Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Speaking In Political Tongues

by The Reverend on August 25, 2010

in Barack Obama,conservatives,disinformation,glenn beck,GOP,religion,Rush Limbaugh,Winger-mindedness

We're in the lull before the September and October political storms hit us. It's all going to be just so freakin' great.

While we're waiting, allow me to don my Reverend hat for a bit.

Ever see or hear anyone speak in tongues?

Back when the Christian charismatic movement was new and shiny, at least to America, speaking in tongues was all the rage.

Speaking in a spontaneous gibberish language is, to many Christians, a sign that a believer has been truly baptized into the Spirit. Sometimes, the non-discernable gibberish is called the 'heavenly language'…..even though no one understands a word, or syllable, of it.

Except for the 'interpreter', that is. Charismatic Christians…Pentecostals, Full Gospel, even some Catholics…..also believe in the Spirit's gift of 'interpretation.'

So what you wind up with in some of the more…..lively….church groups, is a pre-game Holy Spirit warmup where a spirit-filled congregant will stand up and break out into a mono-syllabic gibberish completely unintelligible to other members. When that person gets done babbling…..another person will stand up and provide the English 'translation' of the 'heavenly language' just heard.

Religion is odd.

But then so is politics.

I've made it a point this year to listen more often to the drivers of today's conservative political movement in America…..Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levine….the Fox bunch. What I've noticed…..reminds me of that pre-game Holy Spirit warmup thingy.

Then it came to me. When Christian doctrine….or Republican Party conservatism…..fails to make any sense, is irrational, contradicts itself, or is just plain batty…..which is often the case with both….there comes a need for something more, something experiential, something for the faithful to sink their teeth into.

For charismatic Christians, that something is the gift of the Spirit, which often leads to the unintelligible, yet exciting, spontaneous breakout into unintelligible garbling.

For Republican Party conservatives…..it's the predictable spontaneity, yet still unintelligible, daily babblings of numerous Foxian Priests.

Similar to the tongues speaker/interpreter dynamic, a Foxian Priest, say, Sean Hannity, will spout off a string of entirely unreasonable and irrational babblings. Virtually everything Hannity says is a lie or a misconstruction…..but when he strings them together so rapidly and with such fervor…..congregants, I mean, conservative listeners….get excited, get caught up in the Spirit of the tongues-speaking Foxian Priest.

Although it always produces excitement, enthrallment even…..none of what the Foxian Priest, conservative tongues-speaker says makes one bit of sense to non-conservative, non-tongues-speakers.

Month by month, day by day, Republican Priests have been speaking in gibberish: Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, an undocumented socialist-commie-nazi, not one of us. Obama has taken America away with his death panels, govenment takeover of health care, stimulus, financial regulations, apologies, bowing. Obama is destroying America, is our nation's enemy, sides with the terrorists,….even pals around with them.

BP deserves an apology, Banksters deserve our sympathy, health insurers are our friends, tax cuts pay for themselves and create jobs, Newt Gingrich has ideas.

Gibberish….unintelligible.

Each week, a new Foxian Priest ascends into the heavens of delirium, returning to the microphone to tell the congregation about the racist Shirley Sherrod, or the evil, evil ACORN, or the radical New Black Panthers (both of them), or the more recent heavenly babbling about "hallowed ground" and "sensitivities" which, when properly translated, means American Muslims hate America and should be denied equal rights.

For the faithful, you know, the FoxHeads, the Dittoheads, the BeckerHeads……it's all about the hysterical excitement. Sure, from all empirical, demonstrable evidence, Republican policies have proven to be a total failure. But, ahah, conservatives have been baptized into the Spirit of St. Ronnie and no longer have to depend only on their failed policies of the past, no longer have to rely on known knowns and all that Rumsfeldian stuff.

No sir. Today's conservative Priests create their own reality, just as Father Rove instructed. And that reality is just as exciting for the Fox, Ditto, and Becker Heads as a gibberish-spouting, Spirit-filled charismatic Christian blabbering away in mono-syllabic nonsense, is to pew sitters.

The failure of Christianity's message in a modern world led directly to the yearning for something more. Nonsensical outbreaks of tongues-speaking and interpretations kept Christianity exciting….even if disattached from reality.

The obvious failure of American Republicanism over the past 3 decades has led the conservative faithful to yearn for more….umm…..than boring failures. The flock needed a Revival. Conservatives collectively called on the Spirit of St. Ronnie to revive them.

The result?

American conservatives have been enraptured by Foxian gibberish, by an entirely-unintelligible-to-non-faith-based Americans, Foxian gibberish of political tongues-speaking.

No non-member can understand or decipher a word of any of it.

But members are excited.

  • Jacquie
  • Al Dente

    New Nut Groups like CASHEW and PECAN are Replacing ACORN – SHOCKING story is at:

    http://spnheadlines.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-nut-groups-are-replacing-acorn_24.html

    Peace! :-)

  • Da King

    Reverend,
    I don't know about speaking in tongues and writhing around in church. I was raised Catholic. We learned to feel guilty, but there were no histrionics.

    As for Fox News…same old, same old. I think liberals still can't deal with the fact that the Democrats no longer have a complete monopoly over the TV political narrative. Wah, and it's about damn time.

  • The Reverend

    "a complete monopoly"…..has nothing to do with the fact that Fox and Fiends lie, daily.

  • jimmy james

    Jacquie, thanks for the book recommendation. Quite interesting.

  • Da King

    That's what I hear from MSNBC.

  • Da King

    Let me guess, Jacquie.

    Lakoff concludes that the liberal political view is superior. Right or wrong ?

  • Jacquie

    Sure, in the final chapter. Based on studies that showed that children who are disciplined with corporal punishment turn out to be inferior businesspeople, and more likely to end up in prison, than children who receive other kinds of discipline.

  • Jacquie

    No prob. Hope you get something useful out of it!

  • larry d.

    Perfect. Even funnier than I'd imagined.

  • larry d.

    I just read where, according to the FBI, there are more hate crimes against Jews and Christians in this country than Muslims, Reverend. How does it feel to help incite all these hate crimes?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/surprise-more-hate-crimes-against-christians-than-against-muslims-101489994.html

  • The Reverend

    Is the U.S. occupying Christian or Jewish lands? Is the U.S. killing Christians or Jews in the middle east and calling it "collateral damage?"

    Additionally….there are many more American Jews than American Muslims, so you're math should reflect that fact.

    But what's really great about your comment and link…..is how quickly the majorities in America have become the victims. When Sarah Palin is the lead victim-dog, though, I guess there's no other refuge for persecuted white American Christians to flee to.

  • Da King

    Thanks, Jacquie. Now I know the book is not worth reading.

  • Da King

    According to Wikipedia's sources, Jews make up (1.2% to 2.2%) of America, and Muslims make up (0.6% to 1.6%). If 65% of hate crimes are against Jews, and only 7% against Muslims, as larry's link mentioned, the population difference doesn't even come close to explaining it. Jews are far more victimized than are Muslims. Larry's right, Reverend's wrong.

    I'm surprised any hate crimes would even be reported against christians in this country, since they're the majority. Somewhere along the line, some very ignorant people (any guesses who ?) decided only majorities can hate, and minorities can't. Because it's the anniversary of the I Have A Dream speech, such a view is the polar opposite of MLK's dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

  • Da King

    Reverend,
    Anybody can be victimized. Anybody. You are only exposing your hateful biases again.

  • larry d.

    Read the article. The per capita rate of hate crimes versus Jews is much higher than against Muslims.

    How does it feel to know that the hate you spew here gets results on the street?

  • Jacquie

    As you like, King. If you think people should have every right to beat their kids, no book is going to convince you differently.

  • Da King

    Riiiiiight. Now I'm for beating kids. Pretty lame, Jacquie.

    What is even lamer is any writer who would conclude liberalism is superior to conservatism based upon corporal punishment. I doubt that issue even makes the top twenty list in terms of important differences in philosophy.

  • Jacquie

    You're speaking from a position of ignorance about the book's arguments. Lakoff concludes that, taken as a whole, each paradigm is logically sound, and contains a self-consistent morality. However, since adults that have been disciplined by corporal punishment as children earn less, contribute less to the GDP, and more often run afoul of the law, than adults that have been disciplined by other methods, and traditional conservatism takes a more tolerant stance toward corporal punishment as discipline than liberalism does, then liberalism is better at getting those end results that conservatives and liberals both say they want.

    But if you don't actually read the author's argument, you can't expect to successfully critique it.

  • larry d.

    Sounds pretty ridiculous, Jacquie. How about, since people on food stamps contribute less to the GDP, and traditional liberalism favors food stamps more than conservatives, then conservatism is better at getting those end results that conservatives and liberals both say they want. Or replace it with marijuana users, or macrame artists or whatever. Completely arbitrary.

  • The Reverend

    "since people on food stamps contribute less to the GDP, and traditional liberalism favors food stamps more than conservatives, then conservatism is better at getting those end results that conservatives and liberals both say they want."

    Huh?

    Equality and justice in America is based on the GDP, now?

  • larry d.

    I was making a rhetorical point to illustrate the flawed logic underpinning Jacquie's book, Reverend.

  • Jacquie

    "If you don't actually read the author's argument, you can't expect to successfully critique it."

  • larry d.

    If you can't correctly relate the author's argument, maybe you shouldn't try, Jacquie. I was just assuming you'd read and understood the book.

  • Jacquie

    If you don't read the book you're critiquing, maybe you shouldn't try. I'm just assuming you haven't read or understood the book.

  • Da King

    Jacquie,
    I didn't read the book and I wasn't responding to the author's argument. I was responding to YOUR argument. You answered my question about whether Lakoff found liberalism superior to conservatism with this statement:

    "Sure, in the final chapter. Based on studies that showed that children who are disciplined with corporal punishment turn out to be inferior businesspeople, and more likely to end up in prison, than children who receive other kinds of discipline."

    I find the contention that liberals are better than conservatives because conservatives allegedly beat their kids to be laughable. If you have more than that, YOU need to explain it. Instead, you called me ignorant. That's your failing, not mine.

  • Jacquie

    King, you criticized the author and his argument, not me, by saying, "What is even *lamer* is any *writer* who would conclude…".

    When I said you were "ignorant of", it wasn't an insult; it just means you lack information about something. But when you *are* ignorant of an author's arguments, it's inane to criticize his conclusions.

    I don't have to explain the author's arguments to you, to be able to point out that your criticism is uninformed. And I'm not explaining a 400+ page book for your personal convenience. Read the book or don't – it wasn't you I recommended it to.

  • larry d.

    Okay, okay, Jacquie. Your personal conclusions and beliefs are lamebrained.

    Is that better?

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).