For those of you who have suffered through what I shall refer to as “Schooling Church Boy”, you know that I called out Richard Okelberry for his dangerous and ignorant, but earnest and well-written, editorial on Obama’s response to the question the Saddleback Church about when a fetus should have human rights.
Obama’s answer was perfect; “It’s beyond my pay grade.”
I believe this was and is the only appropriate response for any office holder in American government. That answer demonstrates a perfect fealty to the The Founders intent as well as a clear understanding of the responsibility of a political leader to a pluralistic constituency.
Richard saw it differently. Initially, he attempted to deny the primacy of his religion in his perspective having meticulously avoided any religious reference in article. But it didn’t take long for church boy to throw off this ruse and begin blathering on about his religion and doctrinal problems with reproductive rights.
After two days of banter, Richard has finally, I think, achieved some clarity and graciously agreed to move beyond his obsession with the unborn and is moving toward a discussion, I hope, about the propriety of religion in politics.
My basic premise is that one as an American voter, one SHOULD check his/her religion/faith at the door and that religions and churches should stay the hell out of politics, especially now that we have seen how very destructive has been the religious pandering of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration.
I agree completely with major shift toward this point of view by social conservatives as reflected in the recent poll discussed below.
Poll: Slim Backing For Keeping Politics, Religion Apart
All Things Considered, August 21, 2008
A new poll from the Pew Research Center has found a slim majority that says religious institutions should not speak out on political and social issues. The data are a shift from polls conducted over the past decade. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, says all of the change has been among political conservatives.
Study: Conservatives Grow Wary Of Mixing Religion, Politics
Fifty percent of conservatives think churches and other places of worship should stay out of social and political matters, up from 30 percent four years ago…
#1 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2008 - 10:36 am
I actually was busier than usual this week and skipped most of the Richard Okelberry flap. IMHO it should be obvious that abortion ought to be solely a medical issue, not a political issue. Most politicians probably agree.
I didn’t watch the Saddleback Ambush, only saw clips later, but it seemed to me that Mr. Fathead (Rick Warren) said “baby” instead of “fetus.” I doubt if either candidate dared to correct him.
#2 by Larry Bergan on August 22, 2008 - 2:31 pm
I just got finished watching “church boy” Ralph Reed answering questions from callers on C-Span in his usual cold and calculating way which is offset by his boyish good looks. The lovely looking Reed is now joining the McCain campaign to use abortion and every other phony issue he can so the Republicans can once again say that good Christians came out in droves on election day to lead them to victory.
Having lots of people out there on the internet and corporate media perpetuating the scam is key to this strategy. The fact is they are doing everything they can to STEAL the elections using every possible method including packing the highest election offices with accomplices. There is more then enough proof of that, and that’s why the Attorney General of the US was forced to say “not every violation of the law is a crime” last week. Please wake up America! They are doing it again! They are using unborn children and handicapped people to steal your elections!
Jack Abramoff, (yes THAT Jack Abramoff), quit doing business with Ralph Reed because he became rightfully concerned that Reed was even more devious them himself, but even worse then that; he was grabbing Abramoff’s cash!
The one and ONLY thing that is sacred to these people is MONEY!
#3 by Larry Bergan on August 22, 2008 - 2:40 pm
Political correctness is an art form, Republicans are the masters, and the abortion issue is the canvass, (not misspelled.)
#4 by Who is watching the watchers on August 22, 2008 - 4:54 pm
Hey Larry, political Liberal Lion Bernie Ward of KGO, is likely going down for 9 years for trading in kiddee porn.
The 100 images he traded online, involve bondage and sodomy of children so we are told.
The city of San Francisco is also facing a lawsuit over the murder of a man and his two sons, shot dead in a traffic dispute by a man that had been in custody of SF police 3 times. Once for suspected double murder(he had the murder weapon), once for mugging a pregnant lady, and now this. MS 13 Illegal alien. The city AG put him in a half way house when he was underage.
SF will be successfully sued under the Federal laws prohibiting harboring of illegal aliens, and violation of the obligation to inform Federal authorities. ‘Tis the beginning of the end of the “sanctuary” movement. The cities are to be held liable.
