Correspondent:: "William L. Houts" Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:10:31 -0800
--------
There's been a lot of talk in liberal circles about what we do now. Here
are some ideas for combatting the Christo-Fascists.
I'm an ultraliberal queer Catholic. So while I'm a progressive, I am very
comfortable with religious language. I think that many liberals, however,
are not. And the reality is that whether you count yourself a Christian or
not, the Bible is a foundation text of America. Even if the Founders were
Deists rather than Christians, they were eminently familiar with the Bible
and could quote it with ease. Christianity informed their consciousness,
even where it did not determine their behavior. Liberals MUST make a friend
of Christian teaching, even if they're not inclined to accept it literally.
We can't be thorough-going religious bigots. As Jesus said, we must be
cunning as serpents and harmless as doves. Progressives should take that
instruction up as their battle cry. They should study the Bible and get
wiley with its interpretation. This is not work for dull Democratic
ideologues, it is the province of poets and theological swashbucklers.
Remember that Jesus was the OPPOSITE of a religious fundamentalist. He
was a progressive at war with the Fundies of his time: the Pharisees and
Sadducees. In arguing with them, he once said this: the spirit of the Law
gives life, the letter kills. Remember that, people. We're fighting for the
spirit of American law. It is not to be construed narrowly, as if it
excluded what it did not expressly permit.The Christo-Fascists are NOT
working within the truest Christian tradition, nor do they represent the
principles of American law. Christ is on OUR side, not theirs. They betray
the Savior with their every shrill Pharisaic pronouncement.
There were rich folks among the many who folowed Jesus. Remember,
though, that his chief ministry was not to the ruling class, but to the
forgotten and betrayed: the protectorate of the Democratic Party. It is an
easily defensible claim to make, for instance, that Jesus would have
supported Social Security. This can be extended to all other government
programs to assist the weakest among us. The Republicans who would gut them
are literally anti-Christian. Start to use that language, to be comfortable
with it, because strict secular humanism is not cutting the mustard.
Progressives, it's time to fight fire with fire.
Just a few more thoughts on Christian language. For the
most part, Christ didn't preach the wrath of God, but his justice, love and
mercy. It is time we made the neo-fascists ASHAMED for abandoning the
truest principles of Christ. The message should go out to Middle America
that we progresssive Democrats are the true inheritors of Christian
philosophy. It is time we wrenched that bat from Republican hands and beat
them over the head with it.
Finally, remember that the great Dr. King was a Christian minister. His
politics were informed by lively and enlivening spiritual values, not dry
position papers.
He was a paladin, a warrior monk, and if we really want change, we must
follow his example. To paraphrase Quentin Tarantino, we have to get
theological on their asses.
If we're serpent-cunning in these ways, I submit that We can win support
presently undreamed of by Democratic strategists. We can steal the Deep
South. We can have all of Florida, and the heartland is ours. Even if that
support doesn't come immediately, we will begin to cause confusion and
dissonance for the traditional conservative voter. It will no longer be a
slam dunk to choose between the Christian Republicans and the irreligious
Democrats.
I realize that not everyone is a Christian, and what I have to say may cause
discomfort to some. But what I'm saying really shouldn't be that scary. If
you're a liberal Christian, then I'm simply talking about passion and
commitment to our ideals. If you're not Christian, then what I'm saying is
something sneaky and useful about cooptation and subversion. There's no need
for division between the religious, the non-religious and the non-Christian
among us. Witches, Jews, Christians, liberal Subgenii and atheists can
easily and fruitfully work together. . But there is a need to get real
about language and power in American culture.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
William L. Houts
abraxas@drizzle.com
Correspondent:: "Neil Kelsey" Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:41:40 GMT
--------
"William L. Houts" wrote in message
news:1099804224.724321@yasure...
>
>
>
>
> There's been a lot of talk in liberal circles about what we do now. Here
> are some ideas for combatting the Christo-Fascists.
>
> I'm an ultraliberal queer Catholic. So while I'm a progressive, I am very
> comfortable with religious language. I think that many liberals, however,
> are not. And the reality is that whether you count yourself a Christian
> or
> not, the Bible is a foundation text of America. Even if the Founders were
> Deists rather than Christians, they were eminently familiar with the Bible
> and could quote it with ease. Christianity informed their consciousness,
> even where it did not determine their behavior. Liberals MUST make a
> friend
> of Christian teaching, even if they're not inclined to accept it
> literally.
> We can't be thorough-going religious bigots. As Jesus said, we must be
> cunning as serpents and harmless as doves. Progressives should take that
> instruction up as their battle cry. They should study the Bible and get
> wiley with its interpretation. This is not work for dull Democratic
> ideologues, it is the province of poets and theological swashbucklers.
