Redstate

Maybe one day you'll learn how to read well enough that you can read the whole article, or at least Erick's whole post, before commenting.

Or, in other words, why don't you try defending her quote instead of just ignoring that inconvenient fact that she holds those views?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

What was the context of her quote, which the poster failed to provide?

Name me a context in which such a broadside against religious Americans is justified.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

but all I see is the phrase

"We have to tell people that they are out to destroy the Constitution. This is an attack on our system of government."

which does not actually name any subject, and the assurance of the poster that this statement was directed at all Christian voters. All of them. I find it hard to believe a Senator just smeared the entire Christian population of the US without provocation one day, and I would like to know which individual or organisation that comment was provoked by and directed at.

Because perhaps there might be mitigating circumstances here, or some more innocent explanation than anti-Christian bigotry.

In short, I would like the poster to provide a source for his unsourced comment, which is the only basis for his condemnations of the Senator from Michigan.

I can't speak for him, but my guess is Erick would be happy to oblige with a source. I look forward to your response then.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

This is my sig.
There are many like it.
But this one is mine.

if no one can provide the source of this quote.

And it begins with, "You shouldn't ban me for registering multiple accounts because..."

I'm really looking forward to that one.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"[T]oday, teh enlightened children of skeptics are discovering for themselves that man does not live - or live well - by bread alone, not even by bread and circuses, and that science's accout of human life and the world is neither adequate to the

The contact form is your friend.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Sorry about the delay in my reply, I'm sure you were all on the edge of your seat waiting for it.

It seems the relevant quote is 14 years old, and the subject is the Christian Coalition. As far as I know, the Coalition does not represent every Christian, and criticism of it does not equal "anti-Christian bigotry" by any fair standard.

At the very least, Erick is exaggerating the import of these comments. The obscurity of these remarks make it seem like a somewhat tenuous effort to hang a convenient label on the Senator.

If you will permit me to whine a little further, I've been having trouble logging in to the site. I have the computer set up to automatically log me in, but it only works on occasion, and after each comment is submitted I am logged out and need to reload the front page to be signed back in again.

Anyway, thanks for reading. It's pleasing to see members of the site respond to questions, and even going to the lengths of replying on RedHot!

---

This is my sig.
There are many like it.
But this one is mine.

I'll try to type slow for you... "We have to tell people that they are out to destroy the Constitution. This is an attack on our system of government." - Debbie Stabenow on Christian voters

Is that bigoted enough for you?

Get Rich Slowly

Especially when the actual words themselves aren't helpful at all. Being a member of the Grace United Methodist Church is not the same as being a "practicing" Methodist.

And I can say that without making any commentary at all about the theology of some Methodist churches.

...possibly she isn't a practicing methodist, but just has a well-developed sense of irony then?

All I'm saying is that it's quite a stretch to call a person like the one in question "anti-christian bigot".

Now I am forced to remark upon the well-known fact that one can believe and/or practice almost literally anything and be a member of many Methodist Churches.

But that's still beside the point - the fact that she claims membership in a particular congregation is dispositive of nothing.

I did not intend to say that Methodists as a whole, or most Methodists, or even some unknown percentage of Methodists, believe in nothing. I'm quite certain that many of them are sincere and dedicated in their beliefs. However, that does not change the fact that Debbie Stabenow claiming membership in one of their congregations is - again - dispositive of nothing.

...I was about to accuse you of anti-Christian bigotry.

Seriously though, I just think that this post is stretching a bit too hard. We have:

1) the award from the Secular Coalition for America.

2) the unsourced quote regarding the "attack on our system of government".

3) Her membership in the Grace United Methodist Church that i brought up.

True, her membership in the above church doesn't prove anything regarding her beliefs (For all I know, Debbie is a practicing Satanist) -- But is anything regarding her beliefs proven by 1) and 2)?

I just don't see how 1) and 2) are enough evidence to play the anti-Christian card (Got Jesus? Debbie Stabenow Does Not...).

towards her worldview.

So, her comment incombination with her voting record probably does say a lot about her beliefs.

I think being a member of a "Christian" denomination doesn't neccessarily make you a Christian. Only God knows what is in the heart, but the things we say, and how we live our lives are the fruits by which others judge us by, and I am not seeing much of a Christian worldview in what is posted in the original piece.

From:
The Christian Methodist Newsletter
Volume 16, Number 2 May 2006
http://www.cmpage.org/news/CMN3Q2K6.htm

"Liberal" versus "Conservative" theology

At present there is a major battle going on within the United Methodist Church between those who espouse a "liberal" view of theology over against those supporting a more "conservative" or orthodox view. The advent of the "age of reason" and the increased popularity of German-inspired "higher criticism" affected theological study in the 1800s. In America "higher" or "historical criticism" questioned scriptural foundations on which many of the orthodox Christian beliefs were founded: Old Testament stories such as the Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, and Jonah and the fish, were discarded as myths along with the reality of miracles that contravened physical laws, and the person and work of Jesus Christ. Scholars believed that theological belief needed to be changed to reflect a more "realistic" - and humanistic view of the world. United Methodist clergyman Dr. James Heidinger [a critic of liberal theology] summarizes liberal theological beliefs in his Basic Tenets of Liberalism:

1. God's character is one of pure benevolence - without wrath. All persons are His children, and sin separates no one from His love.

2. There is a divine spark in every man and woman. All persons are good at heart and need only encouragement to allow their natural goodness to express itself.

3. Jesus Christ is Savior only in the sense that He is our perfect teacher and example. He was not divine in any unique sense. He was not born of a virgin, did not work miracles, and did not rise from the dead.

4. Just as Christ differs from other men only comparatively, not absolutely, neither does Christianity differ from other religions. Thus, missions should not aim to convert but rather to promote a cross-fertilization of ideas for mutual enrichment.

5. The Bible is not a divine record of revelation but a human record of the religious experiences of a nation.

Then Dr. Heidinger [a critic of liberal theology] goes on to state that liberalism (i.e.,liberal theology) is a negation of orthodoxy. It is almost always defined over against [and attacks] historic Christianity

They would be better off being atheists. If God is totally benevolent and sin cannot separate one from God, then God is a monster, more of a demon than a god. Think about it. Stalin killed more than 20 million people, According to these people it OK with God, all is forgiven Uncle Joe!

These people are worse than any atheist.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

going to church, but not really being constrained by any demands on their behavior.

Not to be offensive but I often call these the people who like to "play" church much like children play "house" or "school." They have a grand time pretending, but that's about it.

but that is by our will, not by God's. God wills reconciliation and will go to extraordinary lengths to open the path to it. See: the Cross. Hell is man's creation, not God's.

(translated Catholic), Sin does in no way separate us from God and God's Love. It is our Choice to Refuse Christ's saving hand and reconciliation that separates us from Him.
That last is the part that Liberals always forget...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

I was about to get offended, until I realized that you meant a different SCA than mine.

Then again, my SCA are a bunch of kooks. But we're kooks with extremely good home-brewed beer, so it's all good. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

These guys?

I mean, there's been a rumor or two floating around that I may have geek tendencies...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

LOL, And you can still find me most years at the local Renaissance Fair.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

We also have Really good entertainment. If the ladies aren't dancing to our delight, we're out there beating each other in the head with big sticks...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

-Gando

Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.

that you are correct in your subject matter? Because I don't see this as a Church/State issue. I see it as a Senator wanting people to pass a (lack-of) religious test to engage in politics in this country.

Get Rich Slowly

Explain. I don't really understand your point. Separation of church and state is a public policy position, not a theological position. By your logic, attacking a politician who favors the separation of church and state must by definition also create a religous test (a "non lack-of" test).

This makes no sense. A "lack-of" religion test would be one where only atheists or agnostics could hold public office. Furthermore, under any common use of the phrase, a "religous test" requires an actual law to that effect. Promoting a politician because he seems "Godly" is not a "religious test." A law that only allows Lutherans to hold office is.

The logic and use of language here is convoluted. (FYI: The term "separation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in his explanation of the intent of the First Amendment wherein he stated that the Amendment requires a "wall" between government and religion.)

Almost all Americans want a separation of Church and State, but we do not agree exactly what that entails. Does it mean that Boy Scouts cannot use a public Park? Does it mean that a Historic Landmark must be torn down because it has a cross on it?

You are being disingenuous if you pretend that the current argument has not seen a great outpouring of Anti-Christian sentiment on the part of many on the left.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I agree, most Americans favor a separation of church and state but may define the concept differently.

Regarding anti-Christian left wing attacks, I have a couple of things to say:

First, I was not making a universal point, but rather I was responding to the actual article in question which asserts that a politician is anti-Christian merely because she is an advocate of a seperation of church and state. Furthermore, the article strongly implies that she must therefore be some sort of atheist and thus unqualified to hold public office. That is a plain reading of the article.

Second, I can't recall any major liberals or Democrats attacking "Christianity." There have been attacks on particular Christians because of there pronouncements on public policy issues, such as Jerry Falwell over homosexual rights, or groups promoting teaching Creationism in the public schools. I am not aware of anyone globally attacking "Christianity" as a religion. Although I am sure this happens, I just can't recall an instance leading me to conclude that this is not as pervasive as you suggest. Although I am not a Democrat, most of the Democrats I know are "mainstream" Christians. Attacking bin Laden, and the intersection of his religous beliefs with politics, is not the same as attacking "Islam"(I am not equating Fallwell and bin Laden, by the way. This is merely an analogy).

"We have to tell people that they are out to destroy the Constitution. This is an attack on our system of government."

She is not making a "public policy" debate, she is singling out Christians. IOW Christians are unfit to participate in elections.

Establishment is not greater than Free Exercise thereof (or vice versa, but that usually doesn't need to be said in this debate).

PS – I would take James Madison’s views (or even George Mason’s) over Jefferson when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Get Rich Slowly

The vast majority of those who favor weakening the church/state separation undoubtedly practice some form of Christianity, probably of the fundamentalist or evangelical variety (but not all as some conservative and Orthodox Jews favor this approach). But it does not follow that attacking adherents of this view, most of whom happen to be some type of Christian, is identical to attacking someone because they are "Christian."

