Tea Party attempts to draft Dan Halloran for Congress
I didn’t want to return to this topic quite so early, but after I read the post on The Wild Hunt “Quick Note: Halloran for Congress?” I changed my mind. Halloran has been impressing local Tea Party groups at gatherings meant to screen and interview politicians and candidates. So much so they were calling on him to run for Congress.
Allow me to pause for a moment just to revel in how far we have come in such a short time. Two years ago I would never thought an openly Pagan candidate could still win his seat after his opponent used his religion against him. Especially after photos of him in ceremonial dress were published with the headline of “Pagan Lord” and captioned “First Muggle of Hogwarts” hit the Press. What about you? In your wildest dreams did you guess that earlier this week non-Pagans would be talking about the possibility of supporting a Pagan for Congress?
Even though Halloran decided not to run for Congress, that he was asked is another milestone we have passed in our journey for civil rights. Another step forward. Part of that step forward is the response within the Tea Party to Halloran.
People within the Tea Party, in a Letter to the Editor, in Twitter, and in Tea Party forums, were saying Halloran would make a good Congressional candidate and he had their support if he decided to run for Congress. When his religion is mentioned, it is usually from people asking what the heck it is or people commenting that it would be great to have a non-Christian candidate to combat the view that the Tea Party is a fundamentalist Christian group.
“I could give a shit less what his religion is, we need more like Halloran running for Congress!” – Wayne, Tea Party Patriot forum
“WTF is Theodism?” – Angela, Tea Party chat
“It’s some old Viking stuff. You know, honor and family and Odin and shit like that.” - Dreeson, Tea Party chat
“Hmh. Vikings? Sounds like my husband’s family. What’s the big deal?.” – Angela, Tea Party chat
I’ve been pleased at how positive the comments have been about Halloran. They really, really like him.
Reading the Tea Leaves
The story of Tea Party support for an openly Pagan politician is at odds with the popular portrayal of the Tea Party. There is no shortage of articles that describe the Tea Party movement as a racist, right-wing, Christian fundamentalist response to having a black man in the White House and describe persons who are part of this movement as paranoids with a distorted sense of reality.
There is confusion and conflicting information about almost every aspect of the Tea Party movement. Not even the origins of the movement are entirely clear. What is interesting is that the Tea Party Patriots, an information dissemination, planning, and networking hub, has created an origin mythos for the movement.
Keli Carender has a pierced nose, performs improv on weekends and lives here in a neighborhood with more Mexican grocers than coffeehouses. You might mistake her for the kind of young person whose vote powered President Obama to the White House. You probably would not think of her as a Tea Party type.
But leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first.
As for who Tea Partiers are, the Sam Adams Alliance has released a 28 page report entitled Activist Insights Report: Market Research on the Tea Party Movement, its Leaders and their Motivations.
The conclusion of this report is that the Tea Party activists are not the “other,” and they cannot be defined through a single statement, document, or definition. They are the early adopters of a new empowerment.
Some of the findings? About half of Tea Partiers are new to political involvement, almost 2/3rds have a college degree or higher, and they are very adept at social media. If you received tweets linking to new Tea Party iPhone apps you probably aren’t surprised by any of this. The report is worth looking at in detail to learn more about Tea Partiers in general.
The Interviews
So what is it like for Pagans who are involved with the movement? I interviewed three Pagans who volunteered to relate their experiences and I have a list of 27 more who are planning to be involved shortly and agree to be interviewed later. If you would like to interviewed now or at a later date, feel free to contact me through this blog.
Ellen is living in the Los Angeles, California area. Her and her husband are loosely associated with the Ventura Country Tea Party group.
Oak lives in a suburb of Chicago and is a facilitator in his local Tea Party Patriot group.
Allison lives in Georgia and is part of Kick Them All Out, a group that works with Tea Party and Tea Party affiliated groups.
How does religion – yours or others – interact with the movement? Do they know your religion? Are you worried about them finding out? Is it very “Christian” in tone?
Ellen – I’m not worried about anyone finding out, but I don’t advertise, and I find it easier to blend in (in like manner I don’t go out of my way to tell other pagans that I’m conservative). Most Tea Parties are wonderfully open and accepting of all stripes and go out of their way to speak of God in general terms. Sometimes it’s more Christian than that, which doesn’t bother me in small doses.
Oak – Most people there know I’m a Pagan and it’s never been a problem. Like everywhere I go, Christians out number the non-Christians, and they sometimes forget that not everyone is of the same religion.
Allison – Our group, and when we get together with other groups for a Tea Party rally, is very open to all or no religions. We sometimes take turns saying a few words before a rally to pray for success. I pray to my gods, others pray to their god and the atheists lead us in a cheer of “Go humans!” We had one person who was extremely pushy about religion and she was asked to not come back.
Do you feel that you can impact the group, or do you feel that you can only follow what leaders set forth?
Oak – I’m a bit of a loudmouth, I guess, so I was pegged right away to be a facilitator. I’ve also had experience in helping with Pagan groups and if you can get a group of Pagans headed all in one direction, you can get any group moving. That experience has helped and has earned me the respect of others in the movement. Yes, I would say I’m having an impact on the group.
Allison – I don’t really want to be a leader. I enjoy helping out, and if there was something going on that I disagreed with I would say something.
What do you like about the Tea Party?
Ellen – It is wonderfully grass roots — it sprang organically into life last April 15 all over the nation as Americans peacefully and cheerfully (and even a little sheepishly) came together to say “Hell no!” to Washington. I can count on one hand the number of individuals I have run into who could be described as “angry.” We’re firm and determined, telling our elected employees that they are not doing what we sent them there to do. But we laugh and joke and have a good time toting our posters and flags on street corners. It does get noisy tho, with all the cars honking in solidarity. We’re out there to say to our fellow Americans, “you are not alone in your dissatisfaction.” People seem to appreciate that.
Oak – I like that people can take a leadership role without there being leaders. This is what I’m used to in my spirituality so it’s familiar to me. Most people are excited and willing to pitch in. Self-policing is difficult but we are getting it down. I used to be the one who would say “Leave your Party at the door” or “Take your social issues shit somewhere else” when people would go off on things not related to our mission. Now everyone else pipes up before I can. Imagine! Political discussions and never once is abortion mentioned! That I like.
Allison – I like they at least will work with us on challenging incumbents and believe that there are no free rides in elections. It’s fun to meet up with other small groups that share that view. The Tea Partiers are the ones that bring us all together for rallies. Together we are stronger.
What do you not like about the Tea Party?
Ellen – I don’t think there is anything I don’t like per se. Any movement has its lunatic fringe, and I guess I don’t like how the main stream media persists in finding the crazies to put on the news, when they pay any attention to us at all. They are drawn like flies to the one or two persons with extreme views. I have never seen a swastica in the crowd. And the only “Nazi” was actually a La Raza heckler who was trying to be disruptive. I know because we engaged him and his pals in debate for half an hour at the last Tea Party we attended (incidentally keeping them from getting loud and disruptive again).
Oak – I wish there was more of a unified message. It’s starting to happen, just not soon enough for me. I don’t like that there aren’t as many speakers from the Democrat Party there. We keep inviting them, but they won’t answer us. If we just keep having Republicans speak then the group will turn off Conservative Democrats and Independents.
In your opinion, is the Tea Party “grassroots” or is it controlled or created?
Ellen – Definitely grassroots.
Oak – grassroots, but the Republicans would love to control us. That ain’t gonna happen. No way it was created. If it was created it wouldn’t have been such a chaotic mess in the beginning.
Allison – I don’t know.
When someone tells you that the reason the Tea Party exists is because there is a black man in the White House or says the Tea Party is a racist group, what is your reaction?
Ellen – Hogwash. Obama was elected by a majority of the people because they believed he would be bipartisan. It quickly became apparent that he is hyperpartisan. When people said they wanted “change” they meant change from business as usual in Washington, not a complete make-over of our American way of life. We are not Europe and we don’t want to go there.
Oak – My reaction? I would tell them they are full of shit right to their face. I would also tell them if they had any honor, they would attend a rally with me and they could see what it’s like for themselves. That shit is said by people who have never attended a rally or been to a meeting.
