Friday, July 07, 2006

an idea to mull over

I had an insight today, perhaps. I was discussing "The Da Vinci Code" with a co-worker, and I said, "I dont see what the Religious fuss was all about. Whether he was married or not, they're still the same Words of Wisdom."
She responded that it did make a difference, because as it stands now, Jesus is Divine (which apparently you cant be if you have kids)(which stands to reason, I guess; I certainly question my own wisdom in doing so, sometimes).
I said that it shouldnt matter who he was, but what he said. She said, no, it's who he was that matters.

So now I wonder if this explains the 30% or so of people who still doggedly cling to the notion that George Bush is not only doing a good job, but is a great President. Because maybe, like the co-worker, they dont pay attention to the Words, but just see the Authority, and that's all they need. It doesnt seem to matter whether it's Jesus, or Lord Bush; they are Right, because they are in a position of Rightness. (Need I add, that co-worker is a conservative?)

Personally, I am stunned by this revelation. The idea that the Person gives validity to the Words, rather than the other way around, strikes me as so absolutely antithetical to the American Way, that I am still having a hard time comprehending the attitude in someone who was born and raised here. On the other hand, it explains a great deal about how the BushCo, and the Republican Party, manage to maintain their positions of leadership, despite a growing list of lies, scandals and outright crimes: their base belives that The Person gives validity to the Action.
This also explains why Democrats are so easily dismissed by these people, since the same attitude works in reverse. Nothing "Liberals" do can be OK, because Liberals themselves are not OK. The Person gives validity (or NON-validity) to the Action.

Whatever happened to the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"?

When Authority is considered to be basis for Rightness, this can only lead to one end: Might Makes Right. And, yet again, this is another phrase that could be applied quite easily to the current Republican leadership. They have the majority, and show no interest in compromise or statesmanship. They are winner take all, and piss on the loser.

It also, I suspect, will lead to an Aristocracy. It may have already come to that, considering the number of children (or other family) of famous people, who are themselves famous despite having no discernable talents (like Paris Hilton, or George Bush). We cannot allow this state to continue. American has never actually been much of a meritocracy, but it has at least tried to be. Now I'm not even sure that this is true anymore. Here's a definition for you:

Aristocracy: A privileged social class who own a large share of a society's wealth, prestige, educational attainment and political influence acquired mostly through gift or inheritance from a long line of privileged and cultivated ancestors. And a form of government in which the state is effectively controlled by the members of such a class.
Does this sound a bit familiar?

When this is the political state in America, it will be dead (or at least buried). Right now, I think that we're sitting at the bottom of a hole, six feet deep, looking up at a bunch of guys in suits holding shovels full of dirt.

4 comments:

United We Lay said...

I'm having all sorts of problems with these people lately. They're so sure that they're right that there is no way to reason with them. This is not a way to run a government. It't definitely against the "American" way of thinking. We need to be teaching a lot more philosophy in our schools. The school where I used to work was adding a philosophy class, but they wanted a Morman to teach it. That's just crazy. Philosophy is the need to question religion, and everythign else for that matter. To have someone who is soley religious teaching it is absurd.

daveawayfromhome said...

I dont think being a Mormon would be detrimental to teaching philosophy, any more than being a Southern Baptist or a Buddhist wold be, provided that person was also a sceptic. Before anyone can question anything (the center of philosphy), he has to be able to question. To me, this is where the true danger of Fundamentalism (whatever stripe it may be) lies. Faith is not necessarily a barrier to scepticism, in fact I'd think that Faith which held out in the midst of your own scepticism would be that much stronger, especially if you could admit to yourself that you dont really know.
A lot of Christians think they're so cool/"courageous" because they defend their faith in the face of the scepticism of others. But if they "know" they're right, rather than believe they're right without actually knowing, how is that different from defending the idea that air exists even though we cant see it.
What kind of conviction does it take to defend something you know versus something you believe? Who's the stronger personality of the two, and who's the lazy one?

Chance said...

Mighty interesting ideas here. I think you're onto something. It is true that conservatives, at least in the current political climate, don't care about facts or words, but instead make demagogues out of their defenders. It really is all about who is saying it, not what's being said.

United We Lay said...

Dave,
Being a buddhist is mostly abotu being a philospher, as it is a philosophy and NOT a religion (originally, that is). I think anyone subscribing whole-heartedly to any religion is not in a position to teach a philosophy class. This guy just happened to be mormon. Any religion is opposed to actual facts.