Some observations about Kentucky for 2008
Matt Gunterman January 2nd, 2008
Sounding off Shawn’s comments about his frequency of posting (by the way, Shawn, best of luck in Iowa tomorrow, and happy birthday — Shawn had his birthday breakfast this morning with John Edwards), I have been a bit quiet on these pages the last few weeks.
Namely it’s because I have had lots of other deadlines to meet as of late for my employer and most recently it’s because I’m in rural Kentucky for the holidays where dial-up Internet connections make blogging pretty near impossible (well, painstaking at least). So, once again, I find myself thirty miles from home at a good old Panera Bread with a bottomless cup of coffee and free wireless.
And, while I’ve been home, I’ve been listening a lot to what local folks are talking about politically.
Interest seems to be really picking up in the Presidential race. Last week, the county weekly newspaper featured an op-ed from the minister of the local Christian Church. What was his concern? Mitt Romney (R), how he’s not a real conservative (or Christian), and how dangerous the “cult” of Mormonism is. This denomination, you’ll recall, is the same one that failed Kentucky Attorney General candidate and über-bigot Rep. Stan Lee (R) belongs to.
What’s humorous is that this Christian Church preacher is so, so oblivious to the history of his own religious tradition — Stone-Campbell Restorationism — that he’s unaware that a century ago it wasn’t uncommon to hear more “mainstream” churches call “Campbellites” like him cult members.
The other smear I’m hearing a lot of — and I mean a lot of — is the Barack Obama (D) is a covert Muslim and/or the anti-Christ. I’m hearing this from all corners of the fundamentalist religious community here.
My role as listener ends when I hear this one. There’s no sense in trying to reason with any person who would utter that silliness aloud. So, whenever I’ve had the chance, I’ve just told the person saying it that they’re an idiot.
Really. I just ask, “Do you believe that?” And if the answer is yes, then I just tell them they’re an idiot. I don’t see any point in trying to convince them otherwise; I just let them know that I think they’re an idiot.
We’ve talked here before (and the post was heavy on comments of affirmation, too) about the problems Kentucky has with the more churlish elements of its culture.
And these problems have only been made worse by the political machine and methods of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) and his minions. McConnell’s program to politically empower rednecks has been so successful that as of late it’s even threatened to get out of control of McConnell himself. You need only witness the rise and spectacular fall of the Ernie Fletcher faction of the KY GOP to see that.
McConnell’s brand of the GOP will implode (and is in the process of imploding). The GOP of the future will not look back on McConnell’s tenure as a party leader as some sort of golden era. McConnell and McConnellites will be the Dixiecrats of the 21st century.
But that doesn’t mean that McConnell’s politics and tactics can’t poison and cripple the culture of Kentucky for decades to come. And in a continent-sized nation with a population of 300 million, cultural strength factors significantly into economic prosperity. Over the course of a generation, dynamic minds and creative personalities will tend to be drawn to locales with more progressive outlooks. Birds of a feather flock together. If the future culture of Kentucky is dominated by a creed that thinks Kentucky’s internationally disgraced Creation Museum is science, then that future culture will not be one that supports a vibrant economy.
And, while it’s true that you’ll find backwards-looking people everywhere, Kentucky is one of the few states where they’re a serious political force, and we have McConnell to thank for that. For his short-term political gain, Mitch McConnell has turned the keys to the Porsche over to folks who literally don’t believe in the laws of physics.
One hopes that Kentucky’s political leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — will find the courage and voice to one day call out these fundamentalist redneck types for what they really are: idiots.
One hopes.
- 2008 Presidential Campaign , Kentucky , Kentucky Dems , Kentucky GOP , Mitt Romney
- Comments(16)
You mean Bareback HUSSEIN Osama? Mmm hmm. I’ve heard that one before - apparently he’s not only a Muslim, but a gay dictator as well! A funny post about it on Jewcy: here.
They drove me crazy, long ago, and I am now considered unorthodox in their bizarre little world.
“There is something fundamentally wrong with the strange thinking of my friends and relatives” I said. “What can it be?” Then I realized the answer is embedded in the observation. “They are fundamentalists!”
Someone else who’s familiar with the Sixpaks, Joe & Josie. Are they still looking to have offspring? Last time I checked they were checking to see if the stork would deliver as it flew south for the winter or north for the summer.
Alas, they were told the beak was full on this trip, maybe they should have the Great Pumpkin put in a good word for them.
Good to see everyone!
Speaking of ‘idiots’ I don’t know how many saw the article by Grim Old Party writer Peggy Noonan when she spoke of the religious extremist who controlled her party as the idiot vote which she says: My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010955
it’s at the botton of the article, USE it, they know it’s ruining their party!
A few definitions from the Liberal Dictionary…
Fundamentalist: Anyone who isn’t ashamed to admit they believe in God.
Change: The greatest issue facing the country. Which candidate can promise the biggest, most amazing Change usually wins. No need to explain what that change is.
Supporter: Any out of state employee brought in to make the campaign look more successful then it is.
Progressive: A step towards socialism, which is a needed step towards communism.
Good Ol’ Boy: Any Republican who has been in office for more then 2 years.
Dedicated Public Servant: Any Democrat who was appointed out of friendship by the governor or party boss, despite their failure to accomplish anything they stay in office and are the true definition of a “Good Ol’ Boy” by anyone else’s standards.
Republican: Mean nasty people who believe that citizens can make decisions for themselves.
Liberal: Anyone who correctly knows that big government can take away that annoying habit of making a decision for yourself.
Darfur: A bitter, civil-war torn region in Africa that looks exactly how we wish Iraq would look whenever there’s an American Election.
You’re going to have to do better than idiotic forwarded emails, champ.
8.3 million dollars for MP3 players for villages in Afghanistan!!! couldn’t pamphlets of worked, that right they can’t read,i wonder if they ever figured out how to turn them on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCrYajugVG4&eurl=http://www.campaignmoney.org/bigmoneymitch/ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCrYajugVG4&eurl=http://www.campaignmoney.org/bigmoneymitch/ad
Herodotus, 2 points on your “Good Ol’ Boy: Any Republican who has been in office for more then 2 years.”
1 It looks like “good ol’ boys” are becoming a dying breed.
2 It’s “than”, not “then”.
I am well aware of the history of the Stone-Campbell movement. Apparently you are not. The Christian Church is entirely independent. It is not a denomination. Yes, it was once called a cult, but calling it a cult and being a cult are two different things. Check your facts.
Freepers at long last (begin) their racist smears
Well, Matt Sutman, we can talk facts. First, however, as I am an actual SCHOLAR of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, one who wrote a disseration at the University of Glasgow — where, you’ll recall, Alexander Campbell, who is the “Campbell” in Stone-Campbellism, went to university himself, and that dissertation of eschatology of Stone-Campbellism received the mark of high-distinction. So, in short, I know a lot — A LOT — about