home

Faith-Based News Network

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sun May 08, 2005 at 06:43:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Columbia Journalism Review reports that "evangelical Christians are creating an alternative universe of faith-based news." Their instrument is the National Religious Broadcasters, whose tag line is "Christian Communicators Impacting the World." The court flap is at the top of their agenda right now. [Via Avedon Carol at Sideshow, who will be a guest blogger at Atrios this week, while he's on the road.

Also guest blogging at the Big A this week are Echidne the Goddess of Echidne of the Snakes and Atta Throat Warbler Mangrove Turk of Rising Hegemon.

< Al Qaeda Capture: Mistaken Identity? | U.S. Soldier Details Guantanamo Abuse >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Faith-Based News Network | 52 comments (52 topical)
    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Great! More unapologetic biased news! Meanwhile, David Cohen over at the NYT is calling for higher ethical standards to be adopted by bloggers (presumably in regards to fact checking and sourcing). So, I just want to get it straight. It is O.K. to have blatantly biased news organizations/editors, it is O.K. for news organizations to write news despite their numerous conflicts of interests - thanks largely to media/industry consolidation, but BLOGGERS are the ones who need to do a better job checking their facts. Give me a break. The so-called "Liberal" NY Times was lock step with the rest of the MSM in championing the lies about Iraq - check your own hypocrisy before you start pointing out the failures of others - last I checked, Kos & TL didn't have their own satellites or armies of paper trucks beaming garbage information into people's brains 24 hours a day.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#2)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Read Al Martin.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Good article. It reminded me of Paul Krugman, who talked about reading Henry Kissinger's book that described "what happens when a stable political system is confronted with a 'revolutionary power': a radical group that rejects the legitimacy of the system itself."

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    The barbarians are at the gates. They call themselves Christians, but they derive little or nothing of their philosophy from a guy named Jesus.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    Yes-silence those christians. Only those who have democratic candidates in the pulpit at election time or who espouse progressive ideals should be allowed to speak.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    Ed - We need to quit using "progressive ideals" in our writing and speech. That's just spreading propaganda. The Left is not progressive. et al - Why not just turn'em off? I do it all the time when a show bothers me. Larry King soft balling a Demo politico or nut case actor? Click. Limbaugh explaining how great he is? Click. That's the market at work. To shut them down otherwise is censorship. Now, you guys wouldn't want to do that would you? Hmmmmmmm?

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    Let em have it. It will only demonstrate once again that only a portion of the christian base in this country is wacko. Their ratings will be just like the 700 club. Although, with the 70+ crowd sending them so much money, I wonder if they will have it in their heart to sell advertising? And if they do, with the 6 degrees of separation, which company could be righteous enough to advertise there? If they were spending their own money this might be really fun, but being they are spending on the backs of so many older folks that they call and mail constantly it is a bit sad.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Jim..good advice Turn it off. Well..sometimes. I'll watch once in a while. Usually, you can't buy material that doggone funny!

