On the next-to-last night of Hanukkah I went to Alan and Will's house, and before the menorah lighting there was time to read a book with 4-year-old Sam. I had brought him Lemony Snicket's The Latke Who Couldn't Stop Screaming, with a cover blurb, "Latkes are potato pancakes served at Hanukkah. Lemony Snicket is an alleged children's book author. For the first time in literary history, these two elements are combined in one book." The latke was screaming first because it had been thrown into a pan of boiling oil, and then because everyone it ran into-a string of colored lights, a candy cane, and a pine tree-tried to make it a part of Christmas, when it had nothing to do with Christmas.
I know how the latke felt, because I keep coming across fundamentalists who insist that everyone else's religion match theirs. The latest source of annoyance is Republican presidential candidates, most of whom are not fundamentalists but pander to them for their support in upcoming state caucuses and primaries. One contender in this dismal competition is Mitt Romney, who said on Dec. 6, "Freedom requires religion."
With all due thanks, I feel free to say that the former governor's statement is absolute rubbish. Organized religion has a long, bloody history of being an enemy of freedom. Granted, it depends on what the meaning of "freedom" is. Romney's version of the First Amendment, like that of Democrat Joe Lieberman before him, says that we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote on Dec. 7, "In Romney's account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?"
Then there is Rudy Giuliani, who said on NBC's Meet the Press on Dec. 9, "My moral views on this come from ... the Catholic Church, and I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality, as a way that somebody leads their life ... isn't sinful. It's the acts-it's the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have. I've had my own sins that I've had to confess." This echoes the phony fundie distinction between sin and sinner, and shows how far Rudy has drifted since living with a gay couple for a time while mayor of New York. It was smart of him to mention his own sinfulness, since he did not obtain an annulment of his second marriage as he had for his first; but his church offers gay people no option but lifelong celibacy.
Finally there is Mike Huckabee, who wrote as a U.S. Senate candidate in 1992, "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." As a reader commented on Politico.com on Dec. 8, "I feel gluttony is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk. Good thing Huckabee went on a diet before his presidential run." Huckabee also called for the isolation of people with HIV in 1992, long after it was learned that HIV was not easily communicable like airborne diseases. But to be fair, in contrast to Romney and Giuliani, Huckabee's ignorance appears genuine.
The GOP candidate follies are the Bush-Rove strategy come home to roost. The desperation and disconnect of the religious right's war on popular culture is illustrated by recent attacks against The Golden Compass, a movie based on the first volume of Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy, His Dark Materials. Catholic League president Bill Donahue states, "This is pernicious. This is selling atheism to kids, and it's doing it in a backdoor fashion." Considering Donahue's assertions that the sexual abuse of children by priests was not done by pedophiles but by homosexuals, he knows all about backdoor attacks.
That fantasy literature can provoke such fury from the religious bullies shows their fear of the imagination-which is fear of freedom. Pullman responded on Nov. 2, "I prefer to trust the reader.... As for the atheism, it doesn't matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I'm not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they're kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression."
We should not let exasperation at right-wing excesses prompt us to throw out the religious baby with the fundamentalist bathwater. For one thing, champions of liberty ought to show more tolerance than the fundies. For another, many secularists are religious. I was reminded of this on Dec. 6 at the home of Pastor John Wimberly of DC's Western Presbyterian Church, who hosted an ACLU discussion of liberty and security. When we accept the theocrats' characterization of secularism as hatred of religion, we concede more than they deserve.
At Alan and Will's, after Sam finished his dinner, he went around the table for hugs. "Good night, Uncle Ricky," he said, kissing me on the cheek. Then Will took him upstairs and read him another story unapproved by the Catholic League. And Daddy's little miracle was just fine.
18 Comments for “Three Unwise Men”
posted by Jorge on
A little off topic since it’s mentioned: I can see where parents might have to de-brief kids who watch the Golden Compass. I’d say it’s message is anti-adult authority, and it copies a lot from what the Catholic Church used to do. Its themes are mostly against authority and injustice. Calling it athiest is ridiculous. It has a very clear reference to the creation story. I don’t know how anyone could miss it.
The real back-door sneak attack is Nicole Kidman’s portrayal of “Miss Coulter.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The character is Mrs. Coulter, and Pullman created her many years ago, before Ann Coulter had become notorious.
posted by Fitz on
Gosh…
There sure are alot of “fundementalists” to “pander” to on the issue of marriage.
Who knew?
posted by Jim Peck on
Richard, you’ve captured the essence of fundamentalism — everyone must agree with the fundamentalist. Any other religious opinion than theirs is by definition wrong. Fundamentalism is rooted in the fear that God will cease to exist if everyone doesn’t believe all the same way.
