Author
|
Topic: Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people (Read 1564 times) |
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.29
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
 
|
 |
Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people
« on: 2002-12-20 09:09:01 » |
 |
Gotta Have Faith
By PAUL KRUGMAN
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/opinion/17KRUG.html
Last week the Bush administration made an important announcement. I'm not referring to the selection of a new economic team, which will make absolutely no difference to policy. I'm talking about the executive order removing longstanding barriers between church and state.
The announcement didn't attract much attention amid the furor over Trent Lott. Yet it contains the seeds of a similar future uproar. The media were shocked, shocked to discover that prominent Republicans have a soft spot for segregation — something that was obvious long before Mr. Lott inserted his foot in his mouth. One of these years they'll be equally shocked to discover that prominent Republicans have a soft spot for theocracy.
Of course, the administration insists that the new policy isn't intended to allow government-funded proselytizing. And it would surely deny that by explicitly permitting religious discrimination in hiring — organizations that receive federal contracts can "take faith into account in making employment decisions" — it is opening up a new source of patronage for its friends on the Christian right.
Why am I not reassured?
For one thing, we are well advised not to trust anything the administration says about the goals of its domestic policy. John J. DiIulio, who initially headed the Bush administration's faith-based initiative, told a reporter, Ron Suskind, that this White House had no interest in the substance of policy, caring only about political payoffs: "What you've got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm."
Mr. DiIulio repudiated his own carefully drafted, 3,000-word letter to Mr. Suskind after Karl Rove put a horse's head in his bed. (O.K., I'm not sure about that last part.) But the best guess about any domestic policy from this administration is that its real purpose is to cater to a part of its base. And which part of the base wants to blur the line between church and state?
George W. Bush is always careful to speak in favor of faith in general, not any faith in particular. Congressional leaders are less careful. Last spring Tom DeLay, soon to be House majority leader, told a church group that: "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world — only Christianity." He also said he was on a mission from God to promote a "biblical worldview" in American politics.
By the way, one piece of that biblical worldview involves scientific education. After the Columbine school shootings, Mr. DeLay suggested that the tragedy had occurred "because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud." Guns don't kill people; Charles Darwin kills people.
Mr. DeLay isn't an obscure crank; he's the most powerful man in Congress. Still, is he an outlier? No. Don Nickles, now challenging the wounded Mr. Lott for Senate leadership, is less given to colorful statements, but is as closely aligned with the religious right as Mr. DeLay.
And the influence of the religious right spreads much further. The Internet commentator Atrios, who played a key role in bringing Mr. Lott's past to light, now urges us to look into the secretive Council for National Policy. This blandly named organization was founded by Tim LaHaye, co-author of the apocalyptic "Left Behind" novels, and is in effect a fundamentalist pressure group. As of 1998 the organization's membership contained many leading Congressional figures in the Republican Party, though none of the party's neoconservative intellectuals.
George W. Bush gave a closed-door speech to the council in 1999, after which the religious right in effect endorsed his candidacy. Accounts vary about what he promised, and the organization has refused to release the tape. But it's notable that he appointed John Ashcroft as attorney general; Mr. Ashcroft gives every appearance of placing his biblical worldview above secular concerns about due process.
I'd like to think that the furor over Trent Lott's nostalgia for Jim Crow, hidden in plain sight for years, would serve as a signal to ask about other uncomfortable truths hidden in plain sight. But I suspect that it won't, that we'll soon go back to worrying about politicians' haircuts.
And then, years from now, when it becomes clear that much public policy has been driven by a hard-line fundamentalist agenda, people will say, "But nobody told us."
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people
« Reply #1 on: 2002-12-21 18:13:03 » |
|
[bricoleur]
Gotta Have Faith
By PAUL KRUGMAN
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/opinion/17KRUG.html
Last week the Bush administration made an important announcement. < ... > I'm talking about the executive order removing longstanding barriers between church and state.
<snip>
George W. Bush is always careful to speak in favor of faith in general, not any faith in particular. Congressional leaders are less careful. Last spring Tom DeLay, soon to be House majority leader, told a church group that: "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity." He also said he was on a mission from God to promote a "biblical worldview" in American politics.
<snip>
[rhinoceros]
This is weird for many reasons. Secular state was supposed to be something that the western word has been aiming for and even promoting to the rest of the word for a long time.
Why would anyone want to delegate power to religious institutions? And why in the USA of all places, with the presence of so many religions rather than a dominant self-promoting religion?
It becomes weirder when Bush is being "careful", talking about faith in general, any faith. What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that he doesn't care what a faith has to say as long as it is a faith? If this is not double-speak, it is even worse, because it essentially says "Put reason aside and folow your religious leaders." In other words, the content is not imporant but the control mechanism is.
Of course, the advocates of christianity colorfully presented in this article are no better...
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people
« Reply #2 on: 2003-01-02 06:46:01 » |
|
Quote:| "This is weird for many reasons. Secular state was supposed to be something that the western word has been aiming for and even promoting to the rest of the word for a long time. " |
I think the US has been at war with its own founding principles for sometime. Originally, the idea of a separation of church and state made perfect sense in both religious and secular terms; churches were well aware of the background of religious persecution that may behind the creation of the US and saw a separation as being an ideal way of avoiding a repetition. However, it was not long for the more common religious mentality to emerge and accordingly religion began to be inserted in areas like the currency and the oath of allegiance.
Quote:| "And why in the USA of all places, with the presence of so many religions rather than a dominant self-promoting religion?" |
In essence most of these sects and religions appear to have taken the view that they need to face down a common enemy; namely the perceived encroachment of secularism implicit in an increasingly materialistic culture. The same siege mentality ecumenicalism has happened here too.
Quote:| "It becomes weirder when Bush is being "careful", talking about faith in general, any faith. What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that he doesn't care what a faith has to say as long as it is a faith?" |
It depends on whether you think Bush does actually believe it. Prior to Sept 11th he was quoted often espousing the merits of christianity above all other religions. Tony Blair, on the other hand, almost certainly does believe all that tommy rot.
|
|
|
|
|
Walpurgis
Initiate
Posts: 67
Reputation: 5.67
Rate Walpurgis
|
|
Re:Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people
« Reply #3 on: 2003-01-02 07:29:23 » |
|
Quote: [rhino] "And why in the USA of all places, with the presence of so many religions rather than a dominant self-promoting religion?"
[kharin] In essence most of these sects and religions appear to have taken the view that they need to face down a common enemy; namely the perceived encroachment of secularism implicit in an increasingly materialistic culture. The same siege mentality ecumenicalism has happened here too. |
It may be worth noting that the dominant religion is Christianity. The men mentioned in the article and Bush's own faith are xtian. Bush and his lackies aren't going to want to promote their great enemy Islam. bush being non-specific is good politics - but he really means xtianity.
Walpurgis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people
« Reply #5 on: 2003-01-02 09:17:51 » |
|
Quote:| "It may also be worth noting recent attempts to impose religious dogma in the UK." |
Hmm. I fully expect the new Ayatollah of Canterbury to be entertaining but largely ineffectual. I do hope that the evangelical wing will get more and more irritated over gay priests and create a schism some point soon; that would be wonderful as a spectator sport.
I think the more pressing issue is the Prime Minister, who seems to regard religion as a social good to be promoted as much as Bush does (though as I said Blair does genuinely seem to see 'faith' as being of value as opposed to any particular sect). Blair has appointed a 'religion tsar' to that end, as well as attempting to introduce 'religous hatred' laws (religious aggravation in conjunction with another offence has already been introduced), encouraging the spread of faith schools and endorsing the teaching of creationism in schools.
He has also veoted repeal of the blasphemy laws (since it would offend the muslim community who want them extended so they can have the British state persecute people like Salman Rushdie rather than protect them) and has refused to remove bishops from the House of Lords.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:Guns don't kill people: Charles Darwin kills people
« Reply #6 on: 2003-01-02 09:21:14 » |
|
Quote:| "It may be worth noting that the dominant religion is Christianity. The men mentioned in the article and Bush's own faith are xtian. Bush and his lackies aren't going to want to promote their great enemy Islam. bush being non-specific is good politics - but he really means xtianity." |
As a first priority yes, but increasingly differing religions are forming coalitions designed to combat secularism. Doubtless their natural territorialism will erupt internittently but this is still a problem. As an example, such a coalition was set up in the Uk by the christian institute to campaign against the abolition of Section 28.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