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    I hate to quibble, but shouldn't news be fact-based? I mean, if you take things on faith, who needs news? God will surely fix everything.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    kdog- Yes, in a better world. However, there is a grand American tradition of using the media to spin and manipulate others to your point of view. Historically, American Newspapers could almost always be identified as shills for one political party or the other. These days, I just view Fox and it's ilk as the modern incarnation of Hearst's papers from the turn of the last century. Ironically, from what I've read, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the coverage leading to the war in Iraq, and the Spanish-American war.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Kdog- hit post too soon. Hmmm. True. For a bunch "assured of a nice afterlife" and who believe "God will fix everything", they spend alot of time these days whining and playing the victim card.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Yes, they should just shut up about moral issues they care about. Just as the Christian abolitionists should have shut up about slavery and Reverend Martin Luther King should have shut up about civil rights. The religious should have no part or say in public life.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    I'm what you might consider an evangelical/fundamental Christian. - Almost 25% of my church's relatively small budget goes towards charitable causes. - We host a program that houses the homeless (in the church building) one weekend each month. - The youth of our church recently raised enough money to feed over 200 children in the Tsunami hit areas for a year. - Just before the holidays we gave away the entire offering to the needy, $20,000, from a church of approx. 600 members. - Members give away donated bags of groceries in poor neighborhoods monthly - not pre-arranged, just knocking on doors. These are just a few examples of what real Christianity looks like.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Ed that's a ridiculous post and I'll show you why. The Christian abolitionists and MLK fought for greater civil liberties whereas today's evangelicals fight to curtail them. Period. From everything to private bedroom practices to women's rights to censoring the public discourse, your heroes are always on the cutting edge of green Police-style interference. Precisely the kind of stuff the undeground railroad, for example, wa erected to combat. If you're looking for a real analogue, wait until Roe and Lawrence V Texas are overturned. Then citizen networks will emerge to hide and otherwise protect homosexuals from prosecution; so too will there be groups committed to helping poor women get across state lines to places where they are not viewed as chattel. I and my wife will proudly be in the thick of such networks and--gasp!--we aren't even Christians.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Yes Ed, important moral issues like making Homosexuals second, third, or even criminal-class citizens. -Important moral issues like deciding what people should be allowed to boradcast or watch on TV in their own home. -Important moral issues like how to use Fundamentalism to drive politcal wedges in the country for short-term political gain. -Even issues like if Kerry voters should be allowed to stay in a church (though that little cockroach scurried away in the face of the light of the media). Glanton-well said. And this "heretic" will be right there with you.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Personally, I think it's great. I wish all media outlets would admit, nay, trumpet, their biases as TL and the NRB do.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Not quite as ridiculous as your assertions. MLK and the abolitionists were fighting strong societal interests to let things be and strong governmental interests to do the same. If you think christians are not, read the dire predictions and the overwrought fears of a theocracy thrown out in the newspapers. MLK and the abolitionists took moral stands and made lots of people uncomfortable.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Couldn't help noticing you didn't bother addressing the foundation of Glanton's point. MLK and the abolitionists fought to expand liberties. Contemporary "Evangelicals" want to curtail them. Nice attempt at spin, though. Here's half a troll cookie.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#19)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Way to avoid the issue, Ed. Here it is again: Yes MLK and the abolitionists took strong moral, religiously informed stances. Then again so did Osama bin Laden on 9/11, so too did Eric Rudolph, so are those whackos in Kansas trying to reignite the Scopes Trials--so did the lemonade stands outside Shiavo's hospice. The point is, just because something's a strong moral stance doesn't mean anything. The question is, what kind of moral stance are you talking about? Today you want to curtail to inhibit, to criminalize: feedom is anathema to your designs. That is why you deserve to be caricatured as much as possible, that is why if you slyly get your way with you new Czarist government, those among us who value liberty and decency will fight you tooth and nail underground. In the meantime, thou officious water carrier: stay alert, and stay with FOX.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Sorry. Such a long post just to say you are afraid of people of religious faith when they disagree with you. How could such a minority of fanatics oppress you? Obviously, since the rightness of your views is so apparent, you must be in the vast majority.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#21)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Actually, Ed, it doesn't matter whether I'm in the majority or not, in terms of valuing and defending that which is inalienable. I'm not at all afraid of religious people. If I were, I'd have to run screaming from most of my immediate family members and almost all of my friends. What I am afraid of is a fool with a cause. That is you, Ed. And you stand in the way of liberty, and hopefully in the end, history as well: whether the crop of lemming voters go numbly into that good night is of no concern to me: my right to exist and pursue happiness is not in your hands.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Glanton, Adept...well done. This new breed of Christian bears no resemblance to a man named Jesus.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Ed- As I recall, Southern "Evangelical" Christians thought they were doing their Christian duty by bringing Jesus to the slaves. When they realized that Slaves had compared themselves to the Israelites whom God promised he would free from bondage, rather than taking up the Abolitionist cause I believe they banned church attendence and made reading the bible a crime - eventually expanding that crime to all reading and the teaching of reading. I don't have the backup and don't have time for links. Anybody care to corroberate?

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    mfox: While what you say is true, it is equally true that in the North abolition was largely driven by Transcendentalists and Evangelicals. Then as now, religious people were divided over the issue, with one faction fighting for liberty and the other opposing it. Today, the 19th century evangelicals we most remember are people like the Grimke sisters, Theodore Parker, William Lloyd Garrison, Ms. Child, Harriet Jacobs, etc. But today those who are in the media all the time are the ones operating in the mold of their Southern apologist predecessors. One wonders how long Chistians in America will allow their image to be thus appropriated before they start forcing their way into the headlines, and their views get some articulation on the same Senate floor where Tom Coburn preaches ideological genocide.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    And Jim, BTW, if you can't recognize that the slaveholding South went to church, and considered itself to be operating within the Christian rubric, then I'll have an ounce of what you've been smoking all your life. Southern preachers defended the evil. Just like today tthey declaim homosexuals as less than human. The South was not torn between landowners and the rest. Read some stuff, please. It was slaveholding territory, period, and it tried to expand to the midwest right up to the bitter end. Ever heard of Charles Sumner? Bludgeoned almost to death, on the Senate floor, by Christian hands.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#25)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    mfox writes - "I don't have the backup and don't have time for links. Anybody care to corroberate?" I care to dispute. 1.It happened. 2. It was not driven by people of faith, but by landowners who afraid of admitting the evil they were doing, and afraid of saying that slaves were human. It was a terrible sin, and a terrible time, but to blame the wrong group, with no back up, is wrong in itself. BTW - I would suspect that then, as now, Evangelicals, were people with little money and even less political influence. I await your rebuttal. glanton - Some proof about the southern side?

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    glanton - Go back and read my comment. I was disputing mfox's contention that Evangelicals were the driving force behind slavery, etc., as I see her comments as an attempt to attack a group of people she disagrees with. i.e. Tarring them with something that happened 140 years or so ago that actually has nothing to do with today. You agreed with her. So, my response to mfox's claim, was that I agreed that it happened. But that the people doing it were the rich large landowners who were, as members of the power structure, members of the established churches. Not Evangelicals, who were, and are, mostly middle and lower middle class. So, let's see some proof.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Jim, you're being ridiculous, suggesting that there wasn't complicity throughout the South, on all levels of society. The whole culture was nourished in the stink of it. That cross-section would, um, include evangelicals, and it's pretty funny that you need proof of it. I'm not blaming them any more than any other specific Southern group, because all their hands are dirty. Meanwhile evangelicals in the North played a leading role in abolition, as everyone knows. Were there pockets of anti-slavery rhetoric here and there across the South? Probably. But not much of it has survived in print. Stop squabbling against the obvious. All of which of course is beside the point as far as this thread goes. Whatever Southern evangelicals were doing 150 years ago, today they and their brethren across the country, at least the ones getting any airtime, are markedly anti-liberty. Sharp contrast from the Northern abolitionists, that.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#30)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Back to the topic, let them start any business that they want, but take away the tax exempt status. I am sick of subsidizing the religious right. Let them pay for this #%##% themselves, not with my taxes

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Just a little understanding: *Most of those folk who you think are trying to limit liberty - think you are depriving a future like your own to 1,300,000 fetuses a year. They think Roe v Wade blatantly violated the religious separation doctrine while legislating something that should have been handled by elected representatives. *They think the secular community started the "culture wars" by using the courts, not the political system, to systematically turn "religious freedom" into "freedom from religion" *They think that christians represent 75% of the country; with believers in other "superstitions" having another 10% - and that all the folks calling themselves agnostics, athiests, humanists, secular, etc represent 15% *They think the news media represents the morals and ethics of that 15% - and are biased as such You might climb down a little off the high horse before you talk about people attempting to limit liberty - cause you only have to read about 20 posts here about evangelicals to find 15 people who would like us to leave the political debate

