BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The 'gay plague' and the diluted theocracy

  
 
Hieronymus
16:33 / 23.01.03
So it looks like Bush has thrown another bone to the Religious Right, choosing a marketing consultant who described AIDS as the 'gay plague' to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV.

Granted he's one of 35 members. But between this, Bush's appointment of David Hager - a doctor who believes prayer can minimize menstrual cramp pain - and Bush's supportive message to anti-abortion protesters yesterday, I honestly feel like it's the 1980's all over again.

What results, if any, is this patronizing or subtle endorsement of born-again ideology going to do for this administration? How much of a highwire, if any, must he walk to keep moderate Republicans happy and pacify the Christian Coalition who brought him to his position?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:57 / 23.01.03
I'd posted this over in the Gay, and not in a good way thread, and Ganesh asked me to start a new thread about it.

The thing is, there's not too much to say about this - it's a blatant, deliberate slap in the face to anyone who is remotely invested in gay rights, or in the fight against AIDS. Sure, we can blather on about how scary Bush is, how regressive his policies are, and such, but what will that accomplish?

So I didn't start the thread, because I'm clapped out about arguing about Bush - especially with (and no offense meant to) foreigners. It's easy to jump up and down and scream about a move like this, but it addresses the symptom, not the underlying question.

And that question is (and this dovetails neatly with Bush's moves against Affirmative Action), what makes Bush think he can get away with this? The answer is that the majority of heterosexual Americans, while probably ambivalent towards or mildly supportive of gay rights, don't feel that they have a direct interest in this fight. This isn't a prejudice or discrimination - rather, they just don't think about it because it's not in their face, like it is for someone who is gay. I don't think this a uniquly American attitude, either.

Most likely, the same people who feel American Blacks have reached the same level of achievement as whites (the playing field being leveled and what not), think that gays are protected under the law. And that's not true. It's not that Americans want to see Black people or gay people discriminated against - they think that with a mere 4 decades of civil rights movement that everything is hunky dory. And it isn't. Perhaps even Bush and his cronies believe this. They're so far disconnected from the experiences of people of color and of alternative sexuality that they just don't see that problems. Then, when some rightist pressure group comes along and assert that (for example)when Martin Luther King said that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, that he would be against affirmative action, it somehow makes sense for these people who aren't immediately involved with minority issues.

No matter how absurd these arguments are, it's often hard to combat them without sounding shrill or alarmist, tones which gain few converts to a positive underlying message. What then, would be the effective way to fight against this decision, and ones like it, while gaining converts to your cause?
 
 
Jack Fear
17:21 / 23.01.03
Breaking news: Thacker has withdrawn.

Score one for the good guys?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:31 / 23.01.03
I don't know, Jack - I think a drawn out battle in the press would have been more beneficial. Now the average American I'm talking about will never hear about this guy. The only national newspaper this story was in was the Washington Post.

Anyway, here's the White House's response -

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites), while neither confirming nor denying the withdrawal, issued a stern rebuke of Thacker's statements.

"The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes," Fleischer said. "The president has a total opposite view. ... The president's view is that people with AIDS need to be treated with care,compassion."

Talk about a classic non-denial.

That's beautiful, Ari, but the objection to Thacker was not his views on people with AIDS - rather, it was his virulent statements against homosexuality. Tell us what the President thinks about that.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:33 / 23.01.03
That certainly is NOT enough of an apology from the adminsitration, who undoubtedly knew about this guy before appointing him.
 
 
grant
20:50 / 23.01.03
It's worse than that, actually, since Thacker himself has HIV, contracted from his wife who got a tainted transfusion during childbirth. He knows the difference between gay people and people with AIDS... but Fleischer, apparently, doesn't.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:23 / 24.01.03
Mayor Todd- This isn't a prejudice or discrimination - rather, they just don't think about it because it's not in their face, like it is for someone who is gay. I don't think this a uniquly American attitude, either.

I think there's a misconception, which I know I've fallen into and will do again before I finally get my head sorted, that the battle is over. That 'gay rights' and 'black rights' and 'womens rights' and all the rest have been done and sorted and we can all live happily ever after.
TV and the media tell me that that was all sorted out in the 60s and 70s, with late 80s/early 90s for gay rights. You mean that it's still not an equal playing field? Gettoutahere!
 
 
Hieronymus
22:15 / 12.07.03
And the hits just keep on coming
 
 
SMS
19:23 / 13.07.03
The defense of David Hager I heard was that his wife recommended prayer for menstrual pain in addition to medical prescriptions or whatever else the woman's personal doctor would prescribe. The book was written jointly by his wife and he, and this particular suggestion seems no more absurd than practising a little meditation and taking a tylenol to ease, say, a headache. In any case, it doesn't matter because there's no way he would agree with most of us here on almost any other issue.