Have you seen or experienced racism in the Tea Party?
Ellen – No. Well, yes — by the La Raza hecklers toward Americans in general and whites in particular.
Oak – Sometimes there are people who show up and think this is their kind of racist place because of what they have read about the Tea Party. At first, when we weren’t as organized, we just ignored them. I said that was the wrong thing to do, we should have kicked their asses right out of the rally. Others said it was only a few and ignoring them would take their power away. Guess what was on the news? The couple of idiots trying to start trouble. That’s what we got identified with, two racist asshole. Not the hundreds of other people there. Now – we kick their ass out if we see them.
Allison – Yes, but they don’t stay. They aren’t welcome.
What is the response by other Tea Party members when people present racist views?
Ellen – As these were hecklers, the Tea Party folks just told people to ignore them. But my husband and I decided to engage them in a spirited debate (never heated). We figured they were there to cause trouble and we kept them distracted. At the end of the Tea Party they unfurled a Mexican flag and managed to get a rise out of a couple people. They video taped it and put it on the internet that night, to “show” the “angry” people at the Tea Party.
Oak – Like I said, we kick their ass out.
Allison – we ignore them. If that doesn’t work then we tell them to go away.
Is there anything that you would like to tell Pagans not affiliated with Tea Party about the Tea Party?
Ellen – I don’t have to say anything to Conservative Pagans (yes, we are out here), because they get it. To all the other Pagans, I say just because we don’t agree with your methods doesn’t mean we disagree with your goals. We all want the same thing — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We just think people should be the architects of their own lives. Big Government is impersonal and soulless. It will suck the life out of this nation.
Oak – Join us if you’re for fiscal responsibility and a limited federal government. It is a conservative group, but not right-wing Christian fundie group with a social agenda. The Tea Party is a good fit for pagans. It’s really trying hard to allow people to take leadership roles without forcing a hierarchy on you, much like how most pagan groups act. Pagans have so much more experience in that type of environment that we are quickly singled out for how effective we are. That means we can influence the hell out of this movement, but only if we get involved. I read your article about how the Tea Party may offer pagans the chance to influence politics in a way that belonging to the Republican or Democrat Parties just can’t. I agree with that!
Allison – Not really. Just that people should attend before they decide that the Tea Party or other groups that work with them are a hate group. The people involved aren’t horrible racist Christians. I’ve heard some pretty awful things said about the Tea Party and I don’t think that’s right. The stuff said about Tea Partiers is more hateful and personal than anything I have heard from Tea Partiers. I get that the most from pagans. I don’t even tell them I’m going to a rally anymore because I can’t stand the lecture about what a bad thing I’m supporting an how they hope someone bombs the rally. OK. I guess I did have something to say after all!
END OF INTERVIEWS
For examples of the type of comments from fellow Pagans that all three Pagans I interviewed talked about, you need only read the comments section of The Wild Hunt following the article about Halloran’s possible candidacy for Congress.
It’s sad that one of the first openly Pagan candidates is gleefully wedded to a dangerous fringe movement that prides itself on its inability to reason. But who knows, maybe there’s a bright side: he might drag the tea baggers down with him. – Gene
I fully understand the “idea” of the tea party being disgusted with politicians in general, from BOTH parties, but when this “groundswell” of anger manifests itself in a collective of ignorant, intolerant, conspiracy-theory nutjobs who wouldn’t know a critical thinking skill if it smacked them upside their heads, I cannot bring myself to symphasise with their “movement” at all, especially when it is so transparently in the pockets of the worst that right-wing, self-absorbed and totally un-empathetic conservative “values” have to offer. – Alex Pendragon
The irony of comments like the ones quoted above directed at a group that is embracing and supporting a politician they know to be Pagan and urging him to run for higher office is interesting for what it says about us (Pagans) and how we treat those with views other than our own. When the Tea Party and other non-liberal political groups, Christianity and other monotheistic religions, or other groups viewed as outside the mainstream of Paganism are talked about in our community the language directed at those people and groups is often times reflexively pejorative and hostile.
So let me close with a quote from the most recent journal entry from dionysusdevotee titled A Call For Intellectual Honesty and Mutual Understanding. If you don’t already read his journal, I recommend it greatly.
… at the same time the very groups we condemn; those evil right wingers, those nasty Christians, and the rest of the collection of people we simply FEAR are peopled with those who seek common ground and understanding. And yet; with the same hand we so recently wagged a finger with at them, admonishing them to open their minds, we then turn and bitch slap the lot of them and paint them with the same broad brush of “evil” that we so recently were the victims of ourselves.
No understanding, no wisdom, and no common ground will come from this “us versus them, good vs evil, right vs wrong” mentality. Regardless of which side is doing the judging. It will always be impossible to reach out to and understand an individual as long as we insist on treating people as generalistic ideologies. How can we claim to support diversity and deny its existence every step of the way?
Ironically I find myself in the position of having to admit that the people that live up and down my street, the right wing christian, gun totin’ hicks; by and large are more tolerant and accepting of people who REALLY think differently than many in my peer group. The fact that they give so called “progressives” a run for their money in the tolerance department, well, its just sad.
I was an active opponent of the invasion of Iraq and for that matter I have participated in protests against just about every military adventure the US has engaged in since the late 60′s. I am also old enough to be able to proudly say that I worked for the ERA! I could go on and on, but my point is that I am basically an old school leftist with very good credentials.
Of course I disagree with Dan Halloran on many issues, and I am mad as hell at the Tea Party movement for their evil and stupid opposition to health care reform. But I am also mad as hell at Barack Obama, whom I voted for, for some of the evil and stupid crap he has been pulling since becoming president.
As a Pagan I am ecstatic to see Dan Halloran prevail against those who tried to bring him down on the basis of his religion. If I had the opportunity to I would even consider voting for him despite serious political disagreements. Why? Most of the supposedly “liberal” Democrats I have ever voted for turned out to be spineless traitors, so voting for someone just because I agree with some bullet points on their website isn’t cutting it for me anymore. Voting for a Heathen would feel good, and might actually do some good.
P.S. Those who tried to bring Halloran down because he is a Heathen were DEMOCRATS.
“Obama was elected by a majority of the people because they believed he would be bipartisan. It quickly became apparent that he is hyperpartisan. When people said they wanted “change” they meant change from business as usual in Washington, not a complete make-over of our American way of life. We are not Europe and we don’t want to go there.”
What a complete load of crap.
If anyone thinks that Obama has been conducting a “complete make-over of our American way of life” or being “hyperpartisan,” then they are obviously drinking the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid. It boggles my mind that people are so ill-informed about things. Gods…
I’m in agreement with you, Bryon. It’s obvious to me that Obama is no ideologue and that if he has a problem it is that he is not partisan enough. Hyperpartisan does not begin to apply. He’s spent far too much time catering to the whims and concerns of the defeated party and as a result, has irked not only the centrists but many in his own base, including progressives like me. His continued support for the un-Constitutional Faith Based Initiatives is hardly the only gripe I have…
This is the modern version of right-wing radicalism, nicely-dressed for public dissemination. The swipe at “La Raza,” which means “The Nation” in Mexican Spanish, is indicative. The Tea Party movement, while based in real and reasonable grievances, is strongly connected to the radical right. While many of the movement’s activists claim independence, it is a tiny movement, which gets media attention because of right-wing media policies, and what influence it has is from influential radical-right funding sources. (Follow the links.)
Just what kind of a world would it be for pagans if the radical right gained power? Religious liberty is not part of their beliefs. Their “freedom” is mockery. It is like white Southerners complaining that the Warren Court took away their freedom to run a racist class system.
Why are you defending the people who would burn witches? These are your enemies, and giving them space for their lies will not make them your friends.
(People who want to learn about modern radical right wing rhetoric and propaganda could do no better than to read David Neiwert.)
*post edited
* comment edited to remove clarifying question
If you hear people disparaging “La Raza” as racist, you are hearing radical-right racist propaganda, though perhaps the speaker is not aware of all the sources. Many of the movement’s leaders and speakers. Many, though probably not all, of the movement’s followers. Here in Washington, “teabaggers,” are part of the political landscape, and their radical-right connections are well-known. This is not a movement of blacks, or Latinos or Jews, or anyone else but white conservatives, and it uses racist rhetoric, so that anyone who follows the movement seriously at least accepts racist rhetoric. I am sympathetic to some of their grievances, but not how they address them, and not at all with their aggrieved bigotry.