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#32)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    A point by point response to JCH: ** Throwing reproductive rights into the realm of "elected representatives" is wholly abhorrent to me, for a number of reasons. Chief among them being that it gives my neighbors a false sense of propriety in running our lives. Anyway, if Alabaman neighbors decide to ban abortion outright and those in Lousiana do not, then the Alabama woman of means has no problem getting to Lousiana if she has decided to have one. The poor woman, that's a different story. She'll have to rely on the underground railroads, of which many of us will partake, but for which many of us will go to jail. **Re "using the courts" instead of the political system, see above. I ought not have to lobby the people around me for the right to run my life. I appreciate it whenever the courts protect me from having to waste my time in such an inane way. **As for your claim to a supermajority, again, who cares? I oughtn't need numbers to peacefully run my life, just the will to do it. Some don't "approve" of my choices? Tough titties. **Re the media. It sucks, it's totally tabloid, and it only benefits the power structure as it is. Honestly, I'd like to know how the media in any way strengthens liberal causes in this day and age. Still, for all my dusgust, the right to free speech is the right to free speech. As long as you don't try to run my life. Too bad those you're defending don't see things that way. **Finally, in terms of freedom of religion, there is such a thing as a rhetorical situation. It makes no sense for me to climb onto your pulpit on Sunday and start reading Neitzsche--that would be out of place. In Science classes then, spare us your Gospels. If I am on a high horse, it is because I am prickly about owning the terms of my life. My choices are not subject to veto by James Dobson, or you, or TL, or anyone else for that matter--when my fist runs into someone else's nose, then come complaining. Until then, no matter how vast your numbers, no matter how sure you are that you know what's best for us, keep it to yourselves. It's nobody's business but my own.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    JCH, Again, CNN pays taxes. So does Fox news. If Jerry Falwell wants a media outlet, then he should pay too. Stay in the debate, just dont ask me to pay your bills.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Glanton,
    My choices are not subject to veto by James Dobson, or you, or TL, or anyone else for that matter--when my fist runs into someone else's nose, then come complaining. Until then, no matter how vast your numbers, no matter how sure you are that you know what's best for us, keep it to yourselves. It's nobody's business but my own.
    Agreed - now, since the courts have seen fit to exceed their authority; and have become a political battlefield - what will you do if those who wish to "limit your liberty" take control over the courts? And the legislation starts to run the other way. You have personally endorsed this as long as it benefited you - what if it doesn't? Roe violated separation and was unconstitutional as such (whatever you may like about judges vs legislatures). And Roe really started the "culture war" and incited the religious masses. So, reap the whirlwind of backlash, I guess. If you do not like state by state decision - have a national Constitutional amendment passed (oops no support) or at least a law putting Roe into statute federally (oops should have happenend in 1973 instead of Roe; or certainly right after - cause not enough support now). As to the supermajority, there has been a percieved (and I believe real) attempt by a superminority to turn Religious Freedom guaranteed in the Constitution into an entirely different Freedom from Religion. Again, you are again reaping the whirlwind in backlash. So, secular folk stir up a hornet's nest of folks thinking their religious freedoms are being infringed - and then get angry when the hornet's do not calm down before they sting you.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Roger, I do not disagree; but I admit no knowledge of the laws sheltering religion from taxes - so you might have to have federal law changed to accomplish this. Again, I do not know.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#36)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    “… satellites or armies of paper trucks beaming garbage information into people's brains 24 hours a day.” How many plies of tinfoil does it take to keep out these mind bending garbage rays? It seems liberal and conservative alike view the media as some controlling force praying on well meaning but limitlessly impressionable Americans. Folks buy the news they want, end of story. Here in uber-conservative Utah religious programming is still very sparse; it simply doesn’t sell. It seems the only impact on commercially available programming is the lack of specific stations from the standard cable bundle, i.e. ComedyCentral. Heck, even the PAX network is forced to run infomercials half the day to pay the bills. This is a paper tiger glued together by the same nitwits burned over LB’s coarse stud milking goof. Cut the histrionics; the barbarians are not at the gate.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#37)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    "what will you do if those who wish to "limit your liberty" take control over the courts? And the legislation starts to run the other way. You have personally endorsed this as long as it benefited you - what if it doesn't?" The answer lies in your question, my friend. Any entity that offers to seize control of my private life becomes my sworn enemy, which branch of government it happens to be doesn't matter. One of my favorite things about debating you is that you know as well as anyone that demagogues are everywhere and that their influence pervades all elements of society. Because of that simple fact, JCH, I am forced to play my enemies against one another, as it were, and take my brief alliances where I can find them. Today the Courts are a lot more interested in personal liberty than both the other branches combined. If and when that changes, I'll be there to bash the courts and to support political heroes like John Lewis (both a committed Christian and --gasp! a Democrat, as I'm sure you know)and Howard Dean and Jennifer Granholm, people who respect my right to be let alone. As a sidenote to all this, if you think I have a bias against religious people, this saddens me. If that were true I'd be one helluva lonely guy, let me tell you.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Glanton, Never accused you of that. In all of our chats I have never gotten the hint that you are bias against me because I am christian. You might be biased against me if I were a mental midget - but no one seems to be willing to call me that. And be careful of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic - while politically expediate it is morally and ethically bankrupt. Incidentally, this is a brilliant piece in the Journal of Philosophy on Abortion. Read it even if its anti-. First, even if you do not agree it will help you sharpen your arguments. Second, it is the best "unifying theory" (borrowing a Physics term) for a view on all of the "Sanctity of Life" issues (birth control, abortion, death penalty, active euthanasa, etc). Really a brilliant philosophical essay that will broaden your mind whether you agree or not.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#39)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    JCH, Roe was indeed poorly written, and poorly thought out. That still does make the outcome of "decide for yourself" wrong. Also, you raise an interesting point, my understanding is that originally, it was "freedom from religion", but that Mass. would not sign on. The pilgrims live on!

