Bro, every ideology/religion has their outspoken loons.

The people that I now that are right-wing and Christians are actually very polite, gentle and kind people. They just don't make for very good soundbytes so they get ignored.

(I don't think that Michael Moore speaks for the left either.)

Yes...I know every ideology/religion has their loons. But these are the leaders of the Religious Right. You have a former predident on that list. You have former legit presidential candidates. You have congressman. These are the leaders of the Religious Right, and that is disturbing.

Leaders of the religious right? Escuse me but I'm fairly right-wing in my politics and also a Christian and by no means are any of those people my leaders.

It's not like Christian Republicans have an election every four years and keep on electing Jerry Fawell. Fawell and Co. are just simple people who get globs of attention because they makes for a good soundbytes ("Did you hear what Jerry Fawell said today?"). Don't pass judgement on a group of people based on what you see in the media.

I do appreciate your bristing to these tough comments. But I do think it's misguided to say that these people are somehow representative of a certain religion or political persuasion.

Would you say that Michael Moore is your leader?

No...I would not say that Michael Moore is "my leader".

But I have a really hard time hearing people say that the above people are not your "leaders". They are at the least "spokesmen and spokeswomen" of the far Right. And they are quite influential.

Fair enough, Dave. I just think you'd be surprised at how few of the "Religious Right" actually view these people as anything but whack-jobs. (George Bush Sr. excluded. He's definately influential but not in a religious sense. I don't even think he attends church.)

I think you've got a point Dave. These are prominent leaders who get a lot of consistent press. Tons of people listen to these folks including Limbaugh as well.

You might have point aboot MM but I don't think I've read anything quite as hateful and intolerant as quoted above from him and I doubt I will.

These people speak for the religious right the same way Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan speak for African Americans. Which is to say, they don't, except for a minority within those respective niches.

For what it's worth though, if Falwell had all the power he truly wanted, it wouldn't look THAT much different than the Taliban. Dude even Residence Life at Biola!

Roland...you really do not think that Falwell, Coulter, Bush Sr., Robertson, etc have significant influence? They may not have as much influence in Washington as they would like to think, but I know that they have influence on many people around the country.

I believe they are equivalent to Jackson and Farrakhan. They have influence because they are noisy and attention whores and they DO have followers. But the communities they claim to represent are very diverse and the amount of people within those niches who DON'T follow them probably outnumber the ones that do. By a lot.

Equivalent to Jackson and Farakhan? Hardly although they've still quite the following but come on... I can name these right wing nut jobs by the scads. You're even an admitted listener of Rush who's repeatedly lied and contradicted himself many a time.

Rush is a poltical analyst. AS the news changes daily, so does his analysis. And people Do change. I used to be totally for prohibition. Now I'm totally against it.

jerry falwell - why in the world would anyone waste any internet space to repeat any of his ridiculousness? we all know he's a kook, no further evidence necessary. he does not speak for the vast majority who consider themselves to be part of the religious right. i know, i have two sets of families who are religious righters and they consider him nothing but an embarrassment. he's hijacked the term "religious right" like feminists have hijacked that term.

the only two people you've "quoted" who have (or had) any real political influence are george bush, sr. and bob dornan and i'm extremely dubious about those two quotes. during the last presidential election i got one of those mass forwarded emails that listed a "quote" by john edwards. don't even remember what the quote was but i knew when i read it that it was too crazy to be true. sure enough, i did a little searching and found the actual quote and it had been so turned around in this email that it communicated the exact opposite of what he actually said. i'm not a john edwards fan, but i also know that he's not a kook. ditto for the bush and dornan quotes. i did some searching and found the dornan quote on LOTS of blogs but no one offered any links or sources. i'm seriously doubting he ever said this. same with the bush quote. just because you read something on a blog (or 100 blogs - that's about how many i found with this quote) doesn't make it true.

i have been proven wrong before and when i've read a quote that was too crazy too believe it turned out to actually be true. but that is the exception.

and the buchanan quote - i'm not sure what the big deal is. men and women are very different creatures. men are much more aggressive and ambitious and single-minded - although usually their single-mindedness is geared toward sex. i kid. there's a reason there are way more males in prison than women. women are much more nurturing and in tune with emotions, etc. there are certainly exceptions in both cases but i think generally it's true. is that a bad thing? i don't think so. i think men and women have different strengths that are both valuable.

oh, i didn't mention ann coulter. on the other hand - who cares. she's a squawk box.

it's her job to say things that are going to draw attention.

