← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 12563 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2004-02-29
2004-02-29 08:39 | User Profile
Tip of the hat to the stellar blog [url=http://littlegeneva.com/mt/index.html]Little Geneva[/url] for linking to this article.
[url=http://chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight022804.html]Frightened by Religion[/url]
by Thomas Fleming
February 28, 2004
In American politics, religion is like a bottle of nitro: You want to keep some with you so you can throw it at the enemy at the first available opportunity, but, as you are bumping along a country road on a hot day, you are afraid it might just blow you to Kingdom Come.
Religion makes the Democratic party very nervous, and well it should. Hypocritical Democrats took out after Howard Dean because he attended neither church nor synagogue, but the religious credentials of Holy Joe Lieberman and Rev-Al Sharpton would not stand much scrutiny. The pious Lieberman jettisoned all his religiously grounded moral positions just for a chance to go down in defeat with Al Gore, and Sharpton... Perhaps we should cut Al some slack since he was the best speaker among the candidates and the most consistent in his anti-Christian leftism. If he would only drop the religious act, I might even consider voting for him as the nearest thing to an honest man in the Democratic Party.
John Kerry is being described everywhere as a Catholic--a good religious label for a politician because these days 'Catholic' is about as restrictive a term as 'Methodist'--but they almost always fail to note that Kerry's own bishop has instructed him not to receive communion because of his anti-Christian positions on abortion, homosexuality, etc.
The 'Catholic' senator form Massachusetts has not seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, but he has heard enough to know that it might be anti-Semitic. None of Kerry's teachers or confessors, apparently, has told him that it is morally wrong to spread libelous opinions, especially when they are not based on first-hand observation. Supposing one were to say, "I don't know the Senator personally, but I have heard many people say he is having an affair with an intern." Oh yeah, the family has changed its mind. Rich Massachusetts senators can be very persuasive. Remember the Kopechnes?
Of course, Kerry could always use the Wesley Clark defense. When it was pointed out that his friend Michael Moore, in endorsing Clark's candidacy, made an unverifiable accusation against President Bush, calling him a "deserter," Clark defended Moore's right to say what he thought, adding that many people had said the same thing. So the liberal ethic is now the Big Lie: Utter a slander often enough and you have a right to go on repeating it. Liars, like other miseries, love company.
President Bush has the Evangelical conservative vote in his pocket, though why they are called either Evangelical or conservative is beyond my comprehension. Ordinary Evangelicals who simply go to Church and read the Bible are one thing; the leaders who deliver up their vote to the Republican Party are quite another. The Evangelical movement is certainly not conservative in a cultural sense. To judge from the music they listen to and the books they produce and read, the Evangelicals are sentimental moderns to their very soft core, and other than accepting a sort of Norman Rockwell vision of the 50's as their concept of earthly paradise, it is difficult to see what is conservative in the politics of their movement. Nostalgia is not a principle.
The only book of the New Testament that seems to interest the leaders of the so-called Christian so-called Right is Revelation, and, if pressed, they are willing to suspend all the commandments wherever Ariel Sharon or the state of Israel are concerned. If ever there were clear case of heresy warping the moral conscience, this is it. Conservative Protestants could be the greatest force for good in American society; instead, they are led down the garden path by a set of ignorant rascals masquerading as clergymen that would bring a blush to the face of Elmer Gantry.
How should conservative Christians vote in a presidential election (like the 2004 election) which has no conservative Christian candidates? By conservative Christians I mean 1) Christians who adhere to the fundamental teachings of Christianity handed down through the millennia--Catholic, Orthodox, and the traditional Protestants in conservative Lutheran, Calvinist, and hardshell Baptist denominations (The list is not exhaustive); and 2) Christians who hold political views to the right of the A-to-B spectrum represented by The New Republic and National Review?
The usual answer is to vote for the lesser of two evils, and in most elections that means the Republicans. who advocate restraint in foreign policy, low taxes, and more limited spending on the immoral social programs that destroy the social and moral fabric of American society. After eight years of Clinton, it was fairly easy for many Christian conservatives to support George W. Bush in 2004. But after waging a war in Iraq, whose original justification has not been verified by evidence up to this day; recklessly spending money we do not have on everything under the sun; providing amnesty for illegal aliens; and pandering to Muslims, it will be difficult for anyone who takes either his religion or his politics seriously to vote for Bush.
The Democrats are out of the question. Ralph Nader was reared in the Catholic faith, but his silence on most questions of religion, morals, and the culture war will prevent him from attracting the disgruntled conservative voters he hopes to appeal to. If Ralph would only defend Mel Gibson, he might have a campaign, but he is as much a prisoner of the Left as Gene McCarthy. Too bad.
