Asymmetrical Information

The political irony is this: The Lefty Blue-Staters who consider themselves 'liberal' (not classicly of course) and 'tolerant' of others --- are anything BUT when it comes to orthodox/fundamentalist Christians.

The political irony is this: The Lefty Blue-Staters who consider themselves 'liberal' (not classicly of course) and 'tolerant' of others --- are anything BUT when it comes to orthodox/fundamentalist Christians.

The reality is this: This semi-left-libertarian was raised Episcopalian, is now an athiest, lives in NYC, and could care less about people's personal religious beliefs. I understand Christianity extremely well, not only from growing up, but also from having nearly taken a religious studies degree (changed my mind at the last possible moment).

No, the political irony is that "we all look alike" to a certain brand of reactionary righty like Varangy.

For most mainstream religionists, it isn't cool to be a fundamentalist. Many are, in fact, embarassed by those who take the Bible literally and, worse, get in your face about it through "witnessing." Not only is religion intensely personal, the average believer is poorly schooled in the tenets of his religion and cannot defend them or explain them. He is Lutheran or Methodist or Presbyterian by birth or because of a charismatic minister or convenient church, not because he has limned the differences in the catechism. So fundamentalists challenge shallowly held beliefs and that makes us uncomfortable.

Varangy:

At what point is someone supposed to be tolerant of intolerance and evil? Religious conflict and kooky-ass end times stuff are way scarier than terrorism.

Some things are just wrong. Unless you admit moral relativism, opposing wrong, in the form of tyrannical fundamental religious belief is the right thing to do. Except in most cases, it's the left thing to do.

Johnny:

What 'end times stuff' are you talking about? The 'Left Behind' books? What's the tyrannical part of Christianity?

From creech's post: "the average believer is poorly schooled in the tenets of his religion and cannot defend them or explain them."

Um...what's your source on that? Can I see some numbers?

At what point is someone supposed to be tolerant of intolerance and evil?

Whose idea was it to let Mr. Taliban into Yale? (Hint: Yale's leadership contains very few Republicans.)

Religious conflict and kooky-ass end times stuff are way scarier than terrorism.

When "kooky-ass end-timers" start flying planes into buildings and blowing up subway stations, then come talk to me.

Unless you admit moral relativism, opposing wrong, in the form of tyrannical fundamental religious belief is the right thing to do.

Ooo, Osama believes in things I find wacky! And Christians believe in things I find wacky! Therefore, they are the same! Mommy, protect me from the bad religious people!

Except in most cases, it's the left thing to do.

You wish.

"what 'end times stuff' are you talking about"

We clearly inhabit different realities. The 'end-timers' are far from a majority, but they are all over and active. Growing-up in a Southern Baptist town in Texas I had my fill of them, including my non-church attending cross-country coach and a group that my Junior High principal invited to a school assembly.

" What's the tyrannical part of Christianity?"

I consider having a match lit in my face and being told "turn or burn" to be tyrannical. How about you?

To move from the anecdote to the general, go to google and type in "end times." There are a dozen paid links. Or you could enjoy this National Review link if that's more your style: http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher041102.asp

We clearly inhabit different realities.

Ain't that the truth. You seem to think a handful of nutfudge fundies represent the whole of Christianity.

I consider having a match lit in my face and being told "turn or burn" to be tyrannical. How about you?

There's a difference between "being tyrannical" and "acting like an annoying idiot." A right cross to the jaw is usually effective on such people.

Tylerh,

If someone acting on behalf of the government sets me on fire, yes, that's tyrannical. If some guy lights a match in front of me, that's irritating. I don't know if you mean to be acting in support of Johnny, but I meant to ask him specifically about the 'end times stuff' that he considered 'way scarier than terrorism.' Your evidence of Christian end timers are a group that was invited to your junior high school and a four year old story about a cow that some people thought may have inspired violence - between two groups of non-Christians who have been at war for decades - but did not. I see no evidence of violence besides that committed by you, against the definition of the word 'tyrannical'.

Jimbo X: Of course I should have said "in my experience..." My sources are anecdotal, including my mother's cousin, a Doctor of Theology, who teaches graduate students. He starts each semester asking the students to explain how their denomination, usually a Christian one, differs in its beliefs from others.
Apparently, they have a hard time of it with many admitting they are a member because "my folks were." The good Doctor, a Baptist, says that Sunday School lessons for kids and adults are
totally inadequate and that the "average member"
can not discuss his beliefs beyond a few basics, nor defend them if challenged.

