| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > The Moral Bankruptcy of the Right |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 15 2004, 11:37 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > The Moral Bankrupcy Of The Right Posted by: Lokmer May 13 2004, 01:29 PM I am a conservative, at least by the standards of my geographical area. I am actually a pretty relaxedly liberal guy, but I'm liberal in the classical, Jeffersonian sense rather than in the more socialistic economic sense. I have voted Republican for most of my voting carreer, and it's only in the last three years that I have really understood what is going on in the party. I voted republican because of people like Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater. People who believed in personal independance and autonomy and responsibility, in integrity, in highly ethical situational morality. All of them had their flaws, of course, - In the context of our day and age, some might say that Roosevelt was guilty of what we now call war crimes, as was Lincoln, and Goldwater was not without his idealogically blind moments by a long shot. But more than that, once upon a time in this country there is what was referred to as the "liberal consensus," where the vast majority of the country was concerned with real issues: segregation, civil rights, sensible foreign policy that encouraged freedom rather than conquest. And although we have had our black marks against us from the beginning - slavery, the genocide of the native peoples - there is historically in this country a moral root that runs deep. To put it bluntly, there was a time when people were expected to act like adults or die trying. Now, from the far right, we hear the constant dogmatic drumbeat of moral reform. They want to restore that moral fiber to the country, to make people stalwart citizens again. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38462is an example of this ideolgy that I read this morning, written by a respectable, conservative, Christian gentleman. We must restore the morality to our shores, he cries, our decadence is evidenced in the prison abuses and the beheading we have seen this week. We must restore "Christian" morality to this nation before it's too late! And then he goes on to list... Sex. Every single moral point he lists is about sex. Every sodding one. You can probably already guess what they are - we've heard them all before. The society is on the brink of collapse because of atheistic secularism that allows people to do things other than keep the women protected at home and have monogamous sex without any drugs or alcohol in the home. It's because we have homosexuals in the military - and worse, WOMEN in the military, that these things are happening. It's because there is sex in our movies, and gay marriage in San Francisco, and provocative women in our advertising (which, you know, is all pornography) - it's because of these things that Berg was beheaded with a pocket knife. (Lest you think I'm charicaturing, please click the link and read for yourself). And as I read over this it occurred to me again, this thought I've had before. America is choking to death on "Christian morality," which is neither particularly Christ-ish (but VERY Paul-ish), nor in any sense moral. More than that, the very concept of "sexual morality" is not just a joke, it is a god - and it is the god whose alter the far right worships at. There is no thought here for social responsibility, or integrity, or honesty, or any sort of ethics. I (literally) can't remember the last time I read an ethical treatise by anyone in the religious conservative community that dealt with anything but (1) sex or (2) enshrining Christianity in an official capacity. (As an aside, there is obviously a moral component to sexual relations in exactly the same way there is a moral component to any other type of inter-human interaction). The foundations of morality in this country, the social contract under which it functions, truly are in danger of being eroded past the point of no return. But it is not the liberals, or the libertarians, or the moderates, or the radicals that are doing this. It is the very people who claim to be trying to save this country: The religious conservatives - particularly the politically active theonomist movement (Concerned Women for America, the LeHays, Fallwell, etc.). What they propose as morality is not moral, but the very opposite. It is a moral corrosive. It destroys the social contract for the benifit of the few who are idealogically correct - in fact it vilifies the very notion of social contract as "socialistic." America is on her deathbed, thanks to those who wish to make her moral. -Lokmer Posted by: sexkitten May 13 2004, 01:49 PM That editorial made me ill... Assclown. Posted by: Lokmer May 13 2004, 01:57 PM And, as Paul Harvey would say, http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18660 -Lokmer Posted by: Yaoi Huntress Earth May 13 2004, 02:01 PM I agree with you. Though (I'm no history scholor) it feels like the idea of state rights are whined about when minorities want to be treated like humans (the civil rights era, gay marriage, and slavery) In it's puriest form, rebulicanism has some good ideas about personal responciblity. With me I have a problem with the concept of "morality." Less than a hundred years ago a woman could get arrested for wearing a dress that was four inches above her ankle because it was amoral. Maybe it's because I've been so exposed to people who scream morality only to be complete assholes (Coulter, Robertson, Sean Harity(sp)) or promote ideals that are even more dangerous than what they're fighting (Brio's mindless sheep mentality or the neo-con's constant greed and disregard to anyone who isn't a rich, hetero WASP). Abe Lincon said, "He who few vices seem to have few virtues." I don't mean to turn this into a soap box, but to me morality is something that truely comes from the heart in how you treat others and yourself. You don't have to be Ned Flanders, just yourself and try your best. At least that's how I feel. Love, Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted by: biggles7268 May 13 2004, 02:30 PM very nice job Lokmer. Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 13 2004, 03:16 PM From the article... QUOTE There are so many ways that liberals have worked to destroy morality and freedom that one big apology might suffice for all of it. Then, they can do the one thing that will help the most: They can please step aside while America recovers its sanity and its soul. People who see the world in black and white or us vs. them terms are frightening. Once this guy decides you're one of the "liberals" he thinks you're responsible for destroying morality and freedom and should step aside. Simple minds such as his aren't fit to comprehend much less solve complex problems. Unfortunately that doesn't stop him from spewing his toxic ideas. Posted by: sexkitten May 13 2004, 03:50 PM It is depressing and disturbing to read stuff like this article... I wonder how it is people can really think the way that author does. I understand believing in causes, and I understand believing that homosexuality and adultery are wrong. But, to automatically blame people you disagree with at home for something that happens overseas in a war just seems bizarre. The gays in America aren't responsible for Nick Berg's death, and neither is GI Jane. The Iraqis who beheaded him are, the Americans who ordered and participated in the sexual humiliation of Iraqis which other Iraqis felt obliged to avenge, the policies that are running this war... yes... those people and things are responsible for this tragedy. How can people think this way? Posted by: Matthew May 13 2004, 05:41 PM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ May 13 2004, 06:16 PM) From the article... QUOTE There are so many ways that liberals have worked to destroy morality and freedom that one big apology might suffice for all of it. Then, they can do the one thing that will help the most: They can please step aside while America recovers its sanity and its soul. People who see the world in black and white or us vs. them terms are frightening. Once this guy decides you're one of the "liberals" he thinks you're responsible for destroying morality and freedom and should step aside. Simple minds such as his aren't fit to comprehend much less solve complex problems. Unfortunately that doesn't stop him from spewing his toxic ideas. TF, I agree! This article is sick. This fellow seems to think in terms of black and white and engages in some disgusting moral well-poisoning; if you're not a Bible-believing Christian, basically you're responsible for the moral decay in America. And people wonder why the Religious Right in America are so despised? Matthew Posted by: Reach May 13 2004, 05:57 PM Kitty, you might ask if they are thinking at all or if they are doing their own thinking. It's easier to just pick up opinions from those who spout them the loudest rather than to study issues for one's self and come to an informed choice. From the link Lokmer provided... Rev. Moon's Curtain Call By Bill Berkowitz, AlterNet May 11, 2004 It's practically impossible to keep up with all the projects and conferences, rallies and summits, front groups and businesses, and political machinations involving the Rev. Moon's Unification Church – currently known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. Having recently celebrated his 84th birthday, the Rev. Moon seems rejuvenated and desiring to increase his visibility, while at the same time this master of mixed and often convoluted messages appears to be preparing his final farewell to America. Along the way, however, he is trying to plant the seeds of his political legacy – with help from some powerful political friends. For several decades the Unification Church – not a Christian Church, but more of a theocratic movement with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon at its head – has played a significant role in supporting the Christian Right and the Republican Party. Besides supporting the right financially, Moon has given them a daily voice via the pages of the Washington Times, which in these times has become a very influential newspaper. Moon considers himself to be the True Father, the Messiah, and has stated numerous times that his goal, as Fred Clarkson put it in his book Eternal Hostility, is "an autocratic theocracy to rule the world." And continued http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18660. ==================================================================== My comment: And people actually believe that garbage and support this guy. It's due to intellectual bankruptcy as well. Posted by: Fweethawt May 13 2004, 06:15 PM I noticed a long time ago that Sun Myung Moon was bad news. I would suggest that anyone do a Google search on this guy and do a little bit of reading. There are even some people who have somehow linked Moon, Bush, Robertson, Fallwell, LaHaye and other powerful individuals together showing how they all form a type of collective movement to drive people into a religious fervor. It is some really freaky stuff that is really convincing. (but then again, maybe I'm just a paranoid fool. ) Posted by: Lokmer May 13 2004, 06:17 PM I should probably point out that the far left is any much better in most respects. They just happen to be far less organized at the moment (and far more obviously cranky and stupid - Greenpeace, anyone?), so I consider them to be less immediately dangerous. Also, of course, myself tending to fall to the libertarian side of things, I am more acutely aware of garbage in my own back yard. -Lokmer Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 13 2004, 06:37 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ May 13 2004, 09:17 PM) I should probably point out that the far left is not much better in most respects. I think the "far" anything is dangerous when that means you believe that people who don't share your viewpoint should be left out of the process or are unworthy of consideration. I think the true "battle" is between fundamentalists of any stripe (religious, political, racial, etc.) and people who are truly willing to consider other viewpoints and to compromise to reach agreements. Being able to rise above fundamentalism is a good indicator that someone is civilized. Posted by: Baby Eater May 13 2004, 07:45 PM Moon? goes in my sect black list. Posted by: Tocis May 14 2004, 03:36 AM As it's a very chaotic day at work today and I don't have much time, let me just comment: Posted by: AggieNostic May 14 2004, 07:52 AM I'm in a similar boat. I find both political parties to be repugnant in their own way. While I've tended to be right-of-center on economics (actually, http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp), I've always been a social liberal since leaving fundamentalism. After 9/11, I was appalled and flabbergasted by the Reich-like tone on web forums, which traditionally had been hostile towards government power grabs (during the Clinton years). Suddenly, it was okay for such things as the Patriot Act because "our guy" was in charge. Besides, shut your piehole and salute the flag. What are you, some kind of pro-Sadaam, pro-terrorist, American-hating Al Quiada-lover? The use of "patriotism" to beat people into silence (with regards to the "War on Terrorism" and the Iraq War) was more than I could stomach. For the right-wing social engineers, it's never been about America's "moral soul." It always been, and will ever be, about control -- forcing people do be "just like you." Posted by: AggieNostic May 14 2004, 09:09 AM QUOTE (Yaoi Huntress Earth @ May 13 2004, 05:01 PM) I agree with you. Though (I'm no history scholor) it feels like the idea of state rights are whined about when minorities want to be treated like humans (the civil rights era, gay marriage, and slavery) In it's puriest form, rebulicanism has some good ideas about personal responciblity. Both political parties have used States' Rights whenever it suits their agenda. For example, Dick Cheney was on record, during the 2000 race, as saying the issue of homosexual marriage should be left to the States. Now that his boss is busy appeasing the Religious Right by proposing a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, Cheney has done a 180. And, the Democrats have suddenly gotten religion on States' Rights. Now it's a good idea because the federal government should stay out of the gay marriage business. I didn't think I'd live to see the day when a Democrat would suggest that the federal government should stay out of anything. Posted by: BlueGiant May 14 2004, 09:20 AM Yeah, it's great for them while "their guy" is in office, but the end of the world if anyone even remotely inteligent is in there. Of course Bush hasn't been able to do much apparently to stop the rampant "immorality" in this country. 'Course this may be because they actually aren't looking for and attempting to reprimand the immoral, I mean why would anyone want to shoot themselves in the foot? You forgot the third thing that all the Christian leaders have wrote about in recent memory: stewardship (aka gimme your money). I hadn't noticed that everything they write about has been sex, had noticed the "Christian Supremacist" angle though. Posted by: Apollo May 14 2004, 04:39 PM Typical. First thing a Christian does when he's "offended" by something is call a cop. Christians talk about grace, but love the law. Posted by: Reach May 14 2004, 04:49 PM QUOTE (Apollo @ May 14 2004, 07:39 PM) Typical. First thing a Christian does when he's "offended" by something is call a cop. Maybe some. Not all. Not me. No one I know either. Atypical from my experience. Your brush may be a bit too wide, Apollo, but no offense taken here. -Reach Posted by: Lokmer May 14 2004, 07:05 PM I must agree with Reach. The phenomenon we're seeing here has its roots in Fundamentalism and has spread very effectively into evangelical circles but only bits here and there bleed through into the broader Christian population. Most Christians, even when they agree in principle with the morality being espoused, find the concept of having Government intervene in moral issues intrusive and distasteful. The problem is that this minority is very vocal and very powerful, and that's because it has built its power from the grass-roots level on non-political issues that it later succeeded in politicizing. Not that I'm a big fan of Joycelin Elders, but she had a wonderful quote describing this movement: "The very religious unChristian Right" not "non-Christian", but "un-Christian." -Lokemr Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |