[FoRK] Republicanism as Religion

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Thu Sep 15 09:27:00 PDT 2011


On 9/15/11 6:57 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> Those are just the latest attempts to counter the popular bookmemes below.  I like the "Why can't republican's be more like 
> Eisenhower quote".  The characterization of republicanism as religious bigotry speaks more to the author's inability for 
> rational analysis than anything else.

I didn't take it as "religious bigotry", but more as "religious principles and operating methods" as a style of thinking and 
acting, and fundamentalist religious mental patterns in particular.  Perhaps it is best typically exemplified by religious 
bigotry of other religions, although in this case I don't think the dogma being protected in a religious bigotry sort of way is 
religion itself, but particular strains of Republican / Tea Party dogma.

You don't think that there is any ring of truth there?  Is the "right" side of Congress acting collegiate or with blind 
fundamentalist fervor?

All I know is that Bachman gives me the creeps.
A number of candidates seem reasonably likable, but others are pretty foreign.

>
> On 9/15/2011 2:18 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>> A concise followup to:
>> http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
>
> David Horowitz's A Point in Time, Radical Son, Left Illusions, Shadow Party.
>
>>
>> is Republicanism as Religion:
>> http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/goodbye-to-all-that-the-lofgren-thesis.html
>
> Coulter's Godless.
>
>>
>> And pointers to some other interesting posts:
>> http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/another-goodbye-to-all-that.html
>
> If the GOP can be accused of disrespect for the institution which is the senate, it's only because the institution which is 
> congress has demonstrated disrespect for the US taxpayer.
>
> Greg
>

Those books were overboard, didn't describe everyone, may have had some salient points (doubtful for Coulter at least), and 
sometimes tended toward dishonesty.  These could probably be described likewise.  But they are interesting to read and have the 
"that might be a useful explanation" ring to them.

These are all valuable in identifying possible explanations for things, and identifying some people and organizations that may 
be fully explained by them.  Of course they are not going to describe all of the "followers" of any group.  The question is are 
they describing some intrinsic core or control point or just some fringe idiots that will be ignored by the rest of the group.  
Hard to tell in a lot of cases.

Without reading everything and forming a well-supported opinion (probably not possible), it's hard not to just agree with what 
you get most of.  (Hi Dittohead friends.)

Hence, the value of FoRK wisdom in cogent review of some of this stuff.

sdw



More information about the FoRK mailing list