Here's a common point of view:
"the Baptists, a term that is quite rightly almost synonymous with Southern Baptist"
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/237-regionalism-and-religiosity/
But it turns out not to be correct, since many Baptists (more than in the SBC, I'm told) are banding together in the New Baptist Covenant Celebration, starting Wednesday in Atlanta:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/27baptists.html
Huckabee won't be attending. He was offended by Jimmy Carter criticizing George W. Bush.
I like this sort of approach: go out and do something to draw supporters from right wing religious groups, by creating something better. It seems Jimmy Carter has been working on this for some time.
Bruce Cohen@#433:
Regarding neolithic cultures, didn't Margaret Mead get the woold pulled over her eyes by some of her subjects?
In addition to the locals fooling the anthropologists, sometimes the experts just don't want to believe something really happened. Cannibalism, for example. Many people didn't want to believe the Anasazi of the U.S. southwest had at some point practiced cannibalism. Some of the most severe critics said they wouldn't believe it until a list of unmistakable signs were found, including certain human biological markers in human coprolites (fossilized feces). Fair enough. All the signs, every one of them, have since been found.
Disclaimer: I am not an anthropoligist, and I got this out of Smithsonian Magazine, so if you are or know better, please correct me.
Some "universal" taboos turn out not to be universal at all.
Terry Karney@#432:
Thank you for asking questions instead of making accusations.
"jayskew: Where did I say the RRR was a monolith?"
Good question, Terry. You didn't use that word; however you do seem to consistently refer to them as all the same. If I've misunderstood you, please let me know. (Note the difference here between declaring that the other person said something vs. saying they seem to be refering and asking for clarification.)
"Why do you think my vicsiously attacking someone by knowing what, in his books, would offend him, is a good way of treating with them?"
While I didn't characterize what you did as "vicsiously attacking", I believe I already explained at some length that the specific example you gave regarding a passage from Matthew led to the proselytizer embarrassing himself in front of a group of people, including people he was trying to convert and even more in front of his own assistant, thus losing credibility for himself.
If he's less credible, he's less effective, and thus less likely to gain more converts or to keep those he's got.
Without your Matthew response as rebuttal to his inappropriate (in my view) attempts to proselytize, his assistant would more likely have seen him as strong and effective. Strength seems to be very important to right wing religious followers; they want a strong leader to follow.
Does that answer your question? If not, I'll be happy to clarify.
"Why should I make common cause with them?"
There's another example of an unqualifed "them", relevant to your first question above.
I have already answered this question in #351, #402, and #430. If those answers weren't sufficient, please tell me what was inadequate about them and I'll be happy to answer further.
"Why do you persist in telling me what you think I don't know?
You keep asking me.
"As for the rest, Xopher's comment about your tone say more than I have managed to convey in all my attempts."
Well, Terry, if you want to be offended at your interpretation of somebody's tone, there's nothing stopping you.
Xopher@#430:
So it's all right for P.J. or you to be arch with C. Wingate but it's not all right for someone to be (in your interpretation) arch with you?
And while you have no hesitation about reading emotion and intention into everything I write, you're offended when I make a speculation as to yours? At least I wrote "I think" rather than just asserting that you felt or intended something.
New and perhaps less offensive interjections of mild astonishment: Dagnabbit! Gosh darnit! Golly gee whillikers!
Summer@#427: regarding dealing with right wing religious peopel:
"For me, it depends on the person."
For example?
"And for the record, I can understand completely why Terry is unhappy with the way you've treated him. It's too bad that you apparently can't. Same with Xopher."
I've treated them by calmly answering each and every one of their posts, and meanwhile carrying on with the topic at hand.
Further:
"...you cannot conceive of your own communications as being anything other than crystal clear, nor anyone else's misunderstanding of your meaning or intent as being due to anything other than their own shortcomings, unreasonableness, or emotionality."
If I thought that, why would I keep clarifying? See also:
"Could I have written it more clearly? Sure, and that's the case with almost anything anyone writes. Have I clarified it since? Many times, and you now admit that you know your original reading was not what I meant. But no, I'm not going to agree that my wording was the whole problem here. Your preconceptions and anger do seem to have played a major role."
