Post-Election Analysis

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Well, there does seem to be a parallel in which ranking Democrats have military expeience and ranking Republicans do not. And even though it hasn't been stated verbally, there seems to be some unspoken sentiment that we are not as patriotic - which you'll understand just burns us up!

That reminds me of something I heard - something like NO member of Congress (or perhaps just the Senate) has a kid in the military. NO ONE - Rep or Dem. IIRC, it was Geraldine Ferraro (Dem) who said that, rather sheepishly. Did anyone else hear that?

[Elfhelm]

I'm sorry, I said I was gone for the weekend but I wanted to reply to JD one more time -- I just can't shut up!

Patriotism is definitely NOT waving the flag and supporting the President no matter what he does. Agreed? That is what Castro calls patriotism. It is the opposite of what our founding fathers wanted. Agreed? They wanted us to challenge the rulers and hold them to high standards. As long as we can agree on that, everything else is OK.

As a side note, my brother the CO who didn't talk to me for years after I enlisted sat in my living room a few months ago and countered my questions about the invasion of Iraq with, "but they attacked us first". I was stunned, to say the least. Now I will roll my eyes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Patriotism is definitely NOT waving the flag and supporting the President no matter what he does. Agreed? That is what Castro calls patriotism. It is the opposite of what our founding fathers wanted. Agreed? They wanted us to challenge the rulers and hold them to high standards. As long as we can agree on that, everything else is OK.

It wasn't about the relentless attacks either - like Michael Moore. I don't think anyone has suggested supporting a president no matter what though.

As a side note, my brother the CO who didn't talk to me for years after I enlisted sat in my living room a few months ago and countered my questions about the invasion of Iraq with, "but they attacked us first". I was stunned, to say the least. Now I will roll my eyes.

Let me guess - he only watches FOX News.

[Insidious Rex]

Well Education Secretary Rod "No Child Left Behind" Paige is stepping down. Not a great shock. Nor will it mean a huge shift in policy since he was kept under such a short leash by the Bush administration who really called the shots. He was basically a cheerleader for their policies. And Im pretty sure he didnt want another four years of that kind of micro managament. They seem to think that domestic policy adviser Margaret Spellings will be his succesor since Spellings has really been pulling the strings in terms of education policy for Bush all along. Many conservatives are disapointed with this choice since it means there is likely not to be any real push as far as vouchers or charter schools or any real major new education initiatives at all. Of course all this is still "unofficial".

So with Gonzales now as likely attorney general and fundamentalist christian Ashcroft gone are we in fact seeing a step away from the far right here? Bush owes the fundies big time for getting him elected. Where will that show up? The supreme court? I can tell you that many conservatives are silently exhaling that Bush posted Gonzales to attorney general and not to the supreme court as some had expected because of his more liberal leanings on abortion and some social issues. Personally Im a little leary of having the State Attorney General being someone who is so close to the president (being his former lawyer and good friend for years and oh! corporate lawyer for ENRON of all things...) because that position is supposed to be completely impartial and hold ALL levels of the administration accountable if need be. Any investigation involving the white house or the administration (CIA leeks?) will now be suspect. Hopefully this aspect will be explored in detail in the confirmation hearings. As will, Im sure, what hand he played in crafting much of the administrations policy on torturing and questioning prisoners.

And Powell is still teetering on a decision regarding his future. asked whether he would be around for a second term, Powell would only reply "I serve at the pleasure of the president." Thats rather cryptic. My thinking is that Bush doesnt want a huge turn over flood to deal with in the first month of his term so hes quietly asked certain people to hold off and spread things out a bit. I think thats why Tommy Thompson, after basically saying you wont have me to kick around any more, changed his tune recently and said well the administration has some things they want me to focus on right now and discussion of my immediate future "will have to wait".

So thats where things stand currently. Now what the heck has been happening at the CIA?

[inked]

IR,

You seem to use a great deal of anti-imagery in your terms for religious folk of (apparently) Christian persuasion.

