WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

george

Scepticsm is always in order. As I mentioned earlier to Tartarin, I'm quite aware that whenever I suggest some seriously negative cultural change is afoot, I'm in danger of being Bill Bennett - a fate worse than almost any I can think of. Other than wearing garlic and crossing my fingers to ward off this frightening evil, I try to be careful in my thinking, and to not let the bullshit slip past.

Quote:

I agree that President Bush has been careful to cultivate the political allegiance of the politically active elements of these groups. The degree to which he has done that is more or less typical what politicians of both parties routinely do to keep their various supporters on the ranch... I see no evidence to suggest that the evangelical groups cited above are truly influencing policy development in a significant way or are even particularly influencing any key members of the administration. Indeed most key members of the administration are quite distant in both backgrounds and their professed beliefs from these groups.

I put the one passage in bold because this is the classic move you make all the time...and I do mean all the time. And I'm going to keep pointing it out to you. You let yourself off the hook too easily with this trick, and allow yourself to be inexact.

Note again that 40% of Bush's votes came from evangelicals. What would be your response if 40% of a democrat president's votes came from unions? And that's not a even a proper analogy, because such a population of union members would not be linked up and organized towards politcal activism as is the evangelical community now. How about if 40% of a democrat president's votes came from Scientologists?

You are correct to point out that many key people in the administration are not part of this community, and have different agendas. But to suggest that policy is not affected, or is not affected substantially, by the activism (and the need for votes) of this community is a delusion you need to be disabused of. Lola's quotes earlier from traditional Republicans ought to be ringing more bells beneath that crew cut. We'll keep filling you in. For now, we're satisfied that, as a Catholic, you are looking over your shoulder.

It is an error to conflate that particular base of individuals and power in the administration with the chaps who call themselves 'neocons'. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney may worship Satan for all I know. But they are, it is clear, in the mould of Strauss, and his ideas are (as the article up front lays out) deeply inimical to what your founders hoped for. You did not address my post where I laid out the consequences of the 'pragmatic' notions of government you have defended, and which are notions sitting at the core of Strauss' ideas and this administration's behavior in foreign policy and domestic policy. Lying, on any matter at all, is not any kind of a problem, for example. There is NO reason, other than practical considerations, that a government shouldn't lie through its teeth to the folks of the nation. Humanitarianism is a mere deceit, a helpful cover story for greed and power. A wise and powerful elite, living very well too as is their desert in this rough and tumble animal world, ought to be running the show. This is all proper.

0 Replies

I'm on a roll here -- lots of good emails came in today, including the following:

In rare moments of candor, politicians discuss their penis size:

http://pic7.picturetrail.com/VOL203/985067/1830704/37012423.jpg

0 Replies

Rice has a penis?

0 Replies

I think she makes the correct gesture

0 Replies

I like Colon Powell's best

However Rove is clearly lying........much too big

0 Replies

Blatham -- the problem here of course (hardly need to reiterate it) is the absence of moral judgment. This willful avoidance keeps cropping up in the statements which declare, Well, if others do it, we're off the hook, and in those which make the Christian Right the equivalent of some off the wall hillbilly group which we needn't worry about. You know, like that AC/DC Austrian would-be art student with the unbecoming mustache we needn't worry about. I don't think it takes that much perspicacity to figure out what is happening within American society, but George (and many others) are clearly having difficulties. They simply don't want to. Have you posted for George a link to that Harper's article, I wonder?

Back in the forties, "Moral Rearmament" tried to recruit members of the intelligentsia, my parents among them. I remember my father being deeply worried by their attempts (often successful) to create inroads into power. The movement of rightwing Christians towards domestic and international political power -- and most scarily their wish for power and control with the Defense Department -- can't be taken lightly. It's been going on, in various guises, for decades.

