Rare political post

[emmagrant01]

I usually try to restrict my posts here to fluffy fandom things, but I feel compelled to do this. I'm angry. I'm disillusioned. And I'm really motivated to do anything I can to get W out of the White House.

I know there are people on my f-list who are Republicans, and who support Bush. If you like, you can skip the stuff behind the cut. ;-)



I was raised as a Republican. I was also raised as a Southern Baptist, and I think part of my issue with the Republican party is its alignment with the religious right.

I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty quiet about it. In general, I don't like it when anyone pushes their religion in my face, and most people don't, to be fair. One of my best friends is a minister, so I don't have a problem with people being religious. I think my big problem with the religious right is their assumption that it's perfectly fine for an entire country's laws to be based on their religion's holy book. I'm tired of being forced to pray at public functions (including the state Democratic convention, where I was a delegate), and I'm sick of the continued attempts to oppress people who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I'm pro-choice, I support gay rights, and am deeply offended that anyone would use the Bible to justify discrimination against any group of people in the form of controlling their bodies. (I know many Christians who agree with that sentiment, of course.)

I also have major issues with the war in Iraq, and Bush's horrid ignorance of the world outside our borders. It makes me sick to my stomach that my government has kept hundreds of people locked up in an internment camp in Cuba for two years, without charging them for any crimes or allowing them any defense. Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention? It doesn't apply to us, you know. (And I don't count this latest attempt to satisfy a Supreme Court ruling, thank you very much. That's a farce, IMO.) It's un-American, and if any other country in the world did that, we'd probably invade them. We're holding these people based on what, our intelligence? The same intelligence that told us there were WMDs in Iraq? Yeah, I trust them.

Another part of my reluctance to support Republicans comes from my up-bringing, again. I grew up in the south, and many of my family members are Republicans because they see the Democratic party as belonging to African Americans and other minority groups they view with suspicion. In my family, being a Republican is definitely associated with being racist. I realize that represents a small minority of Republicans, but I can't separate my family's small-mindedness and racism from the issues they talk about. For example, they're against welfare and other public aid because of the stereotype of an unemployed black woman with eight children getting a monthly check. Telling them that welfare accounts for a miniscule portion of the budget in comparison to social security doesn't seem to make a difference. None of them have ever been on welfare. Those people are just lazy, they say. This is America, after all. The land of opportunity! You just have to work hard enough!

Of course, my own stories about working with battered women and teaching in gang-infested urban schools don't garner any sympathy for people who don't have the same opportunities as middle class folks. My family doesn't have any concept of the playing field not being level, because they won't even drive on that side of town for fear of being mugged. They just believe the stereotypes, and don't bother thinking for themselves.

I'm a big supporter of many causes the Democratic party traditionally champions, even though I disagree on free trade. (I think globalization is inevitable, and we'd best find a way to deal with it.) I'm all for tax cuts, as long as they go to the middle classes, where the people are actually likely to spend the money and contribute to the economy. (I'm a little tired watching people get trickled down on.) And as long as children don't go without free lunches or after-school programs as a result, or firefighters don't lose their health care, or senior citizens don't lose their access to medication. I'm more than willing to pay my share of taxes to help people who need it. I don't like my money going to support an invasion of a country based on a lie, so I totally understand where they're coming from. I just think they're wrong! ;-)

So I'm not a Republican for all of those reasons, and I hate W for others I won't bother detailing here. Mostly, I'm tired of being ashamed of the actions of my country. I really want to fly the flag outside my house again without feeling like I'm a hypocrite.



So that was more than you wanted to know, I'm sure! I do wonder about slashers who are Republicans, though. I mean, this president just tried to amend the Constitution to discriminate against gay people! How do you reconcile the anti-gay and anti-"porn" rhetoric of the party with participating in an internet community that embraces gay rights, women's rights, and free speech?

I really want to know, so please comment here. I'd love to have a thoughtful and reasonable discussion of this topic.

Comments

[emila-wan.livejournal.com]

I'm actually with you on about 99% of the stuff you say. I grew up Baptist and am still a Bible-believing Christian. I am not a member of any party, but my idealogy aligns more with the Republicans because of their idea of smaller government, more local control, etc. I think the Democrats are more interested in federalizing things like education and health care to a more socialist system, which I don't want. But I am sickened by the pro-CEO bent of the Republicans, and as you say, the trickling. *G* I am very much anti-abortion, because I view the fetus as a human with rights. I am, however, not opposed to gay marriage, etc., as I am very much Libertarian in my views on social issues. As for how I can be a slasher and be religious ... I think I am simply mentally ill. *GGG*

One thing you said that rankled a bit. You said you were "forced" to pray. Actually, you weren't. Did you really pray? Or did you just stand there and listen? Yes, you were "forced" to listen to other people pray. Was that such a horrible thing? Did it harm you in any way? Wouldn't it be worse if the vast majority of people there were "forced" not to pray in public because a few people don't like it? Wouldn't that be like saying dissidents should be made to stop protesting publicly because it makes some people uncomfortable -- and passing a law that they can only protest in assemblies of likeminded people, so that others who disagree won't have to hear it? If we are to have free speech in this country, religious speech should be included too.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I'm actually with you on about 99% of the stuff you say.

It's always interesting to me that people who mostly agree can still choose to align themselves with very different political parties! I think most of us are moderate, and can swing either way depending on circumstances. Which makes me wonder: what would it take for you to vote for a Democratic candidate?

You said you were "forced" to pray. Actually, you weren't.

You're right. Sloppy choice of words. Bad Emma!

But I grew up in a part of the country where there was praying before every school event, every football game, every band competition, etc. We were all instructed to bow our heads (by teachers, coaches, and other authority figures) and we all did. It was only in my senior year of high school that I found the courage to keep my head up and my eyes open. I got funny and dirty looks for it, too, but by then I didn't care. Those prayers always ended with "In Jesus' name we pray", which irritated the two or three Jewish kids there as well. They bowed their heads though. There was too much pressure not to.

I guess what I object to is the pressure to participate in a Christian prayer at a public, goverment-sponsored event. It seems inappropriate for one religion to be chosen as the "offical" one for a prayer, in a country supposedly founded on freedom of -- or from -- religion.

