(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

uhm, what?

i'm with Althouse - who voted for the President btw - in that i'd like to see a full transcript of the phone call, but on the surface of what's been quoted all i can say is w.t.f.

Comments

[kernezelda]

After eight years of the Bush administration's secrecy and outright lies and moral hypocrisy, Obama using religious references in speaking to religious figures in his efforts to enact changes that are actually meant for the public good don't bother me a bit, especially considering the misinformation being spread by some Republicans in order to frighten voters, the same fear tactics that ran rampant through Bush's term.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

either a behavior is unacceptable in the public discourse or it isn't. if it was unacceptable for the previous President to engage in, then it's just as unacceptable for the current President to engage in.

[kernezelda]

There, you're right.

I just don't really find the use of religious terminology when speaking to religious figures objectionable. It feels like speaking their language, like when speaking to a body of economists, you might use economic terminology.

If Obama gave a state address and couched it in religious terms, that would bother me a lot. I don't know if a President could get away with completely secular speeches, though, since to my memory, most of them have made at least some references to religion in major national speeches.

I'm sorry if I was snappish in that earlier comment, by the way. Often, what I think is a calm discourse comes off as snappy or strident. (I don't think I was snappish, but then it's not me who might have been offended.) Stars said I [must be] feeling feisty, like, am I usually too mild for words or something? Anyway, just in case, I apologize.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

first, no worries, really.

the sigh was from my personal frustration with public discussion seeming to be unable - or in some cases unwilling - to discuss current issues on their own merits or lack thereof without pointing to the previous administration. that guy's not President anymore, this guy is. if X behavior was demonic/satantic/evil/unpatriotic/bad/stupid intolerable when that guy was in office, then X behavior is still intolerable now.

as to the religious terminology, while, yes, that's a totally valid point which i get completely, if the previous President had done that - or rather, when the previous President did that - he was vilified for attempting to start a theocracy and of blurring the lines of separation between church and state. a criticism, btw, that i didn't necessarily believe to be invalid.

so, my point, imho, still stands; it's either acceptable behavior in public discourse or it isn't.

democracy is messy and it's hard. we can continue as a nation to play the blame game and spin in place, or we can choose not to and make some forward progress.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

it's statements like this one that really cause me concern:

"Referring to the belief that God decides during the Jewish New Year “who shall live and who shall die,” Obama told the rebs, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.”

the arrogance in that statement is stunning. were i a practicing Catholic, my response to him would be in no way kind. as a non-practicing Catholic, my reaction is totally secular, in that, i am both terrified and horrified by the President of my country just essentially comparing himself to a god in matters of life and death.

[kernezelda]

Ok, I don't see it like that, because that's what any one of a number of people do on a daily basis. Doctors make these decisions, generals do, police on the street and even people defending their homes. Anyone in a situation involving danger either medical or immediately physical makes decisions that could and do end in death. The President has the duty and the responsibility to decide where to send soldiers in war, where to send disaster relief or not to send it, etc. Life and death decisions are part of the job.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

no disagreement as to the life and death decision-making that goes on everywhere on a daily basis, both at all levels and at the President's level. i spent 20 years doing it myself. but not even the most arrogant of my cops ever would make a statement like that. they're not "partners with God", they're emergency services workers, or doctors, or soldiers, or generals. imho, the difference is vast.

[kernezelda]

I take your point at the language used. That's a little bit over the top. He might have gotten carried away with the oratory.

It's late, so I think I will heed your icon and turn my attention to re-watching FS. *g* The intent is to finish Season 1 over the weekend, and I'm on TGAS.

[simplystars.livejournal.com]

Stars said I [must be] feeling feisty, like, am I usually too mild for words or something?>

*plbt* I said that to you in an *email*, having no idea of the context of anything but you saying you were commenting in people's LJs when you usually don't. And, you know, throwing around words like "Rockne's insane" or something.

And I am sleep deprived and it's the beginning of school! So you shouldn't go expecting my brain to actually be coherent or anything.

Fortunately for everyone involved I am too tired to sulk. :-p

[kernezelda]

Awwwww. I didn't really say Rockne is insane. I just said his vision of Farscape as interpreted by KRAD via the latest comic is insane. *wide eyes*

And I comment on LJs occasionally. :P

Plus, I sent you a virtual coupon for a day spa!

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

see my reply to kerne.

though, re capital punishment, yes, i think that arrogance does apply and it's part of the problem i have with it.

calling capital punishment "justice" is, totally imho, an absolute lie. it's vengeance. which, honestly, i don't really have a problem with, but call it that.

and i believe that because, to me, actual justice is making that person pay for the absolute, literal rest of their life for their crimes. in death, they're released from payment. the victim [or victim's family] has to deal with the aftermath of the crime for the rest of *their* life, why shouldn't the criminal also?

and sure, one could make a spiritual argument that the convicted will burn in Hell for eternity, but i have no way to know that for sure, do i? i'm not God. and the afterlife is God's justice, not humanity's.

and honestly, the convicted might actually be genuinely penitent, in which case, i would hope that God would forgive, as advertised.

but for me the victim, or victim's family, or society at large, *my* version of the convicted actually paying for their crime is being denied their freedoms and living in prison for the rest of their life. *that's* justice.

my other issue with capital punishment is the arrogance and hubris of us [the justice system] believing in its relative infallibility. [Duke Lacrosse case i'm lookin' at you.]

and sure, there's a very valid argument to be made that it's the best system we have so far, but when someone's actual life is at stake, ie: us playing God, then i want a damn sight more than "best so far", yanno?

there was just a study released where scientists proved that DNA evidence could be faked. faked.

if the maximum punishment then, is capped at Actual LIfe In Prison, and it was later discovered that the conviction was wrong, then that person is still alive to be released....and we've seen a few of those these last couple of years. the most recent, i believe, was a guy wrongfully convicted of rape released after 25 years in prison.

a quarter of a century stolen from someone because we got it wrong. which, hey, happens when you're dealing with fallible humans and not, you know, all-knowing deities.

i haven't had a discussion like this since my "Problem of God" class circa, 1982.

heh. it's always intellectually fun when grown ups are participating. the question is fascinatingly thorny.