Meanwhile, I notice that Xopher thinks (#431) it's all right (albeit "a little edgy") for P.J. to use the exact same phrase to C. Wingate that he's complaining that I used, and for Xopher himself to be "a little edgy" with C. Wingate.
Please consider your double standards.
And to all a good night.
Xopher@#427: Thank you for laying out your position. That is much more constructive than making vague accusations of "attitude" and avoiding addressing the subjects at hand.
The NYTimes article was actually written by Pinker, not by some random reporter. The chances are thus in my mind rather good that he represented it fairly. Which is not to say that he doesn't have his axes to grind. As I've discussed with others on another forum, he does seem to work his political leanings into his writings, as for example where he characterizes leftists as emphasizing only two of the basic moral colors while "conservatives" emphasize all five. However, that doesn't affect the basic thesis of the article, that there are apparently some basic moral senses, of which apparently five can be enumerated.
Yes, the article is long. I took that to be another indication that it might be more or less accurate, rather than some newspaper hack job. When I get time, I plan to dig up some more of Pinker's writings on this subject, and possibly some of his sources' writings.
Meanwhile, your post establishes that you don't actually know of any points I've made that have been rebutted, and that your whole case for any "attitude" coming from me is based on one phrase.
Regarding the passage containing that phrase, you spell out that you read into it some general preconceptions you have, without actually paying attention to what the passage said.
You're also reading not only your preferred meaning into it, but a "belligerent" tone that just wasn't there. Amusement and astonishment is what you and Terry continue to provoke in me, along with a bit of sadness that such obviously bright people let their preconceptions get in the way of hearing what other people say.
Meanwhile, Lee@#161 used that exact phrase, while Mary Aileen@#168 started with "Really?" responding to one of your posts. I don't see you taking either of them to task for that phrase or calling them belligerent. Which makes me think it's not the phrase: it's the subject matter. I think you saw someone having the temerity to respond to your ex cathedra assertion of an incest taboo as a "universal human norm" and responded angrily.
Could I have written it more clearly? Sure, and that's the case with almost anything anyone writes. Have I clarified it since? Many times, and you now admit that you know your original reading was not what I meant. But no, I'm not going to agree that my wording was the whole problem here. Your preconceptions and anger do seem to have played a major role.
So no, I won't accept your suggested rewording; I've already supplied plenty of my own, thank you. I would suggest that you work on your anger and hatred; they're getting in your way. Your current post indicates that maybe you're doing that; thanks for trying.
"I no longer think it's useful to attempt to reason with the religious right. Keeping them from getting any more recruits: useful. Educating people on the fringe of their movement: useful. Making compromises or common cause with their core members: worse than useless. They'll smile to our faces while they go on figuring out how to put knives in our backs."
We're in complete agreement on all those points. Note that where I've recommended common cause, you've added "with their core members" which I've never said; rather I've repeatedly recommended peeling off their fringe members and keeping them from recruiting more.
There also seems to be some misunderstanding in that you and Terry seem to keep thinking I'm recommending reasoning with them. Being ready to rebut their pseudo-religious rationalizations in their own terminology isn't reasoning in any deep sense. It's showing strength and not letting them hold the floor, thus opening the possibility of swaying their fringe members or the uncommitted. Beyond that, I recommend that the *rest* of us use reason to understand the enemy. Such understanding may include not only understanding their tactics (they say John 3:16; Terry says Matthew 6:5-7), but also trying to discover what they're really afraid of and what they really want. That's where the Pinker paper seems promising.
Beyond that, we need to be doing something better. Dealing with poverty, health, and the environment, for examples. In addition to needing to be dealt with anyway, those topics have the added benefit that many of religious rightist followers already also want something done with them. Funny how they, like everybody else, want their children and themselves to be healthy and reasonably well off. So if they see real progress being made, they may turn away from their former radical authoritarian religious rightist leaders and follow real leaders for a change.
This is already happening to some extent. There have been several recent examples of megachurch pastors being bounced out the door by their own elders because the elders and congregation got sick of hearing nothing but hot button issues (abortion, gay marriage, abstinence!) and wanted somebody who would deal with more important issues. If you're interested, I can probably dig up references.
"It's times like this when I'm glad not to be a Christian (not that there's anything wrong with being one): I don't have to feel guilty about hating people who hate me and plan to kill or imprison me and mine."