>
> Remember that Jesus was the OPPOSITE of a religious fundamentalist. He
> was a progressive at war with the Fundies of his time: the Pharisees and
> Sadducees. In arguing with them, he once said this: the spirit of the Law
> gives life, the letter kills. Remember that, people. We're fighting for
> the
> spirit of American law. It is not to be construed narrowly, as if it
> excluded what it did not expressly permit.The Christo-Fascists are NOT
> working within the truest Christian tradition, nor do they represent the
> principles of American law. Christ is on OUR side, not theirs. They
> betray
> the Savior with their every shrill Pharisaic pronouncement.
>
> There were rich folks among the many who folowed Jesus. Remember,
> though, that his chief ministry was not to the ruling class, but to the
> forgotten and betrayed: the protectorate of the Democratic Party. It is
> an
> easily defensible claim to make, for instance, that Jesus would have
> supported Social Security. This can be extended to all other government
> programs to assist the weakest among us. The Republicans who would gut
> them
> are literally anti-Christian. Start to use that language, to be
> comfortable
> with it, because strict secular humanism is not cutting the mustard.
> Progressives, it's time to fight fire with fire.
>
> Just a few more thoughts on Christian language. For the
> most part, Christ didn't preach the wrath of God, but his justice, love
> and
> mercy. It is time we made the neo-fascists ASHAMED for abandoning the
> truest principles of Christ. The message should go out to Middle America
> that we progresssive Democrats are the true inheritors of Christian
> philosophy. It is time we wrenched that bat from Republican hands and
> beat
> them over the head with it.
>
> Finally, remember that the great Dr. King was a Christian minister.
> His
> politics were informed by lively and enlivening spiritual values, not dry
> position papers.
> He was a paladin, a warrior monk, and if we really want change, we must
> follow his example. To paraphrase Quentin Tarantino, we have to get
> theological on their asses.
>
> If we're serpent-cunning in these ways, I submit that We can win
> support
> presently undreamed of by Democratic strategists. We can steal the Deep
> South. We can have all of Florida, and the heartland is ours. Even if
> that
> support doesn't come immediately, we will begin to cause confusion and
> dissonance for the traditional conservative voter. It will no longer be a
> slam dunk to choose between the Christian Republicans and the irreligious
> Democrats.
>
> I realize that not everyone is a Christian, and what I have to say may
> cause
> discomfort to some. But what I'm saying really shouldn't be that scary.
> If
> you're a liberal Christian, then I'm simply talking about passion and
> commitment to our ideals. If you're not Christian, then what I'm saying
> is
> something sneaky and useful about cooptation and subversion. There's no
> need
> for division between the religious, the non-religious and the
> non-Christian
> among us. Witches, Jews, Christians, liberal Subgenii and atheists can
> easily and fruitfully work together. . But there is a need to get real
> about language and power in American culture.
>
> Does this make sense to anyone else?
I'm puzzled by your urging atheists to get theological on someone's ass.
Correspondent:: Artemia Salina Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:23:06 -0500
--------
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:10:31 -0800, William L. Houts wrote:
[minor edits for brevity]
> Does this make sense to anyone else?
Yes, it does. You're talking about hijacking the Democratic party
and turning it into a mountebank cult with the intent of subverting
the Democratic process. "The people don't have enough sense to manage
their own affairs, so we, the self-appointed ruling class shall deceive
them with religious mumbo jumbo and become their demigods, which is our
rightful place anyway. It's for their own good!"
What the fuck gives you snot-puking frozen-shit-dildo-fucking monkeys-
with-bellhop-caps the right to steal power in this deceptive way?
What, are you too much of a prematurely-balding pasty-faced chicken pussy
to pick up a gun and take the country by force, the old fashioned way?
Well, the cat's out of the bag, thanks to you, Killer Comb-over. I'm
forwarding a copy of your post to The Heritage Foundation. What do you
think of THAT?
Correspondent:: Christopher A. Lee Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:57:06 GMT
--------
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:10:31 -0800, "William L. Houts"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>There's been a lot of talk in liberal circles about what we do now. Here
>are some ideas for combatting the Christo-Fascists.
>
>I'm an ultraliberal queer Catholic. So while I'm a progressive, I am very
>comfortable with religious language. I think that many liberals, however,
>are not. And the reality is that whether you count yourself a Christian or
>not, the Bible is a foundation text of America.
No, it isn't. Many religious would like it to have been though.
Not a good start.
[no need to continue]
The founders knew their recent history, and some of them had seen
first hand in Europe the strife that religious imposition causes.
