Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Lola,

When aroused, you want it all don't you ! OK I'll remove the brackets. I get it, goddammit!

Where we differ is the degree of things and my strong impression that it is religion (of all kinds, evangelical and otherwise) that is in danger of temporary extinction in our society, and not the secular movements, which increasingly displace it from our lives. You apparently believe the converse. I believe the facts generally support my view, though the issue has not yet played out.

Here is a compressed section from another thread.

Lola wrote:

Sorry for the psychobabble jargon. If it hadn't been so late I would have said, "a condescending attitude that you experience as normal and worthwhile. One that you don't think to question because it seems like a good quality." And yes, if your goal is to communicate well with others, to develop their respect, it can be fatal to that goal. I think you don't notice how you say things to me like:

"I think you are afraid of a paper tiger."

(this is only one example and not the most egregious.)
.
I'll confess that I do like you, you have a certain endearing quality that is appealing me and to many others, I'm sure. So you can't put me into the category of those who do not like you. So if I'm saying that you are in this case, apparently blind to your patronizing responses to me, you can't dismiss it as me simply not liking you. (And you might want to ask the janitor if he agrees with you that you have a proficient connection. Although, you may not get a truthful or completely candid answer. After all, you are the boss.)

Well, I do think you are concerned about something that history has shown to be self-limiting, and which engenders more opposition than support among the general population - in short a paper tiger. It has not been my conscious intent ever to be condescending towards you (there are others here to whom I could not say that). Now I suppose you will suggest it is so ingrained, I am not aware of it. I have, however found myself wishing to rather strongly confront you after reading some of your sweeping (in my eyes) indictments of the elements and symbols Christianity. While you may have well known the limits of intended applicability of your intended objects, it was not always evident in the words. Perhaps both of us should be more aware of the potential of giving offense without intending to do so.

Happy new year!

0 Replies

Well, I just lost a huge and hugely brilliant post. Dangnabbit.

Rather than laboriously rewriting the whole damn thing, I think I'll just mention that I think what is happening right now in a little 'lake bed' on Mars represents the very best of what America can do. It is a truly extraordinary accomplishment.

"how infinite in faculties" as the man said.

0 Replies

george wrote:

Quote:

Lola,

When aroused, you want it all don't you ! OK I'll remove the brackets. I get it, goddammit!

LOL, yes I do. And thank you. It's about time! Laughing

Quote:

Well, I do think you are concerned about something that history has shown to be self-limiting

I believe this, but I believe it about religion. It will never disappear. Even in societies where an eradication of religion has been actively and vigorously attempted, it has not been possible. And I agree that secularism is not in any real danger either. My concern doesn't have to do with the "danger of temporary extinction in our society" but only that if the religious fanatics are successful, and they are close, we will be set back 50 years in human rights, especially for women, many minorities -- especially racial and religious minorities, the vulnerable and the poor. Many people will be hurt. And I would like to stop it if we can. It's that simple.

Quote:

I have, however found myself wishing to rather strongly confront you after reading some of your sweeping (in my eyes) indictments of the elements and symbols Christianity. While you may have well known the limits of intended applicability of your intended objects, it was not always evident in the words. Perhaps both of us should be more aware of the potential of giving offense without intending to do so.

It has always been true that the standard Christian take the cruxifiction story is so freely presented as if it were fact or as if everyone experienced it in the same way. And it is so often assumed that if you don't then it's clear proof that you are sinful or dangerous. I sometimes like to tell others my ideas about it. The way I think about it. What it means to me. I listen to the other version all the time and sit quietly and say nothing. I only wish the same could be done for me. What you read were my honest feelings and ideas about it. I don't demand that you agree with me. Actually, I am happy to hear how you or others perceive it, as long as I'm not being coerced.

And I've never minded religion being taught in the schools, as long as no religion is taught as the one true religion and all religions receive equal treatment, as objectively as possible. But I think what you mean by religious expression being allowed in schools is that the "traditional religion" be taught or expressed, and to that I object strongly. Many of us put up with that in Sunday School, I don't want my children to have to put up with it at school. Religious expression in schools is fine if a person also believes , but what it you don't? These teachings and expressions belong in church where a person can go voluntarily.

