Lacking Even a Concept to be Unclear On

Avatar

Mike Schilling

Mike has been a software engineer far longer than he would like to admit. He has strong opinions on baseball, software, science fiction, comedy, contract bridge, and European history, any of which he's willing to share with almost no prompting whatsoever.

Related Post Roulette

63 Responses

  1. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    No the real question about O isn’t whether he loves the country but if he is truly a Christian. Great minds likes Erick “goat f*****r” Erickson and Scott ” i’m presidential material” Walker have raised doubts.Report

    • Avatar Chris in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      The news this week has been, “does Obama love America?” and “whyy won’t he use the word Islamic; doesn’t he read the Atlantic?” I may start watching TMZ instead of CNN. I feel like I’ll learn more about the world that easy.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      This is one of those odd things. If I wanted to say that my deep suspicion was that Obama was an enlightened kind of guy who didn’t believe in the Resurrection of Christ (“Zombie Jesus!”), he didn’t believe in the Trinity (“could someone even *EXPLAIN* the concept of the Trinity without sounding crazy?”), and didn’t believe in an interventionist deity, if he believed in a deity at all (“an invisible sky fairy?” “MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE”), I’m pretty sure that I could get a fair number of those of us who are also not stupid hillbilly young earthers to agree that, yes, we believe that Obama is also not a stupid hillbilly young earther.

      The problem is that the reasons (shall we call them “dogwhistles”?) that you and I, as smart and enlightened folks, can hear when it comes to why we suspect that Obama isn’t one of the rubes just might be heard by the stupid hillbilly young earthers as well.

      And for the same reasons that we can tell that Obama is one of us rather than one of them, it just might be possible for them to be able to tell that Obama is one of us rather than one of them.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Erickson argues that Obama is not a Christian because he’s unwilling to say publicly that Christianity is the one true religion. Do you consider that a reasonable expectation of a president?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Oh, I’m sure that Erickson is completely off-base in how he reached the same conclusions about Obama not really being a Christian (in any meaningful sense) that you and I have come to.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Remind me when I came to that conclusion, keeping in mind that I believe there is a Christianity based on neither literalism nor exclusivity (because I know people like that)Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        So you think that Obama believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of God, His Lord And Savior, whose Blood washes away the Sins of the World?

        I don’t think that he believes in that. I think that Obama’s religious viewpoint is one that is a lot more evolved than that.

        But maybe we’re using “in any meaningful sense” differently.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You don’t have to believe in those things to be a Christian. At least, not according to Congress and the Supreme Court, you don’t.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        If Obama doesn’t believe in those Christian concepts, he’s on some solidly American, Founding Father-type footing.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_StatesReport

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        If we are cool with defining Christianity so broadly that, technically, atheists fall under the umbrella and we’re only excluding them because they say “I decline to be included in the category that I otherwise fit within”, then, sure.

        We’re all Christians.

        And people who think otherwise are either wrong or using a different definition than enlightened people like us are using.

        Edit: INCORRECTLY using a different definition, might I add.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        JB, why the strunuous defense of EE’s views on this? He’s an idiot and none of it matters. Except for people like him – and now you – who really want it to matter.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not defending his views.

        I’m just noting the irony in his reaching the same conclusion that most of us have also reached.

        What Eric Erickson means when he says “Christian” doesn’t apply to Obama and I’m pretty sure that we all agree that it’s to Obama’s *BENEFIT* that Obama doesn’t fall under this definition.

        But he shouldn’t be using that definition, he should be using ours because ours allows for Obama to be a Christian and it’s really, really, really freaking important, for some reason, that Obama is a Christian because we all know how really, really, really freaking important Christianity is.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m just noting the irony in his reaching the same conclusion that most of us have also reached.

        Who does “most of us” refer to? What’s the conclusion “most of us” have reached?

        I’ve never given a single thought to the status of Obama’s Christian-ness. Has anyone else on this thread? On this site? Ever? Schilling mentioned that EE thinks Obama isn’t a “real Christian” because he won’t express, as President of the US, that Christianity is the one true religion. I’ve never heard a single Christian – other than EE, and only just since about 4 minutes ago – claim that that is a necessary condition for being a “real” Christian.

        So I don’t perceive the irony you’re perceiving here. All I perceive is a bunch of nonsense.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I have no idea whether Obama believes in those things or not. I can’t imagine how I would know that, never having met the man.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Erickson’s argument is a little more nuanced than that, actually.

        It has to do with his particular brand of Christianity that is somewhat Manichean in its application. Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life according to this strain of Christianity and no man comes to The Father but through Him, according to the tenets.

