Christian persecution paranoia

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I think that the work Soulforce does is unbelievably important, because I think it's pretty much the only way to reach the reasonable people. And I DO think it's important to assume that people are reasonable until they prove otherwise. But some people aren't, and I guess I'm just saying I don't know how to deal with that. (I swear this started out as related to the thread).

It is related. Let me see if I can tie this together.

Originally Posted by revtj

This is shocking

~ campus protestor

I just started reading Michelle Goldberg's (Salon.com) Kingdom Coming, much of it exploring the sense of the "Christian" persecution paranoia.

A couple of quotes, page 69:

Christian nationalism, like most militant ideologies, can exist only in opposition to something. Its sense of righteousness depends on feeling besieged, no matter how much power it amasses.

Needing to see their foe as equal to their hatred, they exaggerate its strength. So gay people become a threat to the most important thing conservatives have -- their families. In standing up to that threat, they see themselves as heroes. Their loathing is transformed into virtue.

Richard Hofstadter described in his seminal 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”:

... “Even partial succes leaves him with the same sense of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.”

Page 78:

This is a pattern that repeats itself again and agian in the culture wars. When experts discredit some bit of fundamentalist orthodoxy, it's taken as futher proof of the experts' bias. When the religious conservatives are proven wrong, their faith in their righteousness only grows, along with their hatred of the conspiracy the see arrayed against them.

And for my segue, from the conclusion, Pages 180 and 181 (I skip around):

For opponents of the right, one the most alarming things about the current state of our country is the fact that so many Americans fervently believe things that are objectively false – that Iraq was behind September 11, for example, or that Bill Clinton was a more profligate spender than Bush, or that the world is only a few thousand years old.

They wonder how to get through to their fellow citizens, how to find the message or slogan or frame that will make them see the perilous condition America has been reduced to. What’s lacking, though, isn’t just truth – it’s the entire social mechanism by which truth is distinguished from falsehood. Blunting Christian nationalism requires turning back toward the Enlightenment and rebuilding a culture of rationalism. Unfortunately, multitudes of Americans no longer find Enlightenment values compelling. A rational politics cannot promise the national restoration so many seem to long for.

And finally:

Thus for those who value secular society, apprehending the threat posed by Christian nationalism is tricky. It’s kind of like being a lobster in a pot, with the water heating up so slowly that you don’t notice the moment at which it starts to kill you.

Usually the metaphor is with a frog. If you put a frog in boiling water it jumps out, but if you put it in water that’s room temperature and then turn up the heat one degree at a time it doesn’t notice the difference and ends up boiling to death (supposedly). It’s often used in the global warming ‘debate.’

This is what is so insidious about their game plan though. It was designed to be stealth. The Bush Administration has mastered this tactic. Their “war on the middle class” (Lou Dobbs) is a notable example. Keep them/us in fear of our livelihood through outsourcing, and cutting social programs to fund tax breaks for the rich, etc., and we we’ll be too busy worrying about making a living to notice that our civil (and human) rights are being taken away, one by one, in the name of protecting us from the real enemy – terrorism.

That way, they’re not responsible for the 3 minimum wage jobs I have to work to feed my family, they’re “protecting” what I have...

The RR is perhaps an even worse threat in this regard. They not only subterfuge with language, they can invoke the threat of eternal hell and the love of all things sacred with it. I think it’s just more pronounced and unabashed with them.

So:

I said:

Originally Posted by Emproph

[title]Literally in fear of the fear that this may cause them

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

And James you responded (I believe this was the tenor of your post):

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I don't know about you, but if somebody comes up to me and says, no, you're totally wrong, my immediate reaction is, "Well, who do you think you are?" And then the conversation is over.

First of all, I misspoke. So I wholeheartedly agree with your response – as usual.

What I was trying to elucidate was what I am seeing as our own fear of believing and understanding that our perspective – lgbt, liberal et al – IS superior to theirs. It seems to me that we are often afraid to make this conclusion for fear of taking on the pious indignation that they are notorious for. That supremacist quality in them that we despise. And as a result of not wanting to see ourselves as we see them, we acquiesce to the adage that “all beliefs were created equal.”

This is PRECISELY their tactic, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. It is perhaps no better represented in their pleas for “tolerance” of their intolerance. And because we are so consumed with the ideal of fairness, we believe it. Not recognizing that their doctrinal ideology of “fairness” is ROOTED in subjugation and dominion – unfairness, but in this case, justified in the name of a just God.

The very basis of their argument over “equal” anything, is their belief in the right to redefine the meaning of equality itself.

My own brother used this “argument” on me in the attempt to justify his support of the ‘war’ in Iraq. (Paraphrased ) “We live in America” he said, “where people can have differing opinions.” He also signed the anti-gay marriage Amendment petition here in Florida to take away my American rights.

