“What You Said Ain’t What They Heard”

I have noticed lately a serious impediment to any real communication across political lines.  It is something that can affect anyone writing or speaking about politics in America today.  The problem lies in the term “Religious Right”.

On the one hand Conservative Christians do not seem to understand that non-Christians, many just as conservative see the term as a negative if not a pejorative.  But on the other hand non-Christians, Moderates, Liberals and Leftists do not seem to “get it” that many sane, un-hypocritical Conservative Christians define themselves with that same term.

It seems that when used by the middle/left the term virtually NEVER seems to mean anything BUT a classic, Right-wing “I’m right because the Bible says so, you can’t be moral without Jesus, this is a Christian Nation and non-Christians should not be allowed to influence schools and government” hypocrite-in-Christian’s-clothing.

To say that this confusion impedes communication, compassion and compromise would be an understatement of monumental proportions.

Because of this confusion we recently saw Chris Mathews of MSNBC using the term in one way and offending NRB Columnist Paul Cooper who uses it in another.  Paul responded by light of his definition which caused me to misunderstand and I started to type a flaming reply.  Then I found out what Paul really meant by it: “those to the Right of middle who are Christian”.

The end result was that we barely missed getting in an argument over nothing.  Both of us would have felt attacked by and embittered toward someone who should be an ally on the subject.

This problem in definitions needs to be resolved in order for NewsReal Blog to have any chance of changing partisans into partners on issues that affect all of us.

The last few days I have been asking everyone I can who THEY think of when they hear the term “Religious Right”.

Overwhelmingly those that did not self describe as Conservative Christians seem to believe the term to mean “the folks who believe being Christian gives them a preferred political status and the right to impose an overtly Christian character on civil society”.

Not one person I talked to that described themselves as moderate or liberal (regardless of their religion) saw the term as referring to any other group.  ONLY the Conservative Christians I spoke with felt that it meant the “Right side of the spectrum of all religious Christians in the U.S.”

It is pretty clear that this confusion cannot be allowed to go on.  As a start I propose a poll. Not a “vote” for one definition by majority rule but simply a poll to make us aware of Whom thinks What means Which.

I self identify as:

a)      Non-religious (Atheist, Agnostic, Don’t Care)

b)      A Nominal Christian

c)       A Devout Christian (Liberal Politics)

d)      A Devout Christian (Conservative Politics)

e)      Jewish (Conservative politics)

f)       Jewish (Liberal politics)

g)      A Conservative Christian or Jewish far to the Right of the ones the public calls conservative. (“They call me Nut-case but Jesus/G*d will bless me for it”)

h)      A Nominal Muslim

i)        A Devout Muslim

j)        A Devout Muslim (“They call me Terrorist but Allah will bless me for it!”)

To me “Religious Right” means:

A)     Conservative Religious persons; i.e. devout religious people of any faith that fall to the Right of Middle in politics

B)      Religious hypocrites that believe the “unquestionable Truth” of their religion gives them a preferred position in the political process. (This description fits not only Christian chauvinists but also Islamic Supremacists etc.)

C)      Conservative Christians who use their religion as a guide in life. Including politics.

D)     Same as B but limited to Christians

E)      Something Else

The information this poll provides may well prove very valuable but we still need to agree on what the term means here at NewsRealblog.

I feel that being understood accurately by the largest number of people is more important than being clear only to compatriots. I cannot see that preaching to the choir is very productive. Therefore I propose this array of definitions:

For (A) I think the term “Religious Conservative” would be less likely to be misunderstood.

The subset of people described by (B) can be called “Religious Radicals” or “Theocrats”.

For (C) I can see no reason not to simply use “Christian Conservative” since it is clear and self-explanatory.

I suggest we try to refer to (D) as “The Religious Right”.

Being clear with these terms may not solve all our differences but it will certainly not hurt our efforts to resolve them.

“Human Language is the Beating of Broken Rhythms On a Pot With a Spoon While We Long to Make Music to Stir the Gods“

–

Lunch Break is NewsReal’s daily apolitical post. (We all need a break from this political stuff every now and then!) When commenting on Lunch Break posts do not start political debates. In fact from now on any political comments on Lunch Break posts will be deleted. You’ve got all of NewsReal’s other posts to get political, lets keep this one pure.

If you would like to submit a video (humorous/music/film trailer/intriguing/etc.), image, or poem for this feature then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. (Sunday Lunch Breaks are often of a spiritual nature.) Please include:

1. A link to where it’s from.

2. Any Comments you would like published with your submission

3. A link to your blog or homepage if you have one.

4. How you’d like your name published.

Also please keep it no more than PG-13 rated.

