Top 10 Tuesday: Stupidest Quotes This Political Season
November 7th, 2006 | by Scott |I was going to do my top 10 reasons for leaving the GOP but thought that might get out of hand. Instead, here is my list of the 10 dumbest things (and it was hard narrowing it to just 10. I wrestled with doing a Top 20 Tuesday.) things said during this campaign year. (HT: About)
It’s interesting how idiotic people can be when they hold a microphone. And people who speak for a living, no less.
11. “You know, education — if you make the most of it — you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” –Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) (Note: I put this here for equal time. I still think it’s much ado about nothing.
10. “Now I’ve seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn’t torture.” –Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)
9. “We’re not going to tell you what our plan is, Jon, because you’re just going to go out and blow it.” –Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), on the secret plan he and President Bush have to win the Iraq war, in a debate with his Democratic challenger, John Tester
8. “Having said that, I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program.” –Tony Snow, on the NSA phone database
7. “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” –Ann Coulter, on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
6. “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.” –Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)
5 . “Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton - not even a run by the devil himself … I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.” –Rev. Jerry Falwell
4 . “Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.” –Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
3. “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great. … Let’s give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.” –Sen. George Allen (R-VA)
2. “As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a — sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages. ” –James Dobson
1. “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. … This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” –Rush Limbaugh
What do you think?
*****Updated********
In the pursuit of true bipartisanship, I’ll give you a smattering of Dem quotes:
“He has “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.” – House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, (D-MD) on Maryland Lt.Gov. Michael Steele, an African-American Republican running for Senate
“We all know what GOP means now. It means grope our pages.” –Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland
“That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair.” –New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, responding to charges that the Hurricane Katrina cleanup is taking too long
Oh, and if you doubt that political ads have gone too far, watch this:
90 Responses to “Top 10 Tuesday: Stupidest Quotes This Political Season”
By Mike the Eyeguy on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
I’m no Dittohead, and Rush very foolishly opened his mouth and inserted his size 12 on that one.
However, was he stupid for thinking it? I saw an interview with Fox within the past year in which he very candidly admitted that if he was going out in public that he could usually adjust the timing and dosage of his medications to decrease his tremors as much as possible. In fact, during that interview, his visible symptoms were very minimal.
You would think that someone who was going to make a political TV that would be seen by millions might want to appear as stable and in control of his symptoms as possible. Or then again, maybe he wouldn’t.
In a political season filled with venomous and misleading ads by both parties, it seems to me that just about anything is possible.
By John on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
One that I found real stupid was Gov. Rendell here in PA when talking about the legalization of slot machines in the state and how it would brighten the lives of senior citizens.
“These are people who lead very gray lives,” he said. “They don’t see their sons and daughters very much. They don’t have much social interaction. There’s not a whole lot of good things that happen in their month.
“But if you put them on the bus, they’re excited. They’re happy. They have fun. They see bright lights. They hear music. They pull that slot machine and with each pull they think they have a chance to win… . It’s unbelievable what brightness and cheer it brings to older Pennsylvanians. Unbelievable.”
Not a smart move for most people running for reelection but still he’s going to win by like 20 points so it really was irrelevant.
By Scott on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Mike, I think he was incredibly foolish for thinking it. It’s one thing to suspect that he might have altered his medication intake for the purpose of the commercial. It’s something else to accuse him of exaggerating the symptoms of Parkinson’s. Regardless, it was tacky and backfired greatly.
John, I’m going to search and see if that is on Youtube. That’s messed up.
By len on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Wow, you have totally left the GOP haven’t you?! I understand that you hate Bush and all things Republican, but Kerry’s quote has to be higher than what it is.
The one quote that bothers me the most on here is James Dobson’s. I hate when Christians allow their partisan thinking (whether left or right) to color their opinion. What Foley did was wrong and there is no justification for it. To attempt in anyway to defend this is just plain stupid. I also noticed last week that Dobson was very quick to defend Ted Haggard. I understand this is a close friend of his, but sometimes a “no-comment” is the wise course until the facts are known.
By Jonathan on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
“Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them.” - George Bush about Cheney and Rumsfeld
“I’m pleased with the progress we’re making.” - George Bush about Iraq and Afghanistan
link
By Scott on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Len, I don’t hate Bush and/or all things republican. If I did, that would include most of my family, friends, and parishioners. I hope and pray that the GOP can get back on track.
But with the GOP in power there are far more stupid quotes from them than the Dems.
