Harold Meyerson; Bigot At Large
-Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Harold Meyerson's latest anti-Christian rant Hard-liners for Jesus is beyond belief!-
First, let me say, I'm probably the last person who should be writing this rebuttal seeing as though I purposefully stay away from matters of religion due to my personal belief system. Full disclosure: I was baptized and took my first holy communion before the age of 10 in the Catholic Church. Since the age of 12 I've moved away from the church in an ongoing study of all religions and spirituality. For me, personally, organized religion doesn't work. I believe in GOD, commune with GOD regularly, and believe there's more to existence than just this mortal coil.
That being said, this hate-mongering and Christian bashing from the so-called media elite has got to be shown for what it is...Intolerance and HATE!!!
Read On...
If the word Christian(s) was replaced with Blacks, Jews, Gays, or any other protected class of people the ACLU and the MSM champion on a regular basis, this guy would be fighting to keep his job! The calls of bigotry and intolerance would be deafening. The double standard and ease in which Christianity and Christians are disparaged and discriminated against in this county in mind boggling.
Like most liberal gas bags the Harold Meyerson piece in the Washington Post is filled with completely false analogies, mischaracterizations, Lies, and name calling with absolutely zero substance whatsoever. His intolerant screed seems to be nothing more than an excuse to demonize both Christianity and Republicans of faith.
The casual almost nonchalant manner in which hatred and bigotry flow from Meyerson's pen is incomprehensibly disturbing and one must question if he's so blinded and fueled by his hatred that it completely shuts his eyes to it.
I'm reluctant to quote from the piece, giving this anymore airtime so-to-speak, but it wouldn't have the impact it needs too so here we go.
This is my favorite absurd analogy in the piece:
But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. Consider: Christmas, after all, celebrates not just Jesus’ birth but his family's flight from Herod's wrath into Egypt, a journey obviously undertaken without benefit of legal documentation.
Whoa! I'm not sure how to respond to such lunacy? Equating Jesus’ family's journey to Egypt with our immigration policies??? This idiocy is so monumentally stupid as to not even warrant a rebuttal... so moving on...
Here are some other quotes from the screed:
- As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it’s a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.
-Rather, it’s the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel’s Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace.
-Likewise his (George Bush’s) support of torture, which he highlighted again this month when he threatened to veto House-passed legislation that would explicitly ban waterboarding.
-It’s not just Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety.
-Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn’t simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here
-the push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly, though by no means entirely, from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith at every turn.
-We’ve seen this kind of Christianity before in America… At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan
-But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party
-The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party’s rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week.
-And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn’t be better calibrated to expose the Republicans’ rank, fetid hypocrisy.
I think you get the picture here but the piece needs to be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated for the ridiculous hate filled garbage it is!
What's most bewildering to me is the fact, that in his rush to paint Republicans and Christians with one broad hate filled brush to somehow show hypocrisy and intolerance... He shows himself to be guilty of both!
The party of tolerance: As long as you do what they say, believe what they tell you to believe, eat what they tell you to eat, worship how they want you to worship, and never, never question their intentions because after all, they know what’s best for you!!!
And they say I'm the hypocrite?
- Steven Foley's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Makes the case for separation of church and state
The cynical use of religion to lead the masses by the nose for political means is an age old story.
It is hard for me to be unbiased when President Bush clearly found the secret for success in capitalizing on innocent, trusting and often very sincere evangelicals to be his foot soldiers.
I think fetid hypocrisy is an accurate description. (Can you say Terri Schiavo)
The first attempt at rallying the population behind minority causes, is a shrill cry of discrimination against rich white folk..... shouted from the rooftops. Judge folks on the merits not on the color of their skin.
I am highly amused by the monied elite on the right that are rabidly anti-Huckabee. He is the epitome of all of these so call 'family values' Republicans have been campaigning on.
It is no secret that the war in Iraq, the so called clash of civilizations, has been painted as a Christian campaign to take back the Holy Land for Jesus.
Fighting the war for Jesus, in the name of Jesus, the war of good vs evil.
Family values and retaking the Holy Land. Pick a side. Are you on the side of good or evil. All opposed (democrats) are Satan's spawn.
You get no sympathy here Steve. I think Harold Meyerson's op-ed is spot on.
It is the economy, stupid.
Of course you think...
...Harold Meyerson's op-ed is spot on. I expect nothing less from you! your misguided stereotypes and blinding hatred for the right (especially the religious right) are clearly established and on display pretty regularly here!
The rest of your comment is typical missliberties -- a lot of KnownFacts™ and PointySticks™ with very little if any substantive value...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'll say a prayer for you Steve
All you have done is recite bland talking points.
What is misguided is abusing the sincerity of some evangelicals for political gain. See Terri Schiavo.
Don't forget to put your name on the RNC mailing list right after you contribute to the Defend Terri fund.
If you want an example...... ask yourself, why David Kuo quit Bush's faith based initiatives program?
Why did Karl Rove resign? Why did Al Gonzales resign... they were putting Right Wing Evangelical Christians unqualified for the DOJ into civil service positions simply because they were Regent U Grads.
Rub the partisanship out of your eyes. These are all facts that represent a pattern of manipulation for political gain by using religion as a bludgeon.
Fetid hypocrisy is the correct description.
It is the economy, stupid.
Party of Tolerance
I don't seem to hear that so much any more, but I think your last bolded item is generally spot on. A Democrat can be just as intolerant as a Republican. And perhaps a bit more hypocritical about it. My subjective assessment, of course.
I didn't read the piece, mostly because it's almost Christmas and I refuse to let nastiness spoil my holiday cheer, but at least one of the items you quoted deserve further comment.
"The push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly, though by no means entirely, from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith at every turn"
The writer fails to note that the push NOT to persecute the immigrants already among us also comes from the Republican right (e.g. the Catholic Church). The Church has been very vocal in its opposition.
But including that would ruin the narrative that Christianity is evil.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Of course
this is Bushites fault, for cynically betraying the evangelicals as an ATM for the GOP.
I would think Christians would be angry about this.
Wait! They are.
That is exactly why David Kuo resigned his position in the Bush White House.
It is the economy, stupid.
Uh...backwards?
Say what? The left is generally opposed to punitive immigration reform. The ONLY group pushing the punitive stuff is the Tancredo wing of the right. To somehow credit the right for getting right something that only they have gotten wrong is kind of odd.
Now to be fair the dem leadership isn't trying to protect immigrants out of the goodness of their hearts.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not really
Not really. It merely recognizes that the religious component of the right is not some monolithic beast that wants to harm immigrants. There are significant portions of the right that are opposed to punitive immigration reform.
It would be like blaming the entire Left for the Cindy Sheehan-supports-Hugo-Chavez component.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
This is true
Yet you have to realize that not everyone is as level headed as you are.
Many folks resent the claim made by Republicans that they were the sole owners of God and morality. When you insult Democrats and insist that MUST be ungodly by default it shouldn't be surprising there would be some blow back.
It is the economy, stupid.
I agree with you
when you say the religious right is not monolithic. This primary season has been ample proof of that (witness the evangelical protestant vs. Mormon vs. catholic brouhahas).
Maybe I misunderstood your original statement.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Catholic Church as Republican Right???
Huh? Since when is the Catholic Church part of the Republican right? Historically, Catholics are more allied with the Democratic party. That has changed a bit in recent years, but not alot. Gore won the Catholic vote in 2000, and Bush in 2004, but not by much.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The Church
Is generally deemed allied with the right due to the left's stated position on abortion. Abortion is increasingly being seen as a totally non-negotiable issue, one that cannot be counterbalanced by stances on other right-to-life issues (death penalty, euthanasia, etc)
Individual Catholics of course, vary.
In the topic under discussion here, I am referring, for example, to the statements made by the American bishops in support of immigration reform and the humane treatment of immigrants. The bishops and the Church support free movement of peoples across borders and the humane treatment of all, but by doctrine the Church gives preferential treatment to the poor.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Not just abortion; anything having to do with sex
Abortion isn't the only thing. Condoms are forbidden by the church even while AIDS rages across Africa, access to (and use of) any form of birth control, even while starvation and over-population remain major issues in some heavily Catholic parts of the world.
Sorry, official church doctrine is for Prudery first and is Pro-life somewhere afterwards. The reason abortion is such a dominant issue is that the two happen align on that issue.
Certainly it is
But that is nothing new. Catholic doctrine with regards to sex in and outside of marriage has been long-established. What seems to be changing, IMHO, is the Church's position on abortion and politics. The current pope is solidifying the concept that voting for a politician who says (note the operant word, says) he is against abortion is the only moral choice.
I had been hoping that a more nuanced, complex, and quite frankly more realistic view would emerge, one that acknowledged that talk is cheap and that as far as abortion goes, there is no functional difference between electing, say George vs Kerry, and that therefore one should look beyond this one issue before making a decision.
There is consistency behind the Catholic Church's stance on sex, condoms, birth control, etc even if it is not reasoning that you or I would personally agree with. And I'm not sure it's prudery. Might be in the Protestant versions, but I have no experience there. To be brief, I would explain it thusly:
>> Sex should occur only within marriage and be seen as something that leads to conception and children (Explaining this one could take hours ;} and I'm not even going to try very hard. But it's the basis for the 'no condoms" rule -- because men shouldn't be having sex with young virgins in the first place. That's what wives are for, to put it crudely. And that's what children are for, to compensate the wife. And I can't believe I'm explaining this like this. The Jewish faith has a similar earthiness. Where's a rabbi when you need one?)
>> It is impossible to know the fate of a child or what that child might bring to mankind. For example, who knows which child will grow up to discover the mechanism by which humanity ends its dependence upon oil? Therefore each child should be welcomed and the natural path of conception should not be interfered with.
Gee, given my explanation, it kinda makes you miss Pico, doesn't it. He would have put this so much better.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I'm aware of the Catholic doctrine
My point was that when rules concerning sexual mores conflict with pro-life (like governments handing out condoms to slow the AIDS epidemic) they come down on the sexual mores side.
Not saying they aren't 'pro-life', just that they are more against consequence-free sex than they are pro-life.
Agreed (nt)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Steve you might not want to hear this
but the vast majority of those statements look, at worst, to be mild exaggerations. The KKK one is probably the worst of the lot although I'd need to see it in context to know (for instance saying that the minuteman branch of the GOP is akin to the KKK is pretty damn accurate whereas saying the entirety of the GOP is that bad is a serious overstatement).
So you might be better off making your arguments as to why you think the author's statements are so offensive.
Even if you don't convince anyone you might learn why and how outsiders feel that way about the party.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If I say
Martin Luther King was a solid Christian who practiced what he preached, will I get a message of benevolence and tolerance from the right?
If I say that Jimmy Carter is very religious and a devout evangelical Christian, who believes that actions speak louder than words, will I get a message of gentle tolerance from the right?
It is the economy, stupid.
Still OKIYAR
Unless you also replaced the words "Harold Meyerson" with the words "Ann Coulter," in which case we'd be hearing how it was really just a really funny joke that we just don't get.
Of course, we'd also be hearing about how those people are not just hypocrites that fall short of their own professed beliefs, but that they also deserve to be poisoned, bombed and/or converted to Christianity.