(Linguistic note: Mexican “La Raza” and English “race” come from the same root word. However, the meaning has diverged. Mexicans adopted “La Raza” as the name their newly-forged multi-ethnic national identity in the 19th century.)
A few notes – you are coming close to violating a rule on this site that says you cannot make a personal attack on here. That is why I asked you for clarification about whom you meant. You can debate the issues all you want, but keep it civil. Throwing a charge of racism against someone is extremely serious and if you are not prepared or unable to back it up, you need to retract it. *Note – comment was not retracted so it was removed.
Also – using “teabaggers” and “cute” nicknames for political parties and famous personages is not allowed here. You probably didn’t know that.
You had a few questions before so let me answer them. Why do I allow a platform for the Tea Party here? Because this is an excellent place to talk about politics in an open and civil way. I’m interested in them and have signed up with the Minnesota Tea Party Patriots to find out for myself, first hand, what they are like and how they operate. I want to know what other Pagans are experiencing first hand in this movement since I fully expect there to be differences.
So far I do not see the Tea Party as my enemy. I haven’t seen anyone building the bonfires for an old fashioned witch burning. I haven’t heard from a single Pagan yet who is a part of the Tea Party who has felt that their religion makes them unwelcome. That could change as more Pagans get involved. And if that happens, I will let people know about that experience, too.
I’ve not felt unwelcome. In fact, at the next rally I will be one of the monitors that keep an eye on our people and those protesting us. If I see behavior that is outside of the agreement that we all signed (one of things it covers is racism not being tolerated) I will be reporting it. Both to the Tea Party officials so the persons can be moved away from our rally and I will report back to all of you.
Hopefully that answers some of your questions.
Croak!
I’ll be honest and say that I am somewhat new to “heavy” politics and the Tea Party. My dad has recently gotten me involved. At first he strongly suggested that I did not wear my pentacle to the meetings, and even the short Christian prayer at the beginning bothered me. Now, though, I do wear my necklace and i do go to the meeting and am even taking a class on the constitution (by C.O.O.L. – and I would recommend it to ANY one, Republican, Democratic, Conservative or Liberal!!) Since the majority of this population IS Christian, I don’t think that they realize that there ARE pagans / wiccans out there that may agree with them.
What the Tea Party represents is, basically in it’s simplest sense, to me is COMMON SENSE. EDUCATE yourselves. Look into the health care bill (MY personal favorite!!) Cap and Trade, or ANY other issue. And I don’t mean JUST the Tea Party views. I mean the ACTUAL issues. EDUCATE yourself!! Think “What will happen if X Bill passes?” Knowledge is power…
So I went to this “C.O.O.L.” group’s website. ( http://www.reclaimliberty.com/education2010.html )
I click on the tab “Education” and see this list of things under their Foundations for Liberty class:
Lecture 1 – A Biblical View of History, Law & Government
Lecture 2 – The Discovery, Settlement & Evangelism of America
Lecture 3 – The Religious Beliefs of the Founding Fathers
Lecture 4 – The Philosophical Worldview of the Founding Fathers
Lecture 5 – From Independence to the Constitution
Sorry, but STOP RIGHT THERE!!! My Spider-Senses are tingling! I can see some “The USA was created as a Christian Nation/ob Biblical principles/etc.” stuff coming right up!
Then I see that it’s developed by something called the “Acton Institute,” so I search for them and find that they are dedicated to: “Integrating Judeo-Christian Truths with Free Market Principles.”
I hate to break it to you, but it is YOU who needs to “Educate Yourself.” I suggest going to a college and taking a class in in Constitutional Law. What YOU are participating in is a brainwashing course created by Christian Supremacists to instill in you the lie of a “Christian Nation”…and that kind of thinking would have been abhorrent to the non-Christian (Deist) Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine, James Madision, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen, etc.
Don’t people even research anything any more? It took me like, FIVE MINUTES with Google to determine the true nature of this organization. Gods…
Finally, some real COMMON SENSE.
Lucy –
Would you be willing to answer a few questions from me, from time to time, about the Tea Party?
The comment about the La Raza person as being racist was because he would continually begin his statements with ‘White People’, we challenged him on this everytime he said it because it was a racially charged argument. Whether the movement itself is racist, I have no opinion, but the gentleman in question clearly saw the world in racial terms.
I think that the point of getting this information out there is to encourage people with more libertarian or conservative democrat or independant leanings to get out and get involved. If more of us (“us” meaning fiscally conservative, social liberal) become involved in this movement it is the only way to force it to lean *away* from the extreme right/extreme conservative path.
I’m not at all happy with some of the speakers that have been part of this movement, which is part of the reason I haven’t been more involved. But if we have any hope at all of reforming some of these issues, we have to make some sort of stand. What is it that Ghandi said -”be the change you wish to see in the world”?
We’re talking about a very radical and ideological movement here. Its leadership has been co-opted–if it was ever independent–by the well-heeled radical right. I don’t think it’s going to be moved by moderate participation; all the moderates were long ago marginalized, and the radicals have all the funding and media resources.
Who do you see on the US political landscape who isn’t “fiscally conservative, social liberal?”
The Raven asked,
Who do you see on the US political landscape who isn’t “fiscally conservative, social liberal?”
Hmm. Lets see:
Rep. Nanci Pelosi: Fiscally Liberal, socially…inept, maybe?
Sen. John Cornyn: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative.
Sen. Jim Inhofe: FC, SC
Sen. Dick Lugar: FC, SC
Sen. Diane Fienstien: FL, SL
Sen. Olympia Snowe: OK, I’ll give you this one.
there’s a few off the top of my head, several in each corner…
You have to be kidding me right? What do you mean “Who?”
The entire religous right is socially conservative – anti abortion, anti gay marriage…
Fiscally liberal is pretty much the majority of the senate right now.
I didn’t write what I thinking–my apologies. I was thinking, “Who, of political leaders, doesn’t claim to be…” But I was thinking sloppily; there are plenty of Senators and Congresspeople who claim both fiscal and social conservatism. And very few willing to admit to fiscal liberalism at all. On the other hand, there’s plenty in the Senate–perhaps 75%–who have voted to borrow hugely to fight wars and keep rich banks afloat. Is that liberalism?
BTW, for people interested in debt and deficit issues, I recommend Brad Delong’s debt/GNP and deficit/GNP ratio charts. Looking at ratios rather than raw numbers makes patterns of borrowing clearer.
Who do you see on the US political landscape who isn’t “fiscally conservative, social liberal?”
Lets break it into two parts
Whos isn’t fiscally conservitive?
Just about everyone in Washington who is spending like drunken sailors.
Who isn’t socially liberal?
Got me there…can’t think of one.
Paul said:
Who isn’t socially liberal?
Got me there…can’t think of one.
oy vey – seriously?
I’ll agree it was a gross over generalization, but both sides of the debate are guilty of their own social engineering projects.
Sorry, I was thinking “Who doesn’t claim to be…” but I didn’t write it! And I was thinking very sloppily. For the rest, please see my reply to Laura.
I think people should get involved with groups that appeal to them. And if you are Center Right to Right – perhaps the Tea Party may be right for you, perhaps not. I do agree that if you are not involved with a group you will have no influence over the direction of a group. As the Tea Party is so new, and in flux – I see an opportunity here, especially for Right-leaning Pagans.
The most interesting part of the interviews, for me, was Oaks responses that Pagans have a definite advantage in moving into leadership roles in the Tea Party since Pagans are already used to working within groups that do not have hierarchies. Most people in the USA do not have that experience and we do it most every day.
With a sample size of 50 “local leaders” of Tea Party groups, and no indicator of how those local leaders were identified for the interview, I am not confident in the methodology of the Sam Adams Alliance interview–especially since the Alliance is not a politically neutral group. I can’t rule out the possibility that the results of the study are not representative of the movement, or even that the sample selected was chosen to skew the results.
