(no subject)
Mar. 8th, 2003 10:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jlhOkay.
I don't want war, I'm not for war, I'm writing letters to Chuck Schumer, I didn't vote for the Shrub.
I also think that of course it's perfectly fine to express concern and opposition to what is surely coming, whether in coherent, well-written arguments or more emotional posts.
BUT
Can we stop with the shrill, inflexible self-righteousness? It doesn't get your point across any better, it alienates others and it's really annoying to read.
I could write a post about the Christian fundamentalist movement, how they gained their power within the Republican party (hint: They vote) and where we need to be worried about their opposition to certain kinds of civil rights. But it would be nuanced rather than strident, and the way my friends page has been going lately, I'm sure I'd get nothing but flames. Which is ironic, since the whole "if you're not with us you're against us" mode of argument is one of the favorites of the Christian Right, too.
All I mean to say is, it's not that simple and it's not that easy. Relationships never are, whether interpersonal or geopolitical.
I don't want war, I'm not for war, I'm writing letters to Chuck Schumer, I didn't vote for the Shrub.
I also think that of course it's perfectly fine to express concern and opposition to what is surely coming, whether in coherent, well-written arguments or more emotional posts.
BUT
Can we stop with the shrill, inflexible self-righteousness? It doesn't get your point across any better, it alienates others and it's really annoying to read.
I could write a post about the Christian fundamentalist movement, how they gained their power within the Republican party (hint: They vote) and where we need to be worried about their opposition to certain kinds of civil rights. But it would be nuanced rather than strident, and the way my friends page has been going lately, I'm sure I'd get nothing but flames. Which is ironic, since the whole "if you're not with us you're against us" mode of argument is one of the favorites of the Christian Right, too.
All I mean to say is, it's not that simple and it's not that easy. Relationships never are, whether interpersonal or geopolitical.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-08 08:24 am (UTC)-M
no subject
Date: 2003-03-08 01:58 pm (UTC)What am I saying, it's not even my fecking country! Sorry, I'll shut up now. Just wanted to register my support and agteement.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-09 06:40 am (UTC)What I nearly said above was that if someone wanted to believe that Christians can be "faith-ful" and thoughtful, that they should read your LJ, but I didn't want you flooded with annoying people. You'd think, reading what often gets written around here, that Christians are a bunch of dumb idiots, which is so far from true but sadly is a common line of thought among a certain type of self-important young intellectual. I crashed up against it constantly when I was at college. These are people who also think that there can't be anyone intelligent or interesting in the "flyover states" and are incredibly snobby about white trash--they like to think that the only poor folks they need to worry about are people of color, and that poor whites only have themselves to blame. Pisses me right off.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-09 08:59 pm (UTC)Self-righteousness always seems the antithesis of Christianity to me. It's Christ that makes us 'righteous', not ourselves or our own smug intellectualism. ::shrugs::
There are a lot of "dumb idiots" in the redneck States. I met a lot of them when I spent a month in Alabama. ;) Heehee! Still, you're right - it's never safe to generalise.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-08 06:18 pm (UTC)I'm so glad to see someone else thinks this way.