I think Kerry’s quote was overplayed because it was a joke. Yes, it was wrong. Yes, it was poorly delivered but I don’t think he intended to slight those serving in the military. But, I’m no John Kerry fan. I just don’t think it was anywhere near the meanspirited stuff that dominates the rest of my list.
Jonathan, those rank up there with “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job” and his “decider” quote.
By jasonk on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
“I voted for change…except for me.” –Sen Hillary Clinton, today, as she left the polls.
“A lot of kids today think work is a four letter word.” –Sen. Hillary Clinton.
By Scott on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Jason, that second Clinton quote was in my second 10.
By Mike the Eyeguy on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
I didn’t hear the quote, but the way that you have written it here, Rush qualified his “purely an act” statement moments later with the critical conjunction “or” (”either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting”).
I don’t buy the acting accusation either, but if there was an intentional alteration of medication to produce those symptoms then that too would be, as you say, “tacky,” and very unproductive in terms of acutally educating the public for possible debate of the merits and demerits of stem cell research.
The right thing, of course, would be to give Fox the benefit of the doubt and to take him at his word. But these days, the prudent person keeps the possibility of a “trick play” tucked away in the back of his mind.
And I really like Michael J. Fox. I feel like we grew up together and it breaks my heart to see what’s happened to him. Plus, he was a Reagan man, so he can’t be all bad.
By John on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
The quote I had was from a newspaper interview so most likely there’s no video or audio. Since I’m sure if there was it would have been all over the place here.
By Scott on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
True. And your mention of your regard for Fox is one of the reasons I ranked this statement as #1. Limbaugh made a huge misstep by attacking someone so beloved. Further proof of the death of civility in our culture.
By jasonk on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
“I’m a lawyer, you know.” –Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn)
“Listen to me: I never said I was a lawyer, okay?” –Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn), the next day.
By jasonk on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
One more quote from the beloved Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee: “My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says there are, there’s one big difference between us and misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats fear AND love the Lord.”
By Jonathan on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
For anyone interested in learning more about the effects of Parkinson’s medications:
How Do Parkinson’s Meds Work?
By greg on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Shouldn’t the Coulter quote be higher in the list? Maybe it’s just that I dislike her more than most…
Man, I’d not heard the Dobson quote. That’s pretty frightening.
Pat Robertson must be keeping quiet. I can’t imagine him going very long without saying something stupid. Perhaps he’s busy working his way up to 3k on his leg press…
By Jonathan on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Also, I thought this article, prompted by Kerry’s gaff, was interesting.
By Scott on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Greg, you have a point. I stuck her comment there as just representative of her entire body of work. I believe there is another Dobson quote out there saying that the Haggard allegations were a democrat stunt before the elections.
Here’s a Robertson quote: “If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms.”
Jonathan, I learned a lot from that article.
By Jonathan on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Dobson quote about Haggard (link):
By KS on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
Liked quotes 5 and 6. Sad that 5 is very true. As a GOP I hope she runs, don’t put out a realistic candidate or we might be in trouble. Kerry quote ought to be higher. Look at the picture of the military’s response (I have it at my blog).
By scott on Nov 7, 2006 | Reply
There is nothing true about comparing Hilary to Lucifer. There is absolutely nothing Christian about it.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Not comparing her to Lucifer, but the fact of how many will vote to be against her. Chill.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Jasonk
If the Democrats fear AND love the Lord than why are they for murdering unborn children and for the homosexuals. One of the Ten Commandments says do not murder and there’s several passages in scripture on how God hates or dislikes homosexuallity. In fact, he hated it so much, he destry Sodom & Gomora. Where you think we got our word for sodomy. I just can’t see our Christians can side on the Democracts. To me it’s just anti-Christian. Plus I don’t like to pay more taxes. It’s a fact that Democracts like to raise taxes for bigger government.
Scott
I know one reason why you left the GOP, and I’m sorry for your sad situation. Are you claim Democract now?
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey, I’m not a Democrat but I lean closer in that direction that I do Republican.
By jasonk on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey,
I don’t think that Republicans can lay claim to obeying the Ten Commandments any more than Democrats.
I was merely quoting Harold Ford, Jr., who was quoting somebody else.
The best quote from Ford, Jr., was yesterday, where he (an African-American) said he was going to wait out the election results at a roadside tavern in Jackson, walls covered with Confederate flags, hanging out with his true campaign manager, his “Lord and Savior.” I guess it didn’t work.