Wouldn't that be like saying dissidents should be made to stop protesting publicly because it makes some people uncomfortable -- and passing a law that they can only protest in assemblies of likeminded people, so that others who disagree won't have to hear it?

I agree, and I'll endeavor to be more careful about how I phrase my feelings on this in the future. I think I addressed my objection to certain forms of public prayer above. Do you understand my position?

Thanks for your comments!

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I support gay rights (which I don't think the Bush team approves of), women's rights (which they do approve of, except in the matter of abortion) and freedom of speech (which you can't seriously say this Administration opposes.) However my support of Bush is based on his foreign stance, which is paramount to me right now. We - the Western world - are at war against people who want to defeat us. You think there are human rights abuses in the US (and I condone none)? Just imagine what it would be like to live under the Shari'a, or even in so-called secular Middle-Eastern states. Gays are executed in Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and were in Iraq until last year. (Read this New Yorker piece about the routine examinations a Baghdad hospital doctor used to make that sent gays to the firing squad. The guy lost no sleep over them.) As it happens, I support the idea of a national health coverage system. Considering that all these are bankrupt in Europe, the US should try & invent a different system; but I'm all for the principle itself.

I am French, so I know perfectly well that this Administration has not lost the godwill of European governments like mine (but not those of Poland or Italy), because there was none to begin with. You have no idea of how entrenched our anti-Americanism is. (In fact, if ever Kerry should win, all the Euros who say they prefer him are in for a shock; because his policies would still not be close to what our chattering classes would like.)

As for the racism of a minority of Republicans (and surely I only need to say "Southern Democrats" for you to see that this taint is bipartisan, you can't accuse the Administration that has Condi Rice and Colin Powell in key posts of sharing it.

But I think all this takes a second seat to the international situation; and those who say this administration has worsened it do not understand what's been going on. Sure, the terrorists don't like victims that fight back. (All the Guantanamo detaineed were seized in Afghanistan carrying arms for the Jihad. This is not a place you happen to be by chance because you took the wrong turn on the freeway.) Tough. It still is the only way to go.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

We have GOT to hook up, because I am always looking for more fellow Texas atheists.

Along those lines, I have such icon love. Where did you get it? Is it snaggable? *makes puppy eyes*

[helens78]

Emma, do you realize how difficult it is to have a thoughtful and reasonable discussion when you've set up the conference table this way?

You're not asking people to talk to you about their beliefs based on what they believe. You're pointing at the worst, most bigoted, least tolerant examples of one party's train of thought, and saying "Justify that."

And as you know, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, and quite glad of it. (And with any luck, that disclaimer will keep people from flaming me for standing up for the racists. *rolls eyes so hard they fall out of head, roll across the floor, and land under the refrigerator*)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

You're pointing at the worst, most bigoted, least tolerant examples of one party's train of thought, and saying "Justify that."

Hmmm. Well, you know me well enough to know that wasn't my intention at all. I read over the post very carefully to make certain I was stating that a) this is my opinion, and b) I recognize that it's mostly based on my limited experience with a small group of people (my family), whom I assume are not representative of the entire party. I re-read it just now, and I don't think that's unclear.

The rest of it is genuinely what I see as the Republican party's stance on those issues. Please, correct me if I'm wrong! I'd actually be relieved to know that W isn't anti-gay, if that's the case!

I do admire your convictions as a Libertarian. I feel the need to align myself with a "mainstream" party for various reasons, of course, but I find myself mostly voting against things these days, instead of for them. I was an independent for a while, but many of the Republican party's platform stances drove me to align myself with the opposition.

See, I'm reasonable! ;-)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Cool! I think we have quite a lot in common! ;-) Oh, and yes, snag away!

[sorion.livejournal.com]

While I know that no party is flawless, I really, really hope that W gets kicked out of the White House. (Even if a friend astrologer says W's horoscope looks frighteningly good... *damnid*)

I live far away... But his arm keeps getting longer and longer. And I don't like it.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Well, Cheney isn't anti-gay...

[helens78]

I re-read it just now, and I don't think that's unclear.

Actually, I find it very unclear. Only once, in your list of reasons you're not a Republican, did you say "I realize this represents a small minority of Republicans", and that was when you were stating outright that you associate being a Republican with being a racist. But you didn't give any consideration to the fact that there are Republicans out there who don't support Bush The Younger, that there are Republicans who dislike Bush's foreign policy as much if not more than you do, that there are Republicans who did not vote for the Patriot Act, that there are Republicans who don't support welfare not for the stereotypical "greedy bigoted Republican" reasons but because they have genuine concerns about its effectiveness and long-term effect on those who are on it.

Basically, you go into great detail in saying that you're against this, this, this, this, and this intolerant, bigoted behavior, and then state that that is why you are not a Republican. But wait -- the inverse of that, the natural conclusion, is that Republicans are by default all those things. Ouch. It's not even my political party, and ouch.

And please, don't fall prey to sarcastic, rhetorical statements like this one:

The rest of it is genuinely what I see as the Republican party's stance on those issues. Please, correct me if I'm wrong! I'd actually be relieved to know that W isn't anti-gay, if that's the case!

First of all, I'm not a member of the Republican party, so I can't speak to that; and even if I could, there's a strong difference in my mind between "being a Republican" and "being a supporter of the modern-day Republican Party and those members of it who are in power". It's a bit like the difference between "being an American" and "being a supporter of the modern-day American government and the actions it's taken over the last four years".

Second of all, the line about Bush the Younger -- come on. That's a taunt, not an invitation to discussion.

Basically, what I'm driving at is this: You describe the reasons you're not a Republican not because you even know what people who identify as Republicans do believe, but because in today's society, you disagree with the actions and direction the Republican party takes. However, you describe the reasons you are a Democrat not based on the actions and directions of the current Democratic party, but on what the Democrats believe in theory.

The reason I see little difference between the two political parties is not because I can't see a difference in the theoretical gist of what they believe in and what they want to push for; of course I can. But once they're in office, both parties vote for the same thing. Both parties want more government interference in our personal lives, even if the way they want to interfere is different. Both parties want more taxes for more government programs, even if those programs are different. Both parties believe the solution to our country's education problems is to take more money away from parents and non-parents, and throw them at government-supported educational programs, even if the programs they want to support are different. Both parties voted for the Patriot Act, both parties fought over the recent stupid-ass marriage amendment, both parties supported the Defense of Marriage Act, both parties voted overwhelmingly to affirm the use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Neither party is all that great, and neither party is wholly evil.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting!

freedom of speech (which you can't seriously say this Administration opposes.)