They _would_ be fascinating reading, if I could only place a little more confidence in the results. But, precisely because they are so at odds with the movement as it has been reported elsewhere, I’d really like a more solid study to draw those conclusions.
Perhaps there’ll be one soon. Is there a Poli-Sci grad student in the house? Might make a nice dissertation topic for somebody…
Read David Neiwert. He’s done a lot of homework on modern radical-right movements, and this looks very much like another one.
The problem is that for many liberals “radical right” just turns out to be code for “racist scum,” and labeling a group as “radical right” becomes an excuse to close the door on any kind of real engagement with the group and anyone associated with it.
In fact, David Neiwert uses the label “eliminationist” to refer to the “radical right.” This is a term he borrows from Daniel Goldhagen’s (deeply flawed) analysis of the Nazi Holocaust.
In other words, David Neiwert is engaged in nothing less than equating Sarah Palin with Adolf Hitler.
Continuing in quoting Neiwert in his own defense, this is what he wrote about Sarah Palin, back when she was McCain’s running mate. The context for this is a discussion of Sarah Palin and her involvement (she may or may not have been a member) with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party (AIP.) He argues, and provides video and citations to make the point, that she in fact had substantial involvement.
Entire article here.
He also cites Chip Berlet to the point that the AIP is strongly connected to the Christian Dominionist U. S. Constitution Party.
Now, I want to stop talking about Neiwert’s credibility (he is) and Sarah Palin’s politics (indefensible, I think, to pagans.) Even to a corvid, this dead horse stinks.
Can’t say as I see all that much difference in the goals of Adolph and his Nazi party, and Sara Palin and the Third Wave Christianity.
Complete takeover, with themselves at the top of the heap. Ideology is but a means to gaining unquestioning followers and cannon fodder to _actually_believe_in_.
Yeah, I hate to use the already worn-out Nazi analogy…but the comparisons between the Third Waver/Dominionists is certainly apt. (BTW, I just watched “Constantine’s Sword” last night on Netflix Streaming, and it certainly brought to light how a lot of Anti-Semitism is more “Christian” than you think… I really thought that Anti-Semitism was something that was just a thing of the past…largely relegated to the fringe by the collective guilt of the Holocaust. Ah well…)
Part of the problem is that Neiwert has adopted, and badly mangled, a theory that was originally designed to demonstrate how unique and un-general the Nazi Holocaust was. Daniel Goldhagen, the guy who coined the term eliminationism, was arguing against Christopher Browning’s book “Ordinary Men”. Goldhagen’s whole point was that Browning’s analysis was too general and that it failed (in Goldhagen’s opinion) to focus on the unique features of the German psyche during the interwar period.
Goldhagen’s work has been strongly criticized by many other scholars, and the “Goldhagen debate” still rages. Goldhagen has accused Browning in particular of relying on fabricated data, when in fact Browning and Goldhagen both relied on almost exactly the same historical evidence.
Neiwert not only fails to critically assess Goldhagen, but he also applies Goldhagen’s approach (or at least Goldhagen’s terminology) in the exact opposite way that Goldhagen originally intended it.
I don’t think she’s a “facist,” to use the word a bit loosely. But she is enormously narcissistic & amazingly persuasive and she hangs out with fascists.
Never underestimate the power of a good Mary Sue.
I’ve contacted the group responsible for the survey and related your question about their methodology. If I receive a response I’ll pass it on.
Hey, well, more food for corvids.
If anyone wants to read what David Neiwert himself had to say about Palin and her radical-right connections, you may do so here.
And if anyone wants to read about the ideas that Niewert uncritically borrows from Daniel Goldhagen, here’s a good place to start.
You know, you failed to mention that that the article you linked was your own. Please don’t do that. But I don’t see the relevance. It is a very different kind of work than Neiwert’s. Since you have criticized him so thoroughly, I feel it’s appropriate to quote him in his own defense:
So I think your criticism of his theoretical position is unfounded.
Yes, the article I linked to was mine. It contains quite a bit of background material directly relevant to understanding why Neiwert doesn’t know what he is talking about. Neiwert’s simplistic, overwrought paranoid views on fascism are best understood if you look at the bigger picture of recent scholarly writings on the subjects of fascism and Nazism.
I’m fine with you citing your own writing–just say that it’s your own. Let me suggest, also, that you not cite Wikipedia in finished work. Wikipedia is a great place to start research, and fine in blog comments, but not in finished work, please.
I’m puzzled as to your objections to Neiwert. Have you read him extensively? He’s very cautious in his use of the word fascism, gives a specific and extended explanation of what he means and why, and cites his sources. What exactly in his positions do you object to, beyond the use of the word “eliminationism” and his criticisms of Sarah Palin?
If you want to question a specific wikipedia reference I have made, then I am all ears. But without such specifics (and I will not hold my breath), please save the Snarkitude 101 lecture on wikipedia. I never rely on wikipedia as a primary source of information, nor do I ever cite it as such.
Wikipedia can be, and occasionally is, an excellent place for aggregating sources. I am not responsible for other peoples critical thinking abilities or lack thereof.
“I’m puzzled as to your objections to Neiwert. Have you read him extensively?”
Neiwert is a guy with a BA in English and who has written some books and has a blog. He has not written enough for anyone to “read him extensively.” Instead of asking me how “extensively” I have read Neiwert, maybe you should wonder how extensively Neiwert has really studied the subjects that he writes about. His knowledge of current (or not-so-current) scholarship concerning fascism is very thin.
Four books of averaging nearly 300 pages each, extensive publishing as a professional journalist, and extensive blogging aren’t enough to read extensively?
You cannot on the one hand credibly criticize Neiwert’s work as insufficiently rigorous, and on the other hand cite Wikipedia in your own.
You’re also evaded my question.
Croak!
Neiwert cannot be taken seriously, even as a popularizer. He shows no signs of being even moderately aware of the complexities of research on fascism.
Anyone who takes fascism seriously will want to know what fascism is. Seiwert and his fans are not serious about fascism, though, they merely wish to use the term to score political points.
I’m not getting into a debate about Neiwert here but Palin is a dominionist Christian. I would recommend that anyone who wants to learn more about her visit GodsOwnParty.com and GodsOwnParty.com/blog. She’s a dangerous woman, representing some very dangerous people and she should not be taken lightly or dismissed with laughter.
Exactly. Any non-Christian (or Hell…even Catholics are targeted by those Third Wave idiots…) should be ashamed of themselves for voting for her.
I think that people’s past and present associations are always fair game, but playing gotcha with guilt by association should be done consistently. In 2000 the Dems nominated Joe Lieberman to be Vice President. Liebermann not only has connections with the Christian Right, including Dominionists, but he has done far more to help them than Sarah Palin has.
That was one reason why I voted for Ralph Nader, and why I have never regretted it.
Lieberman was/is a piece of crap, and I have always refused to vote for Gore, whose wife headed up the PMRC, and is a HUGE piece of crap. I’m always consistent!
“I’m always consistent!”
…and an early riser.
Actually, it’s the 1.5 year old that is the early riser. I just decided to bite the bullet and let the wifey sleep in.
Good man.
Thank you.
It astonishes me how many people pin their hopes on Palin. But then, most of us seem to want to see a reflection of our own hopes in Presidential candidates. Palin is very good at hiding behind a mirror.
Croak!
“I could give a shit less what his religion is, we need more like Halloran running for Congress!” – Wayne, Tea Party Patriot forum
“WTF is Theodism?” – Angela, Tea Party chat
“It’s some old Viking stuff. You know, honor and family and Odin and shit like that.” – Dreeson, Tea Party chat
“Hmh. Vikings? Sounds like my husband’s family. What’s the big deal?.” – Angela, Tea Party chat
It warms my heart to see that many people don’t even enter religion into their thought process. If anything this should embolden Pagans to join up; if your so inclined and have common ground with the Tea Party. It also furthers my belief that although some on the “fringe” may want to light the bonfires again, the vast majority of the population would not support such ideas. I’m tired of people thinking that “right-leaning” people are a bunch of mindless drones, obaying the commands of Beck and Palin.
The above comments should definetly encourage politically inclined pagans to become more involved in the Tea Party.
