The Day the Enlightenment Went Out [Archive]

xricci

November 4th, 2004, 07:41 AM

The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By Garry Wills, 4 November 2004
Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).

The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.

The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.

It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.

President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.

In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.

The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.

Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 07:57 AM

I shudder to think what would happen if my über-pious mother-in-law possessed nuclear capabilities.

3pointdeli

November 4th, 2004, 07:58 AM

we definitely need to rely on reason more than faith. this is a sickening trend.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 02:06 PM

we definitely need to rely on reason more than faith. this is a sickening trend.

This thought alone in many fundamental evangelical religions would seperate you from the congregation, and would make your points with them mute.

They actually teach not to have worldly friends; that they are to shun them. If you don't believe in their ways, you're not to be associated with. This to me is a convenient and easy way to keep "the faithful" in the fold, as they are also not to watch movies or do other ungodly things. If they were to it is my opinion that they would begin to form other opinions about important isssues, ideas not in keeping with the teachings of their particular religion; they would see the good in others and see that perhaps that way of being devout might have something not in keeping with their newfound thoughts.

They have even taught that the Catholic Church is "The whore of Babylon", this is the form of radical thought that Kerry was up against, that and the clever ways of Mr. Pink, Bush's reservoir dog (My special name for Karl Rove.
A clever hired killer) played on their numbers, and their intolarant beliefs.

Not all Republican votes or cross overs were because of faith, but too many to overcome without a brilliant campaign strategy, which, unfortunantly John Kerry didn't have. He turned down the requests for him to use homosexuality as a campaign strategy. Advisors wanted him to go after that issue harder then he did, but he refused. He thought that the deaths in Iraq, drug costs and our economy, were more important. Guess the public didn't, so go figure!

3pointdeli

November 4th, 2004, 02:17 PM

This thought alone in many fundamental evangelical religions would seperate you from the congregation, and would make your points with them mute.

i'm perfectly happy to know i could never be a member of that crowd. seems ridiculous though that "God" supposedly gave us free will and the brain power to solve things through reason and scientific experimentation and yet none of those clowns would ever dare to use it.

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 02:42 PM

They actually teach not to have worldly friends; that they are to shun them. If you don't believe in their ways, you're not to be associated with.

You don’t suppose this brand of self-indulgence is intellectually barren, do you? I cringe at the very thought of what horribly deformed offspring might leap forth from the loins of such theological inbreeding.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 02:49 PM

i'm perfectly happy to know i could never be a member of that crowd. seems ridiculous though that "God" supposedly gave us free will and the brain power to solve things through reason and scientific experimentation and yet none of those clowns would ever dare to use it.

We have that group of people who come around and talk of their religion after interuppting what ever it was you were taking care of at the time and to talk about who knows what besides. Five to six people showing up in vans, and talking away. Rich didn't want to be rude and tell them he wasn't interested so he would let them preach on and on everytime they came, until one day one of the fellows told him "You couldn't join our church if you wanted to!", just as a matter of conversation about his church, not coming down on Rich, but meaning he wasn't "of God." That did it, he no longer is held captive by them with their longwinded schpeels. Then there was another time when I was talking to a loan manager about our house loan and (not realizing he was that religion,) when a large group of them pulled up I started complaining and telling him about what they had told Rich, and said if that's the case, they should loose their tax free status and, how I have my own religion and how I will never believe their way in a million years and, how they always come by at the most inoppertune time imaginable, and how I am going to ask them to quit coming by. They didn't get out that day as they saw who I was talking to and just left, but they never came here again, and that man raked us over the coals financially as much as he could until we realized the connection he had with them and then it all ended.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 03:03 PM

You don’t suppose this brand of self-indulgence is intellectually barren, do you? I cringe at the very thought of what horribly deformed offspring might leaping forth from the loins of such theological inbreeding.

I am from a family deeply rooted in the Southern Baptist belief, and I have never heard them say and do the things we hear of these people who are trying to run the country. They believe in evolution, they aren't backwards in their beliefs at all. I have a lot of ministers in my family, and I always looked at them as being enlightened and good, not someone you look at and wonder how in the world did they come to this point of believing backward doctrines.

When you study a lot of belief systems there have been ways in which some clerics have used those beliefs to control, such as the Aztec Priests, the Egyptian priests, and on down through history, so it's not new, but for people in this day and age to be into this, just floors me, and the things we read about how this administration is working to control the world, using faith in many instances, it's like an Orwellean nightmare, except this is real and documented (evidently) and is so scary that it becomes terribly disconcerting to hear, to learn of. To think that this is actually happening, not something from a melodrama on t.v, or in a movie. This is real and it is something I have a hard time thinking of as actual. It must just be some wacked out manipulator feeding us falsehoods to take our money! But no, Bill Kristol, (not that he isn't wacked out!) the arch conservative reporter, editor, etc., is the chairman of the board. Good god, what are we coming to? :yeahthat:

lone_wolf

November 4th, 2004, 03:29 PM

I didn't vote for Arlen (this time), but I'm encouraged that he's already put Bush on notice regarding judicial appointments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specter urges caution for Bush
Discourages nominating anti-abortion judges
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.
Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal "giants" on the bench.
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
"The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
With at least three Supreme Court justices rumored to be eyeing retirement, including ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Specter, 74, would have broad authority to reshape the nation's highest court. He would have wide latitude to schedule hearings, call for votes and make the process as easy or as hard as he wants. (Rehnquist absent as high court returns <http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/01/rehnquist.cancer.ap/index.html>)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, expressed confidence Wednesday that Bush will have more success his second term in winning the confirmation of his judicial nominees. (Supreme Court vacancy could come sooner than expected) <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/scotus.vacancy.ap/index.html>
"I'm very confident that now we've gone from 51 seats to 55 seats, we will be able to overturn this what has become customary filibuster of judicial nominees," Frist said in Orlando, Florida.

See where he stands
Legal scholar Dennis Hutchinson said Specter's message to the White House appears to be "a way of asserting his authority" as he prepares to chair the Judiciary Committee when Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is term-limited from keeping the post next year.
"What he may be trying to do is say, 'Don't just think that I'm going to process what you send through. I have standards, I'm going to take an independent look, you have to deal with me,"' said Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (Health of the justices) <http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/25/justices.health.glance.ap/index.html>
When asked Wednesday about Specter's impending chairmanship, another Republican on the panel, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, did not offer a ringing endorsement.
"We'll have to see where he stands," said Cornyn, a close friend of Bush who worked to get all of the president's nominees through the Senate. "I'm hoping that he will stand behind the president's nominees. I'm intending to sit down and discuss with him how things are going to work. We want to know what he's going do and how things are going to work."
While Specter is a loyal Republican -- Bush endorsed him in a tight Pennsylvania GOP primary -- he routinely crosses party lines to pass legislation and counts a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, as one of his closest friends.
A self-proclaimed moderate, he helped kill President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. Specter called both nominees too extreme on civil rights issues. Sessions later became a Republican senator from Alabama and now sits on the Judiciary Committee with Specter. (Election could tip balance) <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/election.scotus/index.html>
Despite a bruising challenge from conservatives this year in Pennsylvania's GOP primary, Specter won re-election Tuesday by an 11-point margin by appealing to moderate Republicans and ticket-splitting Democrats, even as Pennsylvania chose Democrat John Kerry over Bush.
A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court."
"With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said.
Though he refused to describe the political leanings of the high court, Specter said he "would characterize myself as moderate; I'm in the political swim. I would look for justices who would interpret the Constitution, as Cardozo has said, reflecting the values of the people."

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Yes, indeed. Double-plus ungood.

My mother-in-law comes from a long line of fire and brimstone ministers who definitely did not spare the rod. She is of the/a fundamentalist sect that regards Southern Baptists as heretics and casts her vote according to whomever is closest to her intolerant stance. Keep in mind that this is the same woman that, without a trace of humor, called her grandkids “Little Heathens” to their little faces.

One of my fondest memories is of her 10-year-old grandson positing this subsequent dinner-time insight; “Grandma... ppththhhpt... Grandma, Grandma... pppth- belch-thhhpt.” Fair is fair.

After the second time she lived with us...whimper... I discovered she’d planted, among many other things, a prerecorded VHS tape. I don’t remember its title or the speaker’s name, but the thrust was an attempt to discount evolution. The speaker was engaging, I’ll give him that, but his concluding argument had me rolling in stitches. I wish I could remember verbatim, I can’t, but it went something like this:

“Dinosaurs were plant eaters. We know this because their teeth were flat and made for chewing leaves. Then something happened and dinosaurs grew sharp teeth needed for ripping flesh. How and why did this happen? I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, nobody was there so we don’t know why.” This, of course, acknowledges the mechanism at the very heart of evolution. Damn funny stuff.

But it also goes a long way towards codifying fundamentalist extremest behavior; full of willfully unrecognized paradox and contradiction. For example, mum-in-law won’t venture into a particular market because it’s owned by false-god Arabs. She will, however, work and receive payment for serving dinner to a well-to-do Jewish family on Christmas Eve.

I have a hard time believing such individuals could possibly number so many that any political party would debase themselves by wearing such faulty theology. But truth is stranger than fiction and Canada just keeps sounding better and better. On the bright side, I’ve survived to tell a few tales –so far.

Tenorman

November 4th, 2004, 04:14 PM

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 04:23 PM

Funny Shawn!

