Frank Schaeffer: GOP & A Subculture of Insanity
September 17, 2009
Frank Schaeffer offers a penetrating look at the devolution of the modern day Republican Party. Please don’t use the comment box to demonize him. Confine your remarks to his analysis.
Advertisement
14 Comments
Comments are closed.
Although Schaeffer is right on target with his facts, his belligerent “village idiot” rhetoric is hardly an exemplar of Christian Charity, and is more likely to feed the xenophobic beast than to slay it. He slides right by the fact that his “village idiots” do much of the real work in our society.
Isn’t it interesting, how Schaeffer demonstrates that fear and loathing of “Christian” fundamentalism is not unique to self-described atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens?
I am trying to remember how many people believed Clinton was the anti-Christ, and how many believed GW Bush was. I do think there is a certain contingent who thinks the President is the anti-Christ, but I don’t think it is normally 35%.
I wonder how the poll was asked — saying “do you think” and 35% saying yes or do not know isn’t the same as saying yes, to be sure. So I am curious as to the poll.
Both ends of the political spectrum have their nutcases. The Left has 9/11 Truthers, for one. That said, I doubt 35% of self-identified liberals ever believed that George W. Bush was the Antichrist. But that may have more to do with levels of religiosity among hard-core liberals versus hard-core conservatives than with the general level of craziness.
I don’t know how the polling was done. I have no expertise in poll technology. It is briefly discussed here:
http://washingtonindependent.com/59514/poll-one-in-three-new-jersey-conservatives-think-obama-might-be-the-anti-christ
Have you done much study on Dominionism? It seems this is behind much of the thinking in Christian circles these days. I believe there is a greater need to engage this mindset more openly and how it relates to politics. I’m afraid that while good Catholics are concerned about matters of social justice something dreadful is going on that is beyond the range of our radar. When I read the comment boxes, I am struck by a weirdness I’ve never encountered before.
I have a friend who recently went to visit his homeland in Ghana. He was Catholic but has since switch to Pentecostal. He said many in Ghana have left the Catholic Church. As you know, the same is true elsewhere.
I asked him why. He said that it has to do with the End Days. People have become fearful of the End Days and respond by converting. There is a kind of Apocalyptic Aggression that is creeping up. I have another friend from Nigeria who has left the Church for the same reasons.
Interesting about a 35% of Democrats are 9/11 truthers. It would be interesting to seem some sociological research on what the common characteristics of the 1/3 or so on both sides of the spectrum that believe these type of bizarre hate-fantasies.
MIckey,
” that may have more to do with levels of religiosity”
Did you read my comments about religiosity on your post?
JH,
You raise a good point and interesting question indeed.
I have actually read quite a bit about Dominionism. VERY scary stuff that good Catholics should have nothing to do with.
And yes, I did read your comments, and I agree. I was speaking of religiosity in the same sense that you were in those comments.
John Henry,
I agree with your suggestion to do sociological research. But going further, I wish someone would get a handle on the nature of ideas that give rise to these “types of bizarre hate-fantasies.” What is going on beneath the surface in the realm of ideas? More precisely, what ideas are driving this stuff?
The exchange you had with Mickey about Ayn Rand is a case in point. What I thought needed to be discussed was that her body of work is an expression of the notion of the atomistic individual. To me, this is where the real challenge should be directed. Ayn Rand exemplifies the notion of the autonomous individual and if one wants to know how it looks in reality her works give an insight.
I read Ayn Rand as being helpful in an effort to critique the notion of the autonomous individual — which, by the way, is at the core of American culture.
I think Frank Schaeffer makes some valid points about inflamed rhetoric only making things worse. However I find his analysis too bi-polar, too much “us” vs “them”. I number many Evangelical Protestants among friends and family, and to dismiss them all as a lunatic fringe is unfair and disrespectful. However he is right that there is a subculture which is simply not rational.
This may explain why Frank is so angry and appears so often promoting his ideas under the guise of family memoir: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/marapr/1.32.html?start=1.
Hugh,
Neither Oz Guinness nor anyone else to my knowledge has subjected Frank Schaeffer’s arguments to critical analysis. Instead they tend to demonize him and thereby avoid the questions he raises.
MelodyK,
Frank Schaeffer’s intent is to critique the religious right, especially its strategy, tactics, and leadership. In so doing, his aim is to unmask what he judges to be the challenges and/or dangers they might pose to the American political system.
Many see him as performing an important public service.
Hi Gerald,
Hasn’t Frank Shaeffer demonized his own parents as a means of convincing the secular media and anyone listening that he’s an expert on Evangelical Protestantism — and it’s a BAD thing?…That’s not to say that that kind of rhetoric is Ok, but it does raise the question of Shaeffer’s crediblity on the matter…And as a Canadian, yes, I’ve heard the argument that Conservative American Christians are the source of all evil. It’s to be accepted as a simple matter of fact here…I think Shaeffer has some points, but he’s also hysterical, and he should stop making fun of his dying mother on TV.
Good morning Hugh,
So you’re Canadian? Wonderful! Though in D.C., my origins are closer to those great cities of Vancouver and Victoria. When growing up, we always had an appreciation of Canada’s calming but heroic presence.
I get the drift of what you are saying about the demonization of his parents. But it seems to me, on the other hand, that he is offering an insightful critique of the Religious Right which he helped found. Since he was present at the creation, and since his father played such a central role, it would seem he is as much of an expert on this question as anyone. My sentiments: Let the analysis and debate begin.
Of critical importance is his judgment that the Religious Right has had a powerful, but negative, influence on the course of American politics.
My hope is that those who disagree with him would have the intellectual integrity to address his arguments directly, rather than trying to demonize him and thereby ignore the questions he raises. His arguments, if true, are troubling. They need to be thoroughly flushed out and debated.