Trust me, I am not one to come to Joel Rosenthal’s defense that often, to tell you the truth I am on the opposite side of what he says most of the time. I also think calling Stace Nelson a racist was a bit harsh, but as Joel admits, sometimes us blogger’s get things wrong;
Rather than what I “thought†I heard candidate Nelson say.
Following is what Montgomery says his recording of the event shows what Nelson actually said,
“I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order, and I’ll be the latter as long as it supports the first two.â€
It is an important distinction if Nelson is exclusively referring to himself.
My reaction, as Montgomery suggests is different when I read the words, but that does not alter my reaction to what my mind heard.
So what did Joel originally say?
Such xenophobic logic has no place in our political debate. Taken on its face, since Christ was a Jew, would he not meet the Nelson Republican Litmus Test? – And be denied to be a Republican?
Joel doesn’t go into detail but he is pointing out something that has often been a peeve of mine when it comes to politicians; Don’t wear your religion on your sleeve. It’s interesting that Stace thinks you have to be Republican if you are Christian or if you are Christian you should be a Republican. Maybe someone should tell Mayor Huether about Stace’s philosophy. Huether often wears his religion on his sleeve, and he is a Democrat (or at least that is his current registration).
Do I want politicians to be people of faith? Sure. But I really believe it is none of my business what they believe, I think a person’s faith is their personal business. I don’t think a politician is more qualified to lead because they either read the old testament or the new testament. I would much prefer they read a book about law or economics then the bible.
You believe in God. Great. Now tell me what you are going to do to make things better on earth for us mortals, you can discuss heaven in private with God, I have no need to be a part of that conversation. God doesn’t pave our roads, educate our children or fight our wars, tax payers do. We ultimately are the ones that tithe government, we are the congregation of this great nation.
You are repeating Rosenthal’s mistake. Nelson did not say you have to be a Republican to be a Christian or that you have to be a Christian to be a Republican. The correct quote (which Rosenthal’s correction still gets wrong) is a statement of personal worldview priorities, not in itself a demand on anyone else to adopt those same principles or priorities. We criticize public show-off piety, but we should not let Rosenthal’s misquote have any more traction.
http://madvilletimes.com/2013/09/nelson-attacks-rounds-on-deficit-votes-gop-puts-clothes-in-spin-cycle/
Let’s look at the actual quote, the subtle meaning of the quote, the inference received / gained and what the 250 members of the audience likely thought they heard.
Stace made a joke.
Joel hears most of the statement and takes it one way, OK. He honestly thought this is what he heard.
David Montgomery thought he heard something but as the reporter of facts, he has a tape recorder. He corrected himself after this blew up.
I am sure there are 247 others who attended heard the words they were looking for and laughed at their private jokes running through their minds.
The preconceived thoughts probably colored what was said. I for one am glad someone had the tape and video recorders to correct what was said. Now we as a state have to correct what was thought the the 249 listening to Stace.
This is the season to destroy, otherwise known as political season. We will listen only to what we want to hear and not what we should hear.
But regardless of what “Uncle Buck” said. Didn’t he speak the painful truth about the Grand Old Party and its political qualifiers? Did he not speak in code, I ask?
The amount of credibility this candidate continues to receive from the press and some blog sites is utterly incredible.
I know there is a school of thought, which is suppose to legitimatize all this publicity for the “Uncle”, that “if only” (and that’s a very hopeful “if only”) “Uncle Buck” can win the Republican nomination for the US Senate, then Weiland has a chance to win in the fall, but that “ain’t” going to happen. No Republican candidate for the US Senate is going to beat the insurance agent from Pierre as long as that insurance agent is running against three or four opponents who all have to compete for the right of center vote leaving almost all of the moderate vote to Mike Rounds. Absent a major scandal breaking against Rounds in the next few months, Rounds is untouchable.
Yet, this continued obsession with “Uncle Buck” only further fuels the Tea Party presences and its legitimacy, and no moderate or liberal or pure sensible conservative forum should allow this to continue.
Cory – to tell you the truth, joke or not, I just get sick of people talking about religion and politics. This isn’t the middle east.
DL, thumbs up (although, I really wanted to say “Amen”).
DL – So you say you don’t want politico-religious interactions in this country to resemble those in the Middle East. Your solution: pillory those whose religious beliefs differ from your own.
Do you think you would respond the same way if someone repeated the ‘Christian/conservative/Republican’ line, but replaced them with ‘atheist/liberal/democrat’?
Well no, because atheist is not a religion.
‘atheism’
But isn’t atheism a religious belief? In other words, if you don’t want people bringing up their belief in a god, shouldn’t you be equally opposed to people flaunting their non-belief in a god?
I would prefer my politicians be people of fact rather than “people of faith” (in the context you intended that phrase).
