I found a recent article by by Karen Armstrong (of the Guardian) that sheds a little light on a question that I had -- Who is driving Bush's policy(foreign and domestic) and what is he hoping to gain?
Bush's Fondness For Fundamentalism Is Courting Disaster At Home and Abroad: Affinity with the Christian right has led to banning stem cell research and turning a blind eye to civilian deaths in Lebanon
Some excerpts from the article
" ... the president zealously champions the rights of the unborn, he is less concerned about the plight of existing American children. The US infant mortality rate is only the 42nd best in the world; the average baby has a better chance of surviving in Havana or Beijing; infant mortality rates are unacceptably high among those who cannot afford adequate healthcare, especially in the African-American community. And, finally, at the same time as Bush decided to veto the stem cell bill, Israeli bombs were taking the lives of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians, many of them children, with the tacit approval of the US."
This inconsistency gets me every time. I can understand and respect people that are against abortions for religious reasons. I just don't understand those that don't extend the "culture of life" to their beliefs on war, health care and social justice.
"Is there a connection between a religiously motivated mistrust of science, glaring social injustice, and a war in the Middle East?"
If you believe in the Rapture, it sure looks like there is.
"The fundamentalists' rejection of science is deeply linked to their apocalyptic vision. Even the relatively sober ID theorists segue easily into Rapture-speak. ... They all condemn the attempt to reform social ills. When applied socially, evolutionary theory "leads straight to all the woes of modern life," ... homosexuality, state-backed healthcare, divorce, single-parenthood, socialism, and abortion. All this, of course, is highly agreeable to the Bush administration, which is itself selectively leery of science. It has, for example, persistently ignored scientists' warnings about global warming. Why bother to implement the Kyoto treaty if the world is about to end? Indeed, some fundamentalists see environmental damage as a positive development, because it will hasten the apocalypse."
I don't know which is worse -- those that believe in the Rapture and welcome global warming for that reason or those that believe there are "positive" aspects of global warming.
"This nihilistic religiosity is based on a perversion of the texts. The first chapter of Genesis was never intended as a literal account of the origins of life; it is a myth, a timeless story about the sanctity of the world and everything in it. Revelation was not a detailed program for the End time; it is written in an apocalyptic genre that has quite a different dynamic. When they described the Jews' return to their homeland, the Hebrew prophets were predicting the end of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC - not the second coming of Christ. The prophets did preach a stern message of social justice, however, and like all the major world faiths, Christianity sees charity and loving-kindness as the cardinal virtues. Fundamentalism nearly always distorts the tradition it is trying to defend."
This is an important distinction. It is not all Christians that are the problem. It is fundamentalism in all its forms that threatens our world. It is important for Democrats to not forsake the large percentage of Christians that truly understand the teachings of Christ and are for social justice.
"This strange amalgam of ideas can perhaps throw light on the behaviour of a president, who, it is said, believes that God chose him to lead the world to Rapture, who has little interest in social reform, and whose selective concern for life issues has now inspired him to veto important scientific research. It explains his unconditional and uncritical support for Israel, his willingness to use "Jewish End-time warriors" to fulfil a vision of his own - arguably against Israel's best interests - and to see Syria and Iran (who seem to be replacing Saddam as the "enemy of the north") as entirely responsible for the unfolding tragedy."
There it is, in a nut shell. Be afraid.
"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." -- Eric Hoffer
25 comments:
Karen Armstrong is VERY good. You should check out her books.
All this stuff is really scary to me. How do you argue or debate or compromise with someone who believes his way is THE ONLY way?
That artilcle is so packed with misnomers and typical partisan assumptions that I'd not dare to comment on it. Other than to say it's full of misnomers and typical partisan assumptions.
Scott - your comment is so packed with arrogance and typical rhetorical devices that I'd not dare to comment on it, other than to say it's full of grammar errors as well.
Either disagree and argue your points, or reserve comment.
Scott, meet Eric. Eric, meet Scott. There. Now you're properly introduced. Eric, why don't you talk to people like you would to their face?
...and those are typos--Scott actually knows those words and how to use them.
Sheesh.
dback--
This article is pure trash and was written to stroke the egos of people with similar group-think:
fundamentalists want to win a battle for God; liberals and secularists are fighting for truth and rationality.
Oh PLEASE. That sentance smacks so hard.
The first chapter of Genesis was never intended as a literal account of the origins of life; it is a myth, a timeless story about the sanctity of the world and everything in it. Revelation was not a detailed program for the End time; it is written in an apocalyptic genre that has quite a different dynamic. When they described the Jews' return to their homeland, the Hebrew prophets were predicting the end of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC - not the second coming of Christ.
I'm so glad Karen Armstrong is a Biblical expert. Has she gone to special Biblical interpretation classes and spent years debating what is an allegory and what is literal?
I don't know what defines a "Fundamentalist" exactly but I shudder to think what will happen to Christians that are labeled as such if more article like this are written. Fundamentalists are less important and more annoying than your typical Cave Troll--they should probably be burned at the stake before they completely control the world.
I don't know what defines a "Fundamentalist" exactly
No doubt Christians who preach what they believe to be true and think others ought to. Pretty much along the lines of other special interest groups such as:
Environmentalists
Vegetarians
Drug users
Recyclers
Activists for the Homeless
Abortion Activists
PETA People
Pacifists
All pretty much the same people.
Sadie,
I appreciate your concern. The words of the article are hers ... not mine. I highlighted the quotes I found personally relevant. The quote you mention about "truth and rationality" is a broad generalization and that is why I didn't include it in my post. That being said, the actual definition of Fundamentalism:
Fundamentalism -- An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
So, by definition, they are in opposition to secularism. Despite what you may think, secularists and liberals do not believe in the opposite. Most (including myself) belief in a society of many faiths and beliefs.
One of the main problems I have with Christian fundamentalism is that they are not as fundamental as they make themselves out to be, often ignoring one passage while elevating another. Another issue is their belief in the infallibility of the bible.
My problems with fundamentalism extend to all it's variations, not just Christian fundamentalism.
Scott,
Evidently you forgot to take your medication today. What are you trying to say? Are you putting people who care about the environment or the homeless on the same moral level as drug users? People that are actually listening to the teachings of Christ are a "special interest"?
Nothing to do with morals. This article makes the claim that Fundamentalists are a special interest group, doesn't it? I mean that's what special interest groups do, attempt to sway policy to benefit their cause. I see no difference in any of the groups I mentioned because they are all "fighting for truth and rationality." I mean that's what they'll all tell you if you ask them.
Maybe the drug user one threw you because you've never had one of them try and convince you how moral and enlightening drugs can be. They'll preach more than a baptist if you give them an ear.
Scott,
I don't think Fundamentalists are necessarily a special interest group, but the Christian Right is. This article generally refers to the Christian Right.
Maybe the drug user one threw you because you've never had one of them try and convince you how moral and enlightening drugs can be. -- He-he. Sure sounds like religion to me.
Sadie, what in our past discussions leads you believe I wouldn't have said what I typed to Scott IRL. I'm not threatening him, I'm attempting to call his rhetorical device out for what it is. Now that he's actually debating the points rather than resorting to passive-aggresive avoidance of the issue, we can move on.
I think that Christians in general and fundamentalist christians in particular should stop and give thanks that the Aborigines in Australia are still following their songlines and singing the songs of the universe. Without those Aborigines singing, the universe would collapse and we wouldn't have a world where we can debate whether the Bible is literal.
Thanks Aborigines. Keep singing.
Scott--
That's really note worthy comment you made there about special interest groups. I think you're spot on with the comparison.
dback--
I know they are the words of the article and not your own. I'm able to make that distiction. *wink* I should have said that I liked this...
This is an important distinction. It is not all Christians that are the problem. It is fundamentalism in all its forms that threatens our world. It is important for Democrats to not forsake the large percentage of Christians that truly understand the teachings of Christ and are for social justice.
...from your original post.
Thanks for the posting a definition. By it's language, I would not consider myself to be a fundamentalist but I have some things in common with them--I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think there is much about the Bible that is misinterpreted or twisted to support man's perverted agenda but it's like you said, the bible and the followers of Christ are not the problems here--it's the man-made organizations that lean on the shoulders of men instead of being God-led, that create problems.
eric--
I just don't think you would call a person you just met, arrogant and then further go on to insult his intelligence. It's just plain rude and pathetic. There are ways of making a point without bowling right over someone--ya know?
Sadie,
It's my belief that Eric was trying to be funny and to make a point. I don't know how using Scott's exact wording in a response is offensive. If one didn't know Scott (and even if one did), his comments can come off as arrogant and flippant, including his first one. But I'm not at all offended by Scott because I believe he is usually trying to be funny and was also trying to make a point. I try very hard to look at the content of a comment and not necessarily the manner in which it was given. I obviously fail sometimes, but I try.
Scott and Eric's manner are similar, though I usually agree with Eric. :-)
The obvious difference is that you know Scott and I know Eric and we are each more used to their manner.
"eric--
I just don't think you would call a person you just met, arrogant and then further go on to insult his intelligence. It's just plain rude and pathetic. There are ways of making a point without bowling right over someone--ya know?"
Sadie, I did no such thing. I called Scott's comment arrogant, not him. I did not call his intelligence into question, merely his grammar (I don't equate the two, my spelling and grammar are hardly above reproach). There are many ways of making a point, some of them polite to the point of being obtuse. I don't always choose those routes. Scott's rhetorical device annoyed me, and I chose parody.
I frequently clash with you Sadie, not just because we have idealogical disagreements, but because your perception of online communication and mine seem to differ greatly. You've previously accused me of being rude. Look around you. The internet is not guaranteed to be as polite as a quilting bee. Sometimes when discussing issues I care deeply about I will depart from my best manners.
eric,
You're right. Our online communication skills are totally different. I happen to believe that because there is the obvious lack of facial expression, tone of voice and body language, we should always be clear about what we mean and how we mean it.
You have been rude to me before and calling you on it isn't a personality deficiancy--I just hold people to a standard of mutual respect. I'm not looking for "quilting-bee" warm-fuzzy debates--in fact, debates in general wouldn't be very much fun if everyone was afraid to knock heads.
I'll apologize if I came off too judgmental, you can address people how you want to and Scott is capable of sticking up for himself.
dback--
agreed.
:)
For the record I wasn't at all annoyed or insulted by eric's original comment. He's clearly wrong and that's his problem. Nothing I can do about that. :)
I still haven't commented on the article though so I guess I should before I post this so I don't re-aggravate him.
The reason the article is crap is that it lists supposed problems and claims that the reason that Bush isn't addressing them correctly is that he isn't addressing them the way the writer would like. For instance, the author brings up infant mortality rate.
...the president zealously champions the rights of the unborn, he is less concerned about the plight of existing American children. The US infant mortality rate is only the 42nd best in the world; the average baby has a better chance of surviving in Havana or Beijing; infant mortality rates are unacceptably high among those who cannot afford adequate healthcare, especially in the African-American community.
See? Bush *says* he likes babies but really he hates them because HE LETS THEM DIE IN HIS HANDS EVERY DAY BY NOT MAKING PUBLIC HEALTHCARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYPPL!!!
This statement is utter crap.
Infant mortality rates are NOT lower due to economics. If they were Hispanics, who have a similar income bracket as blacks, would have similar infant mortality rates. Instead Hispanics (and Cuban immigrants for that matter) have LOWER mortality rates than whites.
IF Dubya cared about little babies he would soooo give us universal health insurance, right? I mean RIGHT? I mean just look at how cool Canada's system is, never mind their best doctors pouring into the US so they can actually get paid. Never mind one year wait times for simple MRI's.
The United States health care system is the best system in the world. Hands down. There's not even a close second. When you measure it against statistics that actually matter in health care, like cure rates and things doctors actually do, the US soars about every other country. Is our insurance system great? Heck no, it's crap due to Government regulation and general muckery. So what's the solution to the problem? More Government regulation and more muckery! Brilliant!
Of course it's much easier to take partisan stances on issues then make proper cases on them. That way at least you're guaranteed that half the country will think you're just swell.
Thanks Scott, now we've got something to discuss, rather than having a meta-discussion.
I haven't delved into infant mortality statistics, so I'll take your analysis at face value. But I notice you haven't dealt with the rest of the points raised in the article. This one, for instance:
"And, finally, at the same time as Bush decided to veto the stem cell bill, Israeli bombs were taking the lives of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians, many of them children, with the tacit approval of the US."
I agree with Lance on this one. It's very troubling to have a "Culture of Life" president who is also a (chicken)Hawk. To me its not a question of whether Bush panders to the religous right, but whether he genuinely belives in what he's shoveling. If he doesn't than he's being a politician, but if he actually believes... Yikes.
I agree with that stem cell research should be legal. There's really no reason for the Feds to fund it, but it should certainly be legal.
But again this is an irrelevant parallel that the author has made. Bush wasn't exactly at the helm of the Israeli army during their war. So his crime is not condemning Israel for protecting their country? Quite frankly, the war in Lebanon was none of our business. The only fault I found in the Bush administration was pressuring another country on how to handle itself, namely pushing Israel for a cease fire, which one would think is exactly what this author would have wanted.
We can't say that the US was wrong for intervening in Iraq when there was no just cause, and then claim that they are wrong for NOT intervening and stopping Israel in this circumstance.
scott said: The only fault I found in the Bush administration was pressuring another country on how to handle itself, namely pushing Israel for a cease fire..
You must have been watching a different war... As far as I know Bush never even talked to the Israeli PM and made it very clear that a quick ceasefire (before an Israeli victory) was not in the interests of the US or its ally Israel. In fact the US opposed a ceasefire against the pleading of the rest of the international community - minus its pet poodle the UK of course!
scott said: We can't say that the US was wrong for intervening in Iraq when there was no just cause, and then claim that they are wrong for NOT intervening and stopping Israel in this circumstance.
Erm... Yes. I certainly can.
Scott,
Infant mortality rates are NOT lower due to economics. -- That's it? No caveats? Kind of a bold statement. And completely wrong. You could have said, "Infant mortality rates are not lower solely due to economics" and you would have been closer to the truth than you were. Research indicates that poorer and less educated mothers have a higher risk of early delivery and newborn mortality. Several of the countries that ranked higher than the U.S., while not having superior medical facilities, did offer free health services for pregnant women and babies and thus their higher ranking.
Of course it's much easier to take partisan stances on issues then make proper cases on them. -- I have yet to see you veer from the libertarian party line on any issue. How is that not partisan?
The US offers free health care to low income pregnant women and their babies too. Some mothers just choose NOT to take care of themselves and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
I have yet to see you veer from the libertarian party line on any issue. How is that not partisan?
Ha! Touché, my long haired friend.
Scott,
He-he. That's OK. Just as long as we occassionally learn something from each other. And I'll try not to take a stance just because it is a Democratic one. I'll take it because I believe it. As I believe you do in your stances.
btw, Scott is incorrect about hispanic infant mortality. If you remove the richest and most Americanized segment of the broad catagory Hispanic (the Cubans), Hispanic infant mortality rates are significantly higher than whites, although lower than blacks.
Really?
Where are you getting your facts? Download this document from the CDC. Page 86.
The only group that rated significantly higher than the whites inside of the Hispanic category were the Puerto Ricans. Mexicans, South Americans, and Cubans rated LOWER than whites. The number of Cubans and Puerto Rican's though are probably pretty small, which is why the Hispanic total is STILL LOWER than whites even with the Puerto Ricans rating higher. The fact is, the majority of Hispanics in the United States are Mexican, no? And the Mexicans rate LOWER than whites. End of story.
Hispanic infant mortality rates are significantly higher than whites
So, huh?
Post a Comment