Isn't amazing how mean, down and dirty mean, some of the people we talk about can be? I mean mean, down and out dispicable, really! I had to go to a private school for a bit, one run by a fundalmentalist church, because they didn't have stairs, I was about 8, and they used to beat on the kids there for the least provacation, I used to get my hand hit with a ruler for saying "Oh my gosh" They thought that was taking Gods name in vain. One boy was a handfull and the cutest thing, and boy, he would get it every day, and hard, a real "whooping!" in front of all of us most of the time, but when they would really get hot, they would, three or four of them, litterally drag him to the office or the empty class room next door and let him have it. Mean, like I have never seen before. This church then started an orphanage, around the block from where we lived, and we used to go over and want to play with the kids, and we weren't allowed to, and it was the saddest thing you ever saw, the kids wanted to talk to us so much, and had to whisper so they, the women who ran the orphanage wouldn't hear us talking to them, come out and make us leave or, have the little kids go in the house. They told us they were hit on and punished all of the time, several times a day. We told our parents and they told the authorities and they were shut down for abuse. I have some strong reservations about religion having too much control, it is a frightening thought to me.

Andy D

November 4th, 2004, 04:24 PM

[QUOTE=xricci]

which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

No.

Regards

Andy D.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 04:28 PM

Quote from the original article

America, the first real democracy in history, ........

Michael Moore stated this, and now Garry Willis.

Iceland and the Isle of Man go back to before Columbus set foot on the West Indies.

Anyone know what definition of democracy these two are using to justify their statements?

Maybe they mean a parliamentery democracy, whereas we are just a plain democracy??? Surely they weren't so careless to state such as that and not know the facts, but it sure sounds like they were.

Andy D

November 4th, 2004, 04:35 PM

There is little democracy in America, the illusion is that you are told there is, and the ignorant and the NFL watchers are happy to see things this way.

America was founded on violence on killing people, the natives, the animals, each other etc. The problems you face are impressive, you have a very real race problem, as we do in the UK, you are racist and you care little for the environment.

You are easy to manipulate and you ask too few questions about what your Governemnt is doing in your name,

Well Sept 11th change all this and you saw, for a while at least, what many people in other parts of the world have seen for many years. The greed, the ignorance, the abuses etc will one day take away what you say you value most!

Regards

Andy D.

Tenorman

November 4th, 2004, 04:37 PM

It is not just in the US you get fundamentalist views like that. It is just that they tend to stay in the background.
I heard the statement recently that Radiocarbon dating was something invented by scientists to justify their theories of the age of things, and that it didn't actually work.

Phil Kelly

November 4th, 2004, 04:41 PM

With apologies to Monty Python: NO ONE ever expects the American Inquisition !!

( getting ready to retire to my mud/grass yurt ..to read runes off the stones over a peat fire ..awaiting the coming of William Wallace ) :tearhair:

Phil Kelly
www.philkellymusic.com

Andy D

November 4th, 2004, 04:46 PM

Ok all together now;

"Always look on the bright side of life" :angel

Regards

Andy D.

Andy D

November 4th, 2004, 04:49 PM

Ok what is American democracy?

Regards

Andy D. :tanz:

Tenorman

November 4th, 2004, 04:51 PM

Watchit you lot, or its the COMFY CHAIR for you

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 04:52 PM

Ok all together now;

"Always look on the bright side of life" :angel

Regards

Andy D.

Party Poop! :violin :rant2: :violin

Tenorman

November 4th, 2004, 04:53 PM

Whoever has the most money and the most friends in high places gets to do what they damn well want???

That was an answer to Andy's question, but it got kind of separated

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 05:14 PM

America was founded on violence on killing people, the natives, the animals, each other etc. The problems you face are impressive, you have a very real race problem...

That’s because every last one of us Americans is evil to the core. Not ambiguously bad or simply erotically naughty, but we’re Satan-incarnate rotten bastards bent on the destruction of this world at the expense of miserable, whining foreigners. Those who’ve seen through our stealthed machinations are doomed, like Cassandra, to witness our global undoing while being powerless to prevent it.

Time for some goddamned milk and eff-ing cookies.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 05:44 PM

Ohhhh!!!! ShaWNNNN!!!!! Where do you get all of this, my daily laugh has turned in to three! :confused:

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 05:53 PM

Andy’s been stuck in a predetermined rut for so long that I thought he might need refueling.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 06:05 PM

You're wanting on his list along with me! Thanks for coming on in! :banana:

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 06:15 PM

I believe we Americans are all on his (http://mirriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?nation05.wav=nationalistic) list, he (http://mirriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?poohba01.wav=pooh-bah) just hasn’t spelled our individual names yet.

