Andrew Sullivan & Neville Chamberlain
Appeasement.
Besides being British, that's what both men have in common.The other night on Real Time with Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan suggested—almost insisted!—that the "Hollywood left" are to blame for handing the election to the Right:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Well, Bill, Bill, congratulations to you because you did your bit to help George Bush win the election. And so did the entire Hollywood left, who galvanized people in the middle of the country who are tired of being patronized, condescended to and demeaned. I mean, if you want—
As Sterling said in Jeffrey, "Ooooh! Get her!"
Naturally, it's not the fault of the Bush-approved messages that rained on Ohio, Pennsylvania and all those Crazy Swingers about the gore of a partial-birth abortion and of gay people bringing the hell-rains down on hopeful and decent society.
Nor is it the fault of the Republican machine that starts with a message-of-the-day and ends with the myriad voices of the rageful right aping the message without thought, without consideration and certainly without regard for decency, veracity or even plausibility.
No, Andrew, it's none of that. It is we; we who demean the christians and their unnatural lifestyle unprovokedly? We must agree to respect those who take comfort in irrefutable delusion; who imagine an Absentee Father in Heaven who's waiting for them after they've spent a lifetime in a lifestyle dedicated to bringing pain and disadvantage to those who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour (that spelling was for you, Andrew)?
SULLIVAN: --as people in Hollywood who demean people of religious faith. We’re getting into this cycle in which one side is continually polarizing the other until we have no discourse left at all.
Being the Thatcher-lover and Reagan-buttboy that he is, Mr. Sullivan seems to forget that it was the Reagan Right in the late 1980s who latched onto the word 'liberal' and turned it into 'Liberal', who convinced followers that a media that was increasingly being governed by large-corporate interests was actually a bunch of hippies, who convinced everyone that unchecked corporate and government aggression was the key to clean air and clean water, a full belly and a full wallet.
And Mr. Sullivan wonders why we associate being dogmatically and rabidly christian with being learning-impaired.
No, Mr. Sullivan, our salvation doesn't come from making sure they don't think we're hate them. They've already convinced themselves of that. Our salvation comes from making them grow up. Our salvation comes from making them aware of how much they have benefited and will continue to benefit from our efforts. Oh, we already know the good works they've done for all of us; their christian humility insists they let us know at every turn how full of grace and full of decency they are.
And they'll tell us when we aren't paying enough attention. Whether we are or not.
Those who can fabricate a Hand of God can fabricate just about anything.
Comments
If you believe that everything after death is a guess, - or that we're all guessing what happens after death - how can you make a valid comment on someone else's guess? I mean since you don't know either... unless of course you do know. Do you know?
Posted by: Boileryard Clarke | November 17, 2004 07:27 AM
Wait...where did I say I was making any guess?
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 17, 2004 08:37 AM
Saying people "take comfort in irrefutable delusion" is not a nuetral position. It denotes a point of view without much need for further explanation. The idea of "delusion" indicates the opposite view would have to be not-delusion. Delusion based on, we can reasonably suppose, a guess about what that brick wall is that all life forms hit at some point down the line. Saying there is a God creates a need for proof. Rejecting the idea does not require one to prove a negative, but it is certainly a viewpoint on the matter. It is easy to see how - in reality - we are all truly guessing about the future, even those of us who are certain we know what happens after we die. So how can one guess actually carry primacy over any other guess? Thus it becomes disingenuous for any of us to call someone else's guess a "delusion" because it intimates we aren't guessing, but already know. We can't "call" anyone's guess a delusion. It is like asking if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding INTO? We can't ask that question. We can't make your assumption. I don't know, I got all that just fine from your article. Don't you know what you're writing about?
Posted by: Boileryard Clarke | November 18, 2004 03:45 AM
Sigh. The delusion comes when you make a decision--a firm, perhaps even immutable decision--that you can possibly know one way or the other about something, based on absolutely no evidence.
Have you studied Gödel?
By the way? I have never said I know for certain that there is no god. If I'd said, "There is NO god," then I'd be just as delusional.
Interestingly, however, you don't see many Atheists fighting Crusades and stagin Inquisitions and judging gay people.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 18, 2004 03:58 AM
You're basing your arguments on the assumption that these people are adherents of the Christian religion, when what they really are is a cult - a death cult. Thus, any attempts to refute the Christian faith will only reinforce their delusions.
Nothing short of deprogramming, or a mass excorcism, is going to turn these people around.
Posted by: diana | November 21, 2004 02:51 AM