I have never understood why republicans take Jesus as their moral guide and life coach – and why him above and beyond why anyone would look to something external to not only themselves, but also to something far removed from their own life experiences and the context that that experience arises from (ie, why look to bronze age people for moral guidance when the bronze age is far removed from the information age when even the Industrial Age’s work week doesn’t work for us anymore – given that Jesus wouldn’t have joined the republican or any power party
and his idea of family values was to abandon the birth family and join with him and his followers as your family.
Very Manson-y and culty when you think about it. Very. Maybe more Heaven’s Gatey than Mansony, but still creepy.
Jesus was also quite vain: remember the slave-woman who poured expensive oil all over Jesus’ feet, instead of donating that money to the poor? Even Jesus followers thought that excessive. But not the vainglorious Jesus, who reveled in the attention…
Ever think about how hard it must have been for Joesph to step parent Jesus? How could he possibly respond to Jesus’ teenage angst – you’re not my real father!
Seriously, it begins to make sense why men generally don’t date single women with kids – they would never have the father authority over the household and live in constant fear of being found lacking and less than the absentee father, built up in the children’s minds to sainted status – an unresolvable dilemma, for if the father was all that was good – however the child has defined good – what then does it say about the child, left behind?
It seems that the most devoted followers of a thing are in opposition to what the thing/person actually stands for. Lincoln was a republican party member – he signed off on the laws to free the slaves to economically attack the South’s labour pool in hopes of recruiting the slaves to fight against the white Southerns from inside the system.
Ending slavery turned out to be good for actually moral reasons and the idea had such popularity, that eventually, people believed it was the moral reason and not the practical war tactics reasons of why the slaves were freed – because it let people collectively feel better about themselves – but, the lack of truth to the matter is what keeps the US society from moving beyond that dynamic – and now the sides are entrenches in a perpetual and childish battle of “you hurt me” on one side to “i already said I was sorry and look what I did to make it up to you and you’re ungrateful” back to “I didn’t ask to come here and that you started to treat me halfway decent when it was in your interest doesn’t make up for it” and back and forth like bickering children or a couple who stays together for the fight, rather than for love or the children.
But the slavery issue is more complex – the original slaves in the US were from the UK, and were referred to as indentured servants – indentured servants had two problems – first, they were time limited as it was servitude to repay a debt, so the servitude had a time limit on it – and second, since they were also Caucasian, when they escaped – they were not easy to recover, because they could blend into the free population.
So the simple version was that the US then looked to Africa for easily identifiable slaves and the real story is a lot more complicated – the US and UK certainly bought people in Africa and imported them to various spots in the world to use as slaves – but they weren’t the ones rounding up the young men and women – that was largely the tribal leaders, dictators who sought to disrupt the natural order of their society by eliminating those who most threatened and would agitate against the dictator’s continued dictatorship.
So, in one very important sense, the people who were rounded up to be slaves elsewhere, were pretty much slaves at home. There was no option in the society they were taken from, they just didn’t have a basis for comparison or it didn’t feel like slavery when it was just the tribal structure and the stone age existence was normal.
In the sense of awareness, they weren’t slaves until they were in the US and didn’t get to live like everyone else – since everyone else didn’t live the same way.
The tribal structure of chief and everyone else was simple and understandable – everyone knew their place in the pack.
But, in the US, there are so many social strata, that the unequal distribution of privileged and wealth was suddenly noticeable between the haves, have some, and have nots.
Slavery in a sense, was the banishment from choice and options – the very foundation of the USA. Sad and appalling is the return to basics that the Republicans now define that banishment of choice to be the hallmark of a real American – my country right or wrong, god first, nation second – you have free will, but only if you don’t use it – as if by using it, you run out or leave less for everyone else.
So, the republican journey, which essentially began as ending slavery and saying that personal freedom and choice matters, is now entrenched in the original position of making people into slaves, clockwork orange teabaggers – patriotism is the political version of the religious zealot – and more as dangerous, since it has access to government power by definition. Whereas, religious zealots are government power in theocracies, but in democracies, can only indirectly access government power by voting blocks and lobby groups, but more often remain small and self solving like Jim Jones or Heaven’s Gate.
Democrats, who were hardly the party for slavery, moved to copy the republican tactics of increasing rights by running with that, albeit slowly and only when absolutely forced to by the courts or the threat of their social change oriented voting base to stay home and not vote – in fact, to keep their base, the Democrats have to also slow the inevitable social changes – otherwise, if they push for total equality, then the prize bag is empty and they won’t have any promises left to offer in exchange for votes.
As long as the US is mired in a two party system, they will be forever fighting the civil war of who has rights and who does not – over and over until all the subcultures and groups that should have rights, finally do.
So, if America wants to move out of a perpetual teenage angst state they need to have more than two parties, enforce the laws that are in place – everyone equal under the law with equal access and treatment – that means gay people on par with straight people – in legal reality, because in social fact follows the legal reality.
Which hasn’t worked for ethnic minorities because, the battle of who gets rights, who gets choice is still being fought – women are not socially equal to men when men continue to try to control women’s bodies by characterising women who have sex as sluts and then punishing them by withholding abortion services.
Ethnic minorities are not socially equal to the dominate white culture as long as neither side can move beyond the sense of being imported or voluntary immigrants – they simply are not assimilating because the melting pot is not a viable metaphor – but the idea of a mosaic quilt – of adding your distinctness and having it value added like Canada’s metaphor is – rather than being distilled to the lowest common denominator that melting results in.
To the US, you are at a crossroads where continually fighting the past is not serving the nation into the future – Obama represented a global hope that the US would fulfill it’s intial promise to be the light of human rights – for in Obama, you have a president of both sides – half white and half black – but even then – the US public debate fails to recognize the reality of what he is and what he represented.
It’s no wonder the presidents turn grey and age 20 years a term – the idea of finally getting to be was is globally acknowledged as the most powerful person on the planet and the biggest task is babysitting people who continue to fight battles that are already forgone conclusions.
We the People spoke, and we the people said, let there be rights.