        This particular flavor of Christianity is popular in flyover country. (Though, I’ll grant, there are debates within this faith over whether or not God is still maintaining His previous Covenant with the Jews thus allowing for Jews to not be damned to perdition for all eternity.)

        This flavor of Christianity believes in a deity, judgment, an afterlife, and has all sorts of little taboos and totems. Members of this particular corner of the faith define people who aren’t in this little particular corner of the faith as not being Christians in any meaningful sense of the word. The definition they’re using is pretty exclusive.

        Hell, I’ll quote Christopher Hitchens, because I miss him so much:

        I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

        Now, this is a definition of Christianity that shouldn’t be *THAT* alien to any of us.

        But, to answer your questions: Who does “most of us” refer to? What’s the conclusion “most of us” have reached?

        I mean “most of us usual suspects here at this website that we’re commenting on right now, at this moment.” The conclusion that most of us have reached is that Christianity, as defined by Erickson and Hitchens, is a category that is more of a warning sign than something that we should fight to make sure that people like us can be shoehorned into.

        (“What do you mean by ‘people like us’?” “Educated, enlightened people. Cosmopolitan American Brahmin types.”)

        Did you miss the last time that this whole “Obama isn’t a Christian” debate popped up (original Freudian typo: “poped up”)? This is far from the first time that it has, after all.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        My point, @jaybird , is in part that we’ve adopted a very individually-deferential and malleable posture towards the faith of individual people, as a matter of law. Most folks for whom religion matters have said this is a good thing, that it contributes to a flourishing spiritual and moral culture here in these United States.

        So who are you or I, or Erickson and Reynolds, to say that Obama is or is not a Christian? He is precisely what his faith and conscience impel him to be. No more, no less. He may not overtly adhere to this or that orthodox doctrine, but if there is a fixed star in our cultural sky, it is that no American need adhere to any other’s religious orthodoxy and we all tolerate this in one another.

        That’s why grumbling that Obama isn’t “really” a Christian, or somehow isn’t Christian enough, is based upon both a flawed premise (one which requires rejection of our core ethic of religious pluralism) and an impossible factual proposition (that you or I or Erickson or Reynolds can know the inner mechanisms of Obama’s faith). It’s among the most subversive of ideas simmering just below the surface of a mentality that incorrectly labels itself “conservative.”Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Thanks for the elaboration Jaybird. Btw, do you think Obama has stopped beating his wife yet? How would we know?I mean, “most of us” have certain views about whether he has or hasn’t, but for my part, I will only change my mind that he hasn’t stopped if he publicly declares, as President of the US, that he has in fact stopped beating his wife.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s among the most subversive of ideas simmering just below the surface of a mentality that incorrectly labels itself “conservative.”

        Wow. Great sentence Burt. That’s pretty much it. Well said.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Wow, you’re conflating a lot of different things. There’s:

        1. Hitchens’s description of the most basic beliefs of Christianity. (Though why Hitchens is a good candidate to define Christianity escapes me. Should we find a Jerry Falwell definition of humanism?)
        2. Erickson’s definition of Christianity. (Which, if you read the linked piece, seems to exclude Catholicism.)
        3. The prevalent beliefs in the non-coastal U.S. (Which I don’t feel competent to define. They’re quite likely different from the beliefs of those with the biggest mouths.)
        4. The sorts of belief that make agnostics noticeably uncomfortable. (This one I do know something about. It does not include the Crucifixion except as an excuse for anti-semitism, nor the Resurrection.)

        They’re all quite different.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Eisenhower famously said “And this is how they explained those: ‘we hold that all men are endowed by their Creator…’ not by the accident of their birth, not by the color of their skins or by anything else, but ‘all men are endowed by their Creator.’ In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply-felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men are created equal.” (The “they” in the first sentence refers to the Founding Fathers.)

        I’m a fan of the whole “deeply-felt religious faith and I don’t care what it is” philosophy (so long as the whole “created equal” thing remains in there). It’s the umbrella under which that thing that I call “the American religion” falls.

        And if we want to say that the word “Christianity” can also apply to this philosophy, that’s awesome. I’m sure that all of us here are pretty much all Brothers in Christ.

        But it does seem somewhat notable to me that when EE says “Obama is not Christian” and when we say that “Obama’s a Christian”, the word “Christian” refers to two different things in those two different sentences.

        It is, indeed, very rude of EE to point out that he cares “what it is”. We, as a society, should have evolved past that.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You are still displaying an insight into Obama’s deepest beliefs that the rest of us lack.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m sure that all of us here are pretty much all Brothers in Christ.