Not a moment too soon. No matter what your political affiliation, the country is sick, sick, sick. Yet people wonder why some good law abiding people would arm themselves.
‘Aint much correct in any of that, but it would seem the corrections ( as in dept. of) are in the works.
Secular folk? Bible Believers? It is all looking like freak show religion from where most people sit.
#5 by Leo Brown on August 22, 2008 - 5:39 pm
This goes back to the founding of the country. Thomas Paine was critical of Quakers who were critical of rebellion, but was not critical of pastors who supported the revolution.
When some churches prior to the civil war were opponents of slavery, denominations split, but who now criticizes Quakers or other religious folk for their involvement in the Underground Railroad?
Early in the Twentieth Century there was considerable debate over the Social Gospel, with conservatives opting out of social issues.
When churches, especially black churches, were leading the civil rights movement, liberals were not critical of that involvement, though some conservatives were.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright in Chicago built a church that was very much involved in social and community issues, and the Right went bonkers. I can barely imagine an authentic black church that would not speak on social issues.
Whether churches or church members should check their faith at door on social issues seems to depend on whose ox is being gored.
#6 by Leo Brown on August 22, 2008 - 7:13 pm
Richard,
With all due respect to your opinions, which I often agree with, I know very few if any people who referred to their own children when they were in the womb as “the fetus” and a good many who referred to them as “the baby,” especially at the due date drew near.
I didn’t see the Saddleback meeting, so I can’t comment on the exact context of Pastor Warren’s use of the term.
Overall, I think Barack did reasonably well, given the circumstances. I give him a lot of credit for showing up to the event. Challenging Rick on baby vs. fetus would have been a political disaster. I see no point in alienating millions of voters when you don’t have to.
#7 by Richard Okelberry on August 23, 2008 - 5:05 am
Cliff,
Let’s be reasonable. You truly are not interested in a calm respectful conversation with me about anything, especially religion and politics. From the beginning you have defamed me through a long series of slanderous and bigoted remarks. While I know that there are those in some of the more radical political cells who have been purposely prowling the internet in hit squads, looking for individuals of opposing political views to pounce on, I truly don’t believe this was the case with you. I think you came across my essay and realizing how damaging it might be for your political position and your candidate, Obama, you simply snapped and allowed years or repressed bigoted feelings toward Christians to come crashing out.
When you read my essay, you could not imagine that it could be written by anyone other than an axe wielding anti-Obama, right wing, “Evangelical,” Theocon hell bent on turning this nation into one nation under Christ. When you read my essay, you wrongfully saw in your mind a man hiding his religion behind a thin secular vale that you where intent on tearing down. When you brought up my religion and I responded, you must have felt that you had just struck gold and now had conspirator proof that my essay was nothing more than a Trojan horse carrying my religious ambitions for the nation. Unfortunately, you failed to grasp the original two points and intent of my response; religion is not something that people can simply turn on and off and I don’t belong to a faith that is seeking such a theocratic nation but one that has long history of keeping politics far from the pulpit.
Unfortunately, you continually ignored this argument because in your mind you had found your radical fundamentalist dressed in secular skins and where intent on shouting as loud as you could about it. Never once did you consider that you might be impugning my integrity our fouling my name. Never once did you recognize that your bulling antics might actually be causing harm to an individual undeserving of your aggression. Even after repeatedly illustrating that I was not what you perceived, you refused to once offer a sincere apology. I invite you to carefully re-read the entire transcript of our discussions and imagine me for a moment as a relatively moderate individual who regularly resists extremism and has a keen secular sense, despite my religion.
If you do re-read, the transcript of our discussion, I hope you ask yourself how a person undecided in their position might be affected. Do you honestly believe that a single moderate individual, on whom the upcoming election rests, would look at your often profane outbursts as good reason to support Obama? Even your own supporters and friends rebuked your tactics. If you could not convince those around you, how can you ever hope that your bigoted remarks and hate filled antics would ever convince the “undecided?”
As a final statement on your new topic and cherished poll. While I support their right to do so, I too fall within the group that believes that religious institutions should refrain from speaking out on purely political issues and believe as I have stated before that the pulpit is no place for politics. Unfortunately, for many Democrats that also support this issue, they have nominated a candidate in Barack Obama that believes the exact opposite and attend for years a church that practiced this very thing. That being said, I cannot turn off my religion with a switch no more than a gay man can simply turn off his homosexuality.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Cliff. Go in PEACE my brother.
