-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The Evangelical Right arose from the moral outrage triggered by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That compelling portrait of their origins glosses over the movement’s less-than-heroic inception. While Roman Catholics condemned the ruling, W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press wrote, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.” Wayne Dehoney, Southern Baptist Convention president in the 1960′s, noted, in 1976, the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology when he said: “Protestant theology generally takes Genesis 2:7 as a statement that the soul is formed at breath, not conception.”
The Evangelical Right did not come together in response to the Roe v. Wade decision but in response to the attempt by the IRS to rescind the tax-exempt status of private schools because of the school’s racially discriminatory policies.
In Green v. Connally (1972), the United States District Court, District of Columbia, enjoined the IRS from approving any application for tax exempt status for any private school in the State of Mississippi unless that school has “has publicized the fact that it has a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students.”
In 1975, the IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because the school’s regulations prohibited inter-racial dating. It wasn’t until 1971 that African-Americans were admitted and then only if they were married. In Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, found that:
The Government’s fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners’ exercise of their religious beliefs.
Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, insisted that the political movement got its start when the IRS tried to rescind the tax-exempt status of schools that practiced racial discrimination. Weyrich tried for years to energize evangelical voters over issues such as school prayer, abortion, and the proposed equal rights amendment. Weyrich added: “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.” The 1972 Green decision and the 1975 IRS action against Bob Jones University actually predate Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1977-1981).
Discrimination based on race makes absolutely no sense based on genetics alone. Dr. Spencer Wells has traced The Journey of Man through evidence uncovered in the Y-chromosome. This evidence shows that evangelicals, and everyone else, are descended from Africans. Oh the irony! White evangelicals can trace their ancestry back to black Africans. Maybe that’s the real reason they deny evolution.
H/T: Randall Balmer, Jonathan Dudley, Bob Allen, Ed Kilgore.
NO! Thaht can’t be possible! Since the world is only 6000 years old (having been created in late August(the 23rd I believe) of 4004 BC) there is not nearly enough time for humans to spread out as this scientific theory states. Besides, my bible says that “God created all the races of the world” not one race.
Nal,
I know that you are focusing on U.S. political / legal machinations as they intersect with “The Evangelical Right’s Roots“, but then you go into following the genetic trail, so I think you opened up a valid comment on another macrocosm which is applicable here too:
(Weekend Rebel Science Excursion – 15, quoting Charles Darwin). Darwin is still right up there with the Pope in perceived infallibility, even though rank racism had infected him to the point of saying natural selection would rid the world of inferior races sooner than later.
Following that, since natural selection seemed to be moving to slow for some folks, came social natural selection:
(Eugenics in the United States). The current politics is a muddled mishmash of evolutionary eugenics mixed with holier than thou religious fundamentalism not unlike its secular counterpart.
The twist can easily be seen by noting the eugenicists once touted sterilization and other population diminishing practices directed at “lower races.”
Roe v Wade is an event that not only could cause a leak where other than “lower races” could suffer population decrease, but it also took place when the personal nature of that dynamic rose to the top, and individualism was seen as a better way to deal with the issue.
In other words, any white woman, along with her significant other, working with the medical professional, could decide what is best for her personal life path at a given time.
The mass-production ideology of getting rid of entire races via eugenic madness gave way to the personal touch.
The problem the event presented was that white women would diminish the population of the white race, which is against one particular denomination of the natural selection religion.
Natural selection of the social-Darwinian sort is the way of saying the superior white race is the fittest to survive, so abortions by white women is heretical.
On a related note, the modern doctrine on corporate personhood also has its origins in tax law, and, specifically, statutes related to ending racial discrimination.
The Southern Pacific Railroad didn’t want to pay taxes for fenced land bordering their routes, and found a loophole under a California law mean to to protect black litigants post Civil War.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment, meant to ensure that freed blacks were also given the rights of citizens.
And now corporations are immortal scrooges.
In a more recent context, The Evangelical Right’s Roots are traced to Oil-Qaeda:
(False Spontaneity of the Tea Party).