Saundra Hummer

November 4th, 2004, 06:45 PM

Na, he likes us.

shawn·m

November 4th, 2004, 06:48 PM

Never underestimate the drawing power of naughty, dumb-ass Americans.

Shrdlu

November 6th, 2004, 06:28 PM

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences.

America is not the first real democracy. It was Greece.

America was not a product of the stuff he quotes; it was founded on the Bible. The kind of Enlightenment that the Dalai Lama likes is not what America was founded on at all.

With today's shallow education system, rubbish like that often gets through unchallenged.

Shrdlu

November 6th, 2004, 06:35 PM

we call our God better than theirs

But there is only one God, so it's not a case of one being better than another. I suppose he must mean that the real God is better than the phony gods that are just statues and idols.

Anyway, I, and all other saved people, strongly believe in religious tolerance. If some two-bit politicians in Washington do not, then I disagree with them. But I'm unable to do anything about that.

It is most important to understand that the Washington political machine, and Bible-believers are not synonymous. This one, for example, does not agree with a lot of the things that the Bush administration is doing.

clave

November 6th, 2004, 06:38 PM

America is not the first real democracy. It was Greece.

Um, some Greek city-states had voting, but the franchise was extremely limited.

And the US is a republic; Greece didn't have a senate, etc. We got those ideas from the Romans.

Shrdlu

November 6th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

Sure, it can! The opposite is deep spiritual darkness, not Enlightenment!

Shrdlu

November 6th, 2004, 06:47 PM

the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited.

Biblical creation was never "discredited". All that happened was that its opponents won a court case. This is what you call "slanting" the information - and the author hopes that no-one will check out what he is saying.

And they pay this Wills guy to teach at a university. Tut, tut, tut!

[I speak as an ex university professor with 20 years' experience.]

Saundra Hummer

November 6th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Not the first democracy, the longest un-interupted democracy, and is there a difference in just any democracy, and a parliamentery democracy? That's the question.

Moore said the oldest un-interrupted democracy. Were the others interupted?

Tenorman

November 6th, 2004, 07:12 PM

Saundra Hummer

November 6th, 2004, 09:48 PM

Nope, Just about every country in Europe has a longer continual period of democracy (i.e. citizens voting for a law making parliament) than the US. And if you are talking about universal franchise, again the US loses out.

Finally, thanks, that is all I was wondering. Could have looked it up and found out myself, and will do some reading about all of it as it's interesting; history always is. Now, what is the difference in parliamentery democracy? Need to look that up too. What is the difference in "true democracy"? Splitting hairs?

jkelman

November 7th, 2004, 06:07 AM

Anyway, I, and all other saved people, strongly believe in religious tolerance. If some two-bit politicians in Washington do not, then I disagree with them. But I'm unable to do anything about that.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

Sure, it can! The opposite is deep spiritual darkness, not Enlightenment!

Once again, Shrdlu, your implication that those who don't subscribe to your particular religious views are in a deeply deprived state is an insult to the Jews like myself, and folks of other religious persuasions on the board who don't believe in JC as the son of God.

You speak of religious tolerance in one post, and then go onto make completely intolerant statements like this in the next. Get your act straight.

John

shawn·m

November 7th, 2004, 06:44 AM

jkelman

November 7th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Sometimes it’s impossible to separate current events and history from religious beliefs. Discussion of one often entails some discussion of the other. But I’d like to remind folks that religion is a very personal subject and one that can mushroom all too easily. Please keep in mind that xricci barred religion from general discussion and tread with appropriate care.

I'm with you shawn. This, however, is not the first time Shrdlu has made similar "my faith is better than your faith" statements. And that kind of assertion has no place on this board, in my humble opinion.

John

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 09:16 AM

I'm with you shawn. This, however, is not the first time Shrdlu has made similar "my faith is better than your faith" statements. And that kind of assertion has no place on this board, in my humble opinion.

John
This is it. We have no right to criticize others beliefs, we have the right to criticize governments, our government, our political parties, our officials, for using religion as a ploy to gain political currency; thereby devaluing our beliefs in our eyes.

Shrdlu: Political religion and it's effects, it's outcome, is something that should be discussed because it's implementation by government can change laws and how they are interpreted; our own personal beliefs don't, and should be dropped.

So you are trying to save souls where they aren't in need of saving, not according to other members own deep seated beliefs. The three major religions all believe in the same god. Christianity includes Christ, and the other religions don't. They don't want to hear their religion being criticized, they believe differently than you, As far as your beliefs go, they know them, and they don't accept your version of divinity.

