Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Nov. 12th, 2004

Ultimately, here is what I get from the fashionable blaming of Christians for the failures of the left.

Adolph Hitler rose from obscurity by blaming the jews for the treaty of Versailles. This treaty was a horrible burden on Germany, but it did result from the practices (and excesses) of the leaders of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Hitler obviously wouldn't gain any traction by blaming mom and dad, so he astutely exploited historical dislike of Jews to gain power for the National Socialist party and himself.

The left is clearly willing to blame the minority evangelicals for its current woes; the difference, of course, is that Christians, like it or not, do form the majority social class in this country, so much so that any candidate for higher office must publicly embrace Christianity. The liberals would like to blame their failure to explain and sell its platforms to the majority of Americans on the Christians, specifically the evangelicals. This will not work; the majority of Christians are moderates who bear little resemblence to the church of the inquisition. Any attempt by the far left to persecute the Christians, even the evangelicals, on the basis of religion will alienate the moderate Christians in both parties (not to mention, of course, those among the independent).

(I didn't see the Hillary Clinton speech the other day, although Rabid did. Apparently Hillary is telling people that they need to use the bible to help the poor and disadvantaged.)



( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 12th, 2004 11:32 am (UTC)
I have no idea how to respond to this. But I didn't see the HC interview either.
Nov. 12th, 2004 04:55 pm (UTC)
i DO know how to respond to this:
what the foja? "fashionable blaming of christians"? "for the failures of the left"? persecution of christians?

fashionable among WHOM? what failures?

ok, you're actually drawing a parallel between the race hatred of Adolf Hitler and the left's distrust of american fundamental christianity?

i haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, bx. if by "current woes" you simply mean Geo. Bush in the white house, i guess there's some ground, seeing as how we've been having this discussion about the importance of fundie sentiment among Bush voters. but that's not "blame" -- that's simple causation. we're talking about what sequence of events resulted in the election of Bush to a second term. if you can honestly, and with a straight face, compare the following two statements:

"I'm disappointed and distressed that so many of my fellow Americans feel that Bush is somehow morally superior to Kerry"


"Jews are filth and must all be killed"

then all's i can say is, you've got a great future in the republican party. :P

fortunately for us all, most infringements by religious radicalism on civic life--public posting of Ten Commandments and the like--have been shot down in the courts (by those dreaded "activists judges" no less)... therefore there's not much i can think of in terms of "current woes" to actually assign blame for; were i, however, seeking an appropriate guilty party, i would look to politicians who cater to evangelicals rather than the evangelicals themselves. i've been clamouring for years (thou know'st well) that the current prez is downright ASSHOLIC in his exclusion of agnostics and atheists from his discourse -- it's always "people of faith" or "people of all faiths" with him, the dickhead.

"The liberals would like to blame their failure to explain and sell [their] platforms to the majority of Americans on the Christians, specifically the evangelicals." so what you're doing, bxiie, is placing blame on one party (the left) for blaming another party (Joe Churchgoer) for not agreeing with them. uh... isn't that a tautology? you don't agree with me, therefore i don't agree with you! or at best, just nonsense: "It's all YOUR fault that you don't agree with me, NOT MINE! NYAAH!"

then, without a breath, you move from the concept of "convincing" Christians (presumably to broaden their worldview and/or understand that the public good is NOT up for auction to the highest-paying deity) to "persecuting" them. where, oh where does this come from?