By the way, I placed the term Evangelical above in quotes to express that it is a term that has been regularly used to describe the fundamentalist, religious right movement. In reality the term Evangelical speaks to a fundamental theological belief that is reflected in many faiths, even Barack Obama’s. While this is a very simplified description, it is generally is used to describe those faiths that believe that no Church Authority can come between them and God or salvation. While it may not be inaccurate to refer to people within the religious right movement as Evangelical, it is a truly broader term that encompasses many more that don’t fit that classification.
Here is the definition for future reference:
e•van•gel•i•cal
–adjective
1. Also, e•van•gel•ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
–noun
6. an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party.
#8 by Richard Okelberry on August 23, 2008 - 5:39 am
As final example of your mischaracterization of my religious and political standing, I am including several excerpts form a letter I wrote to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. titled, “Utah Liquor Laws Discriminatory,” regarding the normalization of Utah’s Liquor laws.
Do these sound like the words of a man bent on the establishment of a theocracy? Next time you attack someone, Cliff, please be sure you speak only the known truth about an individual.
#9 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 8:52 am
Wow Richard,
I am greatly saddened by the fact that after the punishment you’ve taken for your hypocrisy, re-established above, we are still talking about your feelings. Honestly, there are other blogs for that. I suppose we can accommodate you for another few days, but after that, well, we’ll see.
I can see the steam is coming out your ears.
Ease up man. If you can do that, I think you’ll find some good teachers on this blog.
Don, for example has made a good point on the historical role of churches American political history. His points do challenge my thesis and I am forced to re-state it more carefully.
If you were paying attention to your teachers, you’d be jumping all over me.
Btw: I added a link to you essay in your comment for the convenience of OneUtah readers who may like to confirm your post-facto interpretation of your own writing.
I want to put something to bed.
You’ve accused me of something very serious.
You’ve certainly chosen the right words for an exciting legal thriller. But before you write the screen play in your head, you might consult a lawyer (Don, Ed, and Albert are three right here on this blog). Because your protagonist will end up the hero, and that doesn’t sell nearly as well as the ole’ justice prevails story.
IOW. This is more whining.
more coming.
#10 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 9:59 am
Richard,
You said:
You are right. That is what I saw beginning with the title. “Obama Dances Around Abortion Issue”
As you know, I and I believe the entire Choice movement, believe “it’s beyond my pay grade” was a perfect answer.
You on the other hand chided him for that answer saying, “Unfortunately for America, there is no higher pay grade than that of the President of the United States of America.”
At the same time, you cheered McCain for pandering to WHOM? Were they not in a Church being asked corrupt, rhetorical questions BY A PREACHER?
You’ll excuse me, if I assumed you were a religious zealot. I’ll apologize for that distasteful connotation, though I must remind you, you continue to brag about the strength of your religiosity and loyalty to its doctrine.
Frankly, bragging about one’s religion makes me sick. I can’t imagine a truly religious person behaving as you have. Not only do you announce it over and over, you use it to defend yourself, then re-invoke it to accuse me of bigotry.
You are a clever debater. “on purely political issues and believe as I have stated before that the pulpit is no place for politics.”
Fine. So lets talk about what is “purely political”. I believe stripping a woman of her reproductive and privacy rights, and assigning them to the government IS PURLEY POLITICAL.
Why can’t you understand that? Trying to cast abortion as a human rights issue IS A fucking RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT – not according to me, but according to every modern political system and the vast majority of the international community.
It would seem only in America, among modern nations, has our political conversation been so corrupted by the shameless pandering to religious sycophants.
I’m not saying you are one, but you are the product of this corruption.
And I can prove it, or you can embarrass me.
I believe you will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. This of course would make you a single issue voter.
When abortion is your single issue, are you not subject to criticism for injecting religion into your civic responsibility as a voter?
I didn’t want to go down this road, but you force me.
So why don’t you just tell us. Who are you voting for and why? This is your chance to convince us – in the public square, on the permanent record, how truly progressive you are (or whatever you are trying to argue with your letters to Huntsman).
#11 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 10:06 am
Richard,
By the way, I have to be honest with you. You said,
You’re wrong. Thats exactly what I was doing. Its my hobby, my passion. Thank you for indulging me.
#12 by Don on August 23, 2008 - 1:54 pm
Richard,
Sorry I didn’t have time to respond to this post of yours yesterday. Since this thread is newer and not near as long I’ll respond here if that’s okay.
I don’t know why you doubt the sincerity of my words Richard. I said you wriggled around the religious aspects of when life begins to justify your stance on abortion and I believe it. Your views on abortion are driven by a religious belief that life begins at conception. You’ve justified, or bolstered if you wish, that belief by saying that “some” scientists argue that we don’t really know when life begins, therefore you personally wish to err on the side of caution (even though the “majority of the scientific community puts life at viability.”) Contrary to finding your argument “one of the strongest” I find it quite odd and actually a fairly weak rationalization. Your views about contraception are further evidence of this point. If you believe life begins at the point of conception then it is simply rationalizing on your behalf to say that “full fertilization” happens with implantation and therefore contraception such as the pill isn’t challenged by your beliefs. Why not pony up and live the conviction of your beliefs?
As for whether or not your views are extreme, I think a near genius such as yourself can easily find the flaw in your argument based on the Gallup poll you cited. You conveniently throw yourself in with the majority 54% who believe abortion should be “legal, (but) only under certain circumstances.” You do realize that “certain circumstances” would include your boogeyman scenario of an 8.5 month fetus being aborted due to a mild case of depression, right? Do you really want to lump yourself in with those who would support that decision?
It’s somewhat difficult to categorize your view on abortion, because polls don’t account for opinions as specific as your own. Check out the polls at PollingReport.com. The Quinnipiac poll gives us the following:
“Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?”
Always Legal Usually Legal Usually Illegal Always Illegal Unsure
19% 38% 24% 14% 5%
I’m guessing your view would fall into the “Usually Illegal” category. If we add the categories “Usually Illegal” and “Always Illegal” together then maybe saying your view is “extreme” was a bit much. But you certainly aren’t in the mainstream. Check out the rest of the polls for further proof of that point.
Polling about In Vitro fertilization is harder to find, but judging from this poll concerning stem cell research, your view that every zygote should be implanted is more than likely well in the minority. Furthermore, I never said IV clinics would “close” if we legislated based on your beliefs. I said they would be against the law as they currently operate and that is true. Under your restrictions the process would become much more cumbersome and much more expensive than it already is. I dare say that if such restrictions were proposed a large majority of Americans would not be in favor. On this topic, I feel quite comfortable calling your viewpoint “extreme”.
Okay, enough about you. I think I made my views on abortion clear when I said “… viability is a reasonable point to start placing restrictions on abortion.” I do believe that at the point of full viability, meaning the baby could survive on its own without extraordinary medical intervention, a fetus is deserving of “Human Rights”.
I find it telling that you fall for the right-wing spin concerning Obama’s voting record and insinuate that he supports denying medical treatment to a baby that survives a late-term abortion. The situation concerning the BAIPA votes in Illinois was much more complex than you let on. Here is a decent explanation of the entire ordeal. A summary from the same journalist can be found here. Are you really interested in having an honest discussion about the issue or would you prefer to sling dogmatic ripostes back and forth?
As far as Tiller goes, is there any evidence that he performed an abortion at 8.5 months due to a “minor case of depression”? Asserting facts not in evidence is unbecoming someone of your intelligence.
How have I come to my conclusions about abortion? To tell you the truth, I don’t give it a lot of thought. Having my first child last year made me realize that I’m glad I never had to make such a decision, but that I would likely not choose abortion if faced with making such a choice. I also realized that I am certainly not qualified to make such a choice for others. I abhor the thought of someone choosing to abort a pregnancy, especially absent health concerns, but it’s not my right to make that choice for others.