Would you mind telling me what you mean by the words:

fundamentalist

religious right

far right

fundies

Your usage seems more polemical than accurate in my understanding of the terms. 'Course the leftist yellow journalistic pinko commie rags you read might have something to do with it since they parade their viewpoints as objectivity and think anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint is unfortunately unable to be shot (at present) for such erroneous thoughts,but they hope to change that real soon so as to encourage political correctness and conformity (sorry, realized personal individuality as corporately experienced with not a single misfit made to feel as such by total acceptance of whatever seems right to those who feeel coorreeccttlllyyyyy <not to be confused with the colon/rectally oriented who really have the right to be a**h**** unless it is towards us>).

See what I mean?

[Insidious Rex]

Nice of you to ask actually…. It gives me a perfect opportunity for a segue: have you heard that Jerry Falwell has declared the recent election a sign of the second coming of the new and improved moral majority? Yes indeed. The moral majority is back people thanks to you wonderful “value voters� who voted for good godly “moral� issues (well two at least) at the expense of all others. Apparently Falwell is gonna call his new fund raising vehicle UH! I mean his new Coalition of Christian Moral Mandates the “Faith and Values Coalition�, which will "utilize the momentum of the Nov. 2 elections to maintain an evangelical revolution of voters who will continue to go to the polls to 'vote Christian'". And it should be noted that the extreme religious right wing certainly DID come out in droves in this election and really won it for Bush. Have a look:

The election was unique in the assertiveness of evangelicals and the overt appeals made by the candidates to the faithful. Religious conservatives have been a force in national politics since Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign. But in the past, evangelicals participated in politics reluctantly, at the urging of such figures as Jerry Falwell and, later, Pat Robertson. This time, more than 26 million of them turned out -- 23 percent of the electorate -- in local church-based networks coordinated closely with the Bush campaign.

So no Im not joking when I say the fundies have some pay back coming from bush. Big time.


As to your question about what I see as a fundamentalist. Well I guess technically a Fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to all of the five Fundamentals of the Faith as a bare-minimum definition of Christian faith. Im also told that a fundamentalist Christian is a Christian who holds the Bible to be infallible, historically accurate, and decisive in all issues of controversy that the Bible is believed to directly address. In fact word for word that’s what im told. What I mean when I say fundamentalist or “fundies� is a born again who has fairly conservative highly religious based ideas about existance and how it should be reflected in real life policies. I realize Evangelicals, Pentecostals even Mennonites are often lumped into this group. Although technically not accurate for real world purposes (and certainly for political purposes) this group is essentially lumped as one by us liberal theolisticaly ignorant damned heathens who think theres more to this universe then whats written in the bible (or any holy book). So that’s how I choose to use it. as essentially a description of a FAR (with a capital F) right wing RELIGIOUS way of thinking and approaching our universe in an organized political way. Im aware that you could say there are millions of “fundamentalist� muslims too. And when they get the kind of lobby power and saturation at the highest levels of government that the christian variety has Ill be sure to make a separate distinction for them as well. But for now yer basically talking about bible weilding “value� touting born again extremists. Ok?

Im not of the opinion that political (and religious) definitions are technical and not sociological if thats what yer sniffing at. I dont have a problem with you saying "those lefties!" cause i know essentailly who you are referring to. and we can both pop each others bubbles as to how we dont actually fit the mold all day long. but whats the point.

[Insidious Rex]

ha ha i find this very amusing sorry world!

[inked]

IR, nice of you to reply, but you're a little short on distinctions. How about this?

Columns : Fundamentalists & Other Fun People - by Paul Marshall
Posted by dvirtue on 2004/11/13 7:05:00 (181 reads)

Fundamentalists & Other Fun People
To know them is not to despise them.

by Paul Marshall

11/22/2004

THE AFTERMATH of the election brought a belated realization that President Bush's victory was based in large part on increased evangelical turnout. Hence, predictably, committed religion is again an incendiary political topic, and again it is mindlessly stereotyped as "fundamentalism" and "religious extremism," characterized by closed-minded certitude--and, thus, the mirror image of Islamist extremism.

Three writers preached petulant sermons on the matter on the same New York Times op-ed page two days after the election.

Maureen Dowd called for George W. Bush's excommunication for promoting "a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq." Thomas Friedman condemned as apostates from America those "Christian fundamentalists" who "promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad." Garry Wills, ever inquisitorial, demanded "where else" but in America "do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?" Can't guess? "We find it in the Muslim world, in al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists"--and, writes Wills, Americans fear "jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed." Meanwhile, Ellen Goodman conjures up apocalyptic visions of a "country racked by the fundamentalist religious wars we see across the world," and Sean Wilentz anathematizes "the religious fanaticism that has seized control of the federal government."

Of course, people say silly things in a bleak post-election dawn. But similar litanies were recited during the campaign. Howell Raines portrayed "God's people" as seeking to enact "theologically based cultural norms." Joe Biden pronounced a "death struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism." Al Gore pilloried Bush's faith as "the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, and in religions around the world." Robert Reich pontificated: "Terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face," the "true battle" is with "those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma." Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, reportedly averred that Bush II understands Islamic terrorists "because he's just like them," and has visions of a Manichean "battle . . . between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion."

Well, people say silly things in the frenzy of a campaign, too. But these rants express something far deeper than political frustration: A large slice of the punditocracy apparently believes with all its heart and mind and soul and strength that committed religion is akin to Islamist terrorism.

After 9/11, the noted Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins declaimed, "To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used." Thomas Friedman preached, "World War III is a battle against . . . a view of the world . . . that my faith must remain supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated. That's bin Ladenism." Andrew Sullivan worried that "there is something inherent in religious monotheism that lends itself to this kind of terrorist temptation." Michael Lind announced that the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition have a "fundamentalist ideology . . . essentially identical to that of the Muslim extremists."

WHAT SHOULD BE SAID about such dogmatic assertions, delivered with a finality that no pope or Baptist preacher would wish to match? Well, for starters, that they are intolerant, hypocritical, and wrong.

In claiming that monotheism and reliance on revelation are necessarily terroristic, these secular pundits condemn Christians, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Sabeans, and Bahais, to name a few, along with George Washington, James Madison, and a host of other Founding Fathers, as inherently violent. Notice, however, that the condemnation extends also to the revealed monotheistic religion of Islam--and no one objects. Yet when Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham said that violence is inherent in Islam, they were pilloried by respectable opinion. These days, religious intolerance and theological illiteracy are far more conspicuous in the pages of the New York Times than among most southern fundamentalists.

There is also hypocrisy and self-contradiction. Friedman seems blissfully unaware that, even as he condemns others for holding out their particular faith as supreme, he is asserting the supremacy of his own passionately held view. His secularist critique attempts the miraculous combination of denouncing others' faith while attacking those who denounce others' faith. Do not try this trick at home. It should be attempted only by seasoned professionals who lack any capacity for self-criticism or even self-awareness.

However, one can be intolerant and hypocritical--and also correct. The most important thing about these fulminations is that they are utterly, flat out, dead wrong.

Take the vacuous term "fundamentalist." Despite academic efforts to give it content, in practice the word signifies only "someone firmly committed to religious views I do not like." It's an epithet depicting people as abject objects to be labeled rather than listened to, dismissed rather than engaged in discussion.

It originated as a description of a series of Christian booklets called "The Fundamentals" published between 1910 and 1915 and focused on the nature of biblical criticism. They did not spring from the American South. Canadians, usually Episcopalians, wrote many of them, with additional contributors from Germany, Scotland, Ireland, and England. The first, on "The History of the Higher Criticism," was by Canon Dyson Hague, lecturer in liturgics and ecclesiology, Wycliffe College, Toronto, and examining chaplain to the (Anglican) bishop of Huron. It was followed by "The Bible and Modern Criticism" by F. Bettex, D.D., professor emeritus, Stuttgart, Germany.

