Archives for Category "Religion & Politics"
April 4, 2008
Whose Bodily Integrity Now, Mister?
Apart from the personal fun and unfun (mostly unfun) of pregnancy, there are of course huge politics associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting. I have lots of opinions about most aspects (and did even before I was pregnant), and those aspects I don't have opinions about yet, I'm sure I will soon. But the biggie, when it comes to pregnancy in the United States, is of course the question of a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. For the record, my own pregnancy (approaching 31 weeks) has only reinforced my views on this:No one should be forced or coerced by the state to be pregnant against their will.
I don't usually bother to read discussions about reproductive rights online much anymore - there is really nothing new under the sun, there. But, I was idly skimming this thread for some reason and was amused at one response to a guy (surely a guy) claiming that he's all about the pwecious babeeez...
Whatever works — as long as there are fewer abortions, I’m happy. If anyone’s “rights” get trampled on as a result of preventing that abortion, I really am not bothered by it. Now cry and moan.I thought the 'cry and moan' attempt at a coup de grace was telling, too, regarding this jerk's views on women who dare to assert their personhood. Anyway, the response was:
OK, here’s a suggestion. Every man could be forced to have a vasectomy. There could be a policy of storing several sperm samples before the procedure, or perhaps a system whereby one could apply for a temporary reversal in order to have a child. I think adopting such a policy would bring the abortion rate down to virtually zero, don’t you? So, given your insistence that it doesn’t matter whose rights get trampled on as long as the number of abortions is reduced, can we assume that you’d be entirely in favour of this?As we see over and over again, the promoted policies of the forced childbirth brigades are often in stark contrast to their supposed goals.
<=> | Comments: 1 | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Parenting / Religion & Politics
March 25, 2008
Virginia for the Haters
There is a lot TheGuy and I like about living in Virginia, but sometimes some of the idiot haters down in Richmond remind me of some of the things we really don't. The latest "conservative" display of bigotry and hate here in the great Commonwealth is rightwing Attorney General McDonnell claiming that state universities in Virginia do not have to offer in-state tuition to U.S.-born students whose parents happen to be undocumented immigrants. The ACLU of VA's Executive Director says:Under the AG’s line of reasoning, a U.S. citizen born in Virginia and who has spent his entire life here could be denied in-state tuition because his parents are not lawfully present. That’s patently unfair and a bit preposterous, if you think about it. At the very least it violates a fundamental tenet of U.S law -- that you do not punish children for the actions of their parents.It's not only bigoted, it's anti-American, and anti-education. But, I'm not really surprised.
These days, of course, stuff about education is starting to become personal for us. If we still happen to be in Virginia when it's time for TheLittleGuy to go to college, I will certainly encourage him to consider some of Virginia's fine colleges and universities to help save his poor parents some money. (I'll be suggesting options outside of VA too, I'm sure.) Hopefully, whatever wingnut Taliban-types are in office at the time won't be trying to deny access to education to my kid simply because his mother has some trait(s) they find undesirable. But, you know they would if they could.
<=> | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Parenting / Religion & Politics / Republicans / State & Local
November 5, 2007
Gay-Hatin' Gospel
Fred Clark's Gay-Hatin' Gospel series over at Slacktivist is a must-read. He examines the question of how "gay-hating" has come to be a common, if not the most common, perception of Christianity. Part 1 explores the theory that gays are a safe target (he goes through less satisfactory theories early before getting to what he thinks is the root of the issue.)I don't think this safe-target dynamic fully explains the motive or the cause of American evangelicalism's anti-gay obsession, but I do believe it accounts for part of its appeal. That appeal is all the more appealing in the American church, where we're deeply anxious about the fact that we don't seem significantly different from everybody else in our culture. Since we expend our lives chasing after the exact same things as everyone else, and since we can't say with any confidence that "They'll know we are Christians by our love," we have to latch onto whatever insignificant signifiers we can. We don't drink (in public), and we don't dance (well). Still not convinced we're the elect, the chosen few? Well then, um, we're heterosexual. Dazzled yet?Part 2 ponders inner demons and closet cases, of which there are many among the most vociferous gay-bashers among the Christian right. Part 3 looks at the 'innocent backlash' -- the notion that
this perception is inaccurate -- that nine out of 10 young non-Christians and four out of five young churchgoers have somehow gotten the wrong idea. The contempt American Christianity displays toward homosexuals, these proponents say, is just the right amount. Christians, this theory holds, do not regard homosexuals as particularly or especially deserving of condemnation, it's just that homosexual activists have become so vocal in promoting their radical homosexual agenda that -- purely in response -- Christians have been forced to become equally vocal in reply.My favorite is the exegetical panic defense (what a great phrase), discussed in Part 4:
the dissonance that comes from questioning one's own conscience and experience -- is what underlies what I'm calling here the Exegetical Panic Defense. This is what happens when an evangelical who has been taught to believe in the Big Gay Evil finally gets to know a flesh-and-blood homosexual human being and starts to think that, actually, this person doesn't really seem like they are evil or a threat or righteously miserable due to their sordid "alternative lifestyle."Part 5 looks at the possibility that it's about plain old political power.