There are other sources of morality than Christianity, and there are other ways to react to enemies than hatred or guilt. Personally, I find Epictetus most refreshing on such points.
"If you don't think they're planning that, I think you underestimate their extremism. I don't think I will convince you of this, though."
I was already convinced even before I followed the links you posted. In addition, I was the one who found and posted the quote by Huckabee in 1998 where he said:
"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
There are plenty of examples in history of what a nation controled by "Christians" can do. Spain under Franco, who was (and at least until recently, still was) lauded by the Catholic church. Augustine, who, while famous for his writings, also used the full force of the empire to suppress anyone in his diocese who didn't kowtow to the party line as he set it forth. And of course Athanasius.
I'm sure many people on this list can add examples.
In my mind, these are all good reasons for why we should not let hatred blind us. It causes us to misrecognize friends as enemies. We all need all our senses about us to produce something better than a "Christian nation". Hey, how about a pluralistic democratic republic that deals with real problems?
"A Republic, if you can keep it." --Ben Franklin
Finally:
"Nothing in this post is intended to belittle or insult you, and I hope you won't take offense to anything I've said here."
Indeed I haven't before, nor do I now. Nor is anything I have written intended to belittle or insult you, and I hope you won't take offense.
John Mark Ockerbloom@#409: That was a good writeup.
Related to the general idea of thinking about the issues instead of just following accepted opinion, here's a video of Dan Savage going into a den of Huckabees and trying to make them think, or at least actually interact with an actual gay man:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXWoqIAuxw
Terry Karney @#420: "jayskew: I am taking offense because you are offending me. I tell you I understand how the RRR think. You ignore this."
I say "Loved your story. If that's one of your methods, I'm all for it. Note that it involved understanding your enemy..." and you say I ignore your understanding?
"you are insisting I am offended because you are telling me painful truths about myself"
Once again, you're just making up stuff that I didn't say. It might be worth considering that most of what I've written *isn't about you*; it's about the subject at hand: dealing with right wing religious people.
"It's not that I am going out of my way to twist things."
Given that you consistently come back claiming I said things I simply did not say, it sure looks that way to me. At least you admit that at least one other person read what I wrote as saying what I wrote. I have to say I agree with Tim Walters: I think you're letting preconceived ideas get in the way of reading what I write.
"At that point you might want to follow your own advice about figuring out what it is I need to hear to receive your message; because right now, it's not happening)."
The part you're not hearing is about the RRR not being a monolith. Some of them aren't ever going to be convinced of anything but their own views. Others may, with time, think different.
Other people have gotten that. You may, or you may not.
Xopher@#405: I think your position on attitude is projection. You repeatedly characterized an article about substantive research by a professional in his field as "NYT crap" and refused to read it. You said "I do hate them" at some length. Your comment about "it's time to man the barricades" caused C. Wingate to say he "pretty much got off the argument".
Meanwhile, at least one other person lauded your barricades comment. I guess some people like your attitude, so I won't suggest you lose it. I would suggest you stop letting it get in the way of reading what people write.
What positions do you think I've taken that have been refuted?
I believe I've gone out of my way to clarify my positions. Please do the same, without the ad hominem characterizations.
Summer, Ethan, Kelly, what do you recommend for dealing with right wing religious people?
Summer Storms@#400: "use an excerpt that actually pertained to that POV"
I did, Summer; it pertained exactly to my POV that "the ick factor" in general is wired in. Having used the NYTimes excerpt to enumerate what the five icks found by research are, I then explicitly spelled out that I thought the religious right's supposed ick about homosexuality (not mentioned in my post until then) was really about two of those: purity and authority.
The article has some quite interesting thoughts about those five items. Hint: it's not mainly about homosexuality, either, which it mentions only in passing as "behavior" and a "bone of contention".
Terry Karney@#401: So I end by complimenting you, and you still make up stuff I didn't say and go out of your way to take offense at it.
Your own anecdote, by the way, illustrates my point, which, yet again, is not about meeting them half way; it's about countering them and using the counters to go beyond just stopping an immediate problem. Your mention of a specific Bible passage had no immediate effect on the main spouter, but his henchman eventually noted it, looked it up, and got the spouter to read it.
The point is: they're not all the same. You probably didn't convince either of them, but one listened enough to actually get what you were saying, and that was enough to cause the other one to make a fool of himself, decreasing his credibility in the eyes of the crowd, and possibly in the eyes of the henchman.