Whatever they are, they are not in any way christian. Neither am I, but still…
”Wayne Dehoney, Southern Baptist Convention president in the 1960′s, noted, in 1976, the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology when he said: “Protestant theology generally takes Genesis 2:7 as a statement that the soul is formed at breath, not conception.”
David,
The opening shot – Good (The truth of the religious hypocrisy)
“The Evangelical Right did not come together in response to the Roe v. Wade decision but in response to the attempt by the IRS to rescind the tax-exempt status of private schools because of the school’s racially discriminatory policies.”
The defining proposition – Better (Cogent exposition)
“Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, insisted that the political movement got its start when the IRS tried to rescind the tax-exempt status of schools that practiced racial discrimination.”
The argument clincher – Best (One has only to know Weyrich’s high status”)
The entire Guest Blog – Brilliant
Your summation of this bogus movement is elegant in its brevity. I can only add the obvious which is these religious-based private schools were being established as a tax free answer to Brown v .Bd.of Ed. and it mandating desegregation. The only thing religious about them was that their religious backers still believed the old Southern Baptist teaching that Black people were inferior to White people and should thus be segregated from them. Pious pablum from racists who wanted their “glorious” tradition of “Jim Crow” and murderous repression to continue. Abortion was a convenient attention grabber because it ostensibly had to do with cute little babies. Naturally, the phony “Right to Life” Movement could care less about babies when they’re born. God Damn Them for their hypocrisy.
These folks love to rewrite history … from human evolution to their own movement’s beginnings. It’s what they do; it’s who they are … fantasy folk.
Also just another example of the death throes being experienced by the Republican Party as its different factions fight to remain relevant.
This is so true. When I worked at the legislature in the late seventies for the health and welfare committee, the evangelicals were not yet showing up at the hearings on abortion and family planning.
Great article. It is amazing that it took a money issue to get the religious wingnuts on their feet to complain. I can only hope that the IRS goes after the status of any church that has been practicing politics from the pulpit. That includes the Catholic Church whose pasters were very involved in this past Presidential election.
Wow! I thought the left was not supposed to be all about the hate. Go figure. What is your mantra, “That which we do not agree with, we must hate.”
Good article David…..
If you don’t want to dance with the beast don’t take their money….. That’s the philophsy of Hillsdale college in Michigan…. They take no federal funds…. Not even student financial aid…..
I agree with you about the evangical right…. There are evangelicals that don’t even have a faith… But want to belong to something….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-15/racist-alabama-legacy-shadows-high-court-on-voting-rights.html Just saw a list of the most religious states. Alabama and Utah topped the list followed by Mississippi.
“The [latest iteration of the] Evangelical Right['s involvement in politics] arose from the moral outrage triggered by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Christian fundamentalist involvement in politics is as American as apple pie. For example, the great evangelist Rev. Billy Sunday’s excoriating prohibition sermons are legendary. (@4:45 he starts in on the undocumented and naturalized)
But his disdain for the common man was matched for his admiration of the wealthy. The one percenters never had a better B.S. preacher
BTW, Anon, there’s your hate.
anon,
if we don’t agree with your comments or your beliefs we are deemed to “hate” you?
What Oro Lee said.
You know raff,
Hate comes in many forms…. Some of the most racist folks I know are from the north… At least down south, you know where you stand….. You may not agree with it, but it does not mean it does not exist…
AY,
Sure there racists everywhere, but anon was suggesting that if you did not agree with him then you are a hater.
Raff,
Because I don’t think in terms of race whether I like someone or not, Anons statement was in my opinion more heckling than anything of substance. I generally like everyone until I have a reason not to associate with them any longer. Anon, is the type of person I probably wouldn’t associate with outside of this blog.