Every presidential election year, I remind my United Church of Christ congregation that we are electing a president, the head of the executive branch of our government, not a messiah or savior or even a theologian in chief and certainly not the head of our amazingly pluralistic religious life. As a minister and theologian, I wish the candidates would stop commenting about theology or trying to interpret scripture (any scripture) in the their campaigns. Huckabee is the only one among them with any education in this area. If he wants to interpret the Bible in public, he should leave politics and seek a call in a local Southern Baptist church and start preaching again.
Our religious liberty is based on the view that the government (Congress shall make no law . . .) cannot use its police power to force us or to prevent us from holding any particular religion. A President Romney cannot order all of us to become Latter Day Saints any more than a President Obama can order all of us to join the United Church of Christ (his particular brand of Christianity.)
posted by Jorge on
I stand corrected–but was the book character a bodacious blonde?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Not blonde. She appears at the end of chapter 3: “She was beautiful and young. Her sleek black hair framed her cheeks, and her daemon was a golden monkey.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Our religious liberty is based on the view that the government (Congress shall make no law . . .) cannot use its police power to force us or to prevent us from holding any particular religion.
And yet, when someone does publicly exercise or hold their religious beliefs….
If he wants to interpret the Bible in public, he should leave politics and seek a call in a local Southern Baptist church and start preaching again.
Um, no. The whole point is that he is perfectly free to do that in public as he sees fit, and it does not disqualify him in the least from being a politician, being involved in politics, being elected to office, or holding office.
With that in mind, it is always amusing to watch people like Mr. Peck quote the First Amendment, then argue that peoples’ religious beliefs and their willingness to publicly express them should be grounds for removing and barring them from politics.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, Jim Peck’s expression of his opinion as to what (say) Huckabee ought to do, does not constitute an attempt to bar him from politics or to use the government to infringe on his rights to preach in public. Somehow, the notion has gotten about that only right-wing religious fanatics have a right to express their religious views in public–so that when those who disagree with them express their own views, those views are treated as infringing on religious freedom. The result is preposterous positions like that of ND30, who acts as if it is the theocrats who are the victims of religious persecution, and the gays whose rights they seek to infringe who are discriminating. The facts show otherwise, notwithstanding ND30’s obfuscations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The result is preposterous positions like that of ND30, who acts as if it is the theocrats who are the victims of religious persecution, and the gays whose rights they seek to infringe who are discriminating.
Richard, what makes the antireligious bigotry of gays obvious is the fact that gays fully endorse and support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” politicians who advocate and support the very laws that you shriek are “infringing on gay rights” and drop the ones you deem “necessary”.
The problem here is that you insist on co-opting homosexuality to carry out your bizarre little vendettas against religion, and unfortunately, you’re surrounded by spineless individuals who don’t care if you deny the existence of God, claim Christians are nothing but a bunch of superstitious idiots, and claim the Bible requires all Christians to support slavery as long as it’s a gay person saying it.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, your generalizations about whom gays support are no more accurate than your characterizations of my views. In my column above, I explicitly caution against “throwing out the religious baby with the fundamentalist bathwater.” Assuming you bothered to read my article before responding, you know that your characterization of me as having “bizarre little vendettas against religion” is untrue. I am critical of fundamentalists and religious bullies, not religious people in general. You surely know this, yet you persist in your blatant mischaracterizations. You should get help.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, your generalizations about whom gays support are no more accurate than your characterizations of my views.
Richard, as my links point out, it is clear that gays and lesbians, their leaders, and their organizations fully supported and endorsed FMA supporters, repeatedly, state constitutional amendment supporters, and panderers to fundamentalists.
Your denial of it does not make it untrue.
Assuming you bothered to read my article before responding, you know that your characterization of me as having “bizarre little vendettas against religion” is untrue. I am critical of fundamentalists and religious bullies, not religious people in general. You surely know this, yet you persist in your blatant mischaracterizations.
What I know, Richard, is your joining hands with Paul Varnell’s views, including that the Bible is nothing but myths and legends, with Richard Dawkins, who believes that anyone with religious faith is mentally ill, and with numerous other antireligious individuals who claim that religious faith and belief means that one is intellectually and emotionally retarded, ignorant, and superstitious.
In both these situations, the same happens; you say one thing and you do another.
You should get help.
Ah yes, the old “call your opponent mentally ill when you’re losing” tactic of the gay left.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, show me where I have “joined hands” with Richard Dawkins. Why are you so determined to make this stuff up? As to Paul Varnell, pardon me, but I am responsible for my own byline, not his, and I have nowhere expressed wholesale agreement with him (though even in his case, you should stop your tendentious and hostile characterizing and start quoting).
Also, ND30, even stipulating that I am so objectionable I deserve to be drowned, that does not make me a leftist. I would not be published on IGF, and certainly would not have had half a dozen pieces published by David Horowitz on FrontPageMag, were I a leftist. This obsessive falsifying of my views suggests you are either deranged or utterly unscrupulous; take your pick, but neither suggestion speaks to my place on the political spectrum.
You also surely know what the phrase “false generalization” means. My charging you with that does NOT constitute a denial that any gay people are guilty of the sins you charge. But it is NOT true of all gays, and it is simply perverse for you to make such a generalization in a post to something on IGF, a website that has been countering the gay left for years.
And ND30, why don’t you read my article at the top of this thread, where I specifically caution against a generalized anti-religious approach. If you honestly are troubled by attacks against all people of faith, then you should be eager to give credit to writers like me who do not do so.
Personally, I think attributing your relentless viciousness and dishonesty on these comment boards to mental illness is more charitable than assuming conscious and willful mendacity. In any case, your pointless obnoxiousness is far worse than my responses to it. You won’t acknowledge and apologize for your malicious and silly lies, but it would do you a world of good if you did.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, anent your final comment about “losing”: I would love to know in what alternate universe the above exchange shows you to be winning. Some of us, as it happens, are trying to have an intelligent discussion, and are not obsessed about winning, as if this were a wrestling match.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And ND30, why don’t you read my article at the top of this thread, where I specifically caution against a generalized anti-religious approach.
Which you then flip-flop on in your comments on and support of Paul Varnell’s subsequent post, which SPECIFICALLY advocates an antireligious approach, including invoking antireligious individuals like Richard Dawkins.
What makes your accusation of “mendacity” all the more hilarious is that you dare to try to quote this story of an observant Jewish household while you yourself are supporting people like Varnell who call their sacred Scriptures “myths and legends”, and who support those like Dawkins who call them “mentally ill” for believing, and who claim they’re warping their child emotionally and intellectually by involving him in these rituals.
Again, what you say and what you do are two different things.
Of course, the problem here is better illustrated below:
You also surely know what the phrase “false generalization” means. My charging you with that does NOT constitute a denial that any gay people are guilty of the sins you charge. But it is NOT true of all gays, and it is simply perverse for you to make such a generalization in a post to something on IGF, a website that has been countering the gay left for years.
And I find it simply perverse that you are attempting to use the fact that there are gay Republicans, conservatives, and religious individuals to cover up the hypocrisy of leftist and Democrat gays — especially given the hate speech and actions that your Democrat Party and your fellow gay leftists have directed against them, calling them “self-loathing” and insisting that they aren’t really gay.
Your usual tactic when cornered on the hypocritical behavior of Democrat and leftist gays, Richard, is to scream “false generalization”, just as you did in the case of your fellow Democrat and leftist gays throwing a hatefest over Mary Cheney’s baby.
Problem is, again, a false generalization is only false when you don’t demonstrably follow it. When you start doing something other than spinning and making excuses for antireligious bigotry among gays and why Democrat and leftist gays like yourself endorse and support politicians who boast about their positions being the same as the Republicans you oppose, THEN the generalization will be false.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Some of us, as it happens, are trying to have an intelligent discussion
Where, exactly, is it considered “intelligent discussion” to accuse someone who holds different opinions than you do to be mentally ill?
And by the way, Richard, these vitriol exchanges are not exactly what I want to be doing either. How about you start reading some of my stuff, as you regularly ask me to do for yours, and we tone it back a bit?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, if giving in briefly to my exasperation at your relentless falsehoods and personal attacks causes all of my carefully written articles to vanish and renders your falsehoods true, then so be it. But it doesn’t.
You continue to mischaracterize my comments regarding Varnell. Kindly quote my offending statement, INCLUDING MY CAVEAT. Then you ought to apologize for your blatant mischaracterization. Instead, of course, you will continue lying.
ND30 writes, “these vitriol exchanges are not exactly what I want to be doing either.” So who is forcing you? Objecting to your relentless vitriol does not begin to make me your equal in that department. You spew it constantly, as if you are professionally angry (just like many leftists, BTW) and determined to misdirect that anger to people who do not at all resemble your stereotype. If rebuking a sociopath makes me a sociopath as well, that means that no one can ever call out anyone who destroys the ability to have a reasonable online discussion. We just have to endure it no matter what. I don’t think so. ND30, this isn’t just about who can come up with the cleverest riposte. There is ample evidence that what I say is true and that what you say is false. This is one of the basic truths that you are not getting, that you think you can change with a lot of big talk.
Your stuff? Do you publish under “North Dallas Thirty”? Or do I have to go back and do a search for the last time you admitted your real name? The only times I can recall asking you to read my stuff was in response to your blatant mischaracterizations of what I wrote. No doubt that sounds to you like a desperate plea for readers. I will be happy to read everything of yours that is published by IGF.