This topic isn't really following the Abstract
Is Bush's sponsorship of Fundamentalist Christian agenda (evangelists in government positions, pro-life legislation, clone banning, school vouchers) his future downfall or his windfall?

or the 'diluted theocracy' implication in the title.

In my opinion, which is subject to change from time to time, his religious conservatism will not be his downfall. He hasn't alienated the log cabin republicans, who disagree with him on some but not all issues; he has a very strong base, who believe he is the best President we have had since Reagan. What's more, I don't think that he does this for political reasons. I think he believes what he is doing is right.

The other reason that I doubt his religious conservativism will cause him political harm is that I don't think anyone the moderates listen to will be able to attack him on it. It makes no political sense to use this as your main weapon against this administration. You can't attack his Christianity. Anyone running for office who accuses Bush of not being a Christian loses my vote for a lack of decency. Anyone who accuses him of being a Christian fundamentalist loses my vote, too. So to keep people like me on board, you have to pick away at the issues by themselves: appointments of judges, lack of support for stem cell research, etc. Well, I don't have time to conduct an objective character evaluation of every judge some people find questionable. That's not my job. I probably disagree with the stem cell research business, but I'm not nearly as upset as I used to be about faith-based initiatives. As I look into it, I think it seems less scary, really.

Keep in mind that, from a political point of view, nothing Bush does could ever win the votes of ultra-progressives. He needs to appeal to moderates and conservatives.
 
 
Hieronymus
23:22 / 13.07.03
The defense of David Hager I heard was that his wife recommended prayer for menstrual pain in addition to medical prescriptions or whatever else the woman's personal doctor would prescribe. The book was written jointly by his wife and he, and this particular suggestion seems no more absurd than practising a little meditation and taking a tylenol to ease, say, a headache. In any case, it doesn't matter because there's no way he would agree with most of us here on almost any other issue.

That's peachy, Matthew, but it doesn't quantify the point that evangelism, of any stripe, does not belong in a position in which you are proscribing treatment to millions of people of various religious affiliations. Be it prayer, meditation, prostration to a subscribed faith. You say that his recommending prayer is no different than recommending meditation. And I beg to differ. Prayer to who, Matthew? Because I'm sure Dr. David Hager has a particular deity in mind when he includes prayer with medicine. And that's a non-negotiable when you've been appointed chairman of the FDA's panel on women's health. Is it too much to ask to have a medical official keep their evangelism out of the task at hand?

This topic isn't really following the Abstract
Is Bush's sponsorship of Fundamentalist Christian agenda (evangelists in government positions, pro-life legislation, clone banning, school vouchers) his future downfall or his windfall? or the 'diluted theocracy' implication in the title.

Actually it is, Matthew. There seems to be an experimentation with faith-based initiatives on multiple fronts that I think deserves inquiry and questioning. It sounds like a great idea. My question is why is government funding or government financial involvement necessary? Why does the Reverend Milford Carter look to the government to help him financially with getting kids to smoke less pot? It's ludicrous.


What's more, I don't think that he does this for political reasons. I think he believes what he is doing is right.

Which is part of Bush's character, that of a soldier for Christ appointed not by the people but by God, that is the most frightening to me personally. I also take issue with the fact that his idea of faith-based initiatives involves Franklin Graham's organization, Samaritan's Purse and their involvement in rebuilding Iraq. Graham has been quoted as saying "We realize we're in an Arab country and we just can't go out and preach.... However I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."

Again, Matthew, where do you want to the line to be? Evangelism is fine up to what point?

So to keep people like me on board, you have to pick away at the issues by themselves: appointments of judges, lack of support for stem cell research, etc. Well, I don't have time to conduct an objective character evaluation of every judge some people find questionable. That's not my job. I probably disagree with the stem cell research business, but I'm not nearly as upset as I used to be about faith-based initiatives. As I look into it, I think it seems less scary, really.

Then perhaps you can point me in the direction of the information you've read, Matthew, that makes the idea of faith-based initiatives so appealing, as the idea of the Establishment cause being ignored, especially in light of religious organizations being funded through government revenue, is a bit scary to me. I think it's a swell idea for religious services to tackle the social ills of the day. It's a working plan and always has. My apprehension lies in government funding towards these organizations and the effect that relationship has on one another. Is government going to be able to dictate how churches run their social services, because of the government dollars going into them? Where exactly is the line and what exactly is crossing it? That's my concern. The seperation of church and state is just as much a vanguard protecting churches from the government as it is protecting governments from the churches. Bush's flirtation with deconstructing that seperation makes me nervous as shit.

As for his political windfall/ downfall, it remains to be seen. And I agree, the moderate vote makes all the swing difference in the world. As for me personally, it's not his Christianity I have issue with. It his green-lighting, especially from government coffers, the evangelism of that Christianity that I am reluctant, as a taxpayer, to endorse.

Where would you draw the line, Matthew?
 
  
Add Your Reply