The author of "Christ and Criticism" was Sir Robert Anderson, KCB, LLD. As a Knight Commander of the Bath (the third-highest British order of chivalry), he seems a far cry from the fundamentalists H.L. Mencken vilified in the 1920s as "halfwits," "yokels," "rustic ignoramuses," "anthropoid rabble," and "gaping primates of the upland valleys," or even the people the Washington Post maligned 70 years later as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

MY WORK monitoring religious freedom and religious persecution around the world often brings me into contact with "fundamentalists" and "religious extremists." Some of them are indeed the monsters that secularists portray: I have seen enough prisons, killing fields, and bodies, lost enough friends, colleagues, and cases, and fallen asleep in tears on enough silent nights, to have few illusions about the terrors produced by perverted religion (or, for that matter, perverted secularism, which in the last century piled up vastly more corpses than did religious extremism).

continued...

[inked]

continuation...

The author of "Christ and Criticism" was Sir Robert Anderson, KCB, LLD. As a Knight Commander of the Bath (the third-highest British order of chivalry), he seems a far cry from the fundamentalists H.L. Mencken vilified in the 1920s as "halfwits," "yokels," "rustic ignoramuses," "anthropoid rabble," and "gaping primates of the upland valleys," or even the people the Washington Post maligned 70 years later as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

MY WORK monitoring religious freedom and religious persecution around the world often brings me into contact with "fundamentalists" and "religious extremists." Some of them are indeed the monsters that secularists portray: I have seen enough prisons, killing fields, and bodies, lost enough friends, colleagues, and cases, and fallen asleep in tears on enough silent nights, to have few illusions about the terrors produced by perverted religion (or, for that matter, perverted secularism, which in the last century piled up vastly more corpses than did religious extremism).

But there are also "religious extremists" I remember fondly. One I had the privilege of meeting believes he is the reincarnation of generations of religious leaders and was destined to lead his people. I don't share his views, but I find him wise, with a delightful sense of humor. He is the Dalai Lama.

Jehovah's Witnesses annoy many people by ringing our doorbells while we're having dinner. But the growth of religious freedom in almost every Western country owes much to the Witnesses' peaceful quest to be allowed to be conscientious objectors to military service.

There were Trappist nuns in Java, committed to a life of silence on the slopes of a volcano. It surprised me that they were a major source of information about what really goes on in Indonesia, that land of shadows. But, as the mother superior, a New Yorker, explained, "We can't speak, but we can sure read, watch, and listen. If you don't speak, you'd be amazed how much you can learn." No wonder she left Manhattan.

The Dervishes in Turkey, Sufi Muslims, combine their strange, ecstatic, whirling dance with ecumenical spirituality and uncommon grace at being treated as a tourist attraction. Some of their neighbors, Turkish Christians, are reviving the ascetic practice of living, like Simon Stylites, on top of poles. Not my cup of tea, but they're not hurting anyone.

The Amish are as "fanatical" about their religion as Americans get. They use no electricity, no cars, no colorful clothing, and are fierce pacifists, as are many other "fundamentalists." I'm still tempted to go back with them.

Then there are the practitioners of Falun Gong, the Hindu Shankaracharya of Puri, the Hasidim, and so many others with views that would drive American secularists up the wall. All are resolutely peaceful. I disagree with most, and have spent many happy, and frequently frustrating, hours with them discussing life, the universe, and everything. But I have never felt the slightest need to attack them, nor they me.

In the face of this range of beliefs, it is well nigh meaningless to define bin Laden and his ilk as "fundamentalists" or "religious extremists." He may be both, but so are billions of peaceful and gentle people.

The difference is obvious: The key is not bin Laden's conviction or certitude, but the content of his creed. We are opposed not to "religious extremists" per se, but only to the type of religious extremists who believe in flying planes into buildings and beheading "infidels."

In doing so we are allied with, and in large part defended by, people secularists label "religious extremists." This includes a significant proportion of the American military, especially the Marine Corps, who are, by most accounts, more evangelical than the population at large. Are the New York Times et al. seriously suggesting that the war on Islamofascism is at root a war on people like those in the U.S. armed forces?

In place of such fatuities, American secularists should stop trying to hitch their postmodern prejudices to the war on Islamist terrorism and instead stoop to learn something of the bewildering variety of committed belief. Their insistence on lumping together all religious convictions is bigotry and error, fundamentally so.

--Paul Marshall is a senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom and author of many books on religion and politics


Seems that correct usage of terms rather than labels would go foar to revealing to the revilers of those they do not attempt to understand as I see it. But is understanding really important to the Left? Nope. Just imposition of their views. Then ya'll complain about us doing it. Jealously, I think !

[inked]

Hey, IR, sorry world was funny. I think though that the pandas ought to be shot since they are clearly the reason Ohio went the wrong way. Doesn't each bicoloured animal of a nearly extinct species get 10,000 votes apiece?
Don't let any liberal leftists find out!!!

Seriously, isn't it great that the biggest turnout in history got the electoral college cleanly and that if it had been on a national vote, you'se guys would'a needed about 35000+ pandas?

Fundamentals, sir. Fundamentals! Math counts. (Which is why it took so long for Kerry to figure out the inevitable, he was doing it in metric!!! )
O, well.

[Insidious Rex]

Did you actually read my response or did you just wait a little bit and paste that article in there anyway? Where is it you think I am saying that the religious right are the equivalent of islamic terrorists? And why did you ignore the part about i dont really have a problem with the right lumping all kinds of "liberals" under one umbrella when its for discussion use. And frankly if you think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the height of tolerance yer truly living in a dream world. if the right wants to declare themselves the "moral" party and want to shout about a new "moral majority" and the election being a "christian revolution" then be prepared to be lambasted quite frankly. I think its a joke.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, IR, sorry world was funny. I think though that the pandas ought to be shot since they are clearly the reason Ohio went the wrong way. Doesn't each bicoloured animal of a nearly extinct species get 10,000 votes apiece?
Don't let any liberal leftists find out!!!

Seriously, isn't it great that the biggest turnout in history got the electoral college cleanly and that if it had been on a national vote, you'se guys would'a needed about 35000+ pandas?

Fundamentals, sir. Fundamentals! Math counts. (Which is why it took so long for Kerry to figure out the inevitable, he was doing it in metric!!! )
O, well.

yes but I find that site amusing for different reasons then you probably assume.

[inked]

Got me!

[Rían]

(In homage to the Mark Twain quote in your sig, IRex )

I would like to object to this slanderous/libelous (well, it's in print, but it's also a conversation with computers in between, so it's both) comment :

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Any investigation involving the white house or the administration (CIA leeks?) will now be suspect.

I object - I know and love leeks, and declare that they are NO more likely than any other vegetable to divulge state secrets!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Friedman seems blissfully unaware that, even as he condemns others for holding out their particular faith as supreme, he is asserting the supremacy of his own passionately held view. His secularist critique attempts the miraculous combination of denouncing others' faith while attacking those who denounce others' faith. Do not try this trick at home. It should be attempted only by seasoned professionals who lack any capacity for self-criticism or even self-awareness.

No kidding!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Did you actually read my response or did you just wait a little bit and paste that article in there anyway? Where is it you think I am saying that the religious right are the equivalent of islamic terrorists? And why did you ignore the part about i dont really have a problem with the right lumping all kinds of "liberals" under one umbrella when its for discussion use. And frankly if you think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the height of tolerance yer truly living in a dream world. if the right wants to declare themselves the "moral" party and want to shout about a new "moral majority" and the election being a "christian revolution" then be prepared to be lambasted quite frankly. I think its a joke.