Unfortunately he’s a typical example. The argument of “equality” is used as their basis to forward the belief that equal rights include the right to take away equality.

That type of insanity is not only not “equal,” it is DEFINITIVELY inferior.

~~
And here’s how.

These are both adjectives:

Originally Posted by WordPerfect 11

Liberal - willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from one's own.
-ORIGIN originally meaning 'suitable for a free man': from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free man'

VS

Conservative - averse to change and holding traditional values.
-Conserve: ORIGIN Latin conservare 'to preserve’

Strip away the politically charged connotations and issues associated with them and they are both adjectives – descriptions – whatever the politics and whatever the issue.

What we’re talking about here is perspectives, ideologies, what have you. A liberal perspective by it’s very nature incorporates and encompasses a conservative perspective – no-matter-what-the-issue!

Perhaps the word ‘awareness’ is a better descriptor than ‘perspective.’ Point being that liberals are by definition, BOTH liberal AND conservative. Thus, at least in theory, if not in practice yet, a liberal perspective is SUPERIOR to a conservative perspective. This is what I’m trying to say.

(Generalizing here)

Liberals ALWAYS at least have the option of seeing the conservative perspective. Conservatives by definition, filter out – censor – the very perspective and awareness that they claim makes them ideologically superior. It is the definition of idiocy.

That’s why the defense mechanism of projection is so rampant on their side. The have no-other-option to interpret the liberal agenda (equality) outside of their myopic supremacist worldview. And since their worldview is dependent upon censorship of thought and blind adherence to authority, there is no need or even desire to see “better.” They’ve concluded and decided that not thinking is BEST.

The problem is that many/most of us liberals are so blinded by our fundamental belief in fairness, equality, tolerance, democracy (all men are created equal – America), etc., that we cannot even conceive of an entire lifetime based on thought (information) censorship, that conservatives subscribe to, let alone their delusion that less thought, less information, less rationality, is somehow a superior coping mechanism and survival skill.

Actually it is superior as a survival skill. One doesn’t want the hesitation of “fairness” to interfere with the protection of one’s self and/or family. Any “debate” on that front should be met with a baseball bat or gun, or whatever else is at your disposal if need be. But not as social policy based on arguments of “what might happen if...” Problem being, this is their life's philosophy.

To that extent, we liberals (again, generalizing) are at a great disadvantage by not being able to comprehend the danger of these social neo-conservatives. WE CAN’T EVEN RECOGNIZE THE THREAT THAT THEY POSE BECAUSE OF OUR PROPENSITY FOR FAIRNESS.

Back to my quote:

Originally Posted by Emproph

[title]Literally in fear of the fear that this may cause them

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

My suggestion is not to be more confrontational or to assert any sense of self-righteous supremacy, but to get over and come to terms with what I see as a fear of being “like them” in understanding that the worldview of logic and rationalism (enlightenment) IS SUPERIOR!

If we don’t get over this fear, we’re dead. Because they’ll kill us both. This IS survival. To grant them equality is to seal our own death, as well as theirs. They are adult-children and MUST be understood as such. Would you negotiate with you child when they tell you that your “liberal law” to look both ways when crossing the street (as opposed to just the right way) is oppressive to them?

Obviously you do your best not to be offensive, but if it comes down to it, you spank them, you yell at them, you humiliate them in front of all their friends and the neighborhood in the attempt and the hopes that they will NEVER forget what you’ve said about the dangers of not looking BOTH ways!

And this is precisely the argument that they make. That the denial of information is on equal footing with information itself. The difference being that this time, they’re not only driving the car, they are determined to have all the stop signs taken down, as they are an infringement on their (religious) “freedom.”

They are certifiably I-N-S-A-N-E. Say it, admit it, and get used to it. This is truth. To deny THIS truth, is to pretend that their childISH perspectives deserve equal respect.

They are no more equal to us than a child is to a parent. Loved unconditionally, but understood – unequivocally – to be infinitely less aware of the consequences of their actions.

Again, I’m not suggesting such stark language should be used in personal conversation or argument per se. Just that we need to understand and accept in NO-UNCERTAIN-TERMS, for our own selves, that SANITY is superior to INSANITY, and that is the magnitude of the rift between us.

Catch my drift?

[u-dog]

Obviously you do your best not to be offensive, but if it comes down to it, you spank them, you yell at them, you humiliate them in front of all their friends and the neighborhood in the attempt and the hopes that they will NEVER forget what you’ve said about the dangers of not looking BOTH ways!