To say that Christians cannot side with the Democrats is kind of silly.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Sadly, that’s not a rare opinion, though. It seems that the evangelical machine had it pretty well narrowed down to abortion and homosexuality as the two issues that determined your faith. Views on war, poverty, human and civil rights just aren’t as important.
Although Jesus talked a whole more about those issues than he ever did abortion or homosexuality.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
As a card-carrying member of the GOP, I obviously feel that abortion and homosexuality are very important issues, but Scott is correct to mention looking at other issues.
To me it is just human/civil rights are slightly less important than murder…
By jasonk on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I guess that technically I am a card carrying GOP member too, since I carry a voter registration card in my wallet that says so. But I voted my conscience, for the best candidates, in my opinion, and it was 8-3. Eight of my votes were cast for GOP, three for Democrats. I could have gone 7-4.
Addressing social issues has the potential for decreasing the number of murders, both through abortion and other violent means. If social issues can be successfully addressed, deaths in general can be reduced, whether it is through abortion, war, poverty, disease, or even stupidity. I hope that a change in leadership will accomplish all of this, without raising our taxes, and without putting our nation in greater danger from outside attacks.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott
The two main issues in recent years have been abortion and homosexuality and I think the Republicans side with the Christian believe. I just can’t get past that to move to another side. Plus I’m ex Navy and I believe in supporting our military and it seems that the Democracts don’t support them. Scott I do believe the other issues are important but isn’t war and abortion fall under the same thing? They both involve killing someone. I can see the Democracts side on civil liberties but some of those liberties are to do unChristian things.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
If I’d lived in TN, I would’ve voted for the democratic candidate (who had a “D” by his name, but was very conservative) and an ex-vol QB.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Jason, you are absolutely right. To dismiss human rights as being of secondary importance is to miss that murder is just human rights violations writ large.
If we are all made in God’s image that does not just stop with the newborn–it includes the innocent Iraqi civilian that is dismissed as collateral damage. It includes the impoverished Katrina victim that waits five days for federal aid. It includes the prisoner of war that is debased through torture. It includes the homosexual who is treated as a second class citizen because of their behavior.
How I treat the least of these is important across the board. I’m not saying the Dems are better at that. They haven’t proven much better.
However, I categorically deny that voting Republican is the way of Christian values.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey, what is the traditional Christian belief on these things? Jesus lived in the midst of an oppressive Roman regime that was very open to homosexuality. He did not spend His time, however, seeking them out for marginalization. Instead, He openly embraced the outcast, forgotten and the impoverished. I don’t see the biblical basis for denying rights to people who don’t agree with me biblically. I might think homosexuality is a sin but I also believe a bunch of other stuff is sin as well. I don’t have the scriptural authority to ostracize people for gossiping, lying or other wrongful acts. Then, how can I do that with homosexuals?
As for abortion, I am pro-life. But I look at the GOP who are for the majority pro-life as well. And I see nothing that they are doing to legitimately lower the number of abortions. I see no adoption initiatives or major pregancy prevention campaigns. Democrats for Life have a plan to lower abortions 95% over 10 years. Of course, I’d like it to be eliminated completely but a move in the right direction is infinitely better than just using it as a campaign ploy.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott
Think about the innocent lives being killed by the roadside bombs from the terroist. Americans aren’t the only ones killing innocent people. Also that is one of the down sides of war. On the Katrina issue. The Louisianna Governor (Dem) and the New Orleans Mayor (Dem) did not take any action before Katrina hit. They both were warned way in advanced but just shrugged it off. If they were so concerned about human lives they would have done something. Instead they waited for the Federal Gov’t to do something, in which it took to long. Doing this gave them the opportunity to point the finger at the Republican national gov’t. Another case of someone not taking responsiblity for their own actions and wanting to blame others (so provilant in our society now days). I don’t think the Republican Party treats homosexuals as a second class citizen. They just believe in the Bible where it says marriage is to between a man and a woman. I think as Christians we need to welcome homosexuals, but also tell them what they are doing is a sin. We should treat their sin as we treat other sins. A sin is a sin, it doesn’t matter what kind it is. I don’t think we should tell them their life style is ok. We need to show them God’s way of life and the only way we can do that is being Christ like by loving everyone equally.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey, I understand that innocent people are being killed throughout the world. But that’s not the issue. What America does about it is the issue.
As for Katrina, the blame surely begins with Ray Nagin and goes all the way to the top. But the federal mismanagement of one of the worst disasters in American history can not be dismissed. When previous hurricanes had hit Florida, federal aid was there immediately. Blanco was persistent in her cries for help. There is no way to describe this administrations reaction to the Katrina aftermath as anything but a deriliction of duty. Five days for FEMA to show up is completely unacceptable. Every politican involved all the way up the line should be held
accountable.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Sound pretty strongly Democrat to me. I’d say blame would be on both sides Scott.
“I might think homosexuality is a sin but I also believe a bunch of other stuff is sin as well. I don’t have the scriptural authority to ostracize people for gossiping, lying or other wrongful acts. Then, how can I do that with homosexuals?”
Correct, we cannot ostracize people for their sins, or I’d be out. But we can call a sin a sin. We don’t have to “accept” the immoral nature of this nation (homo and hetro sexually). We are not called to accept sin, just to attempt to change people views. Jesus ate with sinners, but never once do I see him “condoning” their sin, like many in the body seem willing to do.
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
We are not called to accept sin, just to attempt to change people views.
Where are we called to “change people’s views”?? It seems we’re called to be salt and light, to love the least of these, etc. I don’t remember anything about changing people’s views, especially via government/legislation.
If we prohibit gay marriage, homosexuals are not all suddenly going to realize the error of their ways and become heterosexuals.
By the way, are you suggesting that homosexuality itself should be outlawed? If not, then what? Homosexual marriage? Which is a sin? Gay marriage or just being gay? Are you suggesting both be illegal? If only one, why not the other?
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey and Kenny,
As opposed to the case of a theocracy, the government in a secular society such as ours should not discriminate against its citizens based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc. I value the secular society in which we live and do not want to live in a theocracy. I don’t want my view of morality to be enforced on anyone else any more than I want there’s enforced on me. Obviously, our society should have laws, but their basis should not merely be religious.
Corey wrote:
In the context of our governement and our secular society (the context that we are currently discussing), their lifestyle IS OK, regardless of whether it is OK within the context of my religious views. Personally, scripture makes it clear to me that the practice of homosexuality is not pleasing to God…nor is lust, adultery, gluttony, selfishness, etc. None of which I would have my governement use as a means to discriminate or ostracize.
On the subject of abortion, I agree with you that it is a terrible thing. I suspect that the issue (like the issue of gay marriage) is cynically used by the core of the GOP as a tool to motivate voters and therefore, as Scott metioned, “adoption initiatives or major pregancy prevention campaigns” are conspicuously absent. It is not a litmus test for me, and like Scott I would be more attracted by actions that would be effective in preventing abortions rather than slogans that motivate voters.
I have to question the wisdom and priorities of religious leaders like Dobson who try to put roadblocks in the way of programs that aim to prevent TB and AIDS or reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies and abortions because the programs involve the distribution of condoms (which might encourage someone to fornicate). IMO, the potential for harm is insignificant compared to the potential for good offered by such programs.
Our actions often have unintended consequences. For example, this interesting article hypothesizes that people who practice the rhythm method of birth control (because of a moral objection to contraception) are more “more likely to conceive embryos that are incapable of surviving” (natural abortion) because they “are having sex on the fringes of the fertile period.”
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Sigh, Top 10 Tuesday’s are supposed to be fun.
Kenny, do you read my comments or just pick up what you want? Twice in one paragraph I say that everyone involved should be held accountable and I even single out Ray Nagin. I don’t know how else to be more clear.
And again, aren’t I calling sin sin in the paragaph you are referring to?
Greg, you are right on. Christianity was never meant to be spread through coercion, threats, legislation or laws but through the humble and gracious attempts of believers to be Christ to others.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Greg: “It seems we’re called to be salt and light, to love the least of these, etc. I don’t remember anything about changing people’s views, especially via government/legislation.”
Correct. We are called to be salt and light. And if the salt loses its saltiness what good is it. I did not say we should legislate the changes we should do our best to convert others to the teachings of Christ. However, it is easy to be involved in the “everything is ok” version of Christianity, when in reality it is not.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott: You did mention that all accountable should be held in check, however, to me and maybe just me, you made a point in #30 to point out one side and not the other. Again, perhaps I misread what your intent was.
Are you really asking if I read your comments or just belittling me?
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Kenny,
So you’re saying that it’s best for a Christian to vote for a politician that advocates discrimination against homosexuals because doing so is an effective means “to convert others to the teachings of Christ” without “legislat[ing] the changes”?
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I’ve yet to see anyone advocating an “everything is ok” Christianity. As has already been mentioned, there are many sinful things that are not illegal in our society (read Jonathan’s comment above and his arguments regarding this.)
Since you didn’t address how you see homosexuality vs. homosexual marriage, and if they should both be illegal, let me ask this:
How do you choose which sins you believe should be illegal?
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Greg: Well, it appears that murder has been unanimous as an illegal sin. Also sex with dead people and animals. I could go on, but I hope you get the point. No matter how “secular” we’d like to say our or any government is. Governments are always a barometer of the moral depravity in the society. About 150 years ago it was legal here to have slaves. About 40 years ago illegal to have an abortion. The country votes it’s moral’s one way or the other. So to separate government and morals (as a society, not as God’s kingdom) is impossible.
Jon: Not saying that is the means to convert others. I was assumiming most that read this blog understand that we show Jesus by our actions, friendships, ect…
Do I think it is “best” if a Christian votes his/her morals on election day…ABSOULUTELY. If your values are different than mine, I am not one to condemn you, but I think the “best” way is to use “moral” issues as a benchmark.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, not belittling you at all. I was just curious how you came to the conclusion that I was being partisan when I had made great strains not to be.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott: I don’t think you are a true democrat, but honestly, which side do you tend to vote on?
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, I’ve voted Republican for all of my adult life. I used to be heavily involved in the party and was even president of my local young republicans about 13-14 years ago. I used to field calls about running for local office myself. However, those days are long gone and yesterday I voted almost exclusively Democrat.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
That was my guess. And that is ok. You just do not come off as bi-partisan. Obviously I do not either (although I did want several local democrats to win, including one that attends my church).
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Well, I guess I don’t get the point since you again didn’t answer the question.
Yes, we tend to vote in part based on our own morality. I’m not sure that anyone is disputing that.
I’ll try one more time. If given the option, for what reasons would you vote for a particular action (which you believe to be sinful) to be made (or remain) illegal?
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Greg
God’s law says that homosexuality & homosexual marriage is illegal. Man’s law (USA) says it’s ok to be gay as long as you don’t bother me, the ‘I’ sendrom (whatever I do and you do is ok even when they may both be different). The gay marriage should be illegal. If the gov’t makes it legal then they recognize the gay life style as being morally ok. Us Christians are supposed to follow God’s law over man’s law. Has a majority christian nation our gov’t should follow His law, in which we have a little. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the gov’t should force people to follow God’s law. Personally I’d like the gov’t to use God’s law, and I know it doesn’t happen all the time.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I have a post on Non-violence Part 9. Could somone respond to my post, please.
Thank you.
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey,
Therefore, you believe homosexuality should be illegal?
Are you sure you want the government to use God’s law? Wouldn’t that mean any sin is illegal? Are you willing to live under that law?
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Greg: I believe homosexuality is wrong. I am against homosexual marriage and as long as there is a bill that I can vote on, I will vote to make marriage illegal. Does the government equal the church? Absolutely not. However, as I stated in post 42 we are for something or against it. To say that I do not believe in homosexual marriage, but I will not stand against it to me is wrong.
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey,
Please help me understand why these statements aren’t contradictory:
vs.
vs.
My point is that the Taliban and the Islamists also would like the gov’t to use God’s law but in some cases disagree with you about what God’s law is. This is why I want the laws of my country to not be based solely on religious principles of morality. I’m sure people make secular arguments to discriminate against homosexuals, but they’re surely trumped by the principles of equality and personal freedom.
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Sure, I understand that Kenny. But I was just curious as to how you make the determination. You believe homosexuality and homosexual marriage are both wrong, but you only state that you would vote homosexual marriage as illegal. I’m not sure why you would not vote both illegal, if you believe them to be sin. Along with heterosexual sex outside marriage, which I would assume you believe to be sinful as well. Along with many, many other things.
I was asking these questions for another reason, but honestly I can’t remember why now. I had another thought I was waiting to bring out, but now it has escaped me. Perhaps I’ll remember later.
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Kenny,
What is the motivation for you to vote your morals on election day if not to see those morals become law?
If you don’t see your vote as a tool to convert others to the teachings of Christ nor as a tool to legislate your morals, then maybe you vote your personal morals because you think that someone who shares your morals is generically more likely to govern effectively. That motivation I could at least buy and admire, though I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
This is why I asked the previous question. Not because I actually thought you saw your vote as a converstion tool but because it it seemed to me that you were conflating the two by talking about converting others in the midst of a conversation about voting, a conversation spurred by Corey’s polemic “I just can’t see our Christians can side on the Democracts. To me it’s just anti-Christian.”.