Again, stating your belief, is enough. Saying your way is the only way, is crossing over the line as far as this board goes. We've been asked not to do this, and since it isn't our site to say how it's run, we do have to do as asked. Start a site of your own to do that, like eminemsrevenge over on Xanga. There he has free rein, and enjoys being able to say what is on his mind.

shawn·m

November 7th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Just to be clear on this, my reminder was intended for all members and not specifically aimed at Shrdlu or you, John. Having said this, my post’s timing and placement is not accidental as there is/was a very real potential for escalation that I’d dearly love to avoid.

Of course, divining when a line is crossed in context to a political issue is xricci’s and clifton’s turf. But let’s hope we won’t need to put either in the hot-seat just yet –thus the reminder.

Dennis_M

November 7th, 2004, 10:01 AM

Biblical creation was never "discredited". All that happened was that its opponents won a court case.

Are you talking about the Scopes trial? The government won that trial. Time to get the history book out.....

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Can anyone tell me what is 'good' about Amarica and what it stands for?

Regards

Andy D.

Bev Stapleton

November 7th, 2004, 12:23 PM

Can anyone tell me what is 'good' about Amarica and what it stands for?

Regards

Andy D.

How about America coming up with jazz, bluegrass, blues and all sorts of other wonderful music for a start.

We get nowhere stereotyping nations into goodies and baddies.

There was a nice article by Simon Schama in the Guardian on Friday. Probably equally guilty in its own way of simplifying the situation in the USA down to two opposing camps, but much of it seems to ring true to my ears:

Onward Christian Soldiers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1343956,00.html)

There are plenty of people posting here at AAJ, for example, who convince me that there's lots of good in America, even if I might be gravely disappointed by the electoral choices of a majority of the US public.

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 12:37 PM

Right Bev.

Actually there is a lot that is good here, as there is all around the world. Even with the cold war and all of the stereotyping of peoples during that time, we would see glimpses into the real good that the people of all of the countries involved in that war, and that standoff had in them.

This is what is good about America, it's the people, plain and simple. If we choose to only see the bad, the evil, then that is what we will see, but look around; it's more complicated than that, there is more to us than evil and there are things most of us do, which makes up who we are, which we can take pride in. :guitar:

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 01:15 PM

Bev.

Yep there is the music, there is a history of cival rights of protest tha goes back a long way and I could go on.

But I wonder about now?

Your example is based on what was, can you give me a more recent example?

I am well aware of the many people on this list who are constructively critical of this regime.

Regards

Andy D.

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 01:18 PM

So if there is so much good about, perhaps we need to connect this into something that suggests an alternative?

Regards

Andy D.

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 01:32 PM

So if there is so much good about, perhaps we need to connect this into something that suggests an alternative?

Regards

Andy D.

Any suggestions that will work in todays world?

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 01:40 PM

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 01:55 PM

Yep and not that origional.

Become involved!

Become active!

Look at what is around you, if you do not do so already e-mail people and talk about what is going on. Some people post hundred's of e-mails in this forum, there are other forums that you can e-mail and talk about some of the ideas we talk about on this forum.

Young people in America voted in record numbers, many are on various e-mail forums so get involved with these.

Find out who your local politician is and write or e-mail him/her and tell him/her what your ideas are, and perhaps more importantly find out what they are doing in your name. This can be done from your own house and takes little time.

Perhaps we in this forum should set up something and become involved more?

Regards

Andy D.

Lots of us really gave it our all, even to the point of turning fun loving jazz fans into frothing at the mouth partisians with no rhyme or reason. Not to those of us with opposing views that is, (HaHa!), as there's always more than one way to look at the situation, and neither side was, or is willing to budge an inch.

We Democrats, and some that left the Republican party's voting block, are fearful of where this adminstration is taking us. The PNAC's plans are in the works and they seem to be pretty much right on schedule, however the "insurgents", Iraq's "freedom fighters" have other ideas, they don't want to be subjugated by us or any foreign power, militarilly or economically, and since this is the PNAC's plans for them, they have every right to rebel, and we on the Democratic side of the fence believe they are right. We don't want our troops dying over there for the "true reasons" this war is being fought over. We tried our best to let others know what it is all about, and what is happening with domestic policies, but they, like I've said before, believe what they want to believe and no more; not even when the facts, actual facts, are before them, they still turn a blind eye.

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 02:09 PM

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 02:29 PM

Your troops are going to die and this is because the majority of 'your people' voted for a Government that is corrupt, has little concern for those less fortunate than themsleves in the US, and no concern at all for the vast majority of people outside the US.

Your troops will die because you have a Government that is greedy, self-interested and very limited in its knowledge of the history of the rest of the world. This is a reflection of the majority of people in the US, who vote for Governemnt's that maintain this position.

Regards

Andy D.

No kidding Andy? We know this. But look at what went on according to those that study and report on these things: there are the machines without a paper trail, which none of us trust, then there is the fact that the GOP under Rove were expert at puting out misinformation which too many chose to believe. Then there is definately this, they ran a slicker campaign. They knew how to play to peoples basest instincts and fears, they also knew how to make their man look just like one of us, and they didn't waver; so with all of these things combined, there was a lot in play.

