OK, I know all the talk has been about Hillary's statement about teh assaination of RFK in '68; but I think the real coment that should have been played was Mike Huckabee's. (Who by the way was also invited to McCain's VP try-out BBQ last weekend, but was going on a cruise with his wife--political naivete or just confident he doesn't have to "go through the motions" of interviewing . . .we'll see.
But anyway, back to his comments. He was at an NRA meeting and there was a loud noise or bang heard off-stage. Huckabee said: "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he -- he dove for the floor."
Now he apologized for making a "bone headed" remark, but I think it is telling about the man, his character and the fact that todays fundamental Christian-right were yeterday's "Segregationists" and last century's "State's Right-ers".
I think Mike Huckabee is a good man, but I think there is a problem in ANY philosophy where that kind of joke could even be possibly thought of and delivered.
Showing posts with label fundy-truths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundy-truths. Show all posts
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Christian-Right focus on Revelations and End Times
As a Pentecostal raised person I would be remiss if I didn't speak to the unique role Revelatiosn and "end times" plays in our culture and theology. As a child I remember attending the evangelical equivalent of haunted houses: "Tribulation Hoses" which were designed to scare the SHIT out of you and get you saved in some room with faux clouds, cheezy praise music and black lights, along with the requisite actor playing Jesus. In classes and sermons we did all the analysis about the anti-christ and Babylon rising. I think this is what Rove/Delay/Rumsfeld/Bush and Cheney didn't quite get--a lot of those Christian-right backing their support REALLY believe all this. They (some of the Christian-right)wanted us into Iraq because they felt it was fulfillment of biblical prophecy. I had been hearing sermons my whole life about how America will be "embarassed and taken down a notch" before the 2nd Coming.
Then also, the whole Obama anti-christ tie-ins fit right in.
I am not saying everyone should be liberal--we need conservatives and moderates for discourse--but someone needs to do something about these right wing nut jobs--they are dangerous. At the very least we eed to realize who we're getting in bed with, who Republicans are getting in bed with? What A LOT of the Christian Right believes, etc . . . They are not into suicide missions and may be more "advanced" than Muslim insurrgents--but some of their rhetoric and philosophy is scary and dangerous all the same--trust me I know, that is where I came from.
Then also, the whole Obama anti-christ tie-ins fit right in.
I am not saying everyone should be liberal--we need conservatives and moderates for discourse--but someone needs to do something about these right wing nut jobs--they are dangerous. At the very least we eed to realize who we're getting in bed with, who Republicans are getting in bed with? What A LOT of the Christian Right believes, etc . . . They are not into suicide missions and may be more "advanced" than Muslim insurrgents--but some of their rhetoric and philosophy is scary and dangerous all the same--trust me I know, that is where I came from.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Propensity For Myth Part I
In my last post on Propensity for Myth (click here) I talked about "why". It was a bit socio-analytical, and in the light of Obama's "bitter" comments, I am sure it could be discounted as elitist. But then is it elitist to try and find out why? To educate yourself and others on the reasons why things are? Fundy's do this all the time . . . evolution leads to the Holocaust, feminism leads to lesbianism, homosexuality leads to pedophilia and bestiality . . . maybe the difference to Fundy's is that they are "predicting" and projecting, rather than explaining--so to the rational mind it is less objective and therefore NOT elitist . . .yeah I don't get the "logic" either, but I digress. I said all that to say if you found my last post on this topic elitist, and if by elitist you mean intelligent; then thanks for the compliment and you're probably going to have a problem with this post too. :)
The first myth that must be tackled is of course the inerrancy of scripture. As that same assumption kind of stretches over the course of the argument, I won't go into great detail here. But . . . Fundy's have no problem accepting that while their pastor or evangelist may be "inspired and anointed" they do not teach that he is infallible. This is one of the issues Fundy's have with Catholics--no man is "infalliable"; however Fundy's will not only swear that the bible was actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the rest (here on Gilligan's Isle :) ) but that the words they wrote were the inerrant word of G-d. Their explanation on the difference between the Pope, their pastor, latest evangelist and the writers of the bible, is that "It is the Word of G-d"; therefore it is the "word" that is inerrant, not the authors. Bull Shit--that doesn't hold water; because then they have issue (one of MANY) with the Koran and Islam because it claims that Muhammad was just a tool of Allah and the words were direct from Allah THROUGH his prophet. So which is it?? It seems that as with graven images, Christians are wanting it both ways. Now when you look at it, it doesn't make sense, so they have to come up with a story . . . tuck yourself in, here it comes . . ."The bible is the "word" of G-d that he "whispered", "led", "told" "poured out" or some other active communication on/with actual men; who then interpreted the word and wrote it down. So it is somewhere between the authors being mere channelers or conduits and actually being inerrant themselves. HUH?? :) To me it would be (and has been) SO much simpler to just say . . . "these books were the author's interpretation and attempt to convey a spiritual message in the words and paradigm of their day." Now take a breath, read that sentence again . . . "these books were the author's interpretation and attempt to convey a spiritual message in the words and paradigm of their day." . . . now take a deeper breath . . . doesn't that just FEEL better on the inside; your heart and your mind are relaxed aren't they? It makes more sense, it feels more right. Why??, because it is logical and doesn't take a suspension of intelligence to believe; and yet it obviously doesn't undermine the spiritual truth or message as it is presented.
So this bible inerrancy is where the propensity for myth starts, but it extends. I have three main (maybe 4) areas: Old Testament (hereafter referred as the Hebrew Scriptures--HS); the New Testament (hereafter referred to as the Christian Scriptures--CS); and American "history". (The fourth is more of an overall cultural aspect, but it may be contained in the passages of the other three (as with biblical inerrancy).
I'll start at the beginning: HEBREW SCRIPTURES
The propensity for myth runs real deep here. Many Fundy's (as I was) see themselves as the natural extension of the HS. This is where the myth comes in; Fundy's, for whatever reason, like the "idea" of Jesus, but mostly just three parts: 1> birth (Christmas), 2> death (yes, despite what Fundy's say, the death of Christ is much more interesting to them--don't believe me?, go see The Passion of the Christ or ANY local passion play--and think about it, the symbol of Christianity is the CROSS-the vehicle for death; if it was more about the resurrection, the symbol would be a rolled stone or an empty tomb), and 3> REVELATION (the picture of Jesus on a white horse riding in with a drawn sword to smite Satan amd judge sinners; is one Fundy's can really get behind). Less appreciated are the teachings/philosophy of Jesus, except when needed; i.e. getting over a recent bought with sickness, sin, death or financial difficulty; or as a cudgel to judge someone else for lack of faith, etc. Fundy's much prefer the black/white writings of Paul. SIDE NOTE: Good old Paul he makes things so nice: faith not works . . . check; no homosexuality . . . check; if Christ didn't die; this is all in vain . . . check. So it is no wonder that Fundy's prefer the drama of the HS. You get real manly stuff here (even Paul kept having to hide or submit, and Jesus had the worrisome "turn the other cheek" thing). The HS is even more direct than Paul, and you get wrath followed by judgement followed by wicked battle scenes and death and more judgement.