Meanwhile, there really are some of them out there who are not swinging their fists into your nose. Even some of them who are trying to deal with causes that we do indeed all have in common, such as poverty, health, and the environment. I previously provided links for some of those.
Those common causes give us all an opportunity to move ahead on things that do matter to us all, and along the way to peel off followers from the hardcore leaders of the religious right.
That isn't meeting them halfway. That's finding topics where some of them have already come over to the bright side, and pulling them farther along.
The RRR is not a monolith. It is people, many of whom are followers who have been duped out of fear. Your knowledge of how they work (which I explicitly praised) could be quite useful in unduping some of them, if you so chose.
You may find it appropriate to ignore anybody who fits into one of the categories you've labeled until one of them takes a swing at you. Meanwhile the religious right isn't doing the same; it's out there organizing rings around us. Some of us prefer to look at what to do about that.
Indeed that goes beyond your point of view. Sorry if that offends you.
Xopher@#375: I guess you didn't see the part about pharaohs being
exceptions to universal taboos in "Even Pharaohs who married their
sisters? It seems even one of the supposedly most universal taboos
had exceptions." Feel free to reorder those two sentences as you
suggest if that helps you understand them.
Xopher@#378: As for the hatred, count me out.
Terry Karney@#376: Curiously enough, other people may have opinions
that are supersets of yours.
I don't know who you think is asking you to meet right wing religious
people halfway; it ain't me.
You really don't think knowing what they're afraid of could be useful
in countering them?
Good luck to you with your approach.
Summer@#380: I'd been reading the articles other people linked to,
and foolishly assumed that other people would do the same, in which
case my point would have been much clearer. Thanks for catching up.
Terry Karney@#381: Loved your story. If that's one of your methods,
I'm all for it. Note that it involved understanding your enemy enough
to quote his own book back at him and show him up as a hypocrite
in front of people he was trying to influence.
"Sometimes, one needs to use tough-love."
Ain't it the truth.
Interesting discussion by Steve C., Tim Walters, Julie L., and JESR.
And to all a good night.
Terry Karney@#355: "You are missig my point."
Not so. I'm going beyond your point and *adding* that much of the so-called "religion" they're trying to impose on the rest of us isn't even really worth the name of religion. And this is not just to deprecate their "religion"; it's to point out that there are apparently underlying factors that produced it in the first place (fear, mostly), which can be useful to know in learning how to fight them.
Of course the right wing religious in the U.S. are enemies of the Republic and of those of us who support it insofar as they try to subvert the Constitution or otherwise impose their personal and religiously rationalized ick factors on the rest of us.
I said nothing about you hating anybody; I said "merely attacking", as in attacking isn't enough.
Do you want to fight this enemy without understanding who they are? Good luck to you. They'll be running rings around you, just like they have for the past six (or forty) years.
"Whose telling them to treat me as though I weren't an enemy?"
Some fellow named Jesus told them to love their enemy.
Not bad advice. Too bad they don't listen to it.
And love doesn't have to mean "meet them half way" (which I also did not say).
What the religious right needs, in my opinion, is to be stopped from taking political power and *also* shown that they don't have nearly as much to fear as they think they do. Stop them imposing their rationalized icks on us and help them help us with things that are actually worthwhile, such as poverty, health, environment.
That last part is maybe the harder part. But it's going to be necessary if there's ever to be a long-term solution to this problem.
albatross@#356: '"Ooo, icky" is not reasoning, and shouldn't masquerade as such.'
Ah, but so often it *does* so masquerade, and we need to be able to see when and where that happens, and be ready with appropriate countermeasures. For example, whenever somebody claims the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, be ready to quote the Treaty of Tripoli. Whenever somebody says the Bible bans homosexuality, be ready to point out that only a very few verses say anything about that, and they're all pretty shaky. Etc.
You probably won't persuade many of the people who say those things. But you will keep them from convincing other people; you will keep them from dominating the conversation; and you will look strong, which may sway some of their least-convinced adherents.
Xopher@#357: You continue to interpret the article as "NYT crap" without reading it; apparently you missed that I said Pharaoh was a god when I brought him up; you seem to infer that I made some sort of assertion about incest among the common people of Egypt or that there was no incest taboo, neither of which I said: I said *Pharaoh* was the exception.