0 Replies

Trent Lott wishes... Smile

0 Replies

I think Lott's may be quite sizeable, and is topped with a shiny rug of its own.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Party of God

As the 2004 election draws nearer and George W. Bush's poll numbers grow shakier, White House operatives are devoting themselves to coddling the religious right. Given that 40 percent of Bush's 2000 vote came from white evangelicals, if you add Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics you've got a formidable religious bloc. These people demand legislative action, e.g., bans on late-term abortion and gay marriage. With the White House strongly behind their agenda and legislators fearful of retaliation if they don't climb aboard, the wall between church and state is taking a beating.
That is not exactly news, but it explains recent seemingly disparate events. Take the Boykin affair. When Lieut. Gen. William Boykin, deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, referred to the United States as a "Christian nation" engaged in a "spiritual battle" with Satan and preached that the Christian god was "bigger than" the Muslim god, which is "an idol," it would appear his remarks clashed with Administration policy, as expressed in Bush's statements that America's war on terror "is not a war on Islam" or "a clash of civilizations." Accordingly, the general should have been fired forthwith. Instead the President said merely, "He doesn't reflect my point of view," and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sidestepped, praising his "outstanding record."
The Christian Coalition blasted the "liberal mob" attacking an "American hero." Moral: Firing Boykin would make him a Christian martyr. And in your heart you can't be too anti-Islam.
Meanwhile, moderate Muslims, once sympathetic to the US war on terror, accuse Bush of a pro-Christian, pro-Israel bias. The White House Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy, in a study of the Middle East, reports, "Arabs and Muslims respond in anger to what they perceive as U.S. denigration of their societies and cultures." The double standard applied to Boykin and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, publicly condemned by Bush for his anti-Semitic speech, fanned the flames.
Back in the USA, Christian fundamentalists claimed a great victory with the Senate's passage of the so-called partial-birth abortion bill, which the President is set to sign. No matter that the courts are likely to overturn it for vagueness and failure to permit an exception when the health of the woman is in danger, the issue energizes the faithful. Apparently, the "pro-life" agenda is intended to cover Americans from womb to tomb. Witness the all-out drive in Florida to pass a law overriding court decisions and the findings of neurologists and authorizing Governor Jeb Bush to order a brain-damaged woman back on life support. A PR blitz engineered by resurrected antiabortion fanatic Randall Terry put the heat on state legislators. Leading the charge was the Florida Speaker of the House, who just happens to be running for a US Senate seat and needs the evangelicals. Jeb Bush, of course, is eager to lock in these folks for W's 2004 election bid.
The hypocrisy of religious-right politicians is boundless. But whether they are sincere or cynical is immaterial. It is the baneful consequences of their acts and policies that concern us: fomenting anti-Americanism, encouraging antiscience know-nothingism, intruding government into doctor-patient relationships and intimate family decisions on life and death, and substituting dogma for democratic debate. God save us from the true believers!
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20031117&s=editors

0 Replies

God
In God we trust.
God is on our side.
God bless America.

Add a God statement.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

Great article. And it captures only a small part of the urgency of the situation.

Quote:

Apparently, the "pro-life" agenda is intended to cover Americans from womb to tomb.

And it is. I wonder if we're all prepared to watch a dearly loved one suffer for inhumane lengths of time with a terminal illness because GW, John Ashcroft or Jeb Bush decide that it's right. (Their version of right.)

These people are against individual freedom. If they have their way, only if you share their beliefs, will you be free to choose.

0 Replies

Blatham has castigated me for suggesting that George Bush's gestures to the so called religious right have been no more significant than those of other politicians intended to keep occasionally unruly support groups on the ranch. He sees there yet another example of my supposed habit of waving away reported significant elements in the behavior of some by saying, in effect, that everyone does it. I agree that if the behavior in question truly rises above the typical, then it does suggest a purposeful and meaningful association. If however the behavior in question is exhibited by all (in this case, national politicians) to more or less the same degree, then it may or may not indicate something significant.

We have seen the obedient response of all the Democrat candidates to the preemptory summonses of Kwesi Mfume and the other bullies of the NAACP. Does that mean that the NAACP and Jesse Jackson are the real power behind the Democrat party? I don't think so.

I don't exclude the possibility that evangelicals exercise undue influence on the Administration, instead I merely suggest that the code words and gestures referred to in the articles Blatham posted, don't amount to anything of substance in proving the point or convincing an astute reader.

I have seen numerous references to the "fact" that 40% of Bush's vote came from evangelicals. Is this the same group that believes in the 'rapture' and all that stuff? Somehow I suspect there may be a little shift of definitions going on here. Even if one assumes that none of them voted for Gore and that they vote no more frequently than other segments of the population, that implies they comprise about 20% of the population. I am skeptical on that point.

It is true that a substantial number of American voters reject (on various grounds) the 'scientific' views promoted by, for example, in the article from "The Nation" quoted above by Tartarin. Some even hold some of the views so contemptuously referred to in the article as "... anti science, know-nothingism...". However they are not all either particularly religious, nor radical evangelicals.

