[Dialogue] Coping with Propaganda???

[jim rippey]

To Dialogue members 1/19/05

The following "Did You Know?" was sent to me by a friend who was strongly opposed to George W's reelection but also has been upset by the idea of Gay Marriage. She included no comment and the piece obviously had been forwarded by two other persons before she sent it to me. I was appalled by the seductiveness of this piece. I believe it involves clever distortions and serious omissions. I spent a fair amount of time writing a critique I hoped my friend would be able to hear. I'd appreciate receiving other Dialogue members' thoughts on how concerned individuals can cope effectively with this sort of propaganda. 

Jim Rippey, Bellevue, NE

-------------------------

DID YOU KNOW?

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the US Supreme
Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers
and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have 
the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings 
and Monuments in Washington, DC

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our
Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and
all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great 
nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but
on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?


Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority
and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law. An oligarchy ...
The rule of few over many. 

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."


How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for
220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Please forward this to everyone you can. Lets put it around the world 
and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

Thank you!

Chamber, US House of Representatives
I was asked to send this on if I agreed Or delete if I didn't. Now it
is your turn...

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very
hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having the 10
commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God
in the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you agree, pass this on, if not simply delete.


-----------------My Reply, sent with the subject line: "Why Did Bush Win?-------------------------- 

Dear Ms X, 

One of the main reasons George Bush was reelected is that Karl Rove and his cohorts vigorously courted "religious conservatives." Fear of gay marriage was exploited, and still is. Also, in some of the key areas, flyers were mailed to potential voters shouting that if Kerry won, the Bible would be banned. That drew criticism because it was untrue and dirty pool. The hullabaloo over the Ten Commandments is a piece of the same cloth. But it's much more subtle. Still it is an example of "This is what those terrible Godless people will do if we don't stop them." Scare people with something they are inclined to believe, and then you may be able to slip something more drastic past them 

I note that the piece you forwarded ends up emphasizing that our rulers should be "Christian." That is a manipulation of historic truth, as are other parts of what you sent. Nevertheless, lots of voters chose Bush because, "He's a Christian." Personally, I suspect that the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount weeps over much of what Geo. W. does. The fact is, being "Christian" means vastly different things to different people. "Christians" quoted the Bible to prove that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Now some still quote it to prove that wives should be subservient to their husbands. Some years back, many "Christians" sermonized and quoted the Bible to prove that God intended Black people to be slaves. A fair share of today's religious conservatives believe that unless you accept Jesus as your personal Savior and are "born again," you will go to hell. Barb and I have a fundamentalist grandson who used to believe this and, therefore, that Mother Teresa would go to hell. There are at least some Catholics who believe the only way to be Saved is via the Catholic church. Where does that leave your husband? 

I myself would never bring a suit to prevent display of the Ten Commandments. But I sympathize with what's behind those suits. The problem is more complicated than it seems. For instance, I respect your decision not to have children. And of course I don't know, or need to know, any more than that. But, back when you were growing up, if someone who didn't want children had lived in Connecticut or one other eastern state, that person couldn't have bought contraceptives legally, even with a doctor's prescription. Then in 1965, the Supreme Court declared those laws unconstitutional. There are abortion opponents now who would outlaw contraceptives along with abortion. The Ten Commandments appeal is used as a front by many such people. Sure, they believe it, but it's just their first step to convince others the country is going to hell. If they gain the kind of power Bush moves toward, such an abortion/contraceptives amendment may will be proposed, if and when the one banning Gay Marriage gets passed. Hey, remember it was militant religious people who got the Prohibition Amendment enacted back in the 1920s. 

Ms X, I truly value your friendship and I hope we can be friends a long time. As far as I'm concerned, we can disagree on some things like this and still be friends. I hope you feel that way, too. And I hope you will read this following article which happened to be in the Washington Post today. Love, jRip 

------------------------


Don't Ask, Don't Think, By Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 1/18/05

In one of those itsy-bitsy items you're likely to miss, the New York Times reported last week that, since 1998, the military has discharged 20 service personnel who spoke or had studied Arabic, six from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif. They all had, in some way, been caught being gay. Try translating that into common sense.

This country, this government, this Congress and social conservatives in states both blue and red have so much invested in anti-gay policies that they will, if need be, jeopardize national security. It does not matter that Arabic interpreters are badly needed in Iraq, where they could save lives. What matters more -- what is downright paramount -- is that no gays get into the military or, if they do, that they stay deep in the closet, where, of course, they are smugly felt to belong. This is national policy.

The illogic of "don't ask, don't tell" can produce a pounding headache in any thinking person, but it is not without precedent. In the McCarthy era, the government rid itself of some Asian experts because their patriotism and, in some cases, their masculinity, was in doubt. This ill-prepared us for the coming crisis in Vietnam -- never mind what it unfairly did to the people involved -- plunging the United States into a civil war it little understood if only because the people who did had been purged from government service.

I sit in uncomprehending awe of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I was a military man myself, if basic and advanced training in the combat engineers count for anything, and therefore I lived in barracks with gays. That's a statistical certainty. Later in life I belonged to several health clubs where, statistics aside, I damn well knew that many of the members were gay. In all that time, I had not a single uncomfortable moment. This is not something that, for instance, women at West Point and the Air Force Academy could say. In both military institutions, women have been molested and even raped. Yet no one suggests getting rid of women . . . or men -- just making the system work. This should be the rule with heterosexuals and homosexuals as well.

Fat chance, though. Homophobia has become entrenched because gays have become the personification of modernity, particularly changing sexual mores. So much of cultural conservatism has to do with sex -- abortion, marriage, sex education, celibacy -- that it makes sense that those who are the most outré, the greatest taboo breakers of them all, are the most loathed. This is why it is important for social conservatives to insist that homosexuality is a choice -- a casual one, at that -- and not something determined at birth or shortly thereafter. That valuable piece of ignorance justifies homophobia since, in America, you can no longer hate what someone is, only what they have become. The element of choice is as essential as it is fictitious.

In the many reviews I've read of the new book claiming Abraham Lincoln was gay, the same disclaimer appears over and over again: It wouldn't matter if he was. I take this as an affirmation of historic truth -- the slaves would still have been freed, the Civil War both fought and won -- but also as an assertion of blasé tolerance: Who cares? It wouldn't change a thing.
But these reviewers are right in a way I don't think they intended. Even if Lincoln had been gay, even if the book "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" by C.A. Tripp had received mostly respectful reviews instead of general dismissal, it still would not matter. America would be as reluctant to face the prospect that one of its greatest presidents was gay as it once was to acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. It would be dismissed, belittled -- treated in the conservative community much as evolution is today. Facts do not matter when faith is at stake. Fire the gay linguists.

Inshallah!

cohenr at washpost.com

© 2004 The Washington Post Company