# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/141 "2000-08-31T12:56:29Z")
Why do I feel like I’m sliding down hill while reading this entire thread??? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/142 "2000-08-31T13:06:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > He also said in the message, essentially, for all Texans to behave like “good Christians”: > > “I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ’s message of love and service in thought and deed.” Geez. Y’know, I thought the big deal in Christianity was the idea of Christ dying in order to save the world from sin and all that. I had _no_ idea that the _exclusive_ message of Christianity was to do good works with one’s fellows. But obviously, if you think that suggesting that people do good works is in essence telling them to “go be Christian”, then that’s what’s being said. > [@](#): > > It must thrill the Muslims, atheists and pagans who live there to know that Bush essentially declared that Christ had the exclusive message of love ond service. Y’know, given how, in the first paragraph I’ve quoted, you immediately associate “good works” with “must follow Christ”, that’s a real ironic statement to make. Read the damned thing again, **capacitor**. Please let me know where: 1.) Bush identifies Christ as the Savior of the World, Son of God, or even the main figure in a religion. 2.) Bush states that the message of love and good works is exclusively one of Christ. To take offense at this document is to go into it _looking_ for matieral to take offense at, and to jump to specious conclusions in order to do it. Which is exactly what you’re doing. Read the document again, except use “Martin Luther King Jr.” instead of “Jesus Christ”. Does it still sound like Bush is trying to push people into a religion? > [@](#): > > I would insult you back since this is the Pit, John, but unlike you I rather keep this particular thread a civil debate. Whoa. Irony of ironies, ladies and gentlemen- an athiest with a holier-than-thou attitude. Will wonders never cease? ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/143 "2000-08-31T13:50:11Z")
IzzyR, you said: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by IzzyR_ > In addition, I note that in the previous post by Nen, he cites Lieberman’s own explanation of his remarks and lo! they are as I have been saying. Where did you offer the explanations of his remarks? Spiritus, can you enlighten me? I rather thought his clarifications bolstered my original understanding (which I find to be similar to yours). ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/144 "2000-08-31T13:52:11Z")
Capacitor—Oh, I agree; I find Bush and Cheyney more terrifying from a religious standpoint (and a few others) than Gore and Lieberman. My original rant was because I expect BETTER of the Democrats (and I’d think a Jew would be more considerate and careful about demonizing other [non] religious minorities). ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/145 "2000-08-31T13:55:31Z")
**Spiritus Mundi** > [@](#): > > since I feel myself more and more inclined to remember that we are in the PIT. In this regard you seem to be doing fine as is. But if you feel the need to express yourself more fully feel free to do so. > [@](#): > > Feel free to open up this other thread you keep talking about, though. What could have possbily given you the impression that **I** was going to open another thread? **You** keep bringing up unrelated matters, in an apparent attempt to divert the discussion to areas in which feel you are on stronger ground. My response to these is that I would discuss them, but not as part of this debate. Go ahead. > [@](#): > > what, exactly, is my interpretation of Lieberman’s words. > Surely this will not be too difficult for you? Simply find the passages where I have interpreted Lieberman’s words, quote it, and interpret it See below. > [@](#): > > Extra credit for developing a clear argument that the interpretation is unreasonable. Try [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=697178#post697178). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I note that in the previous post by Nen, he cites Lieberman’s own explanation of his remarks and lo! they are as I have been saying. So the world wonders. Will Spiritus Mundi find it within himself to retract his previous “interpretation”? > > * * * > > I note in this post by IzzyR that he remains unable to read carefully. Perhaps if you complete exercise 1 it will help you understand your error here, too. I will give you a hint: > > ## quote: > > 1. Religion promotes morality > > 2. Many athiests are moral > There is no contradiction. > > 3. [Religion] in necessary for morality > > 4. Many athiests are moral > These statements contradict each other. > > * * * > > Lieberman originally said the second. Now he says the first. See if you can take it from there and figure out why I feel no need to recant anything I have posted. Lieberman clearly meant the second from the start. I, despite what you claim is an inability to read carefully or comprehend written English, pointed this out from the [start](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=693498#post693498). Also [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=693882#post693882).You, with your superior abilities in so many areas, insisted otherwise. When the speaker himself confirmed my interpretation, you insisted that he still “originally said” the first. Somehow I am not surprised. > [@](#): > > Or perhaps you meant this passage instead: > > ## quote: > > This is really less a matter of programs or legislation than it is of giving respect to the constructive role that faith can play in the lives of individuals, and in the lives of the community > > * * * > > If that is the case, then I again point you to problem 1. Please find a place where I have interpreted Lieberman’s words in a manner contradictory to this statement. [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=697511#post697511) > [@](#): > > I have made it a point to answer every specific question or issue that you have raised in our conversation. You have also made a point of substituting your own interpretation for the clear intentions of others, and insisting that they were retractions even when the makers of those statements insisted otherwise. > [@](#): > > Said summary, apparently, is “seem[s] fine to me”. > > That much is clear. It does not “seem fine” to me. I can live with that. And I think those statements stand on their own. To repeat, what do want? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/146 "2000-08-31T14:07:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nen \* > \*\*IzzyR, you said: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by IzzyR_ > > In addition, I note that in the previous post by Nen, he cites Lieberman’s own explanation of his remarks and lo! they are as I have been saying. > > Where did you offer the explanations of his remarks? > > Spiritus, can you enlighten me? I rather thought his clarifications bolstered my original understanding (which I find to be similar to yours). \*\* Areas of dispute include whether lieberman originally intended to say that all athiests must necessarily be immoral, and whether his call for religion in public life refers to programs and laws etc. I am not surprised that you agree with your esteemed colleague Spiritus. This appears to be the position of all the atheists in this thread. This was, in fact, the purpose of my original post. However, despite such unified beliefs among the atheists, I believe this interpretation is the result of a heightened sensitivity to church/state issues, more than a reasonable interpretation of his words in context. ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/147 "2000-08-31T14:33:11Z")
IzzyR: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Lieberman clearly meant the second from the start. Lieberman stated,“George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition ‘that morality can be maintained without religion.’” Lieberman clearly stated the _first_ from the start, regardless of his intentions. Now Lieberman has clarified that irreligious people are simply more probably immoral. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > When the speaker himself confirmed my interpretation… He did no such thing (see above). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Areas of dispute include whether lieberman originally intended to say that all athiests must necessarily be immoral, and whether his call for religion in public life refers to programs and laws etc. …I believe this interpretation is the result of a heightened sensitivity to church/state issues, more than a reasonable interpretation of his words in context. I completely disagree. Lieberman originally 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.” He then clarified that statement with the following: > [@](#): > > “This is really **less a matter of programs or legislation** than it is of giving respect to the constructive role that faith can play in the lives of individuals, and in the lives of the community,” > > Emphasis mine. He said, “_less_ a matter of…”, not “_not_ a matter of…” My original “interpretations” coincide precisely with his statements. I extrapolated no information in an unreasonable fashion. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/148 "2000-08-31T16:31:50Z")
Nen, Your first point has been addressed at length. Your second is a good one. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the guy meant for his original statements to be interpreted as a call for legislation etc. His use of the term is meant to describe the general concept of public life etc. is more etc. But you may reasonably disagree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/149 "2000-08-31T19:38:50Z")