Tonight I saw a movie. "The Big Fish." It was very touching and funny. But there was one scene, where the father is telling of a place where the parrots talk about everything except religion. And the son asks, "and why not religion, Dad?" And the father answers, "because it's rude to speak of religion, you might offend." And that's what I believe.....at least at school and with children. Religion is a family thing. It should be taught at home and church and not imposed on others who may not believe.

Sorry if I offended you george, I'll try to be more tactful. But really can you not listen to my religious ideas without being offended?

0 Replies

george

In reference to an earlier point of yours, yes, it is language which we commonly stumble over. Likely, I think, our positions are considerably closer than our words might suggest, and that's a consequence of the dichotomized and oppositional framework which many of these discussions are constructed upon. No way out but through. I do a fairly frequent reread of Orwell's great essay on "Politics and the English Language" to help keep my BS detector in tune (unfortunately, it also registers my own BS).

Quote:

Where we differ is the degree of things and my strong impression that it is religion (of all kinds, evangelical and otherwise) that is in danger of temporary extinction in our society, and not the secular movements, which increasingly displace it from our lives. You apparently believe the converse. I believe the facts generally support my view, though the issue has not yet played out.

I believe Lola's point here is quite astute...neither system of understanding seems likely to fade into oblivion. Clearly, the dominance of Christianity as epistemological authority (and consequently, as moral authority) in western thought has taken a lot of blows over the last thousand years, but it has shown great resillience in response. That resillience, I find very interesting, and I do not hold that it is entirely a consequence of pathology. There are stories there which speak to us in a manner which empirical information never can. This ought not to surprise us, I think, because it is precisely why we value the poet's understanding of existence. No amount of precise weather data or mathematical formulations to describe the refraction of light carries the 'truth' of Dickenson....

There is a certain Slant of Light
Winter afternoons that Oppresses
Like the Heft of Cathedral Tunes

Where it hasn't been resilient (insistence on literal interpretation, for example), it yet gets a beating.

0 Replies

Quick little addendum on 'truth'.

Some years ago, I overheard a conversation between a shopkeeper and customer. The shopkeeper was attempting to persuade his customer to purchase a lotto ticket. The customer declined, saying, "Your chances of winning are the same whether you play or not".

I think that is much more than witty, thought witty it certainly was.

0 Replies

Quote:

In the summer of 2000, a group of frustrated Episcopalians from the board of the American Anglican Council gathered at a sun-soaked Bahamanian resort to blow off some steam and hatch a plot. They were fed up with the Episcopal Church and what they perceived as a liberal hierarchy that had led it astray from centuries of so-called orthodox Christian teaching. The only option, they believed, was to lead a schism.

But this would take money. After the meeting, Anglican Council vice president Bruce Chapman sent a private memo to the group's board detailing a plan to involve Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a Southern California millionaire, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, in the plan. It was a shrewd move: Ahmanson's money has made possible some of the most pivotal conservative movements in America's recent history, including the 1994 GOP takeover of the California Legislature, a ban on gay marriage and affirmative action in California, and the mounting nationwide campaign to prove Darwin wrong about evolution. His financial influence also helped propel the recent campaign to recall California Gov. Gray Davis. And besides contributing cash to George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, Ahmanson has played a subtle but crucial role in driving Bush's domestic agenda.

www.salon.com

0 Replies

This has already been posted on another thread or two, but it's so appropriate here......

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/07KRIS.html?ex=1074480152&ei=1&en=b8136aeb0d78da1e

Quote:

here's one meaty part:

Quote:

After talking to Mr. Bush's longtime acquaintances, I'm convinced that his religious convictions are deeply felt and fairly typical in the U.S. Mr. Bush says the jury is still out on evolution, but he has also said that he doesn't take every word in the Bible as literally true. To me, nonetheless, it seems hypocritical of Mr. Bush to claim (as he did in the last campaign) that Jesus is his favorite philosopher and then to finance tax breaks for the rich by cutting services for the poor. If Dr. Dean should read up on Job, Mr. Bush should take a look at the Sermon on the Mount.

With Karl Rove's help, Mr. Bush has managed a careful balance, maintaining good ties with the Christian right without doing so publicly enough to terrify other voters. For example, Mr. Bush doesn't refer in his speeches to Jesus or Christ, but he sends reassuring messages to fellow evangelicals in code ("wonder-working power" in his State of the Union address last year alluded to a hymn).

I agree with Mr. Kristoff here. GW is a fanatical christian. He is indeed. I personally have so little doubt of this that it's miniscule. That Karl Rove has been smart and wilily enough to find a way to speak in code, I also believe. This has been my very point. The "wonder-working power" is from a very popular hymn for the Fundamentalists.

Not that they shouldn't do this, but rather that they are doing it. The voters need to put a stop to it and do it now. If GW is re-elected it will set us back at least 50 years. It takes a long time for a Supreme Court judge to die off.

This group of fundies are not simply being used. Although, used they are. They also are using the neo-cons. The fundy agenda is to get into our bedrooms and legislate their version of morality. And their version is the height of inhibition induced masochism and deprivation, guilt and suffering and (did I I mention deprivation?).....punishment is their game and don't believe the rest of us won't be punished with them when they have their way.

May our royal master lead against the foe.

0 Replies

I like devout better than fanatical. I haven't actually seen him try to force anyone to convert to his religion or to put his personal religious beliefs before anything else or blowing things up in the name of his religion (altough I am sure many of you would feel that he does...). That is what I usually translate fanatical as meaning.

I believe he is devout in that he goes to church, believes what he believes and tries to live up to his religious principals.

But, hey, that's just my thoughts.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I like devout better than fanatical.

Yeah, I imagine the sanitized version does sound better. :wink:

Quote:

I believe he is devout in that he goes to church, believes what he believes...

Okay so far.

Quote:

....and tries to live up to his religious principals.

Ah, ya blew it.

If he is a Christian -- and if he is devote -- he sure as hell is not living up to his religious principles.

Quote:

But, hey, that's just my thoughts.

Yes they are, and thanks for sharing them.

0 Replies

How so frank? How would you say he is not living up to his religious principals? How wouold you even know what they are?

Also, Thanks for always being reactionary to my posts. I appreciate the fact that you actually read them.

0 Replies

McGent's quote, "I believe he is devout in that he goes to church, believes what he believes and tries to live up to his religious principals." If, as you say, his religious principals allows him to aggresively attack another country without provocation except those created in his own brain, and kills thousands of innocent men, women, and children, I'd prefer he stay away from religious principals, and become a "humanitarian." Religion has been responsible for too many killings and sorrow to the human race.

0 Replies

But you make an excellent point, C.I.

He is the President of the United States before he is a "fanatical Christian" which should lead you to believe that he is NOT so fanatical.

0 Replies

McGentrix,

How do you explain that reasoning? Because he was elected, that means he's not fanatical? How are these two ideas related?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How so frank? How would you say he is not living up to his religious principals? How wouold you even know what they are?

Re-read everything that has been written on this and you will know. Remember, we are talking about his Christian principles.

BTW (and I'm not taking a cheap shot here, just mentioning something) -- you keep righting "principals." The proper word is "principles.")

Quote:

Also, Thanks for always being reactionary to my posts. I appreciate the fact that you actually read them.

I read everything you write. Wouldn't miss it for the world!

0 Replies

Hmmm...yes, I am screwing that up... I will blame it on trying to type in secret while at work...Thanks Frank.

The reasoning would hold that if someone were "fanatical" towards a cause or a belief that they would hold that cause or belief above all others. So, if Bush were indeed a "fanatical christian", he would hold those beliefs up before his job, his family, his country.

A devout person, on the other hand, would maintain his beliefs while still being able to perform his function in the world. There are many christian sects that make up all of christianity and I am not sure even which religion Bush practices. I know he's not Catholic, but that is all.