Because Fundy religion strives to do away with myth and the mystical, they have no culture of their own; they stand on the shoulders of giants, and pretend they stand on their own. So there is a very real need to be a part of something larger. Fundy's fulfill that need by tying directly into the HS. They see a natural continuation, much like the way a boy will play baseball and see himself as the heir to A.Rod, Mark McGuire, Hank Aaron, etc . . . Fundy's steep themselves in the stories of the HS. Only problem is they view it with the same lens as the CS. They view it as the continued, connected writings of a movement. With the CS, it is much easier to get away with that; the writings are generally about one movement. The CS was written roughly over the course of relatively short period of time. The authors of the CS did all experience similar situations, lifestyles and paradigms (thanks in part to the Roman Empire). However, to do that with the HS is not only academically irresponsible; it is the equivalent of reading Shakespeare, Nostradamus, the Napoleonic Code, and Charles Dickens and assuming ALL these authors approached life in a similar fashion, ALL these writings are of equal and constantly relevant value, and that ALL of these works share a common message. PREPOSTEROUS! And lets also mention the fact that the HS started out as an oral tradition passed around fires of tribes of nomads in the desert; that the literacy rate was nil; that the concept of G-d in the time of Abraham was VASTLY (I'm talking Hindu to Buddhism) different from the G-d of Moses, and VASTLY (again . . .Catholicism to Mormonism) different from the G-d of David. Not to mention the changes in humanity: human development, human history, human awareness, human government, human concept of community and self. Yet, Fundy's (and I was one of them) like to just wrap everything up with a neat bow--and then ad that they (Fundy's) are the actual spiritual heirs of all this. A large part of John Hagee and other Fundy's fascination with Israel is derived from Revelations and the concept I just described above. Fundy's see themselves as the descendants of the HS. I mean at least the Mormons have the common sense to claim a (by the way completely disproved) biological/genetic connection to the "lost tribes". Fundy's don't even do that! They get the luxury of "spiritual heredity". In the words of Dana Carvey's The Church Lady, "Well, Isn't That Special!"
Again, this is done because Fundy's, like EVERY other human group have a need to belong to something. They have outlawed and excised all mystery, so the human mind will substitute where it can . . . Nature will always find a way.
I think I can stop my argument here without further examples--I might do a separate post (Part 1A) where I just explore some specific examples.
I'd love some good comments on the blog, where readers offer examples/analysis of this propensity for myth as it relates to HS.
For the Propensity For Myth Intro, click here
The first myth that must be tackled is of course the inerrancy of scripture. As that same assumption kind of stretches over the course of the argument, I won't go into great detail here. But . . . Fundy's have no problem accepting that while their pastor or evangelist may be "inspired and anointed" they do not teach that he is infallible. This is one of the issues Fundy's have with Catholics--no man is "infalliable"; however Fundy's will not only swear that the bible was actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the rest (here on Gilligan's Isle :) ) but that the words they wrote were the inerrant word of G-d. Their explanation on the difference between the Pope, their pastor, latest evangelist and the writers of the bible, is that "It is the Word of G-d"; therefore it is the "word" that is inerrant, not the authors. Bull Shit--that doesn't hold water; because then they have issue (one of MANY) with the Koran and Islam because it claims that Muhammad was just a tool of Allah and the words were direct from Allah THROUGH his prophet. So which is it?? It seems that as with graven images, Christians are wanting it both ways. Now when you look at it, it doesn't make sense, so they have to come up with a story . . . tuck yourself in, here it comes . . ."The bible is the "word" of G-d that he "whispered", "led", "told" "poured out" or some other active communication on/with actual men; who then interpreted the word and wrote it down. So it is somewhere between the authors being mere channelers or conduits and actually being inerrant themselves. HUH?? :) To me it would be (and has been) SO much simpler to just say . . . "these books were the author's interpretation and attempt to convey a spiritual message in the words and paradigm of their day." Now take a breath, read that sentence again . . . "these books were the author's interpretation and attempt to convey a spiritual message in the words and paradigm of their day." . . . now take a deeper breath . . . doesn't that just FEEL better on the inside; your heart and your mind are relaxed aren't they? It makes more sense, it feels more right. Why??, because it is logical and doesn't take a suspension of intelligence to believe; and yet it obviously doesn't undermine the spiritual truth or message as it is presented.
So this bible inerrancy is where the propensity for myth starts, but it extends. I have three main (maybe 4) areas: Old Testament (hereafter referred as the Hebrew Scriptures--HS); the New Testament (hereafter referred to as the Christian Scriptures--CS); and American "history". (The fourth is more of an overall cultural aspect, but it may be contained in the passages of the other three (as with biblical inerrancy).
I'll start at the beginning: HEBREW SCRIPTURES
The propensity for myth runs real deep here. Many Fundy's (as I was) see themselves as the natural extension of the HS. This is where the myth comes in; Fundy's, for whatever reason, like the "idea" of Jesus, but mostly just three parts: 1> birth (Christmas), 2> death (yes, despite what Fundy's say, the death of Christ is much more interesting to them--don't believe me?, go see The Passion of the Christ or ANY local passion play--and think about it, the symbol of Christianity is the CROSS-the vehicle for death; if it was more about the resurrection, the symbol would be a rolled stone or an empty tomb), and 3> REVELATION (the picture of Jesus on a white horse riding in with a drawn sword to smite Satan amd judge sinners; is one Fundy's can really get behind). Less appreciated are the teachings/philosophy of Jesus, except when needed; i.e. getting over a recent bought with sickness, sin, death or financial difficulty; or as a cudgel to judge someone else for lack of faith, etc. Fundy's much prefer the black/white writings of Paul. SIDE NOTE: Good old Paul he makes things so nice: faith not works . . . check; no homosexuality . . . check; if Christ didn't die; this is all in vain . . . check. So it is no wonder that Fundy's prefer the drama of the HS. You get real manly stuff here (even Paul kept having to hide or submit, and Jesus had the worrisome "turn the other cheek" thing). The HS is even more direct than Paul, and you get wrath followed by judgement followed by wicked battle scenes and death and more judgement.
