alien & sedition.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
History Makes the Baby Jesus Cry
Of course, the frustrating thing about this sort of exercise is that the burden of proof isn't on us -- it's up to the revisionists to prove that their claims are correct. But they don't roll that way. So, a little reminder of the truth is nice now and then, and here's hoping this turns out to be a good one.
h/t: Five Before Chaos
I haven't read any of this yet, so I can't vouch for it in any meaningful sense, but Liars for Jesus looks like an interesting effort to debunk, in detail, the religious right's peculiar revisionist version of American history.
Of course, the frustrating thing about this sort of exercise is that the burden of proof isn't on us -- it's up to the revisionists to prove that their claims are correct. But they don't roll that way. So, a little reminder of the truth is nice now and then, and here's hoping this turns out to be a good one.
h/t: Five Before Chaos
Labels: five before chaos, fundamentalists
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:12 AM 0 comments Friday, June 29, 2007
The Power of Spam
To be fair, I think a lot of that stuff originates in the Wall Street Journal editorial offices.
Crazy right-wing chain e-mails take over our media, one small-town paper at a time.
To be fair, I think a lot of that stuff originates in the Wall Street Journal editorial offices.
Labels: five before chaos, general rightwing looniness, Media
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 4:37 PM 5 comments Thursday, April 12, 2007
What We Talk About When We Talk About Religion
It would be a tremendous mistake for Democrats to overlook the rapid rise of a secular voting bloc in America - especially as those voters overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates. Digby had a terrific post about this last month: the growing numbers of "unchurched" Americans present a serious problem for the Republican party. Digby cites Bill Scher:
So it looks, on one level, like a bit of a conundrum for Democrats. How can we free ourselves from the shackles of traditional political piety and appeal to the unchurched while at the same time making new efforts to reach out to evangelicals?
It looks like at least one party is going to end up playing confessional whack-a-mole here. But it doesn't have to be the Democrats. Candidates who are wondering how to talk about their faith - or lack thereof - on the campaign trail shouldn't make religious rhetoric the object. This goes for whether they hold strong religious beliefs or not. Faith both informs and is given substance by one's values. So are the ethical strictures that lead secular folks to make certain moral choices - including the choice of how to vote. The "God talk" that shallow pundits and glib consultants try to foist on candidates is a distraction at best - an exercise in embarrassing fakery at worst. You can't force someone to write a sonnet if she speaks only Japanese. But let her compose in her own language, true to her own experience, and you're likely to find that her poetry is drawn from very familiar themes.
Secular progressives and moderate evangelicals share many of the same values: concern for the poor and the health of the middle class, stewardship of the environment, peace and freedom abroad, equal opportunities and justice for all. Secular Democrats should talk about those values in the way we know to talk about them, and understand that others will use different language to articulate the same concerns. Communication is not about mindlessly parroting someone else's language, nor is it about abandoning your own. It's about searching for ways to transmit ideas from one language to another, and learning to notice when you and your interlocutor are using different words to say the same thing.
Five Before Chaos has a thoughtful post about my ruminations on the rise of moderate evangelicals. JD is generally in agreement, but makes another important point:
The key is for the Dems to not go overboard with the God talk, because then they're going to lose the support of those who hold secularism and rational inquiry in highest regard.This is a valid concern, and it reflects - albeit more moderately - the worries of many secular progressives who are very reluctant to see Democrats attempt to appeal to evangelical voters.
It would be a tremendous mistake for Democrats to overlook the rapid rise of a secular voting bloc in America - especially as those voters overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates. Digby had a terrific post about this last month: the growing numbers of "unchurched" Americans present a serious problem for the Republican party. Digby cites Bill Scher:
Democrats crushed Republicans among secular voters, broadly defined as those who attend church seldom (favoring Democrats 60% to 38%) or never (67% to 30%). Republicans retained strong support among those who attend church more than weekly. But among those who only go weekly -- the larger portion of the religious vote -- the Republican lead shrunk from 15 points to 7.These secular voters, Digby points out, represent the fastest growing religious group in America.
In short, Republicans failed to be competitive among secular voters, while Democrats were at least competitive among regular churchgoers. And since the secular vote is roughly equal to the regular churchgoing vote, according to the last several national election exit polls, that means Republicans and their conservative base have a far bigger secular problem than their rivals have a religion problem.
So it looks, on one level, like a bit of a conundrum for Democrats. How can we free ourselves from the shackles of traditional political piety and appeal to the unchurched while at the same time making new efforts to reach out to evangelicals?
It looks like at least one party is going to end up playing confessional whack-a-mole here. But it doesn't have to be the Democrats. Candidates who are wondering how to talk about their faith - or lack thereof - on the campaign trail shouldn't make religious rhetoric the object. This goes for whether they hold strong religious beliefs or not. Faith both informs and is given substance by one's values. So are the ethical strictures that lead secular folks to make certain moral choices - including the choice of how to vote. The "God talk" that shallow pundits and glib consultants try to foist on candidates is a distraction at best - an exercise in embarrassing fakery at worst. You can't force someone to write a sonnet if she speaks only Japanese. But let her compose in her own language, true to her own experience, and you're likely to find that her poetry is drawn from very familiar themes.
Secular progressives and moderate evangelicals share many of the same values: concern for the poor and the health of the middle class, stewardship of the environment, peace and freedom abroad, equal opportunities and justice for all. Secular Democrats should talk about those values in the way we know to talk about them, and understand that others will use different language to articulate the same concerns. Communication is not about mindlessly parroting someone else's language, nor is it about abandoning your own. It's about searching for ways to transmit ideas from one language to another, and learning to notice when you and your interlocutor are using different words to say the same thing.
Labels: evangelicals, five before chaos, progressives
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 2:27 PM 3 comments Saturday, March 31, 2007
William Donahue, Jihadist
Five Before Chaos has a comprehensive demolition of the towering stupidity at work here. Go read - you'll laugh your ass off.
Why is William Donahue still talking, and why are the media still listening? The anti-semitic racist's latest hissy fit involves a chocolate Jesus, which, according to Donahue, is "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." Donahue and his fellow terrorists have successfully intimidated the gallery in question into cancelling the exhibition.
Five Before Chaos has a comprehensive demolition of the towering stupidity at work here. Go read - you'll laugh your ass off.
Labels: five before chaos, terrorism, William Donohue
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 12:44 PM 0 comments Monday, February 26, 2007
Dixie Down East
Five Before Chaos has been doing outstanding reporting on white supremacist ties to Vermont's secessionist organization, the Second Vermont Republic. It's the kind of fascinating, in-detail investigation of American extremists that Dave Neiwert does. True, it's a local Vermont story, and true, my interests are more with the mainstream of the conservative movement - but I've been fascinated by the SVR story. Check it out.
Five Before Chaos has been doing outstanding reporting on white supremacist ties to Vermont's secessionist organization, the Second Vermont Republic. It's the kind of fascinating, in-detail investigation of American extremists that Dave Neiwert does. True, it's a local Vermont story, and true, my interests are more with the mainstream of the conservative movement - but I've been fascinated by the SVR story. Check it out.
Labels: extremism, five before chaos, white supremacism
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 4:19 PM 1 comments Monday, February 05, 2007
New on the Blogroll
Undercover Blue does thoughtful commentary on political mindsets in America.
And five before chaos reports on war, Christofascism, Blaxploitation, and Spaghetti Westerns. Plus a Jethro Tull clip. Beat that!
The Right's Field is an outstanding group blog covering the Republican presidential contenders.
Undercover Blue does thoughtful commentary on political mindsets in America.
And five before chaos reports on war, Christofascism, Blaxploitation, and Spaghetti Westerns. Plus a Jethro Tull clip. Beat that!
Labels: blogroll, five before chaos, meta, The Right's Field, Undercover Blue
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 1:11 PM 0 comments 
