And yes, I do disagree with both, from time to time.

I actually wrote a very nice response to your very nice response but it appears to have disappeared into the blogosphere soemwhere. Aaarrgghh!

You originally wrote; “aren’t those the things said very often on the most popular Conservative blogs today?” and I said no, as in not very often, but of course it does happen as there is no such thing as perfectly pristine in the real world of the blogosphere.

I did acknowledge that I could understand that McCullough’s piece would be objectionable to you, so may I have a teensy weensy bit of credit?

I personally did not find it objectionable in light of the context, but then again, I lived in the Middle East for many years and learned to live with the flow. Many a time, taxi drivers stopped enroute to my destination to get out of their vehicles and pray to Allah and I could but smile (and kick myself for not checking prayer times better).

You do impress…:) First, let me state that I do not think that liberals are evil and a non-stop montage os such charges would be appalling, which is why I do not visit certain sites.

When I responded to your original claim which was: “aren’t those the things said very often on the most popular Conservative blogs today?” I had not ever read McCullough as I mentioned. I did acknowledge that I could see why you might be offended, so I need a teeny bit of credit there. Having said that, I do not think that the charge “very often” is accurate.

I guess I think that there is a big difference between what a religiously oriented writer addresses and one who is merely addressing politics, so his remarks seemed understandable in context, particularly when he was specifically addresssing the destruction of unborn children.

Then again, I lived in the Middle East for decades and learned to go with the flow. If a taxi driver stopped halfway to Dhahran to pray facing Mecca, so be it…I was just gonna be late with a smile.

I still maintain that comments such as “liberals are evil and/or the spawn of Satan” are not common in the mainstream blogosphere of the right while vulgar vitriol is the dish of the day in the mainstream blogosphere on the left which is why a Marcotte is hired by a wannabe president who didn’t forsee that folks would find her obscene venomous bigotry objectionable.

Is everything a “figment of imagination” as that seems to be your fall back response? Liberals get called evil all the time. Just a fact. I don’t doubt that Evangelicals believe in God. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to use your religious beliefs to set public policy which would govern believers and non-believers. A strange phenomenon with Evangelicals is that they have segregated themselves from the culture to some degree with music, movies, books, and even video games. Yet, they still want to shape policy.

I still believe that religion has to be taken out of the equation. The religious right likes the idea of morality-based government until we start seeing things like sharia coming up in discussion. So, is religion in government okay as long as it is Christian?

I’m not picking on you, Jan. I just think you need to see clearly what the natural consequences of mixing religion and government could be.

I guess I was wrong because they actually used the word ‘Lucifer’this time? Not Satan? And ‘they’ do too *not* draw a line between ‘liberal ideas’ and ‘liberals’, as the title ably demonstrates.

Jan said:

“Try opposing AA or supporting tax cuts in a crowded room of Democrats. Trust me, the fur will fly and it won’t be pretty.”

There we agree, because I’m not defending ‘Democrats’, I’m questioning whether broad concepts such as ‘Liberals are evil’ and ‘the Theory of evolution is a false liberal religion’ are actually a ‘diverse expository’.

You claimed that you ‘do not see that’ said. I showed you that it is indeed said, so then you switched to defending *why* it is said. End of discussion I guess, I can’t/won’t switch like that.

How does one argue with people whose dialogue is built around slim variations of “You/They are evil/chanelling lucifer”.

Answer, one does not, and one cannot. As an agnostic/seeking Westerner who leans (by other’s definition) socially ‘left’, I get to be called ‘evil’ by both Muslims and Christians.

I will agree to disagree with you on this one Jan, I think that is for the best. At least we can discuss here like civil people without ‘Hannity’ wrestling the mic lest some ‘balance’ enters the discussion…

Regards,

John

I had never read a piece by McCullough before so I was interested to read the piece you cited. I can see why you might find it objectionable though I found it fairly innocuous, particularly given that his bio describes him as an evangelical commentator. Ergo, I would expect him to address good and evil.

To me, in this column he was primarily referencing a very common assertion by liberal spokespeople (his words) that good and evil have no place in public discourse even for such tragic policies as destroying unborn children.

I find it perfectly legitimate for a person of faith to find such a position to be “evil” which is quite different from asserting that all who are pro-abortion are defacto evil.

