Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back October 9th, 2007 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
James Dobson and the Third Party

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]gloucester)

In a previous post I commented that I was attempting to develop a PR plan to punish James Dobson for recanting on his promise to form a third party, when/if he did in fact recant. I did develop such a plan, but then a friend called me on my hypocrisy--he reminded me that I am solidly against fear and anger in politics, and that, while it could work and "couldn't happen to a nicer guy," this plan amounted to concerted character assassination. As a result, I sought another approach, and what I have come up with is that I have to find a way to build support for the third party idea. All that's coming to mind in that regard is a PR campaign to support that course of action. I have lots more research to do.

So let me just feel some things out in this community. I get the sense that we are generally in favor of the pullout to a third party by Dr. Dobson and his peers, but that we don't think he'll do it. I'm not sure if I think he will or not, and I am coming to think that the GOP will give in before he will/won't. Are we generally in support of the pullout? What needs to be true before we can be assured Dr. Dobson will follow through? Is there anything we can do to help that happen? If so, what? I think it can be generally agreed that I do not have enough information to do anything yet, so what am I missing that I haven't thought to ask?

dogemperor [userpic]
Quote of the Day

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]hummingwolf)

In light of recent events, some many of you will groan when you see the name of the author, but even the official Richard Dawkins website has posted this quote--from a writer with a rather different overall mindset than Dawkins--with approval. Enjoy!

I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic, held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme--whose highest real claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.

--C.S. Lewis, from the essay "A Reply to Professor Haldane," as printed in On Stories And Other Essays on Literature

dogemperor [userpic]
Dominionist attacks on libraries?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]redstar826)

I'm currently in school studying library science, and my classes have spent a fair amount of time talking about various attempts to remove materials from library shelves.

While working on various assignments for school, I kept coming across a website for a group called Safe Libraries which is very critical of the American Library Association (ALA) and the ALA's support for intellectual freedom. Based on the links page on the Safe Library's web page, it's clear that this group has ties to a lot of the "family values" type groups. this article which appeared in the Chicago Tribune quotes Dan Kleinman, the guy who runs Safe Libraries.

In my classes, challenges to books are almost always made out to be the result of just one or two people being offended. However, there is also evidence to suggest that some of the Dominionist "family values" groups are getting involved and trying to get certain books removed from libraries.

Anyone know anything more about this particular group?

dogemperor [userpic]
If you drink beer...

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]amethyst_hunter)

...you might want to stock up on Miller's products before they merge with dominionist-happy Coors beer:

Brewers Molson Coors Brewing Co. and SABMiller PLC said today they will combine their U.S. operations in a joint venture.

The makers of Miller Lite, Original Coors and Coors Light said they will share ownership equally in the new venture which they said should help them compete more effectively...The new company will be called MillerCoors, the companies said. London-based SABMiller, which brews Miller Lite as well as a slew of European beers, and Molson Coors, the brewer of Coors Light and the craft beer Blue Moon, will each have a 50 percent voting interest in the venture and have five representatives on its board of directors.

Under the terms of the agreement, the companies said they will conduct all of their U.S. business exclusively through the venture.

Back October 9th, 2007 Forward