Is Violence a Conservative Value?

[revtj]

http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/blogger.html

Very interesting post. shalom. tj

[BruceChris]

TJ: I just visited the website that you linked me to. I like it, I'm going to bookmark it. (I may end up spending more time there, and posting less here.)

Is violence a value of all too many conservatives? More and more I am getting the impression that they will deny it, and they will deny it angrily. They will explain that it is their mission to spread the love of God, although they will probably speak in terms of the Word of God, and that if I do not agree with their way of doing things, and get in the way, they just may beat the snot out of me, so that they can go on about their business of spreading the love of God. -- Kill a Commie for Christ, or something like that.

It is difficult to speak lovingly of those who would harm you, and still tell the truth at the same time.

It is difficult to comprehend the level of spiritual disconnectedness that is required of them to treat people in such dehumanizing ways, and yet tell themselves, and others, that they are loving them, as the Great Commandment says to do.

Well, O.K., not ALL conservatives, just the ones who write the horrifying websites and emails

I call this coming from a fear-based belief system, and I admit that I don't understand it, I can't explain it. I would appreciate it if some of you out there could offer your understandings of this sort of thing.

"a vision of Orwellian proportions in which values are inverted so
that violence, hatred, bigotry and war become the gifts of 'the Prince of Peace.’ " --- Bishop John Shelby Spong, on describing the religious right.


Peace, Love, and I suppose, more Peace and Love. Chris

[Emproph]

I call this coming from a fear-based belief system, and I admit that I don't understand it, I can't explain it. I would appreciate it if some of you out there could offer your understandings of this sort of thing.If you get a chance pick up a copy of John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience." It's new and in all the book stores. Much of the psychological profiles, specific and in general, are things I've been posting here so it especially resonated with me. It's a fascinating analysis and I highly recommend it.

He does an excellent job of describing how and why they think the way they do and explains the psychological differences between the authoritarian leaders and their followers, one of the few things I haven't been able to figure out on my own.

I've got to go back and highlight some of the pages as I'd like to do an in depth book review and post it around, I feel it is that important.

If you're not a reader, at least get it or borrow it to read chapter two, appropriately entitled 'Conservatives Without Conscience,' it's pretty much the pith of the infomation.

here's a clip from Keith Olberman interviewing John Dean from a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/11/john-dean-on-countdown-conservatives-without-conscience/

I really feel if this information could get out there in the way it is presented in this book it could turn the tables.

[revtj]

It is difficult to speak lovingly of those who would harm you, and still tell the truth at the same time.

This is the daily, recurring spiritual challenge for me. It is hard to love as Jesus loved. It takes work, it takes guts, it takes constant repentance & renewal...it can be exhausting.

One thing I have trouble letting myself off the hook for is in responding firmly & sternly to violent rhetoric. It is not out of line with Jesus, Gandhi or King. We have the right to defend ourselves, to speak the truth in love, to name the principalities & powers when we see (or hear) them. Occasionally I get angry, but angry words in defense of nonviolent truth seem better to me than violent actions, violent beliefs, violent lifestyles...

Anyone else feel my struggle? :confused:

[Daniel]

One thing I have trouble letting myself off the hook for is in responding firmly & sternly to violent rhetoric. It is not out of line with Jesus, Gandhi or King. We have the right to defend ourselves, to speak the truth in love, to name the principalities & powers when we see (or hear) them. Occasionally I get angry, but angry words in defense of nonviolent truth seem better to me than violent actions, violent beliefs, violent lifestyles...

Anyone else feel my struggle? :confused:

You bet. And I think your words touch on the very heart and struggle of the matter at hand.

After reading the orginal post, one sentence leapt out at me: " In essence, authority is a conservative's vicar for violence." I would agree with that statement insofar as authority, put in other words, considers that "might equals right," ergo, one can do whatever one wants to do because it serves one's self-interest. To me this is Ego acting as God.

I think anger can be an excellent motivator. And it's hard, as it were, to remain calm when one feels attacked- and in fact- may be attacked- in the words and actions of others.

Perhaps we can take our cue in this matters from the fire fighters. A backfire (anger in action) can be very effective, but knowing where and when to set it requires are great deal of insight. And to me, insight relates to 'inner.' and isn't possible without some sort of reflective mechanism in play. And an 'Ego as God' would hardy be engaged in that, would it? Everything is its path is an object to be placed in relationship to it. There is no Other.

