Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Underbelly of Theocracy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 10:28 AM
Original message
The Underbelly of Theocracy
"Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party"

In a Democracy Now! exclusive, award-winning journalist, Max Blumenthal, joins us for the first extended interview about his debut book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party. The book traces the rise of the radical right in the U.S. and how it used the concept of personal crisis to grow as a movement and eventually capture control of the GOP to transform it from the party of Dwight Eisenhower to the party of Sarah Palin.


He literally went crazy and wound up in a mental institution. When he came out of the mental institution, he found, as so many people do who have had a personal crisis and are seeking some kind of means of transcending it, evangelical religion.

And he found R.J. Rushdoony, who I talked about earlier. He became Rushdoony’s financial angel, and Rushdoony became his surrogate father. And he helped—and he declared, Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr., in 1985, that “My goal for this country is the literal application of biblical law and its integration into our daily lives,” which was the goal of Rushdoony. And he’s doing this through mainstream mechanisms through the Christian right. He’s able to still succeed, even with the Democrats in power, through ballot measures in California. And what it really is about is about creating this, what they see as this theocratic utopia, which is actually becoming a Republican Gomorrah. (...)

But I credit Dobson, who has the third largest radio show in America, whose organization Focus on the Family has $150 million in its coffers and thirty-six policy councils in the States and is widely credited for electing George W. Bush and the Republican Congress in 2004, with cultivating the sensibility of the movement that I’m writing about in my book, Republican Gomorrah, that controls the Republican Party.

Dobson is a fascinating figure, because although he’s leading what is widely considered a religious movement, he’s not a religious leader. He has no theological credentials. He’s not a preacher. What is he? He’s a child psychologist. And the way that he’s won so many followers is by, you know, doing radio shows about common, mundane problems, like bedwetting, for example, or dealing with a child that has, you know, issues with their sexuality, something like that. And he has a correspondence department in Focus on the Family that’s so large it occupies an entire zip code in Colorado Springs. People write in with their personal problems. He sends them—his workers send them Dobson-approved advice. After they get into the database that Dobson maintains, he bombards them with political mailings and slowly cultivates them into Republican shock troops. So Dobson has, you know, turned personal crisis into political resentment. (...)

Where did Dobson’s fortune come from? How did he erect this empire? It came mainly from one book, which I quote from extensively in my book, Republican Gomorrah—Dare to Discipline, which is essentially a manual for corporal punishment, for beating your child. In this book, he says pain is a marvelous purifier that a child should be—that pain goes a long way with a child, that pain should be dispensed sufficiently enough to make a child cry, but then the child will crumple to your breast, and you should welcome the child with warm, open arms. This is a recipe for sadomasochism. And sadomasochism, as I discovered in—

JUAN GONZALEZ: And he saw himself originally as the antithesis to Benjamin—Dr. Benjamin Spock.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Dr. Benjamin Spock, who tells you to basically pick your child up and cradle it. And, you know, I mean, I was—you know, for whatever it’s worth, I was raised along those guidelines. When your child’s crying, you pick up the child.

By creating a belt-wielding army of millions, Dobson created the next generation of Republican shock troops, who are more radical than before. And sadomasochism—I know this sounds a little strange—is what defines the essential character, you know, that—this is what—at least what I’ve discovered—of the Republican follower of today. They’re sadistic in that they want to lash out at deviants, at people who are weaker than them, homosexuals, immigrants, foreigners, socialists. At the same time, they’re masochistic. They are followers of a higher cause, of a strong leader, a magic helper like Dobson or George W. Bush or the macho Jesus archetype that they worship. And this is what defines this movement. (...)

When Gingrich decided to resurrect his political career, he decided—the Republican Party is controlled by the Christian right. He’s not a stupid man. “What do I do? I have to confess all of my sins by going on James Dobson’s radio show,” catering to the culture of personal crisis that lurks behind the right’s politics of resentment. And so, that’s exactly what he did. He basically prostrated himself before Dobson, who has, you know, no political—supposedly has no political standing. And the next thing you know, he’s back on the national stage. He’s welcomed at the Christian right gatherings. You can see him on Fox News now. So, that shows, you know, how powerful Dobson is. But it’s not just Dobson; it’s a mentality that defines conservatism. (...)



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x366045

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/4/republican_gomorrah_inside_the_movement_that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzxElQv11l4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9y4hhxiliQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqo8TdfDosE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. And now they've infiltrated the Democratic Party
in the guise of the DLC and Blue Dogs.

