

Welcome to the game, Michele. Hope you enjoy playing it on the other side.

[Captain Amazing]

I think you've set up a no win situation for her here. Little though I like Michelle Bachman, I really don't know what she could do that would satisfy you here. She has, like the Catholic League spokesman said, condemned anti-Catholicism.

[Chronos]

The petard by which she's hoisted isn't that she belonged to that church, but that her fellow Republicans insisted on pinning everything that Rev. Wright had ever said on Obama.

[Simplicio]

Did she actually try and pin Wright's rhetoric on Obama or did just "her fellow Republicans" do that? You might have a point if she came out swinging against Obama's attempts to disassociate himself with his former pastor, but its kinda silly to try and hang hypocracy on her for not acting in concert with what other people in her large and diverse political part said.

There are, after all, many tens of millions of Republicans, its kinda silly to demand they all be 100% consistent with everything the rest of them have said.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Chronos

The petard by which she's hoisted isn't that she belonged to that church, but that her fellow Republicans insisted on pinning everything that Rev. Wright had ever said on Obama.

And they were wrong to do so, right? If it was wrong for them to do it to Obama, it's wrong for people to do it to Bachman. Besides, she did leave the church...she actively disassociated herself with the guy.

[Chronos]

I don't know offhand whether she joined in the condemnation herself, but membership in a political party does mean something. When you're running for President under a party's banner, it's perfectly fair and proper for folks to attack you for that party's positions.

[galveston]

This must be the official Democrat forum.

Most of y'all apparently are strong believers in coincidence. The states that have been strong liberal for decades are in worse financial condition than those states that have been more conservative. Eg. California; liberal and bankrupt. Texas; conservative and solvent.

Personally, I don't do coincidence. I believe in cause and effect.

[Profound Gibberish]

Whoa, whoa, whoa there cowboys! This is politics. Every weakness is exploited. Logic and rationality are not welcome. This is business, not personal. OK, it's personal, but this is the fate of the entire nation we are talking about. I didn't make the rules, I just push them to the edge and over. How many other lame excuses do I need to come up with? [End Satire Alert]

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by galveston

This must be the official Democrat forum.

Most of y'all apparently are strong believers in coincidence. The states that have been strong liberal for decades are in worse financial condition than those states that have been more conservative. Eg. California; liberal and bankrupt. Texas; conservative and solvent.

Personally, I don't do coincidence. I believe in cause and effect.

Texas is only solvent on paper, because Perry moved some state obligations to a different fiscal year in order to be able to say "I balanced Texas' budget" while he campaigns for president.

I also am not sure that it's even solvent on paper

[Profound Gibberish]

Originally Posted by galveston

Eg. California; liberal and bankrupt.

Jesus F'n Christ! When did The Schwartz become a Democrat!?!?!?!? Did I miss that in the papers?

And if I am correct, wasn't Arnie's biggest problems with his own Repubs that wanted to keep the pork, graft and corruption flowing in their direction?

Not sayin' Dems could do any better, but lets not drink the Red KoolAid too liberally (pardon the pun), OK?

[kenetic]

Originally Posted by galveston

This must be the official Democrat forum.

Most of y'all apparently are strong believers in coincidence. The states that have been strong liberal for decades are in worse financial condition than those states that have been more conservative. Eg. California; liberal and bankrupt. Texas; conservative and solvent.

Personally, I don't do coincidence. I believe in cause and effect.

California is bankrupt because of Prop. 13, which lowered taxes. So we're bankrupt due to conservative policies.

And do we really need to do another round of explaining how red states are generally net consumers of federal funds while blue states are net providers?

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by kenetic

California is bankrupt because of Prop. 13, which lowered taxes. So we're bankrupt due to conservative policies.

And do we really need to do another round of explaining how red states are generally net consumers of federal funds while blue states are net providers?

Yes, I think we do, for the benefit of any lurkers, since providing that information is probably not going to change any minds in THIS particular thread.

[kenetic]

Originally Posted by Kolga

Yes, I think we do, for the benefit of any lurkers, since providing that information is probably not going to change any minds in THIS particular thread.

First Google hit. If you want more do your own googling or search for any of the dozens of old threads on the topic.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by kenetic

First Google hit. If you want more do your own googling or search for any of the dozens of old threads on the topic.