That being said, it seems reasonable and logical that a viable fetus deserves some sort of protection. Whether or not that rises to the level of protecting the life of a mother, I’m not sure. I can’t say I’d follow you in your triage scenario where, all things being equal, you’d always choose the life of an unborn child over that of the mother, especially considering the unknown factor of “quality of life” such a child may expect (or would late-term diagnosis of possibly fatal birth defects tilt things toward the mother in your opinion?)
On the matter of science, I find it extraordinary that doctors can save babies born prematurely as early as 22 weeks or so. How much further can we go before we move into the realm of artificial gestation rather than infant incubation? Based on the developmental stages of the fetus, I’d say not much further. Personally, the idea of artificially gestating a baby seems immoral, not to mention a little creepy, however others may feel differently. Science will continually push the limits of what is possible. It is up to us to determine what is ethical.
Based on the abortion polling referenced above, I highly doubt this is the “number one hurdle” for Obama to be elected President. It may be relevant to 30-40% of the population, but they probably weren’t going to vote for him anyway. If Roe v. Wade is overturned I will not change my position on abortion. I would continue to support a woman’s right to an abortion at the state level and would also support reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions.
As far as putting my full name behind my comments, I’ve never felt it necessary to support my arguments. Frankly, I think it’s a silly tactic (sorry Larry
) to call people out for wishing to remain relatively anonymous.
#13 by Larry Bergan on August 23, 2008 - 2:16 pm
Richard Okelberry said:
That argument is silly when you consider the fact that a partisan political hack is on the church owed radio station for 15 hours a week, not to mention Doug Wright. Of course I’m talking about Utah’s good friend Sean Hannity.
As for the bad language some of us who don’t wish to live in a theocracy use: it is to chide people on the side who DO want a theocracy and can’t discern a difference in using bad language from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent young people in war. Whether you, personally want a theocracy or not, there are those in the church who do. If I’m wrong, they will immediately stop using the radio to promote unjust, (for profit), war.
I’m not holding my breath. I’ve talked to Rod Arquette, who was in charge of programming for KSL and he told me Hannity brings in more revenue.
Jesus would be proud!
#14 by Don on August 23, 2008 - 2:19 pm
Richard,
You think pretty highly of yourself, don’t you?
Please, do allow me to share a couple of observations. First, being moderate and pragmatic on one issue (or even many as you apparently are) isn’t an argument that you are being so when it comes to abortion as well. Second, are you immune from heeding your own advice? You scold Cliff about “speak(ing) only the known truth about an individual,” but you regularly use rhetoric about others (Obama and Tiller for example) which is either untruthful, or at least not known to be truthful.
#15 by Don on August 23, 2008 - 2:22 pm
Cliff,
)
I submitted a rather lengthy comment to this thread and it hasn’t popped up. Did it get snagged by your spam filter? (Thanks to Richard for bringing the possibility of such to my attention.
Also, I don’t know if there’s another “Don” that posts here (I don’t remember one) but I’m not a lawyer. Maybe you are confusing me with another first-name-only commenter . . .
#16 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 3:52 pm
Don, I found it, Its up.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Akimet is trapping long pieces. Thanks for the heads up though.
Richard, Larry and Glen all have the ability to dig out such mistakes as well.
#17 by Don on August 23, 2008 - 3:56 pm
Thanks Cliff.
Here are those Quinnipiac abortion poll results in a different format since the original didn’t come through so well:
“Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?”
Always Legal – 19%
Usually Legal – 38%
Usually Illegal – 24%
Always Illegal – 14%
Unsure – 5%
#18 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 3:57 pm
Okelberry,
Larry is right.
This is also bogus defensiveness. You belong to the church, you wear it on your sleeve, so when you invoke religious arguments, like it or not, you are an extension of your church making political arguments from a religious perspective.
Your not dealing with children here. Perhaps you have children on the brain.
#19 by Don on August 23, 2008 - 4:18 pm
Thanks Cliff. I think it may have happened again, but this time on a short comment. I wonder if it’s because I used an HTML tag for “bold” rather than your quicktag for “strong”. No need to track it down, I’ll try posting again using the “strong” tag instead.
Here are the results from the Quinnipiac abortion poll again in an easier to read format (since the original didn’t come out so well):
“Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?”
Always Legal – 19%
Usually Legal – 38%
Usually Illegal – 24%
Always Illegal – 14%
Unsure – 5%
#20 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 4:31 pm
Hey Okleberry,
Your surveys are bogus.