As I already said several times, I believe that the people above have much more influence on people than many people think. I do not believe that they have as much influence as they think on political figures in Washington, but I do believe they influence many people in this country.

And you are right about Coulter - she is a "quack box" - but lets be honest. She is read and heard by many. She has even been cited as a source around here by others!

I will find better citations for the quotes that you find "dubious". As for the Buchanan quote...so you believe that women are incapable of succeeding in a capitalist society?

Bush quote - Here is some more information:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"

GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

EM: "It's bullshit."

RS: "What is bullshit?"

EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."

RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."

EM: "You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

As for the Dornan qoute, I cannot find a source. But from reading this, it would not suprise me.

"As for the Buchanan quote...so you believe that women are incapable of succeeding in a capitalist society?"

yes, that is EXACTLY what buchanan and i said. it's uncanny how you can read what someone says and then so succintly sum it up in a few beautiful words! wait a minute, i'm thinking of someone else. you do the opposite. show me where pat or i said that women are INCAPABLE OF SUCCEEDING. . . anywhere. when we say something are you going to actually respond to what we said?

That was clearly his implication. I am not sure what else he would have ment by this: women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism.

ahhhh, the atheism web. there's a source i turn to time and time again for reliable information. you wouldn't honestly consider that a reliable source would you? if you were a teacher would you let a student use them as a credible source? i'm not buying it. it doesn't even sound like something bush would say.

can you tell the kids are spending a few days with grandma?

ok, wikipedia, you're getting closer. but even they don't reference dornan's crazy quotes. they just say he's well known for them. he's obviously well known for his GAY comment too but that doesn't me he actually said it.

buchanan said "the WILL to succeed." not the ability. of course woman are capable of succeeding in capitalism. he's saying they don't have the will and fierceness. i think that's generally true. i think women's passions generally lie somewhere other than fighting your way to the top and conquering those who oppose you - and that's good. again these are generalizations, but if you haven't figured out yet that men and women are different - well, let's just say that you WILL figure it out.

ahhhh, the atheism web....

I just posted it for more more information. The quote was not a public quote, so we will never know it it is a real one.

As for Dornan...from everything that I have found so far from himm the above quote would not surprise me at all.

Mare...I will tell you this. I know many women that very much have the singlemindedness and the will to succeed - much more tham many men that I know.

"The quote was not a public quote, so we will never know it it is a real one."

do you think it's fair to quote people publicly when you're not even sure if they actually said it or not?

"As for Dornan...from everything that I have found so far from himm the above quote would not surprise me at all."

please share any direct quotes you found that are from reliable sources. i really don't know anything about dornan - except for his MST3K appearances - so i'm not doubting you that he's crazy. i just think it's a cheap shot to accuse someone of saying things when you have no idea if they actually said them or not.

"I know many women that very much have the singlemindedness and the will to succeed - much more tham many men that I know."

absolutely - me too. but like i said, i believe they are the exception. men have testosterone. this is what causes them to want to take over the world. women generally would rather just try to make the world a better place. not slamming men, thank God for their fierceness and drive when it's appropriate and necessary. we need both - that's the brilliance of God.

do you think it's fair to quote people publicly when you're not even sure if they actually said it or not?

I think it is fair to quote someone if they tell me something. Which is supposedly what happened. I am curious if anyone ever asked Bush about it.

please share any direct quotes you found that are from reliable sources.

Just do a search for dornan and start reading some of the results.

but like i said, i believe they are the exception.

Ah...but that is not what Buchanan said.

men have testosterone.

So do women.

"Just do a search for dornan and start reading some of the results."

i did and i couldn't find anything from a legitimate news source so i'm curious what you were able to find.

"I think it is fair to quote someone if they tell me something. Which is supposedly what happened."

but bush didn't tell YOU anything. you plopped it right up there with his name on it like you know he said this. if the atheism web had an encounter with bush they have every right to write about it and i have every right to doubt it. but you presented these quotes as little factual blurbs. cowardly in my opinion. "can't find any real ammunition so i'll just use any crap i can find on the web."

"Ah...but that is not what Buchanan said."

he was making a generalization. you think if you asked him if there were ever any exceptions he would say - "NO, NONE!" don't be ridiculous. whenever anyone makes a generalization it is obvious that there are going to be exceptions.

"men have testosterone.

So do women."

ok you got me. that changes everything i said. are you saying men and women aren't different - other than biologically?

If you think it is cowardly then stop reading it. I pulled some information from another site. There are two quotes that I have not been able to find a source for - I apologize. I still stand by my point - the "leaders" of the Religious Right say extremely disturbing and bigoted things.

are you saying men and women aren't different - other than biologically?

I think that the vast majority of differences between men and women are based on gender and not on sex. Gender is the socialized roles that males and females take on.

"I think that the vast majority of differences between men and women are based on gender and not on sex. Gender is the socialized roles that males and females take on."

that's not inconsistent with anything pat bucanan or i said.

You said: men have testosterone. this is what causes them to want to take over the world. I say that it has nothing to do with testosterone, but instead the socialized roles that we learn from a young age.

On Dornan - Here is a short story in Time stating that Dornan is known for his incendiary speeches.

And another piece from Time, with this as the highlight:

Dobson is now boosting former Representative Bob Dornan, the loudest, loosest cannon in all the right wing, who is running again for the California seat he has yet to concede he lost in 1996.

I have yet to find the above quote, but I have also yet to find anything that would say that it did not fit right along with everything else he did.

"I say that it has nothing to do with testosterone, but instead the socialized roles that we learn from a young age."

that's still not inconsistent with anything we said - other than my one testosterone comment.

i have always enjoyed reading your blog and was even talking about you on our podcast the other night. i was saying that even though i disagreed with you much of the time i thought you were thoughtful and had integrity. i'm honestly disapponted that you would quote someone when you have no idea if they said something or not and then claim to see nothing wrong with it. it IS making me question your integrity and the value of your blog.

"I have yet to find the above quote, but I have also yet to find anything that would say that it did not fit right along with everything else he did."

then this comment should definitely continue to be spread! damn the truth - it's consistent so close enough.

it IS making me question your integrity and the value of your blog.

Then stop reading.

If one post that used two quotes without sources make you question my integrity, then oh well. You do not know me, or know anything about my integrity.

Maybe I should not have posted them. I quoted information form another website. I know that I should not assume that things are always accurate. And I have ackowledged that I have not been able to find sources for them, although the Bush quote does have a source. You just do not like it.

You know...I hope that they are not correct. I truly do.

But I do know that the person who first talked about the Bush quote was a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. It would be the same thing as any reporter having a conversation with the President and publishing it. They only reason you are questioning this one is because of the content.

And the Dornan quote? It is consistent with his beliefs and past. I don't know if it is an accurate quote or not. Actually, I e-mailed him earlier today through his website to ask, and the e-mail got returned.

But like I have said...if want to question my integrity, go ahead. No one is forcing you to read or partipate in these discussions.

it isn't simply due to this one time. the last few days i've been disappointed. if i posted a quote on my blog and found out that it couldn't be substantiated i would have been embarrassed and said "oops - my bad. i'll be more careful next time. that was not your response. you defended the quotes and continue to try to defend them while reluctantly admitting that you probably shouldn't have posted them.

