[Dialogue] Some replies on Glorisky

[jim rippey]

Bill Schlesinger: You are right, it has been fun. We should all thank Harry Wainwright for posting so many good articles that we might otherwise miss. We need more mind stretching moments.   I don't think you and I are very far apart on the essentials. I personally didn't see Karen's mention of William Jennings Bryan as connected to today's "triumphalistic fundamentalism." Nor do I necessarily believe Bush buys into it. But with Congress and public opinion as divided as they are, I do believe Bush will cater to that crowd when things are tight, whatever his beliefs.

I think maybe this statement of yours was what troubled me most: "I think it weakens critique to blame a superstitious and (literally) fantastic fundamentalism for his (Bush) actions and those of his supporters." In contrast, I believe "fantastic fundamentalism" is a strong motivation for many of his most ardent supporters. And I think that Karl Rove and the "Swift Boat" hatchet types, play to those people, cynically, in my opinion. Perhaps these are instances in which you and I can honorably disagree.

I'd be interested in seeing you elaborate on how you believe the "Bush you see" should be challenged.  I'm serious.

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

Steve Rhea: I was delighted to read your comments. I hope you will continue to supply your thoughts including, particularly, those as a knowledgeable oil man

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

As for Karl Hess' posting, I'm puzzled he'd make such a broad brush claim that "the religious left is in denial about the nature of science, according to some of its leading proponents, especially biologists." I wonder just how Karl defines "the religious left. Who are these people so deeply in denial?  Give us some names and examples of their "straightforward" assertions. Tell us their affiliations and credentials. 

I think of Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine. A while back, Karl told me I should pay attention to Wallis, so I subscribed to Sojourners. W hat I found is that Wallis is reaching out to all kinds of people. And he doesn't shy away from criticizing the religious right on occasion. Is Wallis part of this religious left that's in denial?

I go back to Bill's Schlesinger's quote: "Science says what we can do. Religious values argue for what we should do - including caring for the poor and weak, seeking peace, and acknowledging the complexities of the human condition."  Is there a significant "Religious left" openly denying this?

Jim Rippey 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060804/4d99fb81/attachment.html