At the end of the day, while many on the left (particularly the far left) are infuriated by what they feel are religiously based judgementalism, they routinely judge people in the most vicious and harsh way. Try opposing AA or supporting tax cuts in a crowded room of Democrats. Trust me, the fur will fly and it won’t be pretty.

The fact that bloggers share information on a daily basis seems to be lost on most of the commenters here. The whole point of blogs is that we need an alternative to mainstream media so that we can hear other sides of a story. Now, when mainstream media finally shares a story from a blog, people aren’t happy with the fact that it’s being heard. No, we now have to have credit as well.

Ms. Schlussel has a history of using her legal status to bully those who cross her, and it’s not unheard of for her to practice that philosophy on fellow conservatives (just ask Misha at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler).

Blogging’s biggest treasure is that news is shared. Also – I didn’t know that news about something was considered intellectual property. For these reasons, I really can’t shed any tears over this.

TV (Harry)

Jan, with the greatest respect due, I wish it were true, but even the most cursory glance finds:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2006/10/15/why_liberals_channel_lucifer

However, regardless of whether Townhall or or National Review et al fund/support Coulterspeak or not, my argument isn’t just with the tone of politival dialogue – but with the truth.

I do greatly respect Conservatives or Liberals (or inbetweenies) who call out their ‘own’ who tell untruths/hyperboles, and I know that Hannity and Schlussel have been called many times, but they never seem to apologize, and they never seem to retract falsities? At least not to my knowledge. Any evidence of this would be welcome.

As for popular Conservative bloggers drawing a distinction between liberal ideas and liberals…well, not often, in my experience, but I respect the fact that you do.

On a lighter note, I’m an independent who doesn’t claim to have all the answers, and learn more every day. I enjoy calling out liars and ‘hyperbolimiacs’ both ‘left’ and ‘right’. And they Do Not Like It. Well, they wouldn’t, would they? LOL.

Hannity, you are being called to task by your betters, let’s hope you don’t jump either the shark or Julie Myer’s ‘Mexican’ Eagle story.

Mr Hannity? What was that?

Often, “a diverse expository on the beginning of life.” means the latest variant of Creationism. It is not science. But, even science has its’ limits in explaining our origins.

If you want to believe that a superior being blew the spark of life onto the soup of primitive organism we once were, fine. It’s not appropriate for a science class.

The difference between science and religion is when a scientist is asked a question that has no definitive answer he or she says, “I don’t know.” He or she does not ask us to make a leap of faith or turn to the Scriptures.

I believe we have a higher purpose. And, as an honest person who doesn’t pretend to have all the answers, I have to say I don’t know what that purpose is. Maybe there is something beyond this world or maybe this is it.

The bottom line is religion should be shared by a family in the church of their choice, not a classroom.

As far as the political groveling that Republican (and some Dems) engage in before religious groups…Keep in mind, politics is about power and money, pure and simple. Politicians enrich themselves and their friends. It’s up to us to enrich ourselves spiritually.

Hmmmm…I am thinking of Powerline, TownHall, NationalReview, HumanEvents, and a few others and no, that is not what is said. To me, they are quite careful to draw a distinction between liberal ideas and liberals.

Be that as it may, aren’t those the things said very often on the most popular Conservative blogs today?

Tom, you say: “Say what you will about the religious right(and I’ll agree they go too far sometimes), we aren’t foul-mouthed?

Tom, I never called (’you’?/’they?) foul-mouthed, I’m sorry if that’s how you read it.

The so called choke-hold that evangelicals have on the political process is highly exaggerated and the results of the last election demonstrate that the Republican party is not in thrall to the far right. Perhaps they are not going to churches with “hat in hand” but rather going to share their commonalities of faith with their brothers/sisters in Christ.

There is a vast difference between positing a point of view, however unpalatable to some (enemies of the state by Hannity) and fascism which uses force.

You are free to believe man and dinosaur cavorted in the Grand Canyon – Angel

Angel, methinks you doth extrapolate too much, going from my very limited description of evangelicals on the right -“those who believe that children ought to hear a diverse expository on the beginning of life.”- to what I believe.

Quite often you jump from a narrowly focused statement to a broadly sweeping judgement that has little or no basis in fact and is more a figment of your imagination.