So here's the thing: I don't feel free to express my views in public, especially concerning the war in Iraq. And this ain't my real name, so this doesn't count! ;-) The Bush administration has stated unequivocably that if you don't support their actions, you're "with the terrorists". I don't mean to say that the administration has actively prevented people from expressing themselves, but they've created a climate in which it's difficult to oppose them without being labeled as a terrorist yourself. Example: The Dixie Chicks.

There's also a feeling among Republicans that opposing Bush = not supporting the troops. That one makes me crazy, because it doesn't make any sense. You can support people and hoep for the best for them, and at the same time dislike what they're being forced to do.


We - the Western world - are at war against people who want to defeat us.

I think the current political situation is much more complex than "us vs. them", though. Most of the people who oppose the US and its actions and policies are not out to conquer the western world.

Just imagine what it would be like to live under the Shari'a, or even in so-called secular Middle-Eastern states.

Oh, yes! Absolutely! I seethed for years that the Clinton administration did little about the Taliban, and that the Bush administration initially reversed the economic sanctions the Clinton administration applied. (Gee, wonder if that had anything to do with an oil pipeline somebody wanted to build?) It was only when the US needed to bomb Afganistan that anyone seemed to care about teh horrible oppresion of women there.

And don't get me started on Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Wonder why we don't invade those countries, if the whole point (in retrospect, when no WMDs surfaced) was to liberate the people? If the US decided to make it a policy to go around the world and free oppressed people, I'd be all for it, because that is something I could believe in. What sickens me is the fact that we were lied to about why we invaded Iraq, and when the lie was revealed, the reason for going just... changed.

Yes, Clinton lied about getting a blow job in the Oval Office. This is on a completely different level though.

You have no idea of how entrenched our anti-Americanism is.

Oh, but I do. My husband and I travel a lot, and we've experienced some of that anti-Americanism for ourselves!

I only need to say "Southern Democrats" for you to see that this taint is bipartisan

Of course. As I tried to emphasize above, that's based on my admittedly limited experience with people in my family. The reasons why I'm an atheist are also based on my personal experience. It was an attempt to explain my feelings, and not a brand on Republicans in general.

That said, I have to say that the southern Democrats I know have very different opinions and perspectives on minorities than do the Republicans. Again, I only have my personal experience to go on.

those who say this administration has worsened it do not understand what's been going on.

Here I simply must disagree with you. The US had a lot of support from the international community after 9/11. Bush's decision to invade Iraq without broad international support lost most of it. It's also made this country look like horribly hypocritical. We value freedom, yet we lock up supposed terrorists without due process? We thumb our noses at the UN and the rest of the world, and do what we want because (in the words of Bill Clinton) we can?

It looks like we are miles apart on this issue! Thanks for participating in the conversation anyway -- I appreciate it.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Well, all I can say is that my intention was to explain my reasons for not aligning myself with the Republican party. Those reasons are personal, and they're based on my experience, my opinions about issues, and the party's public stance on those same issues. I recognize, of course, that people are going to interpret my words differently than I intended them, and I'm not going to convince them otherwise. Short of prefacing every sentence with "and this is just my opinion, based on my experience", I'm not sure what I could have done differently. It may have been blunt, but hey, I'm not exactly known for my tact, now am I? ;-)

That said, I'm less than thrilled with the Democratic party's support of the Patriot act, the war, the DMA, etc. I agree with much of the sentiment in your last paragraph above. Perhaps the reason why people feel compelled to align with one party or another is because of their fear of the extremists on the other side? I'm terrified of the Christain right; that's for damn sure.

Thanks again for commenting!

[helens78]

I think the difficulty lies in trying to find out what other people's opinions are when you've already determined the playing field, you know? For you, this is the playing field. It doesn't look like you're coming into things with an open mind, since you've already decided what a Republican is, and what being a Republican means. And it's fine to have that opinion, but I'm going back to what I started off with -- it's very hard to have a discussion with someone who has already decided how she feels about the topic. For me, a discussion has to be more than one side saying "I think X" and the other side thinking "I think Y" -- there needs to be room to meet in the middle. And that's actually why I hate political discussions; there's seldom any room to meet in the middle, because most people who have firm political beliefs are no more willing to change those than to change religions.

It's also interesting to me to see just how cynical I am when it comes to politics and politicians! I'm the poster girl for optimism; you'd think that I could have at least a little bit of hope for the government. And the thing is -- I do think politicians believe they can make things better for people, or they wouldn't be in politics. I just don't think they recognize how many cascading effects their programs and policies have. Politicians in general are not very good at recognizing the possibility of unintended -- but very obvious -- consequences.

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

Unlike you, I was not raised republican or Christian, yet I do echo your sentiments on many of the above topics.

I grew up in California in the seventies in an atheistic, semi-communal group of friends bound together by their ideas of living life fully and embracing all it has to offer. It's hard to get more liberal than that. As a teenager, I rebeled and went to live the "normal" suburban life with my dad and step-mother. They were republicans based solely on their wallets.

When I was finaly able to vote, I had to examine what was inmportant to me.
For the most part, I agree with the policies of the democratic party. I like the fact that I when I ask questions of my candidates, I get well reasoned answers that address the topics at hand. Mostly, I agree with their goals. As someone who needed the safety net that welfare provides when I found myself pregnant in the middle of college, I have seen how it can be used as a temporary measure to help someone climb out of poverty and desparation. I liked that giving birth to my daughter was my choice, and not something forced upon me.

But I also see that government is not going to be able to fix all social ills in this country. There are things that people and communities must take responsiblility for themselves.

So several things that republicans are traditionally known for make sense to me. I'm all for having less government influence in our lives and allowing people to sort it out themselves on the state or local levels. Even though I spent years living hand to mouth and am still struggling under the weight of vast student loans, I come from a very comfortable middle class family, and many of my extended family are now very wealthy, so I understand the appeal of the tax cuts.

