The New Mission of the KKK (and why we should stay away from it)
Read the story here. (Hat tip: Dustin Stephens)
So, the KKK is recruiting new members. (In my former hometown to boot!) However, no need to worry, they claim to be less interested in violence and intimidation this time around and simply want to lend a hand to the “Christian,” “right wing” causes they see needing political support in today’s political climate.
As this member put it:
“The KKK is not a violent or prejudice group. It’s a Christian group. This is not the Old Klan… This is the second era. The way the political climate is now, we’re trying to give some stability, some help to the right wing.”
Now, every sane “Christian” (which surely means Protestant—not Catholic—in this clansman’s comment) Right-winger will decline any assistance offered by the KKK and for good reason. Nonetheless, the question that lingers is this: Under what conditions does the mere possibility of this KKK/Christian-Right alliance come to be? And what does that mean?
After all, we couldn’t reasonably imagine other political factions for this to happen in, politically speaking. Just think of the absurdity of the KKK coming to the aid of the Left. Sure, both major parties have storied memberships as clansmen (more Democrats than Republicans, in this regard), but, today, the Christian-Right seems to be the only place left for them to exist in.
Now the bigger question for Catholics is this: What in the world are Catholics doing trying to fit into this Protestant/Fundamentalist version of conservatism?! Surely there are better and more compatible places for a self-respecting Catholic to be a consistent conservative. This article in the Washington Post seems to get it at a certain level—even though I disagree with the idea that Catholic political thought is reducible to a matter of preserving Western Judeo-Christian culture through “voluntary” distributive capitalism.
This is not to say that we ought to wipe out the Right because it is tantamount to this “new” KKK. Instead, it is to note that there are different strands of conservatism that range from forms of classical liberalism and individualism, to the more coherent (to me) reactions against liberalism (a la Burke). Of all these strands, the one occupied by the Christian/Fundamentalist-Right—neo-liberalism, in other words— should not be on the table for a Catholic, it seems to me.
If it is, then, you should feel weird about who considers you to be a political ally and—if you’re white—a potential new member.
Comments are closed.
It is fortunate that they have been pushed to the fringe, and I pray that they don’t regain their former numbers and simply die out. Early in the 1900′s they were huge here in Oregon.
You raise some good questions. I might have an answer to one of them, “What in the world are Catholics doing trying to fit into this Protestant/Fundamentalist version of conservatism?!”
I don’t know that Catholic conservatives actually are trying to fit into that version of conservatism, at least not a significant percentage of them. I think that perception comes from conservative Catholic opposition to the policies of the left, including protection and expansion of abortion, creeping socialism, and tolerance of both Communism and Jihad in foreign affairs. This doesn’t imply an actual endorsement of political Protestant fundamentalism. A lot of us Catholic conservatives find that version of conservatism to be rather creepy. In fact, the word creepy is one I hear used quite a bit by my friends when describing this political orientation.
Your question also raises an additional question: “What in the world are Catholics doing trying to fit into the Democratic Party in its current form?”
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually acceptable to a practicing Catholic. I think a lot of conservatives simply find the Republicans less objectionable, and the Republicans have done an effective job of talking the talk to get the votes and then ignoring Catholics once elected.
I would like to see a viable third party that’s actually consistent with Catholic values.
As an aside, here in Oregon the racists are fairly evenly split between fundamentalist skinheads and neo-pagans. You’ll see both the Christian Identity people and the various groups of Odinists. The pagans appear to be growing faster.
“Your question also raises an additional question: “What in the world are Catholics doing trying to fit into the Democratic Party in its current form?””
This is exactly what I don’t get. aside from abortion, the democratic platform is CLEARLY more in line with catholic social teaching, and general catholic culture than the republicans, and I can’t believe that not everyone sees this.
The church I grew up in was urban, immigrant (and that meant hispanic) and parish based, which is a far cry from the rural, nativist, hyper-individualist strain of christianity that the US encourages.
I’m a liberal, so of course Sarah Palin set my teeth on edge. . . but, and no one believes me when i say this, it was as a catholuc that I was so put off.
Doug: Thanks. You captured the question I was going to add but felt was too defensive. It is, as you say, the same question on the other side. What is not trivial about my question, however, is there is a very specific possibility of this coalition on the Right (by “Right” I do not mean “Republican” necessarily) in a way it is not on the left.