Oh, you didn't have to do that for MY benefit. I'm well aware. I was referring to lurkers who might not already be aware. But thanks for starting the ball rolling!

[Profound Gibberish]

Facts? Really? You would stoop that low?

[kenetic]

Originally Posted by Kolga

Oh, you didn't have to do that for MY benefit. I'm well aware. I was referring to lurkers who might not already be aware. But thanks for starting the ball rolling!

Oh sorry, didn't look at who I was replying to. Carry on!

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Profound Gibberish

Facts? Really? You would stoop that low?

We're manipulative and sneaky that way around these parts.

[crowmanyclouds]

At the very least, we can be reasonably certain she's not Jewish!

CMC fnord!
Thank you psychobunny for the link . . . fucking search redirect virus robbing me of my Google-Fu skilz.

[twickster]

The topic is Bachman. The stuff about red states, blue states, and the respective solvency of each is utterly and completely off topic.

Start a new thread for that. Stop the hijack now. If not, I'll lock the thread.

twickster, Elections moderator

[Profound Gibberish]

Yow, twickster, where did you come from? You work weekends?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Profound Gibberish

Let's all remember from the last presidential campaign that, as an individual that belongs to a church, you are completely responsible for, and agree with, everything your pastor says, does, has said, has done, will say and will do. Absolutely no exceptions to that rule, correct?

So now we have this:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...rch/?hpt=hp_t2

If we apply the rule above, Bachman is a radical anti-catholic, but now that she has quit that church, she is a Godless Heathen.

My question, if there is one, is "Which is Worse?"

Welcome to the game, Michele. Hope you enjoy playing it on the other side.

Drilling further down into the article, you get...

"The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann's denomination, saying it's "regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles."

"But we find no evidence of any bigotry on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann," the statement continued. "Indeed, she has condemned anti-Catholicism. Just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record."

Do you guys really want to go down this road of attacking religion? Because it's really playing with fire.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Drilling further down into the article, you get...

"The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann's denomination, saying it's "regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles."

"But we find no evidence of any bigotry on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann," the statement continued. "Indeed, she has condemned anti-Catholicism. Just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record."

Do you guys really want to go down this road of attacking religion? Because it's really playing with fire.

So a reasonable viewpoint is that Bachmann is no more responsible for her church than Obama was for his. The trouble is, you can score plenty of political points with unreasonable viewpoints, as was done in 2008 against Obama using Reverend Wright as a Scary Dark Bogeyman. Turnabout is fair play in 2012. So what are you threatening with "do you really want to go down this road"? Don't tell me you're going to tell us Obama is a secret Muslim!

[BigT]

My point would be whether or not the Republican voters (particularly the social conservatives) think it's an issue with Bachman like they did with Obama. Or is it okay when their party does it?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

So a reasonable viewpoint is that Bachmann is no more responsible for her church than Obama was for his. The trouble is, you can score plenty of political points with unreasonable viewpoints, as was done in 2008 against Obama using Reverend Wright as a Scary Dark Bogeyman. Turnabout is fair play in 2012. So what are you threatening with "do you really want to go down this road"? Don't tell me you're going to tell us Obama is a secret Muslim!

Oh, no, I firmly believe he's an atheist who only showed up at Wright's circus because the dumb idiots who go there were a good organizing base. But of course, he can't HONESTLY say that he thinks it's all a bunch of bronze age superstition.

But I don't think most Catholics are going to fall for it when you try it.

You're the ones who block school choice.

You're the ones who support McAbortions.

You're the ones trying to shove gay marriage down their throats.

If you are devout enough to really take your Catholicism seriously (something I stopped doing in 1983), then you are going to see this for what it is, "Let's you and him fight."

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by BigT

My point would be whether or not the Republican voters (particularly the social conservatives) think it's an issue with Bachman like they did with Obama. Or is it okay when their party does it?

WHich voters, particularly?

Keep in mind, ALL protestant sects reject the authority of Ratzinger and company. And a lot of Catholics, do, too. So yeah, saying that your sect of Lutheranism thinks the papacy is the anti-Christ is a bit silly, absolutely.

I think going to a church where the minister calls America a genocidal racist nation, that doesn't play as well.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by BigT

My point would be whether or not the Republican voters (particularly the social conservatives) think it's an issue with Bachman like they did with Obama. Or is it okay when their party does it?

