I've worked in a couple primarily conservative offices since coming to Austin. It was very strange how adamant people could get over the Monica Lewinski issue. "HE LIED UNDER OATH. That's it. He should be in jail!"
Even among conservatives, I can find very few people who think that Clinton's being fellated was genuinely a national issue. It was just the lie.
And these same people, not wanting to sound like hypocrites, generally said that, yes, everyone who lied under oath during Iran Contra should be in jail, too.
Okay, let's haul out John Poindexter, currently overseeing the office of homeland security. Let's get James Baker, key player in the Florida debacle and advisor to the president. Shoot, let's drag Reagan out of the nursing home and Daddy Bush out of his advisory position.
There's this mixture of self-righteousness and insincerity that drives me crazy.
And fundamentalists never speak Hebrew or Greek! If I truly believed that there was only one book that contained any information of real importance, I would not spend my entire life content to read a translation written a millinium and a half after the principal text.
1) So why aren't they demanding Poindexter et al's incarceration just as loudly as they *still* apparently are for Clinton lying about something that was none of our damned business? And man, why won't they let that go? Do they have to keep flogging a dead horse (pun unintended) to make themselves feel like they're *doing* something about making our gov't accountable? Why the obsessive focus with Clinton? He's been out of office for years now! I had no idea until my conservative Limbaugh-listening brother mentioned him. I was like, who?
2) I myself am fine with professed Christians not really knowing the Bible, providing that their faith is based on *faith*. You could argue about this point and that point, but if that their Path, it's their Path. However, saying *we're* all going to hell and using the Bible to back that up...those people deserve it in spades.
My Clinton theory is that the Reagan-Bush years were an awfully long time, long enough to feel that their regime was the US government. When Clinton got elected, some people felt an uneasiness that urged them that something must be basically wrong, and it was basically Kenneth Starr's job to find out what that something could be.
Ironically, Clinton did some things I thought were much worse than marital infidelity, but they were mostly continuations of Reagan policy.
Christians don't have to know the Bible. For Catholics, the party line is that the Bible is secondary to church doctrine. It becomes a problem if people claim the Bible eliminates the need for other study, say of evolutionary theory. For me to believe that is a question of faith and not willful ignorance, I'd have to see the same people applying the energy secular pursuits don't deserve to finding out how much of the one true text is God and how much of it is Jacobean translation.
Hmm. What's it say on the back of this can of soda?
Warning: Caffiene produces bouts of liberal indignation. Do not consume if you wear your hair in a braid.
Clinton: Yeah, it seems to be a thing amongst conservatives that all us liberal types were fanatically pro-Clinton. I wasn't. I thought he did well enough in the position, but I don't think much of the position, either. I sure as hell would never want it. He was likeable, pretty good, but no angel by any means.
Speaking of fanatics: I do have a few Xtian friends who are Xtian because they both believe that Jesus was at least *a* son of God, and that they like what he had to say enough to emulate his ways. These same people have good pagan friends, and don't think any less of any other positive path. They also don't believe the Bible to be the end-all, final-curtain-call word of God, either.
And it might be the braid, you know. :) Let it *all* hang down.
I don't mean to say that I'm opposed to Christianity. I was considering joining the church (probably Catholic) at one point. It was a cynical decision, I'll admit. I thought of it like this:
I don't mind going to mass. Sometimes, it's pretty interesting.
Much of my family is Christian. It'd make my life easier.
I don't believe in the party line of the Catholic church, but the majority of Catholics don't.
If you accept that you don't have to believe every piece of what the Church hands you, why can't I accept the core and what I like?
Then I looked at the core of the Church, and what I came to was the bit about only begotten son. God is not just the steward of 20th century Earth but the creator of the universe. I know the universe is it makes fewer distinctions than we do, and the universe doesn't give special attention to homo sapiens sapiens. Basically, I have a problem with the humanicentrism that's pretty essential to the Christian faith.
My father, who has been a Christian all his life and was expected to be a priest when he was young, is far more cynical than I. He said that believing that Jesus is the literal son of God is patently absurd. He thinks the idea of heaven is ridiculous, too. He had a near death experience (triple bypass surgery), and, against stereotype, felt with sudden certainty that this life is all we've got. I don't understand what Christianity is in that context.
I go through phases of resenting the braid. It makes people think that I'm some vegetarian, biking, leftist zealot. People see the braid and they make all these assumptions that are unfounded, frustrating, and -- worst of all -- entirely accurate.
Maybe I should loosen my hair. I worry, though, that long, free hair will make people place me in the same cultural context as the braid, and, worse, I'll have to carry a hairbrush with me.
Stacy, if you want us to get off your comments, just say so. :)
Why I left Xtianity: I grew up Episcopalian (Catholic Lite: all of the ritual and none of the guilt), then went CoC for a while, where I got a good close look at the Bible. And found things I just could not swallow. Good people of other religions going to hell while others skated into heaven due to good timing was number one. The place of women was the other. Once I got the idea of The Answer being something only I could find for myself, that was it.
