Thisentryis part 1 of 4 in the series what you can't say

One of the things I noted during the 2004 presidential debates was how often Bush began his responses to John Kerry’s statements with the phrase “you can’t say that.” I bugged me because by that time there was a whole list of things that fell under the “you can’t say that” heading in post 9/11 America.

Or, at least, you couldn’t say those things without consequences, which would be visited upon you by your fellow citizens, not the government. Things like speaking out against the war in Iraq, having an anti-Bush poster, giving the commander in chief the thumbs-down, carrying the “wrong” reading material, teaching your kid “un-American values” could get you a visit from the feds.

Well, in the last couple of days there’s been a story roiling the progressive blogosphere that highlights some other stuff you can’t say without consequences; one that makes me glad I’m not among the top tier political bloggers, and that it’s highly unlikely anyone will ever want to hire me to blog for their presidential campaign. At least, not if they’ve seen anything I’ve had to say about religion recently, or in three years of blogging.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 3 Comments »

Thisentryis part 2 of 4 in the series what you can't say

Well, when it comes to the Edwards blogger flap, quite a lot. It’s been interesting to read through the aftermath of responses from all sides. Edwards’ statement on his blog has assured some religious groups of his intolerance of religious intolerance, but not everyone on what I guess could be called the “non-religious left” is completely happy with it. And the most interesting reaction probably comes from folks on the religious left. More interesting, even than the initial reaction from the right.

It’s even more interesting when compared with other statements made in the media, more recently, but without raising nearly as much controversy. Taking it all in has left me with more questions than answers rattling around in my brain.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 4 Comments »

Thisentryis part 3 of 4 in the series what you can't say

Against the backdrop of the Edwards blogger saga and its aftermath, a couple of interesting and — to my mind, anyway — related events also played out, but got significantly less play. That’s probably due in part to the involvement of the same media that, Chris and Matt have pointed out, flogged the Edwards blogger story in to a froth that was only just wiped off the some pages by Anna Nicole Smith.

But it’s probably also due to the reality that there are some groups you can malign and get away with it, or at least rest assured that in doing so you won’t hear much noise about it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 4 Comments »

Thisentryis part 4 of 4 in the series what you can't say

This, I think, is my last post related to the Edwards blogger drama and it’s aftermath. In my previous post I mentioned two other stories that played out in the media parallel to the Edwards story, but that didn’t get the same degree of attention, probably because of the role the media itself played in both. One was the Anderson Cooper segment on “ex-gay” ministries.

It stood out to me as related to the Edwards story because of how it related to what you can’t seem to say regarding religion, without paying a price for it, and because it illustrated just how much of a “conversation stopper” the subject is, when it stops us from asking some important questions. And not asking those questions leads to ceding ground that shouldn’t be so easily surrendered.

The other story that came to mind was one that I wanted to include in the previous post, but feared that it would be even longer. Once Again, it involves CNN. But this time it features a Paula Zahn segment on atheists that didn’t actually include any atheists.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 6 Comments »