  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Phony Piety on the Far RightPosted on Jul 13, 2007By Joe Conason Among the most durable myths of American public life is that conservatives are more authentic in their religious faith than liberals and progressives. Certainly this arrogant presumption prevails on the religious right, where commentators and politicians routinely denigrate the sincerity of Christians such as Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, whose irredeemable sin is that they also happen to be Democrats and candidates for president. With characteristic condescension, an editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard dismissed public expressions of faith from the left as both pointless and worthless. He declared that the Democrats can only attract Christians who are “religious in the way that Hillary Clinton is religious, which is to say a very liberal Protestant sort of view, in which they believe in everything but God.” That quip is quite mild compared with typical fiery denunciations from the religious right, branding the Clintons as instruments of Satan and Obama as an Islamist in disguise. Both senators are fully capable of expressing their personal beliefs and defending their theological views whenever that seems appropriate. Like other presidential candidates on both sides of the partisan aisle, they can offer substantial evidence of their religiosity to churchgoing voters. Of course, that won’t discourage conservative critics from noisily denigrating them (and all Democrats) as apostates and heretics. In these endless squabbles over the faith of politicians, however, it is striking how rarely right-wing officials and preachers find themselves on the defensive about their faith—no matter how hypocritical and even hateful their behavior may be. These supposed men of God may be adulterers; they may be crooks and liars; they may cultivate the wealthy and corrupt while despising the poor and lame; yet somehow, their adherence to Scripture isn’t subject to doubt. It is time to stop being so damned polite—and to start asking them a few hard questions. The lucrative business known as “Christian broadcasting,” for instance, is also the source of the most fervent, widely heard attacks on the sinfulness and apostasy of liberals, progressives and Democrats. Now may be the time to ask: What exactly is so “Christian” about these multimillionaire Republican televangelists, who plainly look upon their flocks as so many fat sheep to be fleeced? From the preeminent Pat Robertson of Christian Broadcasting Network to Paul Crouch of Trinity Broadcasting Network to lesser but rising figures such as Rod Parsley and John Hagee, these mountebanks persuade their hopeful viewers to send in checks, frequently promising that the Lord will bring prosperity to the poor and restore health to the ill if only those “tithes” are sufficiently generous. When the expected miracles fail to materialize, say the preachers, it is only because the faithful didn’t believe strongly enough—or didn’t donate enough money. Contributions are routinely misused to purchase luxury estates, private jets and lavish vacations in Vegas, rather than to propagate the Gospel in Asia or to relieve suffering in Africa, as advertised. Meanwhile, these fundamentalist shepherds promote hostility toward homosexuals, liberals, feminists and Muslims and toward Christians who don’t share their dogmas, all in the name of the Prince of Peace. They steer their followers toward right-wing ideology and Republican candidates, skirting or ignoring the laws that prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politics. They abhor Social Security, Medicare, national health insurance and every kind of government assistance to families, even while they eagerly cash in on “faith-based” federal handouts. Now presumably the faith healers and prosperity preachers can cite biblical verses to justify their dubious behavior, but it is hard to imagine that any of this is what Jesus would really do. Too many times in recent years the blustering enforcers of family values and public piety have turned out to be frauds. The unhappy examples range from Ralph Reed’s gambling connections and Newt Gingrich’s infidelities to Ted Haggard’s secret gay lifestyle. The latest episode involves Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), another conservative Christian moralist, whose name just turned up in the phone book of the “D.C. Madam.” (He once said that Bill Clinton deserved to be removed from office for his sexual infidelity, but now shows no sign of resigning his own seat.) When these Christian gentlemen are caught with their pants down or their hands in the cookie jar, they invariably claim that they have repented and prayed for forgiveness. In a spirit of generosity that they often lack, let us hope that they can cleanse themselves of wrongdoing. But let us remain skeptical whenever an ostentatiously pious conservative presumes to judge the faith of liberal Christians—including candidates for president. Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.
(c) 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Previous item: Bush's Baffling Optimism Defies Harsh Reality in Iraq Next item: Scooter's Deal Is the American Dream Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Skruff, July 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm # There’s a vast difference between posters on Truthdig and politicians and other public officials, won’t you agree? It is this latter group to whom I was referring in my exhortation to be more forceful. With a scant few exceptions (only Jim Webb of Virginia comes to mind), Democratic public figures still mainly wither when presented with expressions of liberal stereotypes. Long ago, the Clinton’s Gores, Robbs, and Bubba Nunn broke the mold of Democratic liberalism. Paul Welstone was a “liberal”, Jay Rockefeller, Charlie Rangel, and Dennis Kucinich come closest to liberalism the Democratic Party is so far from “liberal” they couldn’t fly there even with congressional bonus miles.
