Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Christian Right Calls Al Franken a Liberal Bully for Exposing Their Big Lie
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Remember when Al Franken took apart the testimony of the lying Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family at a DOMA hearing? Minnery claimed that a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report showed that “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier.” Al Franken (D-MN) set him straight in front of “God and everybody”:
FRANKEN: Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote, “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here, from December 2010, to support this conclusion. I checked the study out. And I would like to enter it into the record if I may.
And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes. Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?
MINNERY: I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife.
FRANKEN: It doesn’t. The study defines a nuclear family as ‘one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.
Well, it may not surprise you to know that the religious right is unhappy about how that turned out – not that Minnery lied, of course, but that he got exposed as a liar. And since they were unable to really defend him for lying they seem to be embracing a new spin to put on the story that they think will take the focus off Minnery as a lying snake and put it on Al Franken as a mean former comedian. (Apparently it’s not so much a sin to lie as it is a sin to point out that a Christian fundamentalist is a liar. This is your religion, Jesus. You listening?)
We have Carrie Daklin, of Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) to thank for this new angle. Daklin wrote on July 29 that “Franken missed an opportunity to be kind to a witness.” What? You mean the problem isn’t that Minnery lied but that Al Franken wasn’t nice to him? This is what we’re supposed to take away from that DOMA hearing? Are you kidding me?
No kidding. Daklin did not write about was Minnery’s dishonesty, or his attempt to deceive Congress and therefore the American people. That seems unimportant to Carrie Daklin.
I have testified in a trial. It is not fun, it is not exciting. It is stressful. You are out of your element. Your adversary is salivating to get you to say something he can spin, some little something he can magnify out of proportion and use to his advantage. As an experienced paralegal I knew this when I testified, and I was in hyper-vigilant mode because I knew it. Imagine what it is like for someone who has no knowledge of the courtroom.
I have no knowledge of congressional hearings. I have never been to one. I can only hope that if I did have to testify before the Senate, whoever was questioning me would be kind, would recognize that this was his sandbox, not mine, and that, as a representative of our country, he would not embarrass me for his own purposes.
Sadly, when Tom Minnery testified, that was not the kind of treatment he received from Al Franken.
It doesn’t seem to occur to Daklin that Minnery might have escaped without a scolding if he’d simply been, oh, I don’t know…honest. There’s a thought! Look: You lie to Congress and you get busted. You can’t expect a pat on the back and a kindly, “Well, son, you tried; it just wasn’t your day.”
Of course, the National Organization for Marriage (meaning, against marriage just like pro-life means anti-life), also known as NOM, has eagerly linked to Daklin’s article. It is unsurprising that one group famous for deficient reasoning would link to another piece of deficient reasoning, and even less surprising that they, like Daklin, faily to mention that Minnery was lying. Daklin even made very weak excuses for the lying Minnery:
A fine performance, Sen. Franken, but here’s the rub: In case you missed it in those DOMA hearings, the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. So I would think it might have been reasonable for Minnery to assume that a federal report had followed federal law.
Whoa! Wait a second: are you telling me that Minnery is not required to actually read a study he cites before Congress before pretending he knows what it says? He can just assume it says what he wants it to say? If that was the case, the DOJ would not have pointed out that DOMA was unconstitutional. I begin to wonder if Carrie Daklin is even paying attention. I begin to think deficient reasoning hardly begins to cover it.
As a result of this blame the victim mentality a case of a conservative bigot lying to Congress has been turned by the religious right into a case of the liar being the victim and the person catching him at it being a liberal bully.
And Daklin’s charge is bizarre in the extreme:
The point here is not where you fall on DOMA or gay marriage. The point is that Franken, sadly, did exactly what we as a nation are finding so frustrating in government today: He polarized the situation. He escalated it. And that is not an appropriate role for the powerful position he occupies.
Again, Daklin has the chance to come clean, to point out that Minnery was at fault for lying. But instead of accusing him of polarizing the situation by intentionally misrepresenting a report in order to deprive a segment of our population of their equal rights, she lambastes Al Franken for catching him at it.
How catching somebody at a lie can be called “escalating” the situation is beyond me. Rather, it seems to me this is Franken’s job. I suppose we should not stop here but condemn anyone else who catches the forces of hate and bigotry lying. We can all laugh about it later in a more appropriate venue – concentration camps for the “homosexuals and their liberal allies.”
You have to wonder what sort of universe a person like Carrie Daklin lives in where she thinks the advice of her grandmother has any bearing on the forces tearing our nation apart: “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”
Really? You think this will work on the forces of dominionism? Really?
In a Hollywood film, she’d be the person who says “Wait, don’t shoot! Let’s reason with them!” right before being captured and tortured by the Spanish Inquisition. To switch to another metaphor, I suggest we let Carrie Daklin play “good Indian” if she wants while the rest of us remember that in history no good Indian ever escaped the fate of all the other Indians – the reservation.
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), a co-sponsor of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Respect for Marriage Act (intended to repeal ...
It’s always nice to get a bit of good news, given how little of it we’ve had recently. With the fundamen ...
Anyone who is looking for insight into what kind of Senator Al Franken will be, got a little bit of insight ...
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, in addressing the issue of early Christian forgeries, writes that there i ...
During his statement to the new Congress, Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) waded into the disputed Min ...
majii
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
A lie is a lie is a lie. Minnery shouldn’t have lied if he didn’t want Senator Franken to expose him. Both Daklin’s and the Dominionist Fundamentalists’ mindset seems to telegraph this message: “Let me do what I want to do, don’t ever question what I say even if you know it’s wrong, and, let me continue to lie in the name of Jesus.” Senator Franken didn’t follow their rules, and now, they’re pizzzed off because Senator Franken showed the world how they lie and twist the truth in their attempts to deprive gay persons, and others, of their constitutional rights. One can only hope that as a result of this exchange between Senator Franken and Minnery, some of the Dominionist Fundamentalists see that they are being misled by shysters like Minnery. If there’s only one, I’ll consider that a small victory for democracy over these “Liars for Jesus.”