[Zerbie]

TJ - I SO relate to that struggle! How indeed do you respond to these things, especially when angry? (something Dewdrop/James asked not long ago. . .) And it reminds me of the conversation with Nathan from yesterday (on the 'dirty people' thread.)

The anger needs to be the motivator, but not the actor. The part of us that acts in response needs to be seeing with clarity to know what we are doing, and how it is working. Anger is too blind for that, so it needs to be the behind-the-scenes motivation, pedalling furiously away, but not steering, if that silly analogy makes any sense.

[Beth K. Eyres]

And I agree with Zerbie, but sometimes I have leftover anger even after I've written a letter to the editor! I'm still pedaling, and I get tired...
(Yes, the analogy makes sense.)

[Emproph]

(I wrote this before the other responses so there may be some overlay.)
This is the daily, recurring spiritual challenge for me. It is hard to love as Jesus loved. It takes work, it takes guts, it takes constant repentance & renewal...it can be exhausting.

One thing I have trouble letting myself off the hook for is in responding firmly & sternly to violent rhetoric. It is not out of line with Jesus, Gandhi or King. We have the right to defend ourselves, to speak the truth in love, to name the principalities & powers when we see (or hear) them. Occasionally I get angry, but angry words in defense of nonviolent truth seem better to me than violent actions, violent beliefs, violent lifestyles...

Anyone else feel my struggle? :confused:It’s frustrating confronting their behavior as it relates to trashing the command to love others, but somewhat vindicating when I get a candid answer like, “God never specified that something needed to be evil to be a sin,” or “I don’t need to know why or how something is a sin,” essentially admitting that they don’t feel the need to know the truth while claiming their judgment of me is based on it. I always say if that’s the way you feel about it fine, at least admit it. That way when you do see the truth you’ll recognize it. Most of them (supremacist types) are incapable of even getting to that point though.

I often think about the regret they will experience when they do realize the magnitude of the truth of God’s Love and thus the magnitude of their mistaking their own pride for it. Especially when it’s sudden like in death or the return of Christ, when we’ll all experience the truth of Heaven at the same time.

For some it will be devastating. I don’t envy the challenge they will face in attempting to forgive themselves knowing full well that the truth had been explained to them repeatedly, and that they repeatedly and willfully refused to acknowledge it.

We’re their test. When they finally do see that Love does not judge, even them for unjustly judging us, in an instant they will be in full personal possession of every admonishment they expressed in the name of “God” that was actually in the name of their own pride. Thy will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are solely and fully responsible for the results and implications of their deeds and actions. There will be no mystery as to precisely where and how they went wrong because they will see that they loved being superior more than they loved Love itself. There's your idolatry and the meaning of the first commandment in both the Old and New Testament. Made that-much-worse when "God" itself is used to justify it.

I can say this because I recognize this error in myself all the time. Pride is my pet sin too.

The magnitude of the damage they’ve done will be the magnitude of the regret they will experience. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone and when I look at that reality I have NOTHING but compassion for them. I’m not immune either, I’ll have my own sudden regrets to deal with. That's the importance of cleaning house and recognizing the reality of Love right now, it'll be much more difficult then.

The ‘love the sinner hate the sin adage’ seems most appropriate here. I use that to measure my defensive reactions to their hatred and/or ignorance in order to make sure that in my own mind I am condemning their unacceptable behavior as opposed to them personally. They are a part of me, and they are as confused as they think that I am for thinking/knowing homosexuality is natural.

Part of the truth of the Truth is that they ARE doing injustice to us and that DOES make us angry because it hurts and kills. Speaking the truth of that anger is part of speaking the truth itself. Not that we should speak angrily necessarily, but it's a fact or "fruit" of the consequences of their actions that they need to continue to be made aware of.

Keep in mind too, we don’t know what God does with our words after they’ve been said/written or who else may be watching/reading. Someone they respect may say the same thing with different words that will make a connection that sticks. At the very least we can remind them to remember to forgive themselves for when they do eventually come face to face with the truth. Not patronizingly of course or even directly necessarily. (< I'll have to work on that one.)

More practically though I keep in mind the “movable middle” watching the debate and thinking “Ok, whose got the better argument here?”

Their side pretty much only has one argument -- their interpretation of the Bible, everything else is pretty much the same propaganda and lies.

As long as I keep my anger down to a healthy level and use it to narrow the focus of my complaint, I find my communication is most effective.

This article seems to help keep my response rage in check. It's short, but pointed. Pride: The Reservoir of All Sin. (http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/pride.html)

My favorite line in it:

“The best pride detector is this: how much are we bothered by the pride of others?"

Then I just have to watch out for feeling prideful about not being as prideful...;)

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

I also agree that it is difficult not to act out behaviorally in defense of your civil and human rights.

If you, a clergyman, has difficulty - try this believing but unchurched FA who has the opportunity to usually visit some of Christianity's ( and others ) most historical houses of worship on a worldwide basis.

I also have a glib tongue, and when not working and not jeopardizing my job, I am quick to respond to the negative jibes of homophobes. Along the way, I developed some muscles and some defense strategies to go along with it.:lol:

It is interesting that I come here in order to read all the clergymen that I don't see on Sunday - I am so concerned about the bishop - he is so sick.

[Emproph]

(Dan, you nailed it. Zerbie, I agree with Beth, the “silly” analogy works. :))
___________________________

I ran across this today on a blog and feel like it may be part of the underlying problem that we’re discussing. Perhaps one of the complicating reasons that they cling to the “certainty” that they are right is because they fear that they are uncertain. For them though the effect is worse because they once had a “mystical” or convicting experience of truth that they can’t seem to reclaim, leaving them to face, or avoid facing, the fact that their faith truly is tenuous.

Excerpt:

Where does that leave us? Some of us hold onto a thread of hope that Christ will return soon enough, and all of the pain and heartache of life will be tossed into the wind and they'll lose themselves in that sacred union, and their Lover will never, ever leave them again. Others give up all together. They shrug the experience off, finding rational explanations for the love that they felt in that brief moment, blaming it on chemical reactions or their brain's own attempt to fulfill it's deeply ingrained psychological need for connection and understanding. Others become callous, jaded ex-lovers, choking back tears and covering up their hurt with anger and bitterness at the sound of an old hymn, or the sight of a group of naive church kids still capable of believing some God in the sky is in control of everything, and loves them so very much.

Others hold onto that holy suffering. Their groans are the purest of prayers, and their deeply ingrained wounds are cherished reminders of that devastating encounter.

From: "A Cruel Divorce" (http://heathbartx.blogspot.com/2006/07/cruel-divorce.html)

[BruceChris]

(I wrote this before the other responses so there may be some overlay.)-Thank you, Emporph


TJ, Emporph, Zerbie, Beth, Danial, FA: I suspect that this thread is getting us down to an issue that is much more basic than identity or orientation, if I'm not stepping on anyone's sensitivities here. That if sin is anything that seperates us from God, then the combination of denial, hypocracy, fear, ignorance, and election that comprises hetrosexism (and a lot of other isms) is a very pervasive sin, and an all too common part of the human condition.

In the past I used to ask some of my liberal, glbt-ally friends, if they had to live with the inescapable consequences of their decision for the rest of their lives, would they rather henceforth be a faggot or a biggot? They would inevitably reply that of course they would rather be a bigot, with the unspoken understanding that somehow the consequences would be much easier to escape, or much less dehumanizing than if they took the other chioce. O.K., so I don't ask that question anymore.

It would seem that it almost inevitably puts a person much more in touch with the human condition if you are an underdog than if you are an uberdog. Perhaps it can be/is a blessing to walk a mile in someone elses shoes, especially if that other person is someone who's life is strongly or unpleasantly influenced by your decisions.

This pretty much gets us into questions of pride vs humility much more than LGBT issues.

Emporph, I'm with you here. I know that I would be much better off to practice love and forgiveness, but just once I'd like to kick a little ass first.

Peace and Love, Chris

[suzer1013]

This is the daily, recurring spiritual challenge for me. It is hard to love as Jesus loved. It takes work, it takes guts, it takes constant repentance & renewal...it can be exhausting.

One thing I have trouble letting myself off the hook for is in responding firmly & sternly to violent rhetoric. It is not out of line with Jesus, Gandhi or King. We have the right to defend ourselves, to speak the truth in love, to name the principalities & powers when we see (or hear) them. Occasionally I get angry, but angry words in defense of nonviolent truth seem better to me than violent actions, violent beliefs, violent lifestyles...

Anyone else feel my struggle? :confused:

I absolutely feel the same struggle, and yes, it's a daily one.

When confronted with hate speech against GLBT people, or with other injustice, there are times when I get so angry I have to retreat. There are times that I ask if violence is perhaps a necessary thing -- to wake people up, to get them to see our suffering. Of course, I know it is not. I know that is (in a very simplified way) the thinking of a terrorist -- I will make the world wake up to injustice by blowing things (or in the worst case, people) up. And I would never, never advocate violence, except in extreme moments of self-defense.

However, the movie "V for Vendetta" appealed to my sense of justice.

My angry heart, sometimes, just wants to smack folks like Mell or Pastor Steve (over on the UMC boards), but I know that would do no good. It would only further justify, for them, my sinfulness. And yet they continue their spiritually violent ways, with no repurcussions (or at least, not repurcussions that I can see).

So, I too struggle to remain loving, to use Jesus' teachings, and not follow my own anger into a path of violence (spoken, physical or otherwise).

It is most difficult, this being human.

Susan

[Vanessa White]

Maybe it is just a matter of semantics, but for me, when I believe that I am facing a confrontation regarding being lesbian, I don't feel as much anger as I feel frustration- frustration in regard to the fact that they just don't get it. That feels different to me than anger, because it has an element of sympathy in it- kinda what Emproph was getting at about the fact that one day, our biggest detractors will get it, and feel bad for their mistreatment/misjudgment of us. I often think that persons that fight us the hardest are the ones that, in different circumstances, could possibly be our strongest allies. Humans often speak out the loudest against that which they feel drawn to, or compelled to support, because they are afraid to do so. People in general do not like to be confronted with their own demons- I think this way of viewing the human race helps me to not be so angry about it at times. Although, I have my own personal issues with being very uncomfortable with being angry with anyone about anything. But, beyond that, I think this rings true to a certain extent.....

[SBP]

I don't think they outwardly espouse violence per se, but they DO espouse intolerance...and that DOES lead to violence. Whether you are a Theocon or its Islamic equivalent, and you toe the "my way is the ONLY right way" viewpoint, then followers of that philosophy tend to read into that as being "open season" on any and all who just will not adhere to that too.

As far as I'm concerned, those who exhort their followers to commit violence, knowingly or not, are just as guilty of having blood on their hands. Whether it is the Iranian President's statement that, "Israel should be wiped off the map." or W's "Bring 'em on.", they should be held accountable for the actions their statements generate.

A recent reminder of the harm this can cause was personified by Judy Shepard's attendance at the 1,000 Watt march & vigil. It was this enduring personification of LGBTQ folks by the Theocon establishment in general (not including the inclusive congregations, of course) that paint us as deviants, and somehow less than human, that lead to her son Matthew's brutal murder at the hands of other young men. Apparently their masculinity was somehow threatened by being approached by another male. Too often the words of the likes of Fred Phelps (and I refuse to use the term Rev., because he is NO man of God) sink in and otherwise taint the thinking of folks who simply know no better. That is why it is so vitally important to be visible as positive role models, so that we are the living, breathing repudiation of that belief through our own positive actions. :)

[Vanessa White]

SBP: I am right with you on that one. We as role models, I believe, hold so much power and influence in the minds of young adults that are the voting populus of the future! I think the more that us older individuals can put ourselves out there (And believe me, I do understand why some of us believe that we cannot do that) the more appropriate role models we can serve as for gay and straight youths alike- the ones that will be voting on these initiatives for the next few years. Please, all you souls of souforce here, come out and show yourselves and give these youths a role model to look up to- I think it goes a long way!! :love: :love: :love:

[SBP]

SBP: I am right with you on that one. We as role models, I believe, hold so much power and influence in the minds of young adults that are the voting populus of the future! I think the more that us older individuals can put ourselves out there (And believe me, I do understand why some of us believe that we cannot do that) the more appropriate role models we can serve as for gay and straight youths alike- the ones that will be voting on these initiatives for the next few years. Please, all you souls of souforce here, come out and show yourselves and give these youths a role model to look up to- I think it goes a long way!! :love: :love: :love:


Vanessa: Exactly~!!! That's what I was saying earlier when reflecting on the progress we've attained so far. It didn't come without a cost, but the better circumstances WE enjoy came because someone else B4 us paid that price.

The stuff we do NOW, like being visible to the younger folks, may not give US tangible benefits necessarily, but we do it for those who will follow US. To make the world a little better than the one we inherited. By educating the younger ones NOW, they will make a difference when THEIR time comes~!!

That is what progress is all about...looking to the future! If it improves things in the short term, so much the better. But we're in it for the long haul and our vision should always be aimed forward. And I look forward to continuing that long haul arm in arm with wonderful folks like you that I'm proud to call my sister and compatriot. :love:

Peace & Love 2 U~!!

[nowvoyager]

When I get angry about something that is said against us, I try to see it as coming from someone who is much more lost in the wildnerness than I had imagined someone in a majority or in power would be. By this I mean - for someone to be so angry or confused or bewildered that they lash out at us like a 5year old. Only this explains to me why they would be so hateful and prescriptive against someone who essentially has no impact on them. Have they been so concreted in by fundamentalist thought that they are too frightened to acknowledge something within them, perhaps? Or have they been brutalised by an authoritarian parent? Or teased unmercifully as a child and felt they had to toughen up? I just don't think that being really mean to someone else can happen without a trigger from somewhere. So I imagine what pain they must be in. Or imagine, as Emproph said in his terrific post, that they will be subject to enormous regret when they finally realise the extent of their idolatory and nastiness. And like my tagline, from the great Plato - everyone is fighting a hard battle. I find that from this perspective its harder for me to sustain anger I have and it more likely fades away. Bless them as they know not what they do - even though in the doing, they impact my life so drastically. I'm not perfect at this, by all means - and if I'm tired, or if the insult is the last in a long line (like the political bullets we've been dodging lately), I want to react back with anger or biting sarcasm. But that's ok as I am human, and I am trying and trying, to practice this change.

As for the call to be a role model, to "be the change we want to see" - I absolutely agree with SBP and Vanessa that this is our most powerful tool. People find it harder to be nasty, I think, to real people (which is why it comes out so virulently in cyberspace).

[SBP]

Hatred and cowardice is always easier from a distance, when one doesn't have to face the target of their venom. For much the same reason that Hezbollah lobs missiles at innocent people from a distance and James Dobson vilify us in the media. It's a little tougher to do when you are face to face with someone just as human as you are. Because it's when facing their target that cowards risk facing their greatest fear of all.....the recognition that we really aren't all that different at all~!!

When one fights fire with fire, the only outcome is that EVERYONE gets burned~!! The only effective weapon against hate, and the only thing against which it can never prevail...is LOVE. :)

Peace & Love 2 U~!!

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

.......however, verbal violence is the stock in trade of the neo-conservative movements- either secular or theocon - and their rhetoric often translates into emotional or physical violence against LGBT persons

[revtj]

I have just watched a lecture by Dr Steven Miles, MD, PhD, on his new book "Oath Betrayed" on C-Span. Catch it if you can.

He evaluates the torture and abuse at Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, Afghanastan and secret locations such as Uzbekestan from a standpoint of medical ethics. It was so disturbing.

Setting aside the Geneva Accords is a travesty our nation will regret for a long time to come. I find it bizarre that the same administration that would welcome theocons who wish to make 5000 BCE biblical norms absolute and incorporate them into US law, at the same time blithely considered the Geneva Conventions a relative document.

Violence may not be a conservative value but this administration will be remembered by the whole world for a long time to come as the most violent American presidency ever. That is terribly sad for all of us, no matter where we put our stake in the political spectrum.

[Zerbie]

T
In the past I used to ask some of my liberal, glbt-ally friends, if they had to live with the inescapable consequences of their decision for the rest of their lives, would they rather henceforth be a faggot or a biggot? They would inevitably reply that of course they would rather be a bigot, with the unspoken understanding that somehow the consequences would be much easier to escape, or much less dehumanizing than if they took the other chioce. Peace and Love, Chris

Omigod. They said that? Wow. I'm actually surprised. :(
And feeling philosophically alone.

[Beth K. Eyres]

Just want to say thanks for all the comments on this thread. I printed it all out so I could read it again more slowly. And these words do a terrible job at expressing my gratitude, so :D

[revtj]

I caught John Dean on C-Span this weekend and I remembered Emproph had mentioned his book, Conservatives Without Conscience so I watched it. Wow! He evaluates personality types according to authoritarianism. Very interesting.