Because Fundy religion strives to do away with myth and the mystical, they have no culture of their own; they stand on the shoulders of giants, and pretend they stand on their own. So there is a very real need to be a part of something larger. Fundy's fulfill that need by tying directly into the HS. They see a natural continuation, much like the way a boy will play baseball and see himself as the heir to A.Rod, Mark McGuire, Hank Aaron, etc . . . Fundy's steep themselves in the stories of the HS. Only problem is they view it with the same lens as the CS. They view it as the continued, connected writings of a movement. With the CS, it is much easier to get away with that; the writings are generally about one movement. The CS was written roughly over the course of relatively short period of time. The authors of the CS did all experience similar situations, lifestyles and paradigms (thanks in part to the Roman Empire). However, to do that with the HS is not only academically irresponsible; it is the equivalent of reading Shakespeare, Nostradamus, the Napoleonic Code, and Charles Dickens and assuming ALL these authors approached life in a similar fashion, ALL these writings are of equal and constantly relevant value, and that ALL of these works share a common message. PREPOSTEROUS! And lets also mention the fact that the HS started out as an oral tradition passed around fires of tribes of nomads in the desert; that the literacy rate was nil; that the concept of G-d in the time of Abraham was VASTLY (I'm talking Hindu to Buddhism) different from the G-d of Moses, and VASTLY (again . . .Catholicism to Mormonism) different from the G-d of David. Not to mention the changes in humanity: human development, human history, human awareness, human government, human concept of community and self. Yet, Fundy's (and I was one of them) like to just wrap everything up with a neat bow--and then ad that they (Fundy's) are the actual spiritual heirs of all this. A large part of John Hagee and other Fundy's fascination with Israel is derived from Revelations and the concept I just described above. Fundy's see themselves as the descendants of the HS. I mean at least the Mormons have the common sense to claim a (by the way completely disproved) biological/genetic connection to the "lost tribes". Fundy's don't even do that! They get the luxury of "spiritual heredity". In the words of Dana Carvey's The Church Lady, "Well, Isn't That Special!"
Again, this is done because Fundy's, like EVERY other human group have a need to belong to something. They have outlawed and excised all mystery, so the human mind will substitute where it can . . . Nature will always find a way.
I think I can stop my argument here without further examples--I might do a separate post (Part 1A) where I just explore some specific examples.
I'd love some good comments on the blog, where readers offer examples/analysis of this propensity for myth as it relates to HS.
For the Propensity For Myth Intro, click here
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Propensity for Myth on Roasted Religion-INTRO
OK--after many long weeks, here is the post I have been promising--or at least the first part of it.
I have noticed how fascinated the religious right/evangelicals/fundamentalists (hereafter, for brevity's sake I will just call Fundys) are with myth.
Before I start proving this through MANY examples, i want to kind of work backwards and explain why I think the fascination exists.
I think because fundys are so anti-myth and mystical tradition; and in many cases have cut the mystery, culture and "flavor" from their religious traditions. Fundys are very concerned about being pure. Pure in heart and mind and spirit and pure in practice as well. This is noble and inspirational. However, they, like the Pharisees of old have gotten a little bit off track and the idea of purging myths has given way to increased restrictions and adherence to "man's law".
Fundy religion has evolved over the years, especially recently. they have earned a high degree of success both culturally, monetarily and politically. But the roots of Fundy religion, from what I can ascertain, almost universally began among the less educated populations of people. I am not saying that makes the religion ignorant nor the followers--just hang with me, I am making a sociological argument. Because the traditions and rituals and philosophy and beliefs of most Fundy denominations (and non-denominations) have roots among the less educated--some emphasises and teachings come from that mindset and the associated conclusions.
Roman Catholicism, with its pomp and mystery were "bad", they took away from G-d, they worshiped Mary. AND G-d must want us to live according to the New Testament--The Bible is G-d's word and therefore must be read literally--if the Bible says it, then that is the way it is--anything not understood at this point is either swept under the rug or over explained. These are not a problem individually, but when you put them all together, add the religious power-trip that leaders naturally seem to fall into, add the money and power temptations, and then time to let it all ripen and really concentrate.
What evolved was all these above beliefs in extreme. Even in my lifetime and the increased political power, I have seen the increase in the concentration of some of these beliefs. For example, I was raised that evolution was OK to be taught in school; and most of my church friends felt the same way--you had to put up with it--believe differently because the bible (Sunday school teacher or pastor) said so--but there was not a lot of complaining about evolution--and remember I went to a very small, southern conservative rural high school. NOW, pastors preach not just Creationism, but AGAINST evolution. Parents are encouraged to challenge, fight and protest--or better yet, pull your kids out and put them in the church school or home school them. (I am sure I'll get around to doing a post on this one day) See, that is just an example of the change in the past 20 or so years, and the biggest national change has been increased power and influence through the political process. Well take that same "ripening" effect and spread it out over the past 100+ years. The older religion gets the more outside credibility it gets, the more credibility it gets the more sure its adherents are that their religion is RIGHT. Look at the difference Mormonism is treated now versus 25-30 years (or more) ago. While it still may have been an issue for some that Romney was Mormon, many evangelicals--especially near the end--decided he was closer to them than the other candidates.
So the point I am making is this:
Fundy denominations have ripened and become more "hardened", sure and extreme in there adherence to their original set of beliefs.
Part of that was anti-mystery/anti-myth. In that vacuum (as with any vacuum--EX: tell a kid not to do something, and likely or not that is what they'll try and do first) along with a deeply primordial human need for myth, mystical, mystery and just plain "storytelling"--and you get a group of people who abstain from religious myth/mysteries but subconsciously and sociologically have a need and have developed other myths to fulfill that need.
More on these myths later . . .
To go to The Propensity for Myth, Part I, click here
To return the main page of Roasted Religion, click here
I have noticed how fascinated the religious right/evangelicals/fundamentalists (hereafter, for brevity's sake I will just call Fundys) are with myth.
Before I start proving this through MANY examples, i want to kind of work backwards and explain why I think the fascination exists.
I think because fundys are so anti-myth and mystical tradition; and in many cases have cut the mystery, culture and "flavor" from their religious traditions. Fundys are very concerned about being pure. Pure in heart and mind and spirit and pure in practice as well. This is noble and inspirational. However, they, like the Pharisees of old have gotten a little bit off track and the idea of purging myths has given way to increased restrictions and adherence to "man's law".
Fundy religion has evolved over the years, especially recently. they have earned a high degree of success both culturally, monetarily and politically. But the roots of Fundy religion, from what I can ascertain, almost universally began among the less educated populations of people. I am not saying that makes the religion ignorant nor the followers--just hang with me, I am making a sociological argument. Because the traditions and rituals and philosophy and beliefs of most Fundy denominations (and non-denominations) have roots among the less educated--some emphasises and teachings come from that mindset and the associated conclusions.