Drakkonis
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Why are you guys calling this guy a liar? Franken makes a point that according to the wording in the report, same sex couples could be in the definition of “nuclear family”, not that they were. The lie is that this guy intentionally lied. Nuclear family means to me a family headed by a male and female, too. That you don’t doesn’t make me a liar. I would have assumed the report was referring to the same thing as well. That doesn’t make me a liar.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
You Assume?
Bet
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
You ASSUME!!! That makes an ass out of you and me.
anon
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 4:47 am
You’re also making an assumption that “nuclear family” also includes homosexual couples.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 8:04 am
from a post much further down in the comments
From Encyclopedia Britanica:
nuclear family, also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.
Nowhere does it say a nuclear family is a married man and a woman
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Now, now, Shiva, but it SHOULD and therefore, no matter what you just read and quoted, it MUST. That’s the thinking here; that’s what we’re dealing with.
Grady
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Protip:
When referring to a study it doesn’t matter how you define terms, it matters how they define terms.
The way the study defined nuclear families, if any family had married same sex parents they would be included in the study. So using that study to show that same sex parents is detrimental to a child would show either a poor understanding of the science couple with a disregard for the science or lying.
In my experience with people who are antiscience the latter seems pretty common. I assume that most of them are lying because they feel they need to further their religious agenda.
If you prefer to think that Minnery is just too stupid to understand the report, that’s fine, but he shouldn’t be testifying in front of congress.
LethalDose
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” – Isaac Asimov
Nuclear family can mean whatever it means to you, but when you are citing a report like that I would imagine it would behoove you to fully understand the report.
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
This is a very biased report. If I wrote a report stating that christians overall are intellectually below average…. people may make assumptions and start claiming that Christians are a dumb group.
Now in the back of my report I write in appendix A that “christians” refers to people who drop out of highschool. And this report has been about these people that I have chosen to call “christians”. This would cause some confusion, and the writers of the report should be criticised. But there are two things that would be true.
1) It is the writers of the report that are at fault, and the validity of the report is in question.
2) This doesnt mean that Chistians intelligence is not below average
3) Confusion is bound to happen with people looking to prove that Christians are dumb.
Webster:
nuclear family
noun
a social unit composed of father, mother, and children.
Lets cool it on the name calling, and admitt that the accepted meaning of nuclear family has somehow come into question……
Drew
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Haven’t read the report myself, so I can’t comment on how biased the article is.
But unfortunately, Grady’s right. It doesn’t matter how Webster defines “nuclear family”. It matters how the writers of the article define it as. Scientists usually take the typical definition as a guide. However, they tend to change the definition ever so slightly to clarify for other scientists. We might think a definition makes sense, but to them it often is a little too ambiguous. So Webster’s doesn’t always provide the best definition.
John
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
This is some beautiful reasoning. Focus on the Family cites the report as supporting their position. Obviously they therefore have faith in the study. Sen. Franklin – and the study author – point out that the study in fact does not support, or even speak, to their position. Suddenly now “this is a very biased report.”
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
You are correct. This report can show nothing about either gay marriage or straight marriage since it apparently groups them together (sweet lord jesus save us). But I do not represent focus on the family, and dont believe in anything they stand for, so I am not sure what your point is.
What I meant to say is this article is biased…. calling people liars and such. It is the authors of the report that should be criticised for their inability to perform a study without isolating certain obvious variables.
Lalalu
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
It is a known fact that lesbians and gays make better parents than heterosexual couples.
Children with lesbian parents are the happiest and least likely to suffer child abuse, followed by gays. Children of straight couples or single parent households are the most likely to suffer child abuse.
It’s baffling how you conservatives can know so little yet scream so loud. If you’re so ignorant, shut up and go read a damn book as you have nothing to contribute to society.
Allen
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Webster takes time to edit it’s old definition. It is not an authority, just a dictionary edited by some people. The actual definitions are from the report that may or may not agree with Webster. So,think before your write.
Scott
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 2:22 am
But your definition of Christians in the supposed studies would be intentionally misleading. In this study, it wasn’t. The definition may be different than yours, but it is a valid definition. And why, if the definition of nuclear family is supposedly is so clear and specific, why would he change it when he quoted the report? He didn’t use the phrase nuclear family? No, he changed it to meet his needs and wants.
And if I am going to testify in front of congress, I am pretty sure I am going to read the damn study!!
Scott K.
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Cal – in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married.
Cal Brantley
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 11:35 am
@Lalalu
I have no idea what to say to your hate filled message. I am not a conservative, and I never said that gay couples were bad parents… and I have never thought that. What I do think is that you have an anger problem and you seem to hate conservatives. This sort of hate I will never understand, and I believe it interferes with open discussions. Open your mind, and try to consider other possibilities.. that there are kind and loving people in all walks of life and with all religions and cultures.
Gay parents should have the same rights as straight families, and the government should not decide who can and cannot have children, even if it was shown that certain parents were worse than other parents. Rich parents can provide for their kids better than poor parents… does that mean that poor parents should not be allowed to reproduce? Who gives the government the right to decide things that nature has already decided?
For the record, I never said that Al Franken was wrong, just that labelling people liars and evil is counterproductive and wrong. He misinterpretted a study, and for that he should be criticized. Everything else is just hate.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Al Franken did not misinterpret the study. He interpreted it perfectly. The general using the study who had not read it and did not know the definition, and was also bending it to his own agenda was the one in the wrong
Forest
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
@drakkonis
Assumptions don’t cut it. You go before a formal committee…to argue a point…you don’t “assume”…..you know. That requires study and thought. If that went into Minnery’s effort….then it’s clear he lied. If he didn’t….it’s clear he’s not so smart.
