Religion, Politics, and other matters of little consequence
In the normal course of events, I don't discuss religion much; but there's cause today to do so. Our house troll, Francis Holland, has made the remarkable discovery that the Progressive movement hates not merely Hillary Clinton (though that would be something of an overstatement), but God Himself. I must disagree with him on that – Francis arguments, such as they are, can be found here and here - and not merely because I think Francis' eschatalogy of Hillary is getting to be a bit grating, not to mention theologically unsound. I'm reasonably certain that God doesn't vote in our primaries, in part because God is English and isn't entitled to do so; meanwhile, those who think Hillary Clinton is the Messiah in a pantsuit, I mean, come on, people. No matter how much one may or may not support her: the election of any one individual is not going to make pretty pink ponies fly in the sky, or magically undo all that is bad in the world. Would that it were so, but it's not - and it's definitely not going to happen with Hillary.
But first, allow me to speak briefly about me. My religious background is in the liberal Catholicism of Western Europe. Catholicism, take it from me, is properly understood a wonderful thing (I'm just going to gloss over that Inquisition business for the sake of this argument). We've managed to weave, over the last two millennia, a gorgeous tapestry of rituals, architecture, folkways, music, literature, theology, figural and painted art, that is in sum and at the very least aesthetically pleasing. Western European Catholicism gave rise, among other notable refinements to the human condition, to the Social Gospel, which maintains that the measure of our love of God is our treatment of the outcast, the dispossessed, the despised, and whether we press our lawful governments to better their lot. Under Catholic theology, not paying your laborers a fair wage – not merely what you consider fair, but what is fair – is defined as a Sin that Cries Unto Heaven For Vengeance; as they say, people go to hell for that, maybe a doctrine that Catholic Bush appointees to the NLRB should take note of.
Whether one buys the entire gilt-encrusted kit and caboodle is of course another question entirely. For myself, personally, I've decided that I'm not equipped to know whether or not there actually is a God, and that to claim otherwise would be presumptuous. We are all small, simple – some more so, some less, eh Francis? – humans shuffling merrily about on this mortal coil, making clumsy stabs, in the dark, at the Unknowable. There has to be an element of uncertainty in any kind of transcendental belief, however, an uncertainty that doesn't lend itself to either full-fledged belief or its mirror parallel, atheism. Myself, I'm humble enough, and patient enough, to trust that if there is an answer to the question, I'll find out one day; and if not, no harm done, no fair, no foul. There's value in acceptance of uncertainty, and meanwhile, I can enjoy a good Requiem when the mood strikes me, not to mention ignore some of the ideas floating around in the Church that are a tad less appetizing.
So that's where I'm coming from. Now, to Francis. That's below the fold.
And here's where whatever gentility used in the paragraphs above goes flying out the stained-glass window. Francis is, simply put, a fucktard before the Lord. A screaming pathology beyond hope of redemption. An un-American, anti-American hack who pisses on everything that is good and right. A miserable, wretched, hate-fueled, and abysmally, staggeringly, cosmically ignorant, words-fail-me-utterly fucktard.
A fucktard, ladies and gentlemen. This is his argument, which you can read in full at the links quoted above, presented under the subhead: "When they “crash the gatesâ€, will they take our cross?" Yes, I fuck you not - according to Francis, someone is out to de-Christianize you. Guess who? Here goes:
There's more, including the laughably absurd contention that it is the un-American atheism of Daily Kos that is behind its rejection of the 'openly devout' Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the above represents the crux of the argument.
This seething, twitching mass of bile is certainly in need of analysis, not least because we really shouldn't be doing the work Ann Coulter excels at for her. But let's cut right to the chase.
First of all, I don't support Hillary Clinton for the Presidency. Period. I think she's an abysmal, hair-raisingly catastrophic choice from an electoral perspective – which is why it actually amuses me that someone in her camp makes electability arguments – and from a policy perspective. I don't give a flying fuck what the woman believes privately. I say this having voted for her a total of three times. But that's not the issue, because politics is about more than just electing another President. It's also about winning races up and down the ticket – Congress, say, that branch of government that withered out of our control back when a Clinton was in office, because of the political stupidity (married to self-centeredness) of that Clinton and his wife. Mind you, we never got that back until, guess what, Daily Kos came along, and a host of other blogs that helped us to victory, raising millions and helping to counter the right-wing smear machine. Show me one thing that Francis Holland, fucking around on the beach in Brazil, has contributed to that – just one thing, not the many, many things that Markos Moulitsas Zuniga has himself done, enabled, made happen. However, that - Progressive activism - is kind of what it's all about.