(Although it turns out, according to candle@#362, that there was sibling marriage among the common people of Egypt.)
I do appreciate your apology, however.
My point was that there are exceptions or variations even to the most widespread taboos; they seem to arise for cultural or practical reasons; and they're often cloaked in religion.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting this point to think I'm trying to say that homosexuality is such a taboo. Rather the contrary. Homophobia may be a cultural manifestation of some other taboo, such as authority or group cohesiveness.
This supports my main point that the religious right's objections to homosexuality aren't really religious in origin. I think they're just some groups' religious rationalizations of their cultural homophobia, which itself is probably due to fear or (as someone else pointed out) sexism (which is also probably due to fear).
As for diplomacy, see above.
Regarding reason, I didn't recommend reasoning with the religious right.
I recommend that the *rest* of us use reason, so as to better understand them and our own positions.
However, the religious right is not a monolith. Many of their followers are confused and frightened; that's why they cling to their authoritarian leaders. If they can be shown a better way, they may follow that instead. Even better, if they can be shown that the oh-so-horrid other (gays or whatever) isn't so horrid after all, by somehow getting them to actually interact with what and whom they fear, they may get over their fear.
Some of them may even learn to think for themselves. Then they might grow up.
"I think the main problem we face today is overreaction, making martyrs out of people who desperately want to become martyrs. What it will take is patience, good information, and a steady demand for universal education about the world’s religions. This will favor the evolution of avirulent forms of religion, which we can all welcome as continuing parts of our planet’s cultural heritage. Eventually the truth will set us free."
--Daniel C. Dennett
http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html
Xopher@#339: If you actually read the article, you might find it agrees with most of your points. Plus it is based on actual research, not opinions of a single pundit.
Also, I'm surprised at you; stooping to imputing to me views for which you have no evidence (and which are not ones I hold).
It's also amusing seeing you use the old western rationalization for how pharaohs couldn't really have married their sisters: it's just a linguistic thing. Sure, and Jesus didn't really have brothers, either. I think if you look into recent professional opinion on Egypt, you'll find that pharaoh did indeed often marry his sister.
Abraham and Sarah are relevant exactly because it's an inconsistency in the book that the religious right claims as basis for its "universal" moral stance, much of which is really its religious rationalizations of its own cultural icks.
Terry Karney@#349: "That's not a religous issue, it's a caring for others issue."
In my opinion, any religion that isn't mostly about caring for others isn't worthy of being called a religion. Unfortunately, many of them aren't. Many are just about their tiny guts.
Terry Karney@#341: 'I'm not arguing that "icky" isn't innate. What I am saying (in re homosexuality) is that it doesn't have an innate "icky" factor.'
Which was my point. Did you read the article?
As to "other issues", if you want to stop the religious right from imposing their religious beliefs on society, do you not think it would be useful to understand them, either as an enemy, or as a benighted group that needs help?
Merely attacking them just makes them more fearful, and can result in them being more organized, and thus more dangerous. Finding common cause (poverty, health, and environment, excuse me, "creation care") could be a way to help them stop being so fearful, and maybe even grow up.
Terry Karney@#312: 'As I said to jayskew... if the "icky" factor were universal, had existed through the ages, and were so today, I might accept the premise that some basic quirk of human nature made it something innate.'
The ick factor is indeed innate. The particular expression differs per culture:
"When anthropologists like Richard Shweder and Alan Fiske survey moral
concerns across the globe, they find that a few themes keep popping up
from amid the diversity. People everywhere, at least in some circumstances
and with certain other folks in mind, think it?s bad to harm others
and good to help them. They have a sense of fairness: that one should
reciprocate favors, reward benefactors and punish cheaters. They
value loyalty to a group, sharing and solidarity among its members
and conformity to its norms. They believe that it is right to defer
to legitimate authorities and to respect people with high status. And
they exalt purity, cleanliness and sanctity while loathing defilement,
contamination and carnality."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?em&ex=1200373200
&en=180615d155579d74&ei=5087%0A
The particular religious right ick about homosexuality is presumably mostly about purity, and no doubt at least somewhat about authority, in the form of dominance, as other posters have pointed out. And probably about conformity to the group; see below. These are all things that are reinforced by religions, but that don't necessarily originate with the religion. Religions may be formed around groups with particular icks. Desert nomads tends towards sky gods, etc. If you prefer to see that as desert nomads are better attuned to seeing the true nature of the one true deity, feel free.