All members of the Ku Klux Klan must accept Jesus as the savior and son of God. But, attacking the Ku Klux Klan has literally nothing to do with "attacking Christians" although all of its members practice at least a form of Christianity as conventionally defined.

For that matter, the great majority of people against social security reform are Christians. Thus you are primarily "attacking Christians" when you go after these people.

I don't know why this simple rhetorical concept is so difficult to grasp. Either that or you don't acknowledge that mainstream Protestants and Catholics are true Christians.

Well over 80% of the American public identifies its religious views as "Christian." The idea that a major elected official would publicly proclaim that Christians should be disenfranchised is simply ludicrous. This is especially true in heavily Catholic Michigan where many older Catholic voters still remain a little bit queasy about the religious test issue because of what JFK faced.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this anytime soon.

Get Rich Slowly

talking about? So essentially her POV is okay, since it only talks about one type of Christian?

The one attitude I keep seeing creeping up from liberals and some of the libertarianesque conservatives is a bit of this idea that somehow evangelical or traditional religious Christians are somehow unfit or less fit for public service (either as an elected or appointed official) because they are traditional in their beliefs-you saw this tac taken during the SCOTUS nominations. I get even more troubled though, when I see comments in this regard addressed even more so towards voting. The trend is disturbing.

No, no, no. Actually read my post. She appears to be attacking them for their political, not religious, views. Specifically, they want to weaken the church/state wall and she doesn't.

Actually, conservative sects of Christianity used to be fairly big on avoiding any "taint" of interaction with the "ungodly" government (kind of like today's Amish, which I would label a conservative sect). There are plenty of essays and books on how this has shifted over the years. When I was growing up in the north, fundamentalists were very big on church/state separation primarily because they feared dominance by the Roman Catholic community which greatly outnumbered them.

There is no inherent reason why a follower of a "conservative" Christian sect should either be for or against a strong church/state wall. Isn't Jimmy Carter a born-again Christian?

Incidentally, I am far from a purist on this issue. I have no problems with having "In God We Trust" on the national currency, having a Christmas tree in a public park, allowing high school religious groups to use public school facilities after hours, etc. My views ar more along the lines of, if you allow a Muslim group to use school facilities, you must allow equal access to other religious groups if the demand is there.

There are legitimate and debatable issues on what the Constitution requires in this area. Furthermore, there are legitimate and debatable extra-Constitutional public policy issues as to the optimal degree of a separation. Labeling someone as "anti-Christian" because they draw the line in a different place is simplistic and typically inaccurate.

(Where do you get this disturbing trend "toward voting" observation? This is a novel concept to me. But maybe I am out of the loop).

Actually read my post. She appears to be attacking them for their political, not religious, views.

My political views are very much colored by my religious views. My worldview absolutley is born from my religious views. My moral beliefs are absolutely colored by my religious beliefs. My morals and my worldview color my political beliefs.

So when I hear somebody advocating that religious people must shed their religiosness, when it comes to politics my red flags start waving.

And this is the very trend I speak of. It isn't so much a trend among politicians, as a trend among political commenters on various blogs, although you sometimes get the "did they really mean what they just said" flag with politicians. More often than not, the person who makes a statement much like yours will say "well I didn't mean it that way" when called on it, but sometimes I am not so sure they don't mean it that way.

It is one thing for somebody to say they disagree with the positions of religious voters or politicians, but it is another to hold those beliefs against them in such as way as to imply they are unfit for office, and at times it is implied towards whether those of us who are conservative religiously (and I am not nearly as religiously conservative as some) somehow either don't belong in the GOP or that we shouldn't be allowed to vote our moral beliefs.

As for constitutional issues-I think we have swung the pendumlum into the area that is just plain silly-I think it is stupid that a monument with a cross on it is deemed an establishment of religion, and I suspect that the founding fathers would have been appalled. I think this urge to purge all things religious from the public square is wrongheaded and isn't even constitutional, I think people who get offended over crosses on monuments probably need thicker skins.

could someone provide me the source of that quote though?

.....

First of all thanks to Leon for digging up the source of the quote and its context in the article.

Unfortunately the Cleveland Plain Dealer article itself didn't bother to provide Stabenow's own words telling us exactly who she's talking about, which as I said makes it a worthless source on which to base such a serious accusation against Stabenow.

If you think my standard of evidence is too high, and we can rely on the article to tell us who Stabenow is talking about without seeing her own words, then the context of the article itself clearly indicates that Stabenow is talking about the Christian Coalition or more broadly about the "religious right". There is nothing to suggest that Stabenow's criticism was directed at "Christian voters" in general (i.e. most of the people Stabenow is seeking votes from), which is the unfair accusation Erick made against her. A retraction of that baseless smear is still in order, assuming we have higher standards than Kossaks or the New York Times.

I think the NAACP has become a divisive and useless organization, and America would be better off without them. It's perfectly fair for someone to quote me saying that, and perfectly fair for a critic to argue that my statement about the NAACP is wrong headed and harmful. However you would have to sink to the standards of the New York Times or this blog's smear on Stabenow to claim that

gensec said of African Americans that "America would be better off without them."