        I am not, and do not want to be called that, even as part of a reductio. (Being serious now.)Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        1. Hitchens’s description of the most basic beliefs of Christianity. (Though why Hitchens is a good candidate to define Christianity escapes me. Should we find a Jerry Falwell definition of humanism?)
        2. Erickson’s definition of Christianity. (Which, if you read the linked piece, seems to exclude Catholicism.)
        3. The prevalent beliefs in the non-coastal U.S. (Which I don’t feel competent to define. They’re quite likely different from the beliefs of those with the biggest mouths.)
        4. The sorts of belief that make agnostics noticeably uncomfortable. (This one I do know something about. It does not include the Crucifixion except as an excuse for anti-semitism, nor the Resurrection.)

        1. I am not quoting Hitchens to say “here is the right and proper definition of Christianity” as much as to say “the definition of Christianity that EE is using is one that is, seriously, quite common out there and one that a lot of people out there immediately think of when you say ‘Christianity'”
        2. I am not saying that EE is using the right and proper definition out Christianity as much as saying that he’s using the term in a way that his audience is familiar with and immediately understands.
        3. I wasn’t using “flyover country” to mean “the non-coastal U.S.”, I was using it to refer to cultural attitudes.
        4. I imagine that the beliefs that EE has would and do make agnostics uncomfortable. (Compare to the beliefs that we have that make agnostics quite comfortable.)

        It’s not my point that EE is correct. It’s my point that he’s using phraseology that is downright rude to make a point that we here would agree with if it were phrased differently.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You are still displaying an insight into Obama’s deepest beliefs that the rest of us lack.

        I don’t know that the rest of us lack this insight as much as I suspect that the rest of us are merely polite enough to not talk about in public the way that Burt suggests that we, as a society, ought to do.

        I apologize for including you in my reductio. It was rude of me to do so.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The thing is, Jay, you’re probably wrong on the premise. I would estimate that Obama is the most devout and lower case o orthodox Christian to sit in the Oval Office in maybe a century, outside of Jimmy Carter.

        He famously came to Christianity relatively late in in life (i.e. in his 20s) from a relatively ‘raw’ state. Sure, you got cases like Bush Jr and Reagan who grew up culturally Christian, sowed their wild oats, and then had the rebirth as they became older. Obama, in contrast, may be unique among Presidents as having two parents who didn’t even go through the motions of being religious – a status that was nearly impossible in ‘polite’ society prior to Obama’s birth (and not too common then, either, and only coming to be accepted now, in the last 10 years or so*). So, if anything, Obama is likely a lot more ‘serious’ about his Christian faith than most of the guys that have held the job, in a mild example of convert zeal.

        *as a complete aside, it’s one of the few missteps I see with The Americans. A middle class, white bread suburban couple of the early 80s would have been part of a mainline Protestant denomination, even if they were only going to church at Christmas and EasterReport

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I admit, I saw his membership at Trinity United as representative of his political ambition (not said in any recriminative sense) rather than any attachment he had to the theology taught by the church there.

        If I am wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        If anything (to bring us all back together), we can use EE’s essay as an opportunity to ask him “Wait, I thought Obama was someone who believed in every word that Jeremiah Wright ever said and went to that particular church because he believed so strongly in Wright’s brand of Christianity. What happened between then and now?”

        And, of course, I’m sure that EE will say that, oh, that’s true too.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, I’m comfortable saying Obama isn’t Erik’s sort of Christian.

        Which is okay, neither is my wife. Or my mother-in-law, who teachers a class at her Church on the New Testament two months a year. Nor is my mother, my grandmother, or my father.

        The only difference between them and Obama is (1) Erik doesn’t care and (2) the people I listed would probably punch Erik for questioning their faith, whereas Obama lacks that luxury.

        But I’m gonna be honest: When people like Erik question Obama’s Christianity, they’re not questioning his faith. They’re saying “he black and has a Muslim sounding name, he’s not a real American”.

        I know it, you know it, Erik knows it, Jaybird knows it — we all know it. So why are we entertaining it? It’s BS cultural signaling, just another variant of “HE”S NOT ONE OF US”.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        When people like Erik question Obama’s Christianity, they’re not questioning his faith. They’re saying “he black and has a Muslim sounding name, he’s not a real American”.

        I know it, you know it, Erik knows it, Jaybird knows it — we all know it. So why are we entertaining it?

        Yeah, that’s where I’m at: why are we even entertaining the question/issue? Burt gave about as compelling a reason to entertain as I’ve seen: because there’s something insidious lurking beneath the surface which isn’t covered by word “conservative” and exposing that for what it is is a worthwhile endeavor.

        I mean, to date Obama doesn’t love the country like white people do; wants to impose Sharia law because he’s considerate of Muslims; is an apologist for Muslim extremism because he won’t call ISIS Muslim Extremists; reveals he’s UnAmerican by refraining from saying the US is at war with Islam; and on and on and on.

        Benghazi!Report

      • Avatar Ken S. in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        To summarize:

        When an EE-type uses the phrase “People of faith,” he really means “People of my faith.” When he uses the word “Christian,” he really means “of my denomination.”

        Since JB mentions the much opined-upon Rev. Wright, here’s another perhaps relevant observation. EE-types claim to know what RW preached during the years that President Obama attended his church. They don’t. All any of us really know is the contents of a 30-second clip from one particular angry sermon. All the rest is unwarranted extrapolation.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Actually, I want to correct what I wrote just above. I caught myself making a false claim. Those accusations haven’t been lobbied against Obama “to date”. They have all been lobbed at him in just the last week.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        “Benghazi!”

        Man I wish we could have a real discussion about a war of choice of questionable legality to topple a dictator that resulted in a failed state.

        But that’s as out of fashion as flip phones.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Man I wish we could have a real discussion about a war of choice of questionable legality to topple a dictator that resulted in a failed state.

        Well, conventional conservawisdom is that ISIS only arose out of the vacuum created by Obama honoring the troop drawdowns established by Bush during the Bush Presidency. So, you know. Obama created the failed state ISIS is thriving in.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed!!

        Usually by conservatives.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Kolohe,
        I’ve known whitebread folks from suburbia/ruralia who weren’t in a christian denomination, in the early 1980’s. Granted, the folks in that suburb did try to run them out of town… (having your son’s hands turn orange wasn’t the issue, but it couldn’t have helped).

        EE needs to actually know a bit more about the evangelical church that Obama came from. I dunno, maybe there is an actual argument that Obama is a massive hypocrite. That’d be an argument I’d like to read — IF it were honest.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        KenS,
        some of us actually bothered to learn about Reverend Wright. We aren’t all ignoramuses.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed!!

        That is an argument that I hear a lot from conservatives when it comes to military adventurism and hawkish foreign policy.

        It’s also an argument that I hear a lot from progressives when it comes to domestic policy and the various failures of the welfare state.

        He famously came to Christianity relatively late in in life (i.e. in his 20s) from a relatively ‘raw’ state. Sure, you got cases like Bush Jr and Reagan who grew up culturally Christian, sowed their wild oats, and then had the rebirth as they became older. Obama, in contrast, may be unique among Presidents as having two parents who didn’t even go through the motions of being religious – a status that was nearly impossible in ‘polite’ society prior to Obama’s birth (and not too common then, either, and only coming to be accepted now, in the last 10 years or so*). So, if anything, Obama is likely a lot more ‘serious’ about his Christian faith than most of the guys that have held the job, in a mild example of convert zeal.

        I could be misreading @jaybird’s comments, but it seems pretty obvious that he is making a point that is quite distinct from the Erick Erickson point. Erickson is singling out Obama as some form of unique villainy. @jaybird is simply maintaining that a significant portion of most politician’s attachment to Christianity is born out of the necessity for a U.S. politician to be significantly attached to Christianity.

        You tell me that Obama came to Christianity later in life and that Reagan and GWB returned to Christianity later in life, my immediate suspicion is that these religious moments are inextricably linked to political ambitions.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        j r that’s possible, as others have said we who are discussing this on this here thread really don’t have and can’t have the true insight on what’s in another person’s heart, esp one that we see filtered through so many intermediaries and deliberate image makers.

        Nonetheless, while I’ll say Reagan might have been the closest to a poseur when it comes to religion, I think both GWB and BHO’s personal experiences with religion are genuine and, further, gave them the ambition to become Prez. Iow, for them, the causation is reversed to what you say – they spent the early middle part of their adulthood looking for something to believe in, found it, and built their lives around it. They then used that belief in a higher power to believe in themselves and focus their ambition on grabbing the ring of power.

        Report

      • Avatar trizzlor in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        @morat20 : “When people like Erik question Obama’s Christianity, they’re not questioning his faith. They’re saying “he black and has a Muslim sounding name, he’s not a real American”. I know it, you know it, Erik knows it, Jaybird knows it — we all know it. So why are we entertaining it? It’s BS cultural signaling, just another variant of “HE”S NOT ONE OF US”.”