"I consider having a match lit in my face and being told "turn or burn" to be tyrannical. How about you?"

Sounds like 'obnoxious'. There are lots of obnoxious people in the world. Even atheists can be obnoxious.

Varangy,

If you want to witness a full flowering of tolerance, ask a Pentecostal about the Mormons some time. Or about the Southern Baptists down the street, for that matter.

Damn, this Christian stuff is hard to keep track of.

That's the easy part in being a non-observant Jew from America, like me: whether Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Hindu, everyone knows I'm going to Hell, so I don't have to bother keeping all the denominations straight. In fact, if orthodox Jews believed in Hell, they'd be sending me there too.

The treatment of Christianity in some quarters is starting to bear an uncomfortably close resemblence to the right-wing attitudes toward Communism in the 1980s. And yes, I'm quite serious. It's not anything like a majority, but there's a substantial number of people in the world today who'd think a remake of "Red Dawn" with the Russians replaced by Christian fundamentalists was actually warranted.

And the oddest part of all is that it's mostly the same people who'd have decried the original as Red-baiting of the most outrageous stripe.

Creech:
I do not find your statement at all surprising. In my experience, most people's religious education stops around 6th grade (equivalent); I've known very few people (outside of professional theologians) who could distinguish the various Christian heresies (e.g., Arianism from Pelagianism), which probably explains their current popularity.

cwp, go ahead and use the Nazi-Jew analogy. I know you'd like to, and persecution of Christians is one of the most pressing issues in America today.

Eric,

I think most Americans get what information they do get about the history and development of Christianity from their parents or their churches, if they are raised as Christians. They will certainly not get it from "world religions" segments in public-school social studies classes if they aren't. I grew up with agnostic parents and went to very good NY public schools, and by the time I graduated from high school I knew a lot more about Hinduism and Taoism and Buddhism and Islam than I did about Christianity. They didn't have to teach that; they assumed everyone knew, as most did, sort of. (I still remember a middle-school classmate bringing in a crossword he'd designed. One clue was "Billed himself the 'Son of Man,'" and I had no idea what he was talking about.)

Since then I've learned a little, of my own accord; enough to know that Arius denied the Trinity and Pelagius denied original sin, at least. (Yep, you're right, those two are very popular just now.) After that, I'm afraid, you have to fast forward 800 years or so to find another heresy I know anything about.

Brittain, I'm not sure what Nazis or Jews have to do with the notion that people of differing political stripe share the universal human capability to blow a molehill into a mountain.

The "Commie threat to our way of life" in the '80s was vastly overblown, and the "Christian fundie threat to our way of life" right now is in the process of being overblown in just the same way.

It may be fashionable to think that only one side of the political coin gets unwarrantedly exercised about these things, while the other remains cool, rational, levelheaded, and would certainly never blow their concerns out of proportion. Fashionable, but certainly not reality-based.

Brittain-

"persecution of Christians is one of the most pressing issues in America today"???

Where's this persecution taking place? And who, exactly, is engaging in this persecuting in a nation that is overwhelmingly . . . Christian?

I'd argue that the use of Hyperbole is one of the most pressing issues in America today, but I wouldn't wanna be hyperbolic myself.

"That's the easy part in being a non-observant Jew from America, like me: whether Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Hindu, everyone knows I'm going to Hell"

You need to hang around Methodists more - this explanation is a little convoluted (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=16&mid=7804 ) but the Methodist position is that as one of the Chosen People, you're going to be OK.

Whew.

Well *that's* good to know. Which ever candidate in 2008 is Methodist has got my vote.

That's the easy part in being a non-observant Jew from America, like me: whether Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Hindu, everyone knows I'm going to Hell"

I could be wrong, but I didn't think Hindu's believed in hell... at least not in a permanent one .

Of course your general point still stands.

Yeah, you caught me. I didn't think they did either. I'm guessing that along with Buddhism, rebirth is "Hell."

But I wanted to earn cheap laughs off all religions. Leaving off the faith of 1B+ Indians would be politically incorrect, no?

Heya Guys it's been a while but RMC comment caught my eye.

"Whose idea was it to let Mr. Taliban into Yale? (Hint: Yale's leadership contains very few Republicans.)"

Ok whose idea was it to let the guy into the country with a student visa? (Hint: The current administration's leadership contains very few Democrats.)

This whole online rather silly debate about Yale admitting this guy overlooks the fact that the current administration gave him a student visa. I would imagine since he was coming from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, they would have looked at his visa pretty carefully. Or they didn't, in which case you shouldn't blame Yale for giving him a visa.

"Ok whose idea was it to let the guy into the country with a student visa? (Hint: The current administration's leadership contains very few Democrats.)"

Yes, because as we all know the President and his administration's job is to scour many thousands of student visa applications everyday and then personally approve them. Those other government bureaucracies associated with US Embassies and immigration have absolutely nothing to do with approving visa applications.

I mean, really, it just couldn't be that the rules and regulations regarding approval of visa applications that were put in place by many administrations, along with the senate and congress, over time is what allowed that, of course not. Clearly the President of the United States, and if not him someone in his administration, personally picked out that application and approved it. [/sarcasm]

Inquiring -> Your response is non responsive. This guy was a known MEMBER of the Taliban. We didn't have diplomatic relations with the Taliban so the number of student visa applications from them was ZERO. You also might think that we might wanna check the visa applications from Afghanistan.

Saying that the President didn't personally approve his visa application misses the fact that someone in the Government approved it AFTER 9/11. So holding Yale to a higher standard than the government (whose job should be primarily defense in this situation) is missing the real point. His visa application shouldn't been approved by our post 9/11 and unbelievably post Afghanistan war government. He didn't get into the US until AFTER the war in Afghanistan was over - leading me to believe his entrance into the US is part of a US quid pro quo.

The real point here is that all the outrage over Yale accepting him should have directed at the government - yet that's largely ignored to rail at Yale. I love your response - We couldn't possibly sort through all those visa applications from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That might be too much to ask.

We couldn't possibly sort through all those visa applications from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Of course not...that would be racial profiling.

If the administration had tried to keep Mr. Taliban out, liberals would be on their hind legs screaming. And you know it.

"liberals would be on their hind legs screaming. And you know it."

As opposed to right wingers who remain on all-fours due to a lesser state of evolution??? Or are they sporting fins and gills?

Mikey, the meds don't work unless you take them every day, mmmkay?

RMc-

I just scrolled back through these comments. You sound an angry, young fella. Arguing with everyone, and all. Seeing Lib-rals under the bed and in the halls, and peakin through the window.

So here's the deal. I'll keep taking the meds . . . but only if you *promise* to dress up real nice this weekend, go out and buy a few perty ladies a drink or two, and see if you can't find that temporary cure to all that ails angry young guys like yourself.

Mmmmkay?

Angry? Naah. Just willing to call you and your fellow "lib-rals" (who apparently need to buy a vowel) on your BS. And I'm not the one foaming at the mouth about lesser-evolved "right wingers," pal.

go out and buy a few perty ladies a drink or two

Gee, should I bring my wife along?

RMc-

1. "Gee, should I bring my wife along?"

Sure! Why the heck not? Anything to lighten up your sullen mood. Variety's the spice of life, no?

2. "Just willing to call you and your fellow 'lib-rals' (who apparently need to buy a vowel) on your BS."

I'm sorry, Mr. Mc, wrong answer. Please try again. I'm not a liberal (with or without the "e"). And BS is an equal-opportunity employer.

3. "I'm not the one foaming at the mouth about lesser-evolved 'right wingers,' pal."

No, you're right. You weren't. You were the one foaming at the mouth about four-legged liberals.

I was the one making a joke. Anger will kill from within, Grasshopper.

Remember: nice, starched collar; comb your hair neat; and always smile when you say hello. Good luck, and give me the report first thing Monday morning.

Tsk, tsk. Who's the sullen one here, Mikey? You're the one accusing me of lookin' for lib-rals under my bed, as if I was one of your sterotypical "right-wingers." (Suprise! I'm not even a Republican, or especially religious, let alone a Jerry Falwell follower.)

Anger will kill from within, Grasshopper.

It sure will. Bile-spewing arrogance is the reason Dems lose elections (even against mediocrities like George W. Bush), and will continue to for the forseeable future.

Now run along, and hope Daddy doesn't find out you've been using his computer.

Oh, and speaking of sullen, here are some of the lines on the front page of Mike's blog:

HOW MANY SENATORS CAN DANCE ON THEIR COUNTRY'S GRAVE

"As the economy continues down its rocky road, as the quagmire in Iraq continues..."

"In a stunning political speech, disguised as a commencement address, First Lady Laura Bush set a new world record, covering the teetering economy, unemployment, higher education woes, hurricane relief, and the phony charity of her husband's fundamentalist base..."

"Apparently deciding that he hasn't blown the nation's future into oblivion quite as much as he'd hoped, President Bush finally heaved the Hail Mary Pass we all knew he had in the playbook."

Yep, that's the work of a happy, clear-eyed centrist, all right.

And, yes, you're welcome for the extra traffic.

"you're welcome for the extra traffic."

I *will* thank you. Thank you indeed!

Bwahahahahahahahahah, my plan is working to perfection!

Just so I understand your position - Mr. Taliban at Yale was admitted to avoid the inevitable screaming of the liberals? Huh? What's the problem saying, "Someone screwed up in government and he's shouldn't have been admitted to the US."

That's actually what happened. My view is quite charitable to the government, namely that this is part of a post Taliban agreement of some sort. The only other possible explanation is that our executive branch is so grossly incompetent that it simply rubber stamped the visa application which would be stunning since we were just at war with the Taliban.

Instead you rail against Yale and the supposed liberal "outrage" over not giving him a visa. An executive order halting all immigration from such places in the world seems like reasonable precaution after 9/11. Yet to you it's impossible task. It's not. It's just another example of the gross negligence of the last two administrations.

Mikey: I'd tell you not to flatter yourself, but then somebody's gotta do it.

Brian: Why exactly was Yale offering Mr Taliban a scholarship in the first place? You'd think somebody at that apex of politically correctness would've thought, "Hey, maybe it's not such a good idea to admit the mouthpiece of one of the most vile regimes on earth, people whose record on sexism and civil rights wasn't too good."

But, no. It's all Bush's fault...as usual. (For the record, I don't even care for George Bush much; it's just that his opponents are so very dreadful.)

RMc- Yale wasn't "offering him a scholarship" and he applied for a student visa. He had a student visa and applied at Yale (the order actually is important - see had student visa first). Scholarships at schools with endowments as large as Yales are pretty common.

I certainly am not "blaming Bush" but clearly the government is responsible for giving him a student visa? Clearly someone in the government signed off on it. Why don't you just say, "The government shouldn't have given him a student visa." Why do you seem hell bent on blaming Yale for the government giving this guy a student visa?

It's nonsense posts like yours posted at this forum are one of the reasons I stopped posting here. When I first started reading this blog - there were some great discussions about policy and economics. Now it often (although not always) degenerates into someone going all out to defend GWB.
" (For the record, I don't even care for George Bush much; it's just that his opponents are so very dreadful.)"

Since when did I give any endorsement to GWB's political opponents? Oh that's right. I actually didn't. I only care about competence. In this case the government screwed up. Here's a hint - Truman had a plaque that said, 'The Buck Stops Here.' In this administration nothing is their fault - not the horrific post war planning, not the incredibly poor response to Katrina etc. GWB is incapable of admitting a mistake. Remember during the election when asked about his biggest mistake and he couldn't think of any? If you don't think you make mistakes, then it's impossible to learn from them. This administration is a serial buck passer.

Clearly giving Mr. Taliban a student visa was a mistake. But not a mistake of the government, no it's actually Yale's fault for admitting. While Yale should not have admitted him, the government shouldn't have given him a student visa. But pointing out that the government shouldn't have given him a visa, makes it seem like you are attacking the President - which for some reason makes you incredibly upset.

Just admit he shouldn't have been granted a student visa and I will consider the issue closed.

In one paragraph you say: I certainly am not "blaming Bush", then in another: In this administration nothing is their fault - not the horrific post war planning, not the incredibly poor response to Katrina etc. Which is it?

GWB is incapable of admitting a mistake.

"Admitting mistakes" doesn't impress people like you in the slightest, in the short or long run; it just gives you more reasons to attack, attack, attack. Why should Bush (or any public figure) give their enemies more ammunition?

Why do you seem hell bent on blaming Yale for the government giving this guy a student visa?

There wouldn't be a need for a student visa if Yale wasn't interested in the guy in the first place. Why won't you admit that Yale made a huge mistake -- much larger than the government's -- in admitting this douchebag? Aren't there other, more qualified students, without such baggage?

Typical ivory tower thinking. The liberal elites would love to fight the Taliban -- really, they would -- but doing so would put them on the same side as Chimpy McHitler, and Gaia knows we can't have that...

RMC - The number of ad homimens in your post doesn't really make it worth replying to but here goes.

""Admitting mistakes" doesn't impress people like you in the slightest, in the short or long run; it just gives you more reasons to attack, attack, attack. Why should Bush (or any public figure) give their enemies more ammunition?"

No this is wrong. Admitting a mistake defuses the entire situation. The president's enemies are going to attack him no matter what. The idea that admitting a mistake gives them ammunition is silly. It does the exact opposite. It enables the President's defenders to say, "Nice point Democratic talking head but the president has already admitted he was wrong about that so let's move on". Anyone who would harp on a error the president has admitted would sound well like a harpy. It's gives the President the ability to say, that's old news let's move on. Please note I think this is a huge tactical mistake on the part of the administration. Even admitting small errors allows you to move past them and effectively bury them. Do you really think the Democratic leaders would go around repeating the President's admission of error? It makes them seem small and shrewish

"Why won't you admit that Yale made a huge mistake -- much larger than the government's -- in admitting this douchebag? Aren't there other, more qualified students, without such baggage?"

As I aleady said admitting him was a huge mistake UNLESS it was part of a larger post war settlement. I just can't imagine the government would process his F1 without more vetting. Perhaps I am imagining more competence in goverment than actually exists. I think admitting him was a huge mistake on Yale and the government's part.

Your response is pretty typical in that you have a hard time saying the administration made a mistake and that Yale's mistake was "larger" and therefore more responsible. I am uncertain what assigning degrees of responsibility means. He shouldn't have been admitted and the government should have given him a visa. Yet you still seem hell bent on defending the government. In other words passing the buck in order blame Yale. Your post demonstrates serial buck passing in action.

This is my last post on this - I gotta remember, "Don't feed the anonymous trolls"

Admitting a mistake defuses the entire situation. The president's enemies are going to attack him no matter what. The idea that admitting a mistake gives them ammunition is silly. It does the exact opposite.

When dealing with rational people, sure. Dealing with the crazy, out-of-power Dems (remember Jane's Law?), not so much. I can see it now:

GWB: "I see now I made some mistakes with Iraq."
Dems: "AHA! He ADMITS it!!"
GWB: "Aren't you going to give me credit for being man enough to admit my mistakes?"
Dems: "Hell, no! Impeach! IMPEACH...!!!"

Do you really think the Democratic leaders would go around repeating the President's admission of error? It makes them seem small and shrewish.

DING! Give that man twelve silver dollars! You've just described the Dems modus operandi. Actually, that's a good slogan: "The Democratic Party: Small And Shrewish Since 2001!"

He shouldn't have been admitted and the government should have given him a visa. Yet you still seem hell bent on defending the government.

And you're hell bent on defending Yale, the so-called defenders of the rights of gays and women, et. al., who enrolled the mouthpiece of the Taliban. Go look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary and get back to me.

This is my last post on this

I win! He's a coward!

I gotta remember, "Don't feed the anonymous trolls"

Remember, kids: if someone disgarees with you, he's a "troll"! It doesn't matter if you can't answer their arguments!

And anonymous? On the Internet?! Is nothing scared...?

Well I guess I will never learn.

1. I am not defending Yale. Every post I mention what huge mistake it was - yet somehow I am defending them. Please point out where I defended Yale? I merely pointed out that's it is silly to be only angry at Yale. Equal contempt should sent the governments way. Yet somehow this is defending Yale?

2. You are a troll - posting anyonmously to a message board. I on the other hand, post under my real name - linking back to my blog and email address. On that site you will find my phone number and office. In short I back my opinions with my identity. You do not.

3. I have answered every one of your "arguments." Your arguments apparently consist of Yale admitted the spokesperson of the Taliban and it's all part of the liberal elites secret love of terrorists. I don't think Yale is the only problem here. Yale doesn't admit people into this country - the government does.

I merely pointed out that the government bears some responsibility in granting the man a student visa. This somehow becomes an attack on the President to you.

RMc - You still haven't admitted the government shouldn't have admitted the man to the US. I find it remarkable that you can only lay blame at Yale's feet and not all the responsible parties. I have already stated in multiple posts Yale should not have admitted him. You need to admit the government shouldn't have granted him a visa.

Comments are Closed.