why would you say that the only reason i'm questioning the bush quote is because of the content? i am no fan of george bush and i have absolutely nothing against atheists. what on earth would make you say that? you have absolutely no basis for syaing this. this is why i'm questioning your integrity. if i were putting something on my blog and i wanted to make sure it was accurate i would try to find the information on a reliable news source. you can tell me with a straight face that the atheism web is a credible source of news and facts?

and in our welfare discussion you constantly asked me to back up my opinion and i repeatedly told you what i based my opinion on. you have yet to give one anecdote, fact, study, or knock-knock joke that backs up your opinion on crime and welfare. you referred me to 3 books. in the interest of time i'm asking you to just pick out one stat from each book (or even 3 stats from one of them) that demonstrates that welfare does indeed reducerime. i've always believed that you came to your conclusions in a pretty dry, but nonetheless, thoughtful manner. now i'm not so sure about that. if someone questioned my integrity i'd much rather they confront me with it and give me a chance to defend myself then to just write me off and move on. we all need people to keep us in check. that's what i'm trying to do here.

Mare...as I pointed out above, the Bush quote was given by a credentialed journalist who was present at the time due a press invitation. That is pretty vaid to me.

you can tell me with a straight face that the atheism web is a credible source of news and facts?

I can tell you that the reporter is/was a valid person to be reporting such a thing. Just because it was posted on an atheist website does not make it untrue.

why would you say that the only reason i'm questioning the bush quote is because of the content?...you have absolutely no basis for syaing this. this is why i'm questioning your integrity.

Maybe I am wrong. But my guess would be if I posted a quote from Bush I saying "communism is bad", you would not question it. You said above that you believe that it was not something that Bush would say. You said this: it doesn't even sound like something bush would say, which seems to be that it would be the content of the quote that would be bringing it into question. If I am wrong about this, I apologize.

it isn't simply due to this one time. the last few days i've been disappointed. ... i've always believed that you came to your conclusions in a pretty dry, but nonetheless, thoughtful manner. now i'm not so sure about that.

Sorry you feel like this. I work hard on this blog to support my opinions. I did cite studies in the welfare discussion, but was not able to cite facts. I do not have the time this week to go back and find the data that I have read. I already said that.

Now if you are accusing my of lying and making these up, I am not sure what you want me to say. It is simply untrue. As other long-time readers of this blog would say, I do support my arguments. There are many times that I refer to things that I have read without quoting the actual data. I apologize if this is a problem for you. Maybe I should be more careful so that I am not accused of lying - but it has never been a problem before.

You know...looking back again you didn't actually saying that I was lying. But the implication was there, at least in the way that I interpreted it.

Mare...like I said above. No one is forcing you to read or participate here. If you think it lacks integrity and/or value, stop reading.

But I think you are wrong. And I think that my other readers would agree with me. For the most part I have been quite careful in my writings. Not perfect, but I have made an effort to be careful. There are times that I am slightly careless (in that I use resources to support my material that I did not quote exactly), but I have never made up a source. I have only failed to cite the exact data.

My integrity has not been questioned in my two years of doing this, and I will again say that I do not believe that it should have been questioned today.

I have decided that I am going to add a note to this post regarding those quotes, saying that they are unsubstantiated (I will not delete them, because the majoirty of these comments have been about them). Based on my research today it would be justified to add these comments.

But I still say that the Bush quote appears to be valid, being that it came from an accredited reporter who just happened to be from an atheist newspaper/magazine. I am not sure about the Dornan quote.

The Dornan quote is accurate. He was my congressman in Garden Grove, California and one of the best congressmen in all of the House of Representatives although I'll be the first to admit that he often said stupid things that made me cringe.

Not only wouldn't I lump him in with asshats like Falwell, I wouldn't even call him "religious". His Catholicism is cultural (Irish Catholic) and he only mentions it during election time. Despite his sometimes crazy rhetoric, he was effective in issues of defense and is practically worshipped by the POW:MIA crowd because he did so much for them. His seat was also robbed by Loretta Sanchez because of illegal immigrant election fraud.

...Back before that was popular.

Well...I guess that I can take the note off of one of the quotes.

This probably doesn't change the questioning of my integrity, does it?