home

Religion and Politics in Ohio

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:53:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The religious right, hoping to tear down the wall that keeps a respectful distance between church and state, is working "to win control of local government posts and Republican organizations" in Ohio.

In a manifesto that is being circulated among church leaders and on the Internet, the group, which is called the Ohio Restoration Project, is planning to mobilize 2,000 evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic leaders in a network of so-called Patriot Pastors to register half a million new voters, enlist activists, train candidates and endorse conservative causes in the next year.

Pastor Russell Johnson of the Fairfield Christian Church takes credit for the election of a half dozen congregants to local political offices, including Fairfield County Sheriff Dave Phalen. Here's a taste of things to come if Johnson has his way in statewide elections:

Sheriff Phelan's official letterhead now reads, "With God, all things are possible."

Some Republicans fear that the efforts of religious extremists to move the party even farther to the right will alienate voters, leading to Republican losses. The Restoration Project supports Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the most conservative of three Republicans seeking to replace Bob Taft as governor in 2006.

In a three-way primary, many Republican leaders say, Mr. Blackwell has a solid chance of winning because conservatives represent much of the party's base. But moderates worry that he could alienate independent voters and lose the general election. Some are discussing enlisting the White House to prod Mr. Blackwell to quit the race.

Would the president alienate his right-wing religious base by discouraging one of their favored candidates from running? If Blackwell wins the primary, will Ohio voters protect the state from an evangelical takeover by voting for a Democrat?

< TX Regulator Lies to Help Railroads | Cheney Opposes Reform of Military Tribunals >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Religion and Politics in Ohio | 64 comments (64 topical)
    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    Nothing could be more dangerous in this country than to have the American Taliban in charge of anything!

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    Don't get upset, bush will just sell ohio to mexico soon. and to Ed Beckmann we have a Taliban its name is bush/business and its doing the same thing as bin laden and business, are working hard to dismantle the USA,and for the same reason of religion and hate of a free people, just like in Ohio.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    yep. I'm sure the IRS investigated them and revoked their tax exempts status, oh, wait, they're white churches that support the christofascists. never mind[/latella]

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    Ed Beckmann is right.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    "With God, all things are possible." is the state "motto" of Ohio. Has been for decades. Ick.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    Keep going leftists and call them the American Taliban. It not creates resentment from religious moderates, but also energizes their base. American Taliban is equal to them using the terms godless communists. Grow up. They are allowed to participate in the system just like leftists are. Just beat them instead of whining and saying the sky is falling. Remember, if they win it's because more people agree with them. You have to win over their hearts and minds.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    Given TalkLeft's general positio against all things conservative, I would think you would see this as a good thing, since it almsot surely will in fact alienate some of the more moderate Republican voters. Beyond that, it's politics as usual. There is no difference between hard core conservatives religous types and hard core liberal atheist types running for office. It's their country too and they have every right to try to steer it in the direction they want it to go. You may not like that direction; I certainly don't; but if you want to stop them, you'll have to do it at the ballot box. There is no law against people of faith serving in public office.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    energizes their base All 20% of it or so. Damn, this is going to be funny. Someone's forgotten that with a 51% mandate, you don't have to piss off an awful lot of people to lose.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:03:39 PM EST
    Bocajeff The American Taliban know who they are. I know who they are. When they start telling you what to say, read, think, who to marry, and who to hate you'll know who they are or moderate Republicans will help you know who they are. We had a revolution to shake off the restraints of a Theocratic Monarchy. Tyranny by the left or the right is still tyranny.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    They are allowed to participate in the system just like leftists are. Wrong. Their participation is granted tax-exempt status while, which the leftists (and honest rightists) do not enjoy. This is not "just like." It is now time to revoke religion's tax-exempt status, except where their charitable giving meets the same burden of proof that everyone else has to meet. If they want to whine "render unto Caesar" about it, that is their privilege.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF... 1sr Amendment U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine)

