And who else bought it as spoken? Huh? Huh?
Moron. 
In the adult world, we go by the words that are said, not by the words that are not said.
However, as this would destroy all Biblical interpretation, religious conservatives are constitutionally incapable of comprehending this concept.
So in the “adult world” you think a guy as smart as Newt Gingrich is gonna say something along the lines that in 50 years the U.S. will be secular and atheist, except that it will be run by radical Muslims?
Besides, I’m not really buying the explanation. Gingrich’s original statement as quoted in the OP was “they [his grandchildren] will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”
I don’t see a lot of room for “or” in that statement. I think he meant exactly what I said he did upthread, except that for a politician to come out and say it in those terms would be too inflamatory. So now his aides are backtracking. Clearly it isn’t likely that he would say “…in a secular atheist country, or potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.” To phrase it that way leaves an unspoken third alternative possible (i.e., the one that would exist if the country hadn’t become dominated by secular atheists and had radical Islam had failed its “potential”), and I doubt very much that Gringrich meant to imply that.
So it looks like it’s time to toss the Moron Ball back to Boyo Jim, where it rightfully belongs.
Yes, that’s precisely the level of discourse I’d expect from someone of Newt’s intellectual stature. Glad I could clear that up for you.
And I say this is insane, for the reasons I posted upthread: The radical Islamists in charge of Afghanistan, for example, destroyed Buddha statues with high explosives. That group of murderers would never allow their country to be atheist in any intelligent sense of the word.
I agree with everything you said here. This is a blatant, stupid attempt at backpedalling on the part of his aides to make it seem like he said something merely ignorant and vile, as opposed to something idiotic and vile.
Then you’re partisan ship has rent you blind. Even I can recognize Bill Clinton’s intelligence. Surely you’re capable of the same. Like it or not, Gingrich is widely regarded for the depth and breadth of his intelligence.
That was kind of the point, I think, in the scenario I thought he was describing.
Step 1. Atheistic, secular society
Step 2. Radical Islamic encroachment largely due to the existing secular, atheistic society allowing itself to be overrun rather than engage in un-PC comments and actions to resist said encroachment. (This is going on now all over Europe, btw, where people such as Brigette Bardot are being fined and jailed for speaking out against Islamic encroachment upon their cultures and their countries. It isn’t much of a stretch to think that Gingrich has them in mind when imagining the response of a secular, atheistic American society, whose liberal citizenship has longed to be like Europe for decades.
Step 3. Radical Islam spreads and is eventually foist upon the country as a whole.
Now, like I said, I don’t necessarily agree with Gingrich’s statement that radical Islam will one day succeed in converting the country to Islamism. For one thing, our oceans make a European-style influx of Islamic agitators unlikely. And for another, our large and continuing influx of Hispanic immigrants - immigrants who are strongly religious for the most part - will become a significant percentage of the population by the time Gingrich’s grandkids are grown, and I would imagine they will stand and defend their religious beliefs much more vigorously than does today’s white American religious citizenship, given that a goodly number of those religious white people today nevertheless lean liberal in their attitudes and are afraid or otherwise disinclined to speak out strongly in favor of their religious beliefs and/or their constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue them free from governmental interference.
If you agree with everything I said there, then you must agree that I was correct in my original assessment of Gingrich’s meaning when he said what he did. Is that correct?
Seriously, I am curious. How are Islamic values different than conservative values? It seems to me they are about the same. Islamic law-biblical law, anti-feminist-check, creationist-check, no separation of church/mosque and state-check, God central government-check. Dinesh D’Souza himself has stated that he has more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Americans. How is instilling Sharia Law different than turning America back to God and Biblical Law.
Logic failure.
Even if we agree with everything you’ve said, that is not evidence that that is what he meant when he said what he said.
No, but it apparently means that Derleth agrees with my analysis of it, which is what I said to begin with. Thus it will be interesting to wait to see if Boyo Jim decides that Derleth must be a “fucking moron” as well.
