The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever


May 4, 2006 | 23 Comments

“The Republicans do a really good job telling you when you can be born and when you can die. They just have a really hard time with everything in between.”

So quipped Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, to thunderous applause, on the Colbert Report a few weeks back. After correctly noting that issues transcend mere party lines, Contratimes suggests that the Daily Kos blogger’s analysis might have been a bit too clever for its own good:

[W]hat Mr. Zuniga sadly fails to apprehend is that if Republicans are indeed generally pro-life and anti-euthanasia, then it is the pro-choice Democrats, in all their progressive finery, who are dressed as executioners: They’re the ones who tell you when you shall live and die. A mother who aborts her child tells it — exactly — when it shall die. If she chooses not to abort, then she surely tells her child exactly when it shall live. Similarly — and with the Terri Schiavo case still fresh in American minds it is immensely important to note this — it was the Democrats who wanted to tell Ms. Schiavo exactly when she would breathe her last, or at least when she was going to begin starving at the hand of compassion and mercy.

I think Contratimes misses the mark, but only by a hair. The real dispute is not over who kills who, but precisely who the who is. Kos’ choice of pronoun unwittingly concedes the answer to the question of for whom the bell tolls.


23 Responses to “You”

  1. Viole
    May 4th, 2006 @ 10:03 am

    Ah, hell, and I bet you voted for Bush, too. This is the kind of total absence of thought that makes me want to beat my head against the wall for a few hours. Sure, it’d be painful, but your logic might make sense afterwards.

    Why don’t you just admit that you’ve converted to the Church of George W. Bush and get it over with. Most of us would stop reading your crap, myself included, but hey. At least you’d be honest. That’s something I’ve missed about you lately.

  2. Mister Swill
    May 4th, 2006 @ 1:34 pm

    [I]t is the pro-choice Democrats, in all their progressive finery, who are dressed as executioners: They’re the ones who tell you when you shall live and die.

    Yeah, I suppose that’s a sensible argument if one has absolutely no understanding of the pro-choice position. Despite the repeated misrepresentations of various people’s arguments, being in favor of legal abortion is never about deciding who should or should not have one. It’s about stating that one does not have the right to make that decision for the person who is considering one. And the Terri Schiavo fiasco was really a dispute between Schiavo’s husband and her parents about what her wishes would have been, but a bunch of Republicans attempted to pass a law taking the decision out of the family’s hands. Kos’s quip sounds pretty accurate to me.

    Yes, yes, I know: Anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia warriors aren’t pushing their own opinions down our throats, they’re just speaking up for those who have no voice. And assuming that one knows the opinions of the unborn or the comatose is not at all arrogant or foolish.

  3. hermesten
    May 4th, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

    Wow, when did the FreeRepublic change its name to RavingAtheist, and how come FreeRepublic still gets to use the RA URL? Mister Swill, you’ve lost your way coming here to the FreeRepublic with your rational talk about sensible argument. Us Freepers don’t engage in sensible argument, nor do we tolerate it on our website. If you persist in trying to be rational you will surely be banned. Viole, this goes for you too. Anyway, there are a few things us God Fearing Bible Beating Red State Bush Loving Christians don’t tolerate:

    Homos (unless they have WH press passes and/or are serving our glorious leaders)
    Women (after 8PM, unless they have a signed note from their husbands –absolutely no single moms)
    Liberals (you must be a liberal if you won’t bend over for our Furher)
    Scientists and other pointy-headed intellectuals (they confuse God fearing Christians by saying things like moonlight is reflected from the sun)
    Muslims, Hindus, and any other non-Christians (all terrorists)
    Democrats (support the terrorists)
    Environmentalists (help the terrorists)
    Traitors (anyone who doesn’t absolutely love GWB with all their heart)
    Foreigners (except those employed as gardeners, maids, and cooks for our fine Republican corpro/politico leadership)
    Poor People (all of whom are self-evidently lazy)
    Free Thinkers

    Ask the webmaster to see the complete list.

  4. hermesten
    May 4th, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

    Viole, it appears to me, given the number of comments we’re seeing posted lately, that the site is in it’s death throes. I used to check in every day, but with the new FreeRepublic format I find myself going for days without even thinking about the place.

  5. Gathercole
    May 4th, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

    You know, lots of Europeans can’t understand for the life of them how W won the 2004 election. I can. At my university, I talked to dozens of liberals who said they “disagree with Bush about everything… except terrorism,” and were therefore voting for him. Does the RA disagree with Christian fundamentalists about everything except abortion? Did he vote for a Christian fundamentalist in 2004? Will he in 2008? I doubt the RA is so stupid, but I’m afraid of what he might inspire others to do.

  6. hermesten
    May 4th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm

    Gathercole, I don’t think you can say with any reasonable certainty that W “won” the 2004 election. There were just way too many irregularities to be certain, and those are just the ones we know about. I don’t believe he “won.” Keep your eye on our election process. See how the paperless unauditable electronic voting tallies with exits polls in the November elections. If they’re cheating, it will be obvious after a few more elections.

  7. Amy
    May 4th, 2006 @ 5:56 pm

    While disagreeing with the entire theme of the main post, I’ll just make one quibble: the Democrats absolutely did NOT rise up to allow Terri Schiavo to die. In fact, not a one of them had the guts to stand up to Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, et al., when they were ramming that ridiculous legislation down everybody’s throat. It wasn’t until, what, 85 percent of the American public said they agreed with Michael Schiavo that ANY public official, Democrat or Republican, uttered a peep in favor of Mr. Schiavo’s position. That whole affair was a crock. If I were the praying sort, I would pray that my husband and anybody else who truly loves me would let me go when/if I’m ever in Mrs. Schiavo’s position.

  8. Viole
    May 4th, 2006 @ 6:21 pm

    Hey, look, Herm, RA has proven you wrong by using you for the quote of the day! Clearly, this site has more visitors than every. The only problem is, they’re all just as brain-dead as he is. Time for that name change he was talking about; Raving Atheist Zombies for Life.

  9. ShutUpAlready
    May 4th, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

    I’ve been reading through the archives and you’ve been threatening to leave for something like 8 or 9 months now every time there is a post on abortion. Why don’t you just shut up already and leave.

    Maybe you can start your own site called The Raving Crybaby.

  10. Mr. Natural
    May 4th, 2006 @ 9:36 pm

    WHAT DRIVEL. Just who the fuck do you suppose has been promoting the dropping of cluster bombs, smart bombs, banned substances, depleted uranium munitions ETC on people who never did a goddamned THING to us? THE PNAC AIPAC NEOCON REPUBLICANS is who!

  11. Solidus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 3:16 am

    Surely the RA didn’t vote for bush, that would be voting for a person afflicted with one of the most extreme cases of christ-psychosis and in turn building theocracy. If RA truly ever voted for bush then he has no right to call himself anything but stark raving mad.

  12. Liquidus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 3:24 am

    Another post pertaining to abortion? Don’t we here enough about it? It is truly a non-issue to atheists, us atheists aren’t interested in reading about abortion, we are interested in reading about what we can do to better our world by erradicating religion. Quite actually I have a very neutral view on the abortion issue, both sides have their merits, however because the RA isn’t doing enough to spite the goddamned christians in recent posts I feel i should take the most radical pro-life position just to make up for the amount of spiting the RA is neglecting, everyone go get partial birth abortions, especially if you are theists! Maybe they should be forced of theist’s children, since the RA isn’t helping lower the number of theists around here, but merely supporting their views by some near mystical belief he has about the morals of abortion. He would rather see people die of starvation and war resulting from over population, but of course that IS THE THEIST WAY, which is who he seems to sympathize with.

  13. Dave
    May 5th, 2006 @ 7:23 am

    Chill out a little, will ya?

  14. Severalspeciesof
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:42 am


  15. Kate B.
    May 5th, 2006 @ 10:31 am


    You do realize that seeing an atheist use the word “goddamned” is hilarious, don’t you?

    “It is truly a non-issue to atheists, us atheists aren’t interested in reading about abortion, we are interested in reading about what we can do to better our world by erradicating religion.”

