The Fine Art of Dishonesty

Published on July 20, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that the vast majority — rightly or wrongly — perceives the nation as Christian based. So it comes as no surprise that an atheist running for some office has a snowball’s chance in hell as it was fifty years ago for a black candidate, other than in districts predominantly black. The non sequitur for this is that non-believers are therefore discriminated against and a violation of their civil rights.

One could argue that white candidates in a black community are also discriminated against, and if there were such a thing as an atheistic community — though rightists would have you believe that this is true of lefty districts — a candidate who believes in God would have no chance. Quasi-discrimination would also rear its head and reject a “girlie-man” legislator — implying he was gay or ultra liberal — if he in advance wore the label on his sleeve. A “Massachusetts liberal carries the same connotation and why the media had such fun in covering recent video clips of Kerry and Edwards hugging each other, despite the “manly” voter’s acceptance of extensive hugging in sports.

These perceptions, however, are not unconstitutional — notwithstanding fodder for the Anti-Defamation League — inasmuch as the constitution has no jurisdiction over how one is supposed to think other than espousing a move to overthrow the government. The atheist, simply because he is one, has no cause since it is idiotic to equate a non-belief with that of a belief — it is safe to take God out of the constitution but not out of common perceptions. To be wary over the domination of the Christian Right is perfectly viable as long as you at least believe in a religion of moderation, but it is self-defeating to proclaim that the world should be cleansed of religious views, tantamount to Michael Jackson’s inflictive psyche ordering him to be white, or imposing a non-theocratic government on Iraqis who had enough of that under Saddam.

If this sounds like “when in Rome...” it probably is. A southern candidate who stumps for “choice” is dead in the water, even though “choice” also implies the right not to abort. The atheist, as well as the homosexual, should be mature enough to hold personal preferences close to the vest; for when a nation publicly announces democratic principles as God’s Law, democracy is on a fast track to authoritarianism, so one had better be dishonest.

Comments (Page 2)

Madine

on Jul 21, 2004

democracy is on a fast track to authoritarianism

For most of America's history, abortion and gay marriage were illegal nationwide. Would you consider America to be authoritarian during that time period?

If not, what exactly did you mean by that comment?

Sparowl

on Jul 21, 2004

As long as slavery and unequal rights for womwn existed, precluded democracy in pure terms; rather, it was a republic with growing pains.

Because of the electoral college, we don't have pure democrazy. Nor shall we, ever. In a country of this size, its impossible.

However, an....unpure democrazy has been around for quite sometime. Just because not everyone got a vote doesn't mean its not democrazy. Democrazy is a majority rule of the people. The Majority doesn't include everyone.

And please don't use the term republic. All "Republic" means is "a government without a monarch", and sometimes just "a nation that has a poltical order". Its so vague, its almost worthless. Most tribal systems were "republics".

(and yes, i spell democrazy wrong on purpose)

stevendedalus

on Jul 21, 2004

Sparrow, you missed "in pure terms"; Of course, democracy has been tossed around in history--ancient Greece for one. I'll grant you that some tribes might have been republics but they could also have been a very simple form of democracy as well. Notwithstanding, most were savagely authoritarian.

Democrazy is a majority rule of the people. The Majority doesn't include everyone.

You said yourself the electoral college rules out democrazy--as was dramatized by the Supreme Court.

stevendedalus

on Jul 21, 2004

Bakerstreet, I truly enjoyed this comment--you are a funny guy. The reference to Dennis Miller is classic; "brain hemorrhaging" is a gut buster especially when referenced to "if focused on too directly."

Yes, commas and the sinuous line have plagued me for years--thanks for the tip.

bakerstreet

on Jul 21, 2004

I disagree a lot with what you say, but I do enjoy following your blogs. I just noticed that I have been more apt to skim lately, and that is usually the parts you pack the most meaning into. Maybe a bit less compression?

No offense intended, hope I wasn't too harsh, lol...

CS Guy

on Jul 21, 2004

Here in the middle-South (as opposed to the "Deep South"; thank the gods I don't live in Alabama or Mississippi),

Hmm... let's see... I grew up in Memphis (which is where Bellevue is), lived 10 years in Mississippi, and 2 in Alabama, I think I know what I'm talking about, and I have to say that you do not. Mississippi and Alabama are very pleasant places with much to offer a resident.

Don't confuse "poor white trash" with "redneck". Poor white trash is as much a social condition as it is a lifestyle choice. Redneck is a state of mind (what little there is).

