Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

TORTURE AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION



UPDATE: Listen to Mark Danner describe how George Bush lied about torture and the reasons for it. Begin at 5:05: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9XExzfjV3w

I've visited some conservative blogs and was amused to read on one of them that Mr. Obama should be impeached because he has proposed offloading veterans to private insurance. Impeachment because of a "proposal?"




But the lack of coverage on conservative blogs [to be fair, I have not read all of them, but the ones I do read have not covered this topic] over Bush's torture policies and the absolute REAL criminality of them is what truly astounds me.


Just a day after former vice-president Dick Cheney appeared on CNN to say President Barack Obama's reversal of the Bush policies was putting the United States in danger, The New York Review of Books published an article by Mark Danner. The macabre accounts of torture in the report aren't emerging from totalitarian dictatorships or Dark Ages gallows - this was the 21st century CIA, with the full knowledge of senior officials in George W. Bush's administration, according to a secret Red Cross 43-page report from February 2007, and based on interviews with detainees at the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, .

In the report, the Red Cross says the prisoner accounts constitute repeated violations of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. The organization is the appointed legal guardian of the Geneva Conventions and oversees the treatment of prisoners of war.

"The ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture," Danner quoted the report as saying.Many of the details of alleged mistreatment at CIA prisons had been reported previously, but the ICRC report is the most authoritative account and the first to use the word "torture" in a legal context.
The leaked report has prompted renewed calls for Cheney and Bush to be charged with war crimes.

***************



"Bush and Cheney were, in fact, more brutal in their 'enhanced interrogation' than the Gestapo was," Andrew Sullivan wrote Monday on The Atlantic website.

"When the U.S. captured officials who had done to prisoners exactly what the last president did, the U.S. prosecuted them, found them guilty and executed them. The price Cheney pays is a fawning interview on CNN."



In the early months of 2008, the American public learned that the highest officials in the US government actually plotted, in the White House, ingenious ways to break US and international laws and torture al Qaeda detainees in order to get information from them.

I didn't hear 24/7 coverage of this scandal as I did during the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle. Maybe if some of the principals were having sex at the same time that they were discussing torture methods, America would have been fascinated by this astounding piece of news.

The national chest-thumpers who bellow 24/7 that this is "The Greatest Country In The World" have no right to their bellowing. During the Bush years, we sank to the level of our most execrable enemies and dishonored the men and women who died protecting what this country stood for. Under the Bush administration, we betrayed our highest principles.

In a time of extreme danger and threat, this country gave up its moral authority.

41 comments:

Ruth said...

As Mr. Danner commented on Washington Journal a few days ago, his friends in the service were horrified at what was going on. This is not a method for getting real information, it is nothing but sadism disguised as combat against terrorists. It may give our worst elements a feeling of power, but it does harm to the country.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Obama administration.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

Dave Miller said...

I completely agree with you on this Shaw. In fact I said so on my blog, a week after the deafening silence on this from almost both sides of the blogosphere.

Here's that link.

http://adventurenotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/gw-war-on-terror-and-constitution.html

As for Ghost of Milk, your response is not even remotely related to this post, but since you posted, I'll bite.

GW Bush made a moral decision. Now for the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you that homosexuality is immoral. Does that make it illegal?

No.

In fact our Supreme COurt in June of 2003 ruled "homosexuals have a right to exist free of criminal penalties against their behavior."

So perhaps in an odd way, your post does relate.

It is another example of where our last President followed the rule of law for some people, but devised a scenario where apparently, it did not apply to others.

Maybe this helps explain why people around [Africa notwithstanding] the world were so upset with the Bush presidency.

James' Muse said...

I've actually seen it a few times now. Pasadena Closet conservative wrote on it http://pasadenaclosetconservative.blogspot.com/2009/03/terrorists-win.html

and ...in a Handbasket wrote on it
http://handbaskt.blogspot.com/2009/03/report-indicates-cia-tortured-prisoners.html

and I wrote on it twice, just the other day
http://musicalmusingsofjames.blogspot.com/2009/03/cheney-defends-administration.html

But still, Truthdig put it right when they said "Why do so few Americans give a damn?"

