October 13, 2006

Why do I hold out hope?

With all due respect to Tony, evangelicals are hopeless. I had two conversations today with conservative evangelicals about the arguments in Kuo's book. Both simply ignored it. One told me, after several emails, that he had never heard any arguments like this.

6 years in and this is the state of the evangelical mind. Scandal doesn't come close to a right description. Even Les wrote that he would read Kuo's book with hyper skepticism. Great. Had we a modicum of skepticism back when Bush was selling this whole snake-oil concoction, we might not be in this mess. But now, we will employ a critical mind. Fantastic, be critical. But don't forget that Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, John Dilulio (before the horses head in his bed) and Rand Beers all said the same thing.

For Bushco, everything is political. Everything is political. Iraq, Afghanistan, abortion, prayer, the American flag, homosexuality, American security. They are all political weapons. And if you don't believe me, just revisit how Max Cleland was treated in Georgia. Or how Tammy Duckworth has been treated by her ass of an opponent.

And these are all related to the evangelical mind. Or lack thereof. Facts are irrelevant. Proof of evolution? Nope, we will ignore. Proof that Bush sees evangelicals like Dobson and Mohler as giant voting blocks with "I'm with stupid" painted on them? Nope, will ignore. Proof that an actual veteran speaks out against the war while sniveling cowards dare to demean her service? Ignore.

So the next time an evangelical tries to convince me of, well, anything, I think I will pass. Their judgment is, well, let's just say, compromised.


Sarah said...

This is precisely why I've all but given up trying to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion with these people. How can you really communicate with someone who exists in an entirely different reality than the rest of us? There's no shared point of reference, and it's been my experience that sooner or later, you run up against a brick wall.

I'm getting really tired of this new world we seem to be living in...the one where facts apparently don't exist anymore (at least not to a good chunk of the population). It's really frightening to think what this country is going to be like if we don't get some rational people in public office SOON.

I've had enough of truthiness.

Les Puryear said...


You said, "Even Les wrote that he would read Kuo's book with hyper skepticism."

To be fair, my friend, I also said that I would be just as skeptical of someone writing a book about a sitting President for financial gain even if Hilary was President.

I'm a bi-partisan skeptic where political charges are concerned. :)



Les Puryear said...


You said, "How can you really communicate with someone who exists in an entirely different reality than the rest of us?" Truer words were never written.

My worldview is biblically-based. I'm assuming yours is not. That is certainly your perogative. You are exactly right when you say there is no shared point of reference.

So, now we know why we disagree. Is that any reason not to continue to converse?



Streak said...

Like I said, Les, I welcome the skepticism, but suspect that evangelicals will rediscover that trait if Democrats gain power.

Your comment to Sarah really misses the point. Many of us believe, and have faith, but that is not what stops people from communicating. What bothers Sarah (if I may) are the same things that I blogged about--where "facts" are ignored in lieu of belief. That isn't what faith is really for, is it? Faith does not replace knowledge, it is to explain those things that are beyond our understanding. But conservative evangelicals have decided that faith also includes those areas where they don't like the facts.

That is what we see with science and ID, and that is what we see with politics. Facts about Bush are ignored, because people "believe" that he is a "man of god."

That has nothing to do with a "biblical worldview." That is about anti-intellectualism. That may not be how you actually participate, Les, but that is what Sarah and I are lamenting. As long as people get to pick and choose their facts and what they believe, then hell, Bush can be turned from someone who drank and partied his way through his VN experience into a true war hero, while John Kerry becomes someone who faked injuries in VN because he was an anti-war wimp. See how easy that was?

Streak said...

Les, let's put it another way. The recent Military Commissions act that Bush's lackeys pushed through congress allows the President to intern "enemy combatants" and that includes American citizens. You and me.

Riddle me this, Les. If conservative evangelicals can't object to that, then what credibility do they have on any subject? Why would I listen to someone's "biblical worldview" if they tacitly endorse torture and the detainment of American citizens without Habeous review? I am going to listen to someone present innerrancy and a "pro-life" argument when they can't be bothered to object to this stuff?

Sarah said...

Streak, that's exactly what I was trying to say. We're living in an Age of Spin, where there really is no objective reality anymore. Everything (including long-established facts) is interpreted through the lens of the interpreter's personal agenda.

Sure, we can always debate matters like the nature (or existence) of God or what the best reponse to North Korea might be, but I don't think I can have a real conversation with someone who believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago or that the Bush administration is the best thing to ever happen to our country. Nor can I converse with someone who thinks that gay marriage is a bigger threat to our way of life than poverty.

But I digress....