I am well aware of what a redneck is. The northern suburbs of Memphis (where you will find Bellevue) do not contain very many rednecks.

stevendedalus

on Jul 21, 2004

Madine: Give me a break. Yes, in practice democracy is not perfect but there's no better. Our democracy is still pre-puberty suffering from growing pains. In the past homosexuality was a silent taboo and not a political issue. Coming out of the closet disclosed a new citizenship requiring rights and it takes time for society to adjust, just as it was tortuous adjusting to extension of rights for liberated slaves.

My fear is that Christianity has come out of the closet of withheld passion and has increasingly attempted to superimpose its edicts on traditional democratic concepts--that's what I mean by a dangerous, encroaching authoritariism. I suggest you join in on the commentary of my blog "So You're Gay."

Sparowl

on Jul 21, 2004

In the past homosexuality was a silent taboo and not a political issue.

Holy mother of god where did that come from. Let's define past, shall we? in the 1900, homosexuality is taboo. in the 1800, Homosexuallity is taboo.
in the 1700s? homosexuality was not discussed, but it was known that some major figures, especially in the spanish conquestidor (sp) were homosexual, and were not discrimadated againest.

Let's jump back further.
Middle Ages. There were homosexual POPES towards the end. between 1100-1300 there were three Popes that were suggested to have had homosexual relationships.

Rome? Entirely accepted homosexuality. There is no social stigmata. None. Zero.

How far do you want to go back, Stevendedalus? Cause i can keep going.

Don't say "in the past" without defining "past". If you ever become even the slightest bit a historian, you'll learn that "past" is a much bigger term to throw around. You want to say "in American History, homosexuality was a silent taboo" go ahead.

In the "Past" homosexuality has received support, or at least no stigmata. Only now has society somehow decided to be strongly againest it. And by "now" i mean in the last 200 some odd years.

bakerstreet

on Jul 21, 2004

"Rome? Entirely accepted homosexuality. There is no social stigmata. None. Zero."

That's a lie, a complete falsehood. Homosexuality was a *wink wink* kind of thing in Rome, sure, but it was not in any way an out-in-the-open accepted thing. It was even openly condemned at times, such as when the Emperor Augustus attempted to promote family because of the declining birth rate.

You need to study a bit more. Even in societies that accepted homosexuality, there was a great deal more respect lent to the "Doer", than the "Done". most often someone who penetrated a man was tolerated, but someone who was penetrated was seen as having disgraced himself. Homosexuality was often classified in the same way as vicitimization and rape, and tolerated as those were in the various societies.

Perhaps you could point out a time when Homosexuals lived openly without fear?

" If you ever become even the slightest bit a historian"...you'd know these things yourself.

cactoblasta

on Jul 21, 2004

There's always Sparta as an example of a place of open homosexuality, but due to the heavily militaristic kind of life lived that's hardly surprising (in a "never ever associate with women" kind of way rather than a army=gay kind of way).

Christianity has come out of the closet of withheld passion and has increasingly attempted to superimpose its edicts on traditional democratic concepts

This isn't really a significant threat to democracy if you think about it. The whole point of a democratic state is that the people are responsible for their own governance. Therefore if there is adequate support for a shift in government to theocracy/tyranny/worship of cheese etc then the democratic thing to do would be to tolerate it. Such would be the will of the people, and therefore if done through democratic channels (eg referenda) then there could be no justifiable appeal to democracy that could argue against such a move.

bakerstreet

on Jul 21, 2004

I'd be interested if anyone could propose any single instance in human history where homosexuality was lent the respect and rights it shares now. Offhand I can't think of a single time that someone could have lived openly with a same-sex spouse, adopted children, and otherwise lived happily as anyone else.

I don't mean to sidetrack the post, but statements like the "Rome?" one above are misleading.

stevendedalus

on Jul 22, 2004

Wow! Bakerstreet has become an ally! Thanks. I'm glad you responded to Sparowl because I was "brain hemorrhaging"!

Cactoblasta, this is a nation predicated on trust in constitutional law and not to be frivolously shaped by volatile trends. I really believe the current Christian extremism will be but a page in the history books because it will regain its moderate senses. "Anything goes" is for Reality shows, not a viable option for a stable nation.

bakerstreet

on Jul 22, 2004

I'm always an ally, steven, even if it is sometimes of the Franco-US tenor

stevendedalus

on Jul 22, 2004

Aye, or a Dutch uncle--whatever, it's great to have you in my corner once in a while.

kingbee

on Jul 22, 2004

single instance in human history where homosexuality was lent the respect and rights it shares now

many of the nations of the americas considered people who embodied both male and female spirits to be especially gifted and potentially powerful shamans. after choosing their pariticular sexual identity, males who chose to be female and vice-versa were generally accepted on that basis (women could take wives, men could be taken as wives). run a search on the word berdache.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!