Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (59368)	4/15/2008 12:22:43 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542763

And Andrew Sullivan makes an observation about the meaning of religion which is quite interesting. ----------- The Varieties Of Religious Experience 15 Apr 2008 10:57 am In pondering the Obama bitter-gaffe aside from its political ramifications, it may be helpful to note that faith is not a monolithic thing. Even within one faith tradition, there are numerous ways to believe and modes of belief. Here's the Obama sentence we've all been unpacking: They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. The term religion in that sentence is too compacted, I think, to mean what some think (but the more I look at it, the less I blame them for misunderstanding). I think what Obama probably meant by it is a certain kind of religion, a neurotic, rigid variety that is often - but not always - part of the fundamentalist psyche. Many atheists and fundamentalists believe that there is only one valid form of religion: fundamentalism. And so you can see why they would intrepret Obama's off-hand remark the way they have - as a denigration of all faith. But those of us in grayer areas and those of us who believe Obama's own protestations of faith see something more complicated. What we see - and what history has sometimes shown - is that economic, political and cultural frustration can indeed be expressed by the rise a certain kind of religious belief. And that correlation - between the disorienting transitions of globalization and the rise of religious fundamentalism - is real (see The Conservative Soul). When the world disappoints or disorients, the appeal of a more absolute and unquestioning faith as a rock in a storm is powerful. The key factors are not just economic stagnation but cultural loss and a lack of faith in the responsiveness of the relevant political institutions. I certainly find it hard to understand the rise of Islamism without understanding the abject political and economic failure of many Arab states to respond to the genuine desires and needs of their citizens. In fact, I thought this link between the bitterness created by unrepresentative political institutions, economic failure and Islamism was a core feature of neoconservative thought. Obviously, the frustration is much greater in the Arab world - but their fundamentalism is at another extreme level as well. That doesn't mean that there is no connection between fundamentalism and economic/cultural/political frustration. The rise of anti-Semitism and homophobia in Christianity in the early middle ages also correlates with economic depression and political malaise. And I think the rise of Christianism as an absolutist, defensive and outsider-leery form of Christianity in this millennium is absolutely connected in some cases to economic and political alienation. Note: in some cases. Obviously, wealth and fundamentalism are not crudely correlated - wealthy people and self-confident people can also embrace rigid faith. Osama was very rich. So is Pat Robertson. This is complicated. The truth is buried in there somewhere. Which is why it's better not to think out loud in public when you're running for office. Leave that kind of recklessness to bloggers like me. andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

To: JohnM who wrote (59368)	4/15/2008 12:28:38 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542763

So tell me: Who's being patronizing? HA! I wrote this Sunday! If anyone sounded condescending, it was Hillary and her "hard-working, resilient" descriptions.

To: JohnM who wrote (59368)	4/15/2008 2:13:24 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 542763

Clinton bristled, though, when a reporter had the temerity to ask at a news conference when she last attended church or fired a gun. "That is not a relevant question for this debate," she said. "We can answer that some other time. This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?" Um, so the issue isn't whether you regularly sit in a church pew or even occasionally go hunting, but whether you can manage to seem like the sort of person who does? No limit to how stupid the whole "defining" and "branding" thing gets, certainly nothing that would let facts or context get in the wat of foisting the right impression on voters. I would modify Robinson's credo to, "Here's how you seem therefore that must be what you are. Why? Because I said so, and I will keep saying so 'til the cows come home." Of course, that would get a C- in any freshman Logic course, but politics isn't really about facts or logic the wat we play the game.