The connection between gay marriage and terrorism
I just got back from the last of a string of spring parties (graduation, birthdays, babies, etc.) I heard one of the most extraordinary lines of thought today. A woman in three sentences or less was able to draw a direct and dire connection between gay marriage and terrorist attacks on the United States. I came late to the conversation, but to the best of my ability to recall, her reasoning was as follows: The gay marriage is weakening the superior moral position of this country. The attack on 9/11 is a sign that God no longer favors this country and has withdrawn his special protection. Therefore, if gay marriage is made legal on a federal level, we can expect terrorist attacks right here in rural America. Apparently the vanguard of this local terrorism will be middle eastern doctors. (American born doctors don't want to service poor rural areas such as where this woman lives.)
I guarantee that this woman will vote. Part of this woman's pitch was to get others to vote.
After listening to this, I am struck by how little it actually matters if there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
I don't think those outside the US quite realize the deep and permanent effect that the attacks of 9/11 had on this country. They should not mistake a temporary political alliance between Bush's domestic political enemies and the anti-war effort as indicative of long term or deeply held American opinion.
The depths that Christian fundamentalists will sink to never fails to disgust me.... It's a real shame the the USA seems to be seeing a massive increase in this kind of institutionalised ignorance...
By Phil Roberts on June 28th, 2004 at 8:16 amShe reminds me of Jerry Falwell.
By David Moore on June 28th, 2004 at 9:28 pmI think the effect of 9/11 has been to increase the polarization an already polarized country, rather than any change one way or another. The alleged repeat of a very evenly split electorate in the upcoming presidential election is little different from the last pre-9/11 election except from the more radical positions (such as the woman you quote). I think it is more correct to say that a connection between 9/11 and Iraq matters very little to one half the electorate and very much to the other half.
I think what 9/11 has really revealed is the struggle between the Fundamental and the Civil for the direction of this planet. One can see the same type of thoughts going through Osama bin Laden's head as are going through this woman's. Only the names of the countries are changed. Fundamentalists are obsessed with the connection of their god with their country. bin Laden believed that Allah no longer favored Saudi Arabia when US troops were allowed to be stationed there. The Enlightenment never touched this segment of the population.
This has given me the idea for an interesting rebuttal to her theory (using supernatural causes). My “line of thought” is that America was becoming much more secular and socialist up through the 1940's and won all wars, so therefore was in God's favor. When America made a turn toward being more religious and capitalist around 1950 (think Taft-Hartley Act, Billy Graham, McCarran Act, McCarthyism, "God" in Pledge, birth of the "multi-nationals") that we started losing wars and therefore lost God's favor. It is interesting that Desert Storm was very much a "One World Government" war and one that many claimed wiped the stain of Vietnam from our military and country. It is also what kicked bin Laden into gear starting with the World Trade Center a year or so after. Now we have the son of the father fighting fundamentalism with fundamentalism. All very Old Testament.
The ultimate question is which side are the victors in the struggle between the Fundamental and the Civil. That will determine the direction of human civilization in this century.
By CT on June 29th, 2004 at 12:55 amThis wasn't at my house, was it?
By Sarah on June 30th, 2004 at 4:19 pmNo, Sarah. The conversation at that party was about alternative schools, the multiple uses of hemp fibers and cars that run on the castoff grease from restaurants instead of gasoline.
By Jeff Moore on June 30th, 2004 at 8:42 pmCT, I don't think that fundamentalism was the driving force behind the war from the American side, even though bush has some fundamentalist supporters.
I also don't think a change in leadership in the United States will mean a change in policy regarding Iraq. No politician wants to risk another attack on the US during their watch. My bet is that 9/11 has put the hawks in power for some time to come. My bet is that if Kerry wins, his policy in office will be more hawkish than his policy in the campaign.