Theocracy: coming soon to a country near you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I was thinking about that ..
It seems that perhaps the BD Democrats lean towards worshiping the almighty corporate dollar?

A surprising (to me) number of DUers are pro-corporal punishment for children.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=200287
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RLBaty Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. One small step at a time?
I see a clear connection between the concerns expressed in the article and how it was Bush and Burleson managed to get the IRS to hand out lucrative, religion-based tax benefits to their mostly Republican constituency back during the Nixon years; contrary to the facts and the law.

See the "Revoke Revenue Ruling 70-549" subject thread here for further details and discussion.

If that IRC 107 suit gets filed, as is being proposed, there may well be a firestorm of public activity on these issues.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think we need to make hitting children illegal.
In some cultures, the spanking of women, by the male head of the family or by the husband (sometimes called domestic discipline) has been and sometimes continues to be a common and approved custom. In most western countries, this practice has come to be regarded as unlawful and socially unacceptable wife-beating, domestic violence or abuse. Routine corporal punishment of women by their husbands, however, does still exist in some parts of the third world,<22><23> <24> and still occurs in isolated cases in western countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking


Legality of corporal punishment in Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corporal_punishment_in_Europe.svg

That would remove their tool of sadomasochist indoctrination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. You are in favor of government telling you how to raise your kids?
I dont support or condone child abuse. That being said, if I want to spank my daughter(I dont see it a s child abuse, sorry), I will. I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot do when it comes to raising my child. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. The government already does tell you what you can and cannot do...
...with your kids to some extent. It's not really a question of whether the government intrudes or not, it's a matter of how far and on what grounds.

As a disclaimer, I am not a parent. Since actual parents disagree on what's right or wrong and what works and doesn't work, however, it's not like real parenting experience leads to any specific or clear answers anyway.

My opinion is that physical discipline should be used only rarely, but I wouldn't rule it out totally. I'd think that especially when kids are old enough to move around and are capable of getting into serious trouble very quickly (hot stoves, power outlets, pets that can hurt them or be hurt by them, etc.), but they aren't old enough yet to process a verbal argument very well, I can see a slap on the wrist or a swat on the fanny as a reasonable way to communicate the idea of DANGER if words or loud noises aren't getting through. I'd see much less reason for physical punishment as kids get older and are more reachable by either reason or, if that fails, non-physical punishments like grounding, loss of various privileges, etc.

I think an important thing if any sort of physical punishment is used is that a parent be very measured in their actions, calm and in control, not acting on an outburst of their own anger -- that, unfortunately, is often the way my parents were when they spanked. Even at a young age their behavior lessened my respect for their authority.

When I hear people speak with absolute adamant certainty that no physical punishment should ever be used I tend to think, (A) they just happen to be very fortunate to have the kinds of kids who have responded well without it, or (B) their kids are brattier than they are willing to see or admit, they are the kinds of parents who blithely disregard terrible misbehavior with a breezy, "Oh, that's just kids being kids!".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Yes.
And I want them intruding on your marriage by not allowing you to hit your wife. Same thing. Kids are people too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Hehe. Nice strawman.
Need I really respond to that? Spanking your kids is not the same as hitting your spouse. You and I BOTH know that.

Now that we have that out of the way, would you like to get back to the discussion at hand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. And you and I BOTH know
that the line between spanking your kids and beating them is blurred every damn day in America. Can you use a belt? If so, what width? What about a ruler, paddle, or flyswatter? After clearing that up, what about straying, either accidentally or on purpose, to the child's thighs or back. What about smacking/slapping your kids vs. actual hitting (as in closed fist)?

One level of abuse leads to another. One hit is just as damaging/humiliating as another. There's no excuse for hitting a child. As another poster on this thread said, if you can't outsmart a child, you shouldn't have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. You are right that those lines are blurred
I dont remember who coined it, but the phrase is something like "I dont know how to define it, but I know it when I see it".

We seem to differ on what "abuse" is, as shown by your statement One level of abuse leads to another. One hit is just as damaging/humiliating as another.

Abuse is defined as
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way.

I do not see spanking as abuse, I dont see spanking as "hitting", its "spanking". I guess you do. The only way I see to reach a common agreement, is that I will raise my kids how I want to and you do the same with yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Confusion:
You don't see spanking as "harmful, injurious, or offensive" in any way?