But what the republicans, under the influence of the religious right, actually do disgusts me.
How can they claim to be trying to keep government out of our lives if they force us to have unwanted children? And then try to get access to our medical records so they can see who has had an abortion?
How, exactly, does two men or two women pledging to spend their lives together threaten a man and a woman doing the same enough to justify a contitutional amendment?
How dare George W. Bush usurp power in a government that was founded on the principles of the equality of all men and a separation of church and state and tell us that God is directing his presidency and have such clearly defined views of 'them' vs 'us'.

This list of quotes from presidents through out history is chilling.

"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
- President George Washington -

"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."
- President Thomas Jefferson -

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
- President Abraham Lincoln -

"A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."
- President James Madison -

"I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end... where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice."
- President John F. Kennedy -

"The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs."
- President George W. Bush -


(Continued 'cause I got too ranty)

Part 2

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

Like you, I have no problems with anyone following the religious path of their choice. I am very religious myself and am an ordained minister in my faith, but I am not going to inflict my beliefs on you or anyone else. I will never tell anyone that their path is wrong. I am always happy to discuss religion, including spirited debates, provided that my beliefs are respected as valid for me as I will respect that their's are valid for them.
How dare this man come in to MY government and tell me that MY country is founded on beliefs that are not my own?
On beliefs, which according to him, state that I am wrong and going to hell?
On beliefs which allow him to start an unnescissary war which boils down to a new jihad?
How can this man expect to run a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious country in a global environment when he closes his eyes to anything outside of his comfort zone?

WOW. Sorry. I'm not sure that really counts as thoughtful or reasonable. If you didn't get my drift, I am very vehemently for kicking this idiot out of our White House.

To that end:
Sunday, August 29th is "The World Says No To Bush Day"
Many cities are holding marches to coincide with the march in New York City at the onset of the Republican National Convention.
You can check to see if there is one you can join in your town or contact your local Democratic or Progrssives organisations about organizing one.

(See, according to this administration, you are evil incarnate. And I love you for it!) *snogs*

[eliminate.livejournal.com]

I'm also an Athiest and a bisexual who believes that Republicans want what's best for themselves. There are some, however, like Cheney, who aren't completely anti-gay rights, but that is strtictly because his daughter is a lesbian. Bush, on the other hand, is very unreasonable as to attempt the destruction of everything gays, bisexuals and transgenders worked for.

Another thing that I detest about Republicans is how they are treating the prisoners in Bahgdad (sp?). It is horrible what some of them did, but to humiliate them is uncalled for. I believe that it is just wrong and Bush, meanwhile, is sitting up in the oval office getting a good laugh because someone's life is Hell.

Pretty much I agree with everything you said ;) And I really like your icon!

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

It doesn't look like you're coming into things with an open mind, since you've already decided what a Republican is, and what being a Republican means.

Yes and no. Yes, I'm not coming into this open to hearing something that will change my mind. Does that mean I don't want to hear the opinions of other people? Of course not! It actually makes me feel better to hear why people hold opinions I disagree with. I want to believe that everyone has actual reasons for taking the positions they do, and that they're not just parroting back what their leaders have told them is the "truth". (Going back to my family again, there.)

And I'm not sure how I can start a discussion without putting my position out there first. What else could I have done? Why should I expect people to go out on a limb and give me their opinions if I haven't given mine first? In the current political climate, it can be difficult to express what one really thinks about many of these issues. My mother has already labeled me as "un-patriotic" because of my opposition to the war. And all of the above is most definitely my opinion.

I'm still not sure why you think I've defined what it means to be a Republican, since everything I've said is about my own family. I stated that I have a hard tme disassociating those things from my family to underline that I recognize this is not representative of eveyone in that party.

I'm passionate about my beliefs, and I realize some might find that intimidating or off-putting, and choose not to participate in a conversation with me because of it. It's a good thing I'm not a politician, because I wouldn't be very good at it!

This election is going to be a very close one precisely because people in the US are so very polarized. There isn't much wiggle room, and a very small percentage are undecided voters. I think the election will be determined more by voter turnout than anything else. I'm not sure any of us will be able to "meet in the middle" anytime soon.

It's also interesting to me to see just how cynical I am when it comes to politics and politicians!

I'm far more cynical than I like, too. I was so idealistic back in '92, when I was a fresh-faced college student pounding the pavement for Clinton/Gore. *sighs* I don't support Kerry so much as I oppse Bush, to be honest. And that's why this rant was called "Why Emma is not a Republican". It was not called "Why Emma is a Democrat" or "Why you should not be an evil, nasty Republican either." ;-)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

That's true! One of his few redeeming features... ;-)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting!

A pleasure! You set the tone unagressively and with a willingness to listen to different points of view. That’s pretty rare!

So here's the thing: I don't feel free to express my views in public

Well, here’s the thing for me: part of my family lived under Communism (and my parents remembered Nazism quite well; I was a late birth.) I interviewed many Soviet dissidents when I started as a cub reporter. And this has nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with what happens to you under a regime that does not respect freedom of speech. Our world (not to mention LJ! I don’t know how I built my flist, love ‘em all, but they’re 90% pro-Kerry!) is full of people expressing different opinions. Yes, they are sometimes brutally contradicted, but that’s the thing about freedom of speech…

There's also a feeling among Republicans that opposing Bush = not supporting the troops. That one makes me crazy, because it doesn't make any sense. You can support people and hoep for the best for them, and at the same time dislike what they're being forced to do.

I agree with you on this (not being anti-war, but being both anti-war and supporting the troops; yes of course that’s possible. IMHO misguided, but definitely possible.)

I think the current political situation is much more complex than "us vs. them", though. Most of the people who oppose the US and its actions and policies are not out to conquer the western world.

Well – I don’t suppose Germany and Russia and my own country want to conquer the world; but their UN votes have supported the side of people who do want that. Radical Islam does want to conquer the world. Here is another absolutely terrific New Yorker piece, on the new generation of Al-Qaeda, which gives a bit of a notion of the mentality of the people attacking the Western world, to avenge medieval slights. (Seriously! It turns out, for instance, that the Madrid bombings were planned at least one year before the war in Iraq, and had more to do with Bin Laden’s much-echoed claim to Andalusia, Moorish Spain, “lost” in 1492.)

And always remember that 9/11 was planned under Clinton, whose foreign policy (or absence thereof) had always been of appeasement and divestiture when it came to radical terrorism.

