Popdose: Pop Politico: <i>The Great Derangement</i>
DwDunphy
· 1 year ago
I think the scariest thing about modern religion in general is the extraction of agendas and how they're framed as being biblical. See, I believe in the teachings of Christ and I am a Christian, yet a lot of my fundamentalist friends see me as some backslidin' hardhead that can't get with the program.
The program, as I see it, is a series of tollbooths placed between you and God - cloistered confessionals, belief that you're not forgiven until you've confessed to your spiritual guide, be it a priest, pastor, or even rabbi. For a Christian, Jesus died and was resurrected in order to break apart those tollbooths to have a direct communication with God, no more blood sacrifices, spiritual proxies and such...
However, there's a lot of power to be wielded if you have Christ as your stabbing spear. You frame your candidate as God's own choice, your opponent as the Antichrist and forever assert that the United States is a Christian Nation of God's design, and people will pay attention to you even (if I'm correct) if that places your political figures and your country at the top of your list, making them false idols (oops, didn't think about that one, did you?)
If one goes to the example of Jesus versus the bumper sticker version of him, you get a whole lot of things that make a whole lot of sense, and at the same time, a whole lot that our most prominent preachers are in direct violation of - pride, self-aggrandizement, an inability to "come down here" and "drink with the sinners and hang with the thieves"...
Finally, one said "turn the other cheek" and another said, "fight, fight, fight and never stop fighting"... How Fundamentalist America reconciles those two philosophies into the current electorate choice baffles me.
autodidact
· 1 year ago
I gotta give Taibbi credit. He's pretty hard on everybody. I like that. His recent Rolling Stone piece, Candidates For Sale, condemns Obama and McCain as both likely servants of the same big campaign donors. It's the same money, the same machine, two different faces. Take your pick. Can McCain rise above that to instigate real reform? As a McCain voter, honestly that is nothing more than a leap of faith.
DwDunphy raises some great issues in his comment. He said it pretty well, so why repeat? One small point about the apparent disconnect between "turn the other cheek" and "fight, fight, fight." It has to do with the difference between personal vengeance and national defense. If you believe the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament (I do), then it is clear God is no pacifist. "The LORD is a man of war," says the book of Exodus. But justice and defense are to be carried out by the community and the nation, not individuals. Even the New Testament recognizes the government as "carrying the sword" as "ministers of God," "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13) But personal vengeance is not allowed, in Old or New Testament. That may not solve the issue for DwDunphy, but this is the Fundamentalist basis for supporting law and order, and (at least in theory) for taking out evildoers like Al Qaeda and Saddam. It isn't mere jingoism, or at least for the Christian it shouldn't be.
DwDunphy
· 1 year ago
Here's the problem though. The commandment to spread the Word to all the world is taken often as a spiritual right to wage war. It is not. In fact, the movement of "Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war..." is more about saying your peace and, should the Spirit move the recipient, connecting. If the recipient is not obliging, you may die, as in war. Now that's just a hymn, but all through the New Testament, we are "To live as Christ, to die as gain..." We are absolutely supposed to turn the other cheek, even if that means losing our heads (scarily, you can take that literally.)
So we face the ultimate contradiction: Yes, we must defend our borders against violent marauders. Still, we are called to meet them in their land as peacemakers and reconcilers, not as armies. I read that fairly explicitly as being diplomatic, not militaristic. By going to war with anyone who has not first assaulted us (re: Iraq, no matter how heinous Saddam was) we immediately contradict our Christian Nation status.
autodidact
· 1 year ago
I'm not asking anyone to accept it. I am just hopefully providing understanding of the concept for those who find the attitudes of Evangelicals a mystery. I might not have even explained it well, from their point of view. I only explained it from my point of view. :)
As for Iraq, the intelligence was bad. Maybe other motives were bad. The plan was bad, or at least incomplete. Do you agree with the incursion in Afghanistan, though? Most Democrats seem to be saying they are/were unapologetically gung ho for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. I don't know what the position of the religious left is, even though I subscribed to Michael Lerner's Tikkun for a year. My guess is their response would be wave the white flag.
(I hope that in the present day, no one is waging war to spread the gospel. That's not my impression.)
I don't think there is any "negotiate" option with terror. We must continue to fight, but do it smarter. And cheaper. We simply can't afford what we're doing now.
Ted
· 1 year ago
The Rolling Stone piece was quite good, but in the end, Taibbi is still smitten with Obama -- mostly because Obama sounds like he really believes what he's saying on the stump.