IR,

I think we cross posted because the article was too long and I had to split it. Your post came in while I was slowly and laboriously accomplishing that task. I am NOT contending that YOU equate the religious right and Islamic fundamentalists BUT the confusion being perpetrated by the liberal left (in admittedly emotuional reactions to the recent election) DOES. I included it to show that rabid, frothing at the mouth, secularists are OVERTLY GUILTY of what they allege (but what is not being done by) the religious right. And these folk ARE EQUATING all belief but their own as unacceptable in precisely the manner they allege is being done by those they oppose. As the article notes in a very broad base of religious expression world-wide, very few true believers are guilty of the atrocities attributed to them (other of course than the atrocity of employing their vote as they see fit in democratic countries).

The use of the term moral will not be abdicated by me from its proper usage regardless of the fulminations of the aggressively religious mobilizing political activities (if it's good enough for black churches, it's good enough for Hispanic churches, Laotian churches, Cambodian churches, and caucasian churches, right ). The secularists do the same with PDiddy, Bruce Springsteen, et alia hollywoodensia politicarrii - or should that be politicarrion ?

So whatever those branded the religious right allege about morality and whatever the secularists allege about morality, I am going to assess them by word and deed and vote MY conscience. I expect you do the same. But the whiny, belittling, excessively egregious blatant fear-mongering tactics of the folks quoted in the article - in all of their self-righteousness and partaking of the oracularity of Moses descending the mount in a Cecil B. DeMille epic - is simply too fatuous to not point out.

If possible the avoidance of inflammatory language should be utilized by both sides, but rhetorical posturing by either side won't allow it. (Then we get to the redefinition of language usage by people who object to terms that are perfectly appropriate because they regard the language as offensive. You know, like Nurvingiel's objection to my perfectly correct use of the word anomaly which she regards as objectionable. There's nothing in my Webster's showing it to be connotative of prejudice and I did not intend it to be;it's merely descriptive of uncommon or not normative. No offense to Nurv, but insistent misperception does not invalidate proper usage.) That is why I attempt to phrase my opinions (except when obviously pulling legs ) in careful language and avoid terms usually misunderstood.
But you guys are educated and there's not need to worry about using more than two syllable words and losing you.

And, for the record, I don't think PR and JF are the epitome of tolerance any more I do the recorded leftists in the article .

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

And, for the record, I don't think PR and JF are the epitome of tolerance any more I do the recorded leftists in the article .

Well glad to hear that. Tell you what, you shout down the right wing goons who are foaming at the mouth about a new christian moral revolution and Ill tell the super left wing zealots who snapped after the election to chill out and get some perspective and focus on 2006 and not on mindlessly ridiculing everything red in sight. Nothing like a well timed "dont be an idiot" from someone with roughly the same ideals as you to make you stop and think about things.

Of course what you need to understand is liberals right now are for the most part saying to themselves how could this possibly happen. because so many of them genuinely believed that Bush was CLEARLY bad news and the wrong choice and how could 50 million people over look that! So they conclude perhaps erroneously perhaps from emotion or frustration that it must be because all those damn conservatives are religious zombies or rich money grubbing country clubbers or clueless red neck gun toting NASCAR bumpkins who hate foreigners and drink way too much beer to understand any real political issues other then that Kerry feller is a commie traitor. (Oh and don’t forget the gay bashers and the racists). But behind that angry knee jerk sentimentality is a genuine disbelief, a real miscomprehension as to why so many people would keep in office someone who was clearly so bad a choice. Imagine how you would feel if you woke up and Ralph Nader was president. You would be floored and in disbelief. But it will pass. Especially since its coming from “ivory tower� liberals who are constantly rethinking themselves and not from conservatives. So I think in the next 12 months or so a more level headed and logical answer to this question will filter out and the angry day after out bursts will fade. So not to fear.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I object - I know and love leeks, and declare that they are NO more likely than any other vegetable to divulge state secrets!

Well its those mushrooms you really have to worry about. Especially once the CIA gets ahold of them...

[Rían]

Oh, and the potatoes like to go underground ...

[Insidious Rex]

Well Powell is officially gone. As is Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The list continues to mount. Does anyone think Rice is going to make an announcement soon?