For some other Christian, someone relying on something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, this can be an instructive experience. Those kinds of Christians are allowed, and even required, to learn from their experience, from their reason and conscience.*** For such people, this new friend (or old friend coming out with new information) will serve as a tonic against the idea that Christians ought to be characterized by an "excessive contempt" for homosexuals.
But for an evangelical relying on the Unilateral, weighing your own experience against the purportedly crystal clear teachings of scripture is verboten. Something's gotta give and that something, in this case, is their own experience, conscience and instincts. That's when the panic-inducing cognitive dissonance kicks in and fight-or-flight takes over. And then anything could happen.
The demagogues of the religious right pursue power -- political and economic power -- by preying on fears and prejudices. Their power depends upon the perception of barbarians at the gate, on the perception that some menacing Other is on the verge of destroying all that their followers hold dear. This Other, the demagogue's scapegoat who must die for our salvation, can't be something that presents a genuine danger, because that would expose the demagogue's impotence to protect his followers from real threats.Part 6 revisits the backlash theory.
Homosexuals make an ideal scapegoat for the demagogues manipulating and fleecing their evangelical flock. The safe-target dynamic ensures that your scapegoat isn't someone your sheep are likely to know or empathize with, and the innocent-backlash claim provides a fig leaf that allows the demagogues to claim that the nastiness they're promoting is justifiable.
The only real difficulty with demonizing homosexuals is that they're not actually demons. Homosexuals don't actually present any kind of threat at all to American evangelicals. The demagogues overcome this obstacle by doing what demagogues are best at: lying. Homosexuals, they claim, are a threat to Marriage, and to The Family, and to the Word of God. Reality doesn't support such claims, so they embellish reality. They claim that same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage because, um, mumblemumblemumble pound pulpit, it just would!
Really, the whole thing is worth a close read. I've only pulled a few snippets.
<=> | Comments: 3 | in: Religion & Politics
August 18, 2007
Hate Must be Taught, After All
Hate must be taught, as the saying goes, and it's not just children who can be taught to hate. A little while ago Rick Perlstein wrote an all-too-familiar lament about his older relatives being fed a diet of viciousness and hate through avenues such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and being taught to hate ... people like him.She was sure that beyond its threshold lay dragons: far-far-far leftists out to steal her Social Security; turbaned terrorists just itching to fly a jet into the First Wisconsin tower a few blocks to the south; quisling Democrats itching to help them do it; grandma-gutting criminal marauders just outside her door.A little while ago I was sharing a related lament with one of my relatives and something occurred to me. Not only do we live in one of most prosperous nation-states in one of the most prosperous times that has ever been, with luxuries inconceivable just a century or two ago, we also live in a time where the most sophisticated and most effective propaganda machines ever to be constructed are at work every minute of every day. Most of the time these machines are aimed at reinforcing capitalist myths and emptying wallets, but a significant sliver of this newly-developed propaganda capacity is in the service of an ideology focused on fostering divisiveness and contempt for others. So, while I am appalled at the unthinking repetition of insidious wingnut memes that I hear all too often, I'm also sympathetic. It is very difficult to resist the propaganda even when it's transparent ("buy this beer and beautiful blonde women will have sex with you"), and much more so when it is meant to fly under the radar (see Frank Luntz's entire life's work, for example) and masked in a veneer of patriotism.
I'd look out of [my grandmother's] eighth floor picture window, down at the scene she saw every day, half expecting to find that nightmare landscape before me. Nope: same as always, the brightly colored sailboats on Lake Michigan, kids and their parents feeding the ducks (Grandma used to take me to feed the ducks), happy, strolling Milwaukee couples—paradise. Where was she getting these fantasies?
One evening's visit, all became clear. She gestured at the blaring TV set. The excruciating grandma-volume was even more excruciating than usual, because she was visiting with her best TV friend. She told me how much she adored Bill O'Reilly. My wife and I cringed. Watching our latter-day Joe McCarthy on TV every night, she had learned, late in life—for this development was entirely new—how to hate her fellow Americans. I almost cried, because one of the people she was learning how to hate was me.
Sara over at Orcinus had more to say about the grandma-snatchers and a proposed solution:
Perlstein's article has prompted a flood of comments, here and elsewhere, from anguished progressives whose mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and grandparents once instilled them with their liberal values -- but are now estranged from their families and lost to the right-wing airwaves. It's as though, while we weren't looking, the body-snatchers snuck in through the pipe and made off with their votes, their brains, and (occasionally) their money.
[...] America's elderly have been frightened by media fearmongers for as long as there's been TV -- and possibly (for those familiar with Father Coughlin), for as long as there's been radio. This is a fine old tradition, the natural outcome when the elderly are left alone too many hours each day with only a box for company. But it's not inevitable. There are things we can do about it.
[...] Most of us are very cautious and circumspect about leaving our children's developing minds to the tender mercies of the media. Those of us who care about the elders in our families might be equally vigilant about their media diets as well. We do not have to take the political hijacking of our seniors lying down, or assume that's just the way it is. We just have to do what we do with our kids: make sure they've got consistent access to appealing, age-appropriate media that gives them hope, confidence, and truly balanced ways of seeing the world.
<=> | in: Federal Politics / General Musings / Media Dysfunction / Religion & Politics / Republicans / Technology