Oh, yes! Absolutely! I seethed for years that the Clinton administration did little about the Taliban, and that the Bush administration initially reversed the economic sanctions the Clinton administration applied.

Now this I never saw anywhere. Could you point me to some documentation about it?

And don't get me started on Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Wonder why we don't invade those countries, if the whole point (in retrospect, when no WMDs surfaced) was to liberate the people? If the US decided to make it a policy to go around the world and free oppressed people, I'd be all for it, because that is something I could believe in. What sickens me is the fact that we were lied to about why we invaded Iraq, and when the lie was revealed, the reason for going just... changed.

There are so many things in answer to this…

1. Agree totally with you on the utter unloveliness of Saudi Arabia and Iran. That being said, Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions, & shot at US and British planes every day. Saudi Arabia is nominally an ally (although they finance the terror networks, and I for one favor breaking diplomatic relations with them and buying oil form Angola and Russia. Iran, say all analysts, will actually blow up of its own: it has a population that’s 75% under age 25, who’ve known nothing else than the Mullahcracy they suffer under, and they’re organizing as we speak (go read Iranian blogs! There are many in English.)


(to be continued)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

2. There so were, or rather had been, WMD in Iraq – if only because the Iraqis declared themselves some tens of thousands of liters of Sarin to the UN inspectors as late as 1998, at which date said inspectors were kicked out. Tens of thousands of Iraqis (Shia and Kurds) had actually been gassed by Saddam. Israel had blown up a French nuclear reactor in 1981. Who was to tell that the whole programme had turned pear-shaped, and Saddam’s mangy scientists were lying to him? (I personally think, based on various interviews of Syrian opponents, that Saddam hid the stuff in Syria, and that the Syrian government then dumped the whole caboodle at sea.)

At any rate, Bush did not lie. He sincerely believed the WMD were there, as the 9/11 commission has confirmed.

3. Actually – US policy does favor democracy, which we Eurps sneer at. It still is a very admirable worldview. (You could use the same argumlents against joining the fight in WWII. As I owe my very existence to the victory against Nazism, I am rather sentimental about democracy-loving Americans.)

Yes, Clinton lied about getting a blow job in the Oval Office. This is on a completely different level though.

Clinton’s foreign policy was actionable. It’s because of Dahran and Mogadiscio and Kenya that Bin Laden called America a “defanged tiger”, ripe for attack.

Oh, but I do. My husband and I travel a lot, and we've experienced some of that anti-Americanism for ourselves!

Oh, my poor egg, where?

Here I simply must disagree with you. The US had a lot of support from the international community after 9/11. Bush's decision to invade Iraq without broad international support lost most of it.

See, my government (with which I am in violent opposition, as I’m sure you’ve guessed) masterminded this supposed international opposition for completely selfish reasons (yes, oil is one, in our case) and to oppose the Americans on the world stage - to exercise out nuisance value, since it’s the only way we can delude ourselves that we’re still a superpower. And still there were some 40 countries in the coalition; so what are the Poles? The British? The Italians? The Hungarians? The Japanese? Chopped liver? *g*

We value freedom, yet we lock up supposed terrorists without due process?

“Supposed”? Caught on the battlefield with weapons? France may be violently anti US, but we’ve immediately locked up the four French nationals who were freed three days ago from Guantanamo; and they’re being charged with terrorism all right. I have no problems with Guantanamo. (I have plenty problems with Abu Ghraib, now.)

We thumb our noses at the UN and the rest of the world, and do what we want because (in the words of Bill Clinton) we can?

You’re reversing the positions. The UN has been thumbing its mad nose at the civilized world for decades. Naming Libya and Sudan to the Human Rights commission? Pocketing billions of dollars in bribes in the oil-for-food scandal, all the way to Kojo Annan, son of Kofi? The UN should clean house before it peeps a word about the US.

It looks like we are miles apart on this issue! Thanks for participating in the conversation anyway -- I appreciate it.

Yes we are – and this is almost the first time I explain myself on this on LJ; the debate on everyone else’s journals was so unpleasant that I usually keep mum. Thank you! Don’t let this dissuade you from writing a sequel to LMH!

[jane-sehrn-ta.livejournal.com]

Kudos to you, Emma.

I can say that I pretty much agree with everything you've said. And as a very happily married *Canadian* lesbian, I say thank goodness that I don't have to live in a place where I would be categorized as some hell-bound hedonist. I had a few years experience of Baptist Sunday School during my early years (4-7), which was quite enough, and I have lived with the guilt all my life. Ironically it is throgh discovering slash and finding so many like-minded people out here that I am starting to heal myself of the guilt of being who I am. As an abuse survivor, slash has become a way to take back my sexual power. Who I am is so far removed from what I am presumed to be as a lesbian. I am a mum, loving, nurturing, supportive to my wife and step-daughters, who I see as my own true daughters also. Unfortunately, due to my background, an active sexual life is near impossible, but to those gay, bisexuals and transgendered folk who do lead one - I say good for you. Sex is a private thing behind closed doors. And when it comes down to it, no government has a right to legislate against LOVE. GO CANADA! :)

As someone who has suffered through numerous physical and mental ailments for some 16 years (nearly half my life), for example, an autoimmune disease through which I appear utterly normal on the outside, I am used to all sorts of prejudice, and a lot of it is from my family. I was born in Britain and instilled with a work ethic that says that if you look OK, then you must WORK, otherwise you are a slacker.

Although I have very limited energy, whenever I can I try to raise awareness of those so-called minority groups, those who are differently abled, those whose love lies outside the norm, indeed, those who believe they will never fit in to society's concept of normal.

So I say bravo, Emma, and woe betide the world if Bush gets back in. I have to thank the Force that I and my soulmate live in Canada. Maybe if you all emigrate to Canada, Bush will get the message ;).

Just my two cents,
Jane

P.S. By the way, I agree with Emilia-Wan on the praying bit. Whatever the case may be, as an empathic soul I just put my head down and send love and light to those who really need it. I did go through a brief period of atheism in my life - I wonder if the strength of your atheism is proportional to the length of time spent in a Baptist upbringing. I mean no disrespect to Baptists. I just wouldn't have chosen to scar a kid the way I was.

[simmysim.livejournal.com]

I'm a slasher, bisexual, and a Republican. The only thing up there you listed that I'm against is laws banning gay marriage -- but then again, I don't think there should be any marriage outside of religion, as it nowadays it is a religious institute and ideal (civil unions = yay).