Roman Catholicism, with its pomp and mystery were "bad", they took away from G-d, they worshiped Mary. AND G-d must want us to live according to the New Testament--The Bible is G-d's word and therefore must be read literally--if the Bible says it, then that is the way it is--anything not understood at this point is either swept under the rug or over explained. These are not a problem individually, but when you put them all together, add the religious power-trip that leaders naturally seem to fall into, add the money and power temptations, and then time to let it all ripen and really concentrate.
What evolved was all these above beliefs in extreme. Even in my lifetime and the increased political power, I have seen the increase in the concentration of some of these beliefs. For example, I was raised that evolution was OK to be taught in school; and most of my church friends felt the same way--you had to put up with it--believe differently because the bible (Sunday school teacher or pastor) said so--but there was not a lot of complaining about evolution--and remember I went to a very small, southern conservative rural high school. NOW, pastors preach not just Creationism, but AGAINST evolution. Parents are encouraged to challenge, fight and protest--or better yet, pull your kids out and put them in the church school or home school them. (I am sure I'll get around to doing a post on this one day) See, that is just an example of the change in the past 20 or so years, and the biggest national change has been increased power and influence through the political process. Well take that same "ripening" effect and spread it out over the past 100+ years. The older religion gets the more outside credibility it gets, the more credibility it gets the more sure its adherents are that their religion is RIGHT. Look at the difference Mormonism is treated now versus 25-30 years (or more) ago. While it still may have been an issue for some that Romney was Mormon, many evangelicals--especially near the end--decided he was closer to them than the other candidates.
So the point I am making is this:
Fundy denominations have ripened and become more "hardened", sure and extreme in there adherence to their original set of beliefs.
Part of that was anti-mystery/anti-myth. In that vacuum (as with any vacuum--EX: tell a kid not to do something, and likely or not that is what they'll try and do first) along with a deeply primordial human need for myth, mystical, mystery and just plain "storytelling"--and you get a group of people who abstain from religious myth/mysteries but subconsciously and sociologically have a need and have developed other myths to fulfill that need.
More on these myths later . . .
To go to The Propensity for Myth, Part I, click here
To return the main page of Roasted Religion, click here
ROASTED RELIGION: "America NEEDS Conservatives"
You read it right. I said it. Me the avowed and proud LIBERAL said America needs conservatives.
This was prompted by William F. Buckley's death today. Buckley is the father of the modern conservative movement.
It has been said without Buckley there would be no Barry Goldwater and without Barry Goldwater there would have been no Ronald Reagan.
Now I may not agree with all of Buckley or Goldwater--and I think Reagan did quite a bit of damage but also quite a bit of good--I think what Buckley did for conservatives is much needed.
For America to be great, we need a variety of opinions and we need everyone to feel as though they have a voice. One of the great strengths of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention was the discourse and debate that occurred. Jefferson and Adams were on very different sides of the fence, and Franklin was way out there at some points. However, they debated and arrived at consensus--their compromise did not mean one side laying down; nor did their discourse involve airing dirty laundry, scandalizing or slandering each other. (Not that that wasn't done in the political campaigns later on--but at the conventions--work was done) They understood parliamentary procedures.
One of the things that is admirable about the British Parliamentary system is the concept of "LOYAL OPPOSITION". In Britain, the party that is out of power actually form a coalition entitled the Loyal Opposition. Their opinion is taken into account, they form a shadow cabinet and a shadow Prime Minister. Granted, the ruling party rules; but they don't shut out the losing party--they do not discount their loyalty or patriotism. They serve a much needed function--to regulate and provide checks and balances.
This leads me back to William F. Buckley--in the early 50's and into the 60's Buckley set about getting all the cooks and nut jobs out of the conservative movement. He drove the intolerant hatemongers and isolationists from the conservative movement. He made being a conservative about fiscal/free market policies and small government. Yes, he (wrongly) opposed voting rights acts of the 60's (which he later apologized for) but he encouraged the Montgomery boycotts and civil discourse and civil disobedience.--WHY, you ask? What is the difference you ask? Because he saw racism and Jim Crow laws and segregation as wrong--but he felt that change should come not from the gov't or above but from economic factors and the individual.
Much of what Buckley did in the Conservative Movement is actually "Individualism" in that he believed in the rights of the individual over the collective community and definitely over the state or gov't. However, thanks to Reagan (and this is why I voiced my issues with him above) the cooks slowly started coming back into the movement. He started off courting the religious right and then just gave them carte blanche within the party. Then the intolerant and isolationists came back. This escalated until we elected a man to the US Senate from SC who said "A homosexual has no more business in the school system than a single mother."
Do you see the danger of courting intolerance? Now, you may be adamantly anti-homosexual--you may have religious beliefs that you hold dear about their lifestyle and divorce. But under a constitutional democracy you recognize that while your religious beliefs may not be in agreement with divorce--you would never say that person should not work in the school system---the same is true for homosexuals. You cannot legislate morality--and when you do we are just a few steps away from figuring out that if you allow one group to be oppressed, it may be your group next.
That is why we need conservatives, William F. Buckley conservatives--most of whom have joined the Libertarian party after the Republican party became the party of government small enough to fit into private bedrooms and legislate from there. Liberals are made better because of real conservative discourse and debate. Liberals need to hear pragmatism practicalities.
AND YES--here I come again---Conservatives need to hear Liberals vision and progress. Liberals are right that government can be better and should be used for the good of the people--see where Buckley was wrong on the Voting Rights Acts of the 60's--
We are both important to the betterment of America, and the American people will do better when both groups have their voices heard and no one feels marginalized or scandalized or shut out. The best ideas (perhaps the best in the world--The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution and Bill of Rights) were generated from debate between liberals and conservatives and CONSENSUS and COMPROMISE.
This was prompted by William F. Buckley's death today. Buckley is the father of the modern conservative movement.
It has been said without Buckley there would be no Barry Goldwater and without Barry Goldwater there would have been no Ronald Reagan.
Now I may not agree with all of Buckley or Goldwater--and I think Reagan did quite a bit of damage but also quite a bit of good--I think what Buckley did for conservatives is much needed.
For America to be great, we need a variety of opinions and we need everyone to feel as though they have a voice. One of the great strengths of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention was the discourse and debate that occurred. Jefferson and Adams were on very different sides of the fence, and Franklin was way out there at some points. However, they debated and arrived at consensus--their compromise did not mean one side laying down; nor did their discourse involve airing dirty laundry, scandalizing or slandering each other. (Not that that wasn't done in the political campaigns later on--but at the conventions--work was done) They understood parliamentary procedures.
One of the things that is admirable about the British Parliamentary system is the concept of "LOYAL OPPOSITION". In Britain, the party that is out of power actually form a coalition entitled the Loyal Opposition. Their opinion is taken into account, they form a shadow cabinet and a shadow Prime Minister. Granted, the ruling party rules; but they don't shut out the losing party--they do not discount their loyalty or patriotism. They serve a much needed function--to regulate and provide checks and balances.
This leads me back to William F. Buckley--in the early 50's and into the 60's Buckley set about getting all the cooks and nut jobs out of the conservative movement. He drove the intolerant hatemongers and isolationists from the conservative movement. He made being a conservative about fiscal/free market policies and small government. Yes, he (wrongly) opposed voting rights acts of the 60's (which he later apologized for) but he encouraged the Montgomery boycotts and civil discourse and civil disobedience.--WHY, you ask? What is the difference you ask? Because he saw racism and Jim Crow laws and segregation as wrong--but he felt that change should come not from the gov't or above but from economic factors and the individual.
Much of what Buckley did in the Conservative Movement is actually "Individualism" in that he believed in the rights of the individual over the collective community and definitely over the state or gov't. However, thanks to Reagan (and this is why I voiced my issues with him above) the cooks slowly started coming back into the movement. He started off courting the religious right and then just gave them carte blanche within the party. Then the intolerant and isolationists came back. This escalated until we elected a man to the US Senate from SC who said "A homosexual has no more business in the school system than a single mother."
Do you see the danger of courting intolerance? Now, you may be adamantly anti-homosexual--you may have religious beliefs that you hold dear about their lifestyle and divorce. But under a constitutional democracy you recognize that while your religious beliefs may not be in agreement with divorce--you would never say that person should not work in the school system---the same is true for homosexuals. You cannot legislate morality--and when you do we are just a few steps away from figuring out that if you allow one group to be oppressed, it may be your group next.
That is why we need conservatives, William F. Buckley conservatives--most of whom have joined the Libertarian party after the Republican party became the party of government small enough to fit into private bedrooms and legislate from there. Liberals are made better because of real conservative discourse and debate. Liberals need to hear pragmatism practicalities.
AND YES--here I come again---Conservatives need to hear Liberals vision and progress. Liberals are right that government can be better and should be used for the good of the people--see where Buckley was wrong on the Voting Rights Acts of the 60's--
We are both important to the betterment of America, and the American people will do better when both groups have their voices heard and no one feels marginalized or scandalized or shut out. The best ideas (perhaps the best in the world--The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution and Bill of Rights) were generated from debate between liberals and conservatives and CONSENSUS and COMPROMISE.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Conservaties Should Be Ashamed--and Yet McCain Continues to Pander
I just heard that at this year's CPAC convention (where Romney dropped out) they were selling T-Shirts that said:
"I'd rather be water-boarded, than vote for McCain.
How insulting and WHO is dispariging the legacy of a "military hero" now. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE McCAIN IS SELLING HIS SOUL FOR????????
McCain refused to back the Senate version of a ban on water-boarding after being such an outspoken critic of this policy an dtorture in general--WHY??? To win conservatives (who are still willing to vote for Huckabee)???
This is crazy? It is funny that these Conservatives are the same ones that preach family values and "America" and claim to be the experts on Christ's teaching.
WWJD?????
"I'd rather be water-boarded, than vote for McCain.
How insulting and WHO is dispariging the legacy of a "military hero" now. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE McCAIN IS SELLING HIS SOUL FOR????????
McCain refused to back the Senate version of a ban on water-boarding after being such an outspoken critic of this policy an dtorture in general--WHY??? To win conservatives (who are still willing to vote for Huckabee)???
This is crazy? It is funny that these Conservatives are the same ones that preach family values and "America" and claim to be the experts on Christ's teaching.
WWJD?????
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Jesus Camp Commentary--Youth Camp Religion
Below you will find the video "Jesus Camp". It is an exciting and interesting documentary. While some of the people may be "extreme" as anyone who grew up Pentecostal will tell you; people like you see in this video are not that far from the norm, nor that hard to find.
Many people will condemn this and say it doesn't represent them, their church or the fundy's they know. However, that is largely not true. Those i the movie may be more persistant in their faith, but the logical conclusion of the faith professed by most Pentecoastal's/fundy's is found in the lives of the people in this documentary.
I was saddened, deeply saddened. And also sickened by this video. It was too real, and it really made me feel cheap and sad to watch many of its parts. I felt bad for the kids, for the way emotionalism and extremism are masking for spirituality. I felt sad for the way organized religion retricts and holds its converts captive. I hate and detest the way religion, specifically fundamental religion, seeks to keep free thought down. If there is any one sin that rises to the top. It has to be the suppression of free thought. To me, a true sign of a religion founded in ignorance is reflected in its opposition to free thought. WHY would people fret that G-d would be intimidated by mankind's free thought. Do we really think that he would create us as sentient beings and then expect us to not use the minds and intelligence He/She gave us??? Is G-d really that ephemeral and temporial that any human of average to above-average intelligence can blow the cover. The answer is no. However, what that same person can uncover is the ridiculousness of religion and the underlying oppression of organized religion.
I am not saying everyone should believe in G-d; nor that my atheist's friends do not make a logical point. But the point I am making is that people can continue to debate in the existance of a G-d (in whatever manner); but that organized religion, especially when it is fundamentalist or so steeped in (selective) literealism, is derived from some sort of delusional conscious or subconscious decision to suspend logic, reasoning and free thought. One has to suspend their knowledge of real vs. fanatasy; and suspend their own inner thoughts on logic and reason to really buy into this midset. Someone on another blog said it was easy for her to keep her religious identity in a box. That is so true, that is what every fundamentalists have to do in some sense. Keep there religious identity and/or logical identity seperated from each other--each in their own box. The trouble is, the more you learn, the harder it is to keep that box in tact. You want to tear it down and throw it out because it defies logic. You overcome, you adapt, you blame this on Satan and doubt. But the barage continues. Eventually you either decide to not hold it to the scrutiny of logic and just wall it off completely; or the wall crashes and you are left to deal with the bitterness and disbelief.
More later . . . watch the video below and comment away!
Many people will condemn this and say it doesn't represent them, their church or the fundy's they know. However, that is largely not true. Those i the movie may be more persistant in their faith, but the logical conclusion of the faith professed by most Pentecoastal's/fundy's is found in the lives of the people in this documentary.
