On May 4th, PBS will be showing a three part documentary on atheism that has raised the hackles of some within the Christian Right. Describing it as "demagogic and propagandistic" (sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it--browse the comment section of this blog's article Who is afraid of the Big, Bad Dawkins? if you don't know what I mean), it is amazing how threatening a documentary like this can apparently be to those of the firmly Right. Curiously, that seems to be the cue as to how they generate their own reaction, such as Janice Crouse who is quoted in a CBSNews.com article about the atheism series, and less than subtly threatens what is purportedly at stake by saying,"...airing the program gives credibility and cohesiveness to individuals who seek to undermine the beliefs and values on which democracy and the American dream are founded."
Right. That's the collective atheist goal. Not to mention, we're lacking credibility and so-called cohesiveness, even as Crouse is commenting on a documentary which details the long history of atheism and its pronounced intellectual and rational personalities. As though we just sprouted out of the ground with tin foil hats and all sort of wild and crazy ideas, bent on a (likely communist...can't you hear it under her breath?) goal of bringing down the American democracy.
I swear, Christians can be such simple-minded brutes who reflexively reject any sort of rational inspection or intellectual contemplation of anything that can be seen as threatening to their own world view and philosophy. Real open-minded folk, eh? I suppose, at least for those less-than-moderate Christians such as Crouse, the simple-minded sort of 'good vs. evil' and 'with us or against us' mentality is a powerful draw toward the conservative forms of Christianity they incessantly buzz about.
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
4.25.2007
Giuliani incites, "Expect another 9/11 if you elect a Democrat!"
Given the topic introduced in yesterday's blog entry, this new article regarding Rudy Giuliani is a perfect compliment and gives example of the use of fear psychology to persuade people toward an instinctive and conservative slant in their decision making, politically or otherwise.
Drumming up the horrific events of 9/11 while threatening that another attack of equivalent proportion is bound to follow, should we the American people vote in a Democrat, is exactly the sort of thing people need to slow down and thoroughly analyze rather than let their gut direct them. It also bares naked the state of American (and particularly Republican) politics and just how low it has stooped. We, the people, are under attack by not only terrorists but by our own politicians who work to inspire fear in us as well! And none with even a hint of admitted disgrace as they go.
All I can think to myself is, "When will the people begin to appreciate reasoned leaders rather than demagogues who ceaselessly browbeat us with their fear mongering and sharpened partisan politics? And where are our reasoned philosopher kings when we need them? For how long can this people and their country continue to endure this? How long will we?"
And Rudy? Shame on you. Shame!
read more | digg story
Drumming up the horrific events of 9/11 while threatening that another attack of equivalent proportion is bound to follow, should we the American people vote in a Democrat, is exactly the sort of thing people need to slow down and thoroughly analyze rather than let their gut direct them. It also bares naked the state of American (and particularly Republican) politics and just how low it has stooped. We, the people, are under attack by not only terrorists but by our own politicians who work to inspire fear in us as well! And none with even a hint of admitted disgrace as they go.
All I can think to myself is, "When will the people begin to appreciate reasoned leaders rather than demagogues who ceaselessly browbeat us with their fear mongering and sharpened partisan politics? And where are our reasoned philosopher kings when we need them? For how long can this people and their country continue to endure this? How long will we?"
And Rudy? Shame on you. Shame!
read more | digg story
4.24.2007
Liberals: Energetic and Resilient -- Conservatives: Rigid and Inhibited?
Psychology Today is currently featuring an article called The Ideological Animal. If you have a couple minutes on hand, spend them reading it. I think you'll agree that it proves to be interesting and insightful.
The earlier part of the article discusses a study, initiated in 1969 by two Berkeley professors, that uncovered an empirical correlation between childhood personality and political preference. Conservatives found the results stunning and less than flattering. Not a surprising response considering that the personality traits indicating later conservatism included "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." Liberalism, to the contrary, was marked in adults who, as children, were denoted as "self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient." I'm forced to wonder what this means for libertarians, like myself, who weren't highlighted in article. Perhaps we're exceptionally well balanced or a horrific mess; I feel in no position to measure.
Several points in the article reflect that conservatism, in some sense, is a reaction to ambiguity and reliance on authority to resolve or alleviate this ambiguity. Particularly when faced with fearful and uncertain situations, even traditionally liberal people will suddenly--sometimes even drastically--become like their conservative counterparts, even if only temporarily. The article hovers on the study of this effect at some length, analyzing how psychological terror and fear can cause this transition to occur.
In summary, this leaning toward conservatism reverberates a native irrationality stationed in each of us. A sort of irrationality and failure to rely on forethought that can be triggered, literally, by presenting a person with overwhelming and helpless feeling situations and stimuli. It makes sense to become conservative in the face of danger and peril, immediate or otherwise. After all, open-mindedness can bring its own sort of risk into any equation, and can be less than desirable when the equation might decide your own fate.
Still, the article concludes with an antidote to this resulting fear-born conservatism:
That is something to remember the next time you find yourself debating with a Christian, Creationist, or anyone else who may be leaning on gut-instinct rather than logical analysis and reasoning to decide their position. Ask them to go slowly, to use their head and really pause to think about the topic of concern. Maybe people will begin to rely more on their faculty of reason if we'd just gently yet consistently remind them to do so and, better yet, try to always lead by example.
The earlier part of the article discusses a study, initiated in 1969 by two Berkeley professors, that uncovered an empirical correlation between childhood personality and political preference. Conservatives found the results stunning and less than flattering. Not a surprising response considering that the personality traits indicating later conservatism included "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." Liberalism, to the contrary, was marked in adults who, as children, were denoted as "self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient." I'm forced to wonder what this means for libertarians, like myself, who weren't highlighted in article. Perhaps we're exceptionally well balanced or a horrific mess; I feel in no position to measure.
Several points in the article reflect that conservatism, in some sense, is a reaction to ambiguity and reliance on authority to resolve or alleviate this ambiguity. Particularly when faced with fearful and uncertain situations, even traditionally liberal people will suddenly--sometimes even drastically--become like their conservative counterparts, even if only temporarily. The article hovers on the study of this effect at some length, analyzing how psychological terror and fear can cause this transition to occur.
In summary, this leaning toward conservatism reverberates a native irrationality stationed in each of us. A sort of irrationality and failure to rely on forethought that can be triggered, literally, by presenting a person with overwhelming and helpless feeling situations and stimuli. It makes sense to become conservative in the face of danger and peril, immediate or otherwise. After all, open-mindedness can bring its own sort of risk into any equation, and can be less than desirable when the equation might decide your own fate.
Still, the article concludes with an antidote to this resulting fear-born conservatism:
"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."
The solution, then is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.
That is something to remember the next time you find yourself debating with a Christian, Creationist, or anyone else who may be leaning on gut-instinct rather than logical analysis and reasoning to decide their position. Ask them to go slowly, to use their head and really pause to think about the topic of concern. Maybe people will begin to rely more on their faculty of reason if we'd just gently yet consistently remind them to do so and, better yet, try to always lead by example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)