James' Muse said...

oh and I forgot one other person that posted on this:
http://theoracularopinion.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-administration-is-full-of-cowards.html

Anonymous said...

Yes the US Military should torture or even kill the terrorists to get the information needed to save American lives... We should also kill those who aid and abet them( I thing that means give them money and magical brownies).
Some of those who aid and abet are "sorta allies" and we would hurt their feelings if we blew things and people up in their country. That would make some people mad at us both in other countries and in the US. So the question is: To save hurt feelings should we just kill a few to get the message across or kill a whole lot of them since well catch hell from weenies anyway? And we should also kill those who aid and abet them.
The problem is that occasionally a Democrat is put in charge of the military and then we get our ass's handed to us.

Did you ever notice that after the terrorists all put their hoods on to hide their sissy faces before they cut off someones head!

Arthurstone said...

Kill 'them' all.

Every last one of 'them'. 'Terrorists' and 'sorta allies' and everyone in between. Why run the risk of leaving anyone alive who may at one time or another disagree with us?

The world will be a better place when 'Real Americans' are the only folks remaining.

Golly. I feel better already!

Dave Miller said...

An American girl wrote:

The problem is that occasionally a Democrat is put in charge of the military and then we get our ass's handed to us.


Amer. Girl... what party was in charge during WWII?

What party spent more time in the White House after the massive troop increases in Vietnam?

What party was in the White House when Saigon fell?

What party occupied the White House when the decision was made during the first Gulf War to not invade Baghdad and thus leave Saddam in power?

What party did not anticipate that Saddam would use his helicopters to murder his own people after that war, thereby condemning thousands of anti Saddam Iraqis to death?

Maybe the GOP is not quite as perfect regarding war as you think.

Regarding your views on torture, are you willing to accept your stance on American soil?

In other words, [we'll use Obama as he is our current leader] if our president determines that you, or your family are terrorists, he can order you tortured, even though there may be no evidence of you being a terrorist?

Can the police, acting as agents of the state, torture people without evidence of a crime?

Is that the type of country you want to live in?

Anonymous said...

So simplistic. Don the big USA #1 foam finger and wave the flag; that's the crux of their "policies". Gun toting, flag waving, bible thumping ignorance. Even in their blog names; American this and Christian that; crusaders in the fight against, um, uh, what? What do they stand for?
And BTW, American Girl, what if other countries adopt the same torture policies; are you ok with it if they do the same to our troops?

The J Mopper said...

Observation: ardent conservatives paint everything as black and white, thereby eschewing the need for critical thinking.

OpenMindedRepublican said...

Hey, does anyone here know anything that would make the proposal to push veterans care onto their insurance less offensive?

Usually when I find the right blogs tearing up on an Obama policy, I find that further review finds some good reason for the policy. Not always one I agree with, but at least understandable. This is the first mention I have seen of it on a left blog.

FWIW, as a beginning conservative blogger, I consider Bush pretty uninteresting. The past interests me only insofar as it informs the future. The policies and their results interest me, the individuals not so much.

Anonymous said...

OMR: I have a feeling Obama is going to drop that proposal. He has very strong opposition to it from LOTS of veterans organizations, not to mention others. It does seem like a bad idea; I would like to think he has a reason but I don't know what it is.

Dave Miller said...

OMR, one thing to keep in mind about Obama is this. It seems he seldom rejects an idea as impossible at the outset.

That leads to a couple of things happening.

1. His people view him as open, and thus can feel confident to bring him new ideas, no matter how radical, or even bad they may be, and

2. Because he is willing to hear those ideas, and even think about them, the reactionary folks get their dander up about those ideas, without regard as to whether they will ever become policy.

Shaw Kenawe said...

American Girl wrote:

Yes the US Military should torture or even kill the terrorists to get the information needed to save American lives...

You'd have to propose that the US Military Code of Justice be changed. Here's what it says now:

The U.S. Military Code specifies that it is a crime to violate the Geneva convention:

"Whoever, ... commits a war crime, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, ... and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. ... Definition: As used in this section the term 'war crime' means ... a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949 [or acts] prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907 ... " (Section 2441: U.S. Military Code on War Crimes)

But, being a red-blooded, gun-totin' American Girl, you knew that, and you posted your suggestion to commit further illegal acts because you were being, what? Funny? Yuk. Yuk.


