Thursday, December 27

Thank you, David Ignatius


In today's Washington Post:

Anyone who reads Adams and Jefferson -- or for that matter, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or other voices of the American Enlightenment -- can make their own judgment about what the Founders would say about Romney's broadside against secularism. My guess is that their response would be something like: "That is bunkum, sir."

Of course, Jefferson is the founding father voted "most likely Blue Gal would Do Him". Yeah, I woulda done him, because as Merrill Peterson wrote:

"As his character was somewhat labyrinthian, so his mind was bewildering in its range and complexity.”

In other words, he's my type.

The sad part is there are Americans who are Christian who if forced Clockwork Orange-style to read the entire American Enlightenment oeuvre

The First Amendment, read it!


would still deny that the founders were anything other than Bible-thumping Christianists, and that the earth is six thousand years old in spite of the fjords alone telling them differently. "Ye shall know the truth" just does not register with these folks. I shake my head in shame to think that, yeah in name only, but still, I share nationality and religion with them.

14 comments:

  1. I understand he was a frisky fellow...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aw, Jefferson was just a bezoomny old chelloveck that didn't believe in almighty Bog. Horrorshow for the glazzies to see his picture on your blog, though. What thinkst thou of his new platties, oh my sister?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If only these gloopy gazettas govoreeting well of these prestoopnik charlie chasers could viddy the lewdies all fagged from their hound-and-horny chepooka, they'd have a steamer in their nuking neezhnies.

    Too much for the malenky mozg, my bratties.

    ;>)

    ReplyDelete
  4. well, i don't know how to say it in burgess' nadsat, but i just dropped by to wish you and yours happy holidays, bluegal!

    ReplyDelete
  5. i would say they're not Christians, they are un-American, and they are dangerous..... religious fascists like fascist politics as well..... it's damn near a matter of temperment.

    LinkThe Rebel Jesus

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mitt would have a lot of trouble with Franklin's Hellfire club. Actualy, Franklin's woman in every port lifestyle was probably closer to Bill Clinton's. Religion has no place in national policy. The true litmus test is the ability to understand the Constitution, not the Ten Commandments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So many of these folks couch their evil in their so-called "Christian faith".

    In any event, today is the 350th anniversary of the Flushing Remonstrance, which I did a post about awhile ago and reposted with new comments today.

    And you BG are probably aware that it was in defense of a movement against the "abominable sect of Quakers".

    Has so little changed?

    Don't answer that!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ya know 'Gal, when Mitt made that speech and referred to "...the Anti-Religion of Secularism..." I thought I'd hear that turn of phrase denounced as a kind of "Anti-Christ Lite" allusion. But if anyone squawked about it, they weren't very loud!

    The Christocrats are repeating their message with an alarmingly effective frequency, and I'm afraid it's "taking" with an awful lot of people!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Christianists! Persackly!

    And i also thank you humbly for pointing out my photoblog to so many enlightened and wonderful people! I bow with uncharacteristic pomp and flourish.

    -z

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're welcome Zen send me your email. bluegalsblog AT gmail

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here comes the tragic and weepy-like part, oh my brothers.

    From the Great Awakening to the Red Scare, people have fallen back on slogans like "we were founded as a Christian nation" or want to adhere to some fanciful notion that Christianity as an entity is growing extinct and as such must be preserved at all cost.

    The people who advance the latter precept might want to reconsider their approach, being that it doesn't take into account the reason WHY people drifted away from more orthodox conceptions of religion in the first place. Instead, the philosophy they espouse layers guilt and shame on thick and resorts to wholesale condemnation. Lapsed believers do not often take kindly to punitive measures, particularly those which use fear as a way to preface their arguments. For as many people who are scared into believing, there are an equal number who are utterly repulsed by the tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't think they would have said bunkum, because the word wasn't coined until the 1800s.

    I'm off topic again, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let's remember that the religious wackos are a minority. They seem bigger than life because W threw them a bone now and again in exchange for votes, but the rightwingers are frothing at the idea of Huckabee winning the GOP nod. they hate him. As an aside, I have a friend who has some republican friends that he sees from time to time. They are in DC and think W is just fine. Interesting tidbit: they told him that if Giuliani is the candidate, they will vote for the democrat. I asked, "why Giuliani? Why not Huckabee?" He said that they just hate Giuliani and they think Huckabee is a non-starter. My guess is that they support McCain.

    ReplyDelete

I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!