The Fifteenth Amendment was about not denying the right to vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." And if you really meant the Fourteenth Amendment, I point you to this piece of the article:

"It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that the nation began the process of applying some principles of the Bill of Rights to local government"

Posted at March 13, 2008 7:15 PM in response to What Did the Founders Believe About Church and State?

The catch is that liberals who misunderstand the Founders are ill-equipped to push back against the lies of the likes of David Barton. Imagine an exchange where a conservative claims that this is a Christian nation, built up by Christian Founding Fathers, and a liberal replies that no, the Founders were Deists. The conservative then cites quotes that show that they weren't Deists, and now the liberal in question has lost credibility. This is not helpful.

Posted at March 12, 2008 6:45 PM in response to Militant Unitarians

As I said to destor23 in the comments of Waldman's previous post:

"If you knew anything about BeliefNet, you'd know that the site covers a broad spectrum of religious beliefs, ranging from the Unitarianism and the Eastern religions to the conservative stuff that you tried to pass off as if it were representative of the whole site. Heck, the article to which you linked isn't even written by Waldman."

Given the nature of BeliefNet, there is a good chance that there are bound to be views on it that don't represent Waldman's opinions.

Posted at March 11, 2008 9:10 PM in response to Fallacy #2 The Founders Weren't Conservative Christians

"And lo and behold, his new post effectively contradicts the previous one and says pretty much what the commenters on that one were saying. Can you say, 'incoherent'? I knew you could!"

Let's see now. The first post says that the Founding Fathers were not what we now think of as subscribers of deism, where God makes the universe but leaves it alone thereafter, is false. The second post says that the Founding Fathers were not what we'd think of as orthodox Christians. This is not a contradiction.

Posted at March 11, 2008 9:02 PM in response to Fallacy #2 The Founders Weren't Conservative Christians

To be fair to Waldman here, he is addressing a popular conception of the Founding Fathers, and often deism is popularly treated as if it were almost like atheism, with God serving only to kickstart the universe.

Posted at March 11, 2008 8:25 PM in response to Fallacy #1: The Founders Weren't Deists

destor23: "Since you're here, I wanted to ask if you're proud to host a Web site where prudes call brides sluts just for having tattoos?"

If you knew anything about BeliefNet, you'd know that the site covers a broad spectrum of religious beliefs, ranging from the Unitarianism and the Eastern religions to the conservative stuff that you tried to pass off as if it were representative of the whole site. Heck, the article to which you linked isn't even written by Waldman.

Posted at March 11, 2008 8:19 PM in response to Fallacy #1: The Founders Weren't Deists

Steve LaBonne: "Don't bother asking him questions; he's too ignorant ..."

If Waldman were parroting the far right-wing line about the Founders being orthodox Christians, you might have a point. As it stands, even in the absence of his later article addressing the right-wingers, there are enough clues in the article to indicate that's not what he's doing. You jumped the gun.

Posted at March 11, 2008 8:12 PM in response to Fallacy #1: The Founders Weren't Deists

Along similar lines, David Bosco argues persuasively that Gitmo's not as bad as the GULAG

What Bosco leaves out is the stuff about the FBI e-mails about detainees being chained in fetal positions and left to urinate and defecate on themselves. It also fails to mention that many of the prisoners haven't even been charged with crimes. It looks like what's going on at Gitmo is that most prisoners are treated okay, but when they are treated ugly, they are treated really ugly, and it's the treatment of that minority of prisoners that makes the comparison to a gulag spring up.

Posted at June 4, 2005 6:09 PM in response to Better Than...

This is really for the guys who run TPM Cafe, not Mr. Anrig. If you have the following beneath the posting window,

Allowed HTML: <CITE></CITE> <STRONG></STRONG> <DT> <TT></TT> <A [HREF] [TARGET] [NAME]></A> <B></B> <LI> <STRIKE></STRIKE> <I></I> <OL></OL> <DD> <CODE></CODE> <P [ALIGN]> <BLOCKQUOTE [STYLE] [DIR] [TYPE]></BLOCKQUOTE> <U></U> <DL></DL> <BR> <UL></UL> <EM></EM> <DIV [ALIGN]>

it gives the impression that one is supposed to type in HTML.

Posted at May 31, 2005 9:06 AM in response to Bush's Gift

<BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously, the word "security" also applies to the public's other main source of fear: terrorism. Bush won mainly because of that issue, and polls continue to show huge margins for conservatives over liberals on the subject. That has to change, and it can. Using the Social Security debate as a springboard, progressives should no longer be undecided about what comes between "It's" and "stupid." Security, security, security.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

<p>This seems to be a dodgy move. Convincing Americans that being Democratic doesn't mean being soft on security is a good thing, but I fail to see how this relates to Social Security.</p> 

Posted at May 31, 2005 8:41 AM in response to Bush's Gift