This is another well-written, damn good article on Salon, called "The Coulterization of the American Right." It inspired some thoughts of my own.
Beyond the obvious stupidity of people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter on the face of it, what has become readily apparent is how much the Right is stuck with the very monsters they created – the shock troops of the more radical right-wing who keep the vulgar and hateful in the base, but who also increasingly expose the vacuity of their supposed "values."
For me, it's the inherent contradiction that goes along with someone who calls himself "conservative" but ignores the historical ramifications of shredding our fundamental constitutional rights – umm, the very things that define us as "Americans" – in the name of accomplishing short-term political goals.
It is also right-wing Christian zealots who actually think that tearing down the wall between church and state is a good thing, or something that our Deist founders would even want; no, in fact, they can't even understand that this is what our Constitution was written to prevent – religious tyranny – while insuring the protection of religion from politics. Few of these so-called "conservatives" probably even know who Roger Williams was, let alone why he believed so strongly in religious freedom – to protect religion from the encroachment of material, political interests – that he was excommunicated from the Mass Bay Colony to eventually found Rhode Island, the first colony mandate religious "tolerance" by law. Now that was a true early American.
On a different but related note, what really gets me is how easily the issue of evolutionary theory and religion have been so artificially placed at odds with one another when they don't necessarily have to contradict. Basically, the only Christian groups in any modern country in the world that have gone absolutely buck wild over this issue – the literal interpretation of the text of Genesis – are crazy right-wing Protestant sects that have formed in the US over the last century.
Even the Roman Catholic Church, if you want to get old school, maintains a reasonable position on the matter, in that they account for several levels of theological interpretation of "Creation":
"The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution."
Well, umm, yeah. Because "atheistic evolution" is just another way of saying "there is no God responsible for human life." And that would be just about the complete opposite of anyone who believed in God, right? So I'd say that's pretty reasonable. Basically, "Big Bang or evolutionary theory is alright as long as you agree God rolled the dice first." I can buy that for a dollar. Cool.
You know, if you read the link above where that quote came from, it's actually pretty interesting stuff, and shows that there's a lot of room for thinking and theological debate within the rubric of Christianity, and surely if you add science to the mix, there are a lot of interesting ways to make things fit together but not compromise one's faith in the supremacy of God, nor choose to reject the scientific worldview entirely. .
But you can also artificially set this all up as a War of the Worlds, one led mostly by political demagogues and fought on the ground by people who can't even spell the word "theology."
It's certain members of the American Christian right who are demanding a strict, literal reading of the Bible and applying a kind of Know-Nothing attitude to plain and obvious fact. Carbon-14 dating, dinosaur bones, as well as just about every other aspect of the unseen world – stars are fueled by fusion, you can't see microbes with your eyes, and the evolutionary model is demonstrated every time a strain of bug becomes resistant to antibiotics. These were tools developed with "evolutionary theory."
If the right-wingers are so hardcore, then I think they should stop taking these "evolution drugs" we call antibiotics, and they better not be lining up for for any vaccines developed by watching evolutionary processes take place in countless Petri dishes – at least the Jehovah's Witnesses are consistent on that point. I can at least respect, if not agree with, those guys.
I'm not arguing that Christian belief belies stupidity; I'll leave that for the unhelpful, intolerant, and arrogant writings of the demagogues from the other side – yes, Richard Dawkins, I'm talking to you.
But I am arguing that the far Christian right is stupid, as are the far-right conservatives with whom they bump shoulders, because they set up everything to be a Manichean battle between good and evil, right and wrong, evolution and creationism, Heaven and Hell.
"You're either with us or against us."
Ummm, OK, Anakin Skywalker, Dark Lord of the Sith. You're either with us or you're a seditionist. You disagree, you're a Commie. You protest the war, you're aiding Al-Queda, killing your own troops. Ann Coulter talks of dissenters as being "guilty of sedition!"
It's this polarizing rhetoric, taken up to a fever pitch, that's devolving the debates, devolving us as a people – just plain making us stoopid.
If we had a true theory of conservatism, I might even fit into the picture. But in the way present-day political debates play out, I'm a bleeding-heart "liberal." That's funny – I live according to a strict interpretation of constitutional rights as applied to me, you, and everybody else; Christians, atheists, KKK members, asshole taxi drivers, even those who would burn the flag, something I personally don't like to see done. Yet, I'm the "liberal."
Whose interpretation is the liberal one? Tearing down the wall between church and state? What are we "conserving" again? Who are these people on the far right?
"Christians" with about as much Christian charity as a turnips have blood; "conservatives" who do everything but "conserve" in terms of our fundamental civil liberties; the "faithful" who try to prove their faith in terms of the very science they so desperately want to dismiss – "intelligent design" – huh?
And now, says Salon, the bludgeon tools of the Right have lost their usefulness, but they depend on them so much, they can't be abandoned. But the skirt of the right's sheer hatefulness is showing, and people are just wanting to be less...mean. Even a large part of the conservatives in the US are starting to get fed up with these antics, which mask the truly more important things worth getting into a legitimate political debate about.
Abortion? OK, that's a tough one. Where does life begin? How do you define the difference between the potentiality of being human and being human? If I had the answer to that, people would write books and songs about me. That's one that's not gonna get solved anytime soon.
But the evolutionary model really isn't necessarily a polarizing debate at all. In a different universe, it could be a vigorous public controversy, one that examined different readings and interpretations of the oldest originals of religious texts, subsequent versions, schools of theological thought, while respecting other people's beliefs, as well as the obvious usefulness of the scientific method, because "science" is responsible for a whole lot more than Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Unless the hardcore rightists in question at any given moment are living in the state of nature, with no vaccines, antibiotics, medicines, or miracle drugs being used, this whole debate is simply stupid.
Just like hateful "Christians," who are so caught up in their political agenda that they can't see that calling someone a "faggot" is just plain hateful and distasteful, one must realize that such slurs degrade all of us, yes, even "good Christians," too.
People seem to forget that Christianity was held up as a banner in defense of a lot of material, earthly causes, such as slavery, bans on interracial marriage, or banning Eastern European immigration.
Other people seem to forget that Christianity also has stood for moral righteousness and a struggle for justice based on one's feelings of being in a position of spiritual rectitude – the Civil Rights movement is a good example of this.
Unfortunately, what I call "political Christians" always seem to be on the wrong side of history, empathy, and basic human decency.
I hope that, come this election, the people who have a bigger vision for the United States than turning it into the culture into ME, and prevail in getting us back onto historical track building a nation that is inclusive and tolerant, which includes ALL, at a basic human level.
Now, "niggers" and "chinks" and "Micks" and "wops" and "kikes" and "Nips" and "spics" and "gooks" seem to be somewhere on the "inside" – now we're just waiting for the "faggots" to show up.
And at some point in the future, maybe the hateful Coulters and Limbaughs will find themselves at the fringes, allowing the truly committed, real Americans to finally get to meaningful business.