Actually, no Emproph, I would do NONE of these things (I DID do none of these things) I HELD THEIR HAND TIGHTLY AT ALL TIMES AND DID NOT LET THEM MAKE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DECISIONS BY THEMSELVES UNTIL I WAS SURE THAT THEY WERE CAPABLE OF DOING SO SAFELY. One of them I thought I would be holding his hand til he went to college but he finally "got it". I WAS RELENTLESSLY, LOVINGLY, VIGILANT !!

And I don't think spanking the neo-cons will work either. It just makes them feel angry and "oppressed" (which is what spanking does to children incidentally) We need to stay in contact with them at all times and physically hold them back from from the edge of disaster for as long as it takes. We must come out and speak out and oppose their f****d up ideology in every venue that comes to hand.


Which is to say: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN YOUR ANALYSIS! I would add though that I don't think that the Religious Right is "Conservative" That is their cover story... but its a lie (a lie they tell themselves as well) they are in fact, RADICALS. They are digging to the "root" of our democracy and to the ROOT of the Enlightenment itself and digging it up. They are killing the tree in order to plant a new tree and they MUST be stopped.

[revtj]

This is wierd but some of your posts above were not there yesterday when I posted mine...

Anyway, Joe & Emproph thanks for the CARA post, I am printing that one out to post by my desk!

Now I want to comment on this:

1. we have to acknowledge that many of those opposing us have been lied to by someone they trust and that they don't have the appropriate information
and
2. They need to be willing to stop screaming long enough to listen to us and/or research the information objectively for themselves.

THIS is sooo true. I try to remember this whenever I can. When I realize that my anti-gay neighbor went searching for the truth through their church or wherever and they were given false information, it is easier for me to pray for those who despitefully use us and bless those who curse us...many (most?) of them don't get much of a chance to see more than 1 point of view.

And that brings me back to my Soulforce commitment to oppose misinformation and not people or churches or faith traditions...

[ladyinred]

I have to agree with you Alecto. I do think that SoulForce is crucial.. And that the work they are doing is important. Can they reach people, I think in many ways they can and in effect have succeeded.

[ladyinred]

Live and let live would be ok, if the religious right wasn't spreading some dangerous ideology and trying to take over the government, the masses and the world so to speak. Remember they want a new world order in which all people submit to their world view. Did you see the game that was coming out last November and December, it was based on Tim Layhayes left behind series. In it atheists,jews, moderate Christians , gays etc are blown away if they don't convert to their view of Christianity. Some in the reconstructionist movement advocate bringing back old testament laws such as stoning childen and adulterers and homosexuals. Can people just afford to sit idley by and let them impose their ideology on the rest of us,while they try to turn our country into a theocracy? Is that not dangerous?

[dewdrop_world]

RevTJ --

And that brings me back to my Soulforce commitment to oppose misinformation and not people or churches or faith traditions...

I agree totally, and I think this is a critical counterbalance to your points in the earlier post.

Like you, I feel that conservatism in general is a weak philosophy, for being rigid, unable to adapt to new information or circumstances, unable to accept what it can't control (and always trying desperately to keep the uncontrollable out of sight, because that would mean facing fear in a spiritually healthy and integrated, rather than taking the coward's way out of projecting the blame onto some bogeyman that must be destroyed).

We have had some conservative visitors here who seem not to share this mindset, and we've had a greater number who provide ample evidence of this assessment just by opening their mouths. I would like to hear from more of the former. Even though my higher education is in music, I really like the scientific method. You look at the evidence, formulate a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it to be sure that you haven't made a mistake.

I can imagine some conservatives reading this post and thinking that I hold all conservatives, personally, in contempt. Definitely not true! I want to be proven wrong. Please, SOMEBODY, prove me wrong!

~ ~ ~

I still feel I need to take some caution. Of course I feel that my present views, though open to improvement, are the best I can do at this time and, having considered and rejected the conservative alternatives, I do feel that my views are better than the majority of conservative viewpoints I've encountered. It's all too easy, though, to slide into the belief that I am inherently a better person, that I am more worthy, because my views are better. That is a conclusion I find absolutely repugnant. Lucky for me, then, that it isn't a logical conclusion. One's worth as a person does not depend in any way on the worth of one's ideas.

But it's more than that. Buddhism proposes the idea, and I've come to see its wisdom more and more over the years, that ALL views -- liberal, conservative, fascist, revolutionary, those that free the soul and those that imprison it -- are fleeting. They arise and pass away. They are utilitarian -- we use them as crutches until one day we discover that the views themselves are holding us back, tying us down. Then we can finally let them go and be, as Jesus urged us, like the lilies of the field or the birds in the sky (in the most Buddhist of Jesus's teachings):

Originally Posted by Matthew 6

26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Extreme conservative viewpoints are maintained because the people who hold them find them useful. If they're actually deleterious, they will cease to be useful at some point. We can set the wheels in motion, but we can't force the conclusion. Nobody self-interrogates a cherished view under duress.

Further -- in the ultimate sense, if I hold fast to the view that my views are better, that also binds me. Perhaps it's useful for a while to be so bound -- but perhaps not. I don't want to get so caught up in my apologia that I don't recognize when it's time to drop that burden.

Just a couple of cents. Maybe half a cent. Maybe Monopoly money.
James

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

But it's more than that. Buddhism proposes the idea, and I've come to see its wisdom more and more over the years, that ALL views -- liberal, conservative, fascist, revolutionary, those that free the soul and those that imprison it -- are fleeting. They arise and pass away. They are utilitarian -- we use them as crutches until one day we discover that the views themselves are holding us back, tying us down. Then we can finally let them go and be, as Jesus urged us, like the lilies of the field or the birds in the sky (in the most Buddhist of Jesus's teachings):

James- your thought echos that of Karlfried Graf Durckhiem who book, Zen and Us, is sitting beside me at the moment.

A relevant passage that includes a poem regarding The Experience of Being and Dualism.

Stubbornly to seek the truth's deepest meaning
Is to wear yourself out in idle cogitation.
Put your thinking to silence----
That is what matters!
Do not linger in thought
Upon antitheses;
To chase after and seek them---
Beware of so doing!
For one breath of antithesis
Hands your spirit over to confusion.

-From the Shin Jin Mei (Seal of Belief) by the Third Patriarch, Soan

Zen is the doctrine of Being transcending all antitheses, Being in which there is no before and after, no here and there, no this and that, no Peter or Paul. This is the problem Zen sets the thinker- particularly the Westerner, who naturally thinks in antithesis, and the Christian, who naturally feels that he cannot survive without dualism. A Christian priest once said to me, "You can write what you like- as long as you keep dualism." Why did he say that? Because, for him, dropping dualism meant accepting "monism," and that ultimately meant denying the distance between human beings and God, fusing the two- and seriously shaking one of the main pillars of Christian belief. But is this really what it means? It is- if we take the unity of nonobjective experience, reinterpret it in objective terms, and equate it with identity. If we do this, we are turning non-dualism into an objective "one", in which all human beings are one- and in which God and mankind are also one. This "one" is perceived as "something", in which all distinctions are resolved and everything becomes identical- certainly a blasphemous notion when applied to the man/God relationship.

If we go on and attribute this blasphemy to Zen, we are missing Zen's decisive message, and will continue to miss it until we can break the hold of objective consciousness. The experience of Being is the experience of opposites that coincide. The objective, dualistic view of reality that objective consciousness gives us is an illusion, and when it falls away, Being reveals itself to us as fullness, order, and unity transcending all antithesis.

I think the hardest thing for any of us to grasp is that our thoughts are not possessions- are not concrete- and properly speaking- don't need defending. But we do. We fight tooth and nail for them. We'll even die for them.

The only reason I can see why we would do this is because we have forgotten how to love. That, to me, is the great message of both Christ and the Buddha. Ya gotta love. All else is some 'thing'.

[dewdrop_world]

Thanks, Daniel.

I was thinking about this some more and suddenly remembered that the idea identified in Buddhism as the number one source of trouble is the idea that I exist separately, disconnected from, other people and other beings... which, of course, loops around to where I started posting in this thread. What if, at bottom, they are not so different from me?

Regardless of what I think about whose way of thinking is better or worse, for me it's more important to look at, and heal, the disconnection.

James

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I was thinking about this some more and suddenly remembered that the idea identified in Buddhism as the number one source of trouble is the idea that I exist separately, disconnected from, other people and other beings...which, of course, loops around to where I started posting in this thread. What if, at bottom, they are not so different from me?

Regardless of what I think about whose way of thinking is better or worse, for me it's more important to look at, and heal, the disconnection.

James, you totally get everything that I mean. Many if not most of us around here do. Ultimately it comes down to the need to recognize that unconditional love is superior to conditional/human love because without unconditional love, not even the idea (read:Creation) of conditional-human-love could exist.

You are already practicing what I'm saying, I'm just trying to explain it. But your post there says it all, replete with abounding innocence.

It's not my intent to engender any sense of superiority, but in fact to point out that it is precisely the capacity for humility that is superior – just that we shouldn't be afraid to think of it in those terms. The superiority itself is BASED on the absense of one's ego, one's sense of separateness, etc.

Originally Posted by James

the number one source of trouble is the idea that I exist separately, disconnected from, other people and other beings...

That's pretty much oneness in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by James

Regardless of what I think about whose way of thinking is better or worse, for me it's more important to look at, and heal, the disconnection.

And that's pretty much humility in a nutshell.


So in a nutshell, Bravo