That’s a particular pronoun
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich joined a teleconference last night hosted by the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) to discuss the presidential election, warning the group that if Hillary Clinton is allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices, she could pick “fanatics who want to impose a secular America on the rest of us” and who might even go so far as to require churches to remove the words “our Father” from the Lord’s Prayer.
Mature citizens? Meaning old, or meaning grown-up as opposed to like-Trump?
Anyway – no, she couldn’t, and wouldn’t, and isn’t going to. Sit down and stop being so ludicrous, Newt. Be a Mature American Citizen.
Claiming that recent WikiLeaks emails show that Clinton’s aides are “radically anti-religious” and “radically anti-Christian,” Gingrich said that this means that Clinton’s court picks would be “people who do not believe in the right of religious liberty, people who believe that the government should define what you’re allowed to say, even in church.”
“And, by the way,” he continued, “there’s an organization in Massachusetts now, a government commission on transgender rights, that’s looking at potentially defining for churches what kinds of pronouns they could use, raising the specter, for example, of eliminating ‘our Father’ from the Lord’s Prayer, because, after all, that’s a particular pronoun.”
Wut?
The pronoun there is “our,” which, like “my” and “your” and “their,” is not gendered.
But more substantively, of course they’re not going to do that or anything like it. Messing with churches and other religious clubhouses is something US politicians are terrified of doing, even when they need to, such as when priests are raping children with impunity, or when Catholic hospitals are refusing to perform abortions even when a pregnancy is about to kill the woman hosting it.
They’ll say anything.
Newt Gingrich, Guiliano, and all the Trump surrogates on CNN these days: put a put a sock in it. Defending the fatherhood of god in an election denies all separation of church and state. After all, Gingrich’s original “Contract for America” (should be seen as Gingrich and Congressional Republicans putting a Contract Out on America) was the beginning of this religious nuttery / zealotry. Reagan became our first Evangelist in Chief and since then every GOP candidate has kissed the patriarchal religious and political elements in the nation.
Trump is not in any way a Christian, not by any definition and certainly not by Evangelical parameters. But his insistence on ‘men on top’ in all things plays into their rhetoric. All attempts to defend the indefensible Trump and forgive the unforgivable Trumpery need to be highlighted. We are witnessing a major challenge to the Old Order the likes of which hasn’t happened for centuries. One commentator I saw today compared it to the onset of the Gutenberg Press.
I always thought newt was a peculiar kind of fish.
Or wait, is that the particular, ungendered, pronoun? Maybe take a short-spell class from gramma?
Actually, Gretchen, it goes back much further than either Reagan or the Contract With (On) America. It goes back at least to the point where Eisenhower invited Billy Graham into the White House. There was a real fervor against non-belief during the McCarthy years, when being a non-believer was considered the same as being a Communist, and apparently many in this country believe that neither are covered by the First Amendment.
I think these folks are looking longingly back at the McCarthy years, with nostalgia for how many careers they were able to ruin.
The United States of America already is a secular country, noodlehead. Some of us want it to stay that way.
Yes, and secular doesn’t mean atheistic.
BTW, it’s worth noting the smaller lie in the bigger one. The claim that Hillary’s aides are anti-religious (based on the e-mails) is complete bunk. Rather, a Catholic aide commented on how she felt that fellow Catholics who flocked to the conservative bandwagon were violating Christ’s example and being hypocrites. A second aide also referred to the RCC’s attitudes towards women as “backwards”, which, well, it wasn’t ‘nice’, but it’s hardly a shocking revelation to anyone at this point–I’d be no more shocked to see a Pence aide suggest that atheists tend to be liberals (I can only wish that were more true) because they don’t feel like they have to answer to anyone. So all the sturm und drang over that particular e-mail exchange is setting a pretty high-water mark for just how far they have (and are willing) to reach to make a ‘scandal’ out of something.
That is true of pretty much all the e-mail “scandals.”
No; meaning smelly, like Cheddar cheese.