Editor’s Note: Read NewsReal’s previous coverage of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win:

• Ben Johnson had the opening post on the subject here, shortly after the news broke.
• Mark J. Koenig had a witty 2 sentence summary here.
• David Horowitz weighed in here in a post appropriately titled Nobel Puzzle.
• John Perazzo had a two part series in which he demonstrated how the Peace Prize has become the Leftist Prize.
• Joseph Klein surveyed what foreign policy “accomplishments” might have merited Obama’s victory.
• David Swindle listed the nominees who lost to Obama here.

On the 9^th of this month, The Huffington Post made a desperate attempt to gain control of public opinion regarding Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.  Tagged with every possible permutation of “Nobel Peace Prize,” “Obama,” and “reactions,” the Post compiled a slideshow of (mostly) positive and negative statements by “world leaders, journalists, American politicians et. al.” to show the Huffington world that the Prize was a “good thing.”

According to the Huffington reaction meter, the top five statements that Huffington Post readers favored were:

#5: Syrian PM Muhammad Habash, director of the Islamic Studies Center in Damascus:

“I believe Obama is working hard for peace … We in Syria believe that Obama’s initiative[s] have been suitable.”

Of course every right-thinking HuffPostian knows that the enemy is always the place to go for advice on how to run your country.  After all, who knows our strengths better than those who seek to destroy us?

#4: Malia Obama, 11-year-old political pundit and commentator for Huffington Post:

“Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday.”

The always proper Huffington folk also know that No One is a better judge of politics than your daughter. From my perspective, when Obama’s award was announced I watched a group of 14- and 15-year-olds listen, look blank, and then ask “What for?” The Nobel as “the Emperor’s New Clothes”?

#3: The Mighty One Himself couldn’t figure out why he deserved it, but he took it anyway:

“..I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.”

Affirmation, expectation, or a leash that can be used anytime to jerk the U.S. into line?

#2: Brad Woodhouse, DNC communications director and aspiring used car salesman:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the president for receiving the Nobel Peace prize … an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party.”

This harks back to my earlier post regarding Americans who are proud to see Obama win a prize they also think he doesn’t deserve.  Is there anything Mr. Woodhouse would not stoop to in order to demonize his opposition?

NOW! The NUMBER ONE BEST statement about Obama’s Nobel Prize, according to the readers of the Huffington Post:

#1: Jimmy Carter, the former President who never met a terrorist he would not hug, called Obama’s award a

“bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment.”

Well, there you have it.  The five statements, pro or con, regarding Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.  To be fair, it must be said that the other “pro” quotes provided no more substance or argument than the top five.

What about the “anti” statements?  The good folks at Huffington made sure their followers knew who the good guys were. After all, who wants to listen to guys that look like this:

Visit Guy DeWhitney’s Heretic’s Crusade for more of his writing: Shining the Light on Partisans Everywhere

Are Americans asleep, not paying attention, or simply stoned out of their minds?  Has the zero-sum mentality become so prevalent that unearned triumphs are something to take pride in?  Does seeing “Our Team” wearing medals, while the real winner of the race stands in the shadows, feel good to more than one third of Americans?

Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday discussed recent polls regarding public approval ratings of President Obama. The polls revealed some rather startling information that, if true, shows a significant portion of the population to be uninterested in fair play:

Most Americans, 56 percent, don’t approve of the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, and only a third believe that Obama has done enough to deserve the prize. But seven in 10 are proud that a U.S. president won the prestigious award.

Now, my math is not in the rocket science class, but those numbers say a lot to me. Only one-third of Americans think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but more than two-thirds are proud “our guy” won it. Doesn’t that add up to about one-third of the country being proud to win something undeserved?

Now, I would assume that most of the one-third who are sure he deserved the prize occupy the far Left of the political spectrum. In that case, it seems that a fair number of self-described Conservatives and Moderates are happy to win a prize that everyone knows is not rightfully theirs.  The numbers say that a large block of Americans think being told “You’re Number One!” is as significant as actually earning first place.

If this subset of America saw their team win the Super Bowl because of a call that two-thirds of spectators thought to be bad, would they be proud of that as well?  Has the legalistic mentality so overtaken us that we would rather parade around with an unearned gold medal than be awarded the bronze we actually deserve?

It seems even John McCain thinks so, in this excerpt from his interview with CNN’s State of the Union trumpeted by The Huffington Post on October 9th:

“I think Americans are always pleased when their presidents are recognized by something on this order… And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.

Why are we pleased?  What is there to be proud of?  It was obvious from his acceptance speech that Mr. Obama himself did not feel he deserved a prize for goals he had not yet accomplished.  Should we be pleased that a dedicated Leftist organization like the Nobel Committee seeks to use its prize as a lever to influence the President of the United States? Should we be “proud” that it seems to have worked?

From Barack Obama’s Nobel Acceptance Speech:

“I will accept this award as a call to action..”

Is this something to make Americans proud?  It may be to one-third of Americans including John McCain, but not to this one.  To me, the joy of being a winner has always been contingent upon actually winning something.

Silly me.