The Greeks have been used as an example of a group with a particular ick (or lack thereof). Yet Athenians and Spartans had very different icks regarding such things as how to raise the youth and how to party at night. Some scholars seem to think this has to do with Spartans originating as Dorian invaders (historians and archaeologists correct me on the details). But that customs differ doesn't mean that groups and people don't have icks; they just have different ones depending on their history and customs.
Xopher@#314: "By contrast, every culture we know about, ancient and modern, has had an incest taboo, justified by various means, but it's a universal human norm."
Oh really? Even Pharaohs who married their sisters? It seems even one of the supposedly most universal taboos had exceptions. After all, who else was a Pharaoh going to marry who was of equal rank? Religiously justified, of course, because the Pharaoh was a god. Speaking of gods, Hera was Zeus's sister.
For that matter, Abraham's wife Sarah was his half-sister, and there's no only no objection to that in the Bible: it's used as justification for Abraham loaning her out on more than one occassion.
C. Wingate@#306: "That is a major strategic problem. The assumption that shutting off the Christian right is going to make those moral qualms go away is, I think, overconfident."
Indeed. However, stopping the "Christian" right from taking more power would remove one of the biggest sources of imposition of personal feelings of ickiness onto the society at large.
"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
--Mike Huckabee, 1998
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/1998/jun/08/huckabee-us-gave-religion/
I think everyone is missing an obvious aspect of why the religious right is so obsessed with homosexuality.
It's fear. Fear that they might be approached by a homosexual. Even more fear that they might (like numerous of the people they've elected) like it.
And fear that if gay marriage were legalized, their children might turn away from one-woman-one-man marriage. After all, if you believe that nobody should turn to government for assistance; everyone should depend on the family and the church; if alternatives to that become popular with your own people, where are you left when you're old or sick?
I think it's fear that makes most such people turn to that sort of religion in the first place. Fear of the other. Fear of themselves. So much fear they accept doctrines that make no sense and ignore plain facts before their faces because their religion provides structure and a group.
Hey, it worked for Augustine when he invented (OK, popularized and proof-texted) original sin! People then and now are willing to believe they're guilty because of something their ancestors did 6,000 years ago rather than try to make sense of the world for themselves.
This is relevant to Charlie's assertion that atheists are religious. It may seem that way to someone who frames everything in terms of religion. (Well, in Charlie's case, apparently in terms of monotheistic Christian religion, since he doesn't think Shinto or pantheists or maybe Buddhists, too, I can't tell, are religious.)
But what if you frame everything in terms of evidence, reason, and compassion? Then the burden of proof is on those who claim a vindictive judgmental god, especially one who wants to enforce rationalizations of its believers' ick feelings.
And such believers then seem not like the norm; instead like objects of pity.
We should help them. To grow up.
PS: Lest anyone try to claim I am attacking religion in general, I'm not. I'm poking fun and some pity at fear masquerading as religion. Augustine would be appalled by and Jesus would weep at the intellectual and moral shoddiness of the current crop of religious "fundamentalists" of all religions.
Terry Karney@253: 'The squick factor seems to boil down to, "It's wrong because it's wrong" which is the religious culture shaping the way people look at it.'
Isn't it really the other way around? This aspect of so-called "religious" culture is shaped *by* the squick factor. Look at how and when the Confessing Church Movemment got formed, for instance. It's because of its founders' and members' visceral revulsion for homosexual marriage. They paint a thin veneer of scrip
tural justification over it (necessarily thin because there isn't much of any su
ch scriptures to base it on), but that's rationalization of their gut feeling.
They claim to worship a great God, but they really worship their tiny guts.
Meanwhile, here's Jim Wallis on the Daily Show telling Jon Stewart the religious right is finished as a dominant force:
http://revolutioninjesusland.com/index.php/2008/01/23/its-official-jim-wallis-said-it-on-jon-stewart/
And he has the intestinal fortitude to say people are interested in real issues such as poverty, war, and the environment, rather than the religious right's few tiny-gut hot-button wedge issues.
Of course, even if he's right, that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of cleaning up to do and we still need to keep a wary eye for the Huckabees of the world.
LMB@#208: "And yeah, the Evil Liberal Cabal takes over the Episcopalians, while the RRR gets the SBC and the southern Church of Christ, the Dominionists get the Assemblies and stealth technology, and Ennui gets the Presbys, the Methodists, the Disciples of Christ. And the Lutherans get carved up among the lot. I don't think I like the odds."
I suppose it's easy to think in terms of denominations, but that's not how it actually works these days. Presbyterians, for example, come in several flavors. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is notably more evangelistic and authoritarian than the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA). And within both there's the Confessing Church Movement which is a grouping of lay members and churches that doesn't follow the standard Presbyterian church organization. It's a steeplejacking organization against ordaining gays, against gay marriage, and for pretty much everything authoritarian Paul ever wrote. The Confessing people are just as active in Buffalo, NY and Orange County, CA as they are in Bucksnort, TN.
The situation is similar in quite a few other denominations.
"Regarding Joyce R-W's remarks, seems like when Liberals put together a long-term plan, it's termed a Commie Plot by the Powers that Be."
Yes, and the bigger problem is liberals and progressives mostly don't put together a long-term plan, while the reactionaries do have such plans and are busily implementing them while the liberals haven't even caught on.
Lizzy L@133: "But I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about Benedict, Galileo, etc."
Well, then, I suggest you look up steeplejacking:
http://www.amazon.com/Steeplejacking-Christian-Hijacking-Mainstream-Religion/dp/097719728X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200893957&sr=8-1
My point, which you ignored in favor of seizing upon a detail, was that the sort of "Christian nation" rhetoric that Huckabee espouses doesn't divide neatly according to traditional denominations. Instead, "conservative" Christians (actually, mostly followers of recent reactionary reinterpretations of Christianity) are systematically undermining every denomination they can get their hands on, which is most of them.
Lee@97: Projection explains many things the Republicans try to blame on the Democrats. To the extent that whenever they try that I now look to see whether the Republicans have already done it. Most of the time a simple google finds they have.
Dena Shunra@5 Anyone who hasn't read Bob Altmeyer's The Authoritarians,
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
really should. It's based on decades of research. Then to see names named, read John W. Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience.
However, could you all get off the "small town in the south" nonsense? The biggest authoritarian in the race is Giuliani, and his fascist tactics in NYC are a bit hard to explain by reference to the south or any small town.
Charlie Wingate@125: You're making a common mistake of thinking the various Left Behind, Dominionist, etc. religious movements align according to traditional demonimations. They don't. They're in almost every denomination Quakers, for example, may be an exception, but Catholics are not. The Pope just got banned fromm speaking at a university in Italy because he said Galileo's sentence was rational and just. Do I need to mention abortion?
Further:
'"So I finally asked them: 'How many of you have ever heard a single sermon or even some kind of talk at church about what the Catholic faith actually teaches about the Second Coming?' There were 200 or more people there and four or five hands went up. That's what you see everywhere."
'These Catholics didn't know their catechism. But, many could quote chapter and verse from another doctrinal source -- the "Left Behind" novels by evangelical superstars Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.'
http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2004/04/07/
For other denominations, see for example the Confessing Church Movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Movement
http://confessingchurch.homestead.com/
Note #3 of their "three essential doctrines". Think about #2 in relation to the Constitutional amendment discussion.
The Constitution is hard to amend? Anybody heard of Prohibition? Religion can get it amended.
Huckabee only wants to amend it for abortion and gay marriage? He only said that's all he's thinking of *now*. And what's this *only*? Constitutional amendments for those aren't bad enough?
Huckabee can't get elected? Countering Limbaugh's attacks on him, Huckabee notes that he supported Reagan when Reagan was down in single digits in the polls. Remember when Reagan was considered a crazy radical rightist who couldn't possibly win? I do.
Remember how Reagan won: "We can meet our destiny... for all mankind, a shining city on a hill." --21 Sep 1980.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1980/index.shtml
In his farewell address he explicitly attributed it to John Winthrop in 1630 (who was paraphrasing Jesus), and he adds "built on rocks", another Jesus reference. Consistent "Christian Nation" allusion.
I know all the Republicans candidates want to be Reagan, but which one is most like him, in religious style over substance?