Yes,It's OK If You're A Republican - whatever it is. Sad, but empirically true.

[Chronos]

But I don't think most Catholics are going to fall for it when you try it.

Catholics are a pretty good bellweather for the nation as a whole, actually: They have about the same Democrat/Republican split as everyone else. Yes, there are significant issues on which the Catholic church disagrees with the Democrats, but there are also significant issues on which they disagree with the Republicans, so even for someone who agrees with all of the Church's teachings, it comes down to a question of priorities. And of course most Catholics disagree with the Church on some topic or another.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

... I think going to a church where the minister calls America a genocidal racist nation, that doesn't play as well.

America has a genocidal past - ask a Native American. America has a racist past, and too racist a present. Ask any minority member. I'm white, but also Jewish and I've seen bigotry in my lifetime. Heck, my neighbors across the street could not have been leagally married in Virginia until 1967. You may be able to forget our history, but people who suffered to make our present better cannot afford to do so. Even ministers. Even ministers who are former Marines.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Catholics are a pretty good bellweather for the nation as a whole, actually: They have about the same Democrat/Republican split as everyone else. Yes, there are significant issues on which the Catholic church disagrees with the Democrats, but there are also significant issues on which they disagree with the Republicans, so even for someone who agrees with all of the Church's teachings, it comes down to a question of priorities. And of course most Catholics disagree with the Church on some topic or another.

They are probably a bellweather becasue they are the largest, and therefore the most diverse.

Of course, what I am seeing within my own family (who are nearly all still practicing Catholics) is that a lot of them who thought Obama was okay in 2008 are really souring on him in 2011.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

America has a genocidal past - ask a Native American. America has a racist past, and too racist a present. Ask any minority member. I'm white, but also Jewish and I've seen bigotry in my lifetime. Heck, my neighbors across the street could not have been leagally married in Virginia until 1967. You may be able to forget our history, but people who suffered to make our present better cannot afford to do so. Even ministers. Even ministers who are former Marines.

Okay, this liberal white guilt thing might play well in your circles, but most white folks in this country are getting a little sick of it.

Let's not forget, after he found out that throwing Grandma under the bus didn't work, he distanced himself from Wright PDQ. But if he wants to go after Bachmann's religion or Romney's religion, heck, we can replay that hit.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Okay, this liberal white guilt thing might play well in your circles, but most white folks in this country are getting a little sick of it.

By "liberal white guilt," you mean "American history."

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

America has a genocidal past - ask a Native American. America has a racist past, and too racist a present. Ask any minority member. I'm white, but also Jewish and I've seen bigotry in my lifetime. Heck, my neighbors across the street could not have been leagally married in Virginia until 1967. You may be able to forget our history, but people who suffered to make our present better cannot afford to do so. Even ministers. Even ministers who are former Marines.

All true, but politicians running for national office cannot afford to be associated with them as they publicly remember. That is as much a reality as is the history of the Trail of Tears.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by DSeid

All true, but politicians running for national office cannot afford to be associated with them as they publicly remember. That is as much a reality as is the history of the Trail of Tears.

True, and Obama did distance himself from Rev. Wright. The point of this thread, if I may speak for the OP, is what's sauce for the gander in 2008 is sauce for the goose in '11/'12. IMO a lot of what keeps "regular folks" out of politics as a career is that you are held responsible/given crap for not only everything you ever said and done (in or out of context), but also for what anyone in any way associated with you ever said or did (in or out of context).

[tnetennba]

Unless you're a Republican. You can do anything you want, because whatever your supporters learn about, they dismiss as "the liberal media." Even if it's just a video clip of you saying something stupid.

[gonzomax]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...radical-views/
She didn't quit the church until she announced for the presidency. that would suggest she still has those beliefs, but is disavowing her beliefs for political expediency. From Bachmann, that is all you can expect.

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

that would suggest she still has those beliefs, but is disavowing her beliefs for political expediency. From Bachmann, that is all you can expect.

Actually, I'm a little surprised. She's crazy as the MN state bird, but she seemed to generally embrace her positions when called on them.

So I'd be inclined to think that she probably isn't much into the anti-Christ part of that Lutheran sects teachings.

As an aside - grew up Catholic in a small MN town. Only people with our surname in town, Dad was the only attorney in town. Younger brother Tom was dating a Wisconsin synod Lutheran girl - Carol. Standard HS dating - both had dinner at each home, so parents all aware.

One day Carol's dad comes into our dad's office for something - Tom was there, either visting or maybe doing some copying or filing. He said you could see the lightbulb turn on in GF dad's head - Tom's father is Catholic, hence Tom is Catholic. He forbid Carol to date the heathen.

They snuck around (with our parent's blessing (and I think her mom's also (at least a blind eye there)) - but the stress wasn't worth it in the end.

That was my first exposure to religous intolerance - knew that historically people hadn't liked Catholics, but thought that was all in the past.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

"But we find no evidence of any bigotry on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann," the statement continued. "Indeed, she has condemned anti-Catholicism. Just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record."

Do you guys really want to go down this road of attacking religion? Because it's really playing with fire.

I really, really hate agreeing with RR. But he's right. Bachmann deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one, just as Obama did.

If we're going to criticize, let's do it using points that are valid, non-hypocritical, and more likely to persuade undecided voters. It's not like there's a shortage of these...

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Profound Gibberish

Is Bachman 1) an Anti-Catholic or 2) a Godless Heathen?

I know that for some groups there is no difference between the two.

...

Okay, I know that for some groups there is no difference between the two.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by tnetennba

By "liberal white guilt," you mean "American history."

The only stuff I feel guilty about is stuff I personally did. And that's the only thing ANY of us should feel guilty about.

never owned a slave.
Never oppressed an immigrant.
never stole a Native american's land.

in fact, in two of those arrangements, my ancestors were on the shitty ends of those sticks.

And now you liberals come back and tell me because these things are in our collective history of having happened while we built the greatest country ever, we should all feel guilty about it.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

... And now you liberals come back and tell me because these things are in our collective history of having happened while we built the greatest country ever, we should all feel guilty about it.

I'm not asking you to feel guilty. After all you say you're no longer Catholic, and I assume you're not Jewish

I am asking you to recognize some of the negatives in our shared history, and the consequential reactions in the communities who were victimized by that history. Why might the African-American have residual anger at our society? Perhaps because they had only the legal rights of dirt until recently, and that in too many ways they are still being treated that way. I am not African-American, and nobody in my family owned slaves (as it was not possible for Russian peasants who came over in the 1880s to do so). I see society's ills through a lens of economics rather than race. But I recognize that given their history members of the African-American community might feel diferently. Heck if any random person could diminish me and my accomplishments by calling me a kike (equivalent if I were African-American and were called the N word), I'd see the world though a racial lens as well.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

I'm not asking you to feel guilty. After all you say you're no longer Catholic, and I assume you're not Jewish

I am asking you to recognize some of the negatives in our shared history, and the consequential reactions in the communities who were victimized by that history. Why might the African-American have residual anger at our society? Perhaps because they had only the legal rights of dirt until recently, and that in too many ways they are still being treated that way. I am not African-American, and nobody in my family owned slaves (as it was not possible for Russian peasants who came over in the 1880s to do so). I see society's ills through a lens of economics rather than race. But I recognize that given their history members of the African-American community might feel diferently. Heck if any random person could diminish me and my accomplishments by calling me a kike (equivalent if I were African-American and were called the N word), I'd see the world though a racial lens as well.

But you see, I don't buy that. If they have residual anger, it's because we have race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and yes, Jeremiah Wright stoking it all the time. If you want to say you can diminish someone by calling them a name, then who hasn't been called a name some time in their lives? If you have to work twice as hard to get the same recognition, (whether it be due to skin color or gender or even if you have a receding hairline), then you work just as hard. That's life, man. Life ain't fair.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

But you see, I don't buy that. If they have residual anger, it's because we have race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and yes, Jeremiah Wright stoking it all the time. If you want to say you can diminish someone by calling them a name, then who hasn't been called a name some time in their lives? If you have to work twice as hard to get the same recognition, (whether it be due to skin color or gender or even if you have a receding hairline), then you work just as hard. That's life, man. Life ain't fair.

You are very lucky if you think life is always that simple. Keeping things within the thread, re-read Folacin's story about his brother and his brother's HS girlfriend. Their relationship may or may not have made it, but it could not stand against the gal's family's anti-Catholic prejudices.

I'd suggest trying to have honest conversations with your real-world colleagues of color, or your Army buddies of color, about their experiences with racism. I think you'll learn that sometimes working twice or three times as hard isn't enough if you're a minority. You may also get some insight into why race-baiting jerks like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, etc., get any traction at all within the African-American community.

