Silly Right-Wing Wisconsin Bloggers
On the same day you have a Professor at a Jesuit University claiming that people are either “Christian” or not based on their choice of comedians, another keeps up the ridciulous meme about Barack Obama not wearing a flag pin.
…despite the intensive(!) work of myself and others that proves Sen. John McCain refuses to wear a flag pin himself.
This is why they, and their tens of supporters, take themselves so seriously…
Another day, another chapter of silly right-wing Wisconsin bloggers.
May 5, 2008 8:39 pm 
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
; ?>/images/feed-icon-16x16.gif){kind=icon}
Dan, that first half-sentence there is a good candidate for the dumbest thing you’ve ever written. Just to double-check, I even followed the link you provided in case there was something there I hadn’t already heard about that you could use to justify such a statement.
There wasn’t.
The majority of religious people are liberals. You ever wonder why only the ones on the right are vocal?
It couldn’t be because so many people on the left call them stupid, now, could it?
Speaking for myself only, I know there have been many times I’ve simply kept a low profile in a discussion (or an election) because the speaker (or candidate) made it clear he had no respect at all for me, and it’s really hard to summon the energy to support people like that, even if their political agenda is agreeable.
I think it’d be really interesting if the left could only get their anti-religious bigots to shut up for a while. You might see a truly “Big Tent” forming around a lot of social issues.
As for Maher, he’s a bigot who makes his money from insulting people like me every day. He’s got the right to speak and think as he wants. What he doesn’t have is the right to make other people pay him to do it. Sponsors make decisions like American did every day. They pull out of this series or that because of their judgement of its effect on their customer base. (After all, you think they sponsor these things out of the charity of their hearts? They do it because they think they’ll attract customers, and that’s the only reason they do it.)
The link should have been to here, in a comment about the issue on Jay Bullocks site, sorry about the confusion.
“The majority of religious people are liberals.” - really? like most religions’ progressive stance toward women and gay rights? or perhaps religions’ long standing tradition of tolerance for people of different faith? or maybe religions’ outstanding track record of living simply to help others live at all (i.e. vatican, megachurches and gold-crowned this and silver-tipped that with all the poverty in the world).
yes, very liberal in their views.
Arlen,
You poor soul ………. it makes me wonder if you might well be sympathetic to me and all other athiests, who have never been represented (respected) by a President, Senator or Congressman, who had the integrity to admit that, religion serves only as a means of controlling the masses, even though they knew it to be true ……. you wanna know disrespect ??????……… try being rational and thoughtful and see how far it gets ya ………..
While it is a stupid pont to say that religion serves only as a means of controlling the masses, there is a real point to be made about how democrats might find a lot of common ground wth religious people–the majority of whom care more than most about envionmental issues, poverty, Aids in Africa (and elsewhere), and humn rights. The problem is that democrats seem to share the same myopia as republicans: they are unbending and reject those who diverge from core principles even slightly. Consider the issues of abortion and gay marriage, for example. To be a democratic politician is the be orthodox on these issues, so while they may not proclaim themselves to be athiests they make policy as if they were.
Alas, it appears that me and “my religion” will remain disrespected and equated will all manner of evil devil worshiping.
However, thank you for so convincingly making my point.
Pops, it appears I have a lot more respect for your views than you have toward mine.
Oh, I missed you, creamcitian. Best answer I have for your statement is to recount a story from a post-church dinner gathering shortly after the gay marriage vote. One member gave voice to his relief that the vote had put a stop to it, then was rather chagrined to find out over 2/3 of the group present had voted the other way.
The “liberal social agenda” is more in line with biblical Christianity than the anti-religious bigots want to admit, I’m afraid. If the left would just grow tolerant enough to let people revere God, you might be surprised at what happens.
I’ll freely admit there will still be specific propositions we won’t go along with you on (and I’ll spare Daniel the hassle of hosting irrelevant arguments by not enumerating them) but I think you’d be surprised by how few of them there are, relatively, and the rather intellectually challenged attitude of requiring we support everything you want before you give us any respect is going to cost you in the long run. For example, go back a few decades (to times before and even during Nixon) and you’ll find the majority of effective leadership for liberal causes came from religious circles. Then we started getting abused by the God-haters, so we began to withdraw. (Was that the right response? Probably not, but we’re only human, and when it gets made clear time and again that we’re not welcome by the people we think we’re helping, we tend to leave.)
Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding, with people thinking the “religious right” that arose then were conservative *because* they were religious, rather than the way it actually was, which is that they were both conservative and religious, with one not actually causing the other (meaning they still would have been conservative even if they were not religious) but still it happened.
Good politics (like good government) is the art of compromise. We seem to be rapidly losing that ability. Where’s Henry Clay when we need him?
so what your saying is i should have faith in your anecdotal “post-church dinner gathering” evidence (make that anecdote - singular) of a 2/3 support of gay rights in the christian community over the the actual vote concerning the gay marriage ammendment in wisconsin - by voters who are primarily christian/religious, not to mention the clear majority of statements from church leaders - and official church policies - condemning gay marriage?
to keep my argument on track: i see little proof that the majority of religious people are liberal.