Friday, January 21, 2005

Rusty Nails, 1/21/05...

Joe Carter has suggested that evangelical blogs band together in order to escape from the evangelical ghetto and, in the process, become a force that won’t be easily ignored. Razors Kiss suggests that our efforts are utter drivel, if all we do is stay huddled in our stupid ghetto, and don’t engage the REST of the blogosphere as Christians (a possible false dichotomy hidden in there, I think). Bill Wallo wholeheartedly agrees. I believe that the issue is extremely complex and, in my opinion, does not reduce to being remedied by merely removing oneself from a purported ghetto. However, for those wishing to venture “out” of the “ghetto” in which we supposedly live, please look into submitting posts to the Carnival of the Godless. Will the results be meaningful (i.e., influential) discussion, or snide bickering? HT: DarkSyde at Unscrewing the Inscrutable ########## Speaking of venturing out of the “ghetto,” Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, seems to think that because President Bush is now not pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that he has somehow taken conservative Christians for a ride. Has the fact that constitutional amendments are extremely costly and time consuming evaded Ed’s notice? If one can achieve a similar goal, without the expense involved in amending the constitution, wouldn’t one be better suited to go that route? Sure, it could be argued that the cost involved now is the same as before the election, but the political climate may not be the same. It’s been said that politics can sometimes be a pretty political enterprise. One way to test the accusation, though, is to simply wait and see how Bush / Republican Party address what Christian conservatives consider their core-values. If you really want to do some "ghetto blasting," you should post a response to Ed's post. Never one to be at a loss for words, he'll surely respond. HT: DarkSyde ########## An aspect of the liberal agenda that I must be missing something on, though, is their inconsistency with regards to just what they think Bush / Republican Party is up to. For instance, in closing his post regarding Bush / Republican Party stringing along Christian conservatives, Ed (from the link above) implies that Bush / Republican Party employ the use of fear to play on the emotions of Christian conservatives (you know them – those bigoted haters of everything liberal). But wait a minute, Bush / Republican Party is toying with the Christian Right simply to get votes? I thought Bush / Republican Party was supposed to be establishing a virtual Theocracy (what with his / their alliance with Christian conservatives)? So, if Bush / Republican Party is leading the charge to turn the government of the good ‘ole U. S. of A. into a Christian “Taliban,” why would he / they snub his / their most important constituency by “reversing” his / their position on a gay marriage ban? It must be because the Christian Right is comprised of uneducated, stupid people, who are easy to herd… but who are in control. (sidenote: Bill Wallo has a link to, America 2014, an underground novel which uses a storyline having Bush, in 2014, as a virtual dictator of God’s United States) ########## This is truly sick. HT: What Attitude Problem? Update: Wizbang reports that this is a viral hoax from an ad agency that claims it got out "accidentally." Yeah, like I said previously, controversy is the mother's milk of sales. HT: Michelle Malkin ########## Student sues to end summer homework,
A student whose vacation plans were spoiled has sued to end summer homework in Wisconsin, claiming it creates an unfair workload and unnecessary stress.
An adolescent Twixter, to be sure.

5 comments:

DarkSyde said...

There's no reason why greater unity and greater community presence outside of the group have to be mutaully excllusive. Personally, I feel it's a good idea to be out and about, virutally or otherwise. It tightens up your own viewpoitns if you're forced to defend them, and assuming of course they're defensibale. But more importantly, it's good for everyone to be exposed to the ideas and personalities of others. I've found for example by interacting with folks like yourself and others Rusty, that the religoius right is nuanced. There, as in any large group, wide ranges of opinion. And that most of them are not cackling medieval dopes hoping to over throw the US Constitution and enact a throw-back theocracy. Before you can ever make a point, your partner in discourse must be listening to you, and you to them. People tend not to listen to those they do not respect, detest, or fear.

Paul said...

Such contradictory in the liberal agenda! One might almost think that there is no agenda, just liberals.

DarkSyde said...

I dunno if you're talking to me Paul, but you may be operating under a false premise if you are.

Rusty said...

I think Paul is referencing the fact that I attached "their inconsistency" with the words "liberal agenda" instead of just "liberals".

Wanna be my editor Paul?

Paul said...

I think you do a fine job already Rusty. I think one of the weaknesses Democrats have with playing politics is precisely that they don't have one 'liberal agenda' - Republicans want (or at least I believed to want) smaller govt., lower taxes and personal liberties. Democrats, on the other hand, want, erm, people to be alright, you know? and not have to starve and stuff.

The feeling is just as genuine, and I think it's possible to distil much of what the Democrats want into a convenient phrase or two. But I think that *in principal* the things Democrats want to address cover more ground, and hence are more complex. And as part of that, they're also more diverse, hence making a liberal agenda just too hard to keep as a single thing!