        Is there a way for people like Erik to say “OBAMA’S NOT ONE OF US” without it being about his race? “HE’S NOT ONE OF US” is probably the most fundamental campaign talking-point there is, and yet all of the stuff that would be typically thrown against a Dem president now take on a racist connotation: he’s elitist, he’s dumb, he’s not religious the way we are, he had a weird childhood, he misbehaved in college, he has scary friends, he likes bad music. Is there some method for deciphering when these attacks are racist and when they’re just ordinary smears? Is the GOP expected to simply abandon this type of political trolling for the time being?Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        When he uses the word “Christian,” he really means “of my denomination.”

        Which is an interesting point. If someone tells me that Westboro Baptists aren’t really Christians because they’re just a hate group, I tend to agree. If they tell me that Mormons aren’t really Christians because their theology is so far from other Christian beliefs, I’m a bit skeptical. If they tell me that the Orthodox Churches aren’t really Christians because they get filioque wrong, I roll my eyes. And if Jack Chick tells me that Catholics are all going to Hell because they take the wrong view of Communion, I already knew he was a bigot. But I have no sense where the right place to draw that line is.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        But I have no sense where the right place to draw that line is.

        It’s quite simple, really.

        From a Jewish POV, the original Christians were basically a heretical sect.

        And to the Catholics/Orthodox, the Protestants were a heretical sect.

        And to the Protestants, the Mormons were a heretical sect…Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        But I have no sense where the right place to draw that line is.

        From what I understand, Judaism has a similar (though certainly not identical) dynamic.

        From what I’ve heard, according to the Orthodox, Reform Jews aren’t “really” Jews and Conservative Jews are “bad” Jews. I’ve also heard that what is happening to Jewish people in America is called “the Second Holocaust”.

        Heck, I’m pretty sure we’ve seen some strong opinions of the whole “Jews for Jesus” phenomenon on this very website.

        That’s the problem with social constructs.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        @kolohe

        Iow, for them, the causation is reversed to what you say – they spent the early middle part of their adulthood looking for something to believe in, found it, and built their lives around it. They then used that belief in a higher power to believe in themselves and focus their ambition on grabbing the ring of power.

        My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between or rather, the causality is cyclical and there is no clear delineation between finding religion and dedicating oneself to a life in pursuit of high political office.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Or, as Emo Philips said


        Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
        I said, “Don’t do it!”
        He said, “Nobody loves me.”
        I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
        He said, “Yes.”
        I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
        He said, “A Christian.”
        I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
        He said, “Protestant.”
        I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
        He said, “Baptist.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
        He said, “Northern Baptist.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
        I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
        I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
        Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        @jaybird

        Not so much. The Orthodox may think that Reform, Conservative, and non-practicing Jews aren’t doing it right, but they agree that we’re still all Jews. The “Second Holocaust” is about intermarriage and children who don’t think of themselves as Jews at all (and aren’t, to the Orthodox, if the mother isn’t Jewish.)

        And Jews for Jesus is a Christian group that wants to get converts under false pretenses. It’s as Jewish as “Classical Liberals for Lenin” would be libertarian.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Mike,
        They agree that all children born of Jewish mothers are jews.
        That ain’t all of us.
        The right of return is only for the Special Jews.Report

  2. Avatar Gabriel Conroy
    Ignored
    says:

    the Man of Foil has apparently forgotten about the time when we elected a president who not only had the same name as our most recent wartime foe, but had previously served in his military.

    This is probably a joke I’m just not getting, but who are you referring to?Report

  3. Avatar Stillwater
    Ignored
    says:

    We’re so open-minded … electing a President with the same name as our most recent wartime foe!

    Reynolds seems shock-and-awed that by the fact that Americans believe the same-named are the same person. I just can’t tell if he thinks this is an actual, for realsy, virtue (which is just plain stupid) or if he thinks it’s something Obama voters should be ashamed of (which is just plain stupid).Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Stillwater
      Ignored
      says:

      @stillwater

      Look… we told them it was racist to insist that all brown people looked the same. And the listened! Now they are only insisting that brown people with similar names are the same. Progress!Report

  4. Avatar LWA
    Ignored
    says:

    The comments by Guiliani, Reynolds, Erickson and Walker are not so interesting in what they tell us about the speakers, as what they indicate about the intended audience. Pro-tip: it isn’t left coast liberals.

    The idea that America belongs exclusively to white christian property owning men has always existed within the conservative base, but as the base has boiled down it has become an increasingly desperate touchstone of faith, something that becomes ever more ardently proclaimed even as it becomes less true with each day.
    I like Taibbi’s take, via Balloon JuiceReport

  5. Avatar Tod Kelly
    Ignored
    says:

    Just joining, but has anyone bothered yet to point out the obvious fact that Obama was not the name of our wartime foe?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *