Alienated America

[Belsnickel]

Has anyone else heard about this book? http://www.aei.org/spotlight/alienated-america/

I heard the author, Tim Carney, on last week's episode of Left, Right & Center. He argues that the predictor of Trump's support is alienation, specifically a lack of community connection that was most often achieved through church in this country in year's past. He is looking primarily at the primary, not the general election, and seeing a trend that Trump voters we more likely to be non-church goers and it is that lack of connection that led them to him. This lack of connection that results in a loss of the American Dream.

It's an interesting discussion, and one that I have seen versions of occurring for some time. Usually it is a discussion about how the more disconnected someone is from their community the more likely they are to have highly polarized views. The more engaged you are with civic organizations, religious organizations, etc., the less likely you are to be so hyper-partisan. At least that is the theory that I've seen from some people here and there. This doesn't mean that they have more moderate views, but more that they are more likely to take time to understand and listen to opposing viewpoints and engage in civil discussion.

So what are your thoughts on Carney's argument, and then the extension of it that has been going on for a bit?

[Benton]

(02-28-2019, 11:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Has anyone else heard about this book? http://www.aei.org/spotlight/alienated-america/

I heard the author, Tim Carney, on last week's episode of Left, Right & Center. He argues that the predictor of Trump's support is alienation, specifically a lack of community connection that was most often achieved through church in this country in year's past. He is looking primarily at the primary, not the general election, and seeing a trend that Trump voters we more likely to be non-church goers and it is that lack of connection that led them to him. This lack of connection that results in a loss of the American Dream.

It's an interesting discussion, and one that I have seen versions of occurring for some time. Usually it is a discussion about how the more disconnected someone is from their community the more likely they are to have highly polarized views. The more engaged you are with civic organizations, religious organizations, etc., the less likely you are to be so hyper-partisan. At least that is the theory that I've seen from some people here and there. This doesn't mean that they have more moderate views, but more that they are more likely to take time to understand and listen to opposing viewpoints and engage in civil discussion.

So what are your thoughts on Carney's argument, and then the extension of it that has been going on for a bit?

I think that's where a lot of people are.

The traditional party cores don't reflect large chunks of the population. Even the traditional marriages (corporate greed + Christian prosperity vs organzied labor + minorities) don't really reflect larger population samples much any more.

[GMDino]

People want to belong to a group.

If they are disillusioned with the normal groups they will attach to the guy selling them a better life.

Cults are easy to start.  Followers are easy to get.

They just all fall apart over time because like any scheme/scam the payoff isn't there at the end for the followers.

[Dill]

This--

This blue-collar retreat from marriage, like the other negative social trends among the working class, is not due to some anti-family belief system or some perfidy in rural America. It's due to the collapse of the infrastructure around which people build families — that is, the collapse of communities and the hollowing out of institutions of civil society.

It's a story of alienation. Alienation is what happens when people lack community institutions to connect them with others. These institutions provide miniature safety nets, they provide meeting grounds, they provide modeling and mentoring, and they provide meaning and purpose.

Doesn't seem accurately described by this.

The plague of alienation in America is, above all, a matter of secularization — a matter of the decline of the American church.

Communities and churches can "decline" and still be very religious.

If you replaced "secularization" with "capitalism" the statement would be a lot more accurate. People move from small communities in greater numbers now because of declining economic opportunity. People's mores and even community norms are much more shaped by the market know than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Even schools address their young charges more as education consumers than citizens. The ease with which Trump's behavior is accepted and normalized among formerly socially conservative groups is one indicator of this as well. There are so few core values to be offended any more. The ones that remain--like strong pro-life views coupled with a desire for lower taxes--don't seem especially community building the way concern for the poor is.

I am in a position to monitor rather closely two rural communities, one in Montana and one in Texas, and I see churches shrinking for sure, and I see some of that alienation, especially in Texas, but I don't see less religiosity. A lot of it has moved to facebook. One of my nieces is hardcore Christian conservative, and lived for years with her boyfriend--unmarried. Not possible 40 years ago. But that living together never blipped on her radar screen as "sin," despite almost daily posts and wise christian thoughts about Jesus on social media. Decline in marriage, sure. Decline in commitment.

If Carney thinks churches and other community institutions are in decline, does his book ask what might be causing that? How would he explain the overwhelming evangelical support for Trump? Are those folks alienated too?

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2019, 03:07 AM)Dill Wrote: This--

This blue-collar retreat from marriage, like the other negative social trends among the working class, is not due to some anti-family belief system or some perfidy in rural America. It's due to the collapse of the infrastructure around which people build families — that is, the collapse of communities and the hollowing out of institutions of civil society.

It's a story of alienation. Alienation is what happens when people lack community institutions to connect them with others. These institutions provide miniature safety nets, they provide meeting grounds, they provide modeling and mentoring, and they provide meaning and purpose.

Doesn't seem accurately described by this.

The plague of alienation in America is, above all, a matter of secularization — a matter of the decline of the American church.

Communities and churches can "decline" and still be very religious.

If you replaced "secularization" with "capitalism" the statement would be a lot more accurate. People move from small communities in greater numbers now because of declining economic opportunity. People's mores and even community norms are much more shaped by the market know than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Even schools address their young charges more as education consumers than citizens. The ease with which Trump's behavior is accepted and normalized among formerly socially conservative groups is one indicator of this as well. There are so few core values to be offended any more. The ones that remain--like strong pro-life views coupled with a desire for lower taxes--don't seem especially community building the way concern for the poor is.

I am in a position to monitor rather closely two rural communities, one in Montana and one in Texas, and I see churches shrinking for sure, and I see some of that alienation, especially in Texas, but I don't see less religiosity. A lot of it has moved to facebook. One of my nieces is hardcore Christian conservative, and lived for years with her boyfriend--unmarried. Not possible 40 years ago. But that living together never blipped on her radar screen as "sin," despite almost daily posts and wise christian thoughts about Jesus on social media. Decline in marriage, sure. Decline in commitment.

If Carney thinks churches and other community institutions are in decline, does his book ask what might be causing that? How would he explain the overwhelming evangelical support for Trump? Are those folks alienated too?

You raise some very valid points. I, for one, haven't read the book. When Ana Marie Cox and the sub host (I forget her name, I just know Josh Barro wasn't on) were talking they did discuss the value of secular groups as well and he seemed to be in agreement with the idea. They discussed the disillusionment with the religious institutions they had previously had faith in (in the wake of sexual abuse scandals specifically), but they didn't get into some of this and it would've been good to hear. It's a very valid criticism, especially when thinking about the large evangelical support Trump receives.

However, my only counter to that would be that the evangelical idea of the American Dream is likely also seen as under attack, which draws them to him. It's a little different than those truly alienated, but it could be evidence that the lack of church, or community more broadly, is not an underlying cause in the loss of the American Dream. Meanwhile, inter-generational socioeconomic mobility in this country is lower than other WEIRD nations, and since the American Dream is predicated on that whole idea it begs the question that maybe this is where the problem truly lies. The main idea, the loss of the American Dream being the cause of support for Trump, may hold true, but what causes that loss may be different than the author thinks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The Balkanization of the US has a lot to do with the recent advent of opposing political views making a person "evil". Two prime examples;

1. Abortion: If you are pro choice then you kill children and advocate moral degeneracy. If you're pro life then you're a misogynist who wants to enact a real life Handmaids Tale.

2. Gun ownership: If you're pro 2A then you're compensating for inadequate manhood, you're a redneck with delusions of grandeur about taking on "tyranny" and you kill children (notice how "the children" comes up a lot on both sides?). If you're anti-2A then you're anti-American and want to disarm the populace so you can enact your tyrannical rules while you wipe your ass with the Constitution.


I could make a similar list for other hot topics such as illegal immigration, social programs and law enforcement. Point being, people used to be able to respectfully disagree, now extremism is becoming the norm. Extremism begets more extremism. We desperately need a rational, even tempered moderate POTUS, and soon, if we're going to stop this self-perpetuating cycle.

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 09:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: However, my only counter to that would be that the evangelical idea of the American Dream is likely also seen as under attack, which draws them to him. It's a little different than those truly alienated, but it could be evidence that the lack of church, or community more broadly, is not an underlying cause in the loss of the American Dream. Meanwhile, inter-generational socioeconomic mobility in this country is lower than other WEIRD nations, and since the American Dream is predicated on that whole idea it begs the question that maybe this is where the problem truly lies. The main idea, the loss of the American Dream being the cause of support for Trump, may hold true, but what causes that loss may be different than the author thinks.

I don't doubt the evangelical ideal of the American dream is under attack--whether it differs from anyone else's ideal or not.  Whatever is undermining that dream (which might be better described as economic self-sufficiency provided by upward mobility) is doing it for everyone in the group Carney is studying, and that more general phenomenon may by why evangelical Christianity has an attraction for people in rural and suburban areas who feel themselves sinking.

I think this economic mobility is also tied to other social and cultural  changes  which  make certain demographics feel more left out and ignored by the government than previous generations would. Why do "they" get help from the government when I don't?  People want to reassert control in their homes (2nd Amendment rights!), in their community (Christmas plays in the local school!), in their government ("drain the swamp") and on their country's borders (keep out Muslims and free-riding illegals). This might also explain the conversion of foreign policy debates/issues to a single symbolic stage of drama driven by whether the US is taken advantage of (by China and Mexico and NATO) and needs to reassert itself in tough talk and tariffs and threats leave alliances if they don't pay up.

My mother had six brothers. Their marriages all lasted over 60 years, as did hers. We had one family gathering in Texas every year. I had 20 cousins, half of whom have had one marriage (I have been married 42 years).  5 have been married more than once or divorced once. Among their children and children's children, the number with 2+ marriages or no marriages is startling. There is drug addiction. Children who haven't seen their parents for years. We still have family gatherings every five years or so--just the surviving cousins now--but few of their children come, just those still living at home or in the neighborhood. My own children don't want to come. They would rather go to Germany, where their childhood friends are.  My wife's extended, once very rooted family in rural Western Montana is a reflection of this too. Scattered. Drug addictions. Fragmentation. I was married in the same one-room rural church my wife's parents and aunts and uncles were married in.  It has long since been decommissioned and (so I'm told) skunks live under the floor.  But in none of these scenarios is there less religion.  It's form has changed somewhat. Many of my wife's Irish Catholic cousins converted to Evangelical Christianity decades ago. I am still a pagan target.  One thing about this that Jives with Carney is the evangelicals tend to support Trump in my wife's family.  Most of my Protestant Texas relatives do. Many also want to preserve Confederate monuments, which "government" is attacking. The few pagans don't want Trump or the monuments.

I think "alienation" is a perfectly good descriptor for people's motivations for Trump support, but it is a symptom and not the cause.

[fredtoast]

It used to be that people had no choice but to be exposed to different opinions.  Most people watched the same news.  Most people got their social interaction from their surrounding community which included diverse opinions.  

Now people have more choices and just watch the news that fits their views.  Their social interaction is with people on the internet who agree with them.

Everyone is dividing up into their own little groups.  There have always been people with different opinions, but now they are faceless strangers instead of the people you know and have dealt with face-to-face in the community.  When you know people from the other side as actual people instead of angry voices on the internet you understand that we all have a lot in common.  It is harder to hate a person with opposing political views when he has helped you fix your car or you have seen him cry over family problems that we all deal with.

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It used to be that people had no choice but to be exposed to different opinions.  Most people watched the same news.  Most people got their social interaction from their surrounding community which included diverse opinions.  

No people watch the news that fits their views.  Their social interaction is with people on the internet who agree with them.

Everyone is dividing up into their own little groups.  There have always been people with different opinions, but now they are faceless strangers instead of the people you know and have dealt with face-to-face in the community.  When you know people from the other side as actual people instead of angry voices on the internet you understand that we all have a lot in common.  It is harder to hate a person with opposing political views when he has helped you fix your car or you have seen him cry over family problems that we all deal with.

Good points there.  People watching the "same news" didn't make the news bias free back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but at least there was less division about what the facts were. News sources had considerable more authority than they do now.

Watergate and the Vietnam War produced disputed versions of facts, but the dispute was not many sided. It was manageable and people for the most parts still saw evidence as integral to the process of judging.