Which is just one reason why this fascist screed – Francis Holland wants Markos out of the picture, calling him a 'radical atheist activist' – is so profoundly disturbing to me. I'm all for diversity of opinion in the blogosphere. But that embrace specifically does not include arguments that run along the lines of 'we must silence the non-Christians', and that most especially if they are made as part of a cynical, depraved personal vendetta against someone Holland has likely never even met. These screeds remind me of only one thing: republican campaign literature, 2004 election, claiming that Democrats would outlaw the bible. I have to say, in my entire time of reading blogs, this is the first time, that I've seen a so-called Progressive make the Dominionist argument, and I find it literally sickening. That it's being made to discredit someone who doesn't prefer one's choice in a primary puts this so far beyond the pale, so beyond anything that is good and just and right, that anyone with a shred of decency should recoil in horror. But that description obviously doesn't include us Francis, far-off in Brazil, where the weather is warm, the booze cheap and the hookers love Yanqui dollars (and hate colonial-man-cock, but hey).
The worst part is, of course, that the practical implications of Schmuck Holland's analysis are not what he says they are. Kos has never had a religious litmus test, and supported candidates of every flavor (and fervor) of religious belief; Eric Massa, Kristen Gillibrand, Jim Webb, Brian Keeler, Brian Schweitzer, Jon Tester, Jerry McNerny, and God alone knows whom else. Not to mention that there is a dedicated religious Kos offshott - Street Prophets. The simple fact is that Daily Kos is a blog dedicated to electing Democrats – that's the agenda. No more, no less; and I suspect that if, if, the Kos community were more amendable to Senator Unelectable PanderBot, Francis would have not a bad word to say about it.
But as it is, he's trying to get Hillary elected, and so must smear, with whatever comes to hand, those who stand in the way. Which is, by the by, an entirely Clintonesque approach. There will be more where this comes from, because Francis Holland's pathology has not run its course yet. Me, I'm just hoping that he doesn't discover that Daily Kos contains Jews and Gays; there's ample material to feed those screeds, and Francis won't shrink from using it if he finds it useful. In fact, here's a prediction: one of the Presidential contenders will be discovered to have Jewish ancestry; it happens in every cycle. Francis will be sorely tempted to scream from the virtual rafters that Christian Americans won't vote for him. Cuz ya know, there's people who don't like the Jews. And Hillary's safely Methodist.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Agnosticism | Atheism | Dominionism | Right-wing extremism | Daily Kos | Francis Holland | Hillary Clinton | Markos Moulitsas Zuniga
I don't have time for this
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 5 March 2007 - 11:38am.
At some point, we need to be able to stand up and say that there are arguments and claims we're just not going to tolerate in our internal dialogue.
I'd count cynical dominionism and demands that the non-christians need to shut up in public as such.
This is not, repeat not, the way that Democrats should be arguing among ourselves. And in fairness, Hillary's people would probably be shocked to read some of this stuff.
Francis who?
Submitted by NanceConfer on 5 March 2007 - 11:51am.
He strikes me as a hateful nut. Like that Coulter woman. He's not representative of my party any more than she tells us much about Republicans.
Never fear. Atheists won't be shutting up any time soon. At least not this one. 
Nance
Well...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 5 March 2007 - 2:14pm.
...considering Coulter's history, it's pretty fair to see her as symptomatic of the right.
But normally, Democrats don't run around asking if other Democrats will 'take away our cross'. That's disgusting wingnuttery of the sort that makes Coulter a by-word; but as you say, nobody knows or cares who or what this Francis is, now less than ever.