(yeah, ok, and according to my grandfather, the ruin of our society was all the fault of "them kids" who were all smoking "that pot." and just look how that all turned out, with all "them kids" rounded up into concentration camps in the '70s. oh, wait, that was a Frank Zappa record, not reality. whew.)
more in a minute, believe it or not...
Nov. 12th, 2004 05:02 pm (UTC)
part two
i understand that you're saying hitler *exploited historical dislike of Jews*; but in this case, who, precisely, is similarly exploiting "historical dislike of fundamentalists" as a means to power? certainly not kerry--he was careful to be respectful if not exactly gushing about his and others' christianity. pundits? bloggers? what power can they hope to achieve by demonizing fundies?

let's see, who else can hope to rise to power through scaring up hatred of one group or another? well, there's Bush, but well garsh, it'd be kinda silly of him to demonize fundamentalist christians, wouldn't it? hey! WAIT A MINUTE! there's faggots! and they're all smoking "that dick"!

bxiie, ALL your discourse has proceeded as if there had not been a massive direct-mail and phone campaign by the RNC centered in battleground states urging voters to vote GOP because the Demoncrats [sic] were out to legalize human-skink marriages and illegalize ownership of Bibles; or that the Concerned Women of America (of which I'm a member), the Family Values Coalition, the Americans for Family Values, and a hundred other "public policy" organizations--not to mention national, regional, and down-in-the-valley churches-- didn't all urge their constituencies/flocks to vote "life" and to "protect the sanctity of marriage." certainly left-leaning groups did the same thing in reverse; and certainly we're seeing the fallout from BOTH sides of the nonsense they spewed (e.g., "the left/right is going to put the right/left in concentration camps"). i could make a case that the literature the RNC sent out or the e-mails from CWA are persecution... it'd be a weak little case, but i could make it from the point of view of the victim of oppression. this much is true: it HURTS to read untrue invective about you as part of a group (e.g., "the radical homosexual agenda seeks to destroy the social fabric of america"--ostensibly by getting married and getting a nice house in the suburbs).

when the day's done, i don't know whose invective is more widespread or more pernicious--the religious right's about the LGBT community or the secular left's about the religious right. honestly, i don't see a whole lot of lies in what the left says about the religious radicals in society--mostly the latter speak perfectly well for themselves! but that may be my point of view, which you're welcome to try to correct--i wish you WOULD put some substance behind your claims of oppression on the part of the left. however, until and unless you address (and, i hope, renounce) the persecutorial bent among the very folks you're claiming to BE persecuted, bxiie, you're fighting a dishonest fight.

finally, we're both throwing around opinions like "the majority of Christians are moderates"... honestly, i don't have any data to support or deny that assertion--in fact, i'm not even sure how we define "moderate" as opposed to "fundamentalist"... my take has always been that "fundamentalist" christianity is that which assumes the individual's community of believers (be they local or worldwide, but as defined by certain key tenets) are the only "saved" ones, and the rest of the world is hellbound. and i have always assumed that this is a HUGE segment of the american population--maybe because nearly everybody in my life from age 0-18 was a fundamentalist christian. (for example, catholics would certainly all go to hell as they didn't buy into the "born again" aspect of christ's salvation racket.)

but so anyway, bxiie, you haven't provided any evidence for this assertion either. i'm willing to look at anything and listen to any argument, but i'm NOT just going to buy, wholesale, that "the majority of christians are moderate". if you DO have data, please post 'em.
Nov. 12th, 2004 07:55 pm (UTC)
Re: part two
Okay, so I agree that the Hitler comparison (analogy, rather) is overwrought; I was hoping someone would call me on Godwin's law.

Failure of the left; by this I mean the inability to produce a successful candidate.

Certainly the far-right is a gang of hostile kooks as far as theological issues are concerned. I accept that they do attack homosexuals. I certainly do not support any such idiocy. Does Laura Bush? Do the Cheneys? How do you know Bush does, except for his (admittedly pandering) attempt to reserve the use of a word to that of a historical usage?

Your refusal to accept that the majority of Christians are moderates is reasonable, but I think we agree, then, that neither one of us knows the true impact of religion on the election of Bush. By 'moderate Christians', I meant they accept that other ideologies have merit.

I do not think my statement forms a tautology. Shall I rephrase it? It appears that the vocal unhappy left would like to blame the failure to elect ABB on the fact that some huge number of intolerant Christians who would not ordinarily vote came to the polls, drawn by the goals of limiting homosexuality and abortion, overlooking the basic issue that they failed in the crucial task of voter outreach.