By zoya, July 19, 2007 at 2:35 pm # Well, it’s about bloody time—thanks, Joe! I never could understand why these charlatans get treated with all respect and seriousness by the mainstream media. They’re just more evidence of a decadent empire in decline.
By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth, July 19, 2007 at 3:13 am # While I appreciate Jim Wallis’s efforts to get evangelicals to vote Democratic, as a naturalist, I prefer Paul Kurtz and Arthur Caplan’s humanistic ethics to guide America .We naturalists or just plain non-theists,need to make ourselves heard in this cacaphony of faith-braying.
By carole, July 18, 2007 at 8:50 pm # It is a misnomer to call the so called “Christians” Christian. They are truly not Christian as evidenced by their behavior. Why do people not see through this White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Catholic hipocracy...As long as one can claim to be white, Protestant or Catholic; they feel they are superior to the rest of the folks in this USA (and world). Indeed, these people have shaken my faith as what a “Christian” should be. I am white and Protestant but do not consider what I believe and what these Christians believe in any way the same beliefs.
By Shag, July 18, 2007 at 5:34 pm # Bravo, Joe. This message needs to sung from the hightest mountain. The numbers of these reichwing hypochrites and their vices is endless. An AirAmerica host once read a list of names of those one the Right, who gotten into trouble with sex, theft, lying, and it was astounding.
By Lloyd L. Gordon, July 18, 2007 at 11:23 am # God doesn’t “belong” to any religion. He belongs to those who seek him out and have the conviction to overcome all odds to do so (e.g. cynics et. al.). There’s not much to be said for God speaks in a deeper language then our words born of intellect (and arrogance) and whose criterion for validity is verification by the senses. Our senses are too gross to ever perceive the subtlity that is God; and he is obvious and easy to attain by simple faith, humility and the will to succeed despite ANY Test. Those that claim they are “men of god” do so for their own self promotion; true “men of god” conceal this as one does with anything of great value.
By dp, July 18, 2007 at 9:17 am # Boy, this piece garnered a lot of postings! Yesterday, David Vitter apologized to his GOP collegues. So all is now well. What I can’t figure out is why this is being treated as just a terrible sin on Vitter’s part. Isn’t frequenting prostitutes a civil crime? Is he maybe using his religion to escape civil prosecution? Seems there’s a lot of that in the fundamentalist society. Boil it all down to “sins commited”, be absolved by a god of your choosing and then go about your perverse life as if nothing ever happened. That’s only if you have the unfortunate luck of getting caught “sinning”.
By Skruff, July 18, 2007 at 4:57 am # 87545 by scurvybro on 7/17 at 4:56 pm “...the answer lies in liberals ‘to stop being so damned polite.’” I don’t see it. Here on Truthdig it appears that SELF IDENTIFIED liberals & Conservatives are equally as rude and obnoxious. neither the left nor right has a lock on civility (my personal observation)
By Jkoch, July 17, 2007 at 6:24 am # Conservative churches have fewer divorces, alcoholism, or unwedded pregnancies. Better morality? No. The reason is that people with failed marriages, drinking problems, or unplanned pregnancies either leave such churches or conceal their past histories. Sometimes the clergy or elders get a “pass” for misconduct, provided they do not confuse Saturday with Sunday. A repentant sinner is one thing, but a sermon delivered under the influence of 100-proof spirits is something else.
By WykydRed, July 17, 2007 at 4:07 am # ITW, Cyrena has a point about “Western Religions”. However, those of us who are not “sticklers” for exacting points get your point. What you meant is simply “the three major world religions that infect Western civilization”. But if people come right out and say things like that, they’re called “prejudiced” or “a name caller”. And if you point out that the Middle East has produced the three most egregious horrors against humanity, society and human freedom, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, well, you’re asking for a shovel to the face by those who mouth platitudes of a “united world” and “tolerance”! So, it’s just a matter of personal decision of how many shovels to the face you’re willing to take from people preaching a future Utopic world where we all get along and hold hands and sing or having the courage to simply be a “name-calling illiterate moron” because really, the people that insist you sound intelligent whilst being accurate tend to start up their steam rollers and head straight for you. Personally, I kinda like putting my face right out there and saying, “You don’t scare me!” Because the harder they hit, the more they’re saying, “See?! It’s people like YOU that we have to get rid of before this world is perfect for the rest of us!” Because it is to laugh when tolerance is proven a tissue paper thin veneer for what truly lies beneath every human. Some humans can manage true lifestyles of tolerance. But if you want to see the worst of humanity, walk around with a lit cigarette sometime. You’ll see these same “saints” suddenly become the most hateful, discrimanatory animals on the planet. Because EVERYONE needs an enemy to feel superior to. They will make the virulently religious look like some of the most tolerant people around! So it’s not a bash on anyone! I’m just saying it’s a lose/lose situation anyway, so hey, spew forth as you like. The more accurate you are, the more they’ll hate you.
