« The Culture of Life Revisited | HomePage | Right Wing Nuts »

01/04/2005

Why Waste Your Time?



What’s the point of listening to someone when you already know that you disagree with them?

Isn’t it a waste of time to talk to people who have a convoluted vision of the world?

America is polarized. We know this because the media tells us that this is so. We have been told that the religious Americans are pitted against the secular Americans. We are told that there are only two ways to look at the issues, the right way and the wrong way. Some people are members of churches that teach that there is only one way to deal with each major issue. Some churches teach that one issue is more important than any other issue and to reject that importance is to reject the love of God. Others have had epiphanies where they have realized that life one earth can not exist if we continue to use our resources at our current rate. Existence of the human race on earth becomes the defining issue and all other issues become dwarfed by this issue. So, with the importance of these issues becoming even more important there doesn’t seem to be any way these issues can be resolved, because there will be winners and losers on each of these issues and Americans don’t like losers.

So, shouldn’t we hunker down for the big fight. We should start lobbing word bombs at each other in the hopes that unsuspecting people drop in and read the discourse and align themselves with our issues. What’s the point of talking to the enemy when they surely don’t have anything to say? Let’s fight the good fight and win the next vote. The issues will surely fall to the righteous and true American values, because that’s how America was built.

Well, America hasn’t always been this way. There have been moments of extremism and moments of compromise. When the moderates realize that one extremist group has lead the country astray the moderates will switch sides and the country will be back on track again. When the country is polarized like it is today the moderates have split their allegiance with the two political groups. Today we have the case where the extreme right has taken hold of the majority of moderates and the left has moved to the center, but the split seems to be growing wider. So, how can one talk to the other side? And, even more importantly why would one want to listen to these people.

Listening or reading the thoughts of the conservative radicals shows us how far the radical right is from what most Americans want for America. After a short while you will see that these people have an idea that those with money should be treated with more esteem than those who don’t have the same resources. But, this agenda is hidden beneath the rhetoric. This is why one needs to read and listen to the rhetoric. The radical right uses patriotism and religion to lend authority to this goal. The wealthy are meant to be protected and it is our patriotic duty to do so is the result of this rhetoric. The wealthy need to keep their money and pass it to their children so that America will continue to be ruled by the same wealthy families. The wealthy need to be protected and that is because God told us to protect them. This is the action the radical right strives to promote through laws and legislative actions. However, since this is not a populist message because most people are not wealthy the words need to be molded to justify these actions based on a populist message.

When we listen to the radical right we hear about Jesus, but the message is warped. The Jesus we read about in the first three Gospels tell us about love and forgiveness. Jesus tells us to take care of the poor in the Beatitudes. Jesus tells us to love one another, as we would want to be loved. Jesus tells us to forgive when we are wronged not seven times, but seventy times seven times. Jesus tells us to forgive one another as we would want to be forgiven. It’s funny how you never hear these things from the radical right even though George W Bush professes a “great faith in God.”

Instead, the radical right chooses quotes from St. Paul to emphasize the nature of sin. St. Paul would have you believe that pain brings you closer to God and thinking the wrong thoughts are sinful. There is no place in the Gospels that Jesus directs these things. Instead Paul gets these insights from Plato and the Stoics. The radical right would rather have the message be pain is good because the working class will certainly have a more difficult time under their radical ideas. The radical right would also like the masses to keep in mind that the “wrong” thoughts are sinful, so they can make sure that the masses don’t think about their circumstances too often. But, since the radical right can point to these things in the Bible they should not be questioned. God would not want people to question the Bible or any interpretation of it.

So, whenever you think that you don’t want to waste your time listening to or reading what the radical right has to say keep in mind that the rhetoric has an underlying intention. Look for that underlying intention and call the writer on the carpet. Question the speaker until you are satisfied. Make sure that the radical right defends its positions. Don’t stop at “…because the Bible says so.” That is only the beginning of the discussion. Jesus told the wealthy that it would be as difficult for them to get into Heaven as it is for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle. That’s in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25 for all you who want to see it in print before you believe me. Jesus also tells us “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21. It’s really funny how this quote isn’t mentioned much among the radical right.



14:41 Posted in Politics , Religion | Permalink | Comments (5) | Email this | Tags: religion

Comments

You like to attack Paul, but rarely give precise reasons for this. Today you criticize his belief in Right Thoughts, but ignore Christ's belief in the same ("lusting in the heart," etc.).