As a Capitalist, devout Agnostic, scientist and artist, all of the foregoing discussion about non-religious people being incapable or less capable of moral behavior really cracks me up. A theory that I am currently developing called, “Hot Logic”, (as opposed to scientific ‘cold logic’) points up the fact that societal structures that merely follow rational and logical behavior patterns will also arrive at moral forms of conduct. Scientists are currently observing several different species, (from insect to primate) who have developed sharing strategies that promote survival and cohesive behavior (despite redistribution of personal gain). The human mind is quite capable of arriving at similar schemes WITHOUT religion. This is not to say that religion cannot also instill moral conduct. I am just amused at the notion of an overarching, ritualistic fabrication like religion being touted as the “only” path to morality. Sensibility and coherent philosophy also dictate the value of moral conduct. Please note how the “Golden Rule” (Do unto others…) of Christianity manifests in almost every other culture on Earth, religious or not. This is why Lieberman, Gore, Bush, Cheney et al, all come across as sanctimonious, exclusionary, pandering nit wits on these religious issues. To continue to bring up “Christian” values in their run for office in our nondenominational government is a slap in the face for all other nonchristian religious practicioners plus athiests and agnostics as well. That they are willing to marginalize a population segment that is specifically addressed and protected by our wonderful Constitution only points up their political and philosophical bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/150 "2000-09-01T01:31:23Z")
John, what if a governor declares an Ayatollah Khomeni Day, in appreciation of his philosophy? He was a religious revolutionary like Jesus, and he actually created a theocratic state that the revolutionaries at Jesus’s time thought that Jesus would create. Now you see why the American Jewish Congress says that the proclamation violates the["spirit and intention of the First Amendment of the Constitution."](http://www.jewishsf.com/bk000721/usbushjesusday.shtml) John, George Bush is not explicit about condemning non-Christians, but he is known not to be too subtle about it. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/151 "2000-09-01T01:36:18Z")
And John, I am no athiest. I am just non-religious. And my gnostic friend, I would not speak about holier-than thou attitudes if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/152 "2000-09-01T01:38:53Z")
Make that agnostic friend. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2000, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/153 "2000-09-01T03:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Spiritus, can you enlighten me? I rather thought his clarifications bolstered my original understanding (which I find to be similar to yours). Sorry. I have no ability to explain IzzyR’s convolutions of thought. Reading his last post to me confirms, among other things: He cannot tell the difference between a position held and a position explained. _He believes that saying a thing again is the same as defending/explaining it._ He believes that Lieberman explaining what he meant to say is the same as Lieberman never saying the fist thing. _He believes that my explaining what Lieberman **said** is the same as my interpreting what Lieberman **meant**._ He believes that somewhere, apparently several somewheres, I have been trying to argue what Lieberman intended to say rather than what he did say. _He believes that, even though Lieberman has felt the need to clarify statements that many people found to be extreme, any such interpretation of the original remarks is unreasonsable._ He believes that “not the same as IzzyR” is the same as “unreasonable”. _He believes that no human being could ever make a statement about morality that was not intended to be relative, no matter how many people have been killed throughout history because their beliefs were considered immoral._ He believes that showing off his skills with UBB code is equivalent to making a reasoned response. _He believes that “quote and interpret” is synonymous with “link”_ He believes that, in responding to his questions and statements, I have somehow been trying to guide this discussion into a direction of my liking. _He is unable to appreciate the ability to logically understand a position without supporting it personally._ He is unable to understand that careless words can be offensive or dangerous if the speaker did not intend them to be offensive or dangerous. _He is unable to examine his own position dispassionately enough to see the inherent prejudice of his belief._ I could go on, but I think this list has become wearisome enough. **IzzyR** , since the OP did not complained about any of the digressions in this thread I saw, and see, no reason to start another. You apparently felt differently and raised the idea that perhaps a different thread should be started. I was willing to follow you to one if that was how you felt. Instead, it seems you prefer to simply use the idea of another thread as an excuse to avoid answering questions you find uncomfortable. As to the words you continue to say are fine. Those words reflect prejudice. You are a religious bigot. You objected when I characterized the words that way before, and I have given you more than one opportunity to rephrase them or expand upon them. You have refused. It hardly makes you the first bigot to feel smugly correct in his prejudice. As to what I want, I want to live in a world where ognorance and bigotry absent. Failing that, I console myself with pointing them out when I see them trupmeted on this message board. I understand that the bigot in question is unlikely to reexamine his beliefs, but perhaps the example will spur someone else to actually **think** about some subtle prejudice in their own heart. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2000, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/154 "2000-09-01T03:51:41Z")
