Evangelicals playing the "Bigotry" card
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas081811.php3
By Cal Thomas
As defined by Collins English Dictionary, a bigot is "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race."
In contemporary culture, those who claim to tolerate everything are intolerant of ideas that come from perspectives other than their own, especially when those ideas are rooted in conservative politics or evangelical faith.
Though Antisemitism and anti-Catholic bigotry sadly are still with us, the new and "accepted" bigotry among some on the left is for those who call themselves -- or are sometimes mislabeled by people who don't know the difference between born again and born yesterday -- evangelical Christians.
With two evangelicals running for president, the opening salvo in what is likely to be a God vs. government battle has already been launched.
A June 22 article in Rolling Stone magazine gives bigots permission for more bigotry. The illustration by Victor Juhasz, which accompanies it, reveals where the writer is headed. Michele Bachmann is dressed as Joan of Arc with a Bible in one hand, a bloody sword in the other, a cross on her chest, and the "finger of God" pointing at her from heaven. In the background, people are being burned at the stake. Father Charles Coughlin at his worst would have had trouble topping this on his bigoted radio broadcasts in the 1930s.
Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi says Bachmann is "a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions." One of many examples he cites is her assertion that China is "plotting to replace the dollar bill."
Recently, China's official Xinhua News Agency editorialized in favor of a new global reserve currency, replacing the dollar. Don't look for a retraction.
There's plenty more in "Michele Bachmann's Holy War" on which the bigots can feast (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622). This is the argument of anyone who has little or no faith in God. They attack people who believe the Supreme Being does not sit in the Oval Office.
The secular left is also going after Rick Perry's faith. Writing in The New York Times, Timothy Egan refers to the Texas governor as a "biblical bully" and asks, if "God is ignoring Rick Perry?"
Ideas that come from the minds of secular liberals are considered right and good, no matter their track record. Ideas from conservatives, be they secular or especially evangelical, are "bat sh-t crazy," according to Taibbi's scatology.
There is a way to blunt this coming tidal wave of anti-evangelical bigotry. Bachmann and Perry -- and any other Republican who wishes to join in -- should not play on the territory of their opponents. Instead, they should focus on what works and whose lives have been transformed by embracing similar faith and similar attitudes.
Each time a liberal wants to raise taxes to pay for more programs, Republican candidates should introduce to the public people who liberated themselves from government, as examples for others to follow. Some will have experienced a spiritual conversion. Others will have simply "gotten their act together" and decided they can do more for themselves than government.
In the tradition of Horatio Alger, a story about people who have overcome is better than a story about those still wallowing in self-pity, low expectations and welfare dependency. A positive message beats whining and class envy every time.
Growing numbers of people are addicted to government and need help getting "clean." Bachmann and Perry could respond to the bigotry by announcing a joint project to be continued no matter who wins the nomination and election. People who want to escape poverty would be introduced to local churches and synagogues, or secular organizations that operate on similar principles.
Scriptures command outreach to the poor, which most religious institutions used to do a lot more of before many ceded that role to government. Helping to transform a life is one of the greatest pleasures on Earth.
The bigots, like the poor, will be with us always, but this is one way they might be shamed into silence
By the way, the Rolling Stone article on Mrs. Bachmann is well worth reading, even if Cal Thomas' drivel isn't
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622
Like I care what the latest bit of lies and half-truths that left wing piece of trash says.
If you want to read that drivel, fine, but really Cal Thomas could run circles around the writers of the Rolling Stone Magazine any day of the week.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622
Like I care what the latest bit of lies and half-truths that left wing piece of trash says.
If you want to read that drivel, fine, but really Cal Thomas could run circles around the writers of the Rolling Stone Magazine any day of the week.
If you cannot identify any lies in the Rolling Stones article, then you are admitting that the article is entirely truthful.
Recently, China's official Xinhua News Agency editorialized in favor of a new global reserve currency, replacing the dollar. Don't look for a retraction.
What did the Rolling Stone article actually say?
Cal Thomas and Inuyasha are a pair of disingenuous idiots.
Having Fundies talk about how they're the ones discriminated against really is strikingly similar to how that other (and somewhat overlapping) bastion of Deep South Reactionary ideology - white racism - tried rebranding itself after it's monopoly on power was challenged. Namely, by saying that they weren't the oppressors, but rather the oppressed.
David Duke must surely be proud of this article and Inuyasha.
"Evangelical" is codeword for radical far-right dominionist.
ANY other ideas. So by definition, you can't really be "bigoted" against a particular thing. But that's splitting hairs. I'm absolutely intolerant of many religious ideas. Why? Because they're stupid and dangerous. I'm intolerant of the idea that if a Muslim suicide bombs non-Muslims he will be rewarded in the afterlife. I'm intolerant of teaching BS in schools instead of science. I'm intolerant of the idea that there are people out there rooting for the end of the world. These are all ideas that have the potential to do real damage. And frankly, suicide bombing probably isn't even the most dangerous of the three. Isn't anyone else out there REALLY f*****g concerned about these "rapture" people? I think even Osama Bin Laden, from his grave, would have to say "Trying to end the world? What are you guys, f*****g nuts?"
I wonder if the article's writer would be so uber-tolerant if Keith Ellison was anywhere near as triumphalist and nationalistic over his religion as Perry and Bachmann are. Funny that the author of that hack piece forgets to note how Con-Artist Republicans, whether secular or dominionist, like to paint anything to the left of Pinochet as "socialism" and anything Obama comes up with as "black nationalism".
Originally a division of Oral Roberts University, this august academy, dedicated to the teaching of "the law from a biblical worldview," has gone through no fewer than three names — including the Christian Broadcasting Network School of Law. Those familiar with the darker chapters in George W. Bush's presidency might recognize the school's current name, the Regent University School of Law. Yes, this was the tiny educational outhouse that, despite being the 136th-ranked law school in the country, where 60 percent of graduates flunked the bar, produced a flood of entrants into the Bush Justice Department.
As I understand these things, a 60% fail rate re: the Bar Exam would put just about any law school squarely in the crosshairs of their accrediting bodies. Quite frankly, that figure of Taibbi's simply didn't make sense to me, so I tried to figure out where he got it from. And I still have no idea.
According to this:
http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index. ... chool/2009
over 70% of Regent's graduates passed the bar exam, or at any rate those in the class of 2009 did. In fact, their pass rate is lower than the average in Virginia, but is a .3% difference something anyone would consider statistically significant? At first I wasn't sure if this was even the same law school as the one Bachmann went to, since it is now based in Virginia, not Oklahoma, and a glance at their home page doesn't seem to even reference religion. But I'm kind of thinking it is the same place, based upon this:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/home.cfm
Law Chapel
Once a week Regent Law students, faculty, and staff come together for worship and a message that is tailored to the life of a Christian called to the study and practice of law. Each week is sponsored by a different student organization that provides lunch for a time of fellowship following the service.
Visit the Law Chapel page to view a live stream of the Thursday, 12:15pm (EST) service and to watch archived speakers.
The only thing I can think of is that Taibbi is using a number based upon pass rates the first time a wanna-be lawyer sits for the exam, and that this site simply records the percentage who ultimately pass.* But I think around half of all law school graduates flunk the first time on a nationwide basis anyways, so Regent is below average but not wildly so, if that's how the number should be sliced. Or maybe that was the pass rate for her class? But this is all speculation, since he doesn't say what that figure really means. And it seems to me Taibbi should've provided a context, when dropping a bomb like that.
And that cartoon at the beginning was just, well, weird. Joan of Arc was the one burnt at the stake, not the one doing the burning. I'm generally not all that sympathetic to believers of Bachmann's stripe, but such a strange inversion of historical fact -- and for no real point that I could see -- directed at anyone is only going to garner my sympathy, whatever else I might think of the individual in question. (And that would be "not much," truth be told, in Bachmann's case.)
Overall, I'd say Taibbi overplayed his hand, if his goal was to actually change opinions. But somehow I don't think that was the case here. To use a religious metaphor, it sure looks like what he was doing was preaching to the choir, piling hyperbole on top of overblown rhetoric, and topping it all off with a dollop of undiluted insult. And, hell, this is Rolling Stone...the magazine that unleashed Hunter S. Thompson on an unsuspecting world. Anyone who reads their political coverage expects, and probably demands, an over the top approach.
* - Took me three tries at the CPA exam before I passed that monstrosity, so whatever else I'm doing with this post, I ain't judging anyone on that basis.
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
Oh, and to flog a dead horse, it sure looks like Regent jumped from slightly below average to solidly above average w/Bar passage rates in 2010...
First-Time Bar Passage Rates, Virginia Bar, All 2010 Takers
Regent’s 2010 first-time Virginia Bar exam takers achieved the highest Bar pass rate in the school’s history:
Appalachian School of Law: 65.4%
College of William and Mary: 92.6%
University of Virginia: 90.6%
Regent University: 85.7%
George Mason University: 85.3%
University of Richmond: 83.5%
Liberty University: 73.7%
Washington and Lee University: 72.7%
Methinks Taibbi needs to offer some clarification, now more than ever. Not saying he's necessarily wrong, but he implied the school sucked when Bachmann went there and that it still sucks today. The former we dunno, but the latter claim just doesn't stand up to examination from where I'm sitting. They seem to be attracting a reasonably intelligent student body at present, even if it is not of the same caliber as the law school at Univ of VA or Columbia or Harvard or any of the other biggies you might think of.
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
"Evangelical" is codeword for radical far-right dominionist.
I think that the evangelical movement has largely been hijacked by that movement - aka the 'new apostolic movement' - but the two are not one and the same, because the dominionists include some pentecostals and even 'jews for jesus.' Also, there are Evangelicals who are liberal. Not many, but they are out there, and I would rather not do them the disservice of tarring them with the same brush when they've had the mental fortitude to hold out in a very hostile environment to social justice.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Anybody want a card reading? |
03 Apr 2024, 8:21 am |
Which court card best describes YOU? |
16 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
My other fav card collection: The King of Hearts ♡ |
23 Mar 2024, 9:20 pm |
Work politics and “playing the game” |
10 Mar 2024, 4:18 pm |