Now with the multiplication of "authoritative" sources, people can pick their facts. And when facts conflict that proves the other side is biased.

I still haven't given into bothsidesism though. There are still those that reject alternative facts and rigorously vet sources, if people take the trouble to sort that out.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-01-2019, 09:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: the evangelical idea of the American Dream is likely also seen as under attack

Interesting thing to consider...

Bias against Muslims: Islamaphobe
Bias against Jewish: Anti-Semitism
Bias against Christians:

(I'm not religious myself, but it's interesting to think about how certain groups are considered free game while others are really sensitive subjects to criticize.)

(03-01-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We desperately need a rational, even tempered moderate POTUS, and soon, if we're going to stop this self-perpetuating cycle.

Lol, I am sure this country will get right on that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 12:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting thing to consider...

Bias against Muslims: Islamaphobe
Bias against Jewish: Anti-Semitism
Bias against Christians:

(I'm not religious myself, but it's interesting to think about how certain groups are considered free game while others are really sensitive subjects to criticize.)

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist who kvetches about supposed bias I have to agree with this.  Take the recent "fashion week" theme of Christianity.



I honestly don't care about this at all, but imagine the shitstorm if this was done with Judaism.  We all know why no one would do this with Islam.
 

Quote:Lol, I am sure this country will get right on that.

I, sadly, agree.  I used to scoff at the comparisons between the US and Imperial Rome.  Now I'm not so sure.  I'm almost beginning to think that human history can be summarized thusly;

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 01:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At the risk of sounding like an alarmist who kvetches about supposed bias I have to agree with this.  Take the recent "fashion week" theme of Christianity.



I honestly don't care about this at all, but imagine the shitstorm if this was done with Judaism.  We all know why no one would do this with Islam.
 



I, sadly, agree.  I used to scoff at the comparisons between the US and Imperial Rome.  Now I'm not so sure.  I'm almost beginning to think that human history can be summarized thusly;

Where are those from?  

Mything is that in a world for full of idiots several will post on the internet and say things we disagree with.  But someone combined those images to make a point.

The other thing is Christianity has power.  So when people complain about things they complain about those in charge.  No Muslim or any other religion tries to enforce their religious tenets in America like the Christians do.  I think American Christians take criticism and translate it to opression.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: Where are those from?

I'm assuming you're referring to the first pic?  They're from New York fashion week iirc.  

Quote:Mything is that in a world for full of idiots several will post on the internet and say things we disagree with.  But someone combined those images to make a point.

Huh?

Quote:The other thing is Christianity has power.  So when people complain about things they complain about those in charge.  No Muslim or any other religion tries to enforce their religious tenets in America like the Christians do.  I think American Christians take criticism and translate it to opression.

First, no one, in this thread, is talking about oppression, we're talking about the ability to mock or poke fun at.  Please explain to us why a fashion show appropriating imagery from Judaism would not generate the same response.  You could also explain why no one would even dare to do such a show with Islamic imagery.  Lastly, how much power does Christianity have in the Middle East?  Are you saying that you can only appropriate form, or mock those, who have an acceptable amount of cultural influence?  

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm assuming you're referring to the first pic?  They're from New York fashion week iirc.  

Yes the first pic.  Is there a site you got the image from?

(03-05-2019, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Huh?

Someone took those photos, added the tweets about them and put them together.  I was curious as to who.

I found only four places with that photo.

I mean, it's a fashion show.  No one really wears that crap in real life.  lol.

(03-05-2019, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First, no one, in this thread, is talking about oppression, we're talking about the ability to mock or poke fun at.  Please explain to us why a fashion show appropriating imagery from Judaism would not generate the same response.  You could also explain why no one would even dare to do such a show with Islamic imagery.  Lastly, how much power does Christianity have in the Middle East?  Are you saying that you can only appropriate form, or mock those, who have an acceptable amount of cultural influence?  

People do make fun of other religions...and sometimes all religions.  But the powerful one in this country will give the most blowback to criticism.  

If I "mock" the Flat Earth Society vs "mocking" Democrats one has a larger base that will loudly yell about how unfair it is.

And again I limited it to the US.  What happens in the ME wasn't part of that.  Nor Africa or Europe.  Here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes the first pic.  Is there a site you got the image from?

Nope, google images.

Quote:Someone took those photos, added the tweets about them and put them together.  I was curious as to who.

I found only four places with that photo.

I mean, it's a fashion show.  No one really wears that crap in real life.  lol.

The tweets at the bottom didn't even register with me.  I was looking for an appropriately sized pic that would show the clothing but wouldn't take up a whole page.  You google "met gala christianity fashion show" and you'll get loads of images.

Quote:People do make fun of other religions...and sometimes all religions.  But the powerful one in this country will give the most blowback to criticism.  

Oh, I think that would be incorrect.  There was almost no "blowback" to this show.  Now, if you were drawing Mohammed or mocking Islam, I think you'd get considerably more "blowback"

Quote:If I "mock" the Flat Earth Society vs "mocking" Democrats one has a larger base that will loudly yell about how unfair it is.

I think you'll find both groups are routinely mocked without much, if any, "blowback".

Quote:And again I limited it to the US.  What happens in the ME wasn't part of that.  Nor Africa or Europe.  Here.

Ok, I reiterate my question, how much cultural power does a group have to possess before it's acceptable to make fun of them or mock their tenants?

[Dill]

(03-05-2019, 12:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting thing to consider...

Bias against Muslims: Islamaphobe
Bias against Jewish: Anti-Semitism
Bias against Christians:

(I'm not religious myself, but it's interesting to think about how certain groups are considered free game while others are really sensitive subjects to criticize.)

Also interesting to consider:

So far, Trump has not imposed a Jewish or Christian ban. 
So far, this country has never had a Jewish or a Muslim president. Past Pew Polls regularly showed that people were not ready for such.

There have been attacks on people in Mosques and Synagogues in this country because they were in Mosques and Synogogues.
There have been attacks on people in churches, but so far as I know, not because they were in churches (i.e., Christian).

Muslims and atheists raise the greatest bias in poll questions like "Would you vote for a . . . . ?"
https://news.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx

Bill O'Reilly and friends on Fox have regularly made us aware of a "War on Christianity" in the U.S., which seems largely a complaint about secularization. These secularist types claim that under the U.S. Constitution, one particular religion does not get to frame state power via its particular myths and tenets, hence the "oppression" of Christianity.

Bias against Christians: largely non-existent?  A Right wing media construction?

David M. Howard doesn't think so.

Christians are being systematically persecuted by various political segments in the federal, state, and local governments, along with secular progressive principalities like the press and ACLU. Their goal? To dominate and diminish Christian influence in our culture. If nothing changes, persecution will only grow. It's time for Christians to stand up for religious freedom―but how?

The answer is to buy his new book Attack on Christianity: 10 Strategies Christ Used to Fight the Culture War  Now availble in Kindle and paperback editions. https://www.amazon.com/Attack-Christianity-Strategies-Christ-Culture/dp/1632694581#reader_B078TBS2WK

Satan has redefined politics to convince Christians they should stay out of it.   "Masters of this dark age" are seizing Christians and dragging them into the public square for humiliation. They are silencing the church when it speaks out against the abominable sin of homosexuality.

Thus do Christians become "free game" for secularists who would purge Christ from our nation, even as the threat of Sharia grows.

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, google images.




The tweets at the bottom didn't even register with me.  I was looking for an appropriately sized pic that would show the clothing but wouldn't take up a whole page.  You google "met gala christianity fashion show" and you'll get loads of images.




Oh, I think that would be incorrect.  There was almost no "blowback" to this show.  Now, if you were drawing Mohammed or mocking Islam, I think you'd get considerably more "blowback"




I think you'll find both groups are routinely mocked without much, if any, "blowback".



Ok, I reiterate my question, how much cultural power does a group have to possess before it's acceptable to make fun of them or mock their tenants?

Three of the four sites with that photo were "blowback" against the event.  A google search of that phrase you suggested show plenty of people question the offensiveness of the event.  (An event I wouldn't even have known about with out your posting it.)

Never said it was acceptable.  I said the larger/more influential the group the more likely they will get mocked/criticiszed.  And more likely some of the their members will react to it.

Full disclosure I believe one should have a healthy disrespect for all institutions lest they get swallowed up in believing everything they are told about it.  

[Dill]

(03-05-2019, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote:
Where are those from?  

I am guessing what US needs now is more "strong men."  Or hard times to create them. 

A question though--do "strong men" always create "good times"?  Not sure about that.

Heard that message somewhere before . . . .

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-28-2019, 11:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Has anyone else heard about this book? http://www.aei.org/spotlight/alienated-america/

I heard the author, Tim Carney, on last week's episode of Left, Right & Center. He argues that the predictor of Trump's support is alienation, specifically a lack of community connection that was most often achieved through church in this country in year's past. He is looking primarily at the primary, not the general election, and seeing a trend that Trump voters we more likely to be non-church goers and it is that lack of connection that led them to him. This lack of connection that results in a loss of the American Dream.

It's an interesting discussion, and one that I have seen versions of occurring for some time. Usually it is a discussion about how the more disconnected someone is from their community the more likely they are to have highly polarized views. The more engaged you are with civic organizations, religious organizations, etc., the less likely you are to be so hyper-partisan. At least that is the theory that I've seen from some people here and there. This doesn't mean that they have more moderate views, but more that they are more likely to take time to understand and listen to opposing viewpoints and engage in civil discussion.

So what are your thoughts on Carney's argument, and then the extension of it that has been going on for a bit?

Interesting theory, but I think the initial support was due to disenfranchisement of the working class in America, particularly the Rust Belt and the rest of middle America.  A lot of folks feel left behind by the duopoly.  It's also why Bernie Sanders garnered so much support.....both were anti status quo.  That's what a majority of these folks were looking for.

Being and independent, and a member of several independent voter forums, I can tell you that more of Sanders' supporters than one might think voted for Donnie due to this sentiment.  Others, myself included, just went on and voted the 3rd party protest vote.  I was actually leaning toward Sanders....but the DNC proved to me that they were just another cog in the 'good ol boys' network of pay to play politics with their absolute shit show of a primary.

I also know a lot of working stiffs and out of work people that voted for Trump because of the unknown, for lack of a better term.  They felt they knew what the pay to play syndicate would offer to them in regards to jobs and financial security, so vote out of the box, damn the consequences.  I know many of them that are not really pleased with him, and are appalled at his crass, but they still maintain that it's better than Hillary, and I'm not sure I disagree with them.

Now, the guys/gals with the Trump tennis shoes, the Trump 2020 t shirts, and pants (I actually saw a dude at the polls wearing this get up...lol), are a whole different animal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Three of the four sites with that photo were "blowback" against the event.  A google search of that phrase you suggested show plenty of people question the offensiveness of the event.  (An event I wouldn't even have known about with out your posting it.)

Oh, you mean "blow back" in the sense that people were offended or commented on it.  If that's the case then literally everything that happens in this country now generates "blow back" as there's always someone that's going to be offended or had their feelings hurt.  I'm referring to actual "blow back" in the sense that the event generates media attention, wide spread outrage, calls for people to be fired, calls for a boycott or, in the most extreme examples, actual violence.

Quote:Never said it was acceptable.  I said the larger/more influential the group the more likely they will get mocked/criticiszed.  And more likely some of the their members will react to it.

It is certainly true that the larger the target the more often it's going to be hit.  I think you're missing the specific point being made though, that being that a similar event coopting the imagery and symbolism of Judaism or Islam would never have been put forth in the first place.  Certainly not by any mainstream organization and certainly no event attended by high profile celebrities.

Quote:Full disclosure I believe one should have a healthy disrespect for all institutions lest they get swallowed up in believing everything they are told about it.  

Honestly, I'm fine with respect or disrespect regardless of the institution.  What I must insist upon is a consistency of view and reaction that is not predicated on the group being targeted, i.e. you can make fun of white protestants, transgender Hispanics or Buddhist Asians.  No group should be above ridicule and no group should be able to claim exemption or a special form of outrage.  Logical consistency is all I'm asking for, and I'm pretty sure that was Sunset's point as well, if I may be so bold as to speak for him.