I want to understand your motivation for “voting your morals”. I also hope I’m helping to give you and Corey some insight into why I may tend to vote differently than you despite the fact that we may share the same faith.
By jasonk on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I go to lunch for ninety minutes, and TTT has exploded into a full blown political/moral debate. Only in Scott’s world :>)
Homosexuality is illegal in most states, I thought. In Oklahoma we call it “lewdness.”
I’m opposed to homosexual marriage not only on a moral basis, but on a survival of the species basis as well. I would like the human race to continue, and allowing homosexuals to marry gets in the way of that.
There have to be boundaries in marriage laws. What if I want to marry a LOT of different women? The law says I cannot. What if I want to marry my dog? Or my favorite all girl rock band? There have to be limits.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan
I can see your point. Maybe I can clearify here.
…our gov’t should follow His law…
Our gov’t should follow His law in making our laws. Using the morals of Christianity. Remember God is the only that can condemn anyone. He is the only Judge.
I’m not saying the gov’t should force people to follow God’s law.
Again they should use God’s law as a foundation to our laws, like how the gov’t use the Ten Commandments.
Personally I’d like the gov’t to use God’s law…
Same as above. I was saying all these things for the gov’t to use God’s law as a starting tool. It seems you’re looking from the perspestive of judgement. I don’t think they should make every sin a crime. Everyone would be in jail. Also God, through Jesus Christ, has a renewing affect that washes those sins away and restores you just as I never sinned (justified). Then if you look at it at that way, we wouldn’t have any jails. Everyone would be innocent of any crime. That would create caos in society.
I hope I made it clear to you.
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I would like the human race to continue, and allowing homosexuals to marry gets in the way of that.
Jason, how? If they can’t marry, won’t they still be homosexuals and not reproducing? I’m not sure I understand what you mean here.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Jonathon: I think I understand why you vote the way you do. You do not want others telling you your beliefs are illegal and therefore you will not tell them there’s are illegal either and I understand that. I just disagee.
I vote with what I feel is morally right because I want my daughter to grow up in as much as possible a “clean” environment. I have seen in just my short time alive as America has watched it’s values go further and further down, and I don’t like seeing it get worse.
By KS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I think he was being somewhat sarcastic. I found it slightly humorous.
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
It’s not as if I set out to vote against Christians. I do in fact think that many Christ-like qualities (for example, humility, integrity, honesty, compassion for the weak and hurting) could make someone better-prepared to govern effectively. I would also look for other qualities (for example, intellect, tact, personal effectiveness). All of these qualities will attract me to a candidate, regardless of party affiliation (McCain, you have such potential yet you’re such a disappointment). But I also realize that “Christian” politicians and political activists, in addition to potential to do good, also have much potential to do harm to the cause of Christ by fostering an association between their espoused faith and their unsavory deeds (for example, Delay and Reed and their association with Abramoff).
For the same reason, unlike many others I know, I’m even somewhat ambivalent about political leaders wearing their faith on their sleeve because I’m not eager for the rich white guy who drops bombs to be the primary face of Christianity that the rest of the world sees. I think that is highly counter-productive to the cause of Christ.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
I’m less concerned about the moral values of this nation than I am in how the Kingdom manifests itself in this world. In other words, I care less about what the government does and more about how the church lives out its role in the world.
Let me put it another way: I approach these issues less from the standpoint of my rights and beliefs being upheld and confirmed (for I see no biblical basis for that) and more toward how I can be a better light and witness to the lost.
When Jesus was confronted with these issues it wasn’t by trying to instill a government but instead to change the hearts and lives of people. Not through legislation and love. A gay marriage ban won’t change people’s hearts. A helping and loving hand toward the homosexual is far more effective. Being concerned about them is ultimately more fruitful than condemning their behavior.
So, when I pull the lever I vote for the candidate that is less concerned about enforcing my “way of life” and more with how all can experience a better life in this country.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Jason, if you can pull off marrying all the girls in your favorite all-girl band I say more power to you. Especially if you can get your new bride to go along with it.
By the way, have you ever heard the Grey Eye Glances? Phenomenal.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
By the way, I thought of another quote when I read Jonathan’s comments.
“I said a little prayer before I actually did the fingerprint thing, and the picture. And my prayer was basically: ‘Let people see Christ through me. And let me smile.’” –Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, on being arrested and posing for his mug shot
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey,
I still don’t really understand. If God’s law is truly made the basis of our law, then how is the government not forcing people to obey God’s law?