As far as violence and religion go ... none of the major religions in the world are immune to being inconsistent in promoting peace and advocating violence, and that's probably because the duality of human nature is reflected in the texts.
ozarkmatt
· 1 year ago
This sounds like a great read. Like Dw, I have my beliefs, and they are not as "in tune" as some of the people I know, and they let me know it. I have had a running debate with a dear friend of mine for about two years about her hard core Catholicism. Or more accurately, my non-hard core Catholicism. But I hate to paint that broad brush of "modern religion."
I'll have to check this out.
And, as an aside, the "Truthers" are nuts. . .
Ted
· 1 year ago
When you read the book, you'll see that while not all the Truthers are nuts, there is one major guy in the movement who is just insane -- and Taibbi gets into it with him.
steve
· 1 year ago
Earmarks are a big deal, and CNN has done some great fact checks. This could hurt Obama big time. Of the four names on the ticket, only McCain is clear of this BS that goes on. Obama & Biden have requested hundreds of millions in the Senate, and Palin has requested millions for Alaska. But forget Biden and Palin - we're really voting for Obama vs McCain and McCain is in the clear on this. He prides himself on having never requested one. CNN ran a report yesterday saying it's true. Actually I'm surprised he hasn't played this up more, since I think it could hurt Obama. I'm still voting Obama, but finding out about his earmark requests has pissed me off and I'd like to hear him address it and address this corruption. He need to walk the walk on this one.
Ted
· 1 year ago
I don't think Obama has been hiding from requesting earmarks. In a case of "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" Obama was critical of Hillary Clinton during the primaries because she wouldn't reveal the earmarks she tucked into bills, while he did: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/1...
I like Taibbi, although sometimes I think he conceives himself as "Gonzo heir" or "Gonzo 2.0--less drugs, more sense." Is that unfair?
At any rate, having grown up in an old-skool Mennonite church where half the members walked out to form their own charismatic mega-church...and remembering how it divided families (real rage happened in kitchens and living rooms for months on end...Kurt Cobain had nothing over these people in the angst department) and crushed friendships...I find it hard to believe that they are some sort of uniting political force.
These places--and I am not familiar with Cornerstone specifically, just in general terms--are kind of islands unto themselves.
I am a hardcore lefty now. Unapologetically so, to the ire of some of the family back in Ohio.
But sometimes I cry "BS" on my own kind when I smell conspiracy theories against either righties or lefties that don't ring true. I will have to read Taibbi's book now and judge for myself, but it just seems that it's easy for us to pile on the right sometimes and it smells a little like that is going on.
Dw., excellent commentary here. I'm right there with you on most of your points.
Meaningless aside: Am I the only one tired of the micro discussion of the candidates' positions and strategies? I mean, with me it boils down to Obama is 60/40 good-bad and McCain 40/60. Both will have to wear some amount of lipstick if you know what I mean. Personally I may come out a few dollars ahead voting for one or the other but to me the election is summarized thus: One man wants to build up people and the other wants to build up people's wallets. What kind of person are you?
I think I know for whom Jesus would have me vote.
autodidact
· 1 year ago
"One man wants to build up people and the other wants to build up people's wallets. What kind of person are you? "
Build up people. Yes. Is government the tool to use for this job? Michelle Obama thinks there is a "hole in our souls." And her husband is the only one who can "heal" us. Sorry, but that's not what government is about. I hope that's not what it is going to come to. That's rainbows and unicorns kind of talk. If that's the way it's going, our Republic is dead.
In one sense, the question is kind of academic. We're heading into crisis. Which team will be better crisis managers? There ain't gonna be no building up wallets or people. It may come down to which one can help us avoid the most hurt. Which arrangement of deck chairs on this Titanic would you prefer?
mojo
· 1 year ago
Wait, wait, is Michelle Obama on the ticket? I must not have been paying attention? Now I have to take her into consideration as well?
Ted
· 1 year ago
On the stump, you're not going to get answers from either candidate besides a blurb here or a blowhard threat there (i.e., "Fire Chris Cox of the SEC). However, the debates may provide a glimpse of how well McCain and Obama will handle the current downward spiral.
DwDunphy
· 1 year ago
I like Taibbi, but you're spot-on. He does fancy himself as Thompson's heir.
All Comments
The program, as I see it, is a series of tollbooths placed between you and God - cloistered confessionals, belief that you're not forgiven until you've confessed to your spiritual guide, be it a priest, pastor, or even rabbi. For a Christian, Jesus died and was resurrected in order to break apart those tollbooths to have a direct communication with God, no more blood sacrifices, spiritual proxies and such...
However, there's a lot of power to be wielded if you have Christ as your stabbing spear. You frame your candidate as God's own choice, your opponent as the Antichrist and forever assert that the United States is a Christian Nation of God's design, and people will pay attention to you even (if I'm correct) if that places your political figures and your country at the top of your list, making them false idols (oops, didn't think about that one, did you?)
If one goes to the example of Jesus versus the bumper sticker version of him, you get a whole lot of things that make a whole lot of sense, and at the same time, a whole lot that our most prominent preachers are in direct violation of - pride, self-aggrandizement, an inability to "come down here" and "drink with the sinners and hang with the thieves"...
Finally, one said "turn the other cheek" and another said, "fight, fight, fight and never stop fighting"... How Fundamentalist America reconciles those two philosophies into the current electorate choice baffles me.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2221...
DwDunphy raises some great issues in his comment. He said it pretty well, so why repeat? One small point about the apparent disconnect between "turn the other cheek" and "fight, fight, fight." It has to do with the difference between personal vengeance and national defense. If you believe the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament (I do), then it is clear God is no pacifist. "The LORD is a man of war," says the book of Exodus. But justice and defense are to be carried out by the community and the nation, not individuals. Even the New Testament recognizes the government as "carrying the sword" as "ministers of God," "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13) But personal vengeance is not allowed, in Old or New Testament. That may not solve the issue for DwDunphy, but this is the Fundamentalist basis for supporting law and order, and (at least in theory) for taking out evildoers like Al Qaeda and Saddam. It isn't mere jingoism, or at least for the Christian it shouldn't be.
So we face the ultimate contradiction: Yes, we must defend our borders against violent marauders. Still, we are called to meet them in their land as peacemakers and reconcilers, not as armies. I read that fairly explicitly as being diplomatic, not militaristic. By going to war with anyone who has not first assaulted us (re: Iraq, no matter how heinous Saddam was) we immediately contradict our Christian Nation status.
As for Iraq, the intelligence was bad. Maybe other motives were bad. The plan was bad, or at least incomplete. Do you agree with the incursion in Afghanistan, though? Most Democrats seem to be saying they are/were unapologetically gung ho for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. I don't know what the position of the religious left is, even though I subscribed to Michael Lerner's Tikkun for a year. My guess is their response would be wave the white flag.
(I hope that in the present day, no one is waging war to spread the gospel. That's not my impression.)
I don't think there is any "negotiate" option with terror. We must continue to fight, but do it smarter. And cheaper. We simply can't afford what we're doing now.
As far as violence and religion go ... none of the major religions in the world are immune to being inconsistent in promoting peace and advocating violence, and that's probably because the duality of human nature is reflected in the texts.
I'll have to check this out.
And, as an aside, the "Truthers" are nuts. . .
Wall Street Journal has an interesting story on campaign claims and earmarks: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134...
And CQ Politics looks at what constitutes pork barrel requests: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&d...
I like Taibbi, although sometimes I think he conceives himself as "Gonzo heir" or "Gonzo 2.0--less drugs, more sense." Is that unfair?
At any rate, having grown up in an old-skool Mennonite church where half the members walked out to form their own charismatic mega-church...and remembering how it divided families (real rage happened in kitchens and living rooms for months on end...Kurt Cobain had nothing over these people in the angst department) and crushed friendships...I find it hard to believe that they are some sort of uniting political force.
These places--and I am not familiar with Cornerstone specifically, just in general terms--are kind of islands unto themselves.
I am a hardcore lefty now. Unapologetically so, to the ire of some of the family back in Ohio.
But sometimes I cry "BS" on my own kind when I smell conspiracy theories against either righties or lefties that don't ring true. I will have to read Taibbi's book now and judge for myself, but it just seems that it's easy for us to pile on the right sometimes and it smells a little like that is going on.
Dw., excellent commentary here. I'm right there with you on most of your points.
Meaningless aside: Am I the only one tired of the micro discussion of the candidates' positions and strategies? I mean, with me it boils down to Obama is 60/40 good-bad and McCain 40/60. Both will have to wear some amount of lipstick if you know what I mean. Personally I may come out a few dollars ahead voting for one or the other but to me the election is summarized thus: One man wants to build up people and the other wants to build up people's wallets. What kind of person are you?
I think I know for whom Jesus would have me vote.
Build up people. Yes. Is government the tool to use for this job? Michelle Obama thinks there is a "hole in our souls." And her husband is the only one who can "heal" us. Sorry, but that's not what government is about. I hope that's not what it is going to come to. That's rainbows and unicorns kind of talk. If that's the way it's going, our Republic is dead.
In one sense, the question is kind of academic. We're heading into crisis. Which team will be better crisis managers? There ain't gonna be no building up wallets or people. It may come down to which one can help us avoid the most hurt. Which arrangement of deck chairs on this Titanic would you prefer?