But I think the “creepiness” is real for many reasons, now the question is whether we remains in creepy coalitions or try to create—or at lest imagine—something different, and not (as) creepy.
phosphorius: I disagree. Democrats, to me, are simply a slight variation of Rightist ideology. In many ways, I prefer the sometimes shocking straightforwardness of the GOP Right to the structural neo-liberalism that fuels the Democratic machine.
Saying who has a platform that lines up to a catholic point of view is drastically different to looking at what has happened under those two platforms. The proof is in the pudding: Both parties are creepily Rightist.
But, in this specific case, only one of them is a possible ally for the KKK.
“Democrats, to me, are simply a slight variation of Rightist ideology.”
Sam, you’re going to have to explain that one to me.
I suppose it depends on how you define “rightist”. Chomsky’s (in my view correct) analysis is that both parties are mere instruments of corporate power.
But I disagree that it is the GOP who are the straightforward ones. On the one hand they present themselves as “rugged individualists” and small government capitalists. . . but are as heavily invested in a large, corporatist and militarist state as any stalinist.
Both parties play in the mud. . . but it is only conservatives who claim, always, to be acting from “principles”.
Gerald: Liberalism is at the heart of both parties and the move from that into neo-liberalism has been fueled by both majorities interests of each party. Sure, the Dems are not theocratic (in the fundamentalist sense) like the counterparts on the Right, but they simple are a different kind of theo-crat. Like the difference between a theist and an atheist: they simply have different gods. The atheist is as devout person as the theist. The analogy becomes even stronger when you realize that they are bought and paid for by the same pool of money.
phosphorius: You’re right about the rhetoric of principles. But, via talk radio, the GOP will actually tell you what they mean aside from principles. The Dems carry fewer “moral” principles and opt for a more palpable civic virtue, but they offer very few translations. As much as the GOP may object, the Dems have no Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck et al. And they are all the worse for it, I think.
Sam,
If you mean that both parties share a common heritage in Locke and Hobbes, I would agree. If you mean that both parties share a common economic view, I would have to say that is the tendency. But given all that agreement, the differences between them over the last century are really quite stark, particularly when it comes to questions of social justice. Hopefully, it is this difference that will be developed in the years ahead.
As for the theist/atheist parallel, I’m not so sure. To draw a strict separation between Church and State is to me a matter of prudence. We have a secular society. But this is not the same as an atheistic theocracy, if you will.
It is possible to enrich the significance of those transcendent principles that already exist in our society, including the notions of dignity, freedom, and solidarity. This entails a struggle for hearts and minds. To my way of thinking, secular society and culture can evolve.
“As an aside, here in Oregon the racists are fairly evenly split between fundamentalist skinheads and neo-pagans”
What?
This is the most bizaree post on some time here. If I was a “fundamentalist” Christian coming on here I would be appalled. It is a sort of a sophisticted Catholic “anti Fundamentalist” propaganda. I guess we now have evolved to being Catholic Know Nothings
as to Funamentalist) what ever that means) going on here
I am no longer a “fundamentalist but I know they call on the name of Jesus and have a relationship to him. THey are also my neighbors and no they are not dangerous or KLAN friendly . I have seen no rise of Klan actity here.
I don’t know what a “Protestant/Fundamentalist version of conservatism?” is. In the real world Fundamentalist are pretty diverse. More Than the cartoon presented here
I reaaly wonder if Our Lord would be happy with this kind of rethoric.
Some Cathlics should really oray tonight for the slander they are doing on fellow Christians
If a Fundamentalist that had feeling toward the Catholic Chruch saw this post he would probally 9, with justification, think what a much of ignorant ignorant yahoos. With justification.
As someone that was in the “fundamentalist ” world Catholics seem to be about as clueless as James White is as to Catholics.
aside from abortion, the democratic platform is CLEARLY more in line with catholic social teaching, and general catholic culture than the republicans, and I can’t believe that not everyone sees this.
School vouchers? Church-state issues? Gay marriage? If you know what most Democrats believe and do on such issues, and if you know what the Catholic church teaches, your “abortion is the only exception” line is pretty ridiculous.