0 Replies

How to answer George? (George, sometimes your posts go so far into the ridiculous that I'd rather clean up puppy puddles than respond to them.)

Certainly this really poor parallel you choose between "obedience" to the NAACP and religious zealots is way off base. The NAACP, an historic coalition of whites and blacks who work for the broad interests of the descendants of slaves (educational, economic, political, social) of various backgrounds (professional, upper-midde-class, working class, rural, urban, Democratic, Republican) is very different from a narrow group of evangelical Christians, many of whose leaders have dubious-to-poor reputations and who are seeking power within a wing of a single party.

The Republicans want and court the support of the NAACP and the people it represents in a way that Democrats would never go near the authoritarian, anti-democratic (small "d") Christian Right. In fact, whereas the NAACP exists to develop a place for its constituents within a democratic system, the Christian Right seeks to overturn that system.

0 Replies

I'm sorry to repeat this post from page two, but I'm doing it for george. I can't stop now to talk about it, but I will later.

Quote:

Christian Right media is extensive and reflects a large subculture in our society. For example, televangelist Jerry Falwell periodically sends material to 162,000 conservative pastors and churches through Pastor's Policy Briefings. In late 1998, he solicited funds to expand in order to "[A]lert, educate and rally America's 200,000 conservative pastors who collectively speak to 50-60 million persons each week." Moreover Falwell is just one of many national Christian Right leaders seeking to mobilize evangelicals and fundamentalists to engage in conservative political action. In January 1999 Pat Robertson's "700 Club" TV program featured a special week-long series of reports on "Americas's Moral Crisis." Evidence of America's moral decline included abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and "America's obsession with sex." Viewers with concern about the moral crisis were urged to call the National Counseling Center, part of the Christian Broadcasting Network Ministry. According to the "700 Club," the Center logged 5,000 calls per day. Studies show members of some Christian Right activist groups, such as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America, share three related attributes; they are much more likely than the general population to:

Depend on religious television, radio, magazines, and direct mail as important sources of information.

Vote in primary and general elections

Believe that most political issues have "one correct Christian view" that shouldn't be compromised.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v13n1/PE_V13_N1.pdf

0 Replies

George does make a good clarification above. It's one I'm aware of, but should noted. When we say 'evangelicals', we are properly talking about a larger set than those individuals and groups whom I (and the others here) consider problematical.

george...you refer to 'code words and gestures' in Didion's piece. The implication is that the language the writer uses is unduly freighted with meanings known to a cognoscenti of christian haters. I don't know how to convince you that Didion is both brighter and more balanced in reportage than you yet suspect. She does write much like Tom Wolfe, that is, astute observation married with interpretive flair, but the final product is closer to reality than an accounting list. You'll just have to read more of her work I think. And follow the news on policy items which have their genesis in placating this part of your party (eg, closing off aid funding to poor nations where family planning programs are in place).

I want to say that I've found this discussion remarkably clarifying for me. George, Lola, Tartarin, Craven and the others have all been of great assistance in digging in unshyly, sticking to the points with some care and concentration, and arguing our views. It's been laudable, and I thank each of you sincerely.

0 Replies

Blatham, you started it, after all!! But so far it's been a great thread...

George, I think "secular" would be a better term than "scientific." And therein lies a clue to an exit from the wrangling.

No one is asking Christians hold different religious beliefs, live a life style other than they choose to, as long as it's within the law we're all expected to respect. But if they want that right, they'll have to accept that the success and sustainability of our political experiment lies largely in our ability to remain secular in our public, political lives.

It's as simple as that. No single belief or life style or code of dress or sexual choice or language or style of art or form of education can be designated "The American Way" by law. It's important to make sure that no single group holds sway which says, But wait a minute, we have it on the highest authority that this would be best for all!

I heard a lawyer yesterday on a talk show, a lawyer representing a group of people who would like to outlaw all porn from every part of our society, saying it was addictive and then, going into great detail, showing how it was raising taxes for the non-addicted citizen.

This kind of nanny stuff in our society has to go, be it Christian evangelical nannies, soya nannies, anti-porn nannies, whatever. We badly, badly need to lock up and throw away the key on the dumb idea that someone knows better than us how to lead our lives. The nannies exist in both parties. The left bred them like fruit flies in the '60's. The right retaliated at the end of the '70's and is still saying one thing and doing another, nattering on about personal responsibility while destroying the freedoms and choices which foster personal responsibility.

We are the most scarily other-directed citizenry of any in the "developed" world, is my guess, ripe for an authoritarian government, buying into a perpetual, lifelong adolescence. If you can't see that the political arm of the Christian church, the political Christian coalition to which Bush pays heed, are attempting that kind of power, then I think you really do need to do some reading, self-questioning, AND listening.

0 Replies

As lola says, 'these people are against individual freedom', and that is so.

Short rant... I have NO argument with anyone holding any personal religious beliefs (I have some, if defined broadly). But religion, as practiced, is very commonly not about the individual at all, it is about social control. If there is a benevolent creator, then my relationship with him is the business of he and I alone. Any other mortal who insists that they have a unique in with god such that they have the right or the obligation to correct my relationship with god is going to get a pie in his face.

This is not about religion...this is about controlling the values and behaviors of others within the group...it is a political matter operating under cover of a false divine authority.

0 Replies

Blatham'

It has indeed been a most stimulating and enjoyable thread. We have contested ideas on a broad front and even have better and more narrowly defined the areas of conflict. At the end none of us can know for sure the truth of the various propositions involved, but we each retain our particular views of the truth and the identity of the underlying factors that are truly at work.

Tartarin,

I fully agree, but with one reservation.

The fact that the argument for a particular interpretation of law or for or against some new government program is framed in secular terms and values, and even put forward by advocates who are entirely secular in their outlook, does not make it either correct, beneficial, or consistent with our governing principles. Similarly an argument, interpretation, or program put forward by people of an avowedly religious frame of mind, and even associated with certain religious values, does not necessarily mean the legal interpretation or program is either invalid, harmful, or antithetical to our basic constitutional values. In both cases it is the content of the law or program that counts, not the motives of its proponents.

I fear that the Jeffersonian proscription for separation of church and state, is increasingly used as a club with which to silence those whose values can be associated with religion, whether or not that is in fact the case. I recognize that you likely fear the opposite is more prevalent. That is a reflection of our very different points of view on this issue.

0 Replies

No, George. But the important factor lies in the "higher authority." I hold that the highest political authority in America is the will of the people. Advocate of a political position should not be granted higher status because they get their "authority" from the Bible or the Koran or Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

The Constitution came not from a higher authority but from the political and social experience and will of people. As the political and social experience has broadened and increased in complexity over 200 years, so have the laws -- based for the most part on people's growing experience and knowledge and moral development. Some of those who began our political system believed they were motivated and guided by higher power, others didn't. But the document and the society they produced was one based on human understanding and consensus concerning law.

There will always be groups of people with spiritual beliefs others regard as odd, or interesting, or childish, or brutish even as those holding the beliefs are sure they've found the right way to live and would love to persuade others of their discovery. I'm not advocating doing away with diversity, just with the arrogance and authoritarianism of those believers who wish to prescribe for others.

If I had to find an example of that nannyism in our society right now, an example taken not from religion but from our day-to-day experience, it would be health care in the US. It illustrates the extend to which we have a tendency to proclaim freedom and responsibility but avoid it, putting it in the hands of others who say "we know best." It's like declaring our rights of gun ownership even as we're shooting off all the toes on our feet -- and then wondering why we don't have freedom of movement.

0 Replies

The christian right has discovered that its far easier to obtain political power than it is to accomplish their intent of eradicating sin. It seems quite obvious that there is a storming threat among our communities and our states assailing evolution, scientism and secularism via school board policies, state mandates requiring "under god" provisios in pledges and litmus tests of "christian morals" that underneath the glitter of "america, the christian nation" the sins of society march rampantly on. age of first intercouse continues to decline, availablity of porn increases, crime rates continue to climb, homosexuality becomes more "out of the closet" with the end result that as the christian right advances its political power it is losing its battle against "sin". This apparent battle against satan is being lost to the powers of popular culture leaving the "right" in conflict with itself. Protestantism itself has the built-in secterian fatal flaw of continuing to divide into more and more ineffectual splintering of trite dogma in its quest for salvation. the focus on the family is being defocused by questing for more and more political events that render its motives questionable. When the moderate humanist seeks community harmony, he is quickly out blitzed by the fanatic building monuments celebrating the death of homosexuals and the murdering of Sikh's because they look like terrorists. What I see happening is not a danger to the secular society but, rather a greater danger to the moderate mainstream of christian thought and principles

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know