2nd Corinthians contains a rather detailed critcism of what would best be described as televangelists. I would think someone of your beliefs would be sympathetic to this. Maybe not?

Sometimes you argue for a sublime interpretation of the Bible, at other times you read it pretty loosely. What is your method? Last time you declared that the Bible teaches there is no unforgieable sin, but were unable to come up with a verse that says that. This time you take a quote out of context. Selling earthyl possessions would be the easy part. Many people have done that. Following Christ is hard part. No person born after Christ has fully managed that.

You imply that perfection is attainable -- that man can be saved by works alone. What a radical (right?) theology!

(I'm still waiting for the name of a "Radical Rightist" who opposses "Augemented Capitalism," by the way.)

Posted by: Dan | 02/04/2005

Dan:

Your argument assumes that the consideration of ones thoughts must be 100% correct or else they are 100% wrong. This is obviously not the case for any human being. Paul was a human being and he was susceptible to cultural influence as well as spiritual inspiration. Obviously he listened to Jesus’ teachings as they were communicated to him, but he extended Jesus’ teachings beyond what Jesus taught. Jesus scolded the religious hypocrites, as did St. Paul, which you pointed out. So, why should I quote St. Paul when the Jesus’ own word succeed in making this argument just as well?

Also, I have already pointed out how George W Bush is cutting taxes to benefit the wealthy. This is in fact a reduction in augmented capitalism as I pointed out before. Even though he doesn’t choose to do this all at once George W Bush’ radical right ideology has the idea of reducing government’s augmentation of capitalism in order to benefit the wealthy. If he had his way he would eliminate any augmentation at all. At least this is what he preached in his campaign speeches.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 04/04/2005

Your first paragraph doesn't address my concerns. Where does Paul depart from Christ?

Your second paragraph is fallicious. If merely cutting taxes on the wealthy reduces Augmented Capitalism, then merely raising them would increase it -- therefore, a 100% marginal tax rate for the wealthiest would be the only pure Augmented Capitalism. Clearly you and Bush disagree on the degree and types of income redistribution. But your last two sentences

"If he had his way he would eliminate any augmentation at all. At least this is what he preached in his campaign speeches."

are strange. He's taken a lot of flack for expanding Medicare, for instance. Likewise, federal highway funding and federal education spending have increased under Bush.

If he has preached something different, please provide sources!

Posted by: Dan | 04/04/2005

Dan:

You are beginning to repeat your questions. Either you have a short term memory problem, you like to ask question to see if I'm consistant, or you just like to be annoying. I've explained that Paul added to Jesus' teachings by adding Stoic or Platonic teachings. I've given examples of Paul's differing view on women. I have shown the differences of Paul's view on the poor.

I have also shown George W Bush's attitude toward the wealthy and his equally Stoic attitudes toward the poor. George W Bush would like to starve the government of funds in order to force a smaller government. He has told us about loosening oversite of the environment and corporations. The result would be a more strictly capitalistic economy which would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. There is more to it than just taxes, there is the reduction of regulations as well. Only faith based initiatives would benefit the poor out of President Bush's radical right goals. He has only been forced to give money to the poor by shaming him into doing it. Obviously this is not on his agenda.

So, instead of continuing to ask the same questions over and over again just write a blog yourself about how you believe things should be done and I'll ask you questions.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 04/04/2005

Thanks for your quick reply. A quick google search shows you've never mentioned Stoic or Platonic on this site before, so please forgive my ignorance.

You're more than welcome to ask me questions. :) I'm disappointed you chose to speak in generalities instead of specifics that can be argued, and that the specifics you use change so quickly (first he argues for pure capitalism in campaign appearences, then he's hiding his agenda) , but I'll take the hint.

Two last points, though:


"The result would be a more strictly capitalistic economy which would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor"

OK. So now instead of being against Augmented Capitalism, now he favors less Augmentation. So it's a matter of degree, not kind.

Also:

"He has only been forced to give money to the poor by shaming him into doing it. Obviously this is not on his agenda."

He got his Medicare plan through by misleading Congress as to the price tag (the White House claimed it would be a lot cheaper than it was). Hardly sounds like he was shamed!

Regards

Posted by: Dan | 04/04/2005