Alan Keyes, the only true conservative in the race

[mozartsneighbor]

Besides the fact most of the personages you see in the film were duped into appearing like fools thanks to artful trickery and post production editing, i'd say the fact Keyes is against homosexuality is further demonstration that he is a man of unflinching principles. After all, the bible is pretty damn specific regarding the act of homosexuality in the eyes of god and i don't see how anybody can be a Christian and somehow turn the other way when the issue comes up. This pretty much plays into my argument.

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
I hope you have been following the good book on all your slave purchases as well.
I also hope you and Keyes have been keeping up with all the other marvelous prohibitions in the Old Testament: eating shell-fish is an abomination, Leviticus 11:9-12, (that's right, cancel the reservations at Red Lobster); and the prohibition against wearing clothing woven of 2 different fibers, Leviticus 19:19 (time to throw away the 5% polyester socks).

And if you are looking for some more moral guidance from fairy-tales you might want to look into "The Three Little Piggies" -- I have always found that enlightening.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

This is good news for me. I think a Kazakh or Mongolian slave would cost me a lot less than a Canadian or Mexican one.

On the other hand, Finnish slaves are probably quite expensive.

[owlice]

i'd say the fact Keyes is against homosexuality is further demonstration that he is a man of unflinching principles.

There are lots of people "against" homosexuality, but to my mind, that's like being against blue eyes, someone who's over 6'2", or naturally red hair.

The US wanting a separation between church and state, I suggest you look elsewhere than the Bible for your governmental inspiration. If you prefer to live in a theocracy, fine, but then, I think *I* should decide under which God you live. If you're not okay with that, then you need to adjust your thinking.

And Keyes is a nutjob. He couldn't find much traction here for his nutjobiness, so moved elsewhere. Yay for that.

[karlhenning]

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

I hope you have been following the good book on all your slave purchases as well.

Mockery in the form of blithe disregard of questions of interpretation of the complex document which is the Bible, fails to make your point.  OTOH, probably your only "point" in this post was scorn. Viz.:

And if you are looking for some more moral guidance from fairy-tales you might want to look into "The Three Little Piggies" -- I have always found that enlightening.

Ah, yes, yet another thread in the Diner where people of faith are just "idiots" who believe in "fairy-tales."

[Kullervo]

I think, Karl, that it was directed more at the book of Leviticus (which is rarely ever taught in church IIRC, except when fundies want to justify why they hate boys who like boys).

[Jay F]

By the same logic, a person who advocates stoning unruly children can be considered a man of unflinching principles.

He doesn't want to stone his daughter because she's unruly. He wants to stone her because she's gay.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well of course, i do believe our civilization has rotted beyond repair, and i take all signs of degeneracy as proof our decline has reached critical mass.

Oh please, cut the crap. If our civiilization has rotted beyond repair, those of us here wouldn't be listening to Beethoven and the Metropolitan Museum of Art wouldn't be visited by thousands each day.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think, Karl, that it was directed more at the book of Leviticus (which is rarely ever taught in church IIRC, except when fundies want to justify why they hate boys who like boys).

Including, no doubt, such men of unflinching principles as Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc..

[Kullervo]

Including, no doubt, such men of unflinching principles as Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc..

And Aaron Copland, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, Piotr Tchaikovsky, André Gide, Francis Poulenc, etc.

[(poco) Sforzando]

And Aaron Copland, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, Piotr Tchaikovsky, André Gide, Francis Poulenc, etc.

But that's a different type of individual. My examples were of the pastors and politicians who loudly bray their opposition to homosexuality, while sneaking around with boys and men on the side (and then denying, denying, denying). The word for such men of "unflinching principles" is "hypocrite." Personally, I would prefer less "Christian" baggage and more tolerance.

[Kullervo]

But that's a different type of individual. My examples were of the pastors and politicians who loudly bray their opposition to homosexuality, while sneaking around with boys and men on the side (and then denying, denying, denying). The word for such men of "unflinching principles" is "hypocrite." Personally, I would prefer less "Christian" baggage and more tolerance.

