I don't think it is mainstream to picket burials, no. The fact that the guy is a nut job doesn't mean that most people identify with the vocal minority on the opposite end of the religious and political spectrum either.
I seriously doubt that the virtual dancing on Falwell's grave that I see on my LJ friends list is typical for America outside college campuses. The moral majority is still a majority, it is just not very moral.
precisely. I think this is exactly terrorism and i think most of the objections are based on what the president and his whack jobs have convinced people that terrorism is. People have bought into it without even realizing it.
Man, i've been agreeing with you too much lately. either you're in a fine mood, or I'm getting more jaded.
What's extreme to you is mainstream to normal Americans, and the other way around. To you and me, gays and atheists and pagans are perfectly normal people and good friends. Try casually mentioning that to someone without a lenghty university brainwashing and see what happens. Keep first aid kit ready.
Sorry, but no, the Moral Majority is, as John correctly points out, neither. Most Americans aren't evangelical Baptists. Even in the South, as fucked up a place as it is, the Baptists are just another denomination, and most of them aren't evangelical.
Moral Majority > Evangelical Baptist. The whole point of MM was to create a lobby / pressure group that focused on issues shared by all the Abramic religions and then some: Abortion, homosexuality, sexualization of media and irreligiousity in schools. Their views are still shared by a large part of the American populace. The life, death and resurrection of the Moral Majority movement was certainly not without controversy related to certain colorful personalities involved, but it had and has broad support in its main goals.
It can be argued that the current streak of Republican government owes more than a little to the work of the Moral Majority movement in the past. But perhaps you believe, like so many of my friends, that massive election fraud is to blame rather than Americans actually being reactionary enough to vote for a faith-based government.
Magnus, I LIVE in VA. I know who the MM are. They represent a small, but vocal, minority. Their membership is a few million. In a nation of 300 million, this doesn't even begin to become a useful sample, especially as it's self selecting. Most Americans, when actually asked, don't place anywhere near the amount of weight on abortion, gay rights, and flag burning as the fringe groups would have you believe. Unfortunately, the fringe groups are the ones who are most likely to vote. The studies are out there. The average US citizen does not want to live in a theocratic state, despite being religious. They're smart enough to recognize that their particular flavor may not meet the standard, and we all grow up in this country learning that the Pilgrims fled from England so they could be as crazy as they wanted without being persecuted. Religious freedom is something indoctrinated by the schools from very early on. Unfortunately, out of a couple hundred million potential voters, only twenty million or so show up (the tri-state NYC metropolitan area is 30+ million people, just to give you an idea of how few actually bother to show up), and they tend to be the older and the affluent, which is not a representative sample of the majority, so yes, a small non-representative group like the MM can make a large impact by doing nothing more than encouraging a slight increase in the numbers. Don't let that fool you into thinking they actually represent anything more than a fringe.
Both parties engage in election fraud. Tammany Hall is the current gold standard, with the Mayors Daley and friends of Chicago coming in a close second, but we're working hard find a new low. The fuck ups in Ohio from the 2004 election cycle are a matter of documented public record. It's not a question of faith, as I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, gods, or men in black.
Bah. it's not mainstream to work at the world trade center, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a symbol of american business. And I suspect that people at falwell's funeral are, to this nut case, a symbol of the american mainstream that just isn't jesusy enough for him.
I do in fact appreciate the irony of protesting in Falwell's funeral, given that his own faction had the same tasteless practice of picketing funerals. ("Do unto others..." comes to mind here.) But in both cases, this is done by an activist fringe of a much larger movement. While people would be horrified to see fringe groups duke it out in a funeral, I can't imagine them being terrorized.
If we already had a front of Christian terrorism, it would be different. Say if we had a secret Christian brotherhood throwing Molotov coctails at gay parades, blowing up bars or abortion clinics, burning down porn publishers etc... in that case, a person who pitched in on his own might be considered a terrorist even with no evident ties to the other terrorists. But that's not the current situation, despite the attempts of a few preachers to incite such violence.
Uh, there IS already a front of Christian terrorism, attacking gays, blowing up abortion clinics and shooting at doctors, attacking porn shops - do you not remember the chemical weapons attack on the porn shop, just last year?
Ever heard of Operation Rescue?
There already *ARE* Christian terrorists. They're not even a "secret brotherhood", they're quite open about who they are and what they do - and because *most* of what they do is legal, they happily sit on the SPLC's watchlist of hate groups and are still legally free to act however they want.
Well, if that's how you perceive the world, then at least your views are internally consistent. I don't think there is any pattern to the violent lunatics on the uttermost fringes of Christianity. You seem to think there is a systematic effort to impose religious values by violence and intimidation. Right now I don't see a way to reconcile those points of view.
The KKK is a particularly good example. It is primarily racist. If we imagine its polarity reversed - minority groups committing the same acts of violence and intimidation against the straight white Christians - it would have been terrorism. As it is now, it isn't. Why? Because it doesn't cause fear and outrage in the larger society, only within the well-defined minority groups that are targeted. Correspondingly there is not much pressure on the government either. So instead of fear and lothing the official response is firm but dignified disapproval.
Note that the above is intended to be descriptive, not normative. The danger of dividing the world in "terrorists" and "non terrorists" is that you get different ethical standards depending on the targets of violence.
So... Hezbollah aren't terrorists, because they represent a majority?
That's your distinction? The more people who aren't your targets, the less of a terrorist you are?