Oh, I almost forgot. IzzyR, in all of his careful reading, also seems to have overlooked, or been unable to comprehend, this statement: > [@](#): > > I have not criticized Lieberman for what he meant. Unlike yourself, I do not **know** what he meant in his private heart. I have criticized the words he spoke. I have also criticized two possible interpretations of some of those words: one which implies athiests are immoral, and one which implies a sloppiness of thought. > > You have identified yourself with one of those positions. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/155 "2000-09-01T04:26:37Z")
OK, lets us compare two positions: Joe L would like “for Americans to have (more) faith”. Ok- personally I agree with this, but I feel it was inappropriate coming from a Political leader. Joe was wrong, here. He later admitted this & retracted the statement. Note, that at no time did he suggest legislating his faith or morality, and I do not beleive he would do so. All right, could be better, but he did retract. I’ll let him get off the hook, this once. Now, Bush wants to have a CONSTITUTIONAL admendment that would allow prayer in schools. And, he wants to force his religous views on abortions on all Americans. He would make it a CRIME to go against the Religous Right’s religous/moral opinions (on abortions). So, Bush would force, by gunpoint, HIS religion/faith on us. :rolleyes: Joe thinks it would be nice if we all had a little more faith. No laws, no forcing, no Admendments. SO- which Politician has the more “scary” religous views? ---
**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:** [September 1, 2000, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/156 "2000-09-01T04:59:10Z")
> [@](#): > > SO- which Politician has the more “scary” religous views? That one’s easy. Pat Buchanon. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/157 "2000-09-01T07:33:38Z")
OK, Spiritus- you win. “Oooohh, that one scares even me.” ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/158 "2000-09-01T13:08:27Z")
Spiritus Mundi, This is just to acknowledge your last post. At this point, there’s not much that’s not been covered. Or, one might claim, I realize that I’ve been completely destroyed by your logic. In any event, I’m going to let it rest here. ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/159 "2000-09-01T15:15:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > **OK, lets us compare two positions: Joe L would like “for Americans to have (more) faith”. Ok- personally I agree with this, but I feel it was inappropriate coming from a Political leader** Here’s the thing that’s _still_ bothering me: Why is it “inappropriate” for a political leader to say that he would like Americans to have more faith? First of all, JL is not a “political leader,” he is a political candidate. Yes, I know that this was touched upon earlier, but please, everyone, before jumping on me, consider the following distinction: **It is illegal for Joe Lieberman to use his resources as a Senator to aid him in his bid for the Vice-Presidency.** If that is the case, then any interpretations of statements he makes as a candidate must ignore his Senate position. Anyhow, my real point is that a political candidate can say that he wants… well, anything at all. If I were running for office, I could get up on a soapbox and say that I want all Americans to eat less red meat. Or more. Or that I wanted to pass a law requiring all male children to be named “ **sdimbert** ”. Whatever. Of course, your response would be to not cast your vote for me. Or maybe you would cast your vote for me. Either way, a candidate can say whatever he wants, and JL was speaking as a candidate, not a Senator. And, even if he was speaking as a “political leader” (ie, as a Senator, not a candidate), all he did was express his opinion - still legal (and appropriate) as of the last time I checked. 'Nuff said. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026/160 "2000-09-01T15:44:07Z")
Sdimbert—I agree with you completely (everyone stop and catch their breath in amazement). I WANT to know the best AND the worst about every candidate; so the more they mouth off, the better. If Al Gore believes that all kittens should be drowned at birth, I want to know NOW. What my OP stated was that I think Joe Lieberman’s statements reveal him to be a narrow-minded fundie jerk. I’m glad I know he’s a jerk, though I will still probably vote Democratic anyway, as Bush and Cheyney are even MORE narrow-minded fundies. It’s just that I am disappointed to learn the truth about him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-lieberman-can-kiss-my-godless-backside/31026.md?page=9)