Another part of my reluctance to support Republicans comes from my up-bringing, again.

[...] It was an attempt to explain my feelings, and not a brand on Republicans in general.

I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to take these two statements. It really reminds me of someone saying, "Well, I know people say this woman should be getting paid as much as this man because she's doing the same amount of work, but I was raised to believe the opposite, so..."

Sorry if this comes out harsh (or incoherent) but with so many of these posts lately being so backhanded toward my beliefs . . . >_____<;;;;

[helens78]

I don't mean to say that the administration has actively prevented people from expressing themselves, but they've created a climate in which it's difficult to oppose them without being labeled as a terrorist yourself. Example: The Dixie Chicks.

o_O The Dixie Chicks have been labeled terrorists?!?!? All I heard was that they were booed off stage by a crowd that paid to see them, and were later boycotted.

Seriously, this is an argument I keep hearing from the left, over and over -- that people are being "kept down" by the right, that it's not OK to espouse your own beliefs, and so on, and so forth. I've actually written two pieces in my political LJ on these things -- one rant, specifically mentioning the Dixie Chicks, and one much longer piece explaining why I don't think what happened to the Dixie Chicks in any way constituted censorship or an abridgment of free speech.

Boycotting's been a way for private, individual citizens to express dissatisfaction with businesses, celebrites, etc., for a very long time. I don't think booing and boycotting celebrities for their political views is censorship-level behavior. Those celebrities can say anything they please -- they just have to accept that there will be consequences.

I sympathize with your personal discomfort back in the days when you had to sit through prayers and didn't feel comfortable not making it look as though you were praying, but unless you would have been arrested for it, I don't think that's a case of forced religion, either.

Our Constitution's a wonderful thing. It provides for a lot of different freedoms, no matter how many times both major parties would prefer to throw those freedoms away. But nothing in the Constitution has ever claimed that you have the right to be totally comfortable no matter where you go or what you're doing, and I don't think it should. I think it's vital that personal comfort be self-created and self-protected and not a matter of government edict, because anything the government has the power to give you, the government has the power to take away. (Which is why I believe the government should have as little power as possible.)

(yeah, look at me stirring up trouble again. feel free to tell me to go away...)

[emila-wan.livejournal.com]

Too right. Censorship is when the *government* makes law against free expression. No jackbooted soldiers burst down the doors and dragged the Dixie Chicks to jail for insulting our president. No official government action of any sort happened. They simply found themselves hoisted by their own petard, as many of their fans exercised *their* freedom of expression in turn.

That's what's so beautiful about America!

[emila-wan.livejournal.com]

I sort of understand. I do think it's tacky when somebody praying on behalf of a huge crowd invokes Jesus' name. That's just insensitive. However, I've been in small groups that had prayers where each person took turns doing the invocation, and so there was fairness and variety. We even had a Wiccan poem and a Taoist blessing, to name a couple. There are ways for people to share their faith without being disrespectful to others.

The main problem is that people are not being taught in our society how to express themselves in a polite way. Everything is so crass and in your face. It's the Michael Moore / Rush Limbaugh style of expression. Political and religious debate is the worst. People don't seem to realize that you can't win an argument by simply calling the other person a motherfucker. The days when issues were debated using fact and logic is long gone. Instead, the press dredges up every morally questionable act a candidate or his family has committed since conception, twists and spins events until they are unrecognizable, misquotes, misjudges, and manufactures "truth" out of nothing but the Emperor's Clothes.

[lauramcewan.livejournal.com]

heh, I see the other side of this on the website I work for. We have rules about what can be discussed, or how (personal attacks, language) and when we we enforce the rules they agreed to when the signed up (for a free site, I might add) they start yelling "violation of my free speech rights!"

um, no. Your free speech rights mean you can go make your own website and set the rules for it yourself, just as we did, and that you can criticize your government without fear of imprisonment.

So folks threaten to leave and stop buying our products. *shrug* Yeah, we don't like folks leaving, but the rules were there when they joined. We certainly cannot force them to stay.

[corinnethewise.livejournal.com]

I'm just gonna say You=way cool and leave it at that.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

All I heard was that they were booed off stage by a crowd that paid to see them, and were later boycotted.

Clearly that played differently where you live than it did where I live! After Natalie made her comment about being ashamed Bush was from Texas, it was all over the local news here, and the same was true where my parents live. There were tons of interviews with citizens who were shocked and horrified, and radio stations were saying they wouldn't play their music anymore. The local variety show had a Dixie Chicks segment that they promptly dropped. People my husband works with told him they thought Natalie et al should be arrested for treason, and compared them to Jane Fonda. And when the DC came on tour and did a show here, there were protests and demonstrations. The local news stations were down at the arena interviewing people on both sides.

Go ahead and ridicule me if you like, but here's the thing: It was bizarre, and revolting, and it shook me because that could have been me. There was this feeling here at the time that if you liked the DC, you were aligning yourselves with the terrorists. I'm not exaggerating; people really said that. And all the group had done was publicly express their opinion about the president.

Was this a loud minority, or was it the majority? It was difficult to tell, because all the media showed us was the people who were vilifying the DC. People who supported them or agreed with them did it very quietly. It isn't like that anymore, thankfully, but there was a brief period of time in this country where people who did not agree with the administration's actions were told to "love it or leave it", in no uncertain terms. It isn't so much like that now, but I refuse to brush aside such intimidation tactics.

Yes, people can boycott whomever they choose! Yes, people can say what they like! Do you seriously think I'm advocating restricting speech? *rolls eyes* Then you haven't been reading what I've been saying at all.

My point in using this example was not that the DC were censored in any way. The government did nothing to them, personally. What did happen was that they were made into evil terrorist-sympathizers by a bunch of small-minded people. Someone wanted a scapegoat, and they were convenient. The media jumped all over it, and it became an example of what would happen to celebrities who stuck their noses into politics. Other artists have since come forward and expressed criticism of the Bush administration and the war, and it's not the same now as it was at that point in time. I completely believe it was the atmosphere of suspicion and fear and mistrust created by the Bush administration that caused people to react that way.

