Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Fox's unholy God fetish

Fox & Friends is already known as the favorite morning show of the baby Jesus....but they continue to carry the water not for religious freedom, which actual Conservatives support.....but  for Christian nationalism and religious preferentialism.

Helmet haired Gretchen Carlson vacuously inquires “The President calls for a moment of silence but he does not call for the word ‘God.’ So, some people are asking why is God being left out again?”.

I might remind the intellectual clown car that is F&F, that GW Bush signed Public Law 107-89, which designated 11 September as Patriot Day. The resolution does not mention God, and Bush only invoked the name in three of his eight proclamation signings.

Not to worry, this solemn day will end tonight, and Fox can go back to it's regularly scheduled programming of finding "Christian victims".


  1. ...wow. got much intolerance? A problem with the Free Exercise clause?

  2. ...cuz I know that I wasn't counting the number of times that GWB mentioned the Almighty. To be honest, I could really care less.

  3. Supporting religous freedom isn't intolerance.....supporting religious preferentialism is.

    F&F can say anything they like, I don't want to muzzle them....but they are not immune from reaction to what they say either.

  4. So characterizing f&f as one of seeking "Christianvictims" isa new form of religious tolerance? Who knew?

    btw - Know any religions that don't practice "religious preferentialism"? Andis it any worse than those who practice secular preferentialism?

  5. When an organization reports and reviews a persons public religous pronouncements [regardless of their stated position] as part of a wide effort to denigrate a person or persons as insufficiently Christian, and where the overt implication is that Christianity = Patriotism....it does not meet a logical definition of religious tolerance.

    Fox & Friends historical modus operandi has been to publicly showcase events where they present a disticntly biased viewpoint regarding the issue/event at hand. This is their right to do so, and they are equally welcome to frame the narrative as they wish [Fair & Balanced be damned]. But it does not meet the definition of intolerance to questions their motives and their message.

    Likewise, while all religions promote perferentialism within their ranks, when a religion - or secularists - seek to legislate that preferentialism to a point of exclusivity and harmful to the civil liberties of all Americans....it is a patriotic duty to highlight that fact.

  6. In the context of the recent DNC convention going "secular"... it is approriate to report on a certain incumbent's reliogious references... but NOT GWBs... which is the parallel you choose to draw.

    So let the free Exercise clause be... instead of trying to shame Christian's into" shutting up".

  7. If the DNC wants to be the godless party, that isalso, THEIR choice, and THEIR consequences to bear.

  8. Regarding the DNC; I would be among the last people to defend what they include in their platform, as I disregard any affirmation of religion in a political party's platform. As we've learned from both major parties, it's not instructive to hear them tell their base what they collectively believe in, it's only useful to account how they govern.

    However, in the DNC Platform is the following:

    "Faith. Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country."

    What is written above is not a factor in how I vote [nor how many times a party mentions God], but what is written above is not secular or Godless.

    Now to your other point, one of us is confused. I did not bring up GW Bush, nor was their a concerted effort to malign Bush's professed religion as a springboard to painting him as un-American or unpatriotic. So I've chosen no parallel here.

    Further confusion obviously arises on someones part when it is proposed that I should withhold commenting on the partisan actions of a mainstream media outlet, yet those actions come under no scrutiny from the proposer.

  9. So where's the "faith"in forming "evidence based partnerships" with religious organizations again?

  10. Probably occupying the same time and space as "God given this, that or the other".


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.