Pharisees
'Pharisees' may be a bit harsh. And I might just be grumpy because Liverpool lost 2-0 at Bolton. But I'm fed up with public caring.
This is all about the facebook.com, a generally excellent invention that (in short) connects college students. Recently, people have been commenting on Election 2006, which is all well and good, and declaring that they 'care' about certain issues. This is what annoys me: I have nothing against people declaring support for or opposition to policies or candidates, but my hackles rise at having other people's goodness waved in my face. I might be particularly sensitive to this after 3 years at Yale, but the motivation behind this isn't too far from witchhunts. Example:
Poster: 'What are you doing to stop sexual violence on campus?'
Me (thinks): 'I'm not committing it.'
Implication: If you are not vocal and public in your opposition to sexual violence (or racism, or homophobia - a construction which creates its own problems for me - or whatever), you are to be regarded with suspicion.
Facebook groups 'care' about gay marriage, the right to choose [to kill your unborn child], the defence of civil liberties, global warming etc etc. This of course reminded me of Chesterton's observation that it was easy to love humanity in the abstract because you don't have to deal with it.
And it doesn't help that I'm English and find the idea of standing up and implying that I am a Good Person nauseating. Spending too much time searching on the messageboards, I found one girl stating that although she was an atheist she was a good person because she did a lot of good work in the community (and that's nearly a verbatim quote). This takes us straight back to Dickens, hasn't been satirised nearly enough and brings to mind CS Lewis' line about 'the sort of woman who lives for others - you can tell the others by their hunted expressions.'
Ok, my tendancy towards individualism and (theologically) pietism can become resignation, and you can reasonably say that as a Christian I want to tell people how to behave, and it's important to campaign and to raise awareness...but there's an element of secular moral bullying that is, at the least, uncharitable.
Of course, this is the Conservative political problem - the Left has self-proclaimed moral authority on its side. Sometimes it actually does have moral authority. The essential raison d'etre of the political Left is that it cares more, and there is enough truth in this to make it justifiable. More on this anon.
The straw that broke this camel's back was a post from a facebook friend stating that he was 'so disgusted' at the actions of Rep Mark Foley, who has quit after admitting he sent inappropriate (ie sexual) emails and txts to teenage boys. He didn't have an affair with them, or (like former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey) appoint his lover to an official position, but he was immensely stupid and deserves to go.
All well and good, but the post somehow equated Rep Foley with a Republican campaign to use middle america [sic] for their own greediness [sic] in an attempt to destroy democracy [sic]. Rep Foley's campaign against sex offenders was a scapegoat [sic] for his own perversions [sic] and despite claiming to stand for so-called Christian morals [sic] he obviously had no morals at all [sic].
This is the sort of hysterical and ill-disciplined rant that should give Yale a bad name but doesn't. I suspect, knowing the author, that he was slightly miffed because Rep Foley was not in the vanguard of the gay rights campaign (which makes one wonder what on earth he meant by 'perversions'). In hock to the bigoted Evangelical Right, Mark Foley was forced to deny himself, remain in the closet and take it out (sort of) on teenage boys.
My ex-boyfriend pointed out that I don't like 'flamboyant gays' very much. That's true (although we might discuss the adjective), but I maintain that isn't the point here.
To conclude with an attempt at balance, when I went looking into the campaign issues, I did find plenty on the Right who need intellectually (and perhaps phsyically) slapping just as much. But I've been at Yale, and it's their idiocies which have grated most.
Speaking of which, Max might be all right, because however bad the arguments in favour of Iraq, the opponents can always produce worse.
And finally finally, I love realclearpolitics.com
This is all about the facebook.com, a generally excellent invention that (in short) connects college students. Recently, people have been commenting on Election 2006, which is all well and good, and declaring that they 'care' about certain issues. This is what annoys me: I have nothing against people declaring support for or opposition to policies or candidates, but my hackles rise at having other people's goodness waved in my face. I might be particularly sensitive to this after 3 years at Yale, but the motivation behind this isn't too far from witchhunts. Example:
Poster: 'What are you doing to stop sexual violence on campus?'
Me (thinks): 'I'm not committing it.'
Implication: If you are not vocal and public in your opposition to sexual violence (or racism, or homophobia - a construction which creates its own problems for me - or whatever), you are to be regarded with suspicion.
Facebook groups 'care' about gay marriage, the right to choose [to kill your unborn child], the defence of civil liberties, global warming etc etc. This of course reminded me of Chesterton's observation that it was easy to love humanity in the abstract because you don't have to deal with it.
And it doesn't help that I'm English and find the idea of standing up and implying that I am a Good Person nauseating. Spending too much time searching on the messageboards, I found one girl stating that although she was an atheist she was a good person because she did a lot of good work in the community (and that's nearly a verbatim quote). This takes us straight back to Dickens, hasn't been satirised nearly enough and brings to mind CS Lewis' line about 'the sort of woman who lives for others - you can tell the others by their hunted expressions.'
Ok, my tendancy towards individualism and (theologically) pietism can become resignation, and you can reasonably say that as a Christian I want to tell people how to behave, and it's important to campaign and to raise awareness...but there's an element of secular moral bullying that is, at the least, uncharitable.
Of course, this is the Conservative political problem - the Left has self-proclaimed moral authority on its side. Sometimes it actually does have moral authority. The essential raison d'etre of the political Left is that it cares more, and there is enough truth in this to make it justifiable. More on this anon.
The straw that broke this camel's back was a post from a facebook friend stating that he was 'so disgusted' at the actions of Rep Mark Foley, who has quit after admitting he sent inappropriate (ie sexual) emails and txts to teenage boys. He didn't have an affair with them, or (like former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey) appoint his lover to an official position, but he was immensely stupid and deserves to go.
All well and good, but the post somehow equated Rep Foley with a Republican campaign to use middle america [sic] for their own greediness [sic] in an attempt to destroy democracy [sic]. Rep Foley's campaign against sex offenders was a scapegoat [sic] for his own perversions [sic] and despite claiming to stand for so-called Christian morals [sic] he obviously had no morals at all [sic].
This is the sort of hysterical and ill-disciplined rant that should give Yale a bad name but doesn't. I suspect, knowing the author, that he was slightly miffed because Rep Foley was not in the vanguard of the gay rights campaign (which makes one wonder what on earth he meant by 'perversions'). In hock to the bigoted Evangelical Right, Mark Foley was forced to deny himself, remain in the closet and take it out (sort of) on teenage boys.
My ex-boyfriend pointed out that I don't like 'flamboyant gays' very much. That's true (although we might discuss the adjective), but I maintain that isn't the point here.
To conclude with an attempt at balance, when I went looking into the campaign issues, I did find plenty on the Right who need intellectually (and perhaps phsyically) slapping just as much. But I've been at Yale, and it's their idiocies which have grated most.
Speaking of which, Max might be all right, because however bad the arguments in favour of Iraq, the opponents can always produce worse.
And finally finally, I love realclearpolitics.com
posted by BoB at 4:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home