And I still get riled up about it, because I still hear people making snide remarks about them, still equating them with terrorists. Yes, celebrities should take responsibility for what they say and be prepared to face the consequences. The Beatles learned that the hard way too. But there was an atmosphere surrounding that incident that I'm not going to soon forget. It was the first time I was afraid to express my opinion to people, in my life.

I absolutely agree with you that the government should have as little power over individual liberties as possible. Oddly, republicans say they believe this as well, and then try to legislate what people can and can't do with their bodies. That's a completely different issue, though.

[helens78]

Clearly that played differently where you live than it did where I live!

Yeah, it did -- I live in Seattle, where it's so rare to see a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker that it attracts notice. Where peace rallies on many street corners are a weekly event, and when people who are anti-abortion stand on street corners, they get booed and honked at angrily. It didn't even really cause a burp in the local news, and if I hadn't heard about it over LiveJournal, I probably wouldn't have heard about it at all. I had no idea any of that happened regarding the Dixie Chicks, and where I live, there has never been any kind of "love it or leave it" sentiment -- the LiveJournal attitude of "Bush is a demon and anyone who likes him is a stupid fucking moron" is exactly the sentiment that is publicly expressed in Seattle. I would be far more afraid to say "Bush isn't so bad" than to say "I agree with the Dixie Chicks" here, not that I'm afraid to say either one.

On the other hand, do you remember Rick Santorum? The guy who went on about how gay marriage was equatable to incest or pedophilia? He was vilified here. People thought he was the next antichrist -- only not exactly, because no one in Seattle is religious. Maybe 30% of people go to church here, if that. You know how one of the questions you get in small talk that follows up "what do you do for a living?" is "where do you go to church?" I've lived in Seattle for four years, and no one has ever asked me that. I've never been asked to pray at a public event. It simply isn't expected that you have a religion at all, and it is considered nobody's business.

Seattle also has a very high minority population -- many, many Indians (as in people from India) live here because of the technology industry, there are of course a large number of hispanics, and there's a huge Asian population. (On the other hand, I've heard black people refer to Seattle as one of the whitest cities ever because there's not much of a black population here, oddly.) One out of ten couples here, if not more, is multiracial -- I've seen the 10% statistic in the local paper, but honestly, judging by what I see on the street, it's a lot more than that. Gay people can kiss on street corners. So yeah, where I live is very different from where you live.

Yes, people can boycott whomever they choose! Yes, people can say what they like! Do you seriously think I'm advocating restricting speech? *rolls eyes* Then you haven't been reading what I've been saying at all.

Here's the thing: I do think Democrats are just as likely to want to restrict speech as Republicans. They just want to restrict different kinds of speech. Many Democrats want to make "hate speech" illegal, or punishable by heavy fines. Many Democrats want to make "hate crimes" more strongly punishable than just plain "crimes". I think hate crimes are revolting, yes, but I do not want to live in a society where you get three life sentences instead of two because of what you were thinking at the time you committed a violent crime. I don't want to live in that society because the minute government can decide which thoughts are desirable, they can legislate any thoughts. The minute government can decide which thoughts are "harmful", any thoughts can be branded harmful.

Oddly, republicans say they believe this as well, and then try to legislate what people can and can't do with their bodies.

So do Democrats. Every single abortion bill and every single gay rights bill has had advocates on both sides -- and Democrats, by the way, are the ones I usually hear advocating smoking bans, which in my opinion (and I don't even smoke!) is a major blow to what people can and can't do with their bodies. You don't want to inhale smoke? Go to a nonsmoking restaurant -- with or without regulation, there are tons of them. How about seatbelt laws for cars, or motorcycle helmet laws? Democrats again. This is not something that can be pointed at and restricted to one political party. There are libertarians who don't believe in abortion, too.

Politics, Religion and GWB

[keikokin.livejournal.com]

Ok, let's see I don't believe in a mix of church and state, never have, never will. I am registered Independent, mostly so I am not harrassed by mailings, and I have issues with each party. I am not Christian, even though I was raised Roman Catholic. My father is Buddhist so I have more of a perspective toward other religions then some. Anyway I become a Wiccan/Pagan, after praying for years to a God that didn't listen when I asked to be saved from my abusive, raping, cheating first husband. So having the Christianity lobbed down my throat non-stop is totally nauseating. It makes me understand how it must feel for other countries to have Democracy rammed down their throats. I come from a long line of military. My father was in WWII, a lifer and my mother was a secretary in the Dept. of the Army. As well Papasan was in NSA. So I do believe in the USA but I get to hear their views as well. They don't understand why we are trying to democratize the world. As senior citizens they are disgusted with how they have been treated in Congress and DC, when they did their bit for the country. They marched with Martin Luther King so they understand discrimination. I don't understand why we not only never fully got rid of racial discrimination but have now added racial and religious to the list. I don't care for GWB at all. I sat and read Kerrys page and was impressed by their environmental support, a hispanic background, a love of literacy and trying to keep jobs here. My concern of it all is that he doesn't seem to say we will pull of of Iraq, free the people in the Cuba camp or change the foreign politics. Our forefathers wanted this country to be neutral, more like our Canadian neighbors where my one sister emigrated too. I would love to get a black woman president in office. It is a shame that the one shot we had at that left the running so quickly. This country is in big trouble when we tick off enough of these foreign countries that they bond together en force to tell us to stay to ourselves. In the words of the wonderful late Ann Landers we need to MYOB! Can we have ONE *&^%$#@! president who instead of looking overseas looks to the country to see what WE need? The US needs jobs, security, a return to the family, a return of community spirit, a realization that there are different religions, colors and sexual preference and that is ok. When the government eventually falls in upon itself for destroying its own foundations I look forward to the return of the good old fashioned town hall meetings. Hopefully the local yutzes that are as crooked as the DC politics witness the downfall of the big fish they will see the light. Seeing local school shut down for lack of funding, PTA's that are raising money for toilet paper is a scandal. Who will save the US? Not GWB thats for damn sure! At this point I'd vote for ANYONE who is not Bush.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

So, one of the things I realized as I read this was that I've lived in Republican states for my entire life. I've lived on the east coast, in the west, and in the south, and every place I've lived has been a "red" state for as long as anyone cares to remember, and will continue to be "red" for the foreseeable future. I've always been to the left of everyone I know. I've always been a "kooky" liberal socialist left-winger. In fact, until I started participating in slash fandoms, I'd never known what it was like to be a part of a group of people who thought like I did on so many issues.