I know I will!
The Angela/Dreeson conversation sounds to me more like they’re just passing it off as somebody celebrating their ancestry, rather than comprehending that it’s actually a religion.
Maybe I’m too all-or-nothing, but any group that had Sarah Palin speak at a rally is not one I’d want to be a part of. I’m glad to hear that they’ve started to actually regulate the nutcases that show up, however. Other than that I still disagree with other of their points, such as that “fiscal conservative” somehow means not using tax money to actually help our own people. Regardless of anything we disagree with, I identify with their frustration and the reasoning behind the movement and don’t begrudge them their right to be politically involved.
Another thing I wanted to respond to was the quote from the dyonisusdevotee blog. In spirit, I agree with his point. However I also want to bring up the issue that I’ve noticed of some Pagans shouting down, or at least dismissing, ANY criticism of Christianity as an institution, its history, etc. I simply feel that there are serious, valid concerns about some core aspects of Christianity that are obstacles toward religious toleration and respect on their part. Bringing up those issues is not some rabid denouncement of all Christian individuals or even a generalization of Christian people, so I just wish that some individuals would stop writing off anyone who is critical of Christianity as simply another immature, screaming looney. I am not accusing that particular blogger of doing so, I just feel it is the flip-side of the issue they bring up. “Intellectual honesty and mutual understanding” can not be achieved if we are forced to ignore an important dynamic of the situation.
“Intellectual honesty and mutual understanding” can not be achieved if we are forced to ignore an important dynamic of the situation.”
That’s well put, William. I can imagine that from the point of view of those who dismiss folks who, like me, are critical of Christianity, *we* are the ones ignoring “an important dynamic of the situation”; namely, the existence of Christians who don’t want to kill us all. Surely, some critics ignore that important dynamic. For the rest of us, though, it seems like not too many on the other side of the argument listen when someone says that criticism of Christianity is not an automatic indictment of all who consider themselves Christians.
There are exceptions, of course, but it often seems like this kind of conversation is a lot of talking past one another, even talking past those who are trying to address the other side’s concerns.
Bloody great. Here we go again.
“There are exceptions, of course, but it often seems like this kind of conversation is a lot of talking past one another, even talking past those who are trying to address the other side’s concerns.”
True. But as before (and before that and before that and before that), the possibility of having a dialogue about this that actually accomplishes anything without degenerating into name calling and derisive dismissal is usually eaten up by the portion of participants who insist that an “automatic indictment of all who consider themselves Christians” IS an inarguable requirement of any criticism of Christianity, and the only intelligent or rational view to have.
I think to have any productive discussion in any group setting, you’d have to establish a line between criticism and outright bashing, and you’d have to agree on a definition of “productive dialogue”, both of which would need to be more or less acceptable to the whole group. What one viewpoint sees as generalization, oversimplification, dismissal, and disrespect, the other polarity sees as integrity, courage, wisdom, and standing up for freedom and “The Truth”.
That second bit about productivity is tricky too, because some of the each of the group are only going to define “productivity” as either converting someone of an opposing view to entirely agree with them, or driving them out of the group to where their voices are no longer an issue. Add to that that some assign such extremities of ignorance and stupidity to those with an opposing view that they don’t see any value in any discussion with them anyway, and what you have is not a discussion.
@Snoozepossum: (I’m not sure if the reply button is making it clear who I’m referring to)
I agree with your run down of the situation. It’s pretty complicated.
For my part I don’t think that a discussion of Christianity in and of itself could be productive. I’m pretty set in my opinions about it and don’t see the worth in trying to convince others. The only thing I do find useful and interesting is the way in which Christianity, as an institution, can productively function within a pluralistic, changing society. This is where I find some “hard questions” about Christian doctrine needing to be answered. I don’t generally see that happening, unfortunately.
LOL – it’s happening, a little bit at a time. I see a relationship between the laity beginning to questioning Biblical writ* and the increase in literacy in the overall population, and more recently in the rise of legalism among the charismatic movements. Wanna really rock some Christian’s world? Talk them into getting hold of a copy of the Bible that went from Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek to Arabic to English instead A/H/G to Latin to English. Most of them have never even read the ones they do have, they just go by whatever boogerhead is in the pulpit tells them.
(*which is where everything got FUBARed in the first place – see other rants about the Council of Nicea and academia arguing over the authenticity of the Pauline letters)
These people who say “they’re all GOOD because the one I know is good” strike me as using the same kind of thinking as those who say “All the politicians in Washington are crooked, EXCEPT mine.”
People who won’t look beyond their narrow viewpoint to see what else is out there.
Just because there are a few Christians out there who are decent, does not mean that the very large numbers of extremist nutjobs who wish us all dead, some of whom wish to be the very ones to actively delete us from the population, don’t exist at all.
And sadder still, the huge number of Christians who don’t bother to think through what they hear or read in the news actually means, and think “that’s nice, another group of Christians standing up for the cross,” and tacitly give their approval to the cultural warfare and persecution of non-Christians.
They must have more budgeted for consultations by spin doctors than just about any other group out there (except maybe the oil companies and insurance and pharmaceutical industries).
“Just because there are a few Christians out there who are decent, does not mean that the very large numbers of extremist nutjobs who wish us all dead, some of whom wish to be the very ones to actively delete us from the population, don’t exist at all.”
The rub is that people see this the other way – Just because there are a few Christians out there who are extremest nutjobs who wish us all dead, does not mean that a very large number of decent Christians don’t exist at all. – that’s the way I see it.
Christians are like every other group. Some are wonderful. Most are ok. Some are awful.
The difference is that the group in question (Christianity) largely adheres to philosophy that is exclusivist and reprehensible to freethinking humans. A more apt comparison would be to say, “Just because there are a few racists out there who are extremist nutjobs who wish all minorities dead, does not mean that a very large number of decent racists don’t exist at all.”
And that’s a great comparison, because that’s exactly how many of the “decent” Christians see non-Christians…as a non-violent racist sees minorities. (i.e., “I don’t want to kill you or anything…but you certainly aren’t ‘equal’ to me, and I will use the courts and legal system to try to ensure that you aren’t treated as an ‘equal’ to me either.”)
I don’t find it reprehensible to freethinking humans. Most Christians do not want non-Christians dead. That view is scaremongering.
Most Christians (like most people in any religion) are fairly lax in their beliefs. They worship rarely. They wouldn’t list their religion in the top 3 most important things in their lives. The amount of time and energy they devote to their religion is minimal. It’s simply not a part of their daily life. Priests and Pastors wish that all wasn’t true, but it is.
Out of Christians who are very involved in their religion – some are going to be trying to push their crap onto you. Some aren’t. How they react to others is more about their personality than their religion. Jerks are jerks. Decent people are decent people. There are individual Christians and Christian groups who DO stand with us when it comes to us being equal before the law. There are individual Christians and Christian groups who do not stand with us when it comes to us being equal before the law. Most can’t be bothered to stand for much of anything other than themselves.
You can look at pretty much any group and the above holds true. Most people in the environmental movement are pretty lax in their day to day adherence to the movement. Out of those who are very personally involved, some will try to use the courts and laws to regulate your behavior to conform with their ideas of what is right and some won’t.
Pagans – most are lax in their day to day involvement in religion. Of those who are more involved, some think that Paganism is far superior to monotheistic religions and those religions should be restricted, some don’t.
Yesterday I wrote in my personal blog: I sometimes despair that Pagans can ever have a conversation about Christians where they don’t make sweeping statements about how dangerous and destructive Christianity is. How they are the enemy and must be fought. And vice versa.
Then Pagans follow that up with pointing to Christians making the exact same statements against Pagans as proof of how dangerous and destructive Christians are. And vice versa.
Does no one else see how fucked up that is?
I wrote that because I happen to be on two different religion sites – a mostly Christian one and a Pagan one. Small blogs. And right while I was watching, the two groups started to quote from the other what one group was saying about the other. And both we holding the quotes up as examples of how the other group was violent, dangerous, and had it in for them. Examples of how the other group is the enemy. Based on those quotes, both groups were right. Amazing and depressing to watch. Both groups were oblivious to the fact that they were fulfilling each other’s misguided view of one another.
