Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The founding fathers don't care about you or your religious causes.

roachboy · 02-23-2005, 07:41 AM

ok so i see i have been invoked here
following on that....

(maybe better to leave me out of debates i otherwise would not participate in, irate)

1.

where i agree with irate:

the thread is not really about christianity in general: it starts with a critique of the ridiculous doctrine of original intent floated by the far right in various guises--this doctrine of original intent--totally indefensable though it is---functions to open a space for a series of political outcomes, most of which involve a kind of collapse of any coherent boundary between secular and religious.

original intent operates in the interest not of christianity in general, but rather in the interests of a particular political formation--largely evangelical protestant--mobilized as political by organizations like the christian coaltion (and others). one of the quirks characteristic of this particular formation is that it claims to BE christianity.

the problem with recapitulating this claim in the context like a debate here is that it hopelessly blurs the analytic object on the one hand, and cedes political ground to a very particular group advancing very particular, reactionary claims behind the mask of christianity in general.

in other words, you cede something basic if you allow these particular people to effectively win a political battle by working their way into how you understand christianity.

no-one is really talking about say left-leaning methodists here--no-one is really talking about catholics---no-one is really talking about most mainline protestant denominations--these groups do not agree amongst themselves--each entails different types of politics--for example, as much as i find john paul 2 to be repellent, at least he is consistent in his "prolife" position and extends it directly into opposition to capital punishment and a refusal to endorse bush's war in iraq.
the evangelicals do not do this--they support both.

the term "christian" used in political debates like this wipe out the space even for the pope.
it is amazing.

2.
where i fundamentally reject his position:

what i think irate is talking about has nothing to do with the "post-modern" as over against something else--he is talking about the split that seperates those who believe from those who do not.

the "post modern" is a code that bundles (under a dubious term) the simple fact that people who do not believe in evanglical protestant ideology tend to relativize it.

there is nothing "post modern" (whatever that means--i know the range of options for the term--none of them are necessary or helpful here) about it.

the question of "truth" follows from a prior set of beliefs, which irate tries to erase by shifting the question onto more secular-seeming grounds.

what seems to grate on him--and on others who operate from similar positions--is that there is any diversity of belief at all--that everyone everywhere is not an evangelical protestant. because absolute uniformity of belief is the only condition that would make claims to absolute truth compelling.

the question of "absolute truth" is indefensable on philosophical grounds--it is something of a joke.
it has a history of being enormously destructive when translated into the basis of political theory/ideology
such claims have been situated for over 150 years as being central to ideology--such claims are of a piece with attempts to remove political conflict from history in general, and from the specific history of specific conflicts in particular.

the relation of this division between those who believe (and by believing flee from history) and those who do not (who for all that might well want nothing to do with facing history--but at least their position does not preclude the possibility a priori) plays out directly across the ridiculous debate, framed and advanced by the right, over "the founders" and their "intent"....it is obvious that there is nothing necessary about the right's position--except as it functions as a way to advance their particular claims to power, claims that are part of a particular history--this one, that we are moving through now.

02-23-2005, 07:41 AM	#61 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so i see i have been invoked here following on that.... (maybe better to leave me out of debates i otherwise would not participate in, irate) 1. where i agree with irate: the thread is not really about christianity in general: it starts with a critique of the ridiculous doctrine of original intent floated by the far right in various guises--this doctrine of original intent--totally indefensable though it is---functions to open a space for a series of political outcomes, most of which involve a kind of collapse of any coherent boundary between secular and religious. original intent operates in the interest not of christianity in general, but rather in the interests of a particular political formation--largely evangelical protestant--mobilized as political by organizations like the christian coaltion (and others). one of the quirks characteristic of this particular formation is that it claims to BE christianity. the problem with recapitulating this claim in the context like a debate here is that it hopelessly blurs the analytic object on the one hand, and cedes political ground to a very particular group advancing very particular, reactionary claims behind the mask of christianity in general. in other words, you cede something basic if you allow these particular people to effectively win a political battle by working their way into how you understand christianity. no-one is really talking about say left-leaning methodists here--no-one is really talking about catholics---no-one is really talking about most mainline protestant denominations--these groups do not agree amongst themselves--each entails different types of politics--for example, as much as i find john paul 2 to be repellent, at least he is consistent in his "prolife" position and extends it directly into opposition to capital punishment and a refusal to endorse bush's war in iraq. the evangelicals do not do this--they support both. the term "christian" used in political debates like this wipe out the space even for the pope. it is amazing. 2. where i fundamentally reject his position: what i think irate is talking about has nothing to do with the "post-modern" as over against something else--he is talking about the split that seperates those who believe from those who do not. the "post modern" is a code that bundles (under a dubious term) the simple fact that people who do not believe in evanglical protestant ideology tend to relativize it. there is nothing "post modern" (whatever that means--i know the range of options for the term--none of them are necessary or helpful here) about it. the question of "truth" follows from a prior set of beliefs, which irate tries to erase by shifting the question onto more secular-seeming grounds. what seems to grate on him--and on others who operate from similar positions--is that there is any diversity of belief at all--that everyone everywhere is not an evangelical protestant. because absolute uniformity of belief is the only condition that would make claims to absolute truth compelling. the question of "absolute truth" is indefensable on philosophical grounds--it is something of a joke. it has a history of being enormously destructive when translated into the basis of political theory/ideology such claims have been situated for over 150 years as being central to ideology--such claims are of a piece with attempts to remove political conflict from history in general, and from the specific history of specific conflicts in particular. the relation of this division between those who believe (and by believing flee from history) and those who do not (who for all that might well want nothing to do with facing history--but at least their position does not preclude the possibility a priori) plays out directly across the ridiculous debate, framed and advanced by the right, over "the founders" and their "intent"....it is obvious that there is nothing necessary about the right's position--except as it functions as a way to advance their particular claims to power, claims that are part of a particular history--this one, that we are moving through now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-23-2005 at 07:45 AM..