There are many of us who don't believe the voting machines with no paper trail; we believe the use of provisional ballots were handled improperly, then there was the intimidation that started in Florida well before election day, all of this and more which was reported in local and global news papers, (and by Greg Palast). Who and what do we believe? I know how I feel, and what I think, but too many people don't do their homework, without studying up on the issues; they only think in faithbased terms, and that changes things dramatically.

There will be sweeping changes in our voting process and none too soon, if all goes as we would like to see. We just hope that we can weather 4 more years of what this adminstration is dong to us and the world. We just can't let them do any more harm.

Bev Stapleton

November 7th, 2004, 02:31 PM

I really sense a huge effort by a large proportion of the US electorate to 'do something', Andy. We have to be a bit careful as Brits, Europeans or whatever when criticising what happened - it can seem like America-bashing-by-numbers.

The way I see it America is a problem but not because it's America. It's a problem because it is hugely powerful and like any power with great wealth and great influence it is determined to hang onto that. As I know you're well aware (from your frequent comments on British imperialism) we were there once and behaved in exactly the same way. It's hard to think of a single 'great power' in the past that has behaved in a benign way; all great powers see the need to behave abysmally in defence of what they see as 'their way of life'.

What impresses me is the number of Americans who are aware, outraged, active in their opposition to the uglier side of their country, the side that has sadly gained the upper hand with these election results.

The election last week and the response to it reminds me of the 1979 election here. I recall those same deep divisions and very distincly remember the horror with which I viewed the rise of Margaret Thatcher to power. A woman with a similar general outlook to Bush who was sustained by the UK electorate for 11 years (and her followers for a further 7). And yet there were always a substantial proportion of the population prepared to oppose her regardless. I see no difference in the defiance being shown by what Schama refers to as the coastal, Wordly America.

Rather than blanketly condemning 'America' we need to support the millions in America who have fought hard to stop this drift into a 'Dark Age' mentality and are going to have one hell of a fight on over the next four years.

Up to last week I viewed the waffling of the Neo-Christian Right as just the drivel of the brainwashed. I'm now chillingly reminded of Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale'.

I posted this elsewhere but it expresses my feelings perfectly. Joni Mitchell's song from the Vietnam Era:

The Fiddle and The Drum
by Joni Mitchell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so once again
My dear Johnny my dear friend
And so once again you are fightin' us all
And when I ask you why
You raise your sticks and cry, and I fall
Oh, my friend
How did you come
To trade the fiddle for the drum

You say I have turned
Like the enemies you've earned
But I can remember
All the good things you are
And so I ask you please
Can I help you find the peace and the star
Oh, my friend
What time is this
To trade the handshake for the fist

And so once again
Oh, America my friend
And so once again
You are fighting us all
And when we ask you why
You raise your sticks and cry and we fall
Oh, my friend
How did you come
To trade the fiddle for the drum

You say we have turned
Like the enemies you've earned
But we can remember
All the good things you are
And so we ask you please
Can we help you find the peace and the star
Oh my friend
We have all come
To fear the beating of your drum.

The key line for me is "But we can remember all the good things you are." Half the US population is still standing for those good things. Let's not make them even more depressed by including them in a generic put down of America as a whole.

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 02:32 PM

I am not trying to kid you.

" We know this?"

Well either half your population does not or they choose to ignore it.

Regards

Andy D.

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 02:53 PM

I am not trying to kid you.

" We know this?"

Well either half your population does not or they choose to ignore it.

Regards

Andy D.

Andy, and by the same token, what have you done? You can't be this one wayed and blame all of what is going on in the world on yourself or us, can you? Surely it isn't your fault, or the fault of the people you admire for the condition of the world? There's lots of people who spoke up and voted their conscience, who tried to show why Bush and Cheney are bad for the country, who were and/are being ignored. So it's their fault, their collective faults? Hardly! Of course not. Your condeming isn't condusive to solving the problems we all face. It takes actions, and education, and explanations not condemnation. What we can do is explain and make known the things that are wrong, and hope upon hope that the truth will be heard. If people choose not to listen, then we have done all we can do.

I don't condem myself for the actions of my neighbors, and believe me they have done some strange things. I don't lump myself in with them. I feel the same about the ones who voted for the GOP ticket.

Sometimes when we see someone as angry and condeming of others as you tend to be, it makes us wonder why. You throw out challanges and derisions. What benefit are you drawing from this? We see no changing of policies because of this way of thinking; so what is it you feel you're gaining?

All you can do is put out what you think are solutions, and as far as condemnations go, why do you think they help? I don't feel they do. They are separatist.