Obviously you don't or you wouldn't be vehemently defending it, but I'm confused. How does striking someone not fall into that category?

And what are you teaching your children? In my mind, you teach them that violence sometimes IS the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Well, if you are going to paint me into a corner...
and I DONT see spanking as "hitting" or "striking" or "harmful, injurious, or offensive". I also dont see it as "violence" either.


But to response to your question and unrelated to our subject at hand, sometime violence is the answer. In the world we live in, violence must sometimes be met with violence. I am a stern defender of 2A and RKBA. I will protect my family by whatever means I deem necessary and within the boundaries of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. "In the world we live in, violence must sometimes be met with violence."
And I agree. So when your child hits you, I have no problem with you hitting back. Otherwise, by your own logic you're inviting your child to do violence to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Nice try, but wrong.
As I stated, it was unrelated to the discussion we were having regarding spanking.

By what you just posted, can I assume its ok for you to hit your wife if she hits you?

Anyway, I'm done here, as it's obvious we are going to go in circles, especially when you ignore what I posted and try to twist it back into the conversation. It shows me that you are not interested in having a meaningful discussion, only in being inflammatory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. That's fine,
abandon the thread if you want, but take these thoughts with you:

Stating that something is unrelated to the discussion does not make it so. You want proof of how my question relates to our conversation? Here you go:
Children are taught by actions as well as speech. You cannot argue that spanking your children teaches them SOMETHING. So my question as to WHAT that is, therefore, is related.

On the wife question, while it's actually an assumption that I'm married, you assumed correctly. But I can't even fathom that situation. Meanwhile, the point I was trying to make about child-rearing is that i can't fault a parent for having a violent reaction to violence. It's happened to my sister, and as shocked as I was, I couldn't say a word. It's a very human reaction.

Finally, how can I "ignore" what you've said, and at the same time "twist it back into the conversation?" And personally, I think it was more of a reflection than a twist, but whatever...

You stood remarkably alone on this thread, and that took guts. Don't spoil it by throwing out a weak accusation to cover your exit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Nothing weak here, friend. I appreciate the compliment though.
I just tire of trying to make my point over and over. Bottom line is that I cannot say where the line is that goes from spanking to actual abuse. I dont know if that line can be defined. I know the line when I see it and where I see that line may be different from where you are someone else sees it. As parents, we have to do what we think is right for our own kids. I see spanking as a tool to be used sparingly, if at all, but I don't want you, someone else or the government telling me that that tool is no longer available to me.
I think we have both made our points, and if/when I need to spank my child, I will certainly reflect on this conversation before making that decision. Thanks for a good debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. Then what is the purpose of spanking?
If it is not to cause a child pain and mental anguish? And how are those things not harmful or injurious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. What is the purpose of grounding? Of taking away TV time?
What is the purpose canceling a favorite after-school activity until a kid gets his or her grades up?

What is the purpose, if it is not to cause a child "mental anguish"?

All punishment and discipline is a negative stimulus, something you'd rather not have happen happening.

Rather than repeat what I said earlier, I'll just refer to my reply #23 earlier in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. The point isn't to cause "mental anguish"..
The point is to teach real life responsibility, which involves choices and consequences of those decisions.

Here is the choice: Get good grades and watch x amount of tv OR bring home poor grades and forfeit tv privileges. Kid's choice. This isn't the best example of choice; but it is how our state schools function. My son was in the band. He made a C one six weeks in one class and did not get to go on the band trip to Six Flags. It probably caused me more anguish than it did him.

If you (child) do A or Z, the consequence will be X or B. The child has to know that DECISIONS have reasonable expectations.

It is all about giving the child CHOICES with responsible consequences, along with firm guidelines. Guidelines require just as much responsibility from the parent as they do the child.

Children do not learn responsibility from physical violence. They learn violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. A parent who spanks will also tell you that the "point" of it...
...is to "teach responsibility" or the like too.

"Mental anguish" still occurs, however. If you think you can erase that fact by talking about why that anguish is inflicted, then why doesn't the same argument apply to spanking?

"Children do not learn responsibility from physical violence. They learn violence."