Anyway, the post’s guilt-by-association is absurd. Neoliberalism is unCatholic because there’s this bad guy in Abilene, Texas. Right.
Phosphorius:
If the Democrats offered an identical platform, only with extermination of blacks and Jews in place of abortion, could a Catholic vote for it? Abortion or concentration camp, either way you have genocide, and this is precisely why I can’t vote for a Democrat. In fact, Planned Parenthood was a racist organization from the start. HLI.org documents very well its beginnings in racism. It continues to be a racist organization.
Can we allow the murder of the weak so that the poor might benefit?
JH:
My in-laws are fundamentalists who hate black people. And Catholics.
My intent was not to imply that all fundamentalists are racists, because that’s clearly not true. If you read my post again, you’ll see that I made a statement about racists falling into two camps in the NW. They are generally either fundamentalists or pagans. This is a plain fact.
That fact, however, in no way implies that most or all fundamentalists, or even a significant number are racists.
Take for example the political philosophy of Phalangism. Practically all phalangists are Catholics. But I personally don’t know any. The reason is they are on the fringe, just like racist skinheads are.
doug,
“If the Democrats offered an identical platform, only with extermination of blacks and Jews in place of abortion, could a Catholic vote for it?”
This can’t be repeated often enough: the democrats don’t require that mother abort their children. They are not looking to exterminate the unborn.
They defend a woman’s right to choose to abort her child. Even if abortion is always evil. . . which it is. . . that doesn’t mean that the law should intervene.
“This can’t be repeated often enough: the democrats don’t require that mother abort their children.”
Actually, they do. They just don’t require that any *particular* woman abort her children. They do require that it be done. They consider it a “right”.
To put it in perspective, the Democratic Party didn’t require anyone to own a slave either. They considered it a “right”, and fought hard to spread that “right” to all of the new states coming into the Union. They also wanted to spread that “right” beyond the borders of the United States, and there were various plots hatched to take over parts of Central America to become privately held slave states. The expansion of slavery was also a major contributing factor in the start of the Mexican American War.
Democratic party: not a person, we have a “right”, spread it to other states, spread it beyond our borders…. hmmm, is that abortion or slavery? It’s both actually.
Defend the Party all you want, but at the end of the day that’s where they stand, no matter what sop they might offer to Catholics for their votes.
I find it incredibly ironic that the party behind slavery and Jim Crow now claims to champion civil rights while they pour money into an organization founded to stop black people and immigrants from “breeding”.
“Actually, they do. They just don’t require that any *particular* woman abort her children. They do require that it be done. They consider it a “right”.”
Democrats don’t require that women abort their children.
I am not “defending the party”. My original point was that it is really only abortion (and gay marriage, too I suppose) where democrats differ from catholic social teaching.
As far a s war and pverty and immigration and the general treatment of the powerless, the democrats have it all over the GOP. If abortion is all you care about, continue to voe republican.
(NB: the dixiecrats all became republicans and everybody knows it. Strom Thurmond died a republican. If you still insist on pinning slavery on the democartic party, then you are a GOP shill)
I totally agree with you phosphorious… thank you for having the audacity to say what you just said…
David
Actually, I’m done with the GOP. They are not a pro-life party, they only give it lip service. You’re completely free to ignore everything I said because I must be a GOP shill. But the fact is I end up writing in candidates at election time.
“My original point was that it is really only abortion (and gay marriage, too I suppose) where democrats differ from catholic social teaching.”
The pro-choice position allows Catholics to choose in conformity with Catholic Social Teaching. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Conversely, the pro-choice position allows non-Catholics to act according to their beliefs. We do, after all, live in a PLURALISTIC SOCIETY!
It is not accurate to say that Democrats take a stand that places them apart from Catholic Social Teaching. The nexus of the problem is that Democrats are not willing to use the power of the State to FORCE non-Catholics to believe and act like Catholics.
Even the Catholic Church would not acquiesce to such use of State power. Rather, they would caution prudential action and advise that we struggle to change “hearts and minds.”
Prediction: A national effort to reduce the incidence of abortion will become a powerful force that will help to refine perceptions and attitudes towards the unborn.
Phosphohrious,
I think we are on the same page so I’m not really arguing with your comment. it is just this one point which I want to underscore.