In either case….. he gets a big -0- on the test, as does the MPR reporter who “missed the point”.
miklectric
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Liar may indeed be too strong a word and, IIRC, Sen Franken didn’t use it. On the other hand, Mr Minnery did, intentionally or not, misrepresent the methods and results of a _very_ carefully worded study in order to push a political agenda that _absolutely_ and directly hurts real families.
The study demonstrates what it demonstrates – if the study defined “nuclear family” without regard to the gender mix of the parents, then you cannot draw any conclusions about the gender mix. There have been same sex married couples with children in the US (let alone elsewhere in the world) during the course of this study and, in fact, the authors of the study have confirmed that same-sex couples were included.
Tara
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
We all makes assumptions, often without realizing it. The difference with Minnery, tho, is that he claimed his beliefs are supported by statistical truth. At his level of national involvement, he had to have been completely aware that he was interpreting a study with his own personal twist on it. In academic writing, you investigate your topic and objectively allow the evidence to present itself. Minnery interpreted the information to suit his particular beliefs.
James
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
The word nuclear was adopted before smaller particles making up atoms were discovered. Thus, nuclear connotes the smallest discernible composition to serve as defineable. Now, inasmuch as a nuclear family-and remember, we didn’t just wake up and discover it is 2011, here and now-can be considered at any time in the present to be the smallest generally constituted family unit in a society which has generally been acknowledged to have evolved away from the “Leave it to Beaver” ideal that was prevalent, oh, SIXTY YEARS AGO, most any intelligent and aware American citizen who has deigned to pick up a newspaper now and again over the past few decades has most assuredly been exposed to this evolution and probably remains wholly unaffected by the news, accepting is as de facto evidence that a family can be made up of any disparate group of individuals willing to subject themselves to all the pertinent abuse that accompanies parenthood.
And that includes, by the way, same-sex companions.
We really shouldn’t be having a post-mortem on this……
Joe
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
But what you’re saying is that he misunderstood instead of lied. That’s just as bad for a representative to do on an issue that their party places great importance on. Either A) He lied B) He’s talking out of his ass on a matter he actually knows nothing about or C) He is making assumptions and not doing his homework.
Have your pick because they all prove the same thing: That Republicans DO NOT care for FACTS.
Mike Crichton
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
The report includes those definitions in it. In order to honestly make that assumption, he’d have to have NOT READ the whole thing, which he claimed he had. So either way, he was lying about something.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Precisely, Mike.
Kerblonk
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Although “nuclear family” was not specifically defined in the excerpt, that paper said it did include same sex couples. If you actually read the whole paper, it is clear.
Scott K
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 2:25 am
Because he changed the report to serve his purpose that’s why. The study said nuclear family, why didn’t he say that when he made the statement? No, he changed it to say oppisite sex couples.
Ormonde
Aug. 10th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Nuclear Family defined: www.google.com/#hl=en...
If a lay person missed an esoteric definition it is not a lie.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 10th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Thats one definition, the Encyclopedia Britannica is different in its definition only in that it doesnt say the parents have to be man and woman. But the Wiki says that too
Nilbud
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 2:13 am
You’re right, the barking dunces condoning this ridiculous definition slicing are low grade morons.
jcinco
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
whine bag hypocrites need to stfu.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Makes perfect sense to me. Endgame around the issue. Do not tell the truth and do not stop lying
Cathy
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Of course they are upset–they have managed their own interpretations of everything from the Bible, the Constitution, etc and are astounded that anyone would be intelligent enough to call them on their fabrications. Their whole organization is based on others believing the interpretations rather than the real truth and facts. A house built on the sand–
goddess
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
There are a number of MPR hosts that I am VERY unhappy with… talk about being the lapdogs of the Rethuglican party.
Horace
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
This was a commentary piece written by a freelance writer, not an editorial. Simply an opinion piece from a member of the community.
MikeF
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
So you continue the LIE by intentionally misrepresenting that the subject of the article, Carrie Dakin, is an MPR employee. Good work.
The Abominable Doctor Pickles
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“Carrie Daklin is a Twin Cities-based freelance writer and a source in MPR’s Public Insight Network.”
I would very much like to know how that equates “MPR employee” since the MPR website seems to disagree with you. (minnesota.publicradio.org...)
Hughey
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I hate to say it, but saying Minnery lied here is a bit of a stretch. From his viewpoint, a “nuclear” family really would be that weird 1950′s idea of husband, wife, 2.5 kids and a dog. It’s spin but not an outright lie.
And Franken’s response was perfect. He never said Minnery was a liar;rather, he pointed out that pretty much everything he says is based on a complete misunderstanding of the report he was trying to cite.
These prejudiced puppets get more and more disgusting, but also…every day they get farther and farther from the mainstream. More and more of America looks at these people and recognizes their bigotry for what it is: fear & hate.
Angela
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:13 am
This. Exactly. And he did it in a calm and reasonable tone of voice.
Gary Lee
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Exactly. Senator Franken did not use words like “lie” or “liar”, he simply questiions the expert witnesses expertise. They call that “voir dire”, and it is expected of every expert witness that they be able to defend their credentials and justify their testimony. Minnery did not do his homework and therefore gave a few wrong answers on the test.
Hughey
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:59 am
Ah, but Conservative media called Franken out because he didn’t baby Minnery when questioning his expertise. But, as this excellent article says, why should he have to baby someone he has found to not fully understand the subject/evidence he’s been asked to testify about?
More importantly, WHY is Minnery considered an expert on this subject?! Serious question…
cynthia
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:14 am
@Hughey: I agree. His own bigotry caused him to assume the “man and woman” model. These guys lie enough, we do not need to call them out when they make erroneous assumptions.
Cal
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
These guys lie enough, we DO need to call them out when they make erroneous assumptions. FTFY.
Hughey
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:56 am
I agree, but not by calling them “liars.” Rather, but correctly calling them “mistaken.”
Which you might agree tends to happen entirely too often. Lately I’ve had to explain to Conservative family members exactly how aspects of the “debt ceiling” work. I had to pull up articles for them to read to try and understand it. They, however, still had no problems with having vehement opinions BEFORE understanding (courtesy of Fox News specifically). And that seriously disturbed me.
Jason
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Minnery was never called out. Al Franken just wanted to set the definitions of the study straight. Your victimizing Minnery too much. He was called to speak as an “expert”, and his expertise was shown to be absent in this situation. The words “lie” or “liar” were never used…
MikeTheInfidel
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:43 am
“From his viewpoint, a “nuclear” family really would be that weird 1950′s idea of husband, wife, 2.5 kids and a dog. It’s spin but not an outright lie.”
Either it was a lie or he was revealing that he didn’t read the study closely enough to know what the definition was. The question was about how the study defined a nuclear family, not how he did:
“Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?”
His response was to say he believed the study defined it as a married heterosexual couple. The study said no such thing. So either he simply didn’t know, or he did know and he lied about it.
Hughey
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:50 am
Oh, I’m thinking he knew exactly ‘what’ the study said, but when the study said “children of two parents that are married,” this is where interpretation becomes based on ideology. NOM is fighting tooth and nail to define marriage as “one man, one woman.” in fact, in so many States it actually is defined that was in their Constitutions (mine included, and I find that terribly disgraceful), so honestly, how is it to be expected where Minnery’s understanding of the study would be?
My point is he didn’t lie. He was simply exposing his ideology and Franken brilliantly called him out on it.
What is especially gross, of course, is the Right’s response of calling Franken a bully. I mean, he didn’t come out and say “sir, you’re so locked in prejudice you can’t see past your own shoelaces.” …I kinda wish he had though, because you KNOW if he wanted to be insulting/bullying it would be far wittier than anything we could imagine. :)
Greg Esres
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“I hate to say it, but saying Minnery lied here is a bit of a stretch. ”
I agree. Maybe he did lie, but I think the most charitable interpretation is that he misunderstood. I hate to see critics spring-loaded to make the worst interpretation of events. Cognitive biases are quite enough to explain the errors that most people make without invoking deception. The latter more often reveals more about the accuser than the accused.
Brown cow
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Oh boo hoo. Poor thing got caught lying. If there’s anyone guilty of bullying, it’s the Far Right God Patrol.
JEB
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I’m so happy to see this pointed out . . . “THEY LIE, THEY LIE, THEY LIE, IN THE NAME OF JESUS, THEY LIE”.
It needs to be shouted from the roof tops, on the street corners and every where else possible. And then they lie about lying. I was raised Christian but thank goodness I disavowed this faith a long time ago. If there was ever a whirling dervish Jesus would have to be it with the way these people lie . . . in his name, eh?
TomChicago
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Sorry, I sincerely doubt that Minnery “misunderstood” the study. Basing your arguments on evidence depends upon a very close reading of that evidence, I would have thought. Of course, he is in the polemic business, not the evidence business, so hard cheese for him.
Edward
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
One of the things that bothers me the most about christian nationalist is how much they lie. It is one thing for us to disagree it is another when you lie to try to convince people that your ideas are right.
Ingarose
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Why are some democrats smooching up to the religious right? I am not talking about Al Franken, he was great. I always admired him. I am talking about others. Congressman Rangel, democrat, was just on Huckabee talking about bringing God back to our side (USA) and about Jesus and a Christian nation etc.
Personally, I am not an atheist, but a believer in God, higher being, Allah etc. Most major religions have really quite a lot of similarities. Besides, people can be spiritual without any religion (I am one of those) and I get so upset when one religion tries to bully everyone else.
What on earth’s difference is there between Rick Perry’s Christian prayer propaganda and that of the Taliban?
But if most democrats don’t even speak up and others like Rangel actually agree with the Jesus freaks something is wrong. Because the Jesus freaks do not follow anything he apparently said, especially ‘the sermon on the mount’.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
I think Rangel is going to switch partys. You can commit any crime you want there and not be punished
Dakotahgeo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
The difference between Perry Prayer Party and the Taliban? Absolutely nothing! In fact the American christian Taliban are joined-at-the-hip twin brothers of the Middle East Taliban. The AcT just slapJesus in the face harder and more often!
Dakotahgeo, M.Div. Pastor/Chaplain
Dakotahgeo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
It’s also rather interesting that ‘Jesus” Christ was not a Christian! Was he?!
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
He could not have been, since there was no Christianity (which is a religion about Jesus) while Jesus was alive.
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
.. Actually, the Jesus of story was a ‘Christian’ who thought he was a god and obviously worshipped himself… so that makes him a ‘Christian’…
History Buff
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:24 am
I find it interesting that Jesus was one of the world’s first Socialist Liberals. Almost all members of today’s Christian right would have a very difficult time with Jesus’ attitudes of looking out for the poor, helping the sick and lame, giving fish and bread to the multitudes, and stepping between the adulteress, and those authorities who wanted to hand out punishment. Most of today’s “political Christians” have completely lost the intent and lessons in the book they hold so dear.
elizabeth
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Thank you. This is so true. They make it very difficult for those of us who actually wish to follow christ’s teachings. these people make my heart bleed for all the pain, trouble and trauma they throw around like confetti at a home game. Jesus would have chased them out with a scourge until they figured out that people are more important than profit.