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Thanks, JCH, I will read it. As for your caution against the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra, I can only say that desperate times call for desperate measures. Though I would add that it only plays into the rhetoric of the most fanatic rightists to seriously believe that the Courts are the "enemies" of the other branches--they are simply a little more reluctant to step on my than the Executive Branch and the Legislative. For that reluctance I do not offer something as valuable as friendship, but I do appreciate that somewhere, somebody in power cares about my civil liberties.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Glanton, Relax a little on desperate times. I was involved briefly with a young Gay rights movement in 1972-3. Conditions in this country for gays is nothing like it was then - nothing. I know "you've come a long way baby" is not emotionally satisfying when you see how far you have to go - but its true never the less. Other than the demagogues, the majority of christians really are of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" variety. Again, even the backlash from crossing the line in schools from acceptance of homosexuality to the equality of homosexuality with heterosexuality as a lifestyle was not a huge issue. Marriage is the huge issue (I will not go into why - perhaps read CS Lewis on "Christian Marriage" in Mere Christianity). Cultural, moral and ethical changes cannot be enforced - they take time, patience and education. If they must be enforced (your punch in the nose analogy) then they should be enforced after political debate and action - not judicial. There is so much more danger in oligarchy in the courts than in the legislature - and it is so hard to stop due to lifetime appointments.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Part of the problem with civil liberties in this country, as I see it anyway, is that for the most part people only tend to get their danders up when they themselves are the target of something. While your own brief involvment in the gay rights movement 'back in the day' separates you from that mentality, surely you must see that when you talk about how far "you" or "they" have to go, you are unwittingly playing into the hands of facism. Anyone marginalized, oppressed, or otherwise stripped of their civil rights in America is fatalisticallly intertwined with the rest of "us." As Dean said during one of the Primary debates, racism becomes much more defeatable in this country when white folks are talking to other white folks about the issue.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Roger, No - the separation doctrine in the Constitution was based on Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, written by Jefferson and ushered through the Virginia legislature by Madison. Read the general argument, especially note role of judiciary.
    Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities
    It is clear that those who, for instance, complain that their freedom from religion is bothered by President Bush citing God as a director of his actions are violating this. Even more clear, when the Supreme Court in Roe decided when "protectable" life began, (especially after reviewing all the religious doctrines on the issue and picked the one they liked), they violated separation - and started the greatest cultural war since slavery.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Glanton, you contradict yourself a lot. "As a sidenote to all this, if you think I have a bias against religious people, this saddens me" glanton, why would anyone get that impression? Posted by glanton at December 15, 2004 01:25 PM "It's absolutely justified to hate those who would enslave you to their way of thinking, of sarcastic unnamed one. Noone has posed a threat to the religious conservatives in this country. Nobody tries to stop them from practicing their faith. They are the ones trying to influence what we can and cannot do. So yes, I hate them for it. Of course not all Christians obsess over what others are doing, and towards those I have the greatest respect. But they're not the ones shaping policy..." Actually, as jch defines himself above at 9:53AM as one of the evangelicals who would like to stay in the political debate/shape policy, you must hate him. And then this: "I am forced to play my enemies against one another, as it were, and take my brief alliances where I can find them." OT, but this sounds a little a lot like the realities our much-maligned gvt. is forced to accept w/regard to foriegn policy. Ok, we can save this thought for an appropriate thread.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Glanton This is severely hypothetical: I own a house, and a gay couple comes to rent my house. Obviously if the couple were a black man and women I could not discriminate because after years of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement; (and years of cultural change) someone would hand me my head (and since I was involved in that civil rights struggle anyway - this is no issue). Back to gay couple: I think homosexuality is sin - I talk to my wife, my pastor, my small group, . Understand, I like the two women or men, they have good jobs, they seem quiet. In short, no other issue than they are gay. After prayer, discussion, etc I decide that to rent to them encourages the lifestyle I find sinful.(I do not own property and do not know that this would be that decision - again this is all hypothetical). Should I be forced to rent, as I would to a black heterosexual couple? And if I should be forced to rent, should that be done by some limited number of judges - or by representative, elected government after due debate. After all, the right to do what I want with my property is also involved here.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    et al: Though we seem to have swerved far off topic in this thread, and it's largely my fault, I feel compelled to point out that not a single poster has objected to these groups having their own network, getting airtime, or anything like that. Free of Green Police motives and tactics are we liberals, and it is something to celebrate. This thread instead has become a place for debating the message, or messages, that such a network will likely propogate. sarcastic: Try to force people's private behavior, at the threat of a gun or imprisonment, to conform to your group's sense of propriety or religious convictions, and I range myself against you. It's really very simple. JCH: I do not think you should be forced to rent to anyone you don't want to, and to that end I even confess to serious misgivings about forcing someone to rent against their racial bigotries. Of course, as you say, in terms of public discourse you'd be villified (I hope) if you denied African Americans because of their skin color. I wish it were true that you'd be villified for denying homosexuals on the same grounds, to be honest: but I realize that wouldn't happen because right now, it's pretty in to discriminate against gays. In any case I wouldn't involve the law. It seems the infection of libertarianism, that I caught when young, still lingers somewhere.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    "Try to force people's private behavior, at the threat of a gun or imprisonment, to conform to your group's sense of propriety or religious convictions, and I range myself against you" Nice spin glanton, but the thread in which you proclaimed your hate was titled "Radical Right Seeks to Expand Christmas." Nary a word of a threat of gun nor prison as penalty for non-conforming, only that of, in your words, "shaping policy." So which is it, do you, as you said, hate religious conservatives and feel your hate toward them is absolutely justified? Or do you not hate religious conservatives and don't feel hate toward them is justified? You can admit you made a mistake, it's not like you're the president or anything.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    "You can admit you made a mistake, it's not like you're the president or anything." In honor of that lovely joke I will state for the record, sarcasmo, that I very much regret the vitriole with which I spoke out in the immediate aftermath of the elections. I regret it because when I'm feeling threatened, or exceedingly angry, then I'm definitely at my worst. Of course, I think we both know that the fight to "save Christmas" was about as much of a non-issue as one could imagine. For all O'Reilly's inane "specials," so far as I know, nowhere in the nation was anyone prevented from celebrating Christmas. And nobody in America regardles of their faith forgot that it was Christmas. You are not under seige, my friend. Be whatever you want to be. Please recognize your responsibility to afford others the same courtesy, regardless of how repugnant or blasphemous you may find those decisions to be.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Glanton, Frankly, in a puralistic democracy I do not have a problem with victims of -isms being raised to the status of a protected class or group - it is the duty of government to protect minorities against majorities. Regretfully, that sometimes encompassess the kind of struggle that accompanied the vote for women, and racial discrimination, etc. That political and social struggle is what alters the culture - not the ruling of a judge.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Well done glanton, I'm sure we will find some other topic on which to disagree tomorrow. ;-)