I misunderstood you, then. I apologize.

[Todd]

...is further demonstration that he is a man of unflinching principles.

And what, pray tell, are his principles beyond homophobia?  Do they include unprincipled politics, such as hopping on a plane to another state to get clobbered by Barack Obama in a senate race?  What principles did he espouse then?  Flouting the spirit of democracy?  What a principled fellow.  Keyes is an intelligent guy, and a good, if at times too fast, talker, but he's also a far-right crackpot worthy of plenty of derision and ridicule.

[Joe_Campbell]

And what, pray tell, are his principles beyond homophobia?  Do they include unprincipled politics, such as hopping on a plane to another state to get clobbered by Barack Obama in a senate race?  What principles did he espouse then?  Flouting the spirit of democracy?  What a principled fellow.  Keyes is an intelligent guy, and a good, if at times too fast, talker, but he's also a far-right crackpot worthy of plenty of derision and ridicule.

Yes. He is afraid of homosexuals.

[drogulus]

Those points are fair, I suppose, however I wonder if it's true that "garden variety politicians" really want to live in the same country as the average Joe. Are their goals truly the same? Considering the influence lobbyists wield, how much special interests dictate policy, I must question the notion that the common people are served by their politicians. Then of course, it has often been noted how much corporations affect politicians, and their interests are not always the same as that of the average man or woman.

I'm not saying Paul, Keyes or any other fringe politician truly speaks for the people, most often they do not, but how often do the "mainstream" politicians stand for the common man? The prevailing prejudice among the jaded is of course that all politicians are lying scumbags, and that perception most certainly has been reinforced these last eight years. I guess you would not include the current administration under the heading "garden variety politicians"? Would McCain or Obama be more in tune with the common folk? I seem to recall Bush's folksy antics were a contributing factor to his popularity; he was a guy with whom you could have a beer. Well, we see now what kind of a country he envisioned, and if we're to go on polls, the common man disagrees with him.

I'd say most of the people in power have a different vision for their country than do the average person. Do you really think a cross-section of congress or the senate would show you anything near the diversity of a cross-section of the populace? With a two-party system where on many, many policies the parties are just the same, how good can you represent the variety of thought and opinion in the entire country? Can you truly represent it at all?

     Why not let the average person decide who represents them? By that standard, the average politician is what he/she is designed to be, and Paul and Keyes are as unrepresentative as they appear. Politicians have to split the difference between constituencies and so-called special interests. They should do that. If I were in Congress I would consider it my task to both represent those who elected me (including to some extent those who voted against me) and the various interests that press their claims.

     I would be happy to overrule the opinion of my constituents in favor of a special interest when it's the right thing to do. Most politicians are scared to do that, so I find it heartening to see them take positions that will get them in trouble with voters. And yet they do that again and again. The 'bums" that we throw out are usually guilty of voting for unpopular but worthy measures. It's the average thing to do.

     If a computer designed an average politician, it would look like Joe Biden. Does he represent me? Yes, he mostly does. That's because the voters designed him with elections, so he fits perfectly.

Mockery in the form of blithe disregard of questions of interpretation of the complex document which is the Bible, fails to make your point.  OTOH, probably your only "point" in this post was scorn. Viz.:

Ah, yes, yet another thread in the Diner where people of faith are just "idiots" who believe in "fairy-tales."

     And another clueless response from you indicating you can't see the problem. No, the interpretation problem is clearly yours. You wish to interpret away what embarrasses you. The only interpretation you'll accept is one that's unfaithful to the ugly truth. And the point is not scorn. It's resolute opposition to what you stand for but are embarrassed to state publicly. And you are the last person capable of deciding what the point "probably" is.

     The correct interpretation is that slavery is slavery, stoning stands for stoning, hatred and murder of neighbors because your god says do it is murder. And it doesn't matter whether you believe this because a fairy tale says so or your brave independent conscience tells you, but as a matter of fact it's the equivalent of a fairy tale, which is pathetic but doesn't really alter the nastiness of your belief. It wouldn't be any better if Lenin told you to slaughter your neighbors, and it wouldn't be worse.