DannyEastVillage
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Minnery played fast and loose with scientific research. Since science isn’t conservative’s strong suit, I guess we need not be surprised that he got busted.
Franken, meanwhile, was calling for responsible reading and use of the data but conservatives aren’t too strong on responsible uses of dat either (think “abstinence only”).
You can call it bullying if you want, but I call it accountability for one’s words. And, no, conservatives don’t like THAT
DannyEastVillage
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
SORRY–cut myself off.
I call lit accountability for one’s words, And no conservatives dont like THAT one either.
MJ
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Now, why should they be accountable when they can simply take umbrage, call the other side out for being “insensitive,” make a mountain out of a molehill, in order to call attention away from other issues? If you’re looking for sanity and responsibility in the Republican party, though they’re all so full of alleged “personal responsibility,” you’re not going to find it here.
Dakotahgeo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Amen, Brother! AMEN!!!
Taco
Aug. 6th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
I am ignorant of many higher level American Politics, but I know if you lie on the stand in criminal court, you are thrown in jail for perjury. Does congress simply allow Perjury to go unpunished. At this level I would expect a congressman to be removed from his post simply based on ethics violations.
Jim
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Franken isn’t a liberal bully, he is just irrelevant. When did he leave Saturday Night Live?
Robert
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:02 am
then it’s kind of sad that Minnery, the so called expert, was smoked so easily by someone who is irrelevant. Doesn’t say much for the right.
Nasty Liberal
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:16 am
There, fixed.
Gary Lee
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Senator Franken is not a bully who goes around slamming people for kicks. If you watch the various hearings he is in he asks hard questions, but he does not scream or call names like some all-to-well-known celebrities who slam Franken repeatedly. Franken just doesn’t suffer fools easily. If you are going to testify before a committee he is on you’d better know what you are talking about because you can bet he has researched it ahead of time, just like a senator or representative should.
Dakotahgeo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
If Franken was irreverent, we need more irreverent people like him!
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
.. Franken called on Congressmen to have the SAME healthcare coverage as every other American… instead of better separate coverage… knowing having the same coverage would ensure everyone got GREAT coverage…
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:28 am
Some on the right get scared when they see a politician that’s far better than the cheats and liars they used to seeing from the right
Baruch
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
A USSenator who questions a witness is irrelevant? Perhaps it is you who are irrelevant. No one is writing article about you. Hmm.
Makarios
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:20 am
Apparently Minnery’s testimony was “not intended to be a factual statement.” Which is the wingers’ way of saying that “it’s true until I get caught lying, and then it’s not a lie because I didn’t intend it to be accepted as truth.”
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Well and accurately put, Makarios.
novenator
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:10 am
Focus on the Family is just another one of those dogmatic christian conservative Talibangical front groups that spews disinformation, lies, and propaganda to push their socially repressive agenda. I think Jesus would loathe them.
PakiII
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 8:14 am
The religious right speaks so often against “moral relativism,” yet they are clearly the masters of the practice. It (lying, for instance) is only immoral when someone else does it, and they are only obligated to make “moral” decisions when it’s convenient. They don’t have to make “moral” choices when it comes to mercy, grace, love, kindness, and humility (those things Jesus emphasized the most). No, morality only matters to them when it comes to judging others for things that don’t matter, or when it comes to putting people in office who share their perverted view of life.
cathy
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:52 am
I love Al Frankin I wish he were my senator!
Mike B
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 11:07 am
The only real Christians, that truly embrace christian values and ethics I know about in the Unites States of America are the Amish and Menninites, maybe some Quakers. Everyone else seem to be posers. Im not a member of any of these groups. Just sayin’.
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
While I agree with you in terms of the original meaning of the teachings of Jesus, most religious people mean well and have a culture that must be respected even if some religious leaders are corrupt. I do not like the leftest – rightest bickering that is occuring in this article, and as a centrist looking for a political home, it reflects poorly on the liberal group overall.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Speaking as a centrist, I completely disagree with your findings, Cal. Facts are facts. Minnery lied; Franken caught him at it. Turning Franken into a bully for exposing a lie is sort of backward thinking, isn’t it?
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
You want him to be lying, but there is no proof that he made this mistake intentionally. He thought he found some facts that back his position, but he was incorrect in his interpretation of the report.
This is what bothers me. Seeking to vilify the guy who disagrees with your political views. Centrists dont do that.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
If he knew the report he referenced, he would also know the definition of a nuclear family. He bent it to his purposes
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
.. Yes, if he didn’t have a psychotic religious viewpoint, he could read reports accurately… maybe he should set the handicap of his biased viewpoint aside when reading things so that he can get it correct…
Derrik Pates
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Whether he lied explicitly, or just *conveniently* missed the part of the study that explicitly enumerated what they meant, really matters little. Either one reflects quite poorly on the fellow in question. Either way, he took it and ran with it, not caring what the study actually said. It’s not like the words weren’t right in front of him. Whether due to ignorance or malice, it still comes out to be a big black mark.
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
.. Ah Cal, you’re incorrect, psychotic religics are not required to be “respected”, only TOLERATED, under our system… and their lies don’t even need to be tolerated, just EXPOSED…
Dakotahgeo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
You hit it spot on the mark, Mike B! I AM a Mennonite, formerly a battered Baptist. They walk the talk on peace and justice and don’t have to cut their neighbors’ tongues (forked tongue) in order to sound good. They simply walk the Christian talk, which, if I’m not mistaken… is what Christ admonished us to do??!?? (Baptists really, REALLY hate each other M-Sat.).
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
. LOL! The Jesus of story went berzerk in the temple and horsewhipped the Jewish bankers to death and was hung by the Romans for it (at the insistence of the Rabbis)… that is NOT a “walk” I want to walk… or have anything to do with…
Olivia
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 11:27 am
What, no whining about “gotcha questions”? How could they have let that one slip by?
