A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.
- S on A 2024 Freedom Agenda (ver. 0.1)
- C.E. Petit on Does Tripit Think I’m on a Watch List or Financial Sanctions List?
- jal on Does Tripit Think I’m on a Watch List or Financial Sanctions List?
- C.E. Petit on He’s Wrinkled, Rested, and Ready
- Michael Froomkin on Vote Castro in the April 25 Coral Gables Runoff (Can You Say that in Miami?)
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 2,772 other subscribers
The Headlilne You Will Never See
This entry was posted in Politics: Tinfoil. Bookmark the permalink.
Are suggesting that Mrs. Bachmann should consider the Ugandan charges credible? OTOH, Bill Ayers is an admitted terrorist. A strong case has been advanced for Ayers and Obama’s ties.
Although I would like to see more conclusive proof, Jack Cashill has made an extremely strong case that Ayers wrote some or all of Obama’s Dreams of My Father (for those like me who are disinclined to read Cashill’s book, he gives a great summary viewable on booktv.org). While mediamatters and its front organizations have launched unending personal attacks on Cashill, shockingly, I have yet to discover a coherent criticism of Cashill’s analysis.
So while I recognize your apparent attempt at turnabout, sadly, without more facts the Bachmann/Waldron association seems insignificant, whereas the Obama/Ayers connection may indeed be viewed as historians as one of the most shameful derelictions of duty (a downright cover up) in the history of American journalism.
Befriending terrorists or not, it seems clear that Congresswoman Bachmann is some sort of Christian Fundamentalist. If recent history has shown us anything, it is that religious fundamentalists (be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise) and freedom go together like oil and water. Ms. Bachmann does not belong in the White House or in any other part of government in this country. But I suppose I am preaching to the choir here.
The problem is progressives consider any religious person (defined as holding any sort of belief in a creator, including but not limited to acceptance or acknowledgment of intelligent design) to be a “fundamentalist.” That’s why they work so hard to convince themselves that Obama never attended Jeremiah Wright’s “church.”
Starting with the generalization that liberals are intolerant of religion – that notion is false. Since I will not generalize for all other liberals (as you have so callously done) I will use myself as an example. I am about as socially liberal as they come (a bit more moderate/conservative on fiscal issues). I have thought that religion was a giant crock of shit since I was about 13. However, I chose to remain in a Jesuit high school, I attended a Jesuit University, and I attended a Catholic Law School. Why? Because I found that most of the priests at these schools were 1) smart as hell!; 2) dedicated to education; 3) and tolerant of my religious dissent. I do not believe that the priests charged with my education were fundamentalists. Had I believed them to be fundamentalists, I would have gone somewhere else. Also, both of my parents remain semi-practicing Catholics (claiming to be religious, but only attending church sporadically). Neither of them is even near a fundamentalist. Marksman’s premise is just silly.
Turning to the issue of intelligent design – the problem is not belief in intelligent design, the problem is insisting that it be taught in science class. If you want to teach intelligent design in some kind of “survey of modern religious beliefs” class, I suspect that most liberals would be perfectly happy with that. However, insisting that intelligent design, or any faith based belief structure, be taught in science class is unacceptable, and, yes, may tag you as a fundamentalist.
I will say this though, ours is a secular government and religion (whether fundamentalist or not) has no place in secular government.
Sir, despite your pontificating, you are the one who suggests that Mrs. Bachmann is disqualified from office based on her religious beliefs. Case closed.
Obama was never qualified from day one because, “community organizer” experience notwithstanding, he had absolutely no proven executive or leadership skills. But equally important, he displayed, at best, extremely poor judgment by associating with Ayers and Wright, which the media tried to coverup.
This is the same media that is trying to convince you not to vote for Bachmann because she occasionally gets migraines.
Marksman, either you are just trying to get a rise of me (possible), or your world view is far too black and white for your own good. Go back and read what I wrote. You will see that my view of things is not nearly as you have (perhaps intentionally) mis-characterized it to be.
“Congresswoman Bachmann is some sort of Christian Fundamentalist … religious fundamentalists … and freedom go together like oil and water. Ms. Bachmann does not belong in the White House or in any other part of government in this country.”
You clearly believe Bachmann is disqualified based on her religious beliefs, which interestingly, you do not even know with precision and simply refer to as “some sort of” Christian Fundamentalist. Your personal interactions with priests are neither relevant nor interesting. They make no suggestion that Bachmann has not, cannot or will not observe and uphold the Constitution of the United States in her current service in Congress or her potential service in the executive branch.
Marksman, your last comment makes clear that you either a troll. My involvement in this thread is at and end. God day.