Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Is "Religious Retardation" An Accurate Term? Or just Evangelical Loondom?

"If facts matter, then some certainty has been established about the case of Terri Schiavo: She was in a persistent vegetative state, she could neither see nor swallow, there was no reasonable hope for improvement, and her husband, Michael, had not abused her." (From an editorial in National Catholic Reporter)

Once, a few months ago, I felt ambivalent about letting Terry Schiavo "die." I even wondered whether it was indicative of a "culture of death." Not anymore. A combination of getting the historical facts of the case, listening to the science, and watching the loony hypocrites set me straght. Even if the history and science had been less certain than they are, the loonies would have made sustained rational support for their cause next to impossible. In this way, and in so many other ways, the loonies are the ushers of the true culture of death in America.

It's time for Jeb Bush and his ilk to leave Michael Schiavo the hell alone. This is beyond absurd. Having lost the court battle, having lost the science and medical battle, Bush is now initiating an investigation of impossible-to-prove charges that Shiavo acted with indifference towards his wife Terry. Bush is doing this in order to placate his loony Christian base. It's disgusting and inexcusable. There's no other way to describe it.

The statute of limitations means Schiavo likely can't be charged for anything even if something is trumped up. But of course, that's not the point. Jeb Bush will be able to face his assembly of loonies and say "brothers and sisters, at least I tried!"

One Christian blogger asks whether Christians owe an apology to Schiavo. It seems reasonable that they do, although some of the comments posted in response display the same moral retardation as Hannity, Frist, Randall Terry, et al.

Oh, and Mark Fuhrman! Yeah, he's become an advocate for Terry Schiavo's empty shell as well. Don't you love this country? You can be a brutal, racist, lying nutcase washed-up failure of a cop and still be a hero to the loonies.

I just don't get it. Most illicit drugs don't make you nearly as stupid, irresponsible, violent or destructive as Evangelical Loondom. Why regulate one and not the other?
Posted by at

4 comments:

Scott--DFW said...

Were *all* evangelical Christians in favor of keeping Terri alive? Were evangelical Christians the *only* Americans in favor of keeping Terri alive?

From a quick glance online, it seems like only about 7-8% of Americans identify themselves as evangelical Christians. Even if we assumed (wrongly) that all evangelical Christians are white Republicans, how powerful can they be?

There's a looseness to your characterizations here, as though you feel (a) there's no meaningful distinction between Christians and (b) Christians are politically homogeneous. Yet the polling on the Schiavo case consistently showed more support for the husband's position than the parents', with percentages usually in the high 50s to low 60s. Since the US is over 86% Christian, obviously not all Christians agree on this issue. Since the US is over 55% Protestant, not all Protestants agree on it.

So how can religion (or Christianity in particular, or evangelical Christianity in greater particularity) be such a problem when (a) the majority of Americans supported withdrawing support, (b) the majority of that majority was, as a matter of simple mathematics, Christian, and (c) support was (eventually, at least) withdrawn?

I think you're painting with way too broad a brush here.

Scott

3:28 PM
Matt J Stannard said...

Scott, I think you have mischaracterized my position here. I am not talking about all christians. I am talking about the loonies. The ones Jeb Bush feels he has to appeal to in his ridiculous posturing against Michael Schiavo. Since the Bushes, and the Republicans, have gained their success by appealing to this very specific base, it would be absurd to deny that they have power. Appealing to a broad majority is not the M.O. of bourgeois politics today. Your very good point that the majority was against keeping Terry Schiavo "alive" is more consistent with my argument than against it.

Again, I will make myself clear: I am talking about a specific brand of evangelical christianity, typified by people like Randall Terry, the Family Research Council, and people like the Rev. Pat Mahoney, who gave out Michael Schiavo's home address publicly. It is that constituency, a constituency who may be small, but also who swings elections, that Bush is appealing to. And they are loony, loony, loony.

I would think after all the conversations we've had in at least two different forums that you would know by now that I am not attacking all religion, or even all christianity. Nothing in today's post even remotely suggests that I am.

I'll swing this question back to you: If the "save Terry" loonies make up such an insignificant constituency, then why did they carry so much political weight beyond their numbers? Why did they influence Frist, DeLay, and J. Bush to say and do such ridiculous things? The answer is obvious.

7:50 PM
Scott--DFW said...

Matt,

You write, "I am not talking about all christians. I am talking about the loonies."

That may have been your intent. But that distinction wasn't at all clear to me in your post. At one point you even said that "it seems reasonable" that "Christians owe an apology to [Michael] Schiavo," without recognizing that the majority of supporters of *his* position on the matter were Christians. You refer to Bush's "loony Christian base," which can reasonably (though not exclusively) be taken as a swipe at Christians generally (or at least any Christians who happened to take a principled stand against the starvation of Terri Schiavo). And your talk of "Evangelical Loondom" seems to suggest an inherent lunacy in that brand of Christianity.

That's why I felt your language was too broad and loose. But your post in clarification raises some additional questions.

You write, "I am talking about a specific brand of evangelical christianity, typified by people like Randall Terry, the Family Research Council, and people like the Rev. Pat Mahoney, who gave out Michael Schiavo's home address publicly. It is that constituency, a constituency who may be small, but also who swings elections, that Bush is appealing to. And they are loony, loony, loony."

I'm not sure what you mean, precisely, by the term "loony." Is that just a label for anyone whose opinions are considered so far from the norm that they cannot or should not be engaged in discussion? Or are you thinking of something more along the lines of mental illness (in a clinical sense)? In either event, do you think all evangelical Christians are loonies?

And, again, going back to the stats, there are very few evangelical Christians in the US. Yet the opposition to the killing of Schiavo was much, much wider than their numbers--to the tune of 5 or 6 times, actually. This suggests that, to the extent Jeb Bush was pandering (rather than acting on his personal beliefs informed by his Catholicism), it was to a far wider demographic than evangelical Christians (including some Democratic-voting Catholics). Same thing for the representatives in Congress. (Of the Democrats present, 47 voted for the bill and 53 against. 5 Republicans voted against it. 173 representatives bravely sat it out.)

So, were all opponents of Michael Schiavo's wishes loonies? If so, why? And, if not, what's so unique about the beliefs of evangelical Christians that make them loony, while other religionist opponents (whose positions were in most cases equally informed by their faith) are to be considered non-loony?

Yes, I do know that you're not opposed to all religion (or even all flavors of Christianity). Sorry if I misunderstood you.

You ask, "If the 'save Terry' loonies make up such an insignificant constituency, then why did they carry so much political weight beyond their numbers?"

As I said above, 40% or more of the country felt that Terri Schiavo should not be starved to death. 40% is not an insignificant consituency. (Whether all, some, or none of those 40% are loons seems irrelevant to the political calculus.) Why should we attribute Republican moves to keep Terri Schiavo alive to the influence of evangelical Christians (even if we assume they're all loons) instead of to the far more numerous (i.e., 5-6 times) constituency of non-evangelicals who opposed removing the feeding tube?

Scott

9:49 AM
Matt J Stannard said...

I apologize for sometimes conflating evangelical loonies with all christians. Anyone who has been reading my blog for a reasonable length of time (all five of you) knows that I consider myself a member of the religious left and that my writings have strong liberation theology overtones. I'd be happy to get an ecclesiastical endorsement from my minister when she gets back into town...

I do believe that the brand of christianity typified by the Family Research Council, Operation Rescue's Randall Terry, and those who advocate violence against abortion providers and Michael Schiavo is, in fact loony: unwilling to think critically or self-reflect, unable to grasp complexities, and suffering from a pathologically low tolerance for ambiguity.

Opposition to the "killing" of Terry Schiavo was more widespread than just the loonies, but this was, in large part, due to lies spread by the loonies, such as "Terry is responsive," "Terry talked to me last Tuesday," "Michael abused her," "Michael is an abusive philanderer," "Qualified doctors say she's not brain dead," etc. Once those contentions became exposed for what they really were, most everyone agreed, however hesitantly or sadly (this was a sad episode no matter how you look at it) that Michael was right and Jeb, Frist, DeLay, and the loonies were wrong.

But, hopefully to clarify this beyond further hair-splitting, I never said, nor meant to imply, that everyone who had qualms about ending Terry's life support was loony. Those who are egging Jeb on in his persecution of Michael Schiavo are, in fact, loony.

12:50 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)