Newt stares into crystal ball, sees atheist Islamists.

Or maybe he’s staring into a tumbler of bourbon:


This… this just amazes me. I know he’s named Newt, but does that mean he only gets to think with the lizard part of his brain? Alternately, how stupid does he think the Religious Right in this country is? There are two ways to parse his statement, both of them implying either gross idiocy or craven cynicism: He either implied radical Islamists are atheists, or that radical Islamists would allow atheists to live in a country they dominated.

(I’m pretty sure there won’t actually be a debate about this, just pointing and laughing at the clown, so I posted it in MPSIMS and not Great Debates.)


Ratcheting up the FUD factor, isn’t he? The sad thing is that most people listening to him won’t twig to the inherent contradiction and will simply leap to the “sky is falling” reaction.

Whew, for a minute there I thought maybe he was saying the country was going to end up dominated by Nazi Communist atheist radical Islamists. That would be disconcerting, I tell you.

I pictured Newt channeling Ka-Daffy like a medium and going apoplectic after seeing this:

As a secular atheist, I feel it is my god-given duty to promote the radical Islamist agenda.

Gingrich is simply using the tools in today’s Conservative toolbox. He is counting on the idiocy and fears of the religious right, and why not? It works. How long do you think it’ll be before he brings Mexicans and blacks into the mix?

Of course Gingrich doesn’t have a chance in heck of becoming president, so it won’t do much for or to him. However, as more Republicans employ this tactic, the campaigns of all Republican prospects will be affected as the need to follow suit increases in order to remain relevant in an atmosphere where intolerance of anything that does not directly and solely benefit white Christians gets you votes.

Could he have possibly meant?:

I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, OR potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.

That would be fearmongering still, but not insane.

If he meant that, he’s an adult male raised and living in an English-speaking environment who has been an American politician for decades but who cannot communicate effectively using the English language.

Not an improvement.

I think he meant “without the bulwark of Christianity, a secular country would leave itself open to being dominated by Islamists” - I’m guessing if pressed he would probably cite France and the UK. :rolleyes:

I giggled at the title for a second, but then I thought “oh, the OP meant Newt GINGRICH.”

That made it a lot less funny. :frowning:

There’s a significant chunk of the right that thinks of the world in the simple terms of the Chosen Ones (Us) and the Enemy (Them). And the Enemy is a unified mass of Islamic Satanist liberal gay Jewish Communist pagan atheistic evolutionists that are willfully evil, who all know they are in the wrong. The people who oppose them don’t actually believe what they are saying, they are enemies of God and the White Race who just hate the True Believers and come up with various lies and excuses to destroy them.

Ah, Ruthless People. Love that movie…

The atheist Islamofascists mostly come out at night. Mostly.

Is there a meme among the Right that worshiping a false god is equivalent to atheism? I mean, if you squint, you can kinda see how someone could think that way. They don’t worship the REAL god, so they don’t in fact worship any god, so they are atheists?

As a non-Islamic atheist, I’m offended by the idea, but whaddayagonnado?

You guys are seeing contradictions that do not exist.

This country’s society for the last forty years has been dominated by liberalism.

This does not mean that the government enforces liberalism.

And it does not mean that ideologies contrary to liberalism have no power.

Thus, a society of the future might be predominately secular and atheistic, but still vulnerable to agitation from other quarters…such as Islam.

Gingrich’s concerns are two-fold: One, that the U.S. in a generation or two will be dominated socially by liberals (hence secularism and atheism); and two, given that liberals are almost always willing to bend over and take it up the butt in order to claim the moral high ground, they will allow aggressive, radical Islam to overtake society rather than stand up to it and be perceived as “racists”.

So he’s predicting a progression in which America, having become secular and atheistic (i.e., liberal), will begin to be overrun by Islam because of a liberal lack of will to resist it.

Now, we can debate whether that will ever happen (and for the record, Gingrich’s beliefs are not necessarily my own), but it’s not accurate to try to portray Gingrich’s comments as saying that in the future we will be governed by atheists, except that at the same time we will be governed by Muslims.

So again it’s a “progression”, rather than conflicting ideologies predominating at the same time.

No granting that it’s still pretty stupid. Liberals won, in addition to being fucking right, because they stood up for religious freedom, religious freedom for everyone.
They did this despite pretty heavy Christian intolerance to anything new. Was the scopes monkey trial an act of cowardism?

How about the civil rights marches? Did cowards peacefully resist? The fight for reproductive rights? Maybe gay rights people are all cowards. Woman’s equality? Was Susan B Anthony craven? Those were all liberal movements, were they cowards?
No Newt, and anyone who follows him is a retard.

You know conservatives seem to perceive anyone who isn’t a ham fisted persecuting insecure jackass to be weak. I think that speaks very tellingly of them. They care not how much suffering they inflict because of this.

For example, the meme that gays must be discouraged because gay sex is just so good is conservative. I hear religious conservatives going on and on about this “fact”. Not being a closeted self hating bigot I know gay relationships don’t appeal to me, but to some they do, and they should be free too. I also hear the same about how Latin Americans are destroying America. Before conservatives hated the Irish. Apparently the Irish destroyed America, “Irish Need Not Apply”. It’s liberal policies that protected innocent Latino Americans from Conservative bigotry that the evil jackasses inflicted on Irish immigrants for being different.

Conservative bigotry against African Americans is ongoing.

I challenge you to name one Conservative policy on race or religion that isn’t abusive, or persecuting against someone for being different.

I’m really seeing this as an ideological debate, rather than a MPThingIMS. If the Great Debates mods disagree, they can throw it back, but for now I’m moving it there.

Ellen Cherry
MPSIMS Moderator

Proving that there can not be a statement so stupid that someone else won’t step up to defend it.

So far, no one’s stepping up to defend SA’s statement, which undercuts your thesis.

Nitpick: amphibian.

(Sorry. Can’t help myself).