Let's "Pray"
Submitted by JJ Ross on 5 March 2007 - 2:41pm.
that you're right about the left. . .but I'm not so sure and so I'm afraid not to care. That whole Dem black church fest Sunday wasn't a figment of some religious nut's drooling delusion; that was the pair of legit frontrunners for the Dem presidential nomination open-eyed and open-mouthed in my back yard, purposely pandering to the most conservative part of Dem politics - the black church tradition.
And Nancy Pelosi has already hit a couple of sour notes imo, trying to sing with the choir since donning her third-in-line-for-the-throne official robes.
Matthew 26:52 - "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword"
:halo:
Blacks and religion
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 5 March 2007 - 4:34pm.
I think what we have here is a cultural divide. Francis Holland is a black man, who grew up in one community and culture, and most of the rest of us are not. I have just been reading a lot about the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. Blacks, african americans, had no reason to trust the government in many places back then. They were all but totally disenfranchised and hated by government officials. The government was not their protector, the government was their enemy. In that culture, it was only the church that could build and hold together the community. It was the churches where you went to be safe, where you went to seek out your leaders. Those leaders were the church leaders. Martin Luther King was not an elected politician, he was a baptist minister. So churches are much more central to this day in most black communities than in white ones, because it was churches who protected them, not the government.
If you are an african american man, like Francis Holland and you, for very valid reasons, do not automatically have trust in the state, in the government, what are you going to want to see to build that trust? You are going to want to see valid connections between the one institution that has always been there for you, the church-- where blacks in Selma took shelter from rock throwing rioters in the sixties, from where Dr. King led the Montgomery bus boycott-- and the government. So it is more important for Francis Holland, as a black man, to have a president who is a christian, or who at least respects those beliefs and who would go to his church-- than it is for many of us. We need to respect that. Not hate, fear or ridicule that. He doesn't need to ridicule, hate or fear atheists either.
How Old Are You?
Submitted by JJ Ross on 5 March 2007 - 4:56pm.
You've been reading about the 50s and 60s, so you're gonna explain them to us??
That's not the point.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 5 March 2007 - 5:04pm.
And just BTW, thanks for explaining the black church to me. Honest, I was clueless; not like I worked for a black Congressional candidate or anything like that.
Most Progressives are very comfortable with other people's religious beliefs and their own; the point is that using rightwing hate speech to disqualify supporters of your opponent should of right be treated as the contemptible, mercenary opportunistic slander it is. That's as un-American as Francis current lurking offshore, while those of us here fight every day to move the country on from the Bush disaster.
I assume...
Submitted by mole333 on 5 March 2007 - 5:20pm.
I assume Francis Holland is merely an example of Hillary's campaign outsourcing. I can't imagine that he isn't getting paid for the constant Hillary Bottery he does.
Someone has to keep him in style
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 5 March 2007 - 6:26pm.
...far from these shores. Might as well be Hillary; though I dare say she's not getting her money's worth.
Its about cultural differences
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 5 March 2007 - 6:30pm.
JJ I'm in my early forties, I was alive in the sixties just like you, don't be so defensive all the time. I was trying to say there are cultural differences and valid reasons for why it may be harder for african americans to separate the roles of church and state than some of the rest of us can. It is going to take years, decades maybe even centuries for many african americans to overcome the images of those years gone by, of corrupt, racist government and government officials. To get to the point where they think they can trust government enough to be the primary protector of their community. So it is reasonable to think that maybe Francis Holland has this perspective, and if he does, and if because of this he values a candidate who is more openly Christian than one who is not, can you blame him?
The role of the church is obviously greater in civic affairs not just in african american communities, but in rural communities, than it is up here in the big city. The peoples in these areas, as I am sure you know full well, are far more reluctant to fully accept complete separation of church and state, or a totally reduced role for the church. Democrats need to respect their views. This doesn't mean Democrats need to become theocrats and carry around bibles. It means they need simply to respect these peoples' perspectives, and not scream out in fear when a candidate goes into a black church or a rural church. Republicans have put across democrats in national elections as mean and radical and anti-people of faith. It is the sort of impression you get when you read boards like this where people scream at even the site of a democrat in church. We need to fight those impressions. We as Democrats need to show that we respect all peoples of all faiths, that we value the perspectives that come from their faiths, and that we want their faiths to be part of our great quilt that we will use to keep this country warm.