Of course many people--especially libertarians and other liberals--say that it is wrong to take religion into consideration in an election. The reductio ad absurdum was recited (or rather gargled--I've never heard such a weird delivery on the radio) by Reason columnist Cathy Young on NPR's Morning Edition (27 February). Ms. Young complains that a 'religious test' is being imposed on politicians. Of course, she concedes, candidates should be able to talk about their religious convictions, but it is "intolerant to make an option an obligation." She deplores the prejudice against the nonreligious or the less-religious, who are "reduced to second class citizens."
I suppose one should not read too much into the tortured logic of a columnist, but Young's reasoning is typical of Reason and of most liberalisms that are current today. Once upon a time liberals pretended to champion freedom of conscience. Let every man worship (or not) as he pleased and espouse whatever life plans or moral opinions he liked. Then along came John Stuart Mill who argued that it was immoral to express disapproval of people who led peculiar (what Christians would call immoral) lives, as he did. Shunning fornicators and adulterers should not be permitted. So religious freedom was never the object, only freedom from religion.
For people like Ms Young today, America cannot truly be a free country so long as Christians have the freedom to express their convictions and vote accordingly. Since Christian considerations are to be taken off the table, the only political argument is the very limited secular debate between pro-government leftists and anti-government leftists. Should we use tax money to fund infanticide or simply encourage it in the schools?
Young's column is not a fluke. Years ago one of the editors of Reason invited me to propose an article. I outlined a piece on how to get government out of the business of moral and social regulation. I proposed to discuss how pre-modern societies, through informal and ritual expressions of shame, ridicule, gossip, upheld the standards of the tribe without government and without coercion. I was naïve enough to think they would go for it, but the answer came down that it was never right to limit someone else's moral options--even through gossip or disapproval--so long as he was not breaking the law or committing aggression.
There you have it. They will have the argument only on their terms. It is as if a fundamentalist would not allow any political debate to take place unless the participants accepted Christ as their personal savior and pronounced the Scriptures to be inerrant.
Traditional Christians and liberals are two peoples. We speak different moral languages, worship different gods, practice different marriage customs. Although we Christians are often content to adopt a live-and-let-live policy, liberals and leftists have been consistently aggressive and exclusive, speaking the language of toleration only as a means of destroying faith and morals. To Hell with them. Let them have their mock elections, their mock marriages, their mock lives. We have better things to do.
Copyright 2004, [url]www.ChroniclesMagazine.org[/url]
2004-02-29 09:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Oh yeah, the family has changed its mind. Rich Massachusetts senators can be very persuasive. Remember the Kopechnes?[/QUOTE]
For those who don't:
Mary Jo Kopechne was in the car with Teddy Kennedy when it went off the bridge at Chappaquidick. She drowned; he swam. He forgot about her for 10 or 12 hours, then helped the cops find the body. You or I would be in jail for far less.
This took place in 1969 and the scandal was muffled by the fact that Apollo got to the moon at about the same time, deflecting lots of attention away from the bridge at Chappaquidick. But the bridge never went away and Teddy lost his chance to be president despite the settlement he reached with the Kopechne family.
2004-02-29 09:38 | User Profile
The only book of the New Testament that seems to interest the leaders of the so-called Christian so-called Right is Revelation, and, if pressed, they are willing to suspend all the commandments wherever Ariel Sharon or the state of Israel are concerned. If ever there were clear case of heresy warping the moral conscience, this is it. Very true -- and they don't need to be "pressed" very hard! That's because it's oh-so-satisfying to release aggression and promote violence when one feels there is a Biblical mandate to do so. Hey, who wants to listen to that Jesus character after all? He's so borrring with all His talk about "forgiveness"! Let's make Christianity about [u]Israel[/u] and war against the Arabs instead!
Of course many people--especially libertarians and other liberals--say that it is wrong to take religion into consideration in an election. I feel obligated to point out that libertarians are not liberals -- at least not in the modern sense of the term "liberal." Anyway...
Is it wrong to take religion into account in an election? Not at all. But it's not a good idea, as any political candidate can lie about his religious beliefs for the sake of political expediency. It is wrong for a system of government to be maintained that allows politicians, once elected, to impose their unproven personal beliefs (or those of their supporters) on others. Unfortunately, that is the situation in which America finds herself today, and that's why our tax dollars are being sent to Israel.