American Girl also wrote:

We should also kill those who aid and abet them( I thing[sic] that means give them money and magical brownies).

You are aware that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and that the Saudi government was very tight with the Bush administration (George even held hands with them)--we give the Saudis gazillions of American dollars for their fossil fuels--(talk about aiding and abetting!) do you see where this is going? It may lead to your encouraging the present government to commit a very nasty act on the previous administration because they...etc., etc.

American Girl wrote further:

Some of those who aid and abet are "sorta allies" and we would hurt their feelings if we blew things and people up in their country. That would make some people mad at us both in other countries and in the US. So the question is: To save hurt feelings should we just kill a few to get the message across or kill a whole lot of them since well catch hell from weenies anyway? And we should also kill those who aid and abet them.

Okay. When I got to this part, I knew American Girl had gone over to Crazy Town, and I'm not following her or any other psycho there.

American girl continued:

The problem is that occasionally a Democrat is put in charge of the military and then we get our ass's handed to us

I believe our friend, Dave Miller pointed out your confused and erroneous thinking on this. And he was too polite to bring up the depressing fact that the Terrorists of 9/11 handed us our asses while Republican President George W. Bush was in office.

A suggestion for American Girl:

North Korea has terrific bargains on "Get-Away" vacations for people like you who apparently enjoy the idea of torturing and killing people without benefit of trial. In fact, I understand the whole country's a veritable theme park called “Torture and Death Land.” I suggest you make plans to travel there sooner rather than later and meet up with the sort of people you so deeply admire.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ghost of Milk,

I'm not sure if you're happy or being sarcastic over the Obama administration's endorsing the UN declaration.

I'll assume you're for it, since you're using Harvey Milk's name.

Anonymous said...

There is an obvious attempt to lie, obstruct justice, protect witnesses, and destroy evidence.

This seems to be the normal process of the Bush administration to evade the truth or take responsibility for their actions.

It's also the process of a criminal organization.

To destroy the interrogation tapes is an attempt to protect those involved. If what they were doing was legal (their words) then why destroy evidence of what actually happened?

Who ordered the tapes to be destroyed?

Destruction of the tapes is obstruction of justice in itself.

The missing tapes prohibit further investigation and protects those involved from being judged on whether what they did was legal or not.

The goal of obstruction is to stop an investigation and protect those involved from being prosecuted. It works.

These are the same obstructionist tactics used by the Bush administration in other incidents.

Libby goes to jail for not telling the truth, then gets Presidential clemency.

Rove hides behind Presidential immunity, then cuts a deal with Congress that when he does testify, it will be in private and the scope of the questioning will be limited.

Gonzo and others are awaiting their day in court. The courts are to determine if their immunity is legal. Why don't they just say what happened? Why do they need to hide the truth?

All these issues involve the suspects being protected by various means of position of power protection (immunities), self incrimination rights, or legal maneuvering.

Again, these actions are signs that a crime has been committed.

They are abnormal to the usual processes that uphold the law and allow the justice system to determine what actually happened in order to find cause for criminal prosecution.

Why would such top, honest leaders want to impede the justice system from simply finding out the truth?

Mr. Danner also described how some of these people were apprehended.
There was a reward for information leading to the arrest of terrorists. Someone's word alone was enough to be arrested, no evidence necessary.
Old enemies used this process to settle old hatreds against each other. Even the Bush administration released some of these people for total lack of evidence.

"Kill them," "Off with their heads," is the answer for fascists and dictators, not an American attitude, morals, democracy, or legal process.

"An American Girl" is more factually an "Iranian Girl", at least that government more matches her opinion of what should happen to these suspects.

James' Muse said...

OpenMindedRepublican: According to this article, the proposal has been dropped

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/18/pelosi-controversial-veterans-insurance-proposal-dropped/

Shaw Kenawe said...

James W.,

Thanks for posting that. I'm glad to see the administration drop that one.

dmarks said...

It's interesting that religious bigotry first reared its head in this post in Lynne's comment. Then nothing happened, apparently Lynne is the only one showing religious bigotry posting comments in this item.

John: "ardent conservatives paint everything as black and white". That looks like an example of you painting things as black and white, doesn't it? In reality, ardent liberals do this as often.

Dave: It's not that simple, is it? Good examples on the war history. We can also point out that the Contras who fought against the USSR in Nicaragua were actually started under the maligned Jimmy Carter, not under "Ronaldus Magnus", and Bill Clinton bombed the hell out of Saddam's terrorist infrastructure, keeping Saddam quite ineffective.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

Can you give me a link to back up that assertion about Carter. I've looked on google and wasn't able to find anything that matched what you wrote.

Lynne is hardly being a religious bigot when she points out the hypocrisy of American Girl who (if you look at her blog) embraces the radical right's ideology of torture and vigilante killing, while at the same time is proud to be associated with good "Christian" Americans.

The conservative right is also the conservative Christian right.

There is no bigotry in pointing out hypocrisy.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks finely tuned antennae quivered:

Lynne's 'Religious bigotry'

Nope. Not even close.

He added:

'Contras who fought against the USSR in Nicaragua'

Really? Number of Russian casualties if you please.

Anonymous said...

Yes, she has it right kill every last one of those lousy terrorist bastards. And the camel that they rode in on.
You pansies would rather give them food stamps and a car I know.. It won't be long till that's exactly what Obama will be doing.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The other Jon wrote:

"Yes, she has it right kill every last one of those lousy terrorist bastards. And the camel that they rode in on.
You pansies would rather give them food stamps and a car I know.. It won't be long till that's exactly what Obama will be doing."



LOL!

Great parody troll! You've got them down perfectly!

Good job, buddy!

Thanks for the laugh.

Arthurstone said...

I love how American Girl leads with her chin.

dmarks said...

Arthur: It was Lynne who had the Christian-bashing, especially the "bible-thumping" term. It's kind of like the Muslim-bashers with the "towel-heads" and all that.

And also anyone should know that Soviet controlled forces included not only Russians, but (of course) non-Russians from the other 14 SSR's that were not the "Rusaian SSR", and proxy troops in Soviet controlled organizations. Carter made the right call.

Anonymous said...

Bible thumping is Christian bashing???? Nice stretch dmarks. Wow.

dmarks said...

It's no stretch at all to point out that those who use this term that are engaging in religious bigotry.

Wikipedia summarizes it best, saying "Bible thumper is a pejorative term used to describe Christians in general". Yes, clearly an example of religious bigotry. It is similar to the N-word, which is described as a "most notable as a pejorative term and common ethnic slur for black people"... even if it is clearly not as bad.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

You didn't post the ENTIRE Wikipedia definition, which is:

"Bible thumper is a pejorative term used to describe Christians in general, especially someone perceived as aggressively pushing their Christian beliefs upon those who do not share them. Its target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religion, fundamentalist or not.

It is commonly heard in most Western countries; the particular term Bible basher, along with Jesus freak is used in Australian slang to pertain to a person or group who knock on doors to convert Atheists. Is also often used to refer to social conservatives in the bible belt of the Southern United States."


There are millions of Christians who DO NOT fit the description of a "Bible thumper." Those are the Christians who go about their daily lives and practice their religion quietly and sincerely.

The Bible Thumpers are those Christian men and women who profane their religion by waving the Good Book in the air while promising unimaginable pain and suffering to those who do not subscribe to their brand of Christianity; while promoting a particular political party and/or candidates; while using the power of their pulpit to turn this country into a theocracy; and while begging for money from the poor and disadvantaged so that they can live like potentates.

See: The late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and many others.

There are such people in this world who we can truthfully label "Bible Thumpers." It's just another term for hypocrite.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

'And also anyone should know that Soviet controlled forces included not only Russians, (snip).

Actually 'anyone should know' that there were no Russian troops in Nicaragua during the revolution. Nor were there very many 'Soviet-controlled forces' Cubans? It was a home-grown crew who made the mistake of pissing off the US of A and the Nicaraguan people paid a heavy price for crossing us,

He also typed (tone deaf as ever):

'Arthur: It was Lynne who had the Christian-bashing, especially the "bible-thumping" term. It's kind of like the Muslim-bashers with the "towel-heads" and all that. '

'Bible thumper' has no racial component to it as does 'towel-head'. And a bit of 'bashing' isn't bigotry.

The J Mopper said...

dmarks wrote: John: "ardent conservatives paint everything as black and white". That looks like an example of you painting things as black and white, doesn't it?

My statement appears to paint things as black and white but my statement is just a generalization and not an uninformed, idealistic response that I was challenging...there is a big difference here!

dmarks said...

shaw: "There are millions of Christians who DO NOT fit the description of a "Bible thumper."

Just as there are millions of blacks who do not fit the N-word description?? Why defend "pejorative" bigotry? I've never noticed you using these terms for groups like this.

shaw: "There are such people in this world who we can truthfully label "Bible Thumpers." It's just another term for hypocrite."

So, using this type of logic, is it OK to use "towelhead" and other slurs for only the worst Muslims?

arthur: "It was a home-grown crew who made the mistake of pissing off the US of A and the Nicaraguan people paid a heavy price for crossing us"

No, the Sandinistas were a Soviet-controlled colonial force, and the Nicaraguan people paid a heavy price for being a target in just the latest chapter in another European country colonizing a third-world country. The rank and file of the Contras, were, after all, peasants who had suffered under Sandinista purges and land grabs.

@arthur: "He also typed (tone deaf as ever):"

I hear the tones, loud and clear.

@arthur: 'Bible thumper' has no racial component to it as does 'towel-head'. And a bit of 'bashing' isn't bigotry."

I never said that religious bigotry was the same as racial bigotry, and that the N-word as worse. But it is the same sort of mindset, and how can anyone defend it?

A little bigoted bashing is still bigotry. By this logic, I guess it is OK for Don Imus to have made the nappy-headed statement (with no apology needed). It was only a little bit of bashing, right?

dmarks said...

John: You are right: it was a generalization more than anything.

Anonymous said...

you have won the "ass hat of the week award" with this post

Arthurstone said...

dmarks-

Just as we all knew. No Russians. No Soviets. Darn few Cubans. Overwhelmingly Nicaraguans. Thousands of whom were killed by our proxies, the despicable, CIA-trained Contras. Sandinistas were in no way a 'colonial force'. Homegrown Marxists only marginally better than the Somoza regime. But as Latin America is our 'sphere of influence' any sort of brutal right-wing dictatorship is preferable to a leftist government.

Also, taking to task a very few 'Christians' for very specific behavior is hardly 'bigotry'. And I defend Lynne's characterization completely.

Why?

Because it's true.

But on a lighter note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/garden/19trek.html?_r=1&ref=garden

dmarks said...

Just as we all knew. Soviet "advisors" controlling on the ground, and from Moscow. Cuban agents present in Nicarauga to liquidate politial opponent. No Russians. Nicaraguans: thousands of whom who died in the Sandinista war of the 1980s. A war that ended when the USSR ended. When the USSR fell, the impetus for the war was gone. The Sandinistas were 100% a colonial force.

"Homegrown Marxists only marginally better than the Somoza regime"

Somewhat worse, actually. Press freedom, while bad under Somoza, got even worse under the Sandinistas. And the Sandinistas were much more rapacious in aquiring property for themselves than the Somozas were. Fascism took a great leap forward under the Sandinista reign of terror.

@arthur "Also, taking to task a very few 'Christians' for very specific behavior is hardly 'bigotry'. And I defend Lynne's characterization completely."

The definition of "bible-thumper" applies to all Christians, even if it "especially" applies to a small subset.

Why embrace bigotry at all, unless you are a bigot?

I don't use bigoted terms for anyone, no matter how despicable. I don't decide, for example, that only the "worst Jews" deserve the Hymie or k*** term. None of them deserve it.

You toss the "tone deaf" insult around without regard to meaning. However, it might apply to you, if you think it is OK to use pejorative slurs that apply to an entire group to ANYONE in the group.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

'Why embrace bigotry at all, unless you are a bigot?'

Using the term 'bible thumper' is not 'embracing bigotry'. Now in a worldview where atheism is a religion that clearly is a difficult distinction to grasp.

he added:

'I don't use bigoted terms for anyone, no matter how despicable. I don't decide, for example, that only the "worst Jews" deserve the Hymie or k*** term. None of them deserve it.'

Kumbaya.

Actually you don't have any problem lumping 'liberals' in with Marxists, Maoists, mass murderers and various and sundry other tyrants (virtually anyone slightly to the left of the American political center). But why split hairs?

dmarks ventured further:


'You toss the "tone deaf" insult around without regard to meaning. However, it might apply to you, if you think it is OK to use pejorative slurs that apply to an entire group to ANYONE in the group.'

It has a very specific meaning in this instance. It describes some of your remarks quite well. Equating 'bible thumper' with 'towel head' underscores that very obvious point.

dmarks said...

Arthur: Not all atheists are religious. Only those who assert a religious faith are. The "worldview" is merely one that treats all religious equally. And notice the complete lack of pejorative terms for atheists, as with any other religion that I am capable of discussing without resorting to playground-style pejoratives.

"Actually you don't have any problem lumping 'liberals' in with Marxists, Maoists, mass murderers and various...."

Huh? When have I done this? Shaw, have you noticed me do this? If I did, it was a mistake. Go ahead and find it, and I will deal with it.

"It has a very specific meaning in this instance. It describes some of your remarks quite well."

So "specific" that you can't be bothered to connect the insult to anything actually said?

"Equating 'bible thumper' with 'towel head' underscores that very obvious point."

Equating? Well, they are pretty close. Both are mindless and bigoted pejoratives against the religion of the "other". And I am sure that, like with the "bible-thumper" term, there are those who reserve the "towelhed" insult for only the "worst" Muslims.

But I would venture that "towelhead" is worse, as it has a racial component. That being said, religious bigotry is never becoming, and "more OK" bigotry, such as calling Christians "bible thumpers", is still not OK as long as person puts some thought into what they are saying.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous wrote:

you have won the "ass hat of the week award" with this post

And you have won the "Beef-Witted, Rump-Fed Clotpole of the Day award.

Ta-Da!

Congratulations.

And may you live to win more.

Anonymous said...

These ideas are stale. The ones that work won’t do enough and the ones that don’t have already been tried

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

'Arthur: Not all atheists are religious. Only those who assert a religious faith are.'

Nope. Atheists do not assert a religious faith. That's because they're atheists. There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. But please go ahead and continue to dispute that rather simple fact. We've been through this and if it makes you feel better you are pretty much all alone on this one. One man is indeed an island.

dmarks further ventured:

'Equating? Well, they are pretty close. Both are mindless and bigoted pejoratives against the religion of the "other".'

Nope. Nothing 'mindless' or 'other' about it. I've often heard Christians refer to other Christians as bible thumpers. I've heard bible thumpers refer to themselves thusly. My Southern Baptist Uncle Buff from East Texas did just that. It certainly isn't a compliment (in my view) but it isn't bigotry.

dmarks said...

@arthur: "Atheists do not assert a religious faith. That's because they're atheists."

You are only speaking of a subset of atheists. All atheists "lack God". Some have no belief on the subject at all. Some assert a rock-steady faith that there is no God at all, of any kind. It is this latter group of atheists, with their strong positive religious assertions, who cross the line into religion.

@arthur: "There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief."

That's what I've said all along, as I have distinguished between the religions atheists and those that are not religious.

@arthur: "But please go ahead and continue to dispute that rather simple fact."

Why dispute what you apparently have come to agree with me on?

"We've been through this and if it makes you feel better you are pretty much all alone on this one."

No. Others came to my support before; those who were not restrained by their own personal religious bias. I think there is one more now, based on your reference to those atheists who have religious "Belief".

@arthur: "Nope. Nothing 'mindless' or 'other' about it."

Mindless? Good point. I should not have used the pejorative term. It is as meaningless as the "tone-deaf" references. I withdraw it.

@arthur: "I've often heard Christians refer to other Christians as bible thumpers."

I have yet to see this. Do you have any examples? Or is ita minority of self-projecting bigots like those few African-Americans who revel in the N-word?

@arthur: "I've heard bible thumpers refer to themselves thusly. My Southern Baptist Uncle Buff from East Texas did just that. It certainly isn't a compliment (in my view) but it isn't bigotry."

If this is true, it would negate the Wikipedia reference somewhat.