    Oh, so atheism is now monolithic, is it? I’ll be sure to mention to all the atheists I know, most of whom disagree about many things, that they must now agree on all things. Glad to see you’ve discovered the wonders of dogmatism.

    Since when does atheism dictate that the atheist can have no opinions of his/her own? Must an atheist toe the party line on all matters? If so, in what unsacred writ is the party line expressed?

    So much for free thinking, I guess.

  16. Viole
    May 5th, 2006 @ 11:29 am

    See what I mean? The brownshirts are already mobilizing in your defense, RA. Impressive.

    Yes, I know I’ve been unfair, and my petty insults have probably hurt your feelings. I should really be deconstructing your logic, but when people use such poor arguments to begin with, they’re not likely to be swayed by anything but the hand of god slapping them silly. Considering there isn’t a god to do the slapping, you’re kinda stuck. Arguing with you isn’t worth my time.

  17. hermesten
    May 5th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

    I’ve been unfair too and I don’t give a shit. I’ll start being “fair” when the wing-nuts, Bible Beaters, and Bush fascists stop lying and start being “fair.” Until then, to be “fair” means the ultimate surrender of your physical and intellectual liberty.

    And once RA gets past the silly philosophical discussions about abortion, and tells us just how women who have abortions, and their doctors, should be punished under law, we’ll be able to judge whether his position on abortion is a matter of conscience or just feel good bull-shit. Why is it so hard to get a lawyer to tell us the only thing on this subject that really means anything: how he would change the law.

  18. Viole
    May 5th, 2006 @ 5:00 pm

    Well, actually, he pretty much told me that the women shouldn’t be punished. So I guess it’s a criminal-less crime, ’cause it’s awfully unfair to punish the doctors without punishing the women, who are clearly a party to the crime.

  19. Liquidus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 6:27 pm

    Goddamn is my favorite bad word, because it pisses Christians off so badly. A yes, there as a fundamentalist I debate with often, and at any point when he is outwardly disrespectful to women (which he does quite often, saying that they are usually wrong, and always talking about how they are going to hell because of what they wear, and how they should know their place blah blah) I interject with a “GODDAMN” because it makes him irrate, he flips out and yells at me not to say it, it is so funny. But of course the contention that atheists believe their god comes into play here on a symantic level, because I’m actually damning his statements, but saying “goddamn” is more effective than saying ‘liquidusdamn”

  20. hermesten
    May 8th, 2006 @ 11:12 am

    Well, Viole, if what you say about RA really reflects his thinking on the matter, then all his abortion posturing is nothing more than feel-good bullshit, and I have no respect whatsoever for his right-to-life philosophy. Still, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see him express this view myself.

  21. mnuez
    May 11th, 2006 @ 1:56 am

    RA, where the hell do the CTs (critical thinkers) hang out?Is there some blog you know of where the commentors aren’t all non-thinking partisan morons whose povs are as critically chosen as their sports teams? I mean, I don’t particularly care about the abortion issue as much as you do (or the atheist issue for that matter) and therefore don’t have as absolute or strong an opinion either way, but why the hell can’t any of your atheistic friends talk about your pov on the issue without getting into ridiculous bush-bashing? I mean, what the fuck does bush have to do with this?!

    I’m finding that visiting sites of folks with views I like practically always ends up in major disappointment when I read the commentors. They’re almost all “sportsfans”. Mention how you agree with the repos on the “right to life” issue and you get attacked for supporting Guantanimo. I mean what the fuck is wrong with the human race?!

    In any event, I’ll assume that your povs on atheism and abortion are sincerely yours and say that we need more people like you (or at least I do so I don’t feel so lonely) – people who think for themselves and don’t need to join some herd in order to feel secure.



  22. whomadewho
    May 22nd, 2006 @ 12:14 am

    Maybe this is just an abomination to God and will rot like fruit on the vine that is not harvested…Look in to your heart, can’t you see, feel, hear? He is there for you, and he loves you. A place is being made for you this very moment. Whrer is that place? Are you sure you are willing to gamble forever on just a moment?J

  23. Josiah
    May 23rd, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

    whomadewho, you just spread hilarity like thick creamy peanut butter on an eight year old boy scout.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links