That sounds more like a slogan wrapped in loaded words than a substantiated claim. A slap on the wrist or a modest spanking is hardly "violence". I can just imagine some follow-up rhetorical question from you now, however, for which the implied answer is, "Of course it's violence!". I can't wait to see which one it is. :eyes: If everything is treated as a slippery slope and the mere existence of a fuzzy line between physical discipline and violence is treated as if any fuzziness means the line doesn't exist at all, that's rhetoric, not reason.

At any rate, a large part of my argument applies to very young children for whom grades in school don't apply and trips to amusement parks being given or taken away as rewards is way too much of a time-delayed association between misdeed and punishment for them to process.

"Don't touch the stove or you won't get to go to the beach this weekend" isn't going to stop the hand of a two year old reaching for a hot stove, and I'd rather substitute a slight sting from a slap or a swat than a nasty burn to teach the lesson STOVE = DANGER. Merely pulling the child away and saying NO might not be enough for some children. Let's not pretend their aren't defiant children for whom NO simply means "try again when mommy and daddy aren't looking".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Read the studies
Edited on Wed Sep-09-09 08:10 AM by Why Syzygy
and opinions in post #31.

I'm not interested in playing your little gotcha games. With 2 y/o, a sharp voice is more effective than a hit. Don't know if you've been around small children, but even raising your voice (whether directed at them or not), makes them frightened and even cry. Children are not the little devious creatures the Dobsons would have us believe (and I guess you do). They want to PLEASE and be accepted. Don't mistake curiosity for rebellion.

Your posts had gotten much more coherent of late. I could actually read them. This one, however, reverts to your former posting gibberish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. What I see in those studies...
...is vague talk about "correlations" and comparisons between the two extremes of no spanking at all and regular spanking. Nothing there addresses how occasional spanking might or might not work for different children.

I'm not interested in playing your little gotcha games.

Which "gotcha games" would those be?

With 2 y/o, a sharp voice is more effective than a hit. Don't know if you've been around small children, but even raising your voice (whether directed at them or not), makes them frightened and even cry.

I had the experience during my teens of living with my very young nephew when my sister, his mother, moved back home with him for a couple of years because of financial problems. While I may not have had parental responsibility, I witnessed plenty over the charming span between around six months old and the terrible twos. (It wasn't always pleasant, but it wasn't all bad either, and I spent enough time playing with my nephew that his first clear word after "mama" was my name). I saw more of his early years visiting my sister after she moved back out again.

Raising one's voice was not that terribly effective with this kid. My sister would sit and yell, and he would ignore her (and no, just in case you're wondering, his hearing was fine).

Children are not the little devious creatures the Dobsons would have us believe (and I guess you do). They want to PLEASE and be accepted. Don't mistake curiosity for rebellion.

Children aren't any one thing. A few of them are "little devious creatures", or least have that element in them to a lesser or greater degree.

Your posts had gotten much more coherent of late. I could actually read them. This one, however, reverts to your former posting gibberish.

A bullshit cheap shot. That you might disagree with something doesn't make something "gibberish" or "not coherent". Please point out clearly anything you could understand and I'll try to explain it really slowly for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Nah.
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Now I understand better why you're so adamantly against spanking.
You just go one, and you didn't like it. :spank:

By the way, I think you should start a vigorous campaign to ban the above emoticon from DU. If people don't respond to your impassioned pleas, you can always dramatically yawn at them as a last resort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. It's all OPINION!!!!
"With 2 y/o, a sharp voice is more effective than a hit." You MAY be right, SOME of the time. What works for you does not always work for others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #65
75. Now, now! Stop being "incoherent"!
Don't make me have to show you how bored I am with the things you say that I can't come up with good answers for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
63. And a lot of wife-beating shitpiles don't see it abuse, either, but "corrective" or "Christian duty"
or "Jewish duty" or "Muslim duty".

People who commit genocide rarely (I imagine) ever said "Gee, this really, really evil! I love it! Let's do more!!!" They say, "This is a moral good to cleanse the world of these subhuman garbage."

(As to the phrase you used, that was Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart talking about pornography/obscenity back in the early 60s, maybe late 50s - I'm a little foggy on date)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Hehehe! Nice strawman!
We go from spanking kids to wife beating. How very clever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. No, we were already there.
Nice attempt to deflect, but, sadly, utterly inappropriate and ineffective.

The argument is one of nomenclature and definition, not, as you seem to think (judging by your response to me), one of spanking versus wife beating.