I suppose the reason I waste so much time responding to you is that I find it truly amazing that someone can so obsessively mischaracterize the views of others–especially when the record of what they wrote is right there for all to see. Who are we gonna believe, you or our lying eyes?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Kindly quote my offending statement, INCLUDING MY CAVEAT.
With pleasure (emphasis mine).
Paul, I concede, strikes a harsher tone than I, but that is neither unjustified (even if I think that my more moderate approach is more productive) nor is it remotely comparable to the religious right’s endless attempts to use the power of the state (not just their pulpits) to deny legal equality to gay people.
You see, Richard, you’re not disagreeing with Varnell in the least; indeed, you’re supporting and making rationalizations for his statements.
Furthermore, as I’ve already pointed out, they’re not even good rationalizations, since there is ample record that the overwhelming majority of gays and gay organizations fully endorsed and supported with tens of millions of dollars in contributions and activities as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” politicians and parties who openly stated that they have “an enormous amount in common” with the religious fundamentalists gays claim to hate, had the “same position” as the Republican politicians gays claim are homophobic and trying to impose their values on others, and supported the same FMA and state constitutional amendments as I cited above, including banning marriage in Massachusetts, that gays claim are against “legal equality”.
So it’s obvious to everyone that gays have no problem whatsoever with “using the power of the state to deny equality to gay people”; if they did, they would be directing against Democrats like Kerry who invoke their religion the same vitriol that they direct against the religious, and they would be calling gays like Steve Elmendorf, Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, and others who support and work for these Democrats “self-loathing Jewish Nazis” and wishing their babies would die of SIDS. The fact that they don’t — and that they annually pour tens of millions of dollars (despite claiming how poor and economically disadvantaged gays are and how none of them can hold jobs because they’re all discriminated against constantly) into funding these politicians — demonstrates that this has nothing to do with “legal equality”, and everything to do with enforcing gay conformity and ideology to a specific set of beliefs.
There is ample evidence that what I say is true and that what you say is false.
Which is why I have links and you don’t.
Your stuff? Do you publish under “North Dallas Thirty”? Or do I have to go back and do a search for the last time you admitted your real name? The only times I can recall asking you to read my stuff was in response to your blatant mischaracterizations of what I wrote. No doubt that sounds to you like a desperate plea for readers. I will be happy to read everything of yours that is published by IGF.
Richard, you are very well aware of the fact that I have a blog, inasmuch as you were one of the people involved in its removal from IGF’s blogroll. And if you Google search under “North Dallas Thirty”, you will find a rather large cache of material that I have written.
And no, it doesn’t sound like a desperate plea for readers. I reference my own blog and things I’ve previously written before rather than retyping things; it saves time and effort.
Finally, oh please. You know full well I’ve never had anything published by IGF. I’ve been cited a few times by Stephen Miller, but not published — mainly because I’ve never submitted anything for publication here. I’m not particularly sanguine about the odds of anything I submit being published, either. 🙂
posted by Brian Miller on
Sorry to interrupt the regular Democrat versus Republican screamfest, but I have a question — why were Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards excluded from your criticism of pandering to fundamentalists?
Obama greeted — and defended — a notorious ex-gay minister. That’s pandering to fundamentalist superstition at its worst. Yet, I see no criticism of Obama from partisan “independent” Democrat Mr. Rosendall.
Bill Richardson has wavered over whether homosexuality is a “choice” or not, and has said differing things to appeal to audiences that are Catholic versus non-Catholic in order to win social-conservative votes. Guilty as Giuliani is of “swinging both ways” (ahem), so is Richardson.
Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed she’s a “praying person,” and refused to criticize or disagree with a general’s pronouncement that homosexuality is “immoral” — preferring instead to say that “you’ll have to decide that for yourself.” Pandering? Absolutely. But she’s a Democrat — can’t be calling her out on the carpet after all.
John Edwards? He cannot decide where he stands. There’s been quite a bit of testimony stating that he’s vocal about being uncomfortable around gay people, and he’s certainly done a lot more “God talk” than “gay equality talk” during this campaign. But yet again, he’s untouchable, since he’s a Democrat.
This is one of the reasons why mainstream commentators outside of the gay community don’t pay serious notice to criticism from the gay commentariat. It’s so lopsided, partisan, and clumsily aimed at “enemies,” with a bevy of criticism that can easily be applied to so-called “friends” of the author as well.
Then, when those criticisms are leveled at the Democrats as well (usually by a gay person without a dog in the Demopublican or Republicratic dog-n-pony show), the original commentator like a good little ‘Crattie condemns the “lack of strategy” and “lousy political understanding” and “desperation” of the commentator.
So the ‘Cratties take gay millions and continue to pander to fundamentalists. The only real difference between them and the big bad Republicans is that at least the GOP doesn’t get millions of gay dollars every election cycle.