I proposed to discuss how pre-modern societies, through informal and ritual expressions of shame, ridicule, gossip, upheld the standards of the tribe without government and without coercion. I was naïve enough to think they would go for it, but the answer came down that it was never right to limit someone else's moral options--even through gossip or disapproval--so long as he was not breaking the law or committing aggression. I'm surprised that Reason -- a self-styled libertarian publication, I presume? -- objected to such an article. Such community-based, non-governmental means of preserving moral standards are perfectly compatible with libertarianism; in fact, nearly all libertarians would consider such a scenario to be the ideal. Peer pressure is a powerful motivator -- perhaps more powerful than force or threats -- and yet it offers no insult to freedom.
On the other hand, putting a gun to a person's head or threatening him with jail for "not being moral enough" is both hypocritical and utterly un-Christian, as it is far more immoral to harm a non-consenting person than to harm oneself or a consenting adult (as with prostitution). Not once did Jesus instruct his followers to use force against anyone, nor did He allow the crowd to stone the adulteress.
2004-02-29 23:08 | User Profile
[QUOTe]I'm surprised that Reason -- a self-styled libertarian publication, I presume? -- objected to such an article. Such community-based, non-governmental means of preserving moral standards are perfectly compatible with libertarianism; in fact, nearly all libertarians would consider such a scenario to be the ideal.[/QUOTE]
I think you're making the mistake of confusing the generally right-leaning rank-and-file LP membership with the weird little cabal that has taken over the LP and its (unofficial) publications, such as Reason. Near as I can tell, the libertarian movement (and particularly the Party) has been taken over by a clique of homosexuals who simply use libertarianism as a vehicle for promoting a society with no moral standards, by first getting the government out of the morality business. They seem to be allied with the neo-cons, to some extent, and some have even made noises about supporting the war in Iraq (see Justin Raimondo's recent remarks about how a pro-war speaker has been invited to the 2004 LP national convention), since it will make Iraq more like Greenwich Village or something.
2004-02-29 23:13 | User Profile
They've done more than make noises about supporting the war -- they are supporting the war. Here is an interesting article by Raimondo on the topic. In this article, Raimondo skewers Virginia Postrel, Reason, and the LP leadership for aligning with the neocons. It's a pretty good read.
[url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j040802.html[/url]
2004-02-29 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I think you're making the mistake of confusing the generally right-leaning rank-and-file LP membership with the weird little cabal that has taken over the LP and its (unofficial) publications, such as Reason. Near as I can tell, the libertarian movement (and particularly the Party) has been taken over by a clique of homosexuals who simply use libertarianism as a vehicle for promoting a society with no moral standards, by first getting the government out of the morality business. They seem to be allied with the neo-cons, to some extent, and some have even made noises about supporting the war in Iraq (see Justin Raimondo's recent remarks about how a pro-war speaker has been invited to the 2004 LP national convention), since it will make Iraq more like Greenwich Village or something.[/QUOTE]
Guess what ethnic group many of the left-libertarians that have infested the LP come from. People who didn't find the Democrats radical enough to support their "alternative lifestyles." Today's LP is top-heavy with potheads, wiccans and porn stars. The LP has also attracted Randians--neocons masquerading as libertarians IMHO--like Boortz. To them non-intervention is fine and dandy until push comes to shove and Eretz Yisroel is at stake....then it's time for Americans to defend Israel from those Arab "savages" as Rand advocated.
Check out this tripe written by one Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center reprinted it in his newsletter, which marked him as yet another jingoist neocon along with Cliff Kincaid and Joe Farah.
[url=http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/peacenikwarmongers.shtml]Peacenik Warmongers[/url]
2004-03-01 17:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I'm surprised that Reason -- a self-styled libertarian publication, I presume? -- objected to such an article. Such community-based, non-governmental means of preserving moral standards are perfectly compatible with libertarianism....[/QUOTE] This is the concept of "natural order", explicated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Sloan Wislon, and Matt Ridley, among others. An embrace of "natural order" follows from application of "libertarian" "principles", but as we all agree Jewish "liberatarians" -- like Jews of other stripes -- do not adhere to objective or universal principles. Instead, the "principles" are applied inconsistently to serve the ultimate agenda, the welfare of the Jewish group. The separation of the concept of natural order from "libertarianism" is long overdue.
2004-03-01 19:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]For those who don't:
Mary Jo Kopechne was in the car with Teddy Kennedy when it went off the bridge at Chappaquidick. She drowned; he swam. [/QUOTE]
She didn't drown. She suffocated. She was down there alive in an air pocket waiting for help. She ran out of air while Teddy was hudding with his buddies talking about how to cover up his latest mess. She would be alive today had he wanted to rescue her.
2004-03-01 20:25 | User Profile
Buster:
Correct. My mistake.