Well, if you all don’t think that the lives of the unborn should be protected, why should we take you seriously when you say you want the lives of the poor to be improved?
If you think that non-catholics should have right to kill their children, why do you not think that they should have a right to own other people, which is a lesser evil than murder? Why do you think that non-catholics shouldn’t have the right to engage unjust wars, after all aren’t they merely following their consciences?
Abortion is founded on greed, the desire to keep for ones self what justly belongs to one’s children, and you defend this. How can we possibly take you seriously when you then claim to defend the poor against those who would unjustly keep what is theirs? You pretend to uphold Catholic social teaching, but you undermine it at every turn by your defense of some sort of right to abortion.
Better to condemn both the greedy capitalist and the abortionist than to side with the abortionist in alliance against the greedy capitalist.
Abortion has killed a billion people. A billion. You defend this as being non-Catholics acting according to their beliefs, but then condemn the policies which keep another billion in abject poverty and call it unacceptable.
How can you seriously think that those who would perpetrate and defend the murder of a billion innocent people would truly be concerned about the poverty of another billion?
I am absolutely astounded at what I am reading here from people who claim to be Catholic.
I agree with you Doug, it is astonishing that people think that the issue of abortion is basically on the same par as mandatory attendence at Sunday Mass, an issue ONLY for Catholics! This is what happens when the liberal arts are sidelined in our educational system. Commitment to ideology (or political party) fills the void left by critical thinking skills, and in the end people wind up inventing excuses for things you would never think possible: the status quo on abortion, torture, etc.
The truth is that many Catholics are NOT interested in addressing structural injustice, whether with regard to the poor or the very poorest (the unborn). Whether for ideological reasons or because they are directly benefiting from the exploitation, they are not interested in ending it and even will tell you your efforts to end it are a waste of time. “It’s none of the Church’s business what wages people are paid. Let the Catholic Church take care of the Catholic Church and let business take care of business” etc.
This is absolutely NOT what the Church teaches of course. We are required by our faith to work for justice and there is no way to dodge that with intellectual integrity (IMHO).
How can you seriously think that those who would perpetrate and defend the murder of a billion innocent people would truly be concerned about the poverty of another billion?
I.e., any one who is pro-choice is so knowingly evil, they have disenfranchised themselves from any legitmate role in the discussion of social concerns.
How can you seriously think that those who would perpetrate and defend the murder of a billion innocent people would truly be concerned about the poverty of another billion?
Well, because many of them don’t consider abortion “murder” and/or that it impacts a “person.” They are wrong, of course, but from their perspective they aren’t “defending murder.” They, in fact, would never say that they are in favor of the murder of innocent people. Most of them would say that they are pro-choice because they care about human beings.
The ONLY way forward in the abortion debate is to hear what pro-choice people ACTUALLY believe and engage THAT rather than assuming that they hate humanity and are “in favor” of “murdering” people.
Doug,
“Well, if you all don’t think that the lives of the unborn should be protected, ”
What are you talking about? This comment is way off base. Stop creating a straw man you can easily rip apart.
We are speaking of the practical order here, not the speculative order. If you don’t know what that means, read the introductory paragraphs of Aristotle’s Ethics. The issue is not about whether abortion is good or bad. You will find no disagreement with me on that point. The issue is about action, doing. The truth is that you have done no more than anyone else to make a difference, nor can you. You tend to wring you hands and yell at others but do little yourself.
In the practical order, just what would you DO that is different from what I said. Are you going to change Roe? No. Are you going to criminalize abortion? No. Are you going to destroy Planned Parenthood? NO. During the 30 year rise and fall of American conservatism, almost nothing has been accomplished on the question of abortion except to divide the nation and, more often than not, to do so for crass political purposes.
Until your language rests on a recognition that the world you live in is resistant to your wishes, you will never be able to make a contribution. You live in a country where the majority disagrees with you. It is up to you to go out and make advances within that context. This means being much more serious at the practical level than your comments show you to be.
“If you think that non-catholics should have right to kill their children, why do you not think that they should have a right to own other people, which is a lesser evil than murder?”
Well, the US does think that non-catholics have the right to kill their children: aren’t Christian Scientists (and others) allowed to withhold life-saving medical treatment from their children, opting in stead for prayer? At the very least there is not a law at the federal level that prevents this, it is handled differently by each state.
