..There are just as many people backing Clinton who are trying to silence people of moral principles into silence by lumping them in with the far right....
Michael, I would agree (except, perhaps, with the "just as many" -g-). I am even prepared to defend members of the "far right." Perhaps you overlooked this paragraph towards the very end of my first post:
Similarly, I might add, "Clintonistas" should not assume that anyone who publicly identifies himself/herself with the Religious Right, for example, is necessarily a wicked bigot and therefore wrong!
I think that if you look closer, you might conclude that the basic debate here is not over Clinton, but over the issue of tolerance. Liberals, by definition, see tolerance as a virtue (those that do not are not true liberals). The farthest to the right seem to see it as a vice.
This is what leads to the tendency I pointed out in my first post, which is to condemn alternative views as "immoral."
For an extreme example of this, see the following:
cuttingedge.org
The basic thesis of this diatribe/sermon is that... "Clinton's ability to score ever higher in public opinion polls despite his unfolding scandals reveal much about the new values and attitudes of the American people. They are now ready to be swayed by the spiritual superman of the New Age [Antichrist]."
Wow! Clinton as precursor of the Antichrist! And most of us as his followers! Heavy duty stuff!
And pretty scary -- if we take it seriously. Should we?
Awaiting your reply,
I remain,
Going to Hell in a handbasket, <gg>
Joan :-)
|
