Subverting the Culture of Contempt

The President has been impeached. But more about that next time. This article is about seeking to subvert the “culture of contempt” that was so evident in the impeachment hearings. The message of Advent (and Christmas) is hope, peace, love, and joy. How we need this message in the U.S. where the culture of contempt is so prevalent—and yes, so contemptible!

Help from Arthur Brooks

Arthur C. Brooks, the Washington Post columnist and professor of public leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, is the author of a book published in March of this year. You have previously heard the words of the title of that book: Love Your Enemies.

That is certainly not an original title—but the subtitle is: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt.

Brooks (b. 1964) is a political conservative, and I disagree with many of his political positions. But I fully agree with what he writes in his new book—and with Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse, who is quoted on the back cover of the book:

If you are satisfied with our toxic ideological climate, then don’t bother reading this book. But if you’d like to rebel against the present nonsense, Arthur Brooks can show you how to do it with joy and confidence—regardless of your political preferences. If we follow the lessons in Love Your Enemies, better times lie ahead for America. 

Help from These Five Rules

In the Conclusion, Brooks advocates “Five Rules to Subvert the Culture of Contempt.” Rather than repeating his five rules, I am sharing a helpful statement about each one.

1) “Stand up to people on your own side who trash people on the other side.” Since contempt is destructive, whenever we read or hear words of contempt, to subvert the culture of contempt we need to speak up, kindly, in opposition to those words.

2) “Seeking out what those on the other side have to say will help you understand others better.” Whenever we read or hear words with which we strongly disagree, we first need to seek to understand why the writer/speaker wrote or spoke such words.

3) Here is a point that Brooks makes repeatedly: “never treat others with contempt, even if you believe they deserve it.” Contempt never causes others to change for the better and is “always harmful for the contemptor.”

4) Brooks also encourages his readers to “disagree better” and to “be part of a healthy competition of ideas.” He writes, “The single biggest way a subversive can change America is not by disagreeing less, but by disagreeing better—engaging in earnest debate while still treating everyone with love and respect.”  

5) Finally, Brooks advocates tuning out, disconnecting more from unproductive debates. “Unfollow public figures [and social media ‘friends’] who foment contempt, even if you agree with them.”

Trying It Out

Partly because of Brooks’s book, I have been reading, and trying to understand without contempt, two books with which I have strong disagreements.

Dark Agenda: The Way to Destroy Christian America (2018) was written by David Horowitz, the son of Jewish parents who in 2015 identified as an agnostic. Even though Jewish, Horowitz (b. 1939) dedicated his book to his wife and to three “Christian buddies.”

And on the back cover, Horowitz’s book receives praise from the ultra-conservative Christian politician Mike Huckabee.

Reading some of that book with the desire to subvert the culture of contempt helped me understand why Horowitz, and many religious and political conservatives, think the way they do.

Although the book contains much I strongly disagree with, reading it with the goal of gaining deeper insight into why conservatives think the way they do was beneficial. And I realize afresh that I can view Horowitz as a good and honorable man—even though wrong in many of his ideas!—without having contempt for him.

The same goes for Star Parker, author of Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why This is Good News for America (2019). Parker (b. 1956) is an active Christian as well as an African American woman who has been a strong supporter of President Trump.

During the Christmas season—and throughout the new year—let’s work together to subvert the culture of contempt, for the good of the country and the world.

Merry Christmas to all!

Fed Up with Fundamentalism, Still

It has already been nearly 15 years since I started writing Fed Up with Fundamentalism, which has been out of print for some time now. Even though Christian fundamentalism may not as be prominent now as it was in 2004, this book still seems to be needed.

The Difficulty/Ease of Publishing

When I finished writing Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism, I fully expected to find a publisher for what I thought, and still think, was a good and important book.

However, publishers are, of necessity, interested in making money, and publishing the first book of someone virtually unknown in this country was not a risk the publishers I contacted were willing to take.

Rather than go through the lengthy process of submitting my manuscript to publisher after publisher and waiting each time for their evaluation/decision—who knew how long that would take?—I decided to publish the book with a Print on Demand company. Thus, the book was issued and on the market in 2007.

Although there was a sizeable number of books sold, I’m not sure I ever broke even with the initial cost of having the book published.

Things are different now, though: Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is available, and soon I will publish my third book, Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (TTT), with them—at no cost to me.

And now, I am planning to do the same sort of thing as I did last year with TTT. Beginning today, I plan to post a blog article each month based on a chapter of Fed Up . . . and then publish the (slightly) updated version of the book by KDP at the end of the year.

I will appreciate you Thinking Friends reading the blog articles based on Fed Up and giving me serious feedback as I work on re-publishing the book. 

The Preface of Fed Up

By clicking here you can read the updated Preface of Fed Up, and I hope that many of you will do that.

The Preface largely gives the rationale for my choosing to spend the many, many hours necessary for doing the research and writing the book. As you will see if you open the webpage linked to above, I wrote the book from my Baptist context at the time.

I also indicate how for years I was an “embarrassed Southern Baptist,” so I shifted from being a Baptist to becoming a small b baptist. But still, I was a Baptist until I was well past 70, so that is the Christian denomination I wrote most about in the Preface.

Christian fundamentalism, of course, is much larger than the Southern Baptist Convention—and much larger than Christianity—so the book deals mostly with the broader sweep of fundamentalism.

What do you think? Is fundamentalism less prominent now than it was in 2004~07? Or because of the Christian Right’s support of DJT, is it even more problematic now?

The Tone of the Book

At the end of the Preface, I emphasize that I intended to write “with an irenic spirit and with the earnest hope that even where there is definite disagreement there still might be fruitful dialogue.”

That is also the tone with which I seek to write each of my blog articles, so I hope that you will call me out if you think I am ever unfair or disrespectful of other people and/or their views.

In keeping with these comments, please consider the last section of the Preface: “‘Ten Commandments’ for the Author and the Readers of This Book.”

Even if we are fed up with fundamentalism, let’s be civil in our criticism.

Clobbered by "Truth"

Those of you who have had some theological training will likely recognize the Greek word aletheia. It is the word used many times in the New Testament and translated into English as truth. According to John 14:6, Jesus claims to be the truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια).

Well, last week I was trolled by someone who gave his (surely it wasn’t a her!) name as Alethia 21—and I assume that name means the same as aletheia. That person, about whom I was unable to find any other information, left very negative comments on four different blog articles of mine.

All along I have encouraged people who disagree with my views/ideas to speak up. I have welcomed dialogue—and there has to be some disagreement for there to be any real dialogue. But I have also expected civility, and I have always tried to be civil toward those with whom I have disagreed.

Alethia 21, though, didn’t mince words—and didn’t seem to pay much attention to civility. In the comment he posted on my Feb. 19 blog article, he said, “But now I realized your [sic] a sanctimonious sarcastic liberal. Quite ignorant of what really goes on in life I might add!”

(Well, I may be somewhat ignorant of what really goes on in life, but at least I know the difference between your and you’re! And you should read some of the harsh things he said!)

At the beginning of another comment—and true to his Internet name—Alethia 21 declared, “The issue is always TRUTH! We can say the truth but we can do so in a Christian manner!” Then, just before referring to “Lucifer Obama,” he wrote, “If truth insults then so be it!”

(Actually, these latter comments were later removed by Alethia 21.)

Several times I have seen conservative Christians insisting that it is more important to be biblically correct than to be politically correct—although I have not been able to see why it has to be one or the other.

The insistence on being biblically correct is almost always tied in with a literalistic reading of the Bible considered to be inerrant. Among other things, but at or near the top of the list of what it means to be biblically correct, is the gay/lesbian issue.

Much of Alethia 21’s emphasis on truth, and much of his anger toward me, was directly related, it seems, to his vociferous opposition to gay/lesbian rights. What looks to us “liberals” as political incorrectness (as well as ignorance and bigotry), seems to people like Alethia 21 to be adherence to the truth of God’s word.

That kind of polarity in society, and among people who claim to be Christians, seems to be insurmountable in this present time. How can people be so greatly divided about the truth? And why do some professing Christians think it is all right to clobber others with the truth (as they see it)?

Perhaps the over-confident and overbearing use of truth fueled development of the post-modern view that denies there is any “absolute truth.” Everything becomes relativized: you have your truth, I have mine.

Back in 1995 a helpful book dealing with the challenge of post-modernism to Christianity was published under the title Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be. That title expresses the present reality.

Certainly, the post-modern view of truth is much kinder than old views such as that the one held by Alethia 21. But is it the truth? Probably not.

But, admirably, this view at least rejects the legitimacy of clobbering people with “truth.”

The Unemployment Problem is Solved!

Hilary Rosen (b. 1958)

Last week’s “Mommy Wars” was the latest of the political skirmishes in the U.S. They were ignited by responses to the comments of Democratic strategist and pundit Hilary Rosen, who said on CNN that it didn’t make much sense for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney to look to Ann (Mrs. Romney) for advice on women’s issues because she was out of touch with the problems faced by most women in America.

“His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Ms. Rosen said. “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing.”

Within minutes of Ms. Rosen’s comments, Ann Romney joined Twitter, and as of late Wednesday night last week had tweeted out only one post: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

A number of conservative women, including Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), soon took the Obama administration to task for Ms. Rosen’s comments. (As you may have heard, Rep. Rodgers is one of the people being talked about as a possible vice-presidential candidate on the Romney ticket.)

Other Republicans jumped at the chance to criticize the Democrats because of Ms. Rosen’s remarks. For example, they started marketing a coffee mug that boldly proclaims “Moms Do Work! Vote GOP.”

So if we recognize that moms are, in fact, working, no mother (or stay-at-home father) who is doing such work should be considered unemployed. Presto! The problem of high unemployment is solved!

Mr. Romney claims that “92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women.” But since all of those women who have children at home are actually working, how can they be classified as unemployed?

Obviously, that is not what the Republicans meant when they criticized Ms. Rosen and stood up so staunchly for Ann Romney.

But it is just as obvious that Ms. Rosen was talking about gainful employment and was not at all belittling or demeaning the hard work of being a homemaker and mother.

I am writing about this matter mainly to emphasize how politicians should deal with the real issues, the clear differences in political positions, and the proposed solutions to the principle problems of the day rather than disseminating statements taken out of context, half-truths, innuendos, and all sorts of uncivil pronouncements. 

In his important new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), psychology professor Jonathan Haidt titled the last chapter, “Can’t We All Disagree More Constructively?” That is a good and important question.

One way to disagree more constructively is to use language that is not incendiary, that is, avoiding pejorative, emotionally-laden words, name-calling, labeling, assigning guilt by association, and the like.

As we move through the next 6½ months of intense political campaigning, I earnestly hope there will be a profusion of civility with focus on solutions to the real unemployment problem, along with the myriad of other issues facing the nation. 

Sadly, I’m afraid that will not be the case.

Rebuffing Repulsive Right-wing Rhetoric

Last time I wrote about the need for greater civility in what we say and more respect for those with whom we disagree. I believe that those attitudes are needed especially by those in the public media and by politicians. Regrettably, some definitely seem to lack those characteristics.

That people will disagree on various matters is certain. And that is OK. What is not OK is using false, misleading, or inflammatory rhetoric. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of the latter going out over the airwaves every day. And most of it is coming from the political right-wing.

Every day (M-F) two radio stations in Kansas City broadcast hours and hours of right-wing talk. On KCMO one can listen to Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Rusty Humphries eleven hours a day, and KMBZ airs Rush Limbaugh for six hours, Glen Beck for four hours, and Mark Levin for two hours daily!

There are some left-wing talk shows accessible on the Internet and MSNBC on cable TV, but I have tried in vain to find any liberal talk-radio stations in the Kansas City area. It is quite certain that “talk radio” around here is overwhelmingly conservative (right-wing).

I often listen to the Mark Levin Show on the way home from the class I teach at Rockhurst University. Much of my negativity toward repulsive right-wing rhetoric comes from him. His criticism of the President is extreme: he has linked the President to Hitler and Stalin, accused the President of leading the government toward tyranny, and yelled into his radio microphone, “Obama is a bald-faced liar!” as well as “Nancy Pelosi is an idiot!” and other such disrespectful and uncivil ranting.

As for the politicians, I do not in the least think that Sarah Palin has intentionally encouraged physical violence against political opponents. But it is a fact that her website had crosshairs on districts with politicians she opposed, such as Rep. Giffords. It is also true that she posted these words on her Facebook page: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”

It is also true that Sharon Angle, who sought unsuccessfully to unseat Representative Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in last fall’s election, spoke about “Second Amendment remedies” and said that that Amendment, which protects the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, is “for us when our government becomes tyrannical.”

It is also a fact that Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), member of the U.S. House of Representatives and chair of the Tea Party Caucus, said back in 2009 that she wanted residents of her state to be “armed and dangerous” over the President’s plan to reduce global warming “because we need to fight back.” Apparently, she did not mean armed with guns and physically dangerous, although some who heard those words might not have recognized that.

While there are, no doubt, some liberal politicians who have recently made indiscreet statements, I have not been able to find any left-wing officeholders who have made ill-advised statements such as the three examples (all women!?) given above.

So, I rebuff the repulsive right-wing rhetoric that is fouling the airwaves and encourage readers of this blog to join me in calling for more civil, respectful discourse, and less inflammatory public speech on the radio and by our elected officials.