Tuesday, May 01, 2007

It occurs to me

It occurs to me after reading Glenn Greenwald's piece today that there's an element of evil genius to the far right lunatics running this country that I hadn't previously considered. Glenn writes:
The notion that citizens should refrain from questioning, criticizing or objecting to their country's war is -- aside from being patently undemocratic -- also incomparably destructive, as it eliminates (by design) a crucial mechanism for ending a misguided war: namely, the citizenry's demands that its government cease pursuing a failed or pointless war. Despite how destructive is the notion that war criticisms are illegitimate, that idea is widespread among American political leaders and our most "serious" and respected opinion-making elite.
By loudly shouting that anyone who questions the war is a traitorous terrorist-lover, war supporters have brilliantly (and disgustingly) added an extra layer of protection to their beloved war. Now war opponents have to spend extra time and effort and political capital fighting for the idea that war criticism is acceptable and valid and non-traitorous, instead of directing that energy against the war itself. It is chilling to the core that an idea so absurd could be such an effective lightning rod, but that's our America.

Now that I think of it, there are probably lots of other brilliant lightning rod strategies these creeps are using. I mean, Alberto Gonzales is a human lightning rod. And when it was a front page story that Bush had authorized widespread domestic surveillance in clear violation of federal law, he simply asserted that he has the right to break the law. Rather than discussing how he broke the law, we waste time debating if the President has the right to break the law. And Bush keeps saying that refusing to give him a blank check to fund the war is "not supporting the troops." And so everyone wastes time explaining that they support the troops that they could be using saying how Bush's war is a fucking disaster.

Absurd. Brilliant.

---

It occurs to me that it should be abundantly clear to everyone that Jesus didn't actually ever exist. The gospels are fiction, myths composed to fulfill prophesies of ancient texts. None of it makes sense as a real story.

It occurs to me that the tortured logic and absurdity used to defend Christian mythology is remarkably similar to the tortured logic and absurdity used to defend the far right lunatics running the country. C.S. Lewis wrote:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Which blowhard Christians have condensed into an in-your-face "LIAR, LUNATIC, OR LORD!? WHICH IS IT???!! HUH?? HUH???" There are so many flawed premises there that it stuns an unprepared rational thinker into temporary submission. Kinda like how wanting to bring soldiers home from war is failing to support the troops. Up is down. Black is white. Liar, lunatic, or Lord?

Absurd. Brilliant.

update: It occurs to me that this is the perfect intersection.

---
It occurs to me, after reading this outrageous article (courtesy of paulp) about a 66 year old psychologist who has been permanently banned from the US for writing about taking LSD 40 years ago, that it is entirely reasonable for me to be concerned about having publicly written some of the things I've written. Things like... how our far right overlords are insane... or how Jesus never existed.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

can you spell out why the jesus/liar/lunatic argument is absurd? is it because "jesus didn't actually ever exist" or for another reason? is it not possible for one to be christian while claiming that jesus' existence is irrelevant?

chuck zoi said...

To answer your first question, there are more than the 3 alternatives presented.

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher."

Who knows what Jesus, as a hypothetical historical figure, actually said. And who knows how he meant it. This is a guy who was known for speaking in parables and suddenly we're seizing any inconsistency in the most literal interprettation of his words to assume to most extreme conclusions (liar/lunatic)?

Jesus said "I am the lamb"

BUT WE KNOW HE WAS A MAN! LIAR!!!!!!! LUNATIC!!!!! SHEEPGOD!!!!

To respond to your second question, I can't say I care. I suppose anyone can consider themselves to be anything. I'm not sure what the point of calling yourself a member of a religion where you don't believe the central mythology on which it is based, but if that's your thing, what am I supposed to say? Certainly there are a few good ideas that are strong themes of Christianity, but my embracing those ideas on their own merits, and in the absence of a supernatural claim, certainly doesn't make me a Christian.