To be clear there are certain areas, white, black, Hispanic I would not go into even during the daylight…. It’s not because I’m racist or elitist…. It’s because I value my personal safety…. There are bad groups and dishonest people of any group…. That’s why I choose not to associate with them…
Think about it in the terms of gangs… Hells Angles…. MS13…. Bloods and Crips…
Oro Lee,
Did you know that Billy Sunday first became notsble as a baseball player in an era of that game where players were seen as somewhat shady?
MS — yep, but I kinda doubt it in Billy Sunday’s case. He had a long and storied evangelical career when many of those practitioners at the time were “somewhat shady.” There was some concern that Sunday may have misapplied contributions, but nothing came of it. Instead he lived a rather modest life free of scandal. Gotta give credit where credit is due — but it is telling when you have to give a preacher credit for not being a scalawag.
BTW, Mike, I would like to confer with you on some research matters involving aspects of Joseph Brown’s writings — you recommended some of his books to me,
I’ve set up a temporary email account for this sole purpose:
Oroleetemp@gmail.com
The account will be canceled after an exchange of contact information
err, Joseph Campbell: Hero with a Thousand Faces
Oro Lee,
His record as an baseball player was rather mediocre when I looked it up:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sundabi01.shtml . What I knew of him came from mention in the various Baseball Encyclopedias I used to have when baseball statistics was my hobby.
He appears to be the model for Sinclair Lewis’ “Elmer Gantry” and indeed it was that book that made me skeptical of the preachers of the early Twentieth Century. From Wiki he does seems less doctrinaire than most of his peers and he did support women’s suffrage.
I’ll contact you offline.
Nal,
It is rare when The Evangelical Right, Progressives, and Evolutionary Science climb into the same bed as a threesome.
You know something is out of kilter when the monster offspring of that un-holy alliance begin to run around the joint.
Let’s take a grown-up’s gander at it then:
(Preaching Eugenics, book Review). Another review of the book elaborates a bit more on the Darwinian Evolutionary aspects of it I commented on up-thread:
(Preaching Eugenics, another book review). It is quite clear that the racial dynamics of eugenics in the nation have been fostered by science and religion at times, and it was strong enough to inspire Nazi’s in Germany to “go massive.”
oops, the second link in my comment was not finished, so here it is: Preaching Eugenics.
Dredd,
Is correct in that the “Eugenics Movement” in the 19th Century U.S. did resonate with NAZIism. It also had popularity with the Progressive Movement at the time with people like Teddy Roosevelt. The “movement” conceived the “Anglo Saxon People” as the “highest” example of human evolution.
Mike Spindell 1, February 17, 2013 at 10:17 am
Dredd,
Is correct in that the “Eugenics Movement” in the 19th Century U.S. did resonate with NAZIism. It also had popularity with the Progressive Movement at the time with people like Teddy Roosevelt. The “movement” conceived the “Anglo Saxon People” as the “highest” example of human evolution.
==================================
Indeed Mike.
I must admit that I was surprised by the book reviews I read.
I just finished another one from Epoché: The University of California Journal for the Study of Religion, which begins:
(Review by Reanna Glynn Mason). I am pleased to note that posters and commentators of the JT blog generally do not get swept away with the torque or momentum of the groups we identify with.
Thus we will criticize any bad idea, no matter if it is from groups that claim to be progressive, libertarian, conservative, liberal, democratic, republican, religious or scientific.
That is healthy IMO, and an antidote to something like eugenics run amok, because bad ideas can’t be made good by numbers in a group.
Nal,
My unofficial count of your blog posts demonstrates that you have some obsessive ill will towards organized religions, and conventional Christianity in the United States. It seems to be a blind obsession because the premise that you use often times reflects your personal belief, not necessarily common held beliefs. As an example, you could have just as easily blamed the organization of “The Evangelical Right” on the rise of rock and roll. Certainly, churches all over the United States formed alliances twenty years before your assertion that these alliances formed to eliminate rock and roll from public broadcast.
Whatever has scarred you in that past that gives you such hate to repeatedly post the same hateful rhetoric is real to you. But it is not necessary for, or to the benefit of, the rest of us. I am asking that you please post something of relevance. Say something that matters. You are not enlightening us, or furthering our analysis of any current events. The other Guest Submissions, by and large, do this very thing. They certainly have passion about their topics, but they don’t seem so hateful and logically blind.