Leo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
So many fundies seem to be full of hate for some reason. They believe in “freedom” but can’t wait to impose restrictions on others when it suits them.
Baruch
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Christofascism is very real.
Herman
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
This article points out very well the fact that lying should not tolerated by any of our elected officers in Washington or any of our great 50 states. For someone to point out perceived inconsistencies in a persons statement is fair game. I believe that Al Franken has the right to say whatever he wants to and I know that if he were to be challenged, as well, that that would be okay with him, I’m sure. What Al Franken points out here is something that many of us would want to question if it looks as though it may go against the perceived notions of the intended parties thoughts and writings. I am shocked to have learned by this writer that the National Organization for Marriage and the Pro-Lifers actually mean the opposite of what they say. This would make me wonder about other organizations that have a name that is really the opposite of what is intended. I don’t know if Media Matters would fall into that category but it would be worth considering, I suppose. I want to thank the writer of this article for what he has said. It gives great insight into the mind of what some people may say “is not the Christian right”. This expose is very helpful in determining some peoples position on the matters at hand and gives ammunition to better argue that position. Thank you for your personal insights.
aspromised
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Minnery DID lie because it was HE who cited that as evidence despite the fact that he ignored parts of the document. Those who are saying he didn’t *really* lie: you make it sound like this was suddenly placed before him and asked for comment. That was not the case. Willful deceit IS lying!
Ben Gordon
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Christians LIE? Who’da thunk?
Before monotheism, wars were fought for concrete reasons (shipping, territory, power, etc) after monotheism, the killing intensified (God said I needed to kill you). Since AD-1 (2011 years) there have been (in the western sphere of influence) there have been (by my reckoning) an aggregate 88 years of peace! And how much violence is in the “old testament”?
Mao was right, religion is a disease.
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
. Mao said religion is a disease? I didn’t know that. All on my own I realized “ALL RELIGION IS MENTAL ILLNESS”… hmmmnnn, thanks for the re-inforcement…
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
A nuclear family is defined as a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children, all exclusively sharing living quarters. For those of you claiming otherwise… please use a dictionary before speaking. Just because the wording of this study was incomplete does not change the meaning of the term Nuclear family……. and it is not up to Al Franken to try to redefine what a Nuclear family is, based on a technicality.
If you cant be an adult…. just bicker about semantics and call people names. I usually like Al Franken, but how can you support this behavior? Not acceptable. He does come off as a bully and a name caller.
Dakotahgeo
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Unfortunately for the uptightey whitey christian Taliban, Franken is so intelligent the oppressers see it as bullying and name calling. Minnery was a DUNCE! He was trying to be a know-it-all and knew nothing! That’s what happens when one gets coached by bad teachers! SENATOR Franken is one sharp cookie! This drives the conservatards nutz!
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
This may be true. Franken may be smarter….. but it doesnt make Minner a liar, nor does it make Franken’s behavior acceptable. I personally cant stand either side of this debate, and there is no winning in either case. In my opinion, any study that groups gay marriages and straight marriages in the same group has some explaining to do, if the goal of study was to compare different family situations.
I dont think Senator Smalley is wrong, and I believe he wins the debate here by discrediting this study…. but all the liar liar stuff is pure hate, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
.. Remove “whitey” from “uptightey whitey Christian Taliban” and you have a valid point… they’re not just whites…
.. Minnery’s error reminds me of when I watched a bit of Rev. Dr. James Kennedy’s TV show and he applied the famous Einstein E=MC2 equation to a situation that was nowhere near the incredible speed of light, which is the ‘C’ in that equation… talk about preaching to the choir, nobody in his audience questioned it… that’s what religics are used to…
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Cal, for your information, the author of the study says Franken is correct, and Minnery is wrong
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
That does say much for the author of the study, does it?
BuzzLOL
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
.. That says Franken knew what he was talking, the same interpretation I would make, BTW, and that minnery was lying or wrong…
Baruch
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Cal, why are you defending someone who clearly was wrong? What are you really saying?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Cal cares only about ideology, reality as it SHOULD be, not as it is
Bruce
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
There are many cases where scientific studies use jargon that doesn’t match up with the “common definition”. That doesn’t make the scientific studies wrong, but it makes it harder for the layman to understand them from a synopsis.
God
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Please kill all right wing republicans and christians. They intentionally misrepresent everything I have ever tried to accomplish for my people. Kill they now. Kill them with urgency. Kill them without pity. Thus sayeth the lord thy god.
Neurosine
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
I guess this isn’t supposed to be objective journalism.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Explain
tom glass
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Al Franken got it right. Thank heavens for is sane voice in congress.
Zoe
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I’m very atheist and really despise christianity in particular and while I completely agree with Al Franken on this one I watched the interaction and I wouldn’t define what Minnery did as a lie. Minnery was misinformed and/or ignorant to the actual definition of a nuclear family (which I can’t believe someone who can’t accurate define “nuclear family” is even at the DOMA) and when Franken explained the real definition to him Minnery said he had “assumed” it was defined as a heterosexual household. He didn’t then insist that Al Franken was wrong. He insisted that he had assumed that and would need to look into it, and Franken was absolutely right. If the guy doesn’t know the current definition of “nuclear family” he should be trying to redefine it.
Cal Brantley
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
The term “Nuclear family” has existed since the 40s and it has always referred to the common husband, wife, kids, family structure. That IS the definition. At least it is in the English language.
Eric
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
From Encyclopedia Britanica:
nuclear family, also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.
