Skip to main content

View Diary: Know Your Creationists: Kent Hovind (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Free speech is great (none)
    Free lies are not.

    The right to free speech is not a right to LIE.

    O'BRIEN: What if Jesus got this card? Would he be angry about it? He's be OK with it, wouldn't he? DONOHUE: Well, maybe he would, but I've never met him

    by PoliMorf on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 05:50:34 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The internets disagree about the (none)
      attribution for this quote, but I was reminded of the "Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

      (Anyone know where this comes from?  I'm after the citation, not the person...)

      -9.25, -7.54

      Yikes. Good thing I don't have guns.

      by Marc in KS on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:36:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sure it is (none)
      a right to tell the most outrageous lies right out in public with an attendent duty to allow any other citizen to stand up and prove it was a lie. When the conservatives began this quest, way back in the 1950's, they understood that they had to attack across a very wide spectrum. They have successfully compromised the free press and the education system and now they are working on objective, independent thought. The first ammendment exists so we can fight back, but we have to actually do it. That's one of the reasons I'm so proud of this group. There's some good fighting back going on here.

      "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

      by johnmorris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:38:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know why I am doing this, (none)
        but I feel compelled to mention that back when all this started, it was not mainstream conservatives who proposed a return to ignorance and some bizarre sort of biblical law.  It was a fringe group that has since come to dominate the party, because of electoral success.

        Part of it is the Straussians, I think.  The neocons.  They learned to use the religious right, and man, did they learn to use it effectively.  

        What we have going for us is the chance that the religious right is going to desert the repubs and fade again into the fringes.  I think they'll desert in large numbers as soon as it is clear to them that the repubs do not really want to make them happy -- they want the religious right to be angry so that they'll come out and vote.  That's why I don't expect a wholesale overturning of Roe (they'll just pick it to death), I don't expect a wholesale dissolution of the separation of church and state (although they'll pick at that, too).  They want the religious right to come out and vote, and if all their dreams have come true, they won't.

        But back in the 50's you actually had some responsible conservatives.  Eisenhower would be a great example.  More I learn about him, the more I admire him.

        -9.25, -7.54

        Yikes. Good thing I don't have guns.

        by Marc in KS on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:05:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is (none)
          a more cogent explanation of what I was talking about.

          http://www.mindfully.org/...

          The movement that started working this way in the early 60's dated back to the mid 50's. Its never been about religion. Its been about aristocratic rule and transfer of money to the rich. The ignorance of the christian right is just a tool, but a very important one.

          "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

          by johnmorris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:23:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't really agree about Eisenhower... (none)
          From Wiki:

          The words "under God" were added to the Pledge on 14 June 1954 when then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law that placed the words "under God" into the pledge. At the time, Eisenhower stated that:

          "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

          Not exactly standing up to the religious right of the '50s...

          9/11 didn't change the Constitution!

          by Prof Dave on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:26:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe, maybe. (none)
            I don't know.  I just want to think that somewhere, sometime in my lifetime there's been at least one principled conservative.  Ike had the foresight to warn us of what's going on now in Congress, and he dreaded it.  He was principled.

            I don't know how to take the quote, but I do think you've got a point: it seems pandering, although when you read about him it also seems quite consistent with his beliefs.  I think his experience of the war was that it was a great crusade against evil; for him his role in that war seems to have been built on a religious belief in the correctness of the war.

            But even before he was a politician, he was a politican-general.  So it may well have been pandering.

            Nonetheless, I think it is true that american conservatism was not so rabidly anti-science in those days.  That's something much newer.

            -9.25, -7.54

            Yikes. Good thing I don't have guns.

            by Marc in KS on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:36:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  pandering generals (none)
              Read "A Bridge Too Far" and you will see that politial pandering during war cost a lot of lives.

              Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.

              by mollyd on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:35:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  In the Eisenhower days... (none)
              The Republicans did not have to cater to the ignorant Southern racist religious South. Since Nixon, that group has been the key block of their national power.

              That's why in 1980 Bush I had to switch from pro-choice to the anti-abortion position when he ran against Reagan for the Republican Nomination for Predsident.

              Anyone who says he or she votes for the man rather than the Party needs to look at that kind of history. Individuals bend to match the required characteristics of getting nominated in the Party rather than bending the Party to match their personal characteristics.

              Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

              by Rick B on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:59:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  it wasn't pandering to the religious right (none)
              That's a considerable misunderstanding of the political framework at the time.  See, e.g.,

              http://www.religioustolerance.org/...

              In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3

              The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism.

              •  I didn't think I was asserting it was (none)
                pandering to the religious right.  I don't think that in the 1950's there really was a religious right.

                I really don't think it was pandering at all; I believe he was being genuine.

                Putting it in the context of battling godless communism makes me more confident in that belief.

                -9.25, -7.54

                Yikes. Good thing I don't have guns.

                by Marc in KS on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 05:44:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Prof Dave implied it and you said maybe maybe (none)
                  but resisted the charge.  I provided material to support your resistance -- I wasn't saying that you asserted that Eisenhower was pandering to the religious right.
          •  that wasn't the religous right (none)
            it was all about a reaction to "Godless communism".
    •  lies aren't great but they are our right (none)
      Making illegal everything that's not great would produce a dismal result.  It our legal right to lie, because lies are speech and we have an unfettered right of speech.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site