I don’t want the folks who aspire to push me around as legislators to believe in and act upon myths written by ghostwriters purporting to set the rules purported to have been say-ithed by some group of Jewish laborers 2000 years ago.
And atheism is NOT a religious belief. Atheism is the absence of such belief.
I have never met an atheist that flaunts it. Like I said, since atheism is not a religion, there is nothing to ‘practice’. Not believing in God is just that. In fact I know quite a few, and they never talk about it unless you ask them. The best quote I heard an atheist say once, “I’m too smart to be a Christian.”
I guess this may be arguing semantics, but I consider atheism to be a belief about religion, which to me is not a distinct concept from a religious belief.
To be clear, I’m a Christian, and I fully agree with your feelings about religion influencing politics. I never take religious affiliation into accounting when voting. For example, I know many fellow Christians (myself included) who voted against the gay marriage ban in Minnesota last year, including some who are morally/religiously opposed to homosexuality.
I think this is all some form of Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. While I consider my religious beliefs to be binding on myself and fellow church-members, I also believe that it doesn’t have a bearing on decisions made for the (rightly) secular governance of this country.
So: while I agree that religious affiliation shouldn’t be especially important for political elections, I disagree with your sentiment that religious speech and identification ought to be somehow suppressed during such contests.
I never said ‘surpressed’ I just said ‘not mentioned’ It is not important, and the only reason politicians wear it on their sleeve is to ascertain votes. I actually know a very devote Christian who is a politician, and he never brings it up to voters or citizens unless they ask him. He is a very proud Christian, but often agrees with me, don’t use the ‘C’ behind your name to get votes.
Indeed, Mr. E. One of your best bloggings yet. I am so tired of the overgodding of some of these career wannabe politicians.
“I guess this may be arguing semantics, but I consider atheism to be a belief about religion, which to me is not a distinct concept from a religious belief.”
To paraphrase Bill Maher, atheism is no more a religion than absinence is a sexual position.
In fact, if you were to look up the term ‘religion’ you would (in this context) the term relates to a belief in a god or gods and/or the practices that surround believing in a god or gods. Atheism is the opposite of religion.
While true Atheism is a belief system (as in an Athesist saying they don’t believe in a god or gods), it is no different than someone not believing in Sasquatch, or not believing in Santa Clause, or not believing in the nation of France. We wouldn’t consider someone who doesn’t believe in Sasquatch to be practicing a religion, and if someone didn’t believe in France we wouldn’t try to suggest that was a religious belief (although considering how they avoid fact and form their own version of reality… perhaps there is room for debate here).
Personally, I don’t care what religion someone might be, or not be as it were. I don’t care if they are a Christian, Agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, Scientologist, or if they believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster. What I do care about is if they try to use their personal religion to influence public policy or if they try to suggest everyone needs to have the same belief system as they do.
I will have to say that I agree with DL regarding Athesists not flaunting it as well. I’ve known many Atheists, but I’ve never met one who tried to shove it in my face, nor have I ever heard of one attempting to use that belief as a foundation to influence public policy… then again that would be difficult since it is the absense of a belief, which makes building upon it rather difficult.
The amazing thing here is that so many Americans are flat-out ignorant as to the foundations of our nation. Contrary to what the weekly letters to the editor published by the Argus Leader try to suggest, this nation was not founded by Christians nor was it founded on the basis of Christianity. In fact, most of our founding fathers weren’t even Christian and instead considered themselves Deists.
That is to say that several of them (John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin amonst others) had a belief in a higher power, but they did not have a belief in any one specific religion. This is why they ensured our Constitution was free of any rules tied to religion – they didn’t want to repeat the same mistakes they witnessed in England.
One other point I think needs to be mentioned and that is so often forgotten by those who attempt to push their faith upon others: Just as freedom of speech does not preclude one from the ramifications of said speech, freedom of religion does not preclude someone from the ramifications of their religion.
Thus I’ll defend someone’s right to have their own beliefs just as I’ll defend their right to free speech, but in each case they will not be insulated from the effects of their words, their actions, or their beliefs. A modern day politician who attempts to use his or her religion as a weapon wielded against the Constitution is soon to find themselves on the losing side of a war – because the Constitution has far more protectors and defenders in this nation than any religion will ever have, and one need only to look at the trend lines surrounding organized religion to know this isn’t about to change.
Well said.
Religious people tend to believe, and I’m using that word very intentionally, that framing the non-belief of their man made deity as a religion, makes atheism open to skepticism the same way that there’s much skepticism about the various flavors of religions that continue to poison the well of humanity.
various flavors of religions that continue to poison the well of humanity
Glad to see we can continue to have a mature and respectful conversation.
@badbenboyenemy:
I accept your criticism that religious people often frame the conversation by making atheism seem like any other religious belief, which clearly it is not. However, I think you’re guilty of a similar framing of the argument by implying that atheism is somehow beyond skepticism.
The idea that non-belief in a god is somehow an self-evident truth is an assumption that you are making, one that I believe stems from the sola scientifica mindset that’s so ubiquitous today. Because so many people take science as the only way to answer any question, they naturally discard questions that are unanswerable by science (or erroneously label them as being disproved by science). That’s what I believe you’ve done here.
(Full disclosure: I’m a scientist myself and a Christian. I believe in evolution, the big bang and global warming. Imagine that!)
Like I tell people, ‘God lit a big fucking fire cracker, then spit on it to put it out.’
@Tom H
I wasn’t directing anything towards your particular religious beliefs, but religion in general. That can include Wiccan, Norse, the Abrahamic Religions, Scientology, Myan, whatever deity or sorcery you choose to believe in, it’s all the same to me.
As a purported scientist, you’re basing the unknown on sorcery and magical sky wizards, until otherwise can be proven with the scientific method I take it? How does that impact your research and other studies?
Is it a sin to report that the world isn’t flat, and that it is older than 6,000 years old? Do other scientists ever question your methodology for this kind of research? How do you explain it to them, or to your church, or to your god if you ever met him?
Religion has had its run. It’s time in the spotlight is clearly waning as new research into the subject is suggesting. Just look at the work Pew has done on the subject. This is why you have church organizations like the LDS advising their members not to use the internet to look for discrepancies in the book of Mormon.
I’m sure you’ve seen the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the new and old testament yourself that nobody is willing to talk about openly in a church service on Sunday.
You’re misunderstanding me, badboy. It’s not a choice between religion or science. There’s no reason a Christian (or other religious person) can’t accept the findings of science and also believe in a deity. Science can certainly impact my understanding of my faith – for instance, I don’t take Genesis as a literal historical account of creation – but no scientific result can change my belief that Jesus Christ has given me new life, precisely because it’s not a scientific question to begin with.
It saddens me that the only response you seem to have towards people who have religious beliefs is disdain and vitriol. I don’t claim ‘sorcery and magical sky wizards’ as the answer to unsolved scientific mysteries – rather, I claim belief in a loving God, and find understanding through that faith for those questions which expressly can never be answered by science.
I’m not demanding that you convert to my beliefs, or that you never bring criticisms against religious institutions (they’re certainly worthy of much criticism). However, I do ask for at least a modicum of respect – both on my own behalf as a ‘purported’ scientist, and on behalf of the millions of people who find comfort in their faiths.
I readily admit that atheism is a reasonable and defensible position to take in regards to the difficult questions about life and its meaning. I think you’re being dishonest with yourself if you think that your answers to those questions are so far beyond dispute that any other responses are ridiculous.
It’s safe to say that we’re both misunderstanding each other to some degree. My dismissal of any and all religions as being man made fantasies is offensive to you because you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior.
That’s fine by me, but where this belief system goes awry is when you start constructing Christianity for what it is today, a religion that doesn’t even remotely resemble its origins. It’s been Romanized (not a word, sorry), then influenced heavily by Paganism and European culture as a whole, then ported over to North America and ran through various cultural filters again.
This is precisely the reason your pastor doesn’t speak of human sacrifice, slavery, and the acceptance of rape on the behalf of Christians, because social norms have changed enough over the last few thousand years to the point where Christianity isn’t really Christianity any longer, at least not that Jesus himself would recognize as his own.
Even Genesis, the book you mentioned yourself offers nothing new in terms of its overall content. Much of it was based off of Mesopotamian stories and folklore, as were many other parables that were retold in the bible. The stories of virgin birth, raising people from the dead etc, all had their roots planted in other cultures before the bible was written.
Even the resurrection of Jesus himself wasn’t miraculous as there were many other people that were raised from the dead in the bible as I’m sure you can attest to.
It’s great if you find comfort in your faith, but you must understand that people that were born without faith, or don’t pay license to a book of retold stories written by tribal people who mostly didn’t like each other or were at war with each other, doesn’t really make a lick of sense in the 21st century. No person is born with faith, they’re taught it, and are taught to fear it if they don’t have it.
How you as a scientist, are able to do the mental gymnastics to overcome the inevitable conclusion that man made deities cannot be relied upon as a legitimate source to answers about questions that we do not have answers to yet — may require its own study to answer properly.
I wish you well.
Understanding the Bible – a document forged over thousands of years, and written by people in vastly different situations, locations, and moral systems – is no small task for a modern Christian. If you’re academically interested, the subject of Biblical contextualism is one that inspires no small amount of debate within the Christian community.
BTW – in the interest of not hijacking this thread any further (too late), feel free to email me if you want to continue this discussion. I think we have a lot more to learn from each other.
hofer055 AT gmail DOT com
BadBen – Looks like someone is trying to ‘save’ you.