Chip and Chuck's new social movement

Chuck Grimes cgrimes at rawbw.com
Fri Nov 15 09:04:30 PST 2002


``Interestingly, Chuck goes on to denounce Islamists as part and parcel of a presumed 'fundamentalist' Western theology of Judaism and Christianity. But that is just an aspect of his own anti-Islamic prejudice, and a misreading of the motivations of the Western establishment, which is generally sceptical and pragmatic in its religious beliefs. Bear in mind that Bush and Blair went to war to get the Afghan women out of their Burkas not into them...

Chuck's own prejudices about 'fundamentalism' come between him and an understanding of the facts. Chuck obviously hasn't been in a church lately - if he had he would see that environmentalism and feminism is readily appropriated by Christian believers...'' James Heartfield

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

I am going to have trouble mounting much of an argument tonight. I was possessed by an unquenchable need to join americans everywhere and go shopping today. About a month ago, I got an advance on a consultant gig and I have been suffering from burning crouch ever since. Finally, today I couldn't take it any longer. I took off work in the middle of the day and went straight to the camera store (Looking Glass) to get a Nikon F100, with 50mm f/1.4, and a 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses. This is just about the coolest camera I could get, short of an F5. Trust me when I say, this outfit should provide a significant boost to the US economy.

Okay. Now, James can't be serious `that Bush and Blair went to war to get the Afghan women out of their Burkas...' Irony? If indeed that was one potential result, and I think that remains to be seen, then it must fall into the category of a distant collateral benefit. And let's say the US and UK did go to save women from their Burkas. Doesn't that shoot your argument that the West is generally sceptical and pragmatic in its religious beliefs?

While the US establishment might have a mix of motivations reflecting a spectrum of christian and jewish religious positions, where these are considered important, they are hardly sceptical or pragmatic. In foreign policy obviously the US pursues primarily secular and imperialist directions and uses limited religious justifications in the ethical registers along the lines of Erasmus and the `good' state---with the significant exception of Israel---where we are pointedly `saving' Israel. In that sense I won't quibble about the pragmatic and cynical (or sceptical) qualities. However in domestic policies, where there is a distinct foregrounding of religious fundamentalist positions, these are just barely controlled by pragmatic considerations or cooled by scepticism (see faith-based initiatives, attacks on abortion, women's rights, etc).

But religious dogmatic influence and motivation in foreign and domestic policies isn't really the core of what I think is going on. If US public officialdom really had an entirely secular, pragmatic and sceptical point of view of Islamic fundamentalists, the US government wouldn't be pursuing what I consider hysterical `self' mutilations (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc) on the domestic front, and wildly irrational foreign confrontations like the war on Afghanistan and the potential war on Iraq.

These irrationalities have to come from some form of spiritual offense, as if a church or synagogue had been fire bombed. In a symbolic sense that is what happened, if you conflate capitalism and the US military with `pillars' of judeochristian fundamentalism.---which I think the US establishment does.

The US reaction was not just a secular one. It couldn't be because among other things, the US was attacked by Islamatic fundamentalists as both the infidel (modern industrial) society and as a Judeo-Christian society (evil).

I admit this is a pretty weak argument, but my mind is really on my new camera. Sorry.

As for my prejudices, well, what can I say? I've got issues with religion.

My pediatrician, Dr. Marks cut off the end of my dick when I was too little to fight back. I was forced to go to church every Sunday until I was sixteen. I caused a major break with my father when I refused to be baptized. My sister is a fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian and one step father was a rightwing Republican. My mother and another step father were Irish Catholics. Half my aunts and uncles were Mormons, and I suspect my new daughter-in-law might be a Baptist. I never heard of a Mexican-American Baptist, but evidently there are some in Houston...

During the wedding ceremony, the guy sitting next to me leaned over and whispered, `Do you think he [the pastor] is going to take us all down to the river?' Meanwhile, my daughter-in-law's uncle cheerfully translated the whole ceremony into Spanish for the Nuevo Laredo and Catholic branch of the family. I was struggling with a terrible dental infection, taking Cipro and too stoned on Perocdan to follow much, but I smiled pleasantly.

Chuck Grimes



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list