Braid: Long hair and leftists go together like PB and J here in Austin. Thank the gods for PB&J. We hair whores are the happier for it.
Naw. I'm not feeling particularly chatty today, I'm just enjoying the conversation. And visualizing the long, free hair. Free hair now! Viva la something or other!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Double Standard
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 09:31 am (UTC)From:Even among conservatives, I can find very few people who think that Clinton's being fellated was genuinely a national issue. It was just the lie.
And these same people, not wanting to sound like hypocrites, generally said that, yes, everyone who lied under oath during Iran Contra should be in jail, too.
Okay, let's haul out John Poindexter, currently overseeing the office of homeland security. Let's get James Baker, key player in the Florida debacle and advisor to the president. Shoot, let's drag Reagan out of the nursing home and Daddy Bush out of his advisory position.
There's this mixture of self-righteousness and insincerity that drives me crazy.
And fundamentalists never speak Hebrew or Greek! If I truly believed that there was only one book that contained any information of real importance, I would not spend my entire life content to read a translation written a millinium and a half after the principal text.
Okay, step away from the keyboard.
Re: Double Standard
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 10:01 am (UTC)From:1) So why aren't they demanding Poindexter et al's incarceration just as loudly as they *still* apparently are for Clinton lying about something that was none of our damned business? And man, why won't they let that go? Do they have to keep flogging a dead horse (pun unintended) to make themselves feel like they're *doing* something about making our gov't accountable? Why the obsessive focus with Clinton? He's been out of office for years now! I had no idea until my conservative Limbaugh-listening brother mentioned him. I was like, who?
2) I myself am fine with professed Christians not really knowing the Bible, providing that their faith is based on *faith*. You could argue about this point and that point, but if that their Path, it's their Path.
However, saying *we're* all going to hell and using the Bible to back that up...those people deserve it in spades.
Truth's a bitch, ain't it?
Re: Double Standard
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 12:41 pm (UTC)From:Ironically, Clinton did some things I thought were much worse than marital infidelity, but they were mostly continuations of Reagan policy.
Christians don't have to know the Bible. For Catholics, the party line is that the Bible is secondary to church doctrine. It becomes a problem if people claim the Bible eliminates the need for other study, say of evolutionary theory. For me to believe that is a question of faith and not willful ignorance, I'd have to see the same people applying the energy secular pursuits don't deserve to finding out how much of the one true text is God and how much of it is Jacobean translation.
Hmm. What's it say on the back of this can of soda?
Damn.
lol
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 12:59 pm (UTC)From:Speaking of fanatics: I do have a few Xtian friends who are Xtian because they both believe that Jesus was at least *a* son of God, and that they like what he had to say enough to emulate his ways. These same people have good pagan friends, and don't think any less of any other positive path. They also don't believe the Bible to be the end-all, final-curtain-call word of God, either.
And it might be the braid, you know. :) Let it *all* hang down.
Re: lol
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 01:35 pm (UTC)From:Then I looked at the core of the Church, and what I came to was the bit about only begotten son. God is not just the steward of 20th century Earth but the creator of the universe. I know the universe is it makes fewer distinctions than we do, and the universe doesn't give special attention to homo sapiens sapiens. Basically, I have a problem with the humanicentrism that's pretty essential to the Christian faith.
My father, who has been a Christian all his life and was expected to be a priest when he was young, is far more cynical than I. He said that believing that Jesus is the literal son of God is patently absurd. He thinks the idea of heaven is ridiculous, too. He had a near death experience (triple bypass surgery), and, against stereotype, felt with sudden certainty that this life is all we've got. I don't understand what Christianity is in that context.
I go through phases of resenting the braid. It makes people think that I'm some vegetarian, biking, leftist zealot. People see the braid and they make all these assumptions that are unfounded, frustrating, and -- worst of all -- entirely accurate.
Maybe I should loosen my hair. I worry, though, that long, free hair will make people place me in the same cultural context as the braid, and, worse, I'll have to carry a hairbrush with me.
Long, free hair...mmm
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 01:44 pm (UTC)From:Why I left Xtianity: I grew up Episcopalian (Catholic Lite: all of the ritual and none of the guilt), then went CoC for a while, where I got a good close look at the Bible. And found things I just could not swallow. Good people of other religions going to hell while others skated into heaven due to good timing was number one. The place of women was the other.
Once I got the idea of The Answer being something only I could find for myself, that was it.
Braid: Long hair and leftists go together like PB and J here in Austin.
Thank the gods for PB&J. We hair whores are the happier for it.
Re: Long, free hair...mmm
Date: Jul. 15th, 2003 02:03 pm (UTC)From: