Thanks for the clarification, Obla. I hadn't seen any quotation marks before and had thought all the words were yours. I agree with this writer you reference that "Christianity" (I don't think most of it is fundamentalist, though) is driving this country to a degree that the Democratic party didn't realize before. Perhaps you and I would differ in how we react to that. I find it comforting to a degree, since this nation was founded on Christian principles -- however, since Christians will always differ a little from each other, I can't always get excited about how some of these Christians act or talk or express themselves. No matter my problems with President Bush, I'm excited to see what might happen over the next 4 years in this nation really coming to self-knowledge.
>>> [log in to unmask] 11/04/04 08:32AM >>>
Let me first apologize for not doing a simple spell
check for the subject header of this thread earlier
And let me also make a note that the subject matter of
my earlier posting was a quote which I found striking,
since it appeared to me as representing another
dimension of reality worth pondering.
It is generally believed that the coastal states where
Kerry did well are comparatively advanced in education
and more cosmopolitan in living style, than most of
the states Bush did well. I admit I could be wrong
there, but I believe it cannot be dismissed as a vague
I am trying to look at this issue from the standpoint
of Religions becoming a threat in our times. I also
see that such a threat is much more damaging in our
times since it is getting manipulated (as a kind of
class force) in the hands of men in power between
various religions who only differ in degree, whether
they be Christians or Muslims.
The reference to 'Eastern' spirituality is made in the
context of man's 'sattwic' nature which seems to me
very essential for a life that is balanced in its
inward and outward elements. I am not endorsing the
critique of christianity by the writer of that passage
as associated with the 'lumpenmasses' who are believed
to have given the victory for Bush. But I think that
it has something in it which would be worth reflecting
upon. I am only a skeptic and trying to reason how
such an astonishing thing as this election result
could happen despite so many odds. And such a
question has very disturbing answers. I am sure you
would agree with me on that.
Here is one more quote which could further my
"The election results make a few things clear, most
Bush knew his electorate well. The Democrats lost
the NE, West Coast and IL. The rest of the USA was all
His electorate was the fundamentalist Christian right,
consideration is religion. This is best sumarized
"More exit poll respondents -- about 22 percent --
values" the election's most important issue than cited
terrorism or Iraq. Those expressing this sentiment
president overwhelmingly, 80 percent to Kerry's 18
This is a significant state of the affair. Last night,
spokesman admitted that the D have to work out a
strategy to make
inroads into the conservative vote bank. A Republican
very explicit that the R will continue with their
on "ethical" issues and take it to next level (when
asked about some
R state demands to outlaw abortion). Here the issue is
It is a euphemism for religion. Bush wore religion on
his sleeve and
his electorate loved it. Even Kerry was forced to
Christian beliefs many times during the campaign.
What does this mean in the long run? It means that the
D will start
wooing the right wing fundamentalists by aping the R.
There is no
gainsaying the fact that fundamentalist Christianity
(contrary to what I believed all along). The
already very strong - numerous TV/radio networks,
money. They will grow stronger. If the D woo this
means that the voice of the liberal Left (which is
because of its association with the Communists and the
fundamentalists) will be marginalized. Another
significant factor is
that Bush won more votes from the first time voters: a
that fundamentalist Christianity is getting revived
among the youth.
Already Bush approved vouchers for religious schools.
will continue. A combination of militarism and veiled
fuel its growth..."
--- William Gray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I appreciate your comments here but I'm not
> sure I understand them completely. You say that the
> "more educated" states voted for Kerry and the "less
> educated" states for Bush. How do you figure this? I
> have visited each of the continental states and have
> _generally_ found people equivalently educated from
> state to state (with rare exceptions). I thoroughly
> agree that people voted in this election based on
> worldview and not on the war - I think many
> commentators picked up on that reality early on. And
> you're right that America tends to be more Christian
> in some ways than modern Europe.
> When you reference this "Eastern wisdom" you
> wish the USA were tending toward, what do you mean?
> Perhaps it is merely the language barrier that
> prevented me from understanding your last paragraph,
> but I found the last sentence tragically
> stereotypical and untrue. If you are equating
> American Christianity or Christianity in general
> with inertia and emotional slogans, I don't think
> you're quite getting it. Perhaps you could give a
> clearer explanation of what you are getting at? I
> agree with you that Christianity does not have the
> disastrous tendencies of Islam, but from the
> definitions I found of "sattvic," true Christianity
> seems to fit the term quite well (endowed with a
> mellow, light and spiritual quality; equilibrium,
> harmony, clarity). Perhaps you mean simply that
> Christianity is not "the Eastern mystical approach,"
> and therefore it is inferior? I'm simply interested
> in what you're trying to say. Thanks.
> >>> [log in to unmask] 11/03/04 10:18AM >>>
> I came across an interesting observation. I would
> like to know how the list members would look at it:
> I guess I'm just stating the obvious, but I am in
> of how profoundly Christian, in a conservative
> this country is. So different from Europe.
> For those unfamiliar with America, the more educated
> coastal states voted for Kerry and the less educated
> middle states for Bush. It wasn't the Iraq war they
> were voting for but 'conservative (i.e. Christian)
> That seems to be the consensus of the journalists.
> Those blasting conservative Christianity had better
> take this into account, given America's role in the
> I feel so disappointed. When the 'exit polls' seemed
> to be predicting some kind of revolution, I had
> secret, foolish thoughts that maybe some magical
> change of consciousness was occurring, which
> might ultimately move this country in the direction
> of embracing Eastern wisdom, etc. I feel like an
> Here is a hypothesis for explaining the strength of
> Christianity: It is not so 'tamasic' (dark) as
> so we don't have the cultural and political disaster
> of the Middle East, but it is not 'sattvic' in the
> sense of embracing an Eastern mystical approach
> to spirituality. Therefore, the 'lumpenmasses' are
> ruled by inertia, tradition, group identity and
> emotional slogans from a president who has never
> been accused of being thoughtful or intellectual.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.