Yes, there are extremest Christian groups, and Hindu groups, and Muslim groups, and Pagan groups, etc. You can’t shut your eyes to that. But don’t only look at that, either.
Seeking the destruction of all other religions is a core belief of Christianity. Thank the Gods that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not uphold that belief. But then again, a great many (probably the majority) of those who self-identify as Christians do not understand, let alone agree with, the Nicene Creed, which is fundamental, so to speak, to the vast majority of Christian denominations.
Probably a majority (or a least a very large portion) of “Christians” do not even literally believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of all humanity. Rather, they think that he was a “good man” and a wise spiritual teacher.
It is a good thing that individual Christians are often far more open-minded than the official and time-honored teachings of their religion. But that does not alter (or at least it has not yet altered) the basic teachings of Christianity.
In theory, Christians could (and some have, to a limited extent) create new forms of Christianity that clearly renounce the intolerance that has been associated with their religion in the past. Interestingly, two groups that have made some progress in that direction, Quakers & UU’s, have simultaneously explicitly distanced themselves from Christianity itself.
But anyone who is Catholic, or Orthodox, or belongs to a church that accepts the teachings of Calvin and/or Luther, or is part of the Renewalist/Pentecostalist church, adheres to an intolerant religion.
” . . . . because that’s exactly how many of the “decent” Christians see non-Christians…as a non-violent racist sees minorities. (i.e., ‘I don’t want to kill you or anything…but you certainly aren’t ‘equal’ to me, and I will use the courts and legal system to try to ensure that you aren’t treated as an ‘equal’ to me either.’ ”
And from where I stand, that’s exactly the point. And I’m looking at it from the view of growing up with anti-intellectual, legalist, first generation charismatic 70′s prayer warrior uberfundies and their successive morphs and splits, and dealing with the people who get involved with us in interfaith events.
The difference is whether they’re thinking and saying it in their own churches and homes, or trying to force their views on a secular, civil level. I have realtives who are bigots in their homes, backyards, and cars, and I have relative who are bigots on their jobs, PTA and city planning meetings, and POA/HOAs. You (universal you being used here) can restrict someone’s public actions, that affect other people, all you want, but when you try to tell anyone else “you cannot be allowed to believe _______”, you’re no better than the stupid aphid Talibangelicals, and all you’re doing is making it look as if their slanderous propaganda about non-Christians is right.
That adds another element to the problem – then it’s not just “we must take over the world for Jesus”, it also becomes “we must take over the world or the non-Christians will destroy us”. That’s a big reason why many Christians who don’t approve of the Fruitcake Contingent don’t get more pro-active against them; they see them as the lesser of two evils. Another reason some of the more progressive, liberal Christians don’t get medieval on their asses is the same situation the overall PHA community has with speaking against even blatant criminals, abusers, frauds, and predators: the first thing someone does is scream “Intolerance! Judgmentalism! Censorship! Lack of Solidarity! Witch War!”
We tell people who are willing to publically disagree with extremist views in our own communites that THEY are the problem, not the white supremacist “heathens” (I won’t call them Heathens) or the nutjob who advocates razing modern churches as payback for centuries-old atrocities, or any others, because anger and conflict are seen as bad. I disagree; I believe poorly managed or petty anger and conflict are bad. One of my favorite quotes is Dorothy Thompson’s “Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict.”
There are plenty of Christians who are disgusted or apprehensive of the Third Wavers, NAR, and any other bunch of crazies. There are as many of them who don’t ascribe without question to the train wreck of doctrine that has replaced original Christianity for the last 1700 or so years as there are PHAs who don’t follow any Trad or system to the letter. Maybe we should start calling them “Christian Eclectics”, if that wouldn’t get the “Eclecticism is Shit” people baying too loudly to hear anything else.
Those people are the ones who believe what they believe in their own homes, but draw the line at becoming the Christian Taliban and forcing Christian rule over civil society. Those people are the ones who either have too much personal integrity to want anyone forced to pay lip-service to their religion, or who’ve realized that if someone does start a Christian jihad, they’ll be thrown out of the winner’s circle as heretics. Those people are not going to be your enemies unless you push them to be. I see no useful purpose in creating an enemy in the same way the jerks you despise go about creating them.
@snoozepossum: Very good post. I especially like how you point out that being intolerant of intolerance is not itself intolerance. That’s a mouthful.
Domo (bows) – say that three times fast, and your beer is on the way!
The post was already way long, but I though about adding another bit:
At a previous Charlotte PPD, a guy who was in the park with his dog asked me what was going on. I told him we were from several non-Christian and pre-Christian faiths, to encourage the general public to observe and ask questions rather than just believe what Jack Chick or Hollywood tells them about us. He frowned and said “Oh, so it’s sort of an anti-Christian protest thing.” I said, “No, you can be pro your own beliefs without having to be anti anyone else’s. Go over to the big green canopy and get yourself a donut and some coffee and see for yourself.”
His eyes bugged out. The idea had never occurred to him that you can be for something without being against all other options. There are a lot of people like him. He stuck around for about an hour, and waved when he left.
At one of our public interfaith Blessing of the Animals, a woman was all for it till we asked her if there was a particular belief system she wanted included in the blessing. I had to explain to her we weren’t Christian, but we were EOE, that was cool with us if it was cool with her, and that I was fond of St. Francis myself. She asked if I could include Christ. I asked for good health and long life for her lab in the names of “Jesus, brother of man, and St. Francis, brother of animals”, and she bawled her head off. She came back last year too.
Not all incidents work out that well, but if I throw away one that could without even checking under the hood, I may have let somebody walk away with a prejudice intact that might have gone in the trash can instead.
Animal blessing – I’m such a sap. I got empathy tears just reading about that.
Francis, I’d like to have met. And be bilingual.
It’s one thing a lot of people of disparate belief systems can usually find some common ground with. We get people who don’t claim any spirituality or don’t even have pets that come by and light a candle or otherwise put some intention/energy out toward viable habitat for wildlife.
This xian crap is so old, why is this on a pagan site? This site is for pagans.
Bekka –
PAGAN+politics has posting guidelines which help promote a civil discourse. We can disagree with one another – and do so quite passionately and forcefully – but we cannot verbally attack one another. For that reason I have edited out a portion of your post. I’m sure you were unaware of the Comment Policy when you did so.
From the Comment Policy:
1. Please keep discussions civil. A civil discussion is free of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviors that lead to conflict. We realize that you are human, so minor and isolated incidents of incivility will generally be tolerated so long as a pattern of incivility does not emerge.
Thought that name looked familiar.
Sorry, but I’m going to address the part that was edited out. Saw it earlier; didn’t have time then to mess with it. Though I honestly don’t feel the rest of the comment is any more in keeping with the comment policy than the edited part.
The comment policy is largely immaterial, as she’s been sending this same crap to my blog contact email. Since I banned her IP on that, I suppose she’s just gotten bored.
As I’ve said before, I have not been banned from Wild Hunt. I stopped posting there because I saw it as a waste of time to try to have a picnic in a war zone. As I’ve also told you before, you need only contact Jason to confirm this. The fact that you won’t, and bring it up on other boards like this marks you as a malcontent troll rather than a person addressing a legitimate grievance.
There are people on here who would absolutely agree with you, but for the most part they’ve managed to not be horrendously tacky about it. I can respect their efforts even if I don’t agree with them.
“largely adheres to philosophy that is exclusivist and reprehensible to freethinking humans.”
Well, I agree with the exclusivist part, but I don’t think it is even POSSIBLE for a philosophy to be reprehensible to freethinking people. Freethinking people are notoriously good at re-thinking philosophies, ideas, and concepts to be better than they initially sound.
“A more apt comparison would be to say, “Just because there are a few racists out there who are extremist nutjobs who wish all minorities dead, does not mean that a very large number of decent racists don’t exist at all.”
I don’t think that is quite an apt comparison. The difference is that racism is focused solely on the hate of other groups. Christianity, on the other hand, is a far more involved idea than racism. Christianity has some aspects of universal charity for all men alongside its exclusivist parts. Racism has no such complexity, it is SOLELY about hate.