I believe one of Barack Obama's great strengths is that he wants to reach out to all these different groups and show respect and empathy. He speaks out against hate and intolerance. We can respect and learn from each other even if we don't agree with everything. We don't need to call each other fucktards.
Religion is Not Respectful
Submitted by JJ Ross on 6 March 2007 - 10:01am.
only people are respectful -- or not.
And this conversation doesn't strike me as respectful, of virtue or each other or of REASON.
Have you ever seen or suffered the shocking social miscarriages attributed to the Biblical exhortation against being "unequally yoked?" Biblical pandering is not respectful of civil rights, the dignity of the individual, of humanity, nor reason, prudence, justice, you name it. And it doesn't care.
Furthermore, I frankly doubt such social virtues can be widely advanced by anyone pandering for votes, anywhere. I really think campaigning for president is incompatible with all of that, no matter how sincerely "good" a candidate starts out as a real human being...unfortunately most pack their humanity away to survive on the campaign trail, or else they don't survive period. I can't think of any president or candidate I would rank among the best real people I know. I'd put at least half of all the professors I ever studied with, up against the best politicians I know. I probably would've found Obama much more genuine and genuinely valuable as the professor he was, than the candidate he is becoming so unnervingly (imo).
And since we're speaking of MLK -- peace, love and tolerance come from the heart, not the law and not just from pulling the lever for your church or party's choice. Changed hearts for others can't be voted in by electing Dems (in the south if we know anything, we KNOW that!) and though Martin Luther King, Jr. did grow up here in southern churches and schools to become "reverend doctor" himself, on top of coming from a whole family of southern ministers and schoolteachers -- with such impeccable credentials, he did NOT run for office as his way of leading, showing respect and tolerance, and helping to change the world. (Nor has Oprah.)
He also literally gave his life for his people without enlisting in the military. So many examples show us we never HAVE TO do anything the way conventional wisdom dictates . . .
Civil Rights are unpopular
Democrats have lost many elections because they have supported voting rights for blacks. Maybe it is time we return to the old-Democratic, old-South tradition of Jim Crow. It was a time when Democrats could really win big, right?
Francis Holland makes many interesting points. It is important, from what I hear from many minority bloggers, to discuss racial issues within the progressive movement. Hillary is a viable candidate whose victory in November 2008, if we can pull it off, would be historic and would give us a very adequate, though from what I see, not excellent President. Discussing the role of religion within the Progressive movement is important (as Michael and my favorite Brooklyn Progressive, Chris Owens, argues). Daily Kos has done wonderful and historic things, but it also has problems that warrent discussion. Liza and I certainly have criticized Markos and his blog at times. All of these are things Francis Holland could bring to our blog.
Unfortunately he clothes these very interesting and viable discussions in a wingnut-style attack on John Edwards (note: on dKos Al Gore was his main target for repeating right wing smears against), a call for a religious litmus test for our politicians (an unConstitutional and highly disturbing suggestion for those of us who are not Christian and a suggestion that would exclude such great Presidents as Washington and Jefferson), and a vendetta against Markos and dKos that goes beyond reasoned discussion into the real, once again, of right wing smears. Some of his claims regarding atheism on dKos (a HUGE community) are largely false or at least are cherry picking to a degree that they are about as misleading as a Chalabi intelligence report. Furthermore he has publically misused Liza's name and the name of this blog, misrepresenting us, and he has used private emails to him publicly.
I have reached out to Mr. Holland suggesting ways he could contribute his view to this community without violating common descency. To date he is failing to take these suggestions and continues to violate common descency. I am hoping he will refine his blogging style to present his case in a manner that is more reasonable and that has less in common with a Fox Propoganda commentator.
I also would hope that Hillary's campaign disavow what Holland is saying and doing because quite simply it reflects poorly on her. When Holland arrived here I was against Hillary in the primaries but primed to fight hard for her should she win the primary. My enthusiasm for fighting for her in the general election is reduced when I consider the possibility that Holland's attacks on the most successful thing to come along for Democrats in decades (Daily Kos, despite its problems) and his advocacy of an unConstitutional religious litmus test for politicians are policies of Hillary's campaign.