I am not presently a practicing member of a Christian church. However, I can guarantee the readers that the majority of Christians in the United States consider racial segregation and inequality abhorrent. You finding exceptions to this does not mean you have ‘uncovered’ something worth talking about. The same goes for the allusion of Evangelical Christians organizing around Roe v. Wade. Just because you say that people who are for the life of an unborn child are therefore anti-woman does not make it so. Just because you can find examples of Christians that support abortion, does not make their beliefs or your posting of them in any way authoritative on the matter.
Please say something that matters, or learn to enjoy the silence.
Peace, Joseph
Dredd,
For even some Jewish leaders to have supported Eugenics is further proof that we Jews aren’t as smart as people think we are. The prime movers in eugenics thought of Jews as a degenerate people.
“It seems to be a blind obsession because the premise that you use often times reflects your personal belief, not necessarily common held beliefs”
Joseph,
As someone who believes in a creator of some sort I must defend David and this particular guest blog. Did you miss this part of David’s piece:
“While Roman Catholics condemned the ruling, W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press wrote, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.” Wayne Dehoney, Southern Baptist Convention president in the 1960′s, noted, in 1976, the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology when he said: “Protestant theology generally takes Genesis 2:7 as a statement that the soul is formed at breath, not conception.” ”
You don’t see that today’s anti-abortion movement, at least as far as on-Catholics go, is not even a reflection of mainstream protestant teaching? Don’t you think that is important in bolstering David’s thesis that the anti-abortion movement is really a cover for protecting church assets? I do.
“Whatever has scarred you in that past that gives you such hate to repeatedly post the same hateful rhetoric is real to you. But it is not necessary for, or to the benefit of, the rest of us.”
Joseph this is a totally unfair assumption on your part with no evidence to support it except for your characterizations of David’s guest blogs and a little “pop” psychology thrown in.
“I am asking that you please post something of relevance. Say something that matters. You are not enlightening us, or furthering our analysis of any current events.”
I completely disagree and believe that David has been a bulwark of this blog.
Beyond that though this particular guest blog is quite relevant for the range of issues we discuss here, although you may not like it.
“I can guarantee the readers that the majority of Christians in the United States consider racial segregation and inequality abhorrent. You finding exceptions to this does not mean you have ‘uncovered’ something worth talking about.”
While I think that your statement about the majority of Christians is true, David is writing about a very vocal and pernicious minority that has cowed many Christians into embarrassed silence. As a Jew I can say that this phenomenon also exist in the Jewish community, where the Ultra-Orthodox Fundamentalists have power far beyond their number of adherents.
“Just because you say that people who are for the life of an unborn child are therefore anti-woman does not make it so.”
Joseph, being against abortion in an ethical or moral sense is not anti-woman per se. Abortion is a choice that many would not make because of their own religious or moral beliefs. However, being for the State regulating any woman’s choice when it comes to pregnancy is anti-woman in my opinion. Individuals have the right to make their own moral choices. They should not have the right to impose their religious and moral beliefs on others. Those that feel they have that right are anti-woman in my belief.
Please don’t bother to give me analogies between abortion and murder because as this article shows in the quote above, that belief is not one that has always been written in stone. You will notice Joseph, that just as you did in your comment I’ve replied to you respectfully and without rancor. As I stated above though, your implications about David’s background “scarring” are unfair. You could have made your case without injecting assumptions about his personality.
What Mike S. said to Joseph. Having a different view or a view against a Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or any major religion does not equate to “hating” that particular religion’s teachings or beliefs.
Joseph Piazza:
A common tactic against criticism of Christians is the accusation of “ill will” or “hatred” or “bigotry.” It is an example of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy. This fallacy relieves the accuser of the burden of addressing the criticism.
All my blog posts reflect my personal beliefs. Whether a belief is “commonly held” is irrelevant to its reasonableness.
