Friday, January 21, 2005
A monopoly on virtue
Sometimes I don't know how the woman does it. I listen -- as one does -- to Terry Gross, NPR's Fresh Air interviewer par excellence last night as she interviewed two gentlemen, in sequence, on the subject of religion in the administration. And, throughout, although she did seem to struggle a bit at times, she kept her composure.
On my right, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (basically: the religion's lobby group). He notes that 'he and President Bush share the same evangelical faith.'
And, on my not-quite as right (stay with me here), Rev. Jim Wallis -- founder of Sojourners, 'a Christian group advocating a style of peace and justice', plugging his book, btw: God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It.
Land argues with angry conviction that the debate on values is over, he/they won. And in so doing he repeatedly executes a mean feat of rhetorical legerdemain (legerdemain = 'sleight of hand' for those who still dislike the Frenchies). The trick is buried in his logic, which runs as:
1. Moral values are on the ascendance, more important in consideration in the election, etc.
2. Therefore, Christians have won.
Did you see it? The trick, y'see, is the assumption that only Christians (and perhaps only his flavor of Christians) understand moral precepts. Other religions? Pshaw! The godless? Never! (Shall we set aside here, for a moment, the historical note that white, church-going, G*d-fearin' Southern Baptists played lead roles in the abominations of Southern slavery and the lynchings that ensued?) And thus, the right defines right. It's them.
Rev. Wallis, softspoken and humble compared to Land's stentorian self-assuredness and pride, spoke next.
An equal-opportunity scold, he argues (surely correctly) that none of us is without flaw. He wondered about the hijacking of a religion, to the point where the holy name of Jesus is used to prop up ... tax cuts? For the rich? Somehow, I don't think he got invited the fancy balls in Washington last night. See, he doesn't get it about moral values, does he?
Listen and gasp at http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=01-20-2005
On my right, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (basically: the religion's lobby group). He notes that 'he and President Bush share the same evangelical faith.'
And, on my not-quite as right (stay with me here), Rev. Jim Wallis -- founder of Sojourners, 'a Christian group advocating a style of peace and justice', plugging his book, btw: God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It.
Land argues with angry conviction that the debate on values is over, he/they won. And in so doing he repeatedly executes a mean feat of rhetorical legerdemain (legerdemain = 'sleight of hand' for those who still dislike the Frenchies). The trick is buried in his logic, which runs as:
1. Moral values are on the ascendance, more important in consideration in the election, etc.
2. Therefore, Christians have won.
Did you see it? The trick, y'see, is the assumption that only Christians (and perhaps only his flavor of Christians) understand moral precepts. Other religions? Pshaw! The godless? Never! (Shall we set aside here, for a moment, the historical note that white, church-going, G*d-fearin' Southern Baptists played lead roles in the abominations of Southern slavery and the lynchings that ensued?) And thus, the right defines right. It's them.
Rev. Wallis, softspoken and humble compared to Land's stentorian self-assuredness and pride, spoke next.
An equal-opportunity scold, he argues (surely correctly) that none of us is without flaw. He wondered about the hijacking of a religion, to the point where the holy name of Jesus is used to prop up ... tax cuts? For the rich? Somehow, I don't think he got invited the fancy balls in Washington last night. See, he doesn't get it about moral values, does he?
Listen and gasp at http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=01-20-2005
|| Unknown, 3:53 PM
1 Comments:
my links
{http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/}
archive
- current
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 01/16/2005 - 01/23/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005
- 06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005
- 07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005
- 08/28/2005 - 09/04/2005
- 10/30/2005 - 11/06/2005
- 12/04/2005 - 12/11/2005
- 04/02/2006 - 04/09/2006
- 08/17/2008 - 08/24/2008
- 08/24/2008 - 08/31/2008
- 04/18/2010 - 04/25/2010
All societies have a culturally conservative base, the fact that ours has a Christian one is simply an artifact of the our culture. The fact that there is a swing back to the base is an artifact of at least the tremendous amount of change society has had to consume over the last generation, and potentially of some serious differences.
We know from history that absolute power in the hands of religion will be corrupt (various theocracies stand testament to this). We also know that abosolute power in the hands of godless secularists will also be corrupt (communism for example). In fact, some wise man inferred once that absolute power in any one's hands will corrupt absolutely.
So the trick is, as always, making sure the pendulum swings in a constructive arc which accomodates the most amount of people.
I don't think we have swung back to far yet. We have to alwyas be careful that we do not of course, regardless of which direction the pendulum is swinging.
Where Christians may be over stepping their bounds is in suggesting that the U.S. founding fathers were Christians. There is conflicting information on this, and at least some evidence that sectarian tendencies (including christianity) were of prime concern to the founding fathers. So god fearing people - yes. Christians, not clear in all cases.