Jim Jones was a fanatical Christian. David Koresh (sp?) was a fanatical Christian. I am sure there are others. I think the term "fanatical" is grossly over stated in the case of George Bush.

0 Replies

McGentrix,

I agree with your assessment rearding what isn't fanatical. I'd add here though, both Jones and Koresh started thier communities with altruistic principles.

Jones started a small church in Northern California, moved to San Francisco, entered politics, started using drugs, then went nuts when the law began investigating complaints brought by prior members of the church. Plus, some folks who did travel with Jones to Ghiana were allowed to visit family in America, but could not bring their kids with them. Kidnapping, toward the end, was Jones only way of keeping control.

Koresh, pretty much went down the same path.

It wasn't religious fanaticism that kept those groups together, rather two
people who used religion for control. There wasn't a damned thing spiritual about either men.

In the case of GW, I'd have to say he may be religious, but it's difficult believing he's a devout christian. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. What I see is his affiliation with politically powerful religious and charitable groups.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I think the term "fanatical" is grossly over stated in the case of George Bush.

Isn't that true of lots of terms being used to refer to Bush by those who despise him? I find it amusing that anyone who makes any favorable statement about Bush is labeled a "Bushie", "Bush-lover", etc.. I guess when you are blinded by irrational hatred anything else looks to you like irrational devotion.

(The same could be said of people's perceptions of Clinton. Of course the points of view would be reversed.)

0 Replies

Scrat,

I don't know if people hate GW the person, as nobody here, I assume know the man personally. People are against his policies.

Both Clinton and Bush derive from very different backgrounds, and politically, I believe Clinton was the better statesman.

How much influence does religion have in GW's decision making. Does the far right use religion politically, or does a true belief in religious creed motivate their actions.

Not an unreasonable question for America to ask.

0 Replies

scrat wrote:

Quote:

I find it amusing that anyone who makes any favorable statement about Bush is labeled a "Bushie", "Bush-lover"

I don't believe anyone here, on this thread has labeled anyone a "Bushie" or a "Bush lover." The article above refers to a known and well documented technique. Bush knows he cannot speak in public as a Christian fundamentalist, he knows if he does, he will not be re-elected, as his father wasn't in 92 after Robertson and Buchanan spoke at the Republican convention. It was after this defeat that the fundamentalists began to take the advice of Ralph Reed, Karl Rove and others who helped them find a way to communicate without using specific terms. Bush often uses phrases from hymns which are known to this politically active group of evangelical Christian fundamentalists. These phrases tell them that he is one of them without sounding too extreme.

Stratee,

Bush is a "born again" Christian. He was "saved" from his alcoholism when Franklin Graham "won him for the Lord." He is not only politically motivated to give this group what they want, i.e. Supreme Court Justice nominees who will carry out their wishes, an attorney general who will further their causes, i.e. arrest and harass those who are growing and/or using marijuana for medicinal purposes, he is also motivated by his own personal belief. He has traded his alcoholism, drug abuse and rude, controlling behavior for an over dependence on the teaching of this religious sub culture. These Christians (not all christians, george) but these Christians, teach a dependence on rules and use guilt as a controlling agent. Control for this group is focused outside of themselves. He is devout, I believe. He's a devout fanatic with a political agenda that's not apparent much of the time, thanks to the help of Karl Rove.

0 Replies

Lola, interesting.

Simplified, GW's taken one dependency and substitued another. They say born-again christians in the beginning are fanatical about their beliefs, erasing a destructive lifestyle and finding Jesus in the process.
Happens in prisons regularly. I don't mean that in a bad way - whatever gets a person through the day, especially when incarcerated.

Can we attribute the same sort of experience for GW.

I can see fundamentalism and its biases projected on a society with the same sort of belief system, however, the people implimenting policies have an agenda having very little to do with God, or the Spirit, in my opinion.

Ashcroft and Rove may begin each working day with a prayer, but it an't guidance they're seeking.

0 Replies

Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know