Back in 2005, I wrote a diary here at Daily Kos under a another signature. I realize that there is a rule against posting old diaries (even from a few years ago). But in light of "The One" ad, I thought I would re-post sections of the edited diary illuminating how religious language is infused into Republican talking points.
I'm headed out on vacation. So everyone have a great week. Keep it cool. Remember that there will be many new people headed to this site around convention time who are still not familiar with many advantages of voting for Obama. These people may be doctors or construction workers with long hours, or housewives holding down a job and family. And, yes, intelligent people may just now be focusing in. Give 'em hope!
God is in the White House
Revisited.
George Bush: "You are either with us or against us."
When I heard the U.S. President make this remark after the attacks of 911, I was angered. "But that's blasphemy!" I thought to myself.
You are either with us or against us.
The philosophical and theological underpinnings of this statement are very ancient and embedded within us as all. Religious language is a part of our "genetic" social heritage going back to the very origins of the concept of good and evil. The statement is actually a blunt inquiry into whether you believe yourself to be a good person or not. And if you do believe yourself to a good person, then Bush presents you with only one answer - his. It shuts down discussion and debate, and presupposes an all-knowing goodness that the speaker has to offer.
You are either with us or against us.
As one example of many illustrations of this concept is addressed in the Bible, I shall use an Elisha story from the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament). First, let's put this story in context. (Passages are pulled from the New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition.)
As told in several chapters in I Kings and II Kings, Elijah was a prophet during the religious crisis of the ninth century B.C. There were two camps: the followers of Yahweh and the followers of the Baal (the God of Canaan and Phoenicia.) Elijah led the fight for Yahweh; and Omri, king of the northern tribes of Israel, led the fight of the Baal. The conflict finally led to the overthrow of Omri's dynasty.
You are either with us or against us.
In a story where Elisha successfully repels an Aramaean raid (II Kings 6.8-23), a similar, and yet strikingly dissimilar, construct of the U.S. President's statement of good versus evil is addressed:
"When the disciple of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, he saw a force with horses and chariots surrounding the city. 'O master,' he said, 'which way are we to turn?' The man of God answered, 'Do not be afraid, for those who are on our side are more than those on theirs.' Then Elisha offered this prayer: 'O Lord, open his eyes and let him see.' And the Lord opened the young man's eyes, and he saw the hills covered with horses and chariots of fire all round Elisha."
Note how Elisha views good and evil as a spiritual struggle. He prays for his friend to "see" the difference. He consoles him that the force for good is the greater.
"As they [the Aramaean raiders] came down towards him, Elisha prayed to the Lord: 'Strike this host, I pray thee, with blindness;' and he struck them blind as Elisha had asked. Then Elisha said to them, 'You are on the wrong road. Follow me and I will lead you to the man you looking for'."
Note that the warring raiders are on the "wrong path." The opposing force is "blind" to the truth. There is not an "us" versus "them" that is addressed, but a force for good or for evil that works through us.
"And he led them to Samaria. As soon as they had entered Samaria, Elisha prayed, 'O Lord, open the eyes of these men and let them see again.' And he opened their eyes and they saw that they were inside Samaria. When the king of Israel saw them, he said to Elisha, 'My father, am I to destroy them?' 'No, you must not do that,' he answered. 'You may destroy those whom you have taken prisoner with your own sword and bow, but as for these men, give them food and water, and let them eat and drink, and then go back to their master.' So he prepared a great feast for them, and they ate and drank and then went back to their mast. And Aramaean raids on Israel ceased."
Note again that there is a distinction between man's view of justice and God's. This twist on the story also introduces the concept of redemption. The opposing force did not "see" the goodness in themselves.
You are either with us or against us.
This statement uses scriptural language without addressing the point of that scripture: a discussion on the spiritual nature of good and evil. The statement sidesteps the possibility of being in the wrong. I believe the U.S. President uses Biblical constructs in this statement to not only support his policies, but to evoke an allegiance to God as equal to an allegiance to himself. It is highly crafted language. The U.S. President certainly does not address where he gets his authority to make such a statement. I find that blasphemy.