From E. Partridge, Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (1983)
As the information about voting motivation and behavior in the presidential election are teased out by forensic journalists and political analysts it appears that a critical factor in results was the so called ”moral issues.” More voters than expected were energized to go out and protect their marriages from the assaults of gays and lesbians, more felt a compelling need to create laws to meddle in the bodies of women (while declaring out of the other side of their hypocritical mouths that government should not interfere in their lives), and by protecting our nation by making sure that “under God” is not removed from the “Pledge of Allegiance” that school kids lip-synch while listening to hip-hop on their iPods. Preaching to the bigots brings them to the polls, and Karl Rove knows how to do that better than anybody.
“Moral issues” means, of course, Republican Christian Evangelical “moral issues” and not included on this list are the poor (lazy bastards who don’t want to work), women who want to control their own bodies (wanton Messalinas); the sick (sorry no stem cells for lepers); the environment (just a bunch of birds and rabbits who never contributed a cent to the RNC) and; gays and lesbians (they choose to be that way; God would never create a queer). There is no discernable Right wing moral outrage over thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens in the way of Bush’s obsession to get Saddam Hussein out of the way so he can ram “democracy” down their throats (kill ‘em all and let God sort it out), no outrage when uncharged prisoners are stripped, abused, bloodied and photographed by Americans. (Blood! You want blood? We Christians have seen The Passion of the Christ. Now that’s blood.) Why spend moral concern on such things when gays and lesbians are sundering the “solidarity” of the American family. Maybe such distinctions are easy if you come from a red state where the average IQ is lower than the number of electoral votes. Go figure: almost two-thirds of Americans felt the country was going in the wrong direction and the incumbent wins. Somebody in Alabama must have been polled; don’t pollsters go to NASCAR races?
There are a number of directions we might go from here, but one that sticks out is that this facile division of what’s moral and what is not is made by people who are nominally “Christians,” nominally followers of a Jewish rabbi who called upon his followers to love the very sorts of people his contemporary “followers” abhor. “Love thy neighbor,” “turn the other cheek” “it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven . . .” . Where did all that stuff come from? Christ had some cool things to say; but he didn’t count on some Christian Evangelical spinmeisters pimping for votes in battleground states with wedge issues expressing who “Christians” should hate, not love. Doubtless they, too, think their victories have been earned, gratia dei .
I haven’t been a “Christian” for decades, but I still like a lot of Christ’s ideas, none of them very “electable” ones then, or, it seems, now. Christ wouldn’t have made it onto a city council seat in any Bible Belt city in the country. Not with notions like “blessed are the peacemakers, and the meek” (“Freakin’ liberal” I can hear the attack adds bellowing). I think that Christ’s message distills down to one precept: you love God to the extent your fellow humans. Those who have appropriated the term “Christian” today, much to the consternation of true Christians who abide by that simple, but difficult, precept, fail miserably at living and conducting their insurgence into political life in practicing it. Theirs is a doctrine and demeanor of hatred and intolerance that would have rode The Galilee Kid right out of their red state on a rail (“Yeaah, and you can take some of those limp-wristed ‘disciples’ along with you, Jew Boy; we don’t do same-sex unions in this town!).
The fact is that both the intelligence and the morality of so-called “Christians” has been plummeting like a Boy George candidacy for Governor of Alabama. Mind you, there have been a lot of smart Christians around in the past and present, but you’ll not likely find many in red states. But historically, Christians were often regarded as people who were a couple of cans shy of a six-pack (and this was before they had Monster Truck rallies). In Medieval times “Christian” became synonymous with “idiot.” “Cretin” was the derivative term from the Middle French. Needless to say, there were many great Christian intellectuals and humanitarians, then and since, but there must have been plenty red-state evangelical Christians around to conduct the pogroms and witch-burnings, too, and they are back in numbers and force. The Neo-Cretins are composed of your basic Bible-belt Protestants as well as large numbers of Roman Catholics, and come from most every racial and ethnic group. They’re everywhere; throw a rock into a Baptist revival tent, a Cathedral, a Wal Mart, or Congress, and you will likely bean a Neo-Cretin. But your chances of raising a lump on the head of a true Christian are probably no better than they were in the Middle Ages and, if the “moral issues” that decided this election are any measure, such chances worsen by the day.
But be careful about throwing anything at Neo-Cretins, even facts. Remember, it was their Medieval predecessor Cretins who ended up giving history The Inquisition (sort of a religious version of the Patriot Act). These are not people who are given to “love thy neighbor.” So it’s advisable not to “turn [your] other cheek.” Instead, keep a rock or two handy; things could get ugly.
___________________________________
©2004, James A. Clapp (UrbisMedia Ltd. Pub. 11.08.2004)