And, as has already been stated numerous times. The people who did the study gave the definition of “nuclear family” that they were using. So the people who wrote the study weren’t biased. If Minnery didn’t choose to read how the writers of the study were using the word, it was his own irresponsibility that caused the confusion. If you’re going to cite studies, you should know how to read a study report… which involves understanding how the terms are being used.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I don’t believe Minnery was either misinformed or uninformed; his was a deliberate lie. It’s dangerous to assume these people don’t know what they’re doing. They do; they know perfectly well.
imax theater locations
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
some pretty bold statements for someone who knows as little as i do about this case.
getting hung up over a super literal interpretation of a word, which has zero effect on the outcome of the study, is really they way you want to fight this battle?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
You believe lies should be allowed to pass unremarked, then?
Chris
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
So does anyone know how many same-partners families were included in the definition of nuclear family in this report?
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
The definition says 2 people who are married. The definition is in the vid. It doesnt define men and women being married only
crowepps
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
This makes absolutely no sense. How can someone who admits “I have no knowledge of congressional hearings. I have never been to one.” have any useful insight to offer about a subject which she admits up front she’s ignorant about? Just as the person testifying should have read the study they misconstrued, this writer should have read up a little on congressional hearings before writing their article.
Maybe then they would have grasped that the purpose of the hearing was to promote discrimination against US citizens, and Sen. Frankin wanted the actual facts of the study in question on the record not for “his own purposes” but because he is a representative of all of the citizens in his district, including the ones the witness wished the law to discriminate against.
imax theater locations
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
if nuclear family meant married couple when the study was performed, and same sex marriage was illegal at the time, perhaps his assumptions were correct?
disclaimer- i have no horse in this race. I just see a lot of hypocrites jumping on this guy over literally nothing. If you wish to attack him, do it honestly.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
A nuclear family was defined as two people married with kids. Not a man and a woman married with kids
No one special
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 7:52 am
I am trying to understand how two same sex individuals have i.e. create a kid?
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 8:01 am
the definition does not state that the married couple do not have to create children, just the children exist. For instance adoption is a very viable instance
MotherLodeBeth
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Historically a nuclear family does mean a father and mother, not single parents, same sex parent families.Look the word/term up in a dictionary. As much as I may disagree with FOTF the gentleman was correct in what he had written.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Actually, the head author of the study referred to says Franken is correct. FYI – institutionalized marriages and other unions between same-sex couples were not unusual in the ancient world. Nor is one-man/one-woman even a nuclear family in the Old Testament.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Actually someone did look it up. And your definition is not valid.
James Crutcher
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 9:33 am
The term nuclear family was not around in the old testament. The term was invented in the 40s describing a typical family with a father, mother, and children. This are the facts, no matter what the author of the report says.
This report should not be used in any context other than to show the benefits of having two parents instead of 1. But, you look silly when you show your ignorance of the term nuclear family.
I suggest you invent a new term for the same sex marriage with children, since it obviously fits into its own category.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 11:42 am
had you read the rest of the thread you would’ve seen the definition. It has nothing to do with the Old Testament
From Encyclopedia Britanica:
nuclear family, also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
There’s a convincing rebuttal!
Bruce
Aug. 7th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Thanks for the ad hominem argument. In reality, Franken’s quite intelligent, and likes to do his homework, which is why he was able to point out the errors in Minnery’s assumptions and claims.
hollywood
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:41 am
I think we should legalize prostitution, allow nudity everywhere, legalize poligamy and orgies, have gambling everywhere, let everyone just hsve sex w each other, marry each other, do drugs openly, take any kind of hand outs, live it up… And then when worms crawl from their eyes, the Lion of Judah will appear and incinerate it all w one word. Ta Da. FInally!
Mikeyhatesit
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 1:06 am
Another point about Minnery: in citing the (quite incorrectly) one scientific study about family groups, he opens himself up to evidence from any research that has occurred between his DOMA-inspired interpretation and the dates of the committee. Newer information came to light that children of same-sex familial structures had better than expected rates of achievment than those of heterosexual families.
That isn’t saying that gay families are better, but given that homosexuals rarely have children accidentally, they statistically trend toward having more advanced education and higher salaries, which benefits any children they’ve adopted. They can focus more resources on a fewer number of children, including personalized attention.
Another study demosntrated, detrimentally for NOM & other groups against same-sex marriages, that heterosexual males are more likely to molest children of the same sex. The boogeymonster of the gay man coming out of the closet to assault little boys and recruit them into the lifestyle (for that free toaster!) simply holds little weight.
Minnery wants to use science to back up his arguments, yet he has to ingore parts of the very study that he wishes to draw from; and newer information certainly won’t be presented if it torpedoes his own case.
In anthropology/sociology, the “family” is whatever group that helps the different generations survive. It may or may not include ritualized pair-bonds, but the most successful families in any culture are the ones that draw from a variety of resources to support each other.
The only thing that should matter is that they all care. Whatever works, baby!
Kevin
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 2:01 am
In all fairness, he didn’t make a point that merited a serious response. In the first place, who the hell even knows which part of my post he was responding to? If you follow the thread, the original poster points out that the function of a hearing isn’t to make those testifying feel warm and fuzzy. It’s to get at the truth. As I said in my post, I try to ask people why they are credible or why their source is credible. Franken basically asked the guy if he was starting out with a lie, why should anyone take anything else he said seriously? laborer is one of many poorly educated neocons here who has no debate skills or common sense. If you’re going to simply regurgitate some meaningless crap just to be contrary, at least pretend you can think of a comparable example. He can’t support his arguments using anything other than biased, right wing sources and, when challenged on his sources, he responds with juvenile horsesh*t like his post above. I hope that clarifies matters.
Paul shunatona
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 2:35 am
“Good Indian?” And here I thought the only good Indian was a dead Indian – Not a Rez Indian.
JJohnson
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 2:48 am
The report says nothing at all about same sex couples or marriages. The report covers 2001 through 2007. Massachussets was the only state that allowed gay marriage at that time so there would be no need for a more thorough definition. The report does repeatedly use the term ” traditional nuclear marriage”. Turning it into a tool to use against gay marriage though is ridiculous.
Kevin
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 7:19 am
You expect self awareness and logic from a group of people that largely believe they were created from clay by a wizard and that humans used to be able to live for hundreds of years?
Rick Bryant
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Franken is correct. A lie is a lie and the liar is a liar. Simple.
John T
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
I am not a christian, and I honestly do not have a stance on gay adoption… as it really doesnt effect me in any way. As a casual observer, and one new to this site, it seems there is a ravenous hatred on this message board towards an entire group of people. I find this a little bit troubling. I have never voted for a republican in an election, but I know many conservative people that I know to be intelligent and good natured. Why do so many of you hate conservative and christian people with such passion?
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
the people in question here are not Christians. They are fundamentalist Christians who have an entirely different agenda than the everyday Christian does there is a considerable difference between a fundamentalist Christian in your everyday run-of-the-mill man On the St., Christian
crowepps
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
The public face of Christianity has been highjacked by intolerant, hateful people, who shoot doctors, tell women they deserve to die for having sex, howl for the torture and death of gays, claim that children born in American don’t deserve to be citizens if they’re brown, and are content if the poor starve in the gutter.
Where does the hostility come from? ‘Everyday Christians’ allowed these people to get away with claiming they were representing all Christians for years.
“A man reaps what he sows.” Galatians 6:7
Hannah
Aug. 8th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Is the cited report available online somewhere? I’d like to check it out for myself.
Wes
Aug. 11th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
if they are christian why do they call themselves fundamentalist??
I thought that was a term they reserved for muslems.
Misha
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
It’s spelled “muslims,” and you obviously don’t know the definition of a fundamentalist. Never heard fundamentalist christians? They’ve played a pretty big part in US history. A fundamentalist can be of any culture, religion, or philosophy.
John S
Aug. 15th, 2011 at 5:33 am
We just call them fundi’s for short
Christian
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 1:54 am
It would be statistical stupidity to try and claim there is enough data at the time of the study to state that a nuclear family included a substantial number of same-sex couples in the group studied. Without looking much further, I would argue that it is a safe statement to define a nuclear family as man and woman in the context of that study. So, was he precise on the statement (probably not), but generally speaking that study likely referred to nuclear family as man and wife anyway.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 9:54 am
In other words, make the definition fit the study.
There are quite a few definitions of nuclear family, but only the oldest ones make note that its a man and a woman
Rob
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 4:25 am
Not at all, any religious nutbag who believes ‘fundamentally’ in anything can be classified as a fundamentalist. Christian fundamentalists can be just as dangerous as any other type
Misha
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Would you ever hear someone so stupid as to cite wikipedia in a congressional hearing? There’s a reason why this is the case.
mm
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 6:51 am
Lie? Really? Check the defintion at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuc...
Sounds like the Focus guy was right.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Please be careful of Wikipedia. We have discussed this exhaustively, including a definition by Encylopedia Britannica – not to mention the author of the study who says that Franken was correct
John Harvey
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Since when is Wikipedia an authoritative source for the meaning of words. Who wrote the article on Nuclear Family? I find it interesting that the article has been undergoing repeated revisions since the Congressional testimony. The Wikipedia editors have been repeatedly undoing revisions on the article. I suspect someone (or a small group) is trying to justify Mr. Minnery’s version of reality.
Misha
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Would you ever hear someone so stupid as to cite wikipedia in a congressional hearing? There’s a reason why this is the case.
Randy
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Clearly both Minnery and Daklin grew up on a farm.
They both know that for fly catching, excrement works much better than either honey or vinegar.
They both spread it freely and liberally. Oops. Both those adverbs may be considered swear words in their world.
:-/
Bill
Aug. 12th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Well, I’ve read over this article 3 times now, and although it uses the word lie, and varied versions of the word in relation to Mr. Minnery’s testimony, I have yet to see where he lied. What he’s guilty of is simply not fully understanding what he was reading, which isn’t good either, especially when your giving testimony to congress. He should have checked much deeper into his references. However, using the word lie is purposefully trying to mislead readers into siding against the Christian community… once again. My compliments to Al Franken for doing a very thorough job. I would hope everyone reading this writers (Hrafnkell Haraldsson) material would be as thorough as Mr. Franken because the way it’s written is very very misleading.
Ted
Aug. 13th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Bill, I don’t know if you realize this, but every single action taken by Christian Fundamentalists is plotted and planned for months ahead of time in order to maximize their power over the uninformed. This is the way that churches (particularly the Christian church, but really all churches) function – this is what they do and what they have been doing for thousands of years.
Religion is a means of controlling the populace, we need to assume that this man was maliciously misleading those listening to his testimony otherwise he’s just going to keep doing the same thing until someone actually falls for it.
Bill
Aug. 18th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Ted, Any organization that wishes to effectively promote their perspective or ideals will as you say “plot and plan for months ahead of time” and are not exclusive to Christianity. In fact I believe there are a couple of buildings missing in NY from the plotting and planning from a non-Christian organization. I think you see it more from Christian churches only because they have been the predominant religion in the US since its independence and our government was based on its ideals, although I wonder how much longer that will last.
“Religion is a means of controlling the populace”?? Really… only religion??? There are many non-religious organizations and communities that use a system of control of one kind or another. Again it’s not exclusive to religion and certainly not exclusive to Christianity.
“We need to assume this man was maliciously misleading those listening to his testimony” I see absolutely no justification for this accusation based on the above text. I’m afraid I just don’t see the logic in your argument, you sound like you have an axe to grind against religion, why?