# Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Godless Backside **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 28, 2000, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026 "2000-08-28T13:34:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/61 "2000-08-28T21:29:12Z")
I wasn’t going to vote for his ticket anyway, so this doesn’t change anything, but it’s enlightening to know that the candidates on both sides feel they need to run on how pious they are. Whoopee. I’m voting for Kodos. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/62 "2000-08-28T21:52:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, I’ll nitpick far enough to say that Lieberman, a religious man, states that atheists are immoral as far as religous people are concerned. > > Am I the only one who notices an important difference? Pardon me? If I say that Jews are immoral, and I am running for political office, would you reassure yourself by saying, “Oh, he only meant Jews were immoral as far as non-Jews were concerned.” Do you really see this as a distinction worth consideration? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/63 "2000-08-28T22:43:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m voting for Kodos. Phil, you FOOL! Kang is the only choice of the rational, thinking, succulent human! ---
**Author:** ![APB9999](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB9999](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB9999)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/64 "2000-08-28T23:25:27Z")
1. The man says: > [@](#): > > I feel as strongly as anything else, that there must be a place for faith in America’s public life. I disagree. Faith belongs in private life. Public life must include **all** , and for those of us who are atheists or agnostic, that means religion must be avoided in public life. It’s called “separation of church and state.” The supreme court has agreed with me. That a vice presidential candidate would voice his opposition to this central, important, American principal is very alarming. 1. The fact that some people are complacent about this, or “used to it”, does NOT mean the rest of us are overreacting when we are outraged. I would suggest YOU need to get a bit MORE excited. 2. > [@](#): > > the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I disagree. For atheists, freedom of religion IS freedom from religion, and it IS guaranteed by the constitution; again, the supreme court has agreed. This is NOT a Christian country. It is a HETEROGENEOUS country. The government represents us all, or should, right? The fact that a majority of Americans are Christians is completely irrelevant. Rights are those spheres of life where individual desires trump the will of the majority. In fact, that’s the whole point of civil rights, like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Democracy does not, and can not, obviate civil liberties or deny them to anyone. So majority views are irrelevant. 1. > [@](#): > > our mission is not one of intolerance but one of love How often have we heard the exact same line from proselytizing fundamentalists? If it rings a little hollow at this point, can anyone not see why? 1. > [@](#): > > `John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,'' he said. `George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition `that morality can be maintained without religion.’ Washington may have said that, I don’t know. He was a man of absolutely unimpeachable character, but he was far from the most astute thinker of his day, particularly in politics - although given his contemporary company that is not exactly a harsh condemnation. I would guess that even if he said it, he probably wasn’t talking about governmental policy so much as about social structure, i.e. PRIVATE life. Frankly I have serious doubts about the Adams quote. I suspect it is either a misquote or taken grossly out of context. Can anyone venture a source for this quotation? It is true that Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act, in complete violation of the first amendment, so even if he did say it, that isn’t necessarily a ringing endorsement. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/65 "2000-08-28T23:54:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eve \* > \*\*Well, thank goodness I didn’t say he could BITE my backside, like I was going to . . . For all I know, my backside isn’t even kosher . . . \*\* Do you have cloven hooves and chew your cud? If you do, then your backside is kosher. If you chew your cud but do not have cloven hooves, or if you have cloven hooves but do not chew your cud, or if you do not have cloven hooves or chew your cud, then your backside is kosher. My tentative conclusion is that Joe Lieberman, being an observant jew, would refrain from biting your backside. Especially if you put cheese on it. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/66 "2000-08-28T23:58:14Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > Do you have cloven hooves and chew your cud? If you do, then your backside is kosher. If you chew your cud but do not have cloven hooves, or if you have cloven hooves but do not chew your cud, or if you do not have cloven hooves or chew your cud, then your backside is kosher. > \*\* Change the last sentence to "…then your backside is **NOT** kosher. Cripes, try to make a simple jest… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/67 "2000-08-29T09:46:46Z")
Personally, other than thoughts of Eve’s backside, I don’t see a lot to get excited over here. With Leiberman as a candidate, religion is obviously going to be an issue in this campaign. I think his speech was the equivalent of telling mainstream American voters “Don’t worry about me being a Jew because I promise to act just like a Christian.” In terms of actual political impact if Leiberman is elected (or even if he becomes President) I expect it to be about as meaningful as Bush’s pledges of “compassionate conservatism”. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/68 "2000-08-29T11:52:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by APB9999 \* > 5) > > > [@](#): > > > > `John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,'' he said. `George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition `that morality can be maintained without religion.’ > > Frankly I have serious doubts about the Adams quote. I suspect it is either a misquote or taken grossly out of context. Can anyone venture a source for this quotation? It is true that Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act, in complete violation of the first amendment, so even if he did say it, that isn’t necessarily a ringing endorsement. \*\* Note that he also wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that, quote, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/69 "2000-08-29T11:53:56Z")
Well, this certainly has stirred the pot! Personally, I like Lieberman. He speaks his mind, and doesn’t try to hide it or neutralize it to be politically correct. At least you know where he stands, so you can make an informed choice. I’d take that anyday over the other guys whose rhetoric changes daily, depending on a) the group he’s addressing; and b) who wrote his speech that particular day. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/70 "2000-08-29T13:13:12Z")