You *do* realise you've just eliminated Osama Bin Laden off the list of terrorists? And you've just exonerated the killers of Theo van Gogh, and the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Furthermore, exonerate? I think I made it clear that being a terrorist is not intrinsically better or worse than doing the same act under other circumstances, including outright war. The idea that terrorism is intrinsically the worst of all possible sins is alien to me, though I sometimes get that vibe off some politicians and media.
And to further answer the question, IRA and al-Qaeda are terrorist groups because they intentionally target the "mainstream" society, the common people on whom the government depends for its continued acceptance. If al-Qaeda had limited themselves to killing Jews, the reaction would have been a lot milder. But the whole idea about terrorism is sending a signal to all of the people: You can never be safe, any of you, anywhere, anytime. The better you get this message across, the more successful a terrorist you are.
Umm . . . are you insane? that is the current practice. christians groups beat and torture gay people to death in this country. Pro lifers have killed doctors that perform abortions. Sure, a lot of what they do is just irritating and passive agressive, but almost every example you gave has occured. How many times does it have to happen before it counts? We were attacked once, I don't see anyone doubting the terrorist nature of that attack.
Hold it there a moment. First we have to account for the background violence in society, which is quite high in the USA, far more so than in other countries of comparable living standards. Even insanity is not entirely random; certain themes recur, particularly sexual and archetypal. For instance every few days some guy is shooting his ex, but that doesn't mean we have a war on divorce in America. Rather it means there are a lot of insane men scattered in a population of 300 million people. Attacks on gays and shooting abortionists also largely fall into this category: People don't do it to send a signal to society or to government, but to shut up the voices in their heads.
Above the noise comes the signal. KKK is clearly an organized attempt to achieve social goals (not saying they don't have their bunch of loons, but there is more to it than that). These guys have done things that would definitely qualify as terrorism if it had been done by foreigners or a minority against the majority. While they fall outside most accepted definitions of terrorism, their actions are identical. The current government in the USA does not seem to consider it the same high priority as conventional terrorism... presumably because conventional terrorism threatens their voter base while KKK and Operation Rescue (and its copycats) don't.
Stretching the concept of terror too far is risky. For instance many white men and (not least) women are terrified of black males, but that doesn't make any random violent black a terrorist. Perhaps at some future time they will be considered such, if politics keep gently sliding to the right. But keeping a strict definition of terrorism keeps that day at bay.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:33 am (UTC)I seriously doubt that the virtual dancing on Falwell's grave that I see on my LJ friends list is typical for America outside college campuses. The moral majority is still a majority, it is just not very moral.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:48 am (UTC)It was ALWAYS an extreme fringe group.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:51 am (UTC)Man, i've been agreeing with you too much lately. either you're in a fine mood, or I'm getting more jaded.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 04:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 11:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 12:29 pm (UTC)It can be argued that the current streak of Republican government owes more than a little to the work of the Moral Majority movement in the past. But perhaps you believe, like so many of my friends, that massive election fraud is to blame rather than Americans actually being reactionary enough to vote for a faith-based government.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 12:53 pm (UTC)Both parties engage in election fraud. Tammany Hall is the current gold standard, with the Mayors Daley and friends of Chicago coming in a close second, but we're working hard find a new low. The fuck ups in Ohio from the 2004 election cycle are a matter of documented public record. It's not a question of faith, as I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, gods, or men in black.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 11:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 12:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 01:35 pm (UTC)If we already had a front of Christian terrorism, it would be different. Say if we had a secret Christian brotherhood throwing Molotov coctails at gay parades, blowing up bars or abortion clinics, burning down porn publishers etc... in that case, a person who pitched in on his own might be considered a terrorist even with no evident ties to the other terrorists. But that's not the current situation, despite the attempts of a few preachers to incite such violence.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 02:04 pm (UTC)Ever heard of Operation Rescue?
There already *ARE* Christian terrorists. They're not even a "secret brotherhood", they're quite open about who they are and what they do - and because *most* of what they do is legal, they happily sit on the SPLC's watchlist of hate groups and are still legally free to act however they want.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:33 pm (UTC)After all, you're disqualifying Operation Rescue and the KKK by virtue of not representing all Christians.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:22 pm (UTC)Note that the above is intended to be descriptive, not normative. The danger of dividing the world in "terrorists" and "non terrorists" is that you get different ethical standards depending on the targets of violence.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:28 pm (UTC)That's your distinction? The more people who aren't your targets, the less of a terrorist you are?
You *do* realise you've just eliminated Osama Bin Laden off the list of terrorists? And you've just exonerated the killers of Theo van Gogh, and the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:35 pm (UTC)I have no idea what logic may lead you to the rest of your statement, so I can't comment on that.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:42 pm (UTC)You've obviously never pissed off the Mossad.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 11:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 03:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-24 09:59 am (UTC)Above the noise comes the signal. KKK is clearly an organized attempt to achieve social goals (not saying they don't have their bunch of loons, but there is more to it than that). These guys have done things that would definitely qualify as terrorism if it had been done by foreigners or a minority against the majority. While they fall outside most accepted definitions of terrorism, their actions are identical. The current government in the USA does not seem to consider it the same high priority as conventional terrorism... presumably because conventional terrorism threatens their voter base while KKK and Operation Rescue (and its copycats) don't.
Stretching the concept of terror too far is risky. For instance many white men and (not least) women are terrified of black males, but that doesn't make any random violent black a terrorist. Perhaps at some future time they will be considered such, if politics keep gently sliding to the right. But keeping a strict definition of terrorism keeps that day at bay.