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 02:58 PM

Well Bev I guess to start with we need 'as Brits' to look at our own history. I have posted on this before.

The history of the 'Brits' is not better and in-fact is worse,as I have suggested before, so I am not trying to give an opinion with in the context of taking some more high ground.

American bashing mmm.

I am interested in the narratives of people's lives, what they experience, what they feel about what happens to them at the hands of the powerful and those that abuse etc. This can be people in America, in Ireland or in El Salvador etc.

I am as concerned and as critical of America as I am of my own country, of Israel, of Saudi Arabia etc etc.

America may be powerful but I an interested in why 40 million plus people can vote for this regime, just as I was interested in why 35 million people voted for Margaret Thatcher?

Thatcher questioned the concepy of 'society', and in my view created a culture of self-interest and greed.

American bashing?

Well I have looked at the history of America and it creates in me feelings of anger, I have worked with, talked with, e-mailed with many people who have been affected by what the 'Americans' have done to the rest of the world. Who is 'blanketly condeming America?'

Here is a song by Billy Bragg

Here we are, seeking out the reds
Trying to keep the communists in order
Just remember when you’re sleeping in your beds
They’re only two days drive from the texas border

How can a country large as ours
Be scared of such a threat
Well if they won’t work for us
They’re against us you can bet
They may be sovereign countries
But you folks at home forget
That they all want what we’ve got
But they don’t know it yet

We’re making the world safe for capitalism

Here we come with our candy and our guns
And our corporate muscle marches in behind us
For freedom’s just another world for nothing left to sell
And if you want narcotics we can get you those as well

We help the multi-nationals
When they cry out protect us
The locals scream and shout a bit
But we don’t let that affect us
We’re here to lend a helping hand
In case they don’t elect us
How dare they buy our products
Yet still they don’t respect us

We’re making the world safe for capitalism

If you thought the army
Was here protecting people like yourself
I’ve some news for you
We’re here to defend wealth
Away with nuns and bishops
The good lord will help those that help themselves
I’ve some news for you
We’re here to defend wealth

We’re making the world safe for capitalism

Regards

Andy D.

Andy D

November 7th, 2004, 03:00 PM

I told you once before the sort of work I have been involve in!

Regards

Andy D.

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 03:21 PM

I told you once before the sort of work I have been involve in!

Regards

Andy D.

That doesn't change the condemnations, and you in your profession know how those go over with most people, especially if they aren't the problem. We know what is wrong here and we do work for change just as you do, but we aren't condeming you for the actions of others.

gdogus

November 7th, 2004, 03:23 PM

The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By Garry Wills, 4 November 2004
Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.

From a Nov. 1 New York Times article, describing a recent Bush rally (one of those where the audience had to sign an oath of allegiance to W.):

Then [Bush] welcomed the presence in the audience of Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, and emphasized that he had "proudly signed" the ban on the abortion procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. Before [Bush] went on stage, the country singer Lee Greenwood pumped up the crowd by saying Mr. Bush had "the right God."

I am terrified of these people. Seriously, y'all - what the hell is going on??!?
:barf:

Bev Stapleton

November 7th, 2004, 03:23 PM

Andy,
I'm just a bit puzzled by what you're trying to achieve by attacking America in thread after thread on a board where it seems most posters voted against Bush's version of America.

One of the biggest problem with the Bush version of America (and with the isolationist version of the UK for that matter) is its refusal to engage with the rest of the world on anything like equal terms. If the rest of the world simply attacks America as some monolithic state, regardless of the wide range of opinion there, then isn't America more likely to retreat into its inner isolation?

You are interested in why 40 million Americans voted for Bush. I'm reassured by the other half who didn't.

shawn·m

November 7th, 2004, 03:26 PM

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 03:41 PM

From a Nov. 1 New York Times article, describing a recent Bush rally (one of those where the audience had to sign an oath of allegiance to W.):

I am terrified of these people. Seriously, y'all - what the hell is going on??!?
:barf:

Since you are living in Bush country, in the "Red", how is it that people are so easily taken in? Is it their fear of anything liberal, like Civil Rights, Like fear of terrorism, or just fear itself? Like Gay Rights? Like Kerry would make them stop reading the Bible? We even heard that argument up here in the "Coastal Blue". We never heard out of the Red states that it was the tax break, that drove them to vote for Bush, just all of the other reasons, and the Values party, formerly the Faithbased wing of the GOP, tended to harp on the Swift Boat controversy untill they found out Nixon had started that falsehood, and then when Koppel put it to bed, it was over, but the damage had been done. Karl Rove at work!

Then there is this, they say, in very large numbers that they voted for Bush and Cheney because of their morals and values. Like Kerry and Edwards have none? Like they are evil??? Because they are Christain? Like Kerry and Edwards aren't? This is luricrous.