As with the other GBs, I post on topics that interest me (and ones that JT has not posted on), and church/state separation is one such topic.
Mike S. & Raff,
I appreciate your kinds words and support.
Mark me in the Mike S./raff column.
Nal blog good.
Nal,
Great response to Joseph Piazza.
When someone tells me that they are Evangelical, I inquire: 1. if they get their Bible at Sears Roebuck. 2. if they can thump it and make music.
As a true believer in the holy scripture, I take offense at those who think that those who thump the Bible are either right or wrong. Or left or right. A true believer believes in what is in the Gospel and that is then advanced as Gospel Truth. We do not have to engage in debate about what constitutes true electricity or predict if the trains will run on time. If we thump a Bible it is to emphasize a Gospel Truth. One does not have to be in a certain Sect of a religion. Me I am a Baptist. You can be a creature of God and be a believer, cat or dog for sure. You can thump. But dont hump. That goes out to you HumpinDog. You’d hump a rock.
And on the Eighth Day God Made Dog. That, is a Gospel Truth.
Yeah, in God’s own image.
Nal,
Good diary and good response just above. There is at least one person like that in every crowd.
Not all dogs believe that Eighth Day stuff.
If we want to go way back, the roots of political/evangelical/religious right-wing is the defense of slavery in pre-Civil War times. The most religious parts of the nation then, as now, was the American South. They utilized the bible to defend slavery, well, because the bible defends slavery.
It clearly is pro-slavery and lays out rules on slavery. It tells slaves to return to their masters. Of course those who wanted to defend slavery would utilize verses that supported their position. Later the bible was used to oppose the right of women to vote because the bible is anti-women. It was used to support segreation. The bible has been used to defend every injustice in the history of our nation, just as it is now being used to defend homophobia. Of course, in 50 years, it will be denied that the bible was ever used to defend these things.
Mike,
“Don’t you think that is important in bolstering David’s thesis that the anti-abortion movement is really a cover for protecting church assets? I do.”
This conversation is definitely getting more interesting than I had anticipated. As you know, I enjoy reading your articles (that is completely honest). If you have evidence to support the above statement, I am very interested in you making your case. It would be a fascinating read.
“Joseph this is a totally unfair assumption on your part with no evidence to support it except for your characterizations of David’s guest blogs and a little “pop” psychology thrown in . . . As I stated above though, your implications about David’s background “scarring” are unfair. You could have made your case without injecting assumptions about his personality.”
You are right to call me on any personal remarks to Nal or anyone else. This should be a safe place to post, without fear of personal attack. I also think that it should be a safe place to read, without having to wonder if someone is going to carryout a vendetta toward a particular topic. Being a Sicilian, I am clear that vendetta’s are personal and reflect something of our own background and prejudice. Nal is a regular poster of the faults of organized religion. I have made comment before about the fact that these rants are repetitive by him. I was hoping for a little bit of his own reflection on the reasons for the repetition prior to his posts. There are forums for that. This is not that forum.
“I completely disagree and believe that David has been a bulwark of this blog. Beyond that though this particular guest blog is quite relevant for the range of issues we discuss here, although you may not like it.”
I don’t know the length of time that Nal has been posting to this blog, but length of existence to me does not equate to ‘bulwark.’ Advancing personal reflection, challenging common held assumptions, auditing our role in promoting or diminishing personal liberties are cornerstones of this blog. Telling us over and over again the reason that religious people are phonies does not of that.
“David is writing about a very vocal and pernicious minority that has cowed many Christians into embarrassed silence.”
This is simply not as true as it would seem. These are active people, but most of these active, conservative Christians don’t abide by such things as racial discrimination. I have lived within their ranks. I know this to be true.I think it is also noteworthy here that the Republicans lost the Catholic voting block decades ago, and Italian Catholics were never a reliable voting block for the Republicans. There may be conservative Christians in southern states that are Christian in name only, and their prejudice practices may be shocking and contradictory. However, continue to focus on those fractional and marginalized groups does not advance our conversation here. When news breaks related to them, then expose them. But let it be new news.
Peace, Joseph
Nal,
If, as Mike has indicated, that I crossed the line into personal insult, I apologize. Also, I find it to your credit that two other very good guest bloggers come to your defense. I am surprised, and I am still unclear for their reasoning to hold your posts in such high regard, but I accept the fact that I don’t know everything, I will check myself in re-evaluating the benefit of your blogs upon their de facto recommendation.
“A common tactic against criticism of Christians is the accusation of “ill will” or “hatred” or “bigotry.” It is an example of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy. This fallacy relieves the accuser of the burden of addressing the criticism.”
In fact, I made my case of your ill will by citing the number of posts that you have submitted in the past that relate to this theme, such that this theme and your take on it is tiresome. No new information, no new perspective. It appears to me that your desire is to take a chunk out of organized religion when possible. Another piece of evidence I provided was that your thesis itself was illegitimate. You have no research authority to make the claim that Evangelical Christians organized themselves into a social/ political block because of Roe v. Wade. So, there was not deflecting on my part through an Ad Hominem logical fallacy, I clearly supported the point I was making.
“All my blog posts reflect my personal beliefs. . . As with the other GBs, I post on topics that interest me (and ones that JT has not posted on), and church/state separation is one such topic.”
One of the primary advantages of blogs is to express ourselves freely in a forum format rather than pass through the rigors of relevance and accuracy necessary for published articles. JT has the right to let anyone GB on his site that he wants. I have the right to express that your personal beliefs and some topics of interest are overdone, and blown out of proportion. You did not advance the topic of separation of Church and State in this blog post. Not at all. You can’t shroud a pig in a purple cloak and call it a prince. I am now going to bring my responses to an end because I feel that my writing is getting repetitive and tiresome which is against my own quality control.
“Whether a belief is “commonly held” is irrelevant to its reasonableness.” Hmmmmmm, for a legal blog that supports the jury system of justice with all of its messy faults, this seems an odd statement.
In closing, once again I apologize if I crossed the personal line in my earlier post. I, in fact, wish you well. Your successful posting of quality information as a GB in this blog will benefit us all.
Peace, Joseph
“If you have evidence to support the above statement, I am very interested in you making your case. It would be a fascinating read.”
Joseph,
As David stated in his blog:
“Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, insisted that the political movement got its start when the IRS tried to rescind the tax-exempt status of schools that practiced racial discrimination. Weyrich tried for years to energize evangelical voters over issues such as school prayer, abortion, and the proposed equal rights amendment. Weyrich added: “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.” The 1972 Green decision and the 1975 IRS action against Bob Jones University actually predate Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1977-1981).”
That this came from the man who founded the Heritage Foundation and was perhaps the generative person in the resurgence of the Conservative Movement in the U.S. is significant. For those unfamiliar with Weyrich here is a good summary of the man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich
The way I see it, is that David presented a concept and backed it up with some citations. I agree with his premises and it seems you disagree with them, which is not only your right, but what in effect makes Jonathan Turley’s blog work. It is a forum for discussion and not necessarily one of research. The better the level of discussion, the more enjoyable I think it is for most of us. David is more than capable of defending his work so I would like to deal with another aspect that goes to the heart of your critique and perhaps a misconception that you have about what goes on here. To do that I must talk about myself, explaining my process writing here and how/what I’m trying to accomplish.
I’m a voracious reader and have been since the age of seven. In my youth and up until perhaps the age of 60 I was also blessed with being a natural speed reader. Typically, since that young age I’ve probably average more than 200 hundred books read per year on a great variety of topics and a great variety of genres. In the non-fiction realm my primary interests have been history, the study of mythology, comparative religion and politics. Even in the fiction realm though, much of my reading has been informative about the world around me. For instance, Norman Mailer’s book “Harlot’s Ghost”, while fiction I believes captures the essence of the CIA mindset better than anything yet written.