I would argue that racism is far more complex than you would think. Many racists would argue that they are not about hate, per se, but rather “loving your own race.” If you have the stomach for it, read some of their websites. That’s exactly how many of them state their feelings.
And you know, most of us have a racist relative or something. Someone who occasionally says something uncomfortable at Thanksgiving about “Wetbacks” or Jews. They don’t want to necessarily start a new Holocaust or anything, and often can be perfectly nice people in other respects. It’s just when the topic of minorities comes up that the hate bubbles out.
My point was that many otherwise nice people happen to be exclusivists and/or Christian Supremacists, and often they don’t realize it or see anything wrong with it. Look at Brit Hume’s statements about Tiger Woods’ Buddhism. I bet Hume is probably a perfectly nice guy, and probably didn’t feel like he was being a complete piece of s—. He is a perfect example of what I’m talking about – comparable to the racist who doesn’t realize that he is a racist…
I used to be much more tolerant of Christian exclusivism and other similar ideologies. Frankly, I’ve been reading a lot about what certain Founding Fathers had to say about the matter, and, combined with the current disinformation campaigns being put out by the “America is a Christian Nation” crowd, it’s causing me to realize just how dangerous it is allowing their opinions to remain uncontested. (*)
___________________________________________________
(*) For the record, I don’t mean censorship. I mean challenging these positions with vigor. And yes, sometimes this vigor is accompanied by ridicule and snark.
“For the record, I don’t mean censorship. I mean challenging these positions with vigor. And yes, sometimes this vigor is accompanied by ridicule and snark.”
No problem with that – I favor absurdity and cartoon hyperbole myself as a way to throw a point out there without so much bloodletting. But there is a difference between a rooftop sniper with a top-of-the-line sight and damned good aim, and a strafing run with a Kalashnikov.
I’d prefer to think of myself as more along the lines of a political comedian, like a Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, or Bill Maher, than a _murderer_, thank you very much!
They often insulted and angered a few people from time to time, to make a point.
Figured you’d be good to go with the weapon metaphor-thinger.
The saying about “the truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off” is usually dead on. It’s the administration of truth I’m addressing.
Milk is good for babies, but not if you feed it to them with a fire hose.
“Many racists would argue that they are not about hate, per se, but rather “loving your own race.” If you have the stomach for it, read some of their websites. That’s exactly how many of them state their feelings.”
Oh, I’ve known some “white nationalists” in my day. But here is where I think this example and the example of Christianity diverge: the racist generally focuses on some positive “love for race” as a pretext for their obsession with other races, which is ironic. For all their prattle about loving their race and culture most are pretty ignorant about it. Try speaking German to one of these German-American “white nationalists,” 8 times out of 10 they won’t know what the hel you’re talking about. I read a conversation on Stormfront one time where some girl was suggesting doing some cultural day, or getting people together to learn some traditional “white culture” things, or some crap like that and I was surprised at how many of these “i love my race and culture” people told her it was stupid and didn’t do anything to “fight the white race’s enemies.”
All of that aside, racism is by DEFINITION only about the hate for other races, despite what overly-educated academic “theorists” tend to say. There’s hardly a succinct definition we could make about Christianity that is comparable, not and be honest anyway.
“My point was that many otherwise nice people happen to be exclusivists and/or Christian Supremacists, and often they don’t realize it or see anything wrong with it.”
That is absolutely correct, but that and being an overt Christian supremacist are hardly the only two examples of what sorts of Christians are out there, unlike with racists. There are Christians who are not only good people but also respect other religions and their practitioners. Maybe they’re rare and you haven’t come across one, I don’t know, but they are exactly why a universal comparison between racism and Christianity isn’t exact. Now, if all we’re doing is comparing Christians like the ones you speak of to racists, well then the comparison is indeed apt. It just isn’t universally applicable.
“it’s causing me to realize just how dangerous it is allowing their opinions to remain uncontested.”
Hey, I’m totally with you. I don’t, by any means, want their opinions uncontested. Honestly, this thread is probably the nicest I’ve ever spoken about Christianity, haha. I just didn’t think your analogy between Christianity and racism, as a universal one-to-one comparison, was quite right.
I wasn’t saying that ALL Christians are like that. I was describing “many” (the word I used) of the supposedly “decent” Christians.
In fact, something that I was thinking about after the fact, was that the specific type of racist thinking that best symbolizes my argument is more the “white man’s burden” type of colonialism. You know, the whole “We white people must shew the dirty heathen of his false ways so that he may become part of our superior culture” type of racism that the British Empire was so fond of spreading.
The British officer in Injah (!) would certainly not see himself as being a racist. Indeed, he might even be very philanthropic towards the native population, doing what he can to help the sick and needy. But at the heart of his charity is still that sense of condescending superiority, and the drive to replace the native’s culture with his own.
Ah, I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were doing a one to one comparison. My bad.
“All of that aside, racism is by DEFINITION only about the hate for other races, despite what overly-educated academic “theorists” tend to say.”
No, actually there are many other types of racism that don’t involve direct “hate” of the other race. See my discussion elsewhere on this thread of the implicit racism in the British Raj period of India.
“Racism has no such complexity, it is SOLELY about hate.”
In the end, yes. For many people raised in it, at the start, it is often about fear. Misplaced, miseducated, mismanaged fear based on selfishness and insecurity and usually someone’s power-grabbing agenda, but fear. With a lot of idiots, hate is easier to deal with and admit to than fear, so you get bullies and sycophantic thugs.
That doesn’t excuse the behavior; trash is trash, and some trash doesn’t recycle. It makes the observation that the two tendencies toward extremism are a lot alike.
True, it is also more complicated than I portrayed it, which is funny
. But my point is that there is no part of racism that inspires soup kitchens. Christianity, on the other hand, has parts that inspire good and bad things, depending on what part an individual focuses on and/or how they interpret its teachings. I’m not sure I could say I’ve seen racism inspire anything good. That’s why I disagreed with Bryon’s comparison.
@Cara: I agree with you that Christians are not the sum of their worst members. Personally, I used be far more hard on them as a group. But a friend of mine converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and one night at a party we had a great, long discussion about Christianity. It turns out that he had put a lot of thought into the absolutist and exclusive passages in the Bible. In explaining his interpretations he proved to me that Christianity can be interpreted to be a more tolerant religion. Now I’m sure many would say his take is subjective and not the “true” meaning of Christian doctrine, but sticking to some particular, narrow interpretation has never been the case in Christianity. If there were no adaptation, it would never have lasted this long.
On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree that they are exactly the same as every other group. Well, sort of anyway. Yes, they are the same as any group of people. However, I don’t think this sameness of groups of people equates to a sameness of the religions that inspire those groups. While it is true that every group has its fringe, its extremists, etc. I don’t think one can honestly say that Christianity is somehow exactly the same in regards to acceptance of pluralism as Hinduism, Shinto, or even Sikhism, another monotheistic faith. In that particular context I don’t think that “there is no way to my father but through me” can be seen as on equal footing with “truth is one but sages call it by many names.”
In this regard, Hinduism has a built in acceptance of plurality that Christianity lacks. It seems to me that Christians are not by and large the same as other groups due to their religion, but due to a sort of “moral common sense” found in all (or maybe most?) humans. It’s been my experience that most good people who are Christians are that way because they either ignore the negative (as I see it) parts of Christianity in favor of the positive, or because they reinterpret those parts heavily to allow them not to be bigoted a-holes. The conclusion I draw from this, which I admit is based on anecdotal evidence, is that Christians are as likely to be good people as anyone else but that their religion presents certain obstacles toward being religiously tolerant that every one of them has to face and account for in some way. Hhmm, so I guess I don’t technically disagree with your statement itself but instead feel there is more to it?
I thank you – and everyone else – for adding the “more.”
“Hhmm, so I guess I don’t technically disagree with your statement itself but instead feel there is more to it?”
DINGDINGDINGDING!!!!
Now THAT’S getting somewhere!
I think that’s the frame of the whole debate/discussion/argument/posit in a nutshell.
You come find me at any festival I’m at; you are SO getting beer!
Awesome! I love beer!
@Ananta: You bring up a good point in regards to apathy, or even uninformed support, toward religious bigotry. I often hear arguments like, “well I’M not that kind of Christian,” or “that’s not MY church, they’re just some nutcases,” or worst of all, “they aren’t REALLY Christians, therefore I’m not responsible.” Unfortunately, reality does not work that way. For better or worse the loudest voices seem to represent Christianity. This is why the religion is waning in some sectors, not because it’s impossible for it to be a useful religion but because they’ve allowed the perception of Christianity to sour. What’s ironic is that what’s good for Christianity is what’s good for us. When these self-proclaimed “good Christians” ACTIVELY stand up against those who would negatively represent them and instead choose to adapt to our times, it would salvage their religion and get bigots off of our back at the same time. If for no other reason than this, dealing with these bigoted Christians instead of writing them off IS their responsibility. Sort of weird.
You’re right, some would say that those being critical are ignoring that part of the situation. I would say that the reason it seems that way is because there really isn’t anything to discuss in regards to “good Christians.” They aren’t the ones trying to legislate their religion, so in political discussions Christianity is only a relevant topic insomuch as an individual or group makes it relevant. This is where some Pagans jump to the conclusion that we are condemning all individual Christians. We aren’t giving equal time to “good Christians” because they aren’t a problem to argue against, which makes it look like we’re only focused on the negative.
At risk of oversimplifying and a comparison that would make some people wet themselves with pique, when you train a dog, do you only use negative reinforcement, or positive as well?
“when you train a dog, do you only use negative reinforcement, or positive as well?”
Actually, that is a good point. I don’t mean to exclude the positive interactions in that comment and you’re right that a “two prong” approach is more effective. I only meant that there sometimes seems to be an unnecessary drive among Pagans to make sure and say nice things about Christians during every conversation about them. Discussing their negative side and problems that stem from it isn’t necessarily an indictment against the whole group, it just happens to be the topic of that one particular conversation. That being said, it also seems that there is always one person who makes unnecessarily over-the-top negative comments about Christians in such a conversation…so there is that. *sigh*
All true too. I do it sometimes just to watch the Christian’s mental train derail. It makes the thinking ones question their assumptions, and makes the ones who are dead set on villainizing us trip all over themselves. Works about the same way for PHA fundies. (BEG)
It was a lot of these ‘good Christians’ who chose to believe in the whole package of lies in paid advertising by out-of-state agitators and the RC diocese of Portland who voted to veto the state legislator’s passage, and the governor’s signing of the law to allow gay marriages here in Maine.
They may not create the lies, or stand for the lies, but they sure didn’t bother to notice that they _WERE_ lies in the first place. They cannot be bothered to think about the fact that their votes were affecting, not just a few ‘perverts,’ but thousands of taxpaying citizens.
They just went along with what was made to sound like pious protecting of the children (who weren’t named in the law in the first place).
I wish these interviews reflected what I’m seeing a good bit of in my local area (North Carolina/South Carolina), and what I’ve briefly heard from people when I’ve been in Maryland and West Virginia. The closest thing I’ve heard to it is people who agree with the fiscal issues, but don’t want to align themselves with the TP because their experiences with the uberfundie element or the party’s welcoming of Palin have put them off.
Pertinent points may be that LA and Chicago are large metro areas; no idea what part of Georgia the other participant is in. Also a little curious about the questions that don’t have a response from all three interviewees.
If you have any friends who are Pagans from other areas who have first experience of the Tea Party or any of the related groups, would you ask them if I could ask them a few questions?
The interviews were done by email and were even longer than what I have posted (more questions). The people interviewed weren’t required to answer all of the questions, but they did answer most of them. I didn’t post any of the questions where only one person answered it.
There were also a few questions and responses that I will post another time. These had more to do with how they felt about the Democratic and Republicans Parties and that sort of thing.
Sure, although many of the people who’ve commented to me on experiences with the TP aren’t PHAs. The objections I heard mostly come from what they see as misappropriation of Christianity as a political lever for a bunch of loonies, and the regulars in the crowd not speaking up loudly enough, or buying into the line that speaking up is intolerant, divisional, and exclusive.
I’m still up for going Stealth Mode at the one in Charlotte that meets regularly when Miles gets out of the worst of his dental surgery and I lose this horking cold.
I would appreciate any Tea Party PHAs you send my way. And am very interested to hear what you think if you do go to a meeting or rally.
Dental surgery – my sympathies!!!
Hope this pops up coming in so late – I don’t get notifications when someone replies to a post, and have wondered a bit if I’ve ignored anybody.
Stumbled on a Tea Party Patriots’ “Seeing Red” rally here in Concord yesterday:
http://www2.independenttribune.com/content/2010/mar/12/tea-party-holds-rally-support-kissell/
At the point I drove past them and pulled into the parking lot to scope it out, they had been there for a while, so I wasn’t there for the beginning, but still had plenty to say. The reporters got there a few minutes before I did. This is not one of the groups that are presented as being based in Charlotte.They weren’t rowdy or rude, but they were very adamant. Here’s what I got from this particular group from the 20-30 minutes I was there:
1. For things they don’t like,”Obamanation” is the favorite adjective for a lot of them, and apparently Obama and “the liberals” are responsible for the current mess. The words Obama, Democrat, and liberal are swear words, not just nouns. Obama should be (various assortment of actions) for being a liar.
2. There’s a lot of catchphrases “standing up for freedom”, “standing firm against tyranny”, “standing up for America and our rights”, and “standing together against the government lies and invasion of our homes and privacy”. Generally a whole lot of standing up, but not what any of that entails, besides standing. There is encouragement to write, call, and email your government officials, and tell them you don’t want this or that, and remind them that they work for you, but I didn’t hear any alternatives to replace the things they want done away with.
3. They equate socialism as being communism-lite 2.0. General opinion is that socialist countries are lousy places to live, and people die every day from minor health problems because they can’t get treatment. When I tossed it out there that that wasn’t quite the experience I had in the UK, and could they narrow down a region since maybe it varied by location, one of them said she thought England was probably one of the least bad.
4. Global warming is a lie, it’s not happening. “Those types of people who are out to “save the world”, that’s fine, but telling other people what to do in regards to the environment is an attack on personal freedom”, and the federal government “wants to send it’s police right into your house to tell you how to live”.
5. Nobody mentioned race, and I didn’t hear any Birthers speak up. Religion didn”t come up till after I had mentioned UK health care and that “the militant variety of global warming peeps make it harder on those of us who are trying to get people to take pollution and natural resources seriously”. The woman who made the “save the world” comment said that she felt it was her obligation as a Christian to take the environment seriously, but that wasn’t something the government should stick it’s nose into. There was pretty much consensus on that.
6. The rally was mainly to show support for congressman Larry Kissell’s vote against health care, and his promise to continue to vote against it. Kissell states that he supports health care reform, but not a national plan on the grounds that it would “gut Medicare”. The attendees seemed more of the opinion that health care can remain as is, and that it’s an issue of personal responsibility.
7. They were politer than any other people I’ve met who ID’d as Tea Party affiliated, and weren’t afraid of getting rained on. They did not use bullhorns or amplified sound, and you had to be in the parking row next to them to hear them. They were far enough up in the parking lot that people inside the building would not have been able to hear them, and no one had to walk past them to enter the building.
THANK YOU for your first hand account. I owe you beer.
Score! Nice bock maybe? (looks hopeful)
I’ll try a different approach if I get by the Monday Charlotte one. This crew wasn’t hostile, but they weren’t really enthusiastic about me opening my mouth either. Given that the other group plans all their meetings around watching Beck, I’m still fairly iffy about being able to pass as a non-threat.
“We accept her! One of us! We accept her! One of us! Gooble gobble, gooble gobble! We accept her! We accept her!”
LOL – I’d join the TP if it’d get me gills or a prehensile tail . . . . ;0)
Hi Cara!
Attached is a link to an article giving the reporter’s first-hand account of the Sept. 12 tea party in Washington, DC, as well as a thoughtful analysis of the influences of the phenomenon. I thought it might be useful as background material for your oral history project.
Volume 56, Number 16 · October 22, 2009
Something New on the Mall
By Michael Tomasky
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23150
Blessings!
Thank you Linda. I do appreciate it!