This is exactly what I thought when I read the piece. American far right fundamentalists have been characterizing many Western Europe countries and particularily France and the Netherlands as secular hellholes soooooon to be taken over by the more robust, more manly Islamist cult. It was already there in the Fundies’ mind back in the early 2000s. I guess Newt just recycled some old paper from that time.
This similarity between different brands of religious extremism is what worries me about the USA. The way I see it, the USA is not at risk of domination by Islamic extremists, but it is at risk of being dominated by Christian extremists, which is really just a different brand of the same old problem.
Wow, been reading **Starving Artist **'s posts in this thread. If you exclude the been there a week-already banned crowd, he probably deserves the “most blatantly moronic posts” award.
His intelligence makes it easy to figure out precisely what sort of nonsense will be most effective at pandering to the Republican party base. So, yeah.
Wrong verb tense. Gingrich has a reputation for intellect, which is going the way of a snowball in Hades as he aggressively panders to the lowest common denominator (or, perhaps, exhibits signs that his brain ain’t what it used to be).
What does “secular atheist country” even mean? With regards to the “secular” part, the US is already a secular state and was founded as one and is mandated by the US Constitution to operate as one. What change is Newt envisioning would occur, and why would that change be undesirable?
As to the “atheist,” part, does he mean that the population will become majority atheist? I think the odds of that are about the same as for Americans finally deciding to love soccer, adopt the metric system and make French the national language, but even if Americans did become majority atheist, so what? There’s an implication there that there is something inherently evil about atheism. This is a sentiment that is extremely rich coming from a man who has the moral authority of a tapeworm.
If he thinks the US government will become officially atheist and begin to try to eradicate free religious practice by citizens, then this is so far out to lunch as to put him in the same category as Protocols of the Elders of Zion type nutters. In fact, it’s really just an update of the exact same kind of manipulative, paranoid conspiracy bullshit, which just replaces Jews with atheists (but of course we all know who controls the atheists!).
The “radical Islamacist” bullshit is too stupid to even merit a response except to say that Muslims are even more the new Jews than atheists are.
I wonder when any of these secular atheists or radical Islamicists is going to start taking any power in the government, though, because right now Christians still have a stranglehold on all three branches of government.
Bill Clinton was objectively smart. He was a Rhodes Scholar, you’d have to be daft to deny his intellect.
Newt is not so much an intellectual powerhouse as much as he has an intellectual’s attitude and approach to solving problems. That is until recently when being intellectual and smart have become liabilities in the Republican party.
He’s defintely smart enough and has intellectual discipline but I don’t think he’s blindingly smart. Bill Clinton is.
Do you think that is even remotely possible in the next 50 years?
Newt was stringing together a bunch of buzzwords and catchphrases and ended up with a sentence that made little sense.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt: Being stupid is unfortunate, whereas acting stupid is contemptible.
No. Why? The First Amendment prohibits government from ‘establishing’ a religion, and the Establishment Clause has been used to stop precisely that kind of encroachment in the past. Conservatives refuse to see it as a good thing, however, because it’s primarily been used to stop the dominant bunch of zealots in this country: Fundamentalist Christians.
I should hope not, but I fear you’ll be right for a couple generations at least. Religious zealotry does reduce as education level rises, so there’s hope for the future.
What? Modern White American Christians have shown themselves to be the whiniest bunch of offenderati on the planet, second perhaps to those fancy boys in Rome. There’s no way you can miss how they howl every time a court mandates the removal of a crucifix placed on state land, or stops prayer in a publicly-funded school.
No. I agreed with everything you said in that paragraph, which included a statement that you think he meant what you think he meant. As that is a tautology, it is true by its very structure so agreeing with it is the only thing to do.
If Gingrich was widely regarded for his intelligence, he’d still be in Congress. In fact, he’s widely regarded for his appetite for women who are not his wife, so he’s not.
I don’t think Gingrich is stupid, I think he’s pandering.
I think he is trying to direct attention away from the fact that he gave up good old American Christianity and became a Catholic. Not to mention trying to change the discussion from family values, though one must admit he’s had lots of families.