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#12)
    by Rick B on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    The religious right took total control of the Republican Party in Texas two decades ago. That is now the party that has total control of the Texas government and judiciary. Since there isn't much in terms of an independent press in this state, their shenanigans are not widely publicized, but read the Texas Republican Party's platform for 2004 and 2000. That is the direction they want to take the US.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    Maybe they'll succeed in passing other narrow-minded legislation like last November's same sex marriage bill. They wanted to be so sure to eliminate even civil unions, that they used language that just allowed a felony domestic violence charge to be dropped to misdemeanor assault. A guy hit his live-in girlfriend, but to charge him with domestic violence would confer some sort of status on their unmarried relationship, a no-no according to their new law.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#14)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    Another lovely strawman from the low card... Last time I looked, no Church was prohibited from practicing their religion. However, they do risk their tax free status if they decide to abuse their tax free status by moving from religion to the realm of practicing politics.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    et al - Did anybody count the number of black churches Kerry prached in?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    Jesus had no political party.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#17)
    by demohypocrates on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    Jesus appointed Sharpton the local get-out-the-vote-advocate.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#18)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    No, I'll leave that line to the Legislature, subject to the Executive for ratification, and the Independent Judiciary for constitutional review. As the constitution states we should.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    MEANWHILE, This is the county where I grew up, and I must say that I am not surprised. There has been a bit of a movement towards religion here, even though the majority of the county's population growth in the environs of Lancaster, the county seat, is from Columbus commuters. Fiscal-conservative Republican types for sure, but not bible-thumpers.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 02:38:13 AM EST
    TL: "The Restoration Project supports Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell" That's Katherine Blackwell. aka Karl Rove's boy. Refused to allow the legally-ordered recount of Ohio in the 2004 coup. Ohio's largest e-voting company, Triad Systems, replaced circuit boards in tabulation machines (a felony) before a recall could be held, across the state. That action invalidates the election in those precincts. They also, cough, provided FALSE NUMBERS to be reported to recount officials (another felony). Blackwell has already run for "Inmate at Youngstown Private Prison" and he's done the crime to deserve his seat on the metal bench next to the president of Triad.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 03:09:37 AM EST
    Oops, "...Triad Systems, replaced circuit boards in tabulation machines (a felony) before a RECOUNT could be held, across the state. (not, 'recall.' The 'recall' stolen election in CA is another issue, with the same causes. CA has already gotten rid of the SecState who certified that dog and pony show, but now Schwartz. is trying to put in a crony of the Diebold felons as his replacement, in advance of a raft of initiatives in a special election to 'swap out' our government, ala a certain European dictator, to drive our state into the, profitable-corrupt, ditch by total misuse of the referendum process).

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 05:57:52 AM EST
    I just hope there are enough secularists in Ohio to balance out the superstitous loons.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 07:12:55 AM EST
    Merlin, So your entire thesis boils down to yet another version of that long-time Democratic mantra "Republicans = Racists"? I would hope we could do better than that.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 07:16:27 AM EST
    Adept - Nice zap, my compliments. Fact is, black churches have been working for and with demo candidates for years. Should they? I don't know. Initally it was one of the few ways they could actually get in the processs and cause change. But now??? As for these folks, sounds like they are just getting out the vote. Fair and goose and gander.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:10:03 AM EST
    All 20% of it or so. It seems some of the lessons of the last Presidential election are lost here. Who is President? How did the One Man, One Woman marriage referendums go? The Democratics hoped for a vote against Bush but got a vote against liberals - esp God bashing liberals. The American voting population seems to be a little right of center at the moment - largely in reaction to cherished values arising from their superstitous loon beliefs being tread on by the 20% or so with with no respect for their majority belief in God. I spent enough years trying to convince the middle that they were reactionary racists to know it doesn't buy you many votes. Show some respect please.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:21:49 AM EST
    Just paul The Repuglicans are guilty of the "New Racism" a much more cynical. ie. The assault on Affirmitive action, Anti unionism, Opposition to programs for the poor, The death penalty and so on. They continuosly deny racism but thier actions speak louder then their words.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:25:19 AM EST
    Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference. - Howdy Doody advice for anyone thinking of engaging with PPJ

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:38:10 AM EST
    I respect their right to believe in a man in the sky, but I can't respect the belief itself. I agree w/ Bill Maher, religion is a mental defect. My "superstitous loons" comment stands. I call 'em as I see 'em.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    Ed, So we now have to redefine racism so that it can be used against those we disagree with while the old definition still applies to far too many on the left? Calling Republicans racist as a political party and hoping that will somehow carry the tide in Ohio is betting an an ever diminishing rate of return. Most people are smart enough to see that it wasn't "the first black president" who appointed blacks to high positions in the government, it was "the racist Republican". Very soon they'll also see that it's not the Republicans who are standing in their way but the Democrats who continue to justify government programs on the grounds that black people cannot get ahead on their own merits. But hey, if that's the way you want to see politics, I suppose it works for you.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    and the fact is im a republican who was a arrested in 1971 at HEW during the Mayday demonstrations. Dont let your stereotypes get in the way of your intellect