I was saddened, deeply saddened. And also sickened by this video. It was too real, and it really made me feel cheap and sad to watch many of its parts. I felt bad for the kids, for the way emotionalism and extremism are masking for spirituality. I felt sad for the way organized religion retricts and holds its converts captive. I hate and detest the way religion, specifically fundamental religion, seeks to keep free thought down. If there is any one sin that rises to the top. It has to be the suppression of free thought. To me, a true sign of a religion founded in ignorance is reflected in its opposition to free thought. WHY would people fret that G-d would be intimidated by mankind's free thought. Do we really think that he would create us as sentient beings and then expect us to not use the minds and intelligence He/She gave us??? Is G-d really that ephemeral and temporial that any human of average to above-average intelligence can blow the cover. The answer is no. However, what that same person can uncover is the ridiculousness of religion and the underlying oppression of organized religion.
I am not saying everyone should believe in G-d; nor that my atheist's friends do not make a logical point. But the point I am making is that people can continue to debate in the existance of a G-d (in whatever manner); but that organized religion, especially when it is fundamentalist or so steeped in (selective) literealism, is derived from some sort of delusional conscious or subconscious decision to suspend logic, reasoning and free thought. One has to suspend their knowledge of real vs. fanatasy; and suspend their own inner thoughts on logic and reason to really buy into this midset. Someone on another blog said it was easy for her to keep her religious identity in a box. That is so true, that is what every fundamentalists have to do in some sense. Keep there religious identity and/or logical identity seperated from each other--each in their own box. The trouble is, the more you learn, the harder it is to keep that box in tact. You want to tear it down and throw it out because it defies logic. You overcome, you adapt, you blame this on Satan and doubt. But the barage continues. Eventually you either decide to not hold it to the scrutiny of logic and just wall it off completely; or the wall crashes and you are left to deal with the bitterness and disbelief.
More later . . . watch the video below and comment away!
Monday, February 11, 2008
Disenfrancshisement
What a really big word. It has become something of a buzz word in the 21st century, and has been heavily mentioned in almost every election since 2000.
It basically means, people's votes are being denied, or not being counted.
The latest this was heard was in Washington state. Mike Huckabee, this morning on the Today show, mentioned he felt his voters were disenfranchised at the Primary on Saturday. Or rather, after the primary, when party leaders stopped reporting votes with 87% precints reporting, and declared McCain the leader--even though it had been close, and from my recollection, Huckabee had been leading for most of the afternoon.
This is crucial, because while I think the "religious right" are wrong-headed and intolerant; I think the Republican party chiefs/"deciders" are verging on "corrupt and power-mongering". This is especially true under the leadership of Bush/Cheney (also influenced by Rove/DeLay/Rumsfeld). I have been saying for 10 years now (since I discovered it myself) that the Religious Right/evangelicals/fundy's were just pawns to the Republican establishment. They hyped up social issues and used propoganda, myth and fear to cement their support (a great argument against ignorance, not thinking for yourself, propensity towards myth and "literalism").
Now, maybe I am naieve--but so be it--but I don't believe in "out and out" conspiracy theories. Nor do I believe the Republican establishment is "being evil". I believe they are doing what they believe (and this is probably always the case) to be right. The only issue is what they are willing to do to make that happen. You see it is messy living in a democracy. Everyone gets a voice, regardless of education, ability, work ethic, etc. That means voters have to be courted and what one person sees or thinks is best, is not always what happens. But with the neo-cons or whatever you want to call them in charge--they believe it is OK to use power to get across the greater prinicple. This is one reason why fundy's tend to love them and vote for them. Again, the propensity for myth,--standing tall, making a stand, standing for something . . . I could go on. The only problem is what happens when it is someone else who holds the power, or wants to make a stand. That is the major problem with Republicans and Fundy's--they never seem able to put the someone else's shoes on.
So what probably happened in Washington state was that the party leaders, in all their wisdom, felt it really would be better for their party, their state and the nation; if McCain had a solid victory; especialy after Huckabee won 2 of the 3 contests for Reps. In their (misguided) wisdom, they probably felt justified that the count was trending towards McCain, so lets opp out of counting anymore, declare a McCain victory and get about shutting Huckabee up. Good intentions (misguided and undemocratic though the result and actions were) but fundy's and Republicans both tend to believe it is the outcome not the means that matters.
Only problem is Huckabee is no dummy, and has already had lawyers file to restart vote counting and get to a conclusion. My gut feeling tells me the count would probably have gone for McCain anyway--but it is the PRINCIPLE that matters. It is the appearance of transparency that matters in a democracy. I hope Huckabee can successfully fight this. I don't care much about the results--I won't vote for either of them in November anyway--but I DO care about our democracy. One of the reasons people have been turning out in droves this election year, is because they are tired of being cynical and/or "myth-injected". We want to participate, but we want it to matter. We don't want to be trumped up into voting one way because someone waves a flag and shows a picture of a kneeling soldier; nor do we want our vote, our support and our voice to be taken for granted.
It is amazing to me that Obama and Huckabee are both doing so well this year. They are both from oppsite ends of the political spectrum; but I think for the first time in a long time--people are saying "That is what I would want to be like, if I were a candidate." and for that reason alone--disenfranshicement should not be tolerted in a democracy.
It basically means, people's votes are being denied, or not being counted.
The latest this was heard was in Washington state. Mike Huckabee, this morning on the Today show, mentioned he felt his voters were disenfranchised at the Primary on Saturday. Or rather, after the primary, when party leaders stopped reporting votes with 87% precints reporting, and declared McCain the leader--even though it had been close, and from my recollection, Huckabee had been leading for most of the afternoon.
This is crucial, because while I think the "religious right" are wrong-headed and intolerant; I think the Republican party chiefs/"deciders" are verging on "corrupt and power-mongering". This is especially true under the leadership of Bush/Cheney (also influenced by Rove/DeLay/Rumsfeld). I have been saying for 10 years now (since I discovered it myself) that the Religious Right/evangelicals/fundy's were just pawns to the Republican establishment. They hyped up social issues and used propoganda, myth and fear to cement their support (a great argument against ignorance, not thinking for yourself, propensity towards myth and "literalism").
Now, maybe I am naieve--but so be it--but I don't believe in "out and out" conspiracy theories. Nor do I believe the Republican establishment is "being evil". I believe they are doing what they believe (and this is probably always the case) to be right. The only issue is what they are willing to do to make that happen. You see it is messy living in a democracy. Everyone gets a voice, regardless of education, ability, work ethic, etc. That means voters have to be courted and what one person sees or thinks is best, is not always what happens. But with the neo-cons or whatever you want to call them in charge--they believe it is OK to use power to get across the greater prinicple. This is one reason why fundy's tend to love them and vote for them. Again, the propensity for myth,--standing tall, making a stand, standing for something . . . I could go on. The only problem is what happens when it is someone else who holds the power, or wants to make a stand. That is the major problem with Republicans and Fundy's--they never seem able to put the someone else's shoes on.
