An Article of Faith

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03blow.html?hp

An Article of Faith

By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: April 2, 2010


snip//


This underscores the current fight for the soul of this country. It’s not just a tug of war between left and right. It’s a struggle between the mind and the heart, between evidence and emotions, between reason and anger, between what we know and what we believe.

This conflict was captured in a tit-for-tat between Obama and Rush Limbaugh. In an interview with CBS this week, Obama complained about the “vitriol” coming from the likes of Limbaugh: “I think the vast majority of Americans know that we’re trying hard, that I want what’s best for the country.”

Limbaugh shot back on Friday, “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country.”

And there it was. Obama’s language focused on what people “know,” or should know. He seems to find comfort in the empirical nature of knowledge. It’s logical. Limbaugh’s language focused on what he thinks people “believe.” Beliefs are a more complicated blend of facts, or lies, and faith. And, they can exist beyond the realm of the rational.

This focus on faith has allowed people like Limbaugh to mislead and manipulate large swaths of the right.

According to another Quinnipiac poll released last week, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to say that they follow public affairs most of the time. But how? They listen to people like Limbaugh, and they’re more likely than others to watch Fox News.

But invectives are not information. For example, a poll released on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center found that most Republicans say that they still don’t understand how the new health care reform will affect them and their family.

They don’t know what it means, but they believe it’s bad. Rush & Co. said so. In the vacuum of confusion and misinformation, they strum their fears and feed their anxiety. And, by worrying, their faith is made perfect.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Faith, belief, vitriol, sewing, reaping

I read these words with open mouthed amazement at the lack of understanding on the part of the President. How can he speak against vitriol aimed at him, when he hired, deployed and defended faith based vitriol against the GLBT community during his campaign? Donnie McClurkin and others known for the worst invective imaginable were Obama surrogates. When our community complained about being equated to child killers, prostitutes and thieves, Obama informed us that the speakers of invective were-his words "good, decent and moral people" with whom many people agree. He said he would not apologize for their beliefs nor slanders, and went on to say that such speakers of vitriol would always be welcomed at his table.
No two ways around it, his attitude when he is subject to the vitriol is diametrically opposed to his attitude when the GLBT community is subject to far worse vitriol. This is called hypocrisy, a double standard. Slice it how you will. He defended hate speech against gay people when it helped him. Further, that hate speech was a 'focus on faith' which existed outside the rational. Yet Obama welcomed it, sought it out, hired it and put it up on his platform as his only speaking surrogate at live events.
Just not sure how to tell when invective is bad and when it is bad. Seems like this piece says it is bad when aimed toward Obama, but just fine and dandy when launched by him against gay people.

[CTLawGuy]

2. How did you feel about the guy whose signature is on

DADT and DOMA campaigning for Hillary all the time?