Here's how you should read what I wrote: Just because you don't think that spanking is abuse doesn't mean that it isn't abuse. Just in the same way that wife-beaters often say that they aren't abusive, but are merely "correcting" or "disciplining" their wives, your attempt to say that spanking is different from child abuse is equally erroneous.

Sorry I did it in a more creative way than just spelling it out for you. I thought the message was pretty clear; apparently not. I hope the above helps, because I can't make it any more plain and free of ambiguity than that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. And here is how you should read me
Edited on Thu Sep-10-09 03:43 PM by rd_kent
Just because you think spanking is abuse doesn't mean that it is. One adult hitting or spanking another adult is, as it seems we all agree, abuse (unless it is asked for, as in BDSM) and has no place in this conversation about spanking children as a form a discipline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Ummm..... okay.
Edited on Thu Sep-10-09 03:58 PM by Rabrrrrrr
Adult on adult violence, unless consensual, is abuse.

Adult on child violence, which can never ever be consensual, is not if it is done under the ambiguous rubric of "discipline".

Gotcha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Are you unable to see that other do not have the same OPINION as you?
You think spanking is abuse, I do not. You can try and try again to rephrase it so that it sounds or reads different, but it will not change the fact that I never stated what you really want me to say.
You and I have different opinions on the subject. I have stated mine very clearly, so please refrain from further attempts to rephrase my OPINION into something it is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. I'm prefectly capable of seeing that others share different opinions. I'm justsaying yours is wrong.
It's really that simple.

I know what you're saying, and I think you're wrong. And I'm trying to show you how I think it is wrong.

Obviously, yes, we disagree. I think spanking is abuse. It's a violence-based system of "discipline" that relies on a TREMENDOUS power differential, and reinforces violence as a mode of "compromise" - that is, "do what I say, or I will pound the shit out of you". Kids are easy to spank because they can't fight back. It's like taking a tank to a game of tag. No contest.

In World of Warcraft, I love taking my level 80 druid to the level 1-10 areas because I can slaughter at will and know I am never at any risk whatsoever.

But I know that in the real world, that's immoral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. I respect your opinion, too, as wrong as it is from my view
guess we will just have to do the old "agree to disagree".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. I'll let the studies
and professionals speak for my position. Post #31.

When you hit your children, you are doing violence to your wife as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
41. So in other words
If a parent locks a child up in a dark room for 15 years, chains them to a bed, makes them live in their own filth, feeds them barely enough to keep them alive, beats and tortures them every day, the government has no right to tell them they're a bad parent? Period? You are one sick bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. It's not what I fantasize about
It's what I read about in the news. It's what real parents do to real children, as you'd know if you took your libertarian blinders off. But apparently if you came across a parent doing that to their child, you'd defer to their right to raise their child any way they saw fit, rather than inform the government, since they might have the nerve to interfere with your notion of parental rights. And no government has any right to control how a parent raises their child. Period. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. I dont know how to explain myself any better
Edited on Wed Sep-09-09 12:19 AM by rd_kent
see my post #51. On that I will also thank you for the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Apparently you don't
but the inevitable consequence of your argument that the government should have no right to interfere in any way with how YOU raise your children is that the government should have no right to interfere in any way with ANY parent raising their children, which is a morally bankrupt and truly horrifying position to take. There is nothing about anyone as a parent that should make them per se exempt from some sort of oversight as to how they treat their children. Do you know how many horribly abusive parents say things like "I love my child!" or "You have no right to do this!" when their starved, burned, battered children are taken away from them? A lot. An awful lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #56
61. So who gets to decide what is right and wrong
It is obvious that you and I disagree, so who gets to make the decision? Me? You? the government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. When given the choice,
why not opt for peacefulness in all those arenas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Because we dont live in a world of gumdrops and rainbows.
Opt for peacefulness? What does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-11-09 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #64
74. It means choose a non-violent method.
You can have gumdrops any time you want. Short of purchasing a light show, yeah we get rainbows when nature provides one.

Are you trying to say that you are forced to use violence against a child because the world is at war? Completely irrational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
73. Sorry, but as long as there are people who think they have the
right to hit a child, there will be a need for that government intrusion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iris27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. I was disturbed by the recent Florida cases
discussed here on DU (which now I can't find in search), where child abuse cases were thrown out because bruises, or in another case, a small cut on the face, weren't deemed enough physical damage to the child to be abuse. It really reminded me of the old laws on wife-beating in the US - can't leave a bruise in areas visible when fully dressed, must use a stick of X diameter or smaller...that kind of thing.

Sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Is that thread above? or elsewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RLBaty Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Re: Is that thread above? or elsewhere?
Patrice,

It is a separate thread in the "Religion/Theology" forum where this thread is also archived.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Tks!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. If you spank your kid for wetting the bed, it's stupid.
Our eldest son still had the problem at 4 years. My mother in law put a gold star on the calander for each night he stayed dry and it took about a week to be over with.

Same son at 8 years chewed his finger nails, we'd tried some bad tasting junk, which didn't work. I ask him if there was anything that he really wished he had. He said he wanted a dog. I told him the very day that his finger nails grow out he can have a dog. My wife don't like dogs, but she went along with it and in one month that problem was done with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Did you see the thread
I link to in post #2?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks. Did you note the correlation of high # of votes for no beating on kids,
along with the concentration of non religious on DU? We see the light. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I definitely think there is a connection.
One question this interview really answers for me is, how can they (RWers) be so cruel? How can they not care about other people when it comes to choice, health care, poverty, and on and on. They've been indoctrinated into beating up on small children! After that, their souls have been seared. I apologize to anyone who spanks their children. I just firmly believe it is very destructive and there are so many better ways. Children desperately want to please. Their little hearts are broken when the most important person in the world to them injures them. All for pride. immho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. This is pushing it, but I can't help believing it's more of the "god's work" that dominates our
society. This is what has been drilled into the heads of way to many religious people. Even if they are breaking laws left and right they still seem to act like it's atonement for their own sins.

One that gets me is how there appears to be no religious effort to condemn speeding. In fact I would say that the common view is that those who impede excessive speed are the bad guys. That plus the common view the left lane is reserved for those who exceed the speed limit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Different views
You see spanking as injury. Other do not see it that way. What works (or doesnt) for you may not be the same for others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. It worked for you, thats great.
And for the record, I dont see how spanking a child will prevent bedwetting either, but who are you or I to say what is right or wrong when it comes to other peoples kids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. One main reason that we have laws is that people are persuaded to stick with methods that don't work
Enacting laws that conflict with the Bible, in this country, are fighting an up hill battle. I'm in agreement with the idea that beating kids causes long term damage to kids in school, on the job, getting a job and being mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Again, different views
What you see as "beating kids" other see as simple spanking.

I agree that when it comes to a law, if the bible gets brought into the equation, I am dealing with a nut. IMO, what a person believes (the bible) should have NO place in lawmaking, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Are children "property"?
Edited on Mon Sep-07-09 06:21 PM by Why Syzygy
Or are their lives entrusted to you via childbirth to care for humanely? Ultra-religious folk claim their children are PROPERTY. I guess you would agree with them on that.

So why have laws to protect pets? Surely a pet is more property than another human being.

You better believe society has a responsibility to take care of all children. Your POV really sounds like right wing on this issue.

You might as well send them to uni-bomber school. Hitting children teaches them violence is a solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I dont know if children are "property", but I do know that I am responsible
for their behavior. How I choose to guide that behavior is up to me, not you. If I feel that a swat on the behind is necessary, that is for me to decide, not you. You can raise YOUR kids how YOU want to and I will raise mine the way I want to.

My children are not my "property" but they are my responsibility. I think there is more harm done in the brainwashing done by religious parents than could ever be had from a spanking. If you are so concerned about the welfare of children, how about railing against that? Do you see the danger in indoctrinating a child into myths and irrational beliefs? THAT is scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Not my business?
And when does it become the business of a concerned citizen, or Child Protection/Family Services, or the police? When there are bruises? How about broken bones?

Let me put it this way: It's my business (or another citizen's) to intervene on behalf of the child when I (we) see them subjected to personal injury. Usually, that means a report to Child Services, but sometimes, in extreme cases, it might mean stepping in.

Who are you to inflict violence on another human being, especially when that human is smaller, weaker, and less educated (presumably) than you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Its not your business. If you think it is, then call CPS.
Thats the only answer. I can tell you though, if you call CPS on me and they find nothing wrong, then you have just become MY business, and you should be prepared for the legal consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. As I said in my post,
normally the only way to intervene IS to call CPS or the local equivalent. Good luck finding out who placed that call, though, as they anonymize their info.