#32: "but what I find most striking is the stark difference in the emotionalism being used by and against the different factions. The attacks on the Democratic candidates generally try to cast them as bad people, but the attacks on the Republican candidates generally cast them as crazy people."
I guess you've missed the media left and right casting Kucinich as crazy for saying he saw a UFO.
Or here's someone at DailyKos calling Bill Clinton batshit crazy:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/16/15525/2630/690/437631
The whole Obama madrassa bullshit was equivalent to calling him crazy, because the people pushing it equate madrassa with terrorist with crazy.
The Hillary "meltdown" nonsense was supposed to imply that she's too emotional to govern, i.e., crazy.
Meanwhile, *Republicans* are casting Huckabee as crazy; not implied, said outright:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2007/11/26/matthews-liberal-media-should-grill-crazy-huckabee-views
See also Limbaugh's feud with Huckabee.
Here's a more reasoned version:
http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/January2008/03/Viguerie_on_Huckabee.html
It's exactly that Huckabee is *not* speaking in dog whistles that scares the Republican establishment.
"What was already a steady campaign against Huckabee is about to become a full-throated assault. And the theocons will ultimately realize what the rest of the party thinks about them. They are supposed to be cannon fodder. Nothing more."
As for Huckabee only wanting to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage and abortion: what makes you think it would stop there?
#29
"What the hell IS natto, anyway?"
It's a traditional children's breakfast food.
Fermented soybean curd is accurate, but doesn't begin to describe it.
Think cod liver oil for a vague equivalent.
When the boy eats it and sticky threads string from his mouth, that's natto, all right.
Hard Gay deserves a medal for getting a natto hater to eat it.
#26: Why do you think an isolationist country would be any more free or less watched?
The Internet will remain a means of effective communication only as long as we insist that it be so. The administration that keeps implementing more airport surveillance with arbitrary rules (this month it's lithium batteries) is the same one whose FCC just forced through more media consolidation over the objections of just about everybody at the hearings it held, as well as objections by subcommittees of both the House and Senate. The same FCC that around 2000 did away with thousands of competitors to the current telco and cableco Internet access duopoly, and then in successive decisions took away common carriage protection from cable, landline, and wireless Internet access. Meanwhile, the administration insists on retroactive immunity for the telcos that helped with illegal warrantless wiretaps (in which they continue to supply *all* transmissions to the government), and except for Chris Dodd's filibuster would have gotten it already.
In this direction lies the Internet as cable TV: you get to pay for a package of hundreds of channels with nothing to watch. You wanted to participate instead? Sorry, that doesn't pay enough to an entrenched duopoly that only understands broadcast media.
#30: If you think there's no "they" involved with these decisions, I suggest you read Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean: he names names based on years of research and the experience to know what he was researching, and he provides copious documentation. You don't need a vast majority to be murdering scum: you only need a tiny minority to be radical authoritarians who value power over everything else, and a significant minority of authoritarian followers who will do whatever they're told because Big Brother told them to.
#35: Cockpit doors were the single thing that TSA did that was most useful. And that didn't require a TSA to do it. While TSA may have been implemented as a real security initiative, it provides endless opportunities for control for its own sake.
#94: Maybe she meant to say murdered *for* Osama bin Laden, in the same way that Neil Armstrong meant to say one step for *a* man.
Let's ask her and see, er, well....
NYTimes won't even publish facts when they might be politically inconvenient:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5260
Why would you expect them to publish anything about science?
#21: These are the people you're talking about:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
People who want to torture don't want it for revenge. They want it because the like to inflict pain, and because they want to oppress people.
Torture isn't a tool of intelligence-gathering: it's a tool of oppression.
'Now it appears that sleep deprivation is "only" CID and used on Guantanamo Bay captives. Well, congratulations, comrades! It was exactly this method that the NKVD used to produce those spectacular confessions in Stalin's "show trials" of the 1930s. The henchmen called it "conveyer," when a prisoner was interrogated nonstop for a week or 10 days without a wink of sleep. At the end, the victim would sign any confession without even understanding what he had signed.'
--Vladimir Bukovsky, "Torture's Long Shadow," Washington Post, 18 Dec 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 16 |
| 2007 | 15 |
Total: 31 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by jayskew:
Show all comments by jayskew.