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    Just Paul, You sound so confused! Allow me to help you through the doublespeak and sort things out:
    So we now have to redefine racism so that it can be used against those we disagree with while the old definition still applies to far too many on the left?
    The "old" definition is someone who thinks consiously that those of African decent are mentally inferior to whites and therefore deserving of equal treatment. Democrats like JFK and Lyndon Johnson fought against the segregationist Southern Democrats to establish Civil Rights as specially protected under the constitution. However, as it became more socially unappealing to be racist, equal opportunity programs were established to minimize the "unconscious" racism that projects stereotyped images stored in our unconscious to decisions about employability, trustworthiness, productivity and teamwork. However, as the Democratic party embraced diversity in the 60's and 70's and Black voters increasingly identified with the Democratic party, the Republicans slowly emerged as the "Good ole Boy" party. Just as the Masters of old showed off "Uncle Tom" as their example of a happy, contented slave who was "really like part of the family" (except for sleeping in the hall outside the masters door for 40 years!), those who want to preserve White European power in the US or protect the dissemination of capital to the masses hire the Clarence Thomases, The Colin Powells (sadly) and the J.C. Wattses to tell us "I's doin' real fahn Boss"! and to remind us that "If they could be successful in America, any African-American can regardless of their race. Therefore, I don't see J.C. Watts coming on Face the Nation telling Black Folks that Bush isn't a racist as actual progress towards race relations. I see dialog. I see the rest of America listening to understand the pain of the African Diaspora in America, which many don't (for a crash course, read Toni Morrison's Beloved) I see folks really looking at why during every economic recession and recovery for the last century blacks have been the first fired and the last ones hired back, (and, while we're at it, why white guys who meet me think I'm a real classy lady until they meet my bi-racial son!). I have had someone on the streets of Harvard Square (!) tell me that I and my son deserve to be killed. I won't even mention the looks I get while transfering planes at Raleigh Durham Airport. Does that help a little, JustPaul? If you need more references, I suggest PBS's "Africans in America" and a little research on Grant's "40 acres and a mule" and other unfulfulled promises of Reconstruction. Just out of curiosity (assuming you don't consider yourself a blatant racist) How DO you explain the vast gap in family assets and capital between Black and White families?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:23:11 AM EST
    Correction, 1st PP: The "old" definition is someone who thinks consiously that those of African decent are mentally inferior to whites and therefore deserving of UNequal treatment.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    Posted by: mfox on March 22, 2005 08:56 AM "...but I survived without too much of a chip on my shoulder."

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    Mfox You said it better than I. If you listened to Paul you hear the twisted justification of, as I call it, the "New Racism". I bristle at those who attack affimitive action as "Reverse Racism" This is a perfect example of the New Racism's twisted logic sponsored by the repugs for political gain.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    Ah mfox, Always the one to run to the rescue of every liberal wet dream with lots of verbiage and no sense at all. It's really very simple, mfox, and it doesn't take nearly that many words. The new racism is the liberal belief that nonliberal blacks are not black. That Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and J.C. Watts are not real African-Americans because they do not subscribe to the liberal's victimology approach. That's the new racism. As for my own "racism"? That's just so typical of you. You don't know me, you don't know my beliefs, but you're oh so willing to condemn me for racism because I question the wisdom of using that as the only brush with which to tar Republicans. I don't have to explain away the problems in society to justify myself, mfox; I never claimed that racism doesn't exist. I simply noted that telling people that Republicans in Ohio will not vote for a black man, and that therefore all Republicans (or was it simply Ohio Republicans?) are racist, is a really stupid message to be sending out. Kind of like the never ending diatribe against all things religious that so many of the leftists here constantly rant on about. Yeah, that will really help get the religious people to vote for you! Sorry if that was too much for the mighty in-house troll to understand. Was it a hard night?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    Thanks (sweetly) to i am rotflmao - March 28, 2005 12:42 PM- for thinking about me. I didn't know you cared!
    Posted by: mfox on March 22, 2005 08:56 AM "...but I survived without too much of a chip on my shoulder."
    Please check your cross-postings. I survived as a blue-collar student who worked and borrowed my way to a BA at Harvard "but I survived without too much of a chip on my shoulder". I therefore don't hate students who can afford to study more by paying for housecleaning, while other students have less study time because of the need to clean said rooms". I definitely have a chip on my shoulder about anyone who thinks my son is a moral aberration and deserving of death because of, gulp, mysogeny. Should I NOT have a "chip" about this? Or did I misunderstand your comparison?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    JustPaul ...Another Fan! But I truly don't deserve the honor of being anointed "the mighty in-house troll". (I'd nominate Tristero, Glanton, kdog, and Fred before me!) But, since I'm here... I'd like to thank the Academy and all the little people who helped me achieve my dreams... JustPaul, Could you check my comment and tell me where I called you a racist? I can only find where I called you confused. Am I confused? Is confusion a sign of racism? You posit:
    The new racism is the liberal belief that nonliberal blacks are not black. That Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and J.C. Watts are not real African-Americans because they do not subscribe to the liberal's victimology approach. That's the new racism
    I believe that the above-mentioned folks are being used (by Republican/Conservative forces) to both exemplify and postulate that racism doesn't exist, especially in the Republican party, because they didn't experience it and/or were able to achieve their goals in spite of it's influence. I called them Uncle Tom's, and I would say it to their faces. My point is that, despite their political accomplishments, if any one of them came out with the position that they struggled because of moral and conservative obstacles to equality and were making it their goal to start a dialog about the existence and eradication of racism in America they'd be in the unemployment line faster than Ward Churchill. IMHO, they're being used and it appears obvious to me that they simply are willing to toe the company line of "compassionate conservatism". I'll believe that Republicans care about Af-Ams when the Southern Baptists integrate their churches.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    Posted by: mfox on March 28, 2005 01:57 PM "I definitely have a chip on my shoulder about..." blah blah blah Since you asked, mfox, I think you should have written "I definitely have a chip on my shoulder. Period." It is humorous to me that you would even begin to think otherwise. That is my point. What is not so humorous is how you choose define yourself as a victim - and therefor your anger (your 'chip') is justified. An unhealthy mfox does herself and our society no good.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    It's easy to pick on somebody for expressing their thoughts and ideas, especially when you share nothing and add nothing to the debate.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    What is not so humorous is how you choose define yourself as a victim - and therefor your anger (your 'chip') is justified.
    Although I am "light white" (as my son says), MB has proven my point that 1. he? identifies himself with those I call racist and 2. That the arguments Rethugs use to poo-poo cries of racism live on: 1. When I describe a story showing how racism exists (even in "enlightened" Cambridge) I am told:
    What is not so humorous is how you choose define yourself as a victim
