No, seriously! In this month's issue,
the one with the unbelievably overexposed J. Simpson on the cover, there's a pretty substantiative article on our
favorite fundamentalist segregationists.
(Note -- as far as I can see, and I looked, this article isn't on gq.com or any other site. I typed all this by hand so there's no links to the actual article. Just run into Borders or something and read it over a mocha or something...)
Writer Guy Lawson does a good job; he doesn't get judgemental at all, he lets them do most of the talking and lets the reader see what they're about for themselves. Actually, there are some things about them and founder Cory Burnell that might suprise a liberal reader who automatically think they're a bunch of goofballs:
F'rinstance they're not in love with Bush as one might think:
Frank Janoski voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, but he has run out of patience with the rhetoric of of right-wing Republican religiosity. The word of Christ is used by the president's speechwriters only to gain political power.
Christians think Bush is their leader, Cory says, but when the president claims that Christians and Muslims are worshipping the same God, he is directly contradicting John 14:6 and the word of Christ. The current so-called Christian-conservative leaders, people like Falwell and Dobson, don't dare contradict him because they want continued access to the White House. "The Moral Majority has failed" he says. "The Christian Coalition didn't reverse one - not one! - liberal advancement. That's why we started Christian Exodus."
You see the problem: Bush isn't extreme enough for them.
And then there's the war:
Buffy Zelnick has a son in the Army who has done three tours of duty in Iraq, as well as a son-in-law in the armed forces, and she wants to support them as good Christians. "But I don't believe we should have gone over there. We should protect our ownborders."
When the invasion was proposed, Cory tells
me, he was in favor of it because the threat seemed imminent. But there were no wmds as it turned out, no threat, no question of self-defense: "Bush's inaugural speech said that America has the purpose - with force of arms mind you - to give freedom to the rest of the world. Freedom-bringing to the world is absolutely immoral. And you should put freedom in quotes, because one man's freedom is another man's captivity. A lot of Christians have bought into the idea that democracy is a moral form of government. They embark on this crusade to bring democracy to the world, as if democracy is the moral end in itself. That's nonsense. It's just a form of government. Men are moral or immoral.
That knocked me out, all jokes aside. He's solidly liberal on war, and (unknowingly) voiced a huge lib concern: We do have an obstensibly democratic government, but it's been almost completely subverted by the immoral men of the GOP.
But wait, there's more:
Frank wonders about the way the Bush administration is endorsed and blindly followed by so many Christians. "There's a quote in the scriptures that says ' By their fruits you shall know them.' he says of the rule of Bush. Innocent people are being killed in Iraq-both civilians and American soldiers - for no apparent reason, he believes. "A lot of what has been done is evil. I believe people on the religious right are being deceived, and that to me amounts to spiritual darkness. I'm concerned about what Bush's real motives are. I think he has ulterior motives: one world government, the new world order. Is Bush a deceiver? The fruits seem to say so."
That last sentence, if taken out of context is a knee-slapper. But overall once again, he's expressing what libs have been saying for the last three freaking years along with a bit of patented tinfoil headgear.
Of course there's plenty to verify the goofballism as well:
Public Education is run by the left" Cory says. "It's communism through and through. I don't want to pooh-pooh literacy, but people functioned and had very good lives in America in the nineteenth century. To equate literacy with a high standard of living is foolish."
Note: Burnell, 29, is an investment adviser with an MBA.
They could stand to use somebody edjucated enough to give some tips on just how government works at least:
What would life be like in the good and godly separate nation of South Carolina?
"It will be a revolutionary place. A country run according to scripture and will have no taxes on income or property...Revenues will be raised with user fees and tolls...Morality will be a public matter and the will of the majority will be imposed...There will be no social security, no medicaid, no food stamps, no welfare. The needy will rely on the church and charity. "The world is a fallen, tragic place. That is not the government's moral responsibility. You can't get rid of suffering. Jesus said, 'You will always have the poor with you'. He wasn't talking about eradicating poverty or sickeness."
No taxes, huh? That stuff about 'rendering to Caesar' must be one of those verses that can be conveniently overlooked.
Seriously they are nutjobs, but suprisingly they're so far right, they actually come back to the left in some ways. Like I said, interesting article.