In this week's column, Ruth Ann suggests that fake news spread via social media, media bias, either perceived or real, and political spin are all exactly the same! She even tosses in some BENGHAZI! for good measure, along with a little dose of perceived Christian persecution. She also seems a tad bit unaware that she is a part of the "mainstream media" she decries.
In this weeks column, both candidates are horrible, but Clinton is worse because of reasons. She proceeds to list every Scaife-cooked up "scandal," while saying nothing about Trump's inherent unfitness for office.
Apparently she has an issue with political ambition, calling it a "lust for power"but show me any national political candidate who isn't ambitious. I can however, show you one candidate who promises to use the power of law enforcement if elected to harass his political opponents, and that person isn't named Clinton.
In today's P-G, Ruth Ann blames "The Left" for Trump's popularity in the Republican party, and further complains about some people pointing out that all elected Republicans are offering as solitions are religious platitudes, rather than actual legislation, calling it "religious bigotry." Meanwhile, Marco Rubio decided that people who are to dangerous to fly on airplanes aren't so dangerous that they cannot amass arsenals. And for bonus points she invokes BENGHAZI!
She offers no solutions, but just shuts down any criticism by declaring any opinion other than her own "merits no further comment."
Ruth Ann Dailey then complains about the new centralized parking kiosks, even though parking revenue is up, and parking tickets are down, because she has to sometimes stand in line to pay for parking, and can't remember her license plate numbers. She'd like the old coin meters back, oh, and stay off her lawn you lousy kids!
Mind you though, she's not a homophobic bigot, because she's all in favor of teh gays getting civilly unionized, just don't call it marriage, because when you do that, you are opressing her religious beliefs.
News flash Ruth Ann, your church, or any church, is no way required to perform a marriage if it doesn't want to, but no church gets to own the definition of a word either. Your religious freedom is in no way threatened by gays getting married, and by calling it marriage.
When I married the first time, the ceremony took place in a judicial magistrate's office, presided over by a judge. No clerics were involved. But we didn't get a "civil union" certificate, we got a marriage certificate. When we applied for the license we didn't get a "civil union" license, we got a marriage license. Our marriage was recognized by the state, although it wouldn't be recognized by a church. That said, society viewed us as married, and not "civil union-ed."
Definitions of words and terms change. At one time, divorce was considered scanalous, and divorcees were socially looked down upon. Before that, divorce was difficult, if not impossible to obtain.
Ruth Ann might want to remember that, seeing as she's on husband number 2, IIRC.
In today's column, she browbeats school-aged children trying to sell lemonade, completley misrepresents what President Obama said, and winds up with a cup of lemonade thrown in her face.
While as funny as the idea of Ruth Ann Dailey wearing a cup of lemonade flung by a surly elementary school child is, I doubt the story she relates is true, she's just using a bit of fiction to try and make something resembling a point.
This time she complains about a politician engaging in politics, takes veiled swipe at Teh Gays, and then pivots to a whine about how ebil liberuls are trying to keep religious people from engaging in bigotry and discrimination. My favorite part, though, was this:
But it's possible the cynicism runs deeper -- and the failure of leadership is greater -- than conveniently evolving into a gay marriage advocate just in time to rake in millions from big donors in Hollywood (where the institution of marriage is of course so highly prized).
It's possible. Of course, there are lots of things that are possible, aren't there? Ruth Ann should understand that nearly half of all marriages, be they in Hollywood or elsewhere, end in divorce. Of course, the institution of marriage isn't too prized in Washington D.C. either (just ask Newt Gingrich) or among far right radio talkers (just ask Rush Limbaugh). Meanwhile, President Obama has gotten along just fine with a single spouse, unlike say, a certain opinion columnist in the pages of the P-G who is, if I'm not mistaken, on husband number 2.
Yay!!! Perhaps Ruth Ann understands that while the majority of citizens in this country are some flavor of Christian, the government is expressly secular. Alas, she goes all squishy. To wit:
"The correct answer to the question "Is America a 'Christian nation'?" is "yes and no." And both sides need to get over it."
She then goes on to note the early efforts to decouple government and religion, before dropping this heap o stupid:
"But it matters very much to American history that Christians discovered and established this principle well before Enlightenment philosophers did. It took root here because our forebears were -- literally and metaphorically -- plowing new ground. When the Enlightenment was barely under way in the Old World, deist intellectuals and learned Christians worked side by side in the New World to lead the war for independence, to draft and ratify the U.S. Constitution and to establish the separation of church and state.
In short, the principle that today's agnostics and atheists file lawsuits to protect comes to them courtesy, first, of Christian thinkers. Is it too much to ask them to acknowledge this fact?"
AAARRGHH!! No atheist or agnostic I know of refuses to acknowledge that many of the founding fathers, and the people who influenced them were Christians and Deists. That's not the issue. The issue at hand is that these leaders knew that entwining sectarian beliefs and government leads to persecution of those whos beliefs are in the minority or out of the mainstream. As Jefferson put it, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
She does call out the odious fake historian David Barton, but then goes on to cite Stalin and Mao as examples of evil atheists, while ignoring that the atrocities committed by those men were based on politics, not religion, or the lack thereof.
All we atheists and agnostics want by filing these lawsuits is to get the government to follow the law. Is that too much to ask Ruth Ann?