The country was founded on the freedom of the individual.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:01:48 GMT
--------
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:10:31 -0800, "William L. Houts"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >There's been a lot of talk in liberal circles about what we do now. Here
> >are some ideas for combatting the Christo-Fascists.
> >
> >I'm an ultraliberal queer Catholic. So while I'm a progressive, I am very
> >comfortable with religious language. I think that many liberals, however,
> >are not. And the reality is that whether you count yourself a Christian or
> >not, the Bible is a foundation text of America.
>
> No, it isn't. Many religious would like it to have been though.
>
> Not a good start.
>
> [no need to continue]
>
> The founders knew their recent history, and some of them had seen
> first hand in Europe the strife that religious imposition causes.
>
> The country was founded on the freedom of the individual.
The country was founded on dead Indians
and slave labor.
Correspondent:: "William L. Houts" Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:05:35 -0800
--------
>
> The country was founded on dead Indians
> and slave labor.
Now this guy, at least, knows what he's talking about.
William L. Houts
abraxas@drizzle.com
Correspondent:: "William L. Houts" Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:02:07 -0800
--------
> No, it isn't. Many religious would like it to have been though.
>
> Not a good start.
>
> [no need to continue]
>
> The founders knew their recent history, and some of them had seen
> first hand in Europe the strife that religious imposition causes.
>
> The country was founded on the freedom of the individual.
And I affirm that freedom. But are you really denying the Christian DNA in
the national character? Look, I stand with you in opposing the idea of an
American theocracy. What I'm talking about here is power and language, as
well as religion. Beside and beyond my own Catholic ideas, I don't think we
can win back the Congress, the Senate and the White House by pretending that
Christian language doesn't matter in American political culture.
I suppose you can assert otherwise, but it's not doing us any good. The
Republicans will continue to beat us consistently if our only weapon is
secular humanism. It's a fine philosophy, but it's not winning the red
states, is it? If we really want to achieve political ascendancy, I submit
that we must beat the Christo-Fascists at their own game.
I see that there are problems to resolve in my strategy. But so far, I
haven't seen anything better. Just a lot of hand-wringing, useless bitching
about the black boxes and the usual pathetic Usenet drivel.
So, what are your Tactics for the Culture War? Do you have any? I'd like
to hear them.
William L. Houts
abraxas@drizzle.com
Correspondent:: Christopher A. Lee Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:32:50 GMT
--------
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:02:07 -0800, "William L. Houts"
wrote:
Dishonest snip of the poster's claim that "And the reality is that
whether you count yourself a Christian or not, the Bible is a
foundation text of America.".
It is only "a foundational text of America" in the deluded
imagination of theists who try to rewrite history to fit their
fantasies.
Please be less dishonest next time.
>> No, it isn't. Many religious would like it to have been though.
>>
>> Not a good start.
>>
>> [no need to continue]
>>
>> The founders knew their recent history, and some of them had seen
>> first hand in Europe the strife that religious imposition causes.
>>
>> The country was founded on the freedom of the individual.
>
>
>And I affirm that freedom. But are you really denying the Christian DNA in
>the national character? Look, I stand with you in opposing the idea of an
>American theocracy. What I'm talking about here is power and language, as
>well as religion. Beside and beyond my own Catholic ideas, I don't think we
>can win back the Congress, the Senate and the White House by pretending that
>Christian language doesn't matter in American political culture.
The foundational texts of America have nothing to say about religion.
Correspondent:: "William L. Houts" Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:10:44 -0800
--------
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
news:21jto0l6pnps2b1nb0a04b1l1bpjdrlih8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:02:07 -0800, "William L. Houts"
> wrote:
>
> Dishonest snip of the poster's claim that "And the reality is that
> whether you count yourself a Christian or not, the Bible is a
> foundation text of America.".
>
> It is only "a foundational text of America" in the deluded
> imagination of theists who try to rewrite history to fit their
> fantasies.
>
> Please be less dishonest next time.
You want me to dredge up references, I suppose. Well, I can do it. In the
meantime, you're being more than dishonest about the issues I raise. You're
being wilful and arrogant. We're not getting anywhere politically by
denying religious values. I am sorry, atheists, but American politics is not
and never will be a God-Free Zone. And we can do better than denial,
anyway. We can turn those values to our advantage.
Once again, I am not advocating the gunpoint baptism of atheists. But where
you do not accept the divinity of Christ, you might with profit discover his
importance to the majority of American voters.
Sneering at the Christian values of much of the electorate is not getting
us anywhere; it's holding us back. If we want Democrat asses in presently
Republican seats, we have to get crafty about that fact.
