Here's a video that's pretty overdone (I could do without the patriotic music), but done fairly well. It's a nice touch to roll out JFK in an attempt to show balance.
I can't find anything in it I disagree with. I can only guess that this is done by a Tea Party enthusiast. I blogged about the Tea Party in May and have still struggled with my stance on them. After watching the video from my last blog entry where Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin talk about the U.S. being a Christian nation, it hit me what the thought process is and where my problem is:
This is their country. They created a great nation based on freedom and liberty. They have allowed others to partake in it and have done it with pride. They have been so proud of the success that they've attempted to export it as much as possible. In recent times, their position of power and way of doing things have come under question. "How dare they! This is our country. How can our way be disallowed by our own courts and government. This is a call to arms!"
This reminds me somewhat of the end of A Few Good Men.
"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a
life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under
the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I
provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way." - Col. Jessep
Many liberals cry racism and theocracy. I don't think that's what it is for most people. I think they are pissed off that their way of life has not only been questioned, but is systematically being disassembled. It's being done by the government institutions that they have held so dearly. The government is by, of, and for the people. They are the people. How did this happen?
So, in the last couple of decades, fundamentalists have taken this call to arms to the government. They are attempting to fight off the apparent attack on their way of life. Generally speaking, this is not intended as a way to force people like me to be a Christian. It's to allow them to be Christians like they've always been.
Praying at a city council meeting a generation or more ago was not a fundamentalist tactic of control. It's the way many people opened any kind of meeting. Prayer in school wasn't an indoctrination tactic. It's what you did.
The question is whether or not we can come to terms with each other. For example, why would someone like me think that it's so bad to pray at a city council meeting? It's not "bad" in the "I stole something" kind of bad. It's bad because it is the government infringing on the inalienable rights of citizens that are not of your religion. The majority can't decide who gets which rights. They are for everyone and must be protected, especially against the majority.
The message of "taking our country back" gets muddled as a result of all of this. Part of it is politics and part of it is culture. There is, no doubt, a major fiscal component to the Tea Party movement. I am with them on that. In the culture war side of things, I just can't support them. In fact, I'd rather religion just go away. However, I fully support a person's freedom of religion. As a result, you get to do your thing and I get to do mine.
3 comments:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote, "The government is by, of, and for the people. They are the people. How did this happen?" What the Tea Partiers have missed is, there are other people too!
A remember a while back, talking about that high school student in Mississippi (?) who wasn't allowed to bring her girlfriend with her to the prom, a friend of mine pointed out that a lot of this uproar is happening because of culture clash. The world is getting smaller, we have the internet, we have 24-hour news. Small rural towns have been effective theocracies for generations -- and that's what they mean when they say they want the freedom to "be Christians like they've always been" -- it's just that now, the rest of the country is actually aware of it and is voicing dissent. So it feels like an attack on their "team." It's understandably very polarizing.
You wrote, "Praying at a city council meeting a generation or more ago was not a fundamentalist tactic of control. It's the way many people opened any kind of meeting. Prayer in school wasn't an indoctrination tactic. It's what you did." But I guess I would dispute the idea that it isn't meant as a tactic of control or indoctrination. Sure, control and indoctrination are just how it's done, but I don't think ubiquitousness makes it any less indoctrination. I think that's what religion has ultimately been since perhaps its first invention.
"What the Tea Partiers have missed is, there are other people too!"
That's what Palin addressed to an O'Reilly question that really triggered this whole thought process for me.
O'REILLY: What do you say, though — what do you say to the people in Chinatown and San Francisco and here in New York and other big cities, the Asian-Americans who come from a different religious culture? Do they not participate in the Judeo-Christian tradition? I mean, they don't believe it. They believe in something else.
PALIN: We get to say to them, "Yay, welcome to America, where we are tolerant and you have a freedom to express whatever faith. You can participate peacefully in whatever religion that you choose. That's what America is all about."
She talks about mutual tolerance after that. What she's really saying is that we are allowing you in our country and you're allowed to believe what you want, but this country and its government is founded on Christianity and the Bible. You must respect that, much like learning to speak English, but we will not persecute you for being a non-Christian.
"I don't think ubiquitousness makes it any less indoctrination."
Yes, I agree. I would bet that most Christians would not see it as an attempt at indoctrination but simply the instructions of God. It's "the way it's always been" and most people don't even think twice about it.
Post a Comment