The ten commandments are only trivially a foundation of our laws to the extent that they overlap with the values of our secular civil society. Aren’t only 2 of the 10 actually illegal (murdering and stealing). Adultery is probably still technically illegal in some places (like homosexuality) but not enforced.
Kenny,
Basically, you want to make the world a better place for your daughter to grow up in. A laudable goal. I suspect you are doing that much more effectively in many other ways (showing kindness and love to others, even those who are different than you; serving others; turning the other cheek and foregoing your right to retaliate; etc.) than when you vote your morals.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott
Check out the last post on your non-violence part 9. Tell me what you think.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey, I don’t see a question on Part 9. What am I missing?
By jasonk on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Greg,
My point is that peoples’ opposition to homosexuality is not always based on their morality. For many it is, not not always. For example, a person may be personally repulsed by them, but do not say anything for fear of repercussions from the PC police.
But I wonder how many people are repulsed by it for reasons that they cannot define. I propose that one of those reasons is the innate desire of a species to survive. Studies in human behavior, especially as it relates to sexuality, have speculated that the reason women like men with broad shoulders is not because they are handsome and popular, but because they will be able to adequately protect their children. Men look for women with certain, ahem, physical characteristics not because we are pigs, but because they are better able to bear children and adequately feed and nourish them.
In the same vein, human beings will innately oppose legitimizing homosexuality because at its heart, it represents a threat to the human race. Not morally, but physiologically, since two men can’t make a baby.
Now surely that made things more clear ;>)
And Scott, darn it, Lisa says no more wives! Oh well, I can’t afford any more, so what the heck.
By Corey on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott
I meant part 10 post #69.
By greg on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Jason, no, it doesn’t make it more clear. But maybe it’s just me
I was specifically speaking to the marriage part - whether or not they’re married, I’m not sure how that would affect the survival of the species. They can’t reproduce whether they’re married or not. So I don’t see how opposing them marrying would change anything (i.e. make the species more likely to survive).
On the other hand, I notice in this most recent post you say “opposition to homosexuality”, so maybe you’re not speaking of marrying, but simply of homosexuality. If that’s the case, then it makes more sense.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
We could make heterosexual marriage mandatory, with a quote of children based upon population cycles.
Or we could just eliminate the middle men and develop babies in bottles–we could start the “Brave New World.”
By Belinda on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
We CANNOT legislate morals!! What would be next? Telling me I “have” to attend a church? And a particular church? The “church” and “state” should remain separate. ahh . . . Wasn’t that an idea by the founding fathers?
This “christian nation” thing bothers me . . . we cannot force christianity on anyone. It seems that’s what we try to do. I have a much different view of this than I did years ago. We talk about taking prayer out of schools. That’s not true. We’ve taken FORCED prayer out of school. Think about it. If - as a christian - we can “force” participation, what happens when we have a Jew or a Muslin or a Buddist or anything else? Would we want to be forced to participate in that prayer?
As for homosexuality . . . first I don’t believe God creates anyone in a sinful state. Circumstances may contribute to becoming homosexual. While a person may have those “tendencies,” I believe the sin comes when the person choses to PRACTICE homosexuality.
How has the GOP managed to convince people they’re on the moral high road? Sitting in a hen house doesn’t make me a chicken . . .
My favorite stupid comment is “You’re doing a heckva job Brownie.” I actually found a bumper sticker on Cafe Press that I gave a friend for a joke. We had a blast with that one.
By jasonk on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Greg,
Let me try one more time. The reason some people tend to be opposed to homosexual marriage is that the state would legitimize that which is contrary to the survival of the species.
Belinda,
I hear people say that all the time, “you can’t legislate morality.” Its a clever catch phrase, but with all due respect, it is nonsensical.
Nearly every piece of legislation in place is based on morality. There is a perverted group in this country that believes it should be legal for adult men to have sex with young boys. Would you agree that there should be legislation to prevent that? After all, it is a moral issue. If we follow what you said, the government should not get involved. I could list one example after another, but you get the idea. We cannot legislate all morality, but we can and must legislate much of it.
By JenniferS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
November 3, 2006
Colorado Springs — Focus on the Family founder and Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today after learning the Rev. Ted Haggard had acknowledged some “indiscretions” involving accusations made against him by a gay prostitute in Denver:
“All of us at Focus on the Family are heartsick over the allegation, not yet confirmed, that Ted has had a private life with a homosexual for several years. We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others.
“Ted has been my close friend and colleague for many years. He has been used mightily to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Colorado Springs and around the world. He will continue to be my friend, even if the worst allegations prove accurate. Nevertheless, sexual sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual, has serious consequences, and we are extremely concerned for Ted, his family and his church.
“We ask that the Focus on the Family constituency and Christians everywhere pray for Ted and his loved ones. Our hearts go out to all of them. Perhaps the allegations are false and the circumstances are not as we have heard. Either way, the situation has grave implications for the Cause of Christ, and we ask for the Lord’s guidance and blessings in the days ahead.”
For more information, contact Paul Hetrick at (719) 531-3336 or press@family.org, or Sonja Swiatkiewicz at (719) 548-4570 or culturalissues@family.org.
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
A couple updates:
Turns out that Dobson doesn’t have time for his good friend and colleague after all. Dobson quits as Haggard counselor
Turns out Bush was being less than forthright when he said Rumsfeld and Cheney would stay on the job until the end of his term.
By JenniferS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
As for your quote from Dobson, it wasn’t a quote at all. He never said that. He did a whole program on it October 6. If you would ever bother to listen to the program to find out what he really says you would find out what an honorable man he is and how much the leberal press enjoys misqouting him. If you would actually like to listen to what he really said here is a link to the site and you could buy the truth instead of the lies. http://resources.family.org/product/radio+broadcasts/most+recent+/update+on+the+foley+incident.do
You have just become another blogger who perpetuates lies, unknowingly I’m sure, but you should check your facts.
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Accidentally left out the link for the press conference: it is here.
By JenniferS on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
And from now on I’m writing these comments in Word so I can use spell check!
By Jonathan on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
JeniferS,
Does Word also have a condescension filter? I think more than one of your comments today could use one.
Try the Google Toolbar for your web browser. It has a specll-check button for web forms.
By Tracy on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Scott’s right. Dobson said it. Or some guy who sounds just like him and looks just like him. http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200610090001
“You have just become another blogger who perpetuates lies, unknowingly I’m sure, but you should check your facts.” Jennifer, don’t call Scott a liar. He’s not and you know it.
By Jonathan on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I think WordPress is playing games with me…
I tried thrice last night to submit comment 78, but it didn’t appear. When I check this morning, it has appeared, but some capricious WordPress spirit has foiled my attempt at snarkiness.
I intended to say that more than one of OUR comments needs a condescension filter, putting my comments in the same category.
Also, what irony to spell spell-check “specll-check” while pointing someone to a spell-checker!
By Jonathan on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Also, version 2 of my favorite browser Firefox (Firefox 2) has a built-in spell-checker.
By KS on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Jennifer: I think Dobson is a great man, but if you record everything a man says he will eventually say something kind of dumb. I know I do all the time, I am just not important enough to be quoted. I don’t think Scott is saying he is a bad person, he just made a dumb quote that I’m sure was taken out of context.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I can provide pretty irrefutable sources for all of the quotes that I’ve listed. They are well documented. And Dobson’s quote was not taken out of context.
I’m not a big Dobson fan, for many reasons. I have no doubt that he’s sincere but I’m not a huge fan.
By KS on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Scott: My point would be even if you disagree with his theology, as I do yours, you can admit he does many great things for the kingdom, as I think you do.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
True. And thanks. Although if you really knew me you probably wouldn’t disagree with that much of my theology.
By KS on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
That is probably correct.
By justin on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
wow, this got out of hand in a hurry.
All laws are based on some sort of “morality”. Our constitutions morality is not Christian or any other religion. Its the secular morality of individual liberty. If a law protects my liberties, its a good law. If a law infringes on the liberties of others, its a bad one.
Its pretty much that easy. Anything else is anti american.
By JenniferS on Nov 12, 2006 | Reply
Okay I’ll eat crow here. I’m sorry Scott for attacking you. I think you would have a different understanding of what he was saying if you listened to the entire show. I know you aren’t a fan of Dobson because you don’t agree with his politics but you should listen to his show on a regular basis and you might develop an appreciation for his work with families and marriage. But looking at the quote alone it was a stupid thing for him to say. Next time I read something of yours that gets me mad I’ll wait at least 24 hours before I respond so I can cool down.
By Scott on Nov 12, 2006 | Reply
Jennifer, no problem. My problems with Dobson extend beyond his politics. However, if he would set that aside and return to true ministry I’d feel a whole lot better about him.
By JenniferS on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
What is wrong with him being involved in ministry and politics?