    Now, being about as Aryan looking as one can get and living in "the Republic", perhaps I'm not so enculturated to feelings of racial hatred as some. A jogger passing by tells me that me and my son should be killed and he'd be happy to do it, and just keeps jogging down the street. I was so shocked and had such feelings of personal violation it took me weeks to not feel a little "parry" around town. Of course, when I'm not with my son, I "pass" and am a confidante of those who disparage those with a "touch of the tar brush". MB, however, feels that this is not RACISM, this is somehow me feeling "victimized". Feeling "sorry for myself". TAKEN RIGHT OUT OF THE GOP "UNOFFICIAL" PLATFORM. ...and you call me a ...what?... for feeling my anger is justified. Oh yeah. Having a chip on my shoulder! Same sad old argument used to silence all the "angry black men". Just get over it!. BTW. I have found through experience and reflection that every culture - even and especially those previously oppressed is capable of being racist. Why should we expect the Jews to be anymore sympathetic to the Palestinians than anyone else. Why couldn't Clarance and Condy (and Bill Cosby) feel that if they made it (i.e. pulled themselves up by their bootstaps)that those who haven't have some inner quality lacking. You know what MB. I'm proud to be seen with my son. However the chip on my shoulder about the way the world sees him won't go away until the cause for it does. And I can damn well assure you that voting for Republicans isn't going to make the cause go away anytime soon.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    ...just for the record, if that's important to you. Denile isn't just a river in Africa. mfox, you have published many long victim screeds. Let's see, off the top of my head, how you (a stand-up gal) were victimized by religion at Catholic School (and how your beloved but sneaky sister got away with murder there), despite being victimized as a 'blue collar' student among all the 'blue bloods' at Harvard you, laudibly, were able to survive "without too much of a chip on your shoulder," and being victimized by the vile words of an anonoymous jogger justifies your 'chip.' I'm sure there are others... Stop dwelling on the things in your life that you feel justify your anger. How about this, make it a habit of reading biographies and auto biographies of folks who overcame great adversities to accomplish great things instead of writing book-length rants on the net. Stop listening to the enablers on this site and/or in your personal life. As I said, an unhealthy mfox does herself and our society no good.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    mfox and Ed B - Racism is racism, no matter what group it is directed at. Inventing new meanings for a generally accepted word, however, just leads to confusion. If you want to claim that racists are against Affrimative Action, no one will disagree. But since it is also a social welfare program, to some degree, I would say that some people could be against it and not be racist. As for me, I was for it, and thought it useful. The question now is, at what point do we say the problem is solved, and withdraw the program? Are we there yet? I don't know, but I do think it worthy of discussion. Your comments re the political parties should be modified to recognize that it was Demos (Truman)who got the process started , Repubs(Esienhower) who brought the full force of government against discrimibation (Little Rock School Sytems) and then Kennedy and Johnson. But, it could not have been won without support of northern/western Repubs. The southern Demos fought it tooth and nail. The Demos then found support from urban blacks, who elected urban blacks. No surprise in that. The problem was less racism than economic philsophy. If you believe in high taxes and large social programs, you were not likely to be a Repub (in the 80's & 90's). But, just as the Repubs ran aground on not extending help to the new franchised blacks, the Demo's are now running aground on, for whatever reason, not appointing highly qualified blacks to high positions. Bush has done that, even if the politics of those appointed may not please you, the fact is, they are black, and the Demos had best start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. Parties change. People change.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    'I bristle at those who attack affimitive action as "Reverse Racism" ' While Ed "bristles", thinking people embrace common sense.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 06:03:32 PM EST
    PPJ: If you're sincerely wondering whether it is time to abandon Affirmative Action, I invite you to attend a Longhorn/Aggie football game some time: except for an Occasional Exception, the only African Americans you'll see will be on the field. Two of the seven largest universties in the nation.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#47)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    “except for an Occasional Exception, the only African Americans you'll see will be on the field.” I’ll step past the low hanging fruit here; I suppose you don’t consider college football desirable enough for white folks to want to play despite their qualifications. If you would grant unqualified folks entry based on skin color it is certainly a disservice not to follow through and weight exam scores or grades accordingly. How hollow is the sentiment; bad preparation from K to 12, but we’ll let you in to college only to fail, we’ll hold a job for which you will never have the paper qualification. ‘Racial’ preferences are a band-aid, an unconstitutional, unjust, morally bankrupt band-aid.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    glanton - And your point is? Shall we set the social agenda of the US on the distribution by race of a football game? And isn't the real issue entrance into the "prestige" programs?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#49)
    by soccerdad on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    You want to see a bunch of rich white people get their panties in a bunch?Propose abolishing legacy admission to colleges. Preferential treatment for blacks is bad - preferential treatment for rich white people who can write a big check is ok, isn't that right GWB

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 07:01:18 PM EST
    Y'all: My point had to do with the student body, not the football game. Hopefully everyone knew that on some level. But for the benefit of the more literal among you I will say, just visit one of these HUGE campuses and experience the lily-white sensation. And Jim, I too have reservations about AA--but you say you are not sure whehter it still has uses, and the makeup of those capuses, while not the sole baromter of how we ought to proceed, surely exemplify something. I'd also be interested bto know how you feel about legacy as a factor in admissions? You know, it's how our President got into Harvard and Yale. Legacy points and a boatload of money. Not intellectual merit. There are all kinds of unfair advantages in this life, and America, a great many of them have to do with economics. AA too is an unfair advantage, but at least it comes from a non-economic angle. It's not an easy call, at any rate.....

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:22:43 PM EST
    Honestly, I don't know the answers to any of those questions, Jim. I need to learn more about it, same as you. But those arguing that Affirmative Action demonstrates reverse racism are nowhere near the mark, I can tell you that. However flawed it may be, it has a worthy goal, and I just find it hard to believe that it has worn out its usefulness.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:38:58 PM EST
    glanton - Many things in life are worthy goals, but can't be supported for a variety of reasons, so let's admit that good intentions alone is a very poor reason to do anything. Aren't we talking about gaining access to so called "elite" schools/programs?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#54)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    For myself, I am not limiting my discussion to the elite schools. As a current Texan, I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't maitain that an education at A&M or Baylor or TU or Texas Tech, etc., didn't represent excellent opportunities. I believe that. I still believe college is the way to make it in the United States, it may not guarantee anything, but it's a damned important start. So it goes beyond Michigan or Berkeley or Harvard or (Final Four, baby! Chapel Hill in my kind. Road to hell paved with good intentions. Agreed. Sometimes, anyway. Public education itself is a product of good intentions and for all its problems thank heavens for it. Am I wrong, or does it sound to me like your mind is pretty much made up on this issue, that you're against AA? Or do you have some middle-of-the-road idea in mind?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:30:04 PM EST
    Affirmative action was created as a temporary (as was school busing and a few other measures)measure until a certain critical mass was reached culturally and socially where centuries of distrust and mistreatment could be overcome. Have we reached that point? I do not think so. Is it rational to want racial profiling of any sort gone? Of course it is. Does it help the discussion for either side to think they know the heart of the other and label them racists? No. Very few people identify themselves as racists and are justifiably defensive and angry when accused of being so.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:08:28 AM EST
    Some acts, like invading disarmed countries and killing a hundred thousand people while trying to destroy international law protecting civilians -- are racist by nature, and the people who support such actions are RACISTS. It doesn't matter if it stymies the 'discussion' with such people. The wingers on TL have no qualms about stiffling discussion, spreading rank propaganda, ignoring rebuttal, and otherwise clouding the issues. They behave much like racists, who when their racism is exposed, change the subject, or find some other way to excuse their actions. Since the lies they spout were dressed up in cries of "Kill them all" not three years ago...cry me a river they don't like being called what they ARE.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:10:50 AM EST
    mfox: "Just out of curiosity (assuming you don't consider yourself a blatant racist)" Are you now suggesting that this wasn't some sort of attempt to paint me as a non-blatant racist? If so, you might consider your choice of language when, in the future, you choose to lecture other people on the issue of racism. Especially since you come from a group with a long history of painting with a very broad brush on that particular issue. "I called them Uncle Tom's, and I would say it to their faces." And that is a direct example of your blatant racism. These black people do not agree with your political agenda, so they are not true to their heritage or skin color and are "Uncle Toms". How enlightened of you. "My point is that, despite their political accomplishments, if any one of them came out with the position that they struggled because of moral and conservative obstacles to equality and were making it their goal to start a dialog about the existence and eradication of racism in America they'd be in the unemployment line faster than Ward Churchill." Got any evidence of that, mfox, or is this belief based solely on your previaling opposition to black people who think for themselves? "I'll believe that Republicans care about Af-Ams when the Southern Baptists integrate their churches." Brilliant repartee, mfox. But what are you suggesting? Is it that the Southern Baptists control the Republican party, or that the Republican party should control Sothern Baptists. Another example of the liberal love for diversity? As for the in-house troll comment: Yes, you're right. Mighty was stretching it too far. But the rest of the description fits just fine.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:41:01 AM EST
    "I believe that the above-mentioned folks are being used (by Republican/Conservative forces) to both exemplify and postulate that racism doesn't exist, especially in the Republican party, because they didn't experience it and/or were able to achieve their goals in spite of it's influence. I called them Uncle Tom's, and I would say it to their faces." mfox, I wonder if you realize how much you sound like some Aryan Nation dimwit spouting off about "race-traitors" right there.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:48:59 AM EST
    Paul in LA
    Some acts, like invading disarmed countries and killing a hundred thousand people while trying to destroy international law protecting civilians -- are racist by nature, and the people who support such actions are RACISTS.
    What does this refer to? Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? The slaughter of Kurd's and Shiite's in Iraq? Flying two planes into the WTC? Iraq, while not possessing the famous WMD's we were lied to about was hardly disarmed - and no war has EVER been conducted without large civilian deaths. Our language is more precise than this. People attack others of their own race, or others, out of a belief they are combating evil (World War II); self-defense; revenge; religious persecution (something many on this site are helping to build in the future); political belief; and imperialism to name a few. It is convenient and a little lazy to paint it all with the racism brush. Heart does matter - especially if you are attempting to win someone to your point of view. Calling someone racist who views their reasons for their actions as not being involved with race is not productive, or accurate. Do you want to insult and defame - or educate and build political power?

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#60)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:56:56 AM EST
    So as expected PPJ is for preferential treatment as long as its for them rich white folks. A great many of those opposing AA under the guise of it not being fair or reverse racism or whatever little clever phrase they now have are in fact racists because by an large its the same people who are against head start, against any help for the poor, don't care that urban schools are @hit holes, don't care that there aren't jobs in the inner cities, So the narrow issue sounds all well and good, but the larger picture is clearly racist. But they will couch their language in better sounding words like urban poor etc. Just close your ears and open your eyes to the policies.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:16:03 AM EST
    Thus obviously there is no need to discuss any race-based public policy with critics because they are by and large racist, and thus inherently evil, and any arguments they present are merely smokescreen for their brutal and repellent racism. The Mighty Oz has spoken.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:34:59 AM EST
    A great many of those opposing AA under the guise of it not being fair or reverse racism or whatever little clever phrase they now have are in fact racist
    And a number of those who support AA are racists who believe Black people have to have a hand up from those who are more gifted if they are ever going to make it. As long as the culture portrays whites and blacks (and chicanos, and Native Americans, Palestinians and Isrealis, etc) as stereotypical caracatures of real people it is difficult to imagine ANYONE acting out of a real understanding of those who do not share their personal culture. That being said - do we suspend all discussion of any public policy that affects any race; meet in the street with baseball bats; or do we try to decide what PUBLIC policy should look like in a little more civil, democratic manner. After all, conservatives and liberals have their own social agenda issues. I am willing to have a discussion on abortion without calling pro-deathers (oops pro-choice) murderers. Before y'all go crazy on me - I do believe life starts at conception; that you are taking a life when you have an abortion; but am not right now in favor of reversing Roe v Wade because you cannot legislate morality - anymore than you can legislate racial attitudes. And yes, legislation is necessary to protect people from others bad racial attitudes. Oh wait, shouldn't there be legislation to protect unborn babies from the stupid cultural mores that do not see their life as valuable. hmmmmm

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#63)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    The real point is that something like AA cannot be discussed in a vacuum. It needs to be discussed in the context of the entire social situation. In addition, for those so up in arms why is race something that cannot factor into decisions while wealth, read for the most part white, can. To use colleges as an example, why shouldn't admissions be blind with respect to gender, race, wealth or whether your dad gave millions. Or don't you want to lose your advantage? Anybody who believes that there is a level playing field in this country independent of race is truly either uninformed or an idiot. Are things better than the 1950's yeah but thats not saying much.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#64)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    And a number of those who support AA are racists who believe Black people have to have a hand up from those who are more gifted if they are ever going to make it. As long as the culture portrays whites and blacks (and chicanos, and Native Americans, Palestinians and Isrealis, etc) as stereotypical caracatures of real people it is difficult to imagine ANYONE acting out of a real understanding of those who do not share their personal culture.
    This is just so much horse manure. The real focus of discussion should not be on your strawmen but on society and they way the poor and minorities are treated.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    Soccerdad: Absolutely correct in respect to race. Two points however: The discussion of these issues as a culture is legitimate; and calling your opponent a racist does not further the discussion. I am a long way from my old days as a Marxist, and even further from belief in class warfare - but I know enough to know that your ability to pay is ALWAYS going to be an issue at college and the grocery store

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    A 'legacy' policy and AA policy should be perfectly acceptable at a private college, and perfectly unnacceptable at a public college. A private institution should be able to grant admission to whomever it wants, while a state-funded college should admission policy should be strictly by merit.

    Re: Religion and Politics in Ohio (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:10:14 AM EST
    I defantly think that if you are more qualified for a job you should get that job not what race you are

    Religion and Politics in Ohio | 64 comments (64 topical)