I no fan of Sharpton, but the best thing I ever saw him in was a segment of the Daily Show where he and Stewart talked about the revelation that Strom Thurmond's great-grandfather owned Sharpton's great-grandfather. Stewart said he knew his great-grandfather, so Sharpton had been in direct contact with a man who had been a slave, or at most one person removed. Speaking as someone who also knew one of his great-grandfathers, and quoting Faulkner, "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

[galveston]

Originally Posted by Kolga

Texas is only solvent on paper, because Perry moved some state obligations to a different fiscal year in order to be able to say "I balanced Texas' budget" while he campaigns for president.

I also am not sure that it's even solvent on paper

Really!!!

More jobs created in the private sector recently than anywhere in the US.

No state income tax.

Lower unemployment.

All on paper, of course. OF course!!!

[galveston]

Originally Posted by Profound Gibberish

Jesus F'n Christ! When did The Schwartz become a Democrat!?!?!?!? Did I miss that in the papers?

And if I am correct, wasn't Arnie's biggest problems with his own Repubs that wanted to keep the pork, graft and corruption flowing in their direction?

Not sayin' Dems could do any better, but lets not drink the Red KoolAid too liberally (pardon the pun), OK?

Every conservative knows Arnie is a RINO. He is a liberal.

[galveston]

Originally Posted by kenetic

California is bankrupt because of Prop. 13, which lowered taxes. So we're bankrupt due to conservative policies.

And do we really need to do another round of explaining how red states are generally net consumers of federal funds while blue states are net providers?

You are kiddin, right?

Prop 13 is the only thing that bankrupted California? Get real.

And FYI Texas turned down some federal funds for education because of all the strings attached.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by galveston

Really!!!

More jobs created in the private sector recently than anywhere in the US.

No state income tax.

Lower unemployment.

All on paper, of course. OF course!!!

You said "solvent." I was pointing out the budget issues that make the determination that Texas is solvent problematic. You didn't mention any of the other things you listed.

[galveston]

This may not matter to anyone else, but I like Bachmann because she stands for fiscal responsibility, as not raising the debt ceiling (me adding unless we get more $ up front spending cuts than the $ raised), repealing Obamacare, strengthening the traditional family, and secure borders, don't raise taxes during a recession, to name a few things.

These may not appeal to you, but they do to me. (No, I'm not rich!)

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

You are very lucky if you think life is always that simple. Keeping things within the thread, re-read Folacin's story about his brother and his brother's HS girlfriend. Their relationship may or may not have made it, but it could not stand against the gal's family's anti-Catholic prejudices. ."

Not in the same category, since if you really believe in that silly nonsense, then you really believe people's souls are at risk. I personally rejected the notion that God can be such a prick that he'll condemn otherwise good people to hell, but hey, people really believe that crap. On both sides.

I'd suggest trying to have honest conversations with your real-world colleagues of color, or your Army buddies of color, about their experiences with racism. I think you'll learn that sometimes working twice or three times as hard isn't enough if you're a minority. You may also get some insight into why race-baiting jerks like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, etc., get any traction at all within the African-American community. ."

Oh, I have. my attitudes aren't moved. Frankly, instead of whining about "racists", they need to clean up their own acts.

I no fan of Sharpton, but the best thing I ever saw him in was a segment of the Daily Show where he and Stewart talked about the revelation that Strom Thurmond's great-grandfather owned Sharpton's great-grandfather. Stewart said he knew his great-grandfather, so Sharpton had been in direct contact with a man who had been a slave, or at most one person removed. Speaking as someone who also knew one of his great-grandfathers, and quoting Faulkner, "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

What I remember about Sharpton is that he perpetrated the Tawana Brawley rape hoax and tried to destroy a lot of people in the process. The man should never be allowed in polite society after that.

[SeldomSeen]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

That's life, man. Life ain't fair.

A republican lacky paraphrasing Jimmy Carter!??
Guy, you ain't nearly recovered enough yet!

Well, as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people cant.*

*Pres. Jimmy Carter, news conference, Washington, D.C., July 12, 1977.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by galveston

Prop 13 is the only thing that bankrupted California?

Not the only thing, by a long shot. But a primary contribution, definitely.