By Inherit The Wind, July 17, 2007 at 3:50 am # cyrena on 7/16 at 8:52 pm #87243 by Inherit The Wind on 7/16 at 9:43 am ITW…. Not for the first time, have I agreed with the general foundation of your posts, even though I do sometimes have to question your logic. Still, this was one of your better posts, EXCEPT that you toss in statements like this: • Start with the three Western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Now, just with that alone, you could discourage further reading, (at least by a purist), because Islam doesn’t come even close to being a “Western” religion, and I wouldn’t say that the roots of Judaism are “Western” either, though that might be argued by those who know Judaism far better than I. But to include Islam in what you are calling “Western religions” is like a major scholastic error, and is exactly the kind of thing that drives the animosity of the Islamic world. They are NOT a “Western” religion or other phenomena, and they have been adamantly rejecting what they see as the “encroachment” of the West upon their own cultures and traditions, and ways of life. So, while I agree that most of these “religious” identities are meaningless, you just can’t make statements like this, which are downright misleading and detract from the greater point that you are trying to make. **************** Your phony “intellectualism” is getting annoying. You nit-pick words and don’t even do it logically. Judaism, Christianity and Islam ARE Western religions. Judaism was widespread in Europe long before Christianity as Jews moved in with the Romans. Islam has been practiced in Central Europe for centuries--2 Persian friends were married in Virginia by a Hungarian mullah. In case you haven’t followed the news for the last 20 years, a LARGE faction in Yugoslavia was the Moslems. Turkey has been part of Europe for 2000 years--"Istanbul" is nothing more than a linguistic alteration of “Constantinople"--the heart of Orthodox Christianity. Furthermore you ignore the blatantly obvious that all 3 religions are really branches of the same religion, worshiping the same God, the same patriarchs, with many of the same stories. Islam worships Jesus as a prophet, second only to Mohammed, and there’s a book of Mary in the Qu’ran. And you miss the MOST obvious: Christianity is nothing more than a DIRECT offshoot of Judaism, beginning when a bunch of Jews decided that a particular rabbi, Yeshuah of Nazaret was the foreseen Moshiach--"The Anointed One” ("Christos" is Greek for “Anointed” as “Jesus” is Greek for Yeshuah). There are Christian sects that dispute mainstream Christian thought and believe that the ancient laws of Leviticus need to STILL be followed--that’s JEWISH Law! Next you ignore the fact that our Western culture DIRECTLY grew out of the Middle East and the Mediterranean. All the cultures around the Med and Mesopotamia mixed and mingled for thousands of years--for example, the Greek myth of Phaeton tells how when Phaeton drove the Sun God’s chariot wildly, “The Nile went and hid his head"--so the ancient Greeks knew the Nile, and knew its source was a mystery. They also populated Sicily before Rome arose and many tales include that triangular Island, including The Odyssey. So your supercillious and incorrect disputing my calling Judaism and Islam “Western” religions clearly shows your “scholarship” that you like to tout to be shoddy at best. To Eastern friends, the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam are so slight they are baffled by the conflicts between the 3. After all, Hinduism had a MAJOR offshoot when they had their equivalent of a “savior”, Sidhartha Guatama, who began a major spinnoff as well--Buddhism.
By Inherit The Wind, July 16, 2007 at 9:43 am # All religions are failures. Every one of them. They are all unable to successfully communicate what is and is not important in their “faith” and in life in general. Hypocracy is normal and typical, not rare and on the fringe. And, in all religions, the more religious people get, the more hypocritical they get. Start with the three Western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Devout believers can be people we admire: The Rebbe, Mother Theresa, Malcolm X. They can be just as devout and be despicable human beings: Baruch (the Tomb of the Patriarchs murderer), Torquemada, Osama Bin Laden. Or among ordinary people: I meet Orthodox Jews who would do ANYTHING for other people, Jew or Gentile. I meet Orthodox who would cheat you in a New York minute. I meet Christians who would fight and die to prevent injustice. And then there are the Robertson/Falwell fascist crooks. I have met many Moslems who are devout and follow the 5 principles, including charity religiously (pun intended)--and then there are suicde bombers. Hindus can produce a Gandhi--and the man who assassinated him. Clearly, for such devout people to be at TOTALLY opposite ends of the spectrum is workable evidence that their religion is a failure. How can both get the same message? If Jesus’ basic message is Love God, Love your fellows, how does that become Burn Heretics At The Stake and Get As Much Money As You Can? If Mohammed taught the 5 Pillars, and taught that Jews and Christians are “incomplete” Moslems and the “People of The Scripture” how can suicide bombing against them happen? If the 9th Commandment is “Do not covet your neighbor’s goods” how can Kyrias Joel justify setting up a system to rob the State of New York of tax dollars? In case after case people claiming to be followers of the same religion have such vastly and diametrically opposite interpretations that the only thing they have in common is a name: Judaism. Christ. Mohammed. They aren’t merely on parallel tracks in the same direction, they go in opposite directions. The emperor has no clothes. The fact that no religion can convince its followers to go EVEN ROUGHLY in the same direction (without force and threats of excommunication and execution) is prima facie evidence that they are all false.
By Skruff, July 16, 2007 at 5:30 am # 87176 by cyrena on 7/16 at 12:16 am: “...but Louisiana is one of those kinds of states where it’s quasi-legal, if only because it’s been part of the culture there, from much earlier times.” I have lived an a bunch of states, and stayed in several Canadian provences. I have yet to find a place where there is no prostitution, and where that activity is not “winked at” by local authorities. Most folks do not consider New Jersey a “backward” State (except those living across the river) but I’ll wager they rank right up near the top when resident prostitutes are counted.
By kevin99999, July 15, 2007 at 5:36 pm # sorry Joe! no one believes that conservatives are more genuine in their religious beliefs. Its is myth propagated by the right wing corporate media. The right wing leaders are hyporites and scam artists.
By John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 15, 2007 at 7:49 am # Religion is an allergic reaction to silence. Fundamentalists are idolators.
By The Conservative Deflator, July 15, 2007 at 6:42 am # Smokin’ Joe is right on - again. We should be taking the so-called Christian right to task every time a self-righteous asshole like Vitter goes down. Look, Bush has conveniently used his fake “born again” label to escape having to answer questions like, “How many times have you been arrested?” and “Were you addicted to cocaine in the early 1970s?” that any Democrat running for the highest office in the land, would be required to answer. How can a man be elected president twice and the American public not know how many times he has been arrested?? Sheesh!
By Skruff, July 15, 2007 at 5:42 am # Enemy of State on 7/14 at 8:41 pm “I’m assuming the libertarians have money, many are business people, and want little to no regulation, or taxes. Thats what the R’s cater to. If in fact a lot of libertarians don’t fit that bill, and they still vote R- they are simply being snookered.” I would suggest that this thesis may be overbroad. While I would agree that business people in the class of the Walton Family, the Basses, or the Gates might be in the class you describe, Main Street businesses suffer under Republicans and Democrats alike. While GBush TKennedy and JMcCain & HRied get together to supply Tyson, (Clinton’s favorite Chicken Company) Hormel, and Microsoft with cheap Mexinac and Indian labor, most independent business men (and women) don’t benefit. Unless you are a Raytheon, Halliburton, or McDonald-Douglas you suffer under the 2.6 TRILLION the R’s have added to our debt. The tax breaks going to the top 10% never make it back to Main Street because rich folks generally don’t spend “found money” they invest it, and right now off-shore investments (or investments made with Euro’s, Pounds, Pesos, or Canadian money, are a far better deal than betting on the plunging dollar. (when the dollar falls small and mid-size business lose value in warehoused goods) Prices increase, the cost of labor becomes theoretical, and realestate taxes and rents increase. If you are doing business abroad (and are not Walmarts) the cost of imported items increases. In my estimation, we are headed for a middle class melt-down, and the R’s (whom I used to support for “pocketbook issues") will not be getting my vote in ‘08
By John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 14, 2007 at 8:53 pm # Religion is an allergic reaction to silence. Fundamentalists are idolaters who worship their own mental images.
By John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 14, 2007 at 6:39 pm # Fundamentalism is an allergic reaction to silence. It is idolatry.
By Skruff, July 14, 2007 at 2:33 pm # 86877 by Enemy of State on 7/14 at 9:52 am “… about the Libertarians. If they vote their pocket-books they will vote R,...” What??? Why???
By wagonjak, July 14, 2007 at 1:02 pm # #86854 by Skruff… So you’re opposed to Government Social Programs...I guess you’ll refuse to cash your Social Security checks when you get to be my age and opt for begging on the streets.... Good luck, you hypocritcal ahole...the largest Govenment Social Programs in the US are for Big Business, Agribusiness and Hallilburton… Add Your Comment |
|
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article