And if you intend to sue or otherwise punish someone because they were concerned for your child's welfare..."Well, then God, Jed, I don't even wanna know you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Concern is appreciated
Intrusion and unwanted interference is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Did you read the OP?
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 03:57 PM by Why Syzygy
It's about hitting kids as an indoctrination tool. You agree with the religious folks on that issue!
You believe the myth that spanking is an exercise in parental RESPONSIBILITY! MYTH! And anti-social.

If your child grows up and develops the problems associated with being hit, then you aren't responsible any more.
THEY have to pay that price. And society.

The case against spanking:

It has been linked to many adult problems. Corporal punishment studies have linked spanking during childhood to higher levels of adult depression, psychiatric problems, and addictions. Another study shows that children who were spanked have a lower IQ when compared to children whose parents used other methods of discipline and control.

Slapping or any other type of force used on the buttocks is a sexual violation: The buttocks are an erogenous zone of the human body. Their nerve system is connected to the body's sexual nerve centers. Slapping them can involuntarily trigger feelings of sexual pleasure which become mixed with the pain. This can lead to confusion in the child's mind which influences the way in which they express their sexuality as adults.

Spanking lowers a child's IQ: A study at the University of New Hampshire, released in 1998-JUL, found that spanking children apparently slows down their intellectual development. 3 A study of 960 children found an average 4 point reduction in IQ among students, from and average IQ of 102 (above average) for children who are not spanked, to an average IQ 98 (below average) for who are. A reduction of 4 points is enough to have a significant negative functional effect on the students.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin4.htm


The Academy's position:
A scan of the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) web site recommends a number of techniques for disciplining children:

They list some of the negative side effects of spanking: It may seem to work at the moment, but it is no more effective in changing behavior than a time-out.
Spanking increases children's aggression and anger instead of teaching responsibility.
Parents may intend to stay calm but often do not, and regret their actions later.
Because most parents do not want to spank, they are less likely to be consistent.
Spanking makes other consequences less effective, such as those used at child care or school. Gradually, even spanking loses its impact.
Spanking can lead to physical struggles and even escalate to the point of harming the child.
Children who continue to be spanked are more likely to be depressed, use alcohol, have more anger, hit their own children, approve of and hit their spouses, and engage in crime and violence as adults.
These results make sense since spanking teaches the child that causing others pain is justified to control them even with those they love.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin14.htm


2004: University of Michigan study of spanking and anti-social behavior of children:
"Even minimal amounts of spanking can lead to an increased likelihood in antisocial behavior by children....This study provides further methodologically rigorous support for the idea that corporal punishment is not an effective or appropriate disciplinary strategy."

2004: Johns Hopkins study of behavior problems in school:
"Among white non-Hispanic children but not among black and Hispanic children, spanking frequency before age 2 is significantly and positively associated with child behavior problems at school age."

2006: U.S. National study:
The PubMed abstract states:

RESULTS: Physical punishment was associated with increased odds of major depression (AOR=1.22; 95% CI=1.01-1.48), alcohol abuse/dependence (AOR=1.32; 95% CI=1.08-1.61), and externalizing problems (AOR=1.30; 95% CI=1.05-1.60) in adulthood after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and parental bonding dimensions. Individuals experiencing physical punishment only were at increased odds of adult psychopathology compared to those experiencing no physical punishment/abuse and at decreased odds when compared to those who were abused.

CONCLUSIONS: Physical punishment is a mild form of childhood adversity that shows an association with adult psychopathology.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin29.htm

Society thanks you for producing our future citizens :sarcasm:
Taking a smack at them requires a lot less energy than involving yourself in strategic ways to discover what motivates them and what consequences they value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Society WILL thank me for the child I raise.
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 03:59 PM by rd_kent
Only time will tell, but I am confident that my child will turn out to be a well-adjusted, free-thinker.

And I think you know where I stand on religion: right on top of it, trampling it down into the dirt where it belongs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. If not
you can always belt him one.

You'll get no thanks from me for increasing the violence level on the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Since I was not asking for any, I'm okay with that.
And for the record, I have yet to spank my child, as there hasnt been a need for it. Its a tool that is there if I feel I ever need it. Perhaps you could focus your outrage and your energy toward an area where children ARE being abused. You can start in your nearest church......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Where the Theocracy crazies can really affect you is when they are the
Edited on Sun Sep-06-09 03:31 PM by truedelphi
Only doctors in a region serving at a public clinic.

Certain Pain killers they will not recommend. Certain pregnancy measures they will not consider. Certain mental health remedies they will not prescribe. And on and on.

Science is being undermined by the religious crazies at one end, and on the other end, the lying bastards and their pseudo science inside Corporate-financed laboratories at the University level.

Between the two of them, the American people are losing the advantages of modern science and modern medicine that the Europeans take for granted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. The real battle ground here in the USA is the fear of loss of power by the religious.
The rest of the industrialized world has swung to control by a more secular, a more liberal and a more progressive society. We still have the showdown to come. Remember that the Republicans favor more power to the religious side. This is actually more important than universal health care because the Republicans expose themselves as being totally uncaring and greedy, which they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. OMG! Ike read Eric Hoffer!!!
:wow:

That's on one of those links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
38. I thought Hoffer's thought was a bit simplistic.
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 04:24 PM by Jim__
I remember his "analysis" of the anti-Vietnam War movement; e.g.:

He noted that in the 1960s America had many young adults still living in extended adolescence. Seeking to explain the attraction of the New Left protest movements, he characterized them as the result of widespread affluence which, in his words, "is robbing a modern society of whatever it has left of puberty rites to routinize the attainment of manhood." He sees these puberty rites as essential for self-esteem, and notes that mass movements and juvenile mindsets tend to go together to the point that anyone, no matter what age, who joins a mass movement immediately begins to exhibit juvenile behavior. He further notes that the reason working class Americans did not by and large join in the 1960s protest movements and subcultures was they had entry into meaningful labor as an effective rite of passage out of adolescence, while both the very poor on welfare and the affluent are, in his words "prevented from having a share in the world's work and of proving their manhood by doing a man's work and getting a man's pay" and thus remained in a state of extended adolescence, lacking in necessary self-esteem, and prone to joining mass movements as a form of compensation. Hoffer suggested that this need for meaningful work as a rite of passage into adulthood could be fulfilled with a 2-year civilian national service program (not unlike the earlier programs during the Depression such as the Civilian Conservation Corps), in which all young adults would do two years of work in fields such as construction or natural resources work. He writes: "The routinization of the passage from boyhood to manhood would contribute to the solution of many of our pressing problems. I cannot think of any other undertaking that would dovetail so many of our present difficulties into opportunities for growth."


I heard him speak on TV a couple of times, and he never (in my memory of hearing him) asked the question, were the protesters right? He just rambled on about mass movements. He also didn't ask the question of whether or not supporters of the war were a mass movement, and what were the motives of the people who joined that. His reasoning and pigeon-holing of people was very convenient for his political opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
15. For Your Own Good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence by Alice Miller
The full text of this book can be read free here:
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. Good site.
Thanks, Shallah. :thumbsup: I volunteered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
57. Huckabee 'My father was the most patriotic man I think I knew...He laid on the stripes; I saw stars.
http://www.alternet.org/politics/142479/how_mike_huckabee%27s_evangelical_creds_helped_him_avoid_the_gop%27s_collapse,_and_remain_a_political_threat_for_2012/?page=entire


While another nancial crisis loomed on the horizon, Huckabee dismissed economic tinkering as a remedy to the country's hardships. According to Huckabee's pessimistic vision, which was actually a projection of his experiences in evangelical culture, ordinary Americans are totally and naturally depraved. Scholarships and economic aid would do nothing to divert them from their slouch toward Gomorrah. The pain brought on by Americans' "social pathology" could be cured only through "grace," or submission to an omnipotent Jesus. And only Huckabee, with his background as a crude psychologist anointed by God, could lead the serried masses into the Kingdom. His campaign was for a magic helper, not a president.

Huckabee continued his speech by reminding pastors that the next generation was seething with sin. "We've gone from Leave It to Beaver to Beavis and Butthead, ... " he said. "From a time when teachers carried paddles and ruled the halls to now, where kids carry guns and the teachers are afraid." The only way to heal the nation's pain, Huckabee proclaimed, was to mete it out to the young rebellious ones. Again, he channeled Dobson. "Yes, I do believe that the old-fashioned ways of discipline are good ones," he remarked with a wry smile. "I was the recipient of quite a few. I tell people, 'My father was the most patriotic man I think I knew. Utter patriotism. He laid on the stripes; I saw stars.' True American patriotism!" For the first time, Huckabee's enraptured audience burst into spontaneous applause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC