Using the Same Words, Not the Same Language; Religious Crazies Edition.
If you are a frequent, or if only recent reader here, you should know that one of my recurring themes is how Republicans use the same words from the Standard English Language, but really do not speak Standard English. That is the case because they tend to rewrite the meanings of words as it suits them (they could not even appear to their own warped minds to make a point in a debate with out cheating that way), and as well, they employ alternative conceptualizations for ideas that Standard English would never support. So like I said, they cheat. They lie. They repeat the lies so often they start believing their own lies to the point that when and where confronted with the actual real meaning of words and concepts and ideas, they tend to go basically psychotic (not necessarily violently so, just detached from reality, so.)
Case in point? Mr. Huckabee's recent choice to bear the standard for the Maniacal Hoard of the "War on Religion," Army. Now, what is their current complaint? It is just a variation on one of their old themes. They are upset that (in accordance with already set, usual Federal Gvt. policy in compliance with the 1st Amendment of the USConst.) there is a provision in the Stimulus Bill barring Federal money from being used on a, "School or department of Divinity."
According to him, and the other psychotics, that equals being "Anti Religious." Now before I get in to the analysis and examples, I will say why I am now calling this sort of thinking "Psychotic." I call it that now, because someone who is an adult in and lifelong resident of the United States, of at least average intelligence should know the following to be true, and the opposite to be a falsehood, in order to be considered firmly attached to reality. And to be specific, I say it this way:
No matter how much one does not agree with the idea of it, one should know that the Federal Government acts in accordance with the idea of Separation of Church and State, as a way of describing compliance with the 1st Amendment prohibition on "establishing" religion. That means the default rule is no Federal money goes to supporting Religious Instruction, or for the continuing operation of religious buildings and institutions to continue to engage is such religious activities.
I call people who act surprised that this is the reality of life in America psychotic, as people who are detached from reality are called psychotic.
Moving on, here is my way of explaining further how idiotic, and detached from reality (and that they use the words, but are not speaking Standard English) this argument/position/belief is.
Imagine you and I are sitting at a table. Next, imagine I pull a dollar bill out of my pocket. We both agree that I have no obligation to give you that dollar. And I do not give you that dollar.
Does that mean I am being anti you? No silly. It only means I am not giving you a dollar that is not yours, and that you have no right to have. But let's say you ask me why I am not giving you the dollar that you have no right to have to begin with. And I reply,"I don't want this dollar spent to buy what I suspect you will spend it on." And you reply,"Ah Ha. See. You are anti-me." My reply to that would be simply to point out that you are free to spend any other dollars you get your hands on in any way you like. I am free not to give you my dollar.
It is not a matter of being against what you do (or who you are). It is not even really a matter of not being for it, either. But it is a matter of not actively supporting it, financially. The mere fact I, or more to the point, the Federal Government is not directly financially supporting an activity does not mean it is against it. It only means it is not directly financially supporting it.
This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion is over the matter of whether or not it is good or a necessary thing for the Federal Government not to give money to religious institutions to financially support their religious activities. That is one matter, and it is a wholly separate matter from the one about whether or not one is against something merely because one is not paying to support it. Just ask the people at your local PBS or NPR station that one. They will be happy to give you the stats (I am guessing) of the disconnect between watchers/listeners, and those who actually directly financially support those stations.
Case in point? Mr. Huckabee's recent choice to bear the standard for the Maniacal Hoard of the "War on Religion," Army. Now, what is their current complaint? It is just a variation on one of their old themes. They are upset that (in accordance with already set, usual Federal Gvt. policy in compliance with the 1st Amendment of the USConst.) there is a provision in the Stimulus Bill barring Federal money from being used on a, "School or department of Divinity."
According to him, and the other psychotics, that equals being "Anti Religious." Now before I get in to the analysis and examples, I will say why I am now calling this sort of thinking "Psychotic." I call it that now, because someone who is an adult in and lifelong resident of the United States, of at least average intelligence should know the following to be true, and the opposite to be a falsehood, in order to be considered firmly attached to reality. And to be specific, I say it this way:
No matter how much one does not agree with the idea of it, one should know that the Federal Government acts in accordance with the idea of Separation of Church and State, as a way of describing compliance with the 1st Amendment prohibition on "establishing" religion. That means the default rule is no Federal money goes to supporting Religious Instruction, or for the continuing operation of religious buildings and institutions to continue to engage is such religious activities.
I call people who act surprised that this is the reality of life in America psychotic, as people who are detached from reality are called psychotic.
Moving on, here is my way of explaining further how idiotic, and detached from reality (and that they use the words, but are not speaking Standard English) this argument/position/belief is.
Imagine you and I are sitting at a table. Next, imagine I pull a dollar bill out of my pocket. We both agree that I have no obligation to give you that dollar. And I do not give you that dollar.
Does that mean I am being anti you? No silly. It only means I am not giving you a dollar that is not yours, and that you have no right to have. But let's say you ask me why I am not giving you the dollar that you have no right to have to begin with. And I reply,"I don't want this dollar spent to buy what I suspect you will spend it on." And you reply,"Ah Ha. See. You are anti-me." My reply to that would be simply to point out that you are free to spend any other dollars you get your hands on in any way you like. I am free not to give you my dollar.
It is not a matter of being against what you do (or who you are). It is not even really a matter of not being for it, either. But it is a matter of not actively supporting it, financially. The mere fact I, or more to the point, the Federal Government is not directly financially supporting an activity does not mean it is against it. It only means it is not directly financially supporting it.
This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion is over the matter of whether or not it is good or a necessary thing for the Federal Government not to give money to religious institutions to financially support their religious activities. That is one matter, and it is a wholly separate matter from the one about whether or not one is against something merely because one is not paying to support it. Just ask the people at your local PBS or NPR station that one. They will be happy to give you the stats (I am guessing) of the disconnect between watchers/listeners, and those who actually directly financially support those stations.
posted by Abstentus at 7:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home