Are you really such a fanatical secularist that these obvious realities
elude you?
William L. Houts
abraxas@drizzle.com
Correspondent:: Christopher A. Lee Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:17:57 GMT
--------
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:10:44 -0800, "William L. Houts"
wrote:
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
>news:21jto0l6pnps2b1nb0a04b1l1bpjdrlih8@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:02:07 -0800, "William L. Houts"
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dishonest snip of the poster's claim that "And the reality is that
>> whether you count yourself a Christian or not, the Bible is a
>> foundation text of America.".
>>
>> It is only "a foundational text of America" in the deluded
>> imagination of theists who try to rewrite history to fit their
>> fantasies.
>>
>> Please be less dishonest next time.
>
>
>
>You want me to dredge up references, I suppose. Well, I can do it. In the
>meantime, you're being more than dishonest about the issues I raise.
Why do you lie?
The Bible was never a foundational document for the country. The
religious extremists like to imagine it was.
> You're
>being wilful and arrogant. We're not getting anywhere politically by
>denying religious values. I am sorry, atheists, but American politics is not
>and never will be a God-Free Zone. And we can do better than denial,
>anyway. We can turn those values to our advantage.
Another dishonest strawman.
>Once again, I am not advocating the gunpoint baptism of atheists. But where
>you do not accept the divinity of Christ, you might with profit discover his
>importance to the majority of American voters.
I never said you were, moron.
I took you to task for lying about the Bible being a foundational
document for the country.
>Sneering at the Christian values of much of the electorate is not getting
>us anywhere; it's holding us back. If we want Democrat asses in presently
>Republican seats, we have to get crafty about that fact.
One particuar set of Christan values. By one particular set of
Christians.
>Are you really such a fanatical secularist that these obvious realities
>elude you?
Are you really such a stupid liar?
>William L. Houts
>abraxas@drizzle.com
>
>
>
>
Correspondent:: "JPMorg" Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:11:24 GMT
--------
"William L. Houts" wrote in message
news:1099804224.724321@yasure...
>
>
>
>
> There's been a lot of talk in liberal circles about what we do now. Here
> are some ideas for combatting the Christo-Fascists.
>
> I'm an ultraliberal queer Catholic. So while I'm a progressive, I am very
> comfortable with religious language. I think that many liberals, however,
> are not. And the reality is that whether you count yourself a Christian
> or
> not, the Bible is a foundation text of America. Even if the Founders were
> Deists rather than Christians, they were eminently familiar with the Bible
> and could quote it with ease. Christianity informed their consciousness,
> even where it did not determine their behavior. Liberals MUST make a
> friend
> of Christian teaching, even if they're not inclined to accept it
> literally.
> We can't be thorough-going religious bigots. As Jesus said, we must be
> cunning as serpents and harmless as doves. Progressives should take that
> instruction up as their battle cry. They should study the Bible and get
> wiley with its interpretation. This is not work for dull Democratic
> ideologues, it is the province of poets and theological swashbucklers.
>
> Remember that Jesus was the OPPOSITE of a religious fundamentalist. He
> was a progressive at war with the Fundies of his time: the Pharisees and
> Sadducees. In arguing with them, he once said this: the spirit of the Law
> gives life, the letter kills. Remember that, people. We're fighting for
> the
> spirit of American law. It is not to be construed narrowly, as if it
> excluded what it did not expressly permit.The Christo-Fascists are NOT
> working within the truest Christian tradition, nor do they represent the
> principles of American law. Christ is on OUR side, not theirs. They
> betray
> the Savior with their every shrill Pharisaic pronouncement.
>
> There were rich folks among the many who folowed Jesus. Remember,
> though, that his chief ministry was not to the ruling class, but to the
> forgotten and betrayed: the protectorate of the Democratic Party. It is
> an
> easily defensible claim to make, for instance, that Jesus would have
> supported Social Security. This can be extended to all other government
> programs to assist the weakest among us. The Republicans who would gut
> them
> are literally anti-Christian. Start to use that language, to be
> comfortable
> with it, because strict secular humanism is not cutting the mustard.
> Progressives, it's time to fight fire with fire.
>
> Just a few more thoughts on Christian language. For the
> most part, Christ didn't preach the wrath of God, but his justice, love
> and
> mercy. It is time we made the neo-fascists ASHAMED for abandoning the
> truest principles of Christ. The message should go out to Middle America
> that we progresssive Democrats are the true inheritors of Christian
> philosophy. It is time we wrenched that bat from Republican hands and
> beat
> them over the head with it.
>
> Finally, remember that the great Dr. King was a Christian minister.
> His
> politics were informed by lively and enlivening spiritual values, not dry
> position papers.
> He was a paladin, a warrior monk, and if we really want change, we must
> follow his example. To paraphrase Quentin Tarantino, we have to get
> theological on their asses.
>
> If we're serpent-cunning in these ways, I submit that We can win
> support
> presently undreamed of by Democratic strategists. We can steal the Deep
> South. We can have all of Florida, and the heartland is ours. Even if
> that
> support doesn't come immediately, we will begin to cause confusion and
> dissonance for the traditional conservative voter. It will no longer be a
> slam dunk to choose between the Christian Republicans and the irreligious
> Democrats.
>
> I realize that not everyone is a Christian, and what I have to say may
> cause
> discomfort to some. But what I'm saying really shouldn't be that scary.
> If
> you're a liberal Christian, then I'm simply talking about passion and
> commitment to our ideals. If you're not Christian, then what I'm saying
> is
> something sneaky and useful about cooptation and subversion. There's no
> need
> for division between the religious, the non-religious and the
> non-Christian
> among us. Witches, Jews, Christians, liberal Subgenii and atheists can
> easily and fruitfully work together. . But there is a need to get real
> about language and power in American culture.
>
> Does this make sense to anyone else?
>
>
> William L. Houts
> abraxas@drizzle.com
>
Although I'd argue with some points you make (I wonder about the possiblity
of overreliance on theology, for instance), I loved reading this
post--especially "This is not work for dull Democratic ideologues, it is the
province of poets and theological swashbucklers."
We have gone far in alienating Christians--not just in minimizing or even
denying that the Founding Fathers were religious men, but in negating the
role of Christians in our country--kind of "Don't ask. Don't tell" really).
We live in a place where people are encouraged to learn about / sympathize
with non-Christian religions, but Christians / Christianity are disparaged.
Of course they'll find us "intolerant."
Cheers,
Morgs
http://home.earthlink.net/~nomo1521/
Correspondent:: "William L. Houts" Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:21:15 -0800
--------
> >
>
> Although I'd argue with some points you make (I wonder about the
possiblity
> of overreliance on theology, for instance), I loved reading this
> post--especially "This is not work for dull Democratic ideologues, it is
the
> province of poets and theological swashbucklers."
>
> We have gone far in alienating Christians--not just in minimizing or even
> denying that the Founding Fathers were religious men, but in negating the
> role of Christians in our country--kind of "Don't ask. Don't tell"
really).
> We live in a place where people are encouraged to learn about / sympathize
> with non-Christian religions, but Christians / Christianity are
disparaged.
> Of course they'll find us "intolerant."
YES, that is exactly where my point lies. And I'm happy to hammer out the
things that make folks uncomfortable, or which are simply mistaken. Is that
rare for a Usenet post or what?
I've been thinking about these things for a while, but I wrote the original
post in about fifteen minutes. So I don't expect it to be watertight, just
sufficiently meaty to start conversation.
William L. Houts
abraxas@drizzle.com
Correspondent:: nenslo Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:15:01 -0800
--------
"William L. Houts" wrote:
>
>
> Does this make sense to anyone else?
NO.
Correspondent:: elvis_bond@hotmail.com (Howard Hughes)
Date: 8 Nov 2004 08:59:06 -0800
--------
nenslo wrote in message news:<418F00D4.F0AD9C7@yahoox.com>...
> "William L. Houts" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Does this make sense to anyone else?
>
> NO.
Yes, it's good to be educated.
BUT....the basic flaw in your plan of taking the rhetorical high
ground
is that Republicans don't give a flying fuck. Whatever you throw at
them in the way of words is countered with the smugness of knowing
that
nuclear weapons are no longer forbidden. They are the ones determined
to
bring us the battle of Armageddon. Those most in favor of nuclear
exchanges
are old and have nifty fallout shelters. They are looking for the day
when
the USA rules the rubble and there are many, many LESS humans to
compete with.
They ARE fucking biblical! Go ahead and tell them that you have a
different view of the scriptures. They are WAY AHEAD OF YOU.
I'm pretty sure that lots of heroin and cocaine are affecting
Republican leadership thinking. It's way beyond fundie crap. These
people are serious as cancer.
They are complete fucking insane. You can't reason with them. They
aren't going to be straight with anyone...not even themselves.
Correspondent:: "Fester" Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:34:16 GMT
--------
"William L. Houts" wrote in message
news:1099804224.724321@yasure...
>
>
>
>
> There's been a lot of talk in liberal circles about what we do now. Here
> are some ideas for combatting the Christo-Fascists.
>
> I'm an ultraliberal queer Catholic.