So what probably happened in Washington state was that the party leaders, in all their wisdom, felt it really would be better for their party, their state and the nation; if McCain had a solid victory; especialy after Huckabee won 2 of the 3 contests for Reps. In their (misguided) wisdom, they probably felt justified that the count was trending towards McCain, so lets opp out of counting anymore, declare a McCain victory and get about shutting Huckabee up. Good intentions (misguided and undemocratic though the result and actions were) but fundy's and Republicans both tend to believe it is the outcome not the means that matters.
Only problem is Huckabee is no dummy, and has already had lawyers file to restart vote counting and get to a conclusion. My gut feeling tells me the count would probably have gone for McCain anyway--but it is the PRINCIPLE that matters. It is the appearance of transparency that matters in a democracy. I hope Huckabee can successfully fight this. I don't care much about the results--I won't vote for either of them in November anyway--but I DO care about our democracy. One of the reasons people have been turning out in droves this election year, is because they are tired of being cynical and/or "myth-injected". We want to participate, but we want it to matter. We don't want to be trumped up into voting one way because someone waves a flag and shows a picture of a kneeling soldier; nor do we want our vote, our support and our voice to be taken for granted.
It is amazing to me that Obama and Huckabee are both doing so well this year. They are both from oppsite ends of the political spectrum; but I think for the first time in a long time--people are saying "That is what I would want to be like, if I were a candidate." and for that reason alone--disenfranshicement should not be tolerted in a democracy.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
OBAMA WINS US VI
OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!
Obama goes rolling into the Potomac Primary with three big, decisive and diverse wins under his belt.
I was going to call this "Saturday Night Special", but with the results in from US VI--I felt they deserved to lead my headline--as it is probably the only time it would happen. :)
The fracturing of the Republican party over "conservative" candidates is both good and bad. The good part is it shows the party is not as strong or united or monolithic as they are painted/claim/told to be. This is especially good as Democratic turn-out is at record numbers and dwarfing Republican turn-out. The bad part is that the Republicans/evangelicals/fundy's/religious right are notoriously REACTIVE. That is not good for our country, because it meas their VP choice will probably be farther to the right, AND (and worst of all) it means they will be playing dirty and divisive. Make no mistake, they can say what they want about not liking McCain, but they will VOTE for him over any Democrat--and they will be scratching and clawing in any way they can to win. Expect them to get ugly--and what makes me sad for our country and worry about this possible turn of events--is that it is the same set of circumstances that led the majority of Americans to vote for Bush because of "moral values" and the same tactics that made many believe Bush had a stronger/more reliable military record than John Kerry.
Lets just hope that the massive turn-outs contibue and that the people hwo vote are educated on the real issues and facts and not just fear and propoganda and religious diatribes.
Obama goes rolling into the Potomac Primary with three big, decisive and diverse wins under his belt.
I was going to call this "Saturday Night Special", but with the results in from US VI--I felt they deserved to lead my headline--as it is probably the only time it would happen. :)
The fracturing of the Republican party over "conservative" candidates is both good and bad. The good part is it shows the party is not as strong or united or monolithic as they are painted/claim/told to be. This is especially good as Democratic turn-out is at record numbers and dwarfing Republican turn-out. The bad part is that the Republicans/evangelicals/fundy's/religious right are notoriously REACTIVE. That is not good for our country, because it meas their VP choice will probably be farther to the right, AND (and worst of all) it means they will be playing dirty and divisive. Make no mistake, they can say what they want about not liking McCain, but they will VOTE for him over any Democrat--and they will be scratching and clawing in any way they can to win. Expect them to get ugly--and what makes me sad for our country and worry about this possible turn of events--is that it is the same set of circumstances that led the majority of Americans to vote for Bush because of "moral values" and the same tactics that made many believe Bush had a stronger/more reliable military record than John Kerry.
Lets just hope that the massive turn-outs contibue and that the people hwo vote are educated on the real issues and facts and not just fear and propoganda and religious diatribes.
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain and Religious Right
OK, have you heard all the buzz about John McCain and the religious right? I am sure you have. It is ironic to me that there is such opposition to McCain in that camp. I am a Democrat and proudly voting for Obama, but will be glad to vote for Hillary, despite some misgivings.
McCain does not interest me at all (except for the fact that he might be a lesser of evils). His turn around to being pro-Bush after the Bushies knee-capped him in SC in 2000, was despicable and a blight on his "straight talk message".
However, I think the cry against from McCain should send shockwaves to the rest of America concerning the Religious Right. They are NOT interested in bi-partisanship; nor are they interested in reasoned arguments, compromise or "growth in beliefs".
Yes, there are many progressives who may be cynical and will not vote for Hillary--but overall you cannot point to one distinct group who is willing to go so far as to campaign for the other side. Now before I am torn apart with comments proving me wrong--let me clarify by saying "on the national level"--and this excludes moderate/independents who would probably switch to McCain if he were to run against Hillary. The religious right, a bulwark of republicanism for oh so many decades, are pissed. Despite what Ann Coulter says, most will not be supporting Hillary, even in opposition to McCain.
Here is why they are pissed--power and influence. This has been an odd election for evangelicals, despite being courted by so many Republicans, and even having one of their own, they haven't coalesced behind anyone. McCain is too liberal, Romney is Mormon (don't think that doesn't matter to a lot of evangelicals), and Huckabee (who should have been the obvious choice) has made too many compromising decisions. And why is that . . .because he is a populist and pragmatic. Depite what you want to say about a lot of what Huckabee has said or stands for; he has taken somewhat unpopular decisions in the name of and for the sake of governing. He is too friendly and willing to work with the other side. Thus the evangelicals were spilt, or disaffected with those running.
Evangelicals--and I was one of them--are very much about "taking my ball and going home". This is especially true when it comes to politics. Perhaps more so. You see, I know several evangelicals who are not as adamant about abortion or evolution or gay marriage or capital punishment or a host of other issues until they are polarized--often by a tag team approach of conservative pundits & preachers. What happens is, the pundits and preachers paint the choices in the worst possible light for evangelicals: they paint it as a "civil rights" issue. My grandmother (before she passed away) personally told me she thought abortion should not be made illegal, because of the potential danger of illegal abortions--yet she was adamantly against Bill and Hillary and all Dems; and the reason why? Because all of her news information sources agreed that pro-life was a civil rights issue--more about protecting the rights of evangelicals to have their voices heard than it is really about abortion.
The evangelical church is really prone to "conservatism" and I don't just mean from a political standpoint; they don't trust a lot of the institutions and government and media. There is a real tendency to "err on the side of caution" among evangelicals. This is true from raising their children, to church selection, to voting. Go with what you know and what is "safe"--even if it is counter to what you may feel would be a good decision. And the reason for this is because they don't trust the nation, the government or the "whole" to deliver prudently or act wisely. They would rather sacrifice change and progress in order to stay safe.