And that’s a good thing. Evil as such behavior is, I really don’t think that the solution is to let the government decide how we should worship.
No?
You guys should go back and read your Catechism.
“2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”79
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined….
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”80″ (CCC 2273)
Furthermore Pope John Paul II directly addressed the idea that we don’t need to do anything about abortion because the majority wishes to have it, writing in Evangelium Vitae:
“73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.”
He then goes on in the body of the rest of the encyclical to
Well, I’m objecting. And you all are criticizing me for both objecting and pointing out that you also have a duty to object.
Kurt:
I would not use the word evil. I would use the word inconsistent.
Gerald:
You wrote “You tend to wring you hands and yell at others but do little yourself.” If you’re reading yelling into it, that’s just your interpretation. There’s no yelling involved. That would be a contribution of the reader, not the writer. The use of dismissive language and argumentation doesn’t change the fact that we have a duty to work for a consistent culture of life.
Again, you state indicate that you can’t change it and so speaking out is useless. We have had the poor with us a lot longer the Roe, and that hasn’t changed much. Shall we therefore stop trying to end poverty?
Doug,
Anyone can “cut and paste” from the Catechism. Some people go so far as to take quotes from the Bible and plaster them in public places in the form of graffiti. But such action has little to do with practical wisdom.
What are you advising we do. What is your purpose? Are you arguing for the creation of a “Christian Nation” that would supplant a secular society? But isn’t that what the KKK is urging in this post? How do you differ?
Phosphorious: My original point was that it is really only abortion (and gay marriage, too I suppose) where democrats differ from catholic social teaching.
As far as war and poverty and immigration and the general treatment of the powerless, the democrats have it all over the GOP. If abortion is all you care about, continue to vote republican.
I think that is exactly right: abortion is an egregious flaw in an otherwise very laudable and even rather Catholic approach to public policy. For a Catholic to vote for a Democrat doesn’t necessarily signal that he or she agrees with and supports the abortion plank of the party, it’s that as a Catholic they support virtually everything else the party stands for. The fact that the Republicans pay lip service (and that’s what we’re talking about here; talking a good game) is understandably dubious, since the rest of their platform is not terribly consistent with people who truly care about the vulnerable.
“we have a duty to work for a consistent culture of life.”
Doug, there is no argument at this abstract level. I accept this statement.
But one of the first things we should try to do is understand what the pro-choice community is talking about. Intellectual integrity is an absolutely essential first step to making sound prudential judgments. That was the thrust of my original statement at 11:08 PM.
Matt,
How would you propose to correct this flaw?
I have suggested that if we see the pro-choice position for what it is, it might not be such a flaw.
Given that the U.S. is a pluralistic society, it seems that the principle of the lesser of two evils comes into play here. What would you prefer at this moment in time: 1) choice, thereby leaving the decision on abortion with each individual; or 2) the use of state power to impose a view that the majority opposes?
Isn’t this what is at issue?
Sam –
What in the world are Catholics doing trying to fit into this Protestant/Fundamentalist version of conservatism?!
That question has occurred to me as well. I think Catholic conservatives are riding the tiger, big time. There is a huge amount of anti-Catholic bigotry on the protestant right – and not theological quibbles, but Rome Is The Whore Of Babylon, Catholics-aren’t-christian, Chick Tract -style bigotry.
If the theocratic right ever actually got power, there would eventually be a purge of the Catholics who helped them get there.
Given that the U.S. is a pluralistic society, it seems that the principle of the lesser of two evils comes into play here. What would you prefer at this moment in time: 1) choice, thereby leaving the decision on abortion with each individual; or 2) the use of state power to impose a view that the majority opposes?
Isn’t this what is at issue?
Hearts and minds have to be the answer, Gerald.
Matt,
“Hearts and minds have to be the answer.”
Correct.
“If the theocratic right ever actually got power, there would eventually be a purge of the Catholics who helped them get there.”
Absolutely true. Catholics should be more aware of the theocratic authoritarianism that underlies the notion of “Christian Nation.” The theocratic impulse of the Christian Right expresses itself through hatred, anger, fear, apocalyptic visions, war imagery, and everything but but reasoned discourse. Witness the Birthers, the “Pull the Plug on Grandma” health care language, the Town Hall disruptions, and so forth.
Nothing good can come of this. Absolutely nothing. Yet this is the milieu out of which the loudest voices of the pro-life MOVEMENT spew forth. A new alternate voice needs to be forged and nurtured by the Catholic community. Enough of this Christian Nation apocalyptic crap!
Doug,
If we eliminated the inconsistent from civic discussion, we would have few left, and very few pro-lifers.
How about this — each proposition needs to stand or fall on its own merits and not because it is supported by some people you have a disregard for.
Kurt, that is exactly the point I was trying to make, only substitute “are allied with” for “have a disregard for”. The arguments for toleration of abortion are the same as would be made for toleration of slavery. We can’t on the one hand condemn the KKK and tolerate abortion on the other. If the supporters of the KKK put up soup kitchens would that make them a charitable organization? But I’m beating a dead horse here.
I think we can all agree that we need something better.
Gerald: Thanks for your thoughts, I tend to disagree and think–following Zizek on this point–that secular modernity can only lead to a consumerist/capitalist utopia. But the intuitions you base it on are more hopeful than my own, and I admire that.
jh: I am not speaking on broad generalities. I was a catholic fundamentalist at one time and know that there are many more out there who listen to Focus on the Family and admire the Campus Crusade for Christ and listen to Rush Limbaugh, and fail to see the dead end that lies up ahead. Sorry if that experience of mine offends you.
To all: You know, there was a real issue in this post–RACISM!–that may be more appropriate to discuss than yet another attempt to shore up the line on abortion.
“Anyway, the post’s guilt-by-association is absurd. Neoliberalism is unCatholic because there’s this bad guy in Abilene, Texas. Right.”
Anti-Bigot: You may have missed when I wrote this:
“This is not to say that we ought to wipe out the Right because it is tantamount to this “new” KKK. Instead, it is to note that there are different strands of conservatism that range from forms of classical liberalism and individualism, to the more coherent (to me) reactions against liberalism (a la Burke). Of all these strands, the one occupied by the Christian/Fundamentalist-Right—neo-liberalism, in other words— should not be on the table for a Catholic, it seems to me.”
Sam,
Do you have any references to Zizek that discuss this specifically? I have little familiarity with his name and none of his work.
“To all: You know, there was a real issue in this post–RACISM!–that may be more appropriate to discuss than yet another attempt to shore up the line on abortion.”
I realize this, and am sorry for my own role in hijacking the thread, but it does sort of make my point: conservative catholics are interested in abortion. Period.
As for racism, what annoys me most about the KKK is their insistence that however bad slavery was, the white man of today has it worse. Rcaism against whites is the REAL problem for them, and as insane as that sounds, there are a lot of sympathetic ears in the republican party.
When Reverend Lowery’s inaugural benediction is dismissed as a “racist screed” by the right, you know something is wrong.
When Reverend Lowery’s inaugural benediction is dismissed as a “racist screed” by the right, you know something is wrong.
Amen.
http://opencarry.org
Anthropologist Charles Springwood sums it up nicely when he commented that open carriers are trying to “naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent, and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood.”
Disgusting.
How is it disgusting? I think a lot of feelings about guns are culturally conditioned. In a lot of communities guns are not used to kill people or in drug violence; they are part of the culture and they are not a big deal. You should talk to the new Archbishop of St. Louis who is a big hunter!
Personally I found certain parts of Reverend Lowery’s benediction offensive, and I am not a part the right. In fact I don’t know anybody who didn’t at least wince when they heard him say those words.
In fact I don’t know anybody who didn’t at least wince when they heard him say those words.
I didn’t wince, Mag. I knew what he was getting at (having grown up in a black neighborhood) and saw it for what it was: poking gentle fun. Calling it a “racist screed” is utterly ridiculous.
Magdalena:
“A young cowboy named Billy Joe
Grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wanderlust
Who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out;
“Don’t take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don’t take your guns to town.”
Johnny Cash
To be clear I would be very unhappy if it became the norm in my community to carry around weapons in public. I’m just pointing out that to some people who don’t have my cultural conditioning guns are not a threat.
“. . .guns are not a threat.”
This is almost certainly false. To carry a gun hunting is not a threat. But to carry one as a matter of course signals, whether you mean it to or not, that you are prepared to use violence should you think it necessary.
It is not like carrying a pocket knife.
(Also, I honestly don’t knw anybody who winced at Lowery’s speech. I thought it was clever and joyful, I and wasn’t familiar with the original poem it was playing off of.)
Gerald: It is a reoccurring theme in his work. You can find it in both of his books on theology (“The Fragile Absolute” and “The Monstrosity of Christ”) and it is especially clear in his complete take-down of multiculturalism in “The Ticklish Subject,” starting on p. 257.
Sam,
Thanx … I’ll order these books!
How is it disgusting? I think a lot of feelings about guns are culturally conditioned.
Of course they’re culturally conditioned. In most parts of the world, the view that guns are dangerous is culturally conditioned, and that’s a GOOD thing. It would be a shame if we began to condition the culture to think that guns are harmless (even fun, sexy accessories!). This “Open Carry” movement is a self-parody of all that is wrong with the united states.
In a lot of communities guns are not used to kill people or in drug violence; they are part of the culture and they are not a big deal.
How is it that someone with your obvious intelligence falls for the ideological smokescreen of these nuts? GUNS ARE MADE FOR KILLING PEOPLE.
Personally I found certain parts of Reverend Lowery’s benediction offensive, and I am not a part the right.
Are you white?
In fact I don’t know anybody who didn’t at least wince when they heard him say those words.
Didn’t know anybody WHITE who didn’t “wince”? The only people I “know” who “winced” at his words are people from the internets. No white person that I know personally “winced” at his words. And I’m from West By God Virginia. You should rethink the circles you run around in.
By the way, I am an anti-fundamentalist.
The KKK are a Masonic order formed in the 19th century after the fallout of the anti-Masonry movement initiated by President John Adams’ rebuke of the secret society. Just like the largely Masonic founders of this country, they claimed Christianity as their religion, though, in truth, they held anti-Christian beliefs. A Catholic friend of mine from New Orleans passed on stories that his mother and grandmother used to tell him about how the KKK would frequent Catholic neighborhoods to lynch and oppress the Catholics for their religion just as much as they would a black person for the color of thier skin. They are, as all Masonic orders, inherently anti-Catholic (and racist… don’t be fooled by their faux inclusiveness of black and “Catholic” brothers into the club).
There are many Church documents rebuking the acts of the Freemasons and all of their orders, including the KKK. They KKK will continue to exist as long as their brothers retain political power in this country… which will be always. It would be redundant for the Church to point this out. Currently, we are slaying 4,000 children in the womb a day (most of them black). Some things take precedence.
Oddly, there are two things out of a handful that will get you excommunicated latae sententiae. 1) Participating in the act of abortion
2) Becoming a Freemason
Yes, I am “white,” although I do not accept attempts to enroll me in involuntary membership in a race or color group. If I were to call Asians “yellow” or Native Americans “red men,” among my friends I would be in big trouble with them, and rightfully so, even if the words were spoken in joyful jest… I am sure he meant no harm but I can’t picture those words coming out of President Obama’s mouth and I am sure there was a sharp intake of air among the relevant authorities when Rev. Lowery got to the unfortunate part of his otherwise beautiful benediction.
The benediction was beautiful through and through, and to say that is a lot coming from me who usually frowns on such combinations of prayer and national political spectacle/liturgy.
The only people who “winced” were people who truly needed a jab in the ribs.
“If I were to call Asians “yellow” or Native Americans “red men,” among my friends I would be in big trouble with them, and rightfully so, even if the words were spoken in joyful jest…”
Did a single asian american or native american group protest? I suppose they don’t have to, if you insist on being offended on their behalf.
I would assume that they would be rather pleased that Lowery was claiming Obama’s victory not just for the black man, but for all historically oppressed groups.
Lowery was claiming Obama’s victory not just for the black man, but for all historically oppressed groups.
Exactly. Showing solidarity.
“Lowery was claiming Obama’s victory not just for the black man, but for all historically oppressed groups.
Exactly. Showing solidarity.”
Don’t forget that the most oppressed group is the oppressor. This is hard to comprehend but true nonetheless. The oppressor oppresses his own humanity.