[Daidalos]

     Why not let the average person decide who represents them? By that standard, the average politician is what he/she is designed to be, and Paul and Keyes are as unrepresentative as they appear. Politicians have to split the difference between constituencies and so-called special interests. They should do that. If I were in Congress I would consider it my task to both represent those who elected me (including to some extent those who voted against me) and the various interests that press their claims.

     I would be happy to overrule the opinion of my constituents in favor of a special interest when it's the right thing to do. Most politicians are scared to do that, so I find it heartening to see them take positions that will get them in trouble with voters. And yet they do that again and again. The 'bums" that we throw out are usually guilty of voting for unpopular but worthy measures. It's the average thing to do.

     If a computer designed an average politician, it would look like Joe Biden. Does he represent me? Yes, he mostly does. That's because the voters designed him with elections, so he fits perfectly.

My suggestion would be that the U.S. democratic system is not sensitive enough to produce this "design" in its politicians. In the perfect democracy, politicians should be indeed reflections of the public will, but its very rare that they are. Consider, the decks are stacked from the beginning since you really only have two viable parties from which to choose. Furthermore, consider a pervasive media that has its own stake in the elections, and which will shape the attitudes of the populace with its often distortive coverages. Then, we have the politicians themselves, tailoring the message to fit bullet-point type speeches, manufacturing an image ("maverick", "change" etc.) that is far more important than the issues.

I would claim that these factors (and many more) diminish the selective pressure voters can exert on their politicians. In the end, due to all of the deception, the voters are electing figments that have been presented before them, not the actual values and issues that are hidden beneath the presentation. Further, I would suggest that the design of which you speak manifests itself more in these manufactured personas that the politicians assume to get votes, rather than actual policies.

If we are to draw an evolution parallel, the politicians that are most fit are not those whose actual policies reflect the wishes of the populace, but the politicians whose perceived policies can be most easily marketed. It is a case of mimicry that is more convincing than the real deal. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a form of sexual selection, where the politicians dazzle us (their potential mates) with the magnificence of their plumage (their media-manufactured images). We, of course, swoon at their bravado, and fall for their pretty lies and cheap gifts. Then of course, they cheat on us, but really, we deserve it. But it hurts, nonetheless.

BTW, I'm not necessarily saying any democracy on Earth is better than the US, that is another question for another thread.

EDIT: Silly English illustrative metaphors... and typos

[Jay F]

And Aaron Copland, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, Piotr Tchaikovsky, André Gide, Francis Poulenc, etc.

Franz Schubert and David Diamond, too.

[Wendell_E]

Mockery in the form of blithe disregard of questions of interpretation of the complex document which is the Bible

Yeah, only homophobes are allowed to blithely disregard such questions of interpretation when they quote their favorite cherry-picked passages from Leviticus.  

[adamdavid80]

And if you are looking for some more moral guidance from fairy-tales you might want to look into "The Three Little Piggies" -- I have always found that enlightening.

that does it miguel!  I wont have you making these veiled slights at sarah palin like that!

(pig?  lipstick?  anyone?)

[Kullervo]

Franz Schubert and David Diamond, too.

And countless others, but as I misinterpreted Sfzorzando's comment it's really a moot point in this discussion.

[Jay F]

Yes. He is afraid of homosexuals.

It is unfortunate that "phobia" has been attached to "homo" in trying to describe the Religious Right Wing's opinion of gays, because they are not afraid of gays. Clearly, they should be called "gayhaters," as in "Alan Keyes is such a gayhater, he disowned his lesbian daughter."

What they do, the gayhaters, should be called "gayhating" (which term can also be used adjectivally, as in "the gayhating head of Focus on the Family," or "The Religious Right met in Colorado Springs this weekend to discuss their 2009 Gayhating Agenda).

Fear of gays, you are right, has never been the issue.