A lot of the hate and scorn during the Civil Rights error was more about the potential backlash. Not that hate and racism weren't contributing to that; but there main fear was "what will happen to my neighborhood, my church, my children's school, etc." Racism, ignorance and hate are behind the fear; but that is what the fear was. Blacks and the governement were not seen (in their eyes) as being trustworthy enough to pull off this social agenda; and so many evangelicals and fundamentalists of the time chose to keep the status quo; because it was safer.
The same is true today. Evangelicals may look at all of Hillary's policies (and she HAS more conservative stands than most people think) and agree; but they don't trust Hillary to pull that off; and they don't like her because of all the rumors, misinformation and propoganda (my family still argues that Hillary decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms--and that is one of teh many crazy reasons they'd never vote for her. They don't trust the government. They may see the "R" behind McCain's name, but they don't see that he basically stands for and represents many of their major issues; and in the areas where he differs, it is out of pragmatism and reality. However, they (as a whole) are not willing to buy that. There is no guiding, gentling of the religious or party line. They are right, on edict from Gawd! and they will stubbornly hold out, claiming their oppression as a minority (I'm serious) and stand true to (their version of) Christ with an American flag waving in the background.
That is what scares me about evangelicals and also explains why they so supported Bush. He talked the talk they wanted to hear. He was stubborn and arrogant on issues that mattered deep to them. Forget the fact that he didn't deliver on everything--that was just A>Washington secularists &/or B> Democrats. He even felt he had been "annointed or called" to his position, and he could "look into a man's soul". These are all HUGE for evangelicals; and the reason why a> the evangelicals are upset; b> will not support McCain in the numbers they supported Bush/Cheney, and c>would gladly give Bush a 3rd term--if only it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, which should only have one ammendment anyway--I'll let you figure out which one they'd keep----
There is no compromising when you are trained and taught in the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible says it (in your mind/opinion), then to not stand on that priniciple is tantamount to betraying your faith, selling out, and being a secular humanist (the most feared word in Fundy-world).
McCain does not interest me at all (except for the fact that he might be a lesser of evils). His turn around to being pro-Bush after the Bushies knee-capped him in SC in 2000, was despicable and a blight on his "straight talk message".
However, I think the cry against from McCain should send shockwaves to the rest of America concerning the Religious Right. They are NOT interested in bi-partisanship; nor are they interested in reasoned arguments, compromise or "growth in beliefs".
Yes, there are many progressives who may be cynical and will not vote for Hillary--but overall you cannot point to one distinct group who is willing to go so far as to campaign for the other side. Now before I am torn apart with comments proving me wrong--let me clarify by saying "on the national level"--and this excludes moderate/independents who would probably switch to McCain if he were to run against Hillary. The religious right, a bulwark of republicanism for oh so many decades, are pissed. Despite what Ann Coulter says, most will not be supporting Hillary, even in opposition to McCain.
Here is why they are pissed--power and influence. This has been an odd election for evangelicals, despite being courted by so many Republicans, and even having one of their own, they haven't coalesced behind anyone. McCain is too liberal, Romney is Mormon (don't think that doesn't matter to a lot of evangelicals), and Huckabee (who should have been the obvious choice) has made too many compromising decisions. And why is that . . .because he is a populist and pragmatic. Depite what you want to say about a lot of what Huckabee has said or stands for; he has taken somewhat unpopular decisions in the name of and for the sake of governing. He is too friendly and willing to work with the other side. Thus the evangelicals were spilt, or disaffected with those running.
Evangelicals--and I was one of them--are very much about "taking my ball and going home". This is especially true when it comes to politics. Perhaps more so. You see, I know several evangelicals who are not as adamant about abortion or evolution or gay marriage or capital punishment or a host of other issues until they are polarized--often by a tag team approach of conservative pundits & preachers. What happens is, the pundits and preachers paint the choices in the worst possible light for evangelicals: they paint it as a "civil rights" issue. My grandmother (before she passed away) personally told me she thought abortion should not be made illegal, because of the potential danger of illegal abortions--yet she was adamantly against Bill and Hillary and all Dems; and the reason why? Because all of her news information sources agreed that pro-life was a civil rights issue--more about protecting the rights of evangelicals to have their voices heard than it is really about abortion.
The evangelical church is really prone to "conservatism" and I don't just mean from a political standpoint; they don't trust a lot of the institutions and government and media. There is a real tendency to "err on the side of caution" among evangelicals. This is true from raising their children, to church selection, to voting. Go with what you know and what is "safe"--even if it is counter to what you may feel would be a good decision. And the reason for this is because they don't trust the nation, the government or the "whole" to deliver prudently or act wisely. They would rather sacrifice change and progress in order to stay safe.
A lot of the hate and scorn during the Civil Rights error was more about the potential backlash. Not that hate and racism weren't contributing to that; but there main fear was "what will happen to my neighborhood, my church, my children's school, etc." Racism, ignorance and hate are behind the fear; but that is what the fear was. Blacks and the governement were not seen (in their eyes) as being trustworthy enough to pull off this social agenda; and so many evangelicals and fundamentalists of the time chose to keep the status quo; because it was safer.
The same is true today. Evangelicals may look at all of Hillary's policies (and she HAS more conservative stands than most people think) and agree; but they don't trust Hillary to pull that off; and they don't like her because of all the rumors, misinformation and propoganda (my family still argues that Hillary decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms--and that is one of teh many crazy reasons they'd never vote for her. They don't trust the government. They may see the "R" behind McCain's name, but they don't see that he basically stands for and represents many of their major issues; and in the areas where he differs, it is out of pragmatism and reality. However, they (as a whole) are not willing to buy that. There is no guiding, gentling of the religious or party line. They are right, on edict from Gawd! and they will stubbornly hold out, claiming their oppression as a minority (I'm serious) and stand true to (their version of) Christ with an American flag waving in the background.
That is what scares me about evangelicals and also explains why they so supported Bush. He talked the talk they wanted to hear. He was stubborn and arrogant on issues that mattered deep to them. Forget the fact that he didn't deliver on everything--that was just A>Washington secularists &/or B> Democrats. He even felt he had been "annointed or called" to his position, and he could "look into a man's soul". These are all HUGE for evangelicals; and the reason why a> the evangelicals are upset; b> will not support McCain in the numbers they supported Bush/Cheney, and c>would gladly give Bush a 3rd term--if only it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, which should only have one ammendment anyway--I'll let you figure out which one they'd keep----
There is no compromising when you are trained and taught in the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible says it (in your mind/opinion), then to not stand on that priniciple is tantamount to betraying your faith, selling out, and being a secular humanist (the most feared word in Fundy-world).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)