Whether it is true, or not, I think I also spend more time pondering what I see as the great issues than most people, would bother. I’ve been blessed/cursed with an overactive mind to the point where I often find it hard to sleep. My years in therapy and in psychotherapy training, have given me techniques to turn off my mind, so I went from an average of 4 hours sleep per night to a healthier seven hours. With the ideas “churning” in my consciousness through the years I’ve synthesized all that I know (or think I know
) into sort of a unified theory of how this world and particularly the U.S. works. For years I’ve pondered whether to write a tome expressing my viewpoint, but to do it would require massive research. The problem is that its themes would have to be both psychological, mythological and historical. While I was working I frankly didn’t have the energy to attempt this undertaking. My early retirement was due to disability and an ever worsening heart condition culminating more than two years ago into near death and the miraculously a heart transplant. My mental faculties have suffered somewhat in this process, as has my memory. Therefore I “know” certain things, but their source is often unclear.
You’ve no doubt noticed that almost all my guest blogs have at base a commonality. The thread that attaches them all is that the US is, or is in danger of becoming a feudal state. This has been accomplished in my opinion by the use of corporate inspired propaganda creating a “mythology” that keeps many people from seeing the true nature of what the US and humanity is becoming. When I write a guest blog it typically begins as a part of this conception that I have, but for honesty’s sake I feel compelled to add some research to bolster my concept. If you look at the four guest blogs I’ve written in the last two weeks, you will see that I only touched the surface in research, even though I’m confident in my sources.
I leave it to those who comment to add to and expand my thesis if they agree ad to critique it when they disagree. Luckily we have a wide range of intelligent, informed people here who take the ball and run with it in their comments.
So all this is my rather long-winded explanation of what goes into my work.
While many of the other guest bloggers are even smarter and more knowledgeable than I, with the exception of Elaine, they are still working and so while our process may be different, they also are limited in their ability to research a topic.
As far as the issue of religion goes, I believe that it is quite apt for discussion here. The influence of organized religion on the political workings of the US has been going on since our Country’s founding and indeed this blog’s proprietor has done may, many blogs on religion’s influence upon our political process and on fair treatment of people.
Now many who write here are either atheists, or agnostics and because of that they view religion in a certain way. I’m a Deist though, who practices Jewish Ritual because my emotions are imbued with feelings of being a Jew. Yet, I do believe that organized religion tends towards matters of power, rather than salvation. I think that separating the ineffable, from the prosaic will to power is important and those institutions that are more concerned with that power should be exposed.
I’ve taken this time to try to explain to you what goes into creating a guest blog, to perhaps inform. Mainly though, you have been in your time here a quite thoughtful commenter and because of that your participation should be encouraged. Were this a forum of people who all agree on everything it would be a bore. Thankfully it isn’t and your help is appreciated.
“L’Chaim”
“While many of the other guest bloggers are even smarter and more knowledgeable than I, with the exception of Elaine, they are still working and so while our process may be different, they also are limited in their ability to research a topic.”
I re-reading the above my lousy grammar implied something that I don’t believe. I was saying that everyone but Elaine and myself was still working and certainly not that she is not as smart, or smarter, than the rest of us. The other point I neglected was:
“The problem is that its themes would have to be both psychological, mythological and historical. While I was working I frankly didn’t have the energy to attempt this undertaking.”
Should have been followed with something like but now retired and somewhat in my dotage, I lack the energy or the drive to produce that “tome”.
Mike S.,
Darn, I was going to have some fun with that punctuation.
Oy!, Oy!
Blouise and AY,
My always forgetting to proofread, plus my lousy grammar (I should have paid more attention in Elementary School) is going to get me into real hot water someday. Can a person be too damn spontaneous for their own good.
Mike S.,
Ah, but your heart is in the right place… (The lyrics from a song come to mind: “In the end, only kindness matters…”)
AP (not AY)
Mike S.
Ah proof reading … that was “ap” who chuckled
It’s great fun to kid you boyo … you’re a good sport.
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is magnificent blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.