It's hard for me to comprehend it being any other way. Texas is the worst of all the places I've lived in that the Republican party here seems to believe it holds a monopoly on "family values" (or "Texas values" -- not sure what those are, but I bet I wouldn't like them). The word "liberal" is a brand put on even moderate political candidates, and candidates actually boast that they're the most conservative in the race. (Seriously, the political signs say things like "Conservative Texas Values". *shudder*)

It's not that I think Democrats are any better than Republicans when it comes to allowing free speech or other things; it's that all of my life experience has been that *I* am the one who is derided, or ignored, or attacked for believing differently than the majority. It's a bit mind-boggling to think that there exist places where people on the left hold that "tyranny of the majority" over people on the right. With the exception of faculty meetings at the university I work at, I've never experienced it any place I've ever lived.

Democrats, by the way, are the ones I usually hear advocating smoking bans, which in my opinion (and I don't even smoke!) is a major blow to what people can and can't do with their bodies.

Opening another can of worms here, I know, but I actually support smoking bans in public places. My grandfather died of lung cancer, and I'd rather not be subjected to anymore secondhand smoke in my lifetime, thanks. I don't like the government telling me what I can do with my body in the privacy of my home, or the privacy of my doctor's office. But if something someone else is doing is harming me, I feel like I shouldn't have to tolerate it.

Whole other issue, though. You're right that there are people on both sides of every issue in every party. I'm always fascinated by people's reasons for choosing one party over another, when in some regards, the parties aren't so very different. That, in a nutshell, was what my post was about in the first place.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Well, that's my hope as well! Obviously. ;-)

Re: Part 2

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comments! As I said somewhere above, my main reason for not being a Republican is the religious right. I'm essentially terrified of those people getting any power, and I cast my votes against them more often than for someone else. The interesting thing about the US, for me, is that we weren't such a religious country until fairly recently in our history. I believe (and I'm oversimplifying the issue, I'm sure) that much of that occurred during the cold war, as a means of distancing ourselves from communists.

I agree with everything you said about Bush. And yes, I am evil incarnate! :-P

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I'm interested to see how the Iraqi prisonor abuse scandal turns out. To be fair, it wasn't the Republican party involved in that, of course! Something's pretty messed up in the military, though...

Thanks for commenting!

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your story! It's very interesting to me to hear people's varied experiences and beliefs.

I wonder if the strength of your atheism is proportional to the length of time spent in a Baptist upbringing.

Oh, I'm positive it is! I've often thought that if I'd grown up Presbyterian, or something, I'd probably still be religious. At least, perhaps agnostic! ;-)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting, even though you don't agree with me.

It really reminds me of someone saying, "Well, I know people say this woman should be getting paid as much as this man because she's doing the same amount of work, but I was raised to believe the opposite, so..."

I've been pondering this for a while, which is part of the reason why it's taken me so long to respond to your comment. I thought, "Well, is that true?" And I don't think it's the same thing, honestly. What I wrote above represents my own personal experience. I do indeed understand that not all people who vote Republican are racist, or sexist, or homophobic, etc. But most people I have personally known who are life-long Republican voters have indeed been one or more of those. Granted, I grew up in the South of the US and have only ever lived in very conservative Republican states, so it's reasonable to say that my experience is skewed.

However, I was definitely raised to be a Baptist Republican, and I chose not to be in my early twenties, after thinking about the platforms of both parties and looking at where they stood on issues of importance to me. So I'm not really sure that your analogy holds, since I made this decision based on something other than what I was "raised to believe".

Now, you could make the argument that all I've been doing is rebelling against my upbringing all these years, and that would probably contain some truth! ;-)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

*grins*

Re: Politics, Religion and GWB

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I hear your pain! *grins* I'm running out of steam here, so I'll just comment on one thing you said about Kerry:

My concern of it all is that he doesn't seem to say we will pull of of Iraq, free the people in the Cuba camp or change the foreign politics.

I know, and that's partly why my support for Kerry is mostly based on opposition to Bush. I was a big Dean supporter, and I'm still disappointed he didn't do well. However, a long time ago I accepted the fact that I'm just so far to the left of most Americans that a candidate who agrees with me is unelectable. I tend to vote for the lesser of two evils, and don't get my hopes up that much will change dramatically.

I sound pretty fucking cynical, don't I? *sighs*

[helens78]

I believe (and I'm oversimplifying the issue, I'm sure) that much of that occurred during the cold war, as a means of distancing ourselves from communists.

In some cases, it's very directly traceable there -- "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, for example. Happened in the '50s, I believe, as a direct response to the Communist non-religious thing.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

That's what I'd always heard; it what the American Atheists organization says, for example. Thanks!

*uses spiffy new "God" icon, for no reason whatsoever*

[helens78]

I was about to type "OMG, I love the God icon" and then realized how silly that would be...

You know, one thing that I don't like about writing RPS is I've gotten back into the habit of using JudeoChristian swear words. (I pick up a lot from my museboys!) It's interesting writing KA fic, because those boys aren't Christians (except Arthur), and so I have to stumble around for appropriate curses for them. I went through several years where I tried to excise JudeoChristian curses from my vocabulary because it seemed so silly for an atheist to use them. I just wish there were a better all-purpose curse along the lines of "Damn!", because there again... religious-based. Darnit.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I went through several years where I tried to excise JudeoChristian curses from my vocabulary because it seemed so silly for an atheist to use them. I just wish there were a better all-purpose curse along the lines of "Damn!", because there again... religious-based.

LOL! I haven't thought about that for a while, but I went through a phase where I tried to remove all references to religion from my vocabulary. I wasn't successful, clearly, but you're right that it's difficult. What curses do we have that aren't Judeo-Christian in origin?

Shit.
Fuck.
Asshole.
Bitch. (That one's questionable.)

Is it just "damn" and "hell" that are Judeo-Christian in origin?

[helens78]

No, it's worse than that! "Bloody", for instance ("God's blood"), and silly things like "Zounds!" ("God's wounds"). And of course, there's the obvious ("God", "Christ", "Damn"...)... *shakes head*

[herberta2006.livejournal.com]

There's really more than 1 Democratic Texan? I never knew! I'm so glad to meet another, just like me. :P