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    PW: The Americans that most need critical thinking skills don't have them, thanks to many factors, including a lack of access to quality education and the all-consuming struggle to keep a roof over their heads while trying to fulfill the most basic of Maslow's needs (most often while giving away half their salaries in rent to someone else). I for one don't believe that the common American is able to discern the nuance and unreason of two party politics in today's saturated, digitalized "Garbage Information Age".

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#52)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    glanton - In most things there is a degree of guilt, and certainly those people who did not immediately and openly oppose slavery have some degree of guilt, just as all americans who did not immediately openly oppose segregation have some degree of guilt. That was not my point. My point was that, as a group, southern pre-civil war Evangelicals were not the dominant force in society, either secular or religious. As a group they didn't oppress slaves as mfox claimed. The southern land owners, as a group, did. Neither group survives to today. So tying today's Evangelicals to whatever happened, is unfair.

    Re: Faith-Based News Network (none / 0) (#53)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Here we're pretty much agreed, Jim. I don't particularly blame Southern evangelicals for slavery, they were complicit like everyone else, but not the true muscle behind the institution. I do find it interesting that their Northern counterparts, who were surely neither wealthier nor more powerful, nevertheless spoke out forcefully enough to get the ball of abolition rolling. Here, in this thread, you condemn not speaking out against injustices. Yet on TL you apologize away all kinds of contemporary injustices. And tell me: when Dubya's new SCOTUS overturns _Roe_ and _Lawrence_, will you break the law and lend your money, your time, and your loudest possible voice to the support of the oppressed, the jailed, the pursued and (in Oklahoma at least) even the executed? I thought not. Perhaps instead you'll be one of those saying, 'if you don't like it change voters' minds,' or some such claptrap. Nothing to see here people, move along, keep the traffic going.

    Faith-Based News Network | 52 comments (52 topical)