No Comments

Extremist Conservatives Use Bible to Threaten President

Printer-friendly
Email article

Related subjects: Ethics, In the Loop, U.S. news, U.S. Politics Comments Off

20 November 2009 :: The Editors

The leadership of the Republican party is relentlessly championing a rhetoric of armed rebellion and hate-speech. Seasoned evangelical leader Frank Schaeffer says those who condone this extremist language are “trawling for assassins”. He called those engaged in such extremism “the American version of the Taliban”. He called on Republican leaders who have refused to denounce the rising extremism in their party and evangelical leaders who refuse to denounce the maniacal trend in their midst to stand up in moral “horror” and denounce it, saying they are culpable for whatever comes of it, if they do not.

The language of violence and hate has intensified dramatically over the last few months, with cries for rebellion, far-right protesters bringing loaded firearms to political town-hall meetings, and in some cases literal death threats. Now, t-shirts and other products are being marketed that cite a Bible quote calling for the assassination of a tyrant. The use of that quote is very unmistakeably a direct suggestion of assassination; it is also, however loosely or tightly construed one’s interpretation, a blasphemous use of God to justify murder.

When mentioned in direct connection with the president’s name, this is both criminal incitement and something very close to treason. The biggest untold story in American politics over the last few years has been the intensifying campaign for total “ideological purity” in the Republican party, a coordinated national effort that has directly resulted in the emergence of extreme ideology into mainstream political discourse. Extremist rhetoric is increasingly standing in for civic engagement or productive problem solving, on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and the conservative movement is fast losing relevance to the problems of the times and credibility both in terms of morality and public policy.

The Republican party itself has also seen its fortunes decline in recent years, leaving followers worried about a cultural sea change and leadership baffled about how to counter the steady decline in membership. The confused behavior and insufficient outreach that has accompanied moves by leadership to change the dynamic is in part attributable to desperation related to this apparent lack of insight into the trending public mindset.

While some top Republicans argue for a “big-tent” approach to climb out of the morass, hardliners have seized on the atmosphere of desperation and uncertainty to push for “purity”, which they seem to misread as a quest for strength through unity. Misread, because paring down membership until there is consensus does not equate to building unity. It is just more recklessness to follow the foregoing recklessness.

This use of the Bible as a basis if moral support is nothing new. The Ku Klux Klan has always claimed to be a protestant army doing God’s work. But the use if holy scripture to foster hate and violence is no less perverse in the context of the increasingly high-profile Republican fringe than in the past or within other faiths. Violent extremist fundamentalism is antithetical to American democracy and fits together with a profound hatred for the principles of republican government (small ‘r’) on which out nation is founded, no matter what religion the fanatics claim to represent.

It’s not just a matter of criticizing the Republican party by grouping everyone in with the worst among them: it’s that the safety and well-being of our democracy depends on every sane citizen standing up to oppose in no uncertain terms and without equivocation this kind of violent extremism. Any leader who refuses to speak against this dangerous hate-mongering and incitement to violence is actively condoning it; they have a moral and ethical choice to make, an nothing speaks more directly of their character than a willingness to countenance violent hate-speech and threats against the individuals elected by the people to serve and protect their democracy.

PDF Creator    Send article as PDF   
Printer-friendly Email article

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Against the Good Nukes / Bad Nukes Fallacy

Cynicism often lends itself to the construction of intellectually convenient, overly facile descriptions of future events, which —bolstered by the impassioned worries and self-promotion of the cynic, the anti-prophet— quickly assume an air of prophetic certainty. Buoyed by the psychological satisfaction of carrying prophetic certainty within, the cynic then commits more and more fully to the proclamation of unshakeable doctrines about the future, based on bad-faith arguments and a passion for the despairing global outlook.

Complete article...
CafeSentido Partner Sites: The Hot Spring Network :: Truth-First.com :: Words Against Chaos :: ThoughtPossible.com :: Elindulnék.com :: Naufragios :: Casavaria.com