Agreed. This argument was advanced against Catholics throughout the 1800s, and such sentiment underscored some of the nastier Republican rhetoric against John Kennedy's presidential campaign. Also, since "they" are currently in charge, it might not be a smart idea to make jokes about disenfranchising "them," lest they get any ideas.

Yes, you do come across like any other paranoid conservative who can't take a joke. Garrison Keillor is not a commentator. He's not a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. Trying to paint him as such by drawing a parallel saying if it had been a "conservative commentator" is disingenuous. Lots of jokes about pretty much every religion you could name have been told by comedians and entertainers with over-reaction for only a few things that people felt went over the line. Give it a rest already.

I don't think it would be frontline news if the comment had been made about Muslims. In fact, it would probably be swept under the rug even more. Anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is just skyrocketing, even three years after 9/11. We have AIPAC and the other groups with split US-Israel loyalty to thank for that, as well as for the current quagmire in Iraq, the nonexistence of a peace process even with Arafat dead, and the possibility of a knuckleheaded strike on Iran. What has this world come to?

I don't think it would be frontline news if the comment had been made about Muslims.

Are you nuts? The press (none of its outlets owned by AIPAC, BTW) would be all over it, like it was when Ann Coulter made her "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" remark.

Jim, I think Keillor is a commentator, and I think he's liberal, but I'll grant that it may not be precise to label him a "liberal commentator" because that implies he focuses on politics. Nevertheless, liberalism and its intersection in politics is a relative passion of Keillor's, even if it doesn't dominate his show as much as Limbaugh's dominates his. I'd posit that liberals and conservatives often approach their political "evangalism" in different ways, and that Keillor just has a different method.

I agree, Joshua. Especially in light of Keillor's quite political remarks just prior to the election. They weren't very kind or humorous, either.

No way Josh - that's not a fair comparison.

Muslims are NOT supporting a constitutional amendment to bar any group from doing anything, whereas born-again christians (a group of which Bush is supposedy a member) are.

ape

On the contrary, most devout Muslims support a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. In fact, they by and large support much more restrictive social measures than Christians.

OK fair point. Instead of 'are not supporting' i should have said something like 'are not key players in the movement to introduce'.

Presumably, GK was intending to satirize this newsworthy event; that's why he jokes of a 'constitutional amendment'.

If US muslims were the driving force in some similar mass political movement, I'm sure it would be OK to satirize them with noone complaining. But they're not. So that's why it's not a fair comparison.

ape, they're only not key plyers in the move to introduce it because they don't have the political power to do so. And besides, it was an analogy to make a point, and no analogies are perfect. I think my larger point stands.

Hear no evil (from liberals), see no evil (in liberals), speak no evil (of liberals). Once again, ape is rationalizing some of the most offensive behavior by the left wing.

Atheists are the driving force in a political movement to remove anything remotely religious from the public sphere, no matter the context (e.g. the little cross on the Los Angeles county seal). So would it be OK for some public figure to "satirize" atheists by suggesting a Constitutional amendment to disenfranchise them? Or do you think that person might be pilloried in this country's major newspapers?

While true that Keillor made comments about politics from a liberal viewpoint before the election it's not a staple of what he does, day in and day out, including non-election years.

Keillor, in the interest of being provocative, provoketh a bit too much. But perhaps another and greater reason for disappointment is the way that this quote trivializes what in fact should be a serious question for Christians, a group whose relationship to the state has always been somewhat tricky to figure out. I wouldn't suggest, like Keillor does, that anyone be disenfranchised. But I do wish Christians thought more seriously about what all that "citizenship in heaven" stuff entails. Because I don't think it means being a citizen of the United States.



I also have to confess that I'm puzzled when I hear Christians raise a hue and cry about being held to a "double standard," what with our belief in being blessed when we're persecuted and all that. I can see how a Christian can hold the principled position that voting rights should not be denied to any group on account of their religion. But I don't see how a Christian can be upset if people aren't nice to us, or tell jokes at our expense.

Keillor is pretty far from an atheist. In fact, his radio show "Prairie Home Companion," aired by nearly every NPR affiliate in the country, is shot through with Minnesota Lutheranism. It's very clear that Keillor is a Christian, and has strong ideas of how Christians are supposed to act.

It's moreover clear that he thinks Christians should not support GWB. He made the same joke about giving fundamentalists citizenship in heaven on "Prairie Home Companion." Whether you think it's funny or not, it should be pretty obvious that Keillor is not serious about denying anyone voting rights, and moreover is in no position to do so anyway. This makes him quite different from figures like Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, et al. who are usually quite serious about the insane proposals they make (e.g. Coulter really does want to forcibly convert all Muslims to Christianity).

"I was just joking" has never been an acceptable excuse for the left when they're on a witch hunt against someone for comments they found untenable.

(And for the record, I never suggested Keillor is an atheist. I was making a hypothetical comparison.)

I don't think he was making a jest at all. I think he was making a very nicely pointed comment regarding those born again "Christians" who see nothing wrong with denying rights of all sorts to people based on membership in some group (e.g. immigrants, Muslims, gays, etc). Perhaps they should think twice about throwing stones.

I don't even like Keilor, but this one I applaud.

Flory, what exactly do you think "born again" Christians are proposing that would violate the rights of Muslims and immigrants? It would need to be debated whether "born again" Christians would actually violate the rights of any of these groups, but at least I have some idea of what proposals you might argue would violate the rights of gays. What do "born again" Christians, as a religious or political category, say should be done to Muslims and immigrants?

Karl - in a general sense, any attempt to loosen the division of church and state (such as implied in Eric's comment) would harm Muslims or believers in any other non-christian religion.

eg, deference shown by the state to the command, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." is plainly anti-religious.

Eric - "So would it be OK for some public figure to "satirize" atheists by suggesting a Constitutional amendment to disenfranchise them?"

Of course it would, although the wit of it would be lost as no such amendment is being proposed by atheists.

A better example of satirizing secularism is the South Park episode in which the characters end up putting food in their rear-ends and excreting from their mouths WHILST complaining about how society discriminates so dreadfully against their secular values: I don't think anyone complained about that on the grounds of discrimination against secularists. A powerful point well-made was my view, although I still think it's wrong.

How did Eric's comment imply that there should be or is (I cannot tell from your comment which you are saying is implied) a loosening of the division of church and state, other than that a religious connection as harmless and minor as a cross on a county seal should be tolerated?

Also, it is not true that any loosening of the division would harm Muslims. I am not aware of any evidence that "born again" Christians advocate relaxing the division in general, or that they believe that all things in the Bible could appropriately be enforced by the government (generally -- I know that there are specific people who believe this; I met someone a couple of years ago who said that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring all Americans to be Christian). I agree that if this particular commandment were in any way, even implicitly, enforced by the government, it would hurt Muslims and it would be wrong. The separation, however, if it would be relaxed, would be relaxed piece by piece, policy by policy. Whatever influence "born again" Christians may use to prevent gay marriages, for example, would only hurt Muslims if it caused people to accept religion-based legislation in general, and we would have to move pretty far from where we are now to get that. "Born again" Christians are only powerful in that they can fill a margin here and there to get someone elected. They could not pass legislation like this on their own, even if they wanted to do it.

I am not in favor of religion-based legislation, and I am more or less in favor of the "separation of church and state" (though I welcome the work of religious individuals in promoting policies that make sense even without religious considerations) but I just do not think that anything that has been advocated by "born again" Christians (as a religious or political movement), or that I expect to be advocated by them, would hurt Muslims.

Of course it would, although the wit of it would be lost as no such amendment is being proposed by atheists.

Also, no such amendment is being proposed by Christians.

GK and PHC satirize a lot of things including New Age Music, Californians, and plaid pants. The humor is gently delivered and not expected to be acted upon, such as the light bulb joke: How many homosexuals does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, society should learn to accept it the way it is. Humor, fellas, works best when it highlights folly in the everyday world. If you want to get exorcized about something, pick a more vital topic…