You question the persecution of Christians; please, Christians are marginalized in the media constantly. They are constantly the butt of jokes, the source of social tension and disunity.

Of course I agree that it is hurtful to read bogus crap about yourself; as a conservative, I get a little of this crap just from reading the papers. Certainly not to the level that homosexuals get this garbage at the hands of 'the church'. The church is a big place, though. Do you think the majority (or even a large minority) of churches in, say, Wilmington, have anti-gay stances? I've never heard anything anti-gay in a church I was attending, though I must admit it's been a few years since I've been in a church and, of course, the church I was going to was the Episcopalian; the church Henry the 8th founded when he decided it was too limiting to be a Catholic.

Frankly, I don't know anyone that has any kind of animosity towards homosexuals. I know few people with strong feelings about abortion, one way or the other, either. So that's what I base my world view on.

For what it's worth, I'm a registered independent. I didn't receive anything regarding the national election from either party. I guess my state's paltry number of votes means the Indies here don't count, or the 'homos are the spawn of Satan' letters weren't being sent out up here. Maybe they were only localized, in a similar vein to the Democrat Bush Special Olympics flyer. Vermont is certainly not a battleground state. Voter turnout was much higher than usual here, too, though, despite the lack of moral stirring.

Our local candidates came by but none of them said anything about any of these 'theological issues'.
Nov. 12th, 2004 07:55 pm (UTC)
Re: part two
Can you show me where Bush has said he would limit the rights of gays? I have not seen this, except for the (what I consider to be) semantic limitation of the word 'marriage' to be limited to single male/single female relationships. I don't get it, though; why the insistence on the antiquated term? What is wrong with Civil Union, if such a contract has the same rights and privileges?

Any amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman would be bogus. Certainly it would be turned over in time like the eighteenth amendment. It would lose Bush voters among the moderates.

One thing that would be interesting to see would be a measurement of the voter's happiness with a candidate.

I'm certainly not thrilled with Bush; as I have said, I might well have voted for a democratic candidate if a reasonable one had been presented. I voted for Clinton his first term. I voted for Perot for Clinton's second term. By no means am I Republican.

My point is that the moderates on both sides and in the middle probably outweigh the ends if a reasonable candidate can be found. I can't help but feel that most people just don't care that much about these supposedly hot-button issues. The vocal ones, sure.

Now, as to comments taking exception to my comparison of the left's unhappiness with Christians to the start of the Holocaust; aren't such comparisons fair game? Certainly we've seen enough garbage comparing Bush to Hitler; just think back a few days to when the unhappy left were comparing the election of Bush to the start of the Holocaust and advent of concentration camps.

Also; it's ludicrous to use the same exit polls that predicted a decisive Kerry victory to divine actual voter's beliefs or motivations.
Nov. 12th, 2004 05:52 pm (UTC)
Here's where we differ:

If Kerry had won, (and he did only lose by a small percentage of the votes) there would have undoubtedly been a buzz about the liberal "voting blocks". Most prominently, these are the African Americans, the unions, and the 'university intellectuals'. And, undoubtedly, there would be liberal pundits that would have countered with how silly and unthinking the right was being with their buzz. I would SO not be one of those pundits.

Dude, the elections were less than 2 weeks ago. The conservatives won a lion's share of the government. And you're on line comparing liberal grousing to the start of the Holocaust. If I posted some kind of shit on my LJ about gay marriage rights being similar to the start of the American Holocaust, you'd be on my ass like white on rice.

Reality check - your side won. At least take a month off from being so pissed over the election. I reiterate: you won. Stop complaining. Go have a beer. Play with the kids.
Nov. 12th, 2004 06:46 pm (UTC)
Oh, so he does have a mandate. Cool, I'll tell him you said so.
Nov. 13th, 2004 12:19 am (UTC)
Um, what? You mean Bush? You lost me there.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )


Bjamexza Q. Pyndejo / James O. Payne, Jr.
Bxiie Q. Pyndejo

Latest Month

May 2013