If you ask the question differently, you get a much different answer.
Ask everyone you know this one:
Here’s another question:
If your pregnant wife found herself in the ICU with complications of her pregnancy at 6 months, which group of white guys should be the final arbiters of the decision to abort the pregnancy or not?
Circle all that apply: Fat white guy, Skinny white guy // Judge and part time preacher guy // Greasy but not fat white guy // Skinny greasy white guy // All of the above.
Hey this is FUN! One more:
The US government has decided abortion is illegal after one month, except in the case of rape, maybe.
Your 17-year old daughter gang rapped by 5 guys. – a Mexican, an Irishman, a Jew, a midget, and a fat greasy white man. She hopes and prays she’s not pregnant. But she is too afraid to talk about the rape because one of the guys has threatened to kill her little brother if she tells…and she really like the Jew boy anyway.
She stays silent until it too late and now she is pregnant. You are her Dad and she tells you.
Which option do you choose:
Make her have the baby?
Go to the police report the rape. Then go to a judge to ask for a rape exemption and hope it doesn’t take 90 days to have a trial and make sure she’s telling the truth?
Make her marry the Jew even if the midget sperm won?
Do a DNA test to make sure the father isn’t the Irishman?
Disown her?
Kill her?
Here’s the point Richard (and I would love to have this conversation on air). Once you begin trying to legislate abortion, you run into so many complicated scenarios you can’t imagine.
Here’s one of the things that will happen all the time if we outlaw abortion:
Wife and husband are estranged (not sleeping together). This is VERY common in real life. Wife has an affair – gets pregnant. Thanks to you, abortion is illegal except in the case of rape.
Wife is DESPERATE to not get caught, so she accuses her annoying neighbor, poor innocent Richard Okelberry of raping her so she can get an abortion.
That night, she changes her mind and goes over to apologize to Richard and finds him in a pool of blood and this note.
You see Richard, its not quite as simple as standing on your little soap box and announcing that you don’t want to take any chances because you might end up in some purgatory of Lutheran fantasy.
If you really want to discuss this subject, you must move beyond sound bites and shallow, moralistic, horn-blowing.
#21 by Richard Okelberry on August 23, 2008 - 5:01 pm
Don,
I must thank you. (I mean this sincerely) Of all the questions that I have been asked and responded to here, you are the first to give me a truly intelligent answer to some of mine. In fact your response was so well thought out that I don’t have time to give it my full attention at the moment. Unfortunately, according to our warrior Cliff, my time is limited here. I would like to, with your permission, copy your response over to KVNU’s For the People Blog so that we may continue this discussion. I promise we will disagree but I also promise I will not personally attack you. Just respond here if you are interested. He may cut out my tongue but he may not make me blind.
Cliff,
I think it’s time I head along, because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another, others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. Also, your statement about the “Jew boy” ranks right up there with “Church Boy.” Enjoy your hate, Cliff…
Farewell my warrior friend… Please don’t fall on any swords on my behalf.
#22 by Don on August 23, 2008 - 5:22 pm
Richard,
I’m pretty sure Cliff isn’t going to ban anyone from commenting simply over disagreement. Nevertheless, my words are out there, do with them as you please. I will check in on the KVNU site periodically.
#23 by Cliff Lyon on August 23, 2008 - 5:30 pm
Richard,
I assure you God will strike me dead before I ban you. Whatever gave you the idea I would ban you?
I LOVE YOU BROTHER!
#24 by Bob S. on August 23, 2008 - 6:23 pm
Everybody should know by now that I’m not Cliff’s favorite commenter on this site
I will say this for the crew here at One Utah, especially Cliff. They don’t ban people, they don’t moderate comments, they don’t edit comments.
The people with admin rights have done everything possible to keep the dialog open and going. I’ve had them pull comments out of spam filters, pull things out of moderation – when the software catches it.
I may not agree with the politics here, but the openness is without question.
#25 by Larry Bergan on August 24, 2008 - 1:01 am
I thought my comment deserved a discussion, but it looks like Richard O. is out of here. If I had to defend Hannity and his war bringing, I would run too.