We in the Blue, just can't get the reasoning of the Red. It is amazing that facts don't seem to be in their rational for voting. Just amazing. If they had facts to counter what it is so many of believe so strongly in, then we might feel differently, but they don't. Not enough to convince us of the error they are commiting by voting for this administration.

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 04:00 PM

Well, I’ll be... I believe Andy and I have something in common.

Although Bush did what he did concerning WMDs and the war on terrorism, the American people could, for a time, honestly claim plausible deniability. This can no longer be said since, as a country, Americans have chosen to keep this man in office and common citizens must now shoulder accountability for the actions of the man they’ve chosen to support.

Damn dark day.

I don't like being lumped in with anyone who would want this ticket for four more years, and the thought of them in power for that long is frightening. They're imperialistic and want to control the world, not satisfired with being the party in control here in the states, they are out for world domination, and this will have other countries so leery of us as to want to stop us. This is my idea about this situation. Sounds like a logical assessment. Why can't they just be satisfied with being the dominant force here in the states? It doesn't fit in with their plans that's why, that plan by the PNAC, the plan drawn up by Cheney! It"s in effect, and is being carried out as our troops pound Fallujah, while we sit over here hoping that the casualties are low. We know that there will be deaths and we are helpless. No, I don't want to think I have anything at all to do with any of this. I didn't, I worked hard to make a difference, and I'm not about to quit now.

gdogus

November 7th, 2004, 05:49 PM

Since you are living in Bush country, in the "Red", how is it that people are so easily taken in? Is it their fear of anything liberal, like Civil Rights, Like fear of terrorism, or just fear itself? Like Gay Rights? Like Kerry would make them stop reading the Bible? We even heard that argument up here in the "Coastal Blue".Pretty much. That and a big dollop of "let's kick some foreign ass" jingoism.

We in the Blue, just can't get the reasoning of the Red. It is amazing that facts don't seem to be in their rational for voting. Just amazing. If they had facts to counter what it is so many of believe so strongly in, then we might feel differently, but they don't. Not enough to convince us of the error they are commiting by voting for this administration.

I'm with you, lady. But, I don't think it's either healthy or accurate to talk about the "Blue" and the "Red" areas as if they were absolutes. The media's tendency to see the country as so regionally divided is misleading at best. Plenty of folks in the "Coastal Blue" voted for Bush, and many, many down here not only voted for Kerry, but, like myself, worked hard doing real work for his campaign. My wife and daughter (who proudly voted for the first time in this election) in particular worked their hearts out for Kerry/Edwards. But in the post-mortem analysis, the electoral maps make it seem like all the Bushies are here, and all the Kerry supporters are there.

Let's be realistic about this: there are almost equal numbers of Bush and Kerry supporters all across the country. Don't feel too comfortable in the blue states, y'all; if you want to know what drove people to turn out for Bush, just ask your neighbors.

clave

November 7th, 2004, 05:50 PM

One of the biggest problem with the Bush version of America (and with the isolationist version of the UK for that matter) is its refusal to engage with the rest of the world on anything like equal terms. If the rest of the world simply attacks America as some monolithic state, regardless of the wide range of opinion there, then isn't America more likely to retreat into its inner isolation?

Bev,

I have no doubt whatsoever that the answer to your question is "yes."

Saundra Hummer

November 7th, 2004, 06:10 PM

Pretty much. That and a big dollop of "let's kick some foreign ass" jingoism.

I'm with you, lady. But, I don't think it's either healthy or accurate to talk about the "Blue" and the "Red" areas as if they were absolutes. The media's tendency to see the country as so regionally divided is misleading at best. Plenty of folks in the "Coastal Blue" voted for Bush, and many, many down here not only voted for Kerry, but, like myself, worked hard doing real work for his campaign. My wife and daughter (who proudly voted for the first time in this election) in particular worked their hearts out for Kerry/Edwards. But in the post-mortem analysis, the electoral maps make it seem like all the Bushies are here, and all the Kerry supporters are there.

Let's be realistic about this: there are almost equal numbers of Bush and Kerry supporters all across the country. Don't feel too comfortable in the blue states, y'all; if you want to know what drove people to turn out for Bush, just ask your neighbors.

Frankly, "Red and Blue' are descriptions I've never used before, and believe me I know that there are Bush supporters in the "Blue" as our neighbors are all for Bush, and we are in a "Blue State? We carried Kerry and Edwards here in Oregon, as well as in California, and Washington, not much of a consolation, but at least we know that there are people who know the issues and vote them, issues of real importance, not bigoted issues, but issues that will benefit all of us. We just find it amazing that anyone would vote as they do on the issues that the Cheney-Bush ticket ran on.