NYT Op-Ed/Charles Blow: "Indoctrinating Religious Warriors" (and my published comment to it)

[markpkessinger]

(An excerpt from the editorial, followed by the text of my published comment to it.)

[font size=4]Indoctrinating Religious Warriors[/font]

[font size=1 color="gray"]By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: January 3, 2014[/font]

In 2009, the gap between the share of Republicans and Democrats who believed in evolution was just 10 percentage points, 54 percent and 64 percent, respectively. Last year, that gap widened to a whopping 24 points because as the percentage of Democrats who believed in evolution inched up to 67 percent, the percentage of Republicans believing so plummeted to 43 percent. Now, more Republicans believe that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” than believe in evolution.

< . . . . >

But I believe that something else is also at play here, something more cynical. I believe this is a natural result of a long-running ploy by Republican party leaders to play on the most base convictions of conservative voters in order to solidify their support. Convince people that they’re fighting a religious war for religious freedom, a war in which passion and devotion are one’s weapons against doubt and confusion, and you make loyal soldiers.

There has been anti-science propagandizing running unchecked on the right for years, from anti-gay-equality misinformation to climate change denials.

< . . . . >

And here is my published comment:

Mark Kessinger [font color="gray"]New York, NY[/font]

For many of those who newly espouse doubts about evolution, this isn't really about religious conviction at all. The fact is that disbelief in evolution, along with climate change denial and the recent, newly acquired opposition to birth control by evangelicals who heretofore had non particular objection to it, has become yet another conservative dog whistle. These various right-wing dog whistles are really about tribal identity as much as anything. Conservatism, it seems to me, has always required an enemy, but not just any enemy. No, to sustain itself, conservatism requires an enemy that cannot readily be pinned down, one that may be hiding under every rock, lurking around every corner and ready to rear its ugly head in the person of any fellow citizen, friend or even family member. And it must be an enemy conservatives can convince themselves is intent upon destroying the world as they know it. These various dog whistle then become a convenient means to identify these crafty, stealthy enemies, and also to make sure they themselves are not so identified. It's all pretty pathetic, really.

[font size=1 color="gray]Jan. 4, 2014 at 8:13 a.m. [/font]

[elehhhhna]

1. Their goal is to split us into hutu and tutsi

[markpkessinger]

2. An interesting response from another reader . . .

A response to my comment that I found particularly interesting:

Jimbo [font color="gray"]Atlanta, GA[/font]

These are concepts contained in the political philosophy of Leo Strauss. He maintained that in order for those who wish to gain or stay in power, there must be both an internal enemy and an external one. The scenario you describe fits with tactic of portraying liberals as the internal enemy (and as for the external enemy, that would be jihadists/terrorists). He also posited that for those seeking or holding power, it is more effective to have a tie between church and state, and that apparently is the approach being taken by the right. Straussians gained a foothold in the Reagan administration and held even more sway in George W. Bush's administration. It all seems to fit the pattern.

[font size=1 color="gray]Jan. 4, 2014 at 12:02 p.m.

[RainDog]

3. And "The Family" has taken Strauss further

As Jeff Sharlet noted, they talk about employing "Stalin-like" and "Hitler-like" tactics to achieve their vision of a theocratic America.

But the theocracy they mean is more like the Saudis, with the Wahabbists controlling the population through religious terror while the ruling class does whatever it likes.

...but everyone else must be subject to backward religious thinking "for their own good."

Strauss thought religion was very useful for control of populations.

The ruling class is terrified and contemptuous of "the masses." Religion provides a way to exert control.

[DonViejo]

4. Just learned some interesting info about Strauss...

Liberalism and nihilism[edit]

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism:[24]

The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[25] The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[26][27]

In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

He doesn't sound like he would be a friend of DU...

[RainDog]

5. you might enjoy this series

The Century of the Self, by Adam Curtis.

It's about controlling the masses under democracy.

http://vimeo.com/61857758