By Jeff Moore on June 30th, 2004 at 9:06 pmIf not Fundamentalism then what is the driving force? President Bush is a "born again" with many if the same views as the woman at your party. I agree it was not purely Fundamentalism. The fear brought on by the 9/11 attack provided the catalyst to fuse the Fundamentalist's and the Neocon's visions.
When fear reigns the Fundamentalists gain ground. Just think of that woman at the party. She if afraid of gays, afraid of foreign doctors, afraid of being attacked by terrorists. All that fear swirls in to irrationality like "we've lost God's grace." The danger is that the irrational are easily manipulated.
As for John Kerry, it is hard to say what he might do as President. I will say that his positions are very hawkish right now, so I don't see how they would be more hawkish. I think the obvious difference Kerry would make would be to lighten our financial and military load in Iraq much more quickly by mending fences with our allies. Bush has damaged our relations and standing in the world more that most Americans will admit to themselves. I think the woman is right about America's fall from grace; she's just wrong about the causes.
By CT on June 30th, 2004 at 11:45 pmThere are many liberals who believe that root causes of terrorism cam be explained by social and economic inequalities. The way to fix terrorism is by fixing these inequalities. Sen. Patty Murray (D), from my state of Washington, was caught on video saying this to a group of high school students. Her opponent Rep. George Nethercutt (R) has been airing the videotape of Murray explaining how Bin Laden's "day care centers" and other social programs helped him develop higher esteem from the people of Afghanistan. Of course, Murray misspoke about day care centers, but she was sincere about the larger point - that it is Bin Laden's attention to the transactional needs of Afghanis that draw them to him.
By Tom Kertes on October 25th, 2004 at 3:59 pmBut there can be no sympathizing with the likes of Osama Bin Laden. He is not a freedom fighter of the oppressed. Indeed, he is an oppressor who seeks to impose his non-secular view on his people and to wage religious war. The term Islamo-Facist fits him best. But while the secularists and progressives should oppose and fear the Islamo-Facists with as much conviction as do religious conservatives in the United States, we must also realize that it is fundamentalism in general that we oppose. While secularism calls for religious tolerance - all faiths and non-faiths are welcome citizens of civil society - it does not call for being brought into religious wars between fundamentalist factions. So we must oppose both factions - and go to the real root of the problem: fundamentalism at its core.
By Tom Kertes on October 25th, 2004 at 4:00 pm[...] ar President. Many people didn't equate the US policies with the people of America. I've said before that non-americans should be caref [...]
By Lively Debate » Bush wins despite campaign mistakes on November 3rd, 2004 at 6:57 pmi understand this woman's beliefs. she truly believes in the direct link between human's choices in regard to 'sinful nature' and the direct effects it has on the United States of America because of a direct belief in God's mercy, a mercy that can only go so far and that homosexuality is an abomination and God can only take so much before he has to let His children feel the direct effects of their sin. i really do understand because i attended a church filled with believers of that nature and i lived with family members of that same belief.
but i truly think that the terrorists that flew planes into our landmarks and murdered thousands was because they believed killing other people will ultimately lead to the realization of people believing their beliefs and that it was, in their mind, the best way to see immediated results.
without trying to cast severe judgement, it appears to me that both mind-sets are coming from the same rooted problem. believing your own beliefs are universal, believing your actions are the 'right' cause of actions for the ultimate beliefs of what the world should follow.
how about the terrorists letting the jews and the muslims share their lands without jumping on the back of america for siding with someone. how about letting homosexuals marry the love of their life so that they don't feel like second rate citizens everyday of their life. how about loving those in your community as the final answer because even without realization, the personal is the political and the small community is the global, the micro is that macro.
i know that i, first and foremost, have a lot to learn in loving other's inspite of their actions that may run a different course than what i would have chosen.
By stephen bailey on May 10th, 2005 at 9:08 amThe connection between gay marriage and terrorism
The connection between gay marriage and terrorism explains a lot, it really does, swear it! Some of the following comments are worth reading however and do make some sense.
...
By Holy Shmoly! on September 8th, 2005 at 8:41 am