Well, at the very least it’s disturbing. However, knowing that politicians must pander to the religious, I can only hope that this is an instance of Joe saying whatever it takes to be elected. Otherwise, I’m going to run out of people to vote for while voting against other people. And Gary Kamiya, of Salon, has [this](http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/piety/index.html) to say. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/71 "2000-08-29T13:32:32Z")
Once again, APB9999 jumps in and wins my heart! You can bite my godless backside anytime, dear heart. I note in the Times today that even the Anti-Defamation League has asked Lieberman to kindly shut the hell up. Not in those exact WORDS, of course . . . Oh, I also read that Cheney is about to start pounding the Bible on a Midwest tour. [Frank Nelson voice:] “Oh, GOOOODIE.” ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/72 "2000-08-29T13:48:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > > \*\*Note that he also wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that, quote, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” \*\* I would not be so quick to use that as a citation, matt\_mcl. The Treaty of Tripoli is somewhat of an urban legend. The line is not in the original Arabic text of the treaty, and it is quite possible that anti-Christin Thomas Paine-ally Joel Barlow made it up out of qhole cloth hen he translated it. In any event, a revised Treaty of Tripoli was ratified a decade later with no mention of that. [http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#usanot](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#usanot) has some information about this. Even though the tone of what is mentioned tries to put a positive spin (positive for “The Atheism Web” position) on it, I think if you look at the fact, it is a dubious claim at best. * * * Yer pal, Satan [sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Four months, two weeks, six days, 11 hours, 47 minutes and 19 seconds. 5699 cigarettes not smoked, saving $712.45. Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes.[/sub] **_"Satan is not an unattractive person."_-Drain Bead** [sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub] ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/73 "2000-08-29T14:48:27Z")
There is a difference between saying that religion promotes morality, and even that morality would not be maintained without religion, and saying that all athiests are immoral. It would seem to me that lieberman has said the first concept, but it is being interpreted as if he said the second. I personally hold to both of these positions (i.e. that religion does promote morality, but that many athiests are moral). I am also not running for any office, so you will not have a chance to vote against me. And, **Gaudere** , these are indeed my words, so you may hold me to them. **APB9999:** > [@](#): > > I disagree. Faith belongs in private life. Public life must include all, and for those of us who are atheists or agnostic, that means religion must be avoided in public life. It’s called “separation of church and state.” The supreme court has agreed with me. That a vice presidential candidate would voice his opposition to this central, important, American principal is very alarming. There is no justification for the idea that “faith belongs in private life”, and the Supreme Court has never agreed with anything of the sort. Separation of Church and State refers to official governement law and policy. To imply that government officials must hide their religion is rediculous. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/74 "2000-08-29T16:20:29Z")
> [@](#): > > There is a difference between saying that religion promotes morality, and even that morality would not be maintained without religion, and saying that all athiests are immoral. 1. Religion promotes morality 2. Many athiests are moral There is no contradiction. 3. Morality is **necessary** for morality 4. Many athiests are moral These statements contradict each other. Lieberman chose to cite the warining, “never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” Now, the only real question is whether this should be interpreted at the societal level only or also at the personal level. If it is interpreted only at the societal level, it implies directly that a society without religious underpinings cannot be moral. Now, if individual athiests can be moral then I find the proposition that a population of athiests must necessarily become immoral to be untenable. If this is Lieberman’s position, then I am unimpressed with his ability to reason. If it is interpreted at the personal level, it implies that athiests inevitably become immoral over time, even if they do not begin as immoral. If this is Lieberman’s position, then I am personally offended. If neither of these represents Lieberman’s position, then he should choose his citations more carefully. If it is interpreted ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/75 "2000-08-29T16:26:09Z")
> [@](#): > > There is no justification for the idea that “faith belongs in private life” You might want to take some time to explicate this more completely. This statement fairly begs for misinterpretation. BTW – the last sentence in my post above was a C&P error. Please disregard. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/76 "2000-08-29T16:28:50Z")
Well, I mailed him that letter yesterday—shall we all hold our breath while I await a response? By the way, I posted his addresses—are any of you going to write to him, as well, or am I the only loudmouth here? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/77 "2000-08-29T16:46:22Z")
**Spiritus Mundi,** > [@](#): > > 1. Morality is necessary for morality > 2. Many athiests are moral > These statements contradict each other. I assume the first line should read “Religion is necessary for morality”. This is not a contradiction, as noted earlier. The first line refers, as you suggest, to a society. The second line refers to an individual. Obviously once a society has lost its morality the individual members will ultimately be affected as well. > [@](#): > > Now, if individual athiests can be moral then I find the proposition that a population of athiests must necessarily become immoral to be untenable. If this is Lieberman’s position, then I am unimpressed with his ability to reason. I find this position to be quite tenable - true in fact, whatever it may say about my ability to reason. In any event, I’m quite sure that this is indeed Lieberman’s position, and don’t think it should be represented otherwise, barring evidence to the contrary. In fact, it would seem to me that this is the meaning of the quotes from Washington and Adams (if indeed they are genuine). > [@](#): > > There is no justification for the idea that “faith belongs in private life” > > > [@](#): > > > > You might want to take some time to explicate this more completely. This statement fairly begs for misinterpretation. Just what would that misinterpretation be? ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/78 "2000-08-29T16:53:14Z")
**Eve** : I put mine in the mail this morn. I, too, will be waiting with bated breath for a response. Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/79 "2000-08-29T17:49:31Z")
[Just a bit of info about the situation](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000829/ts/campaign_religion_dc_2.html') ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2000, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/80 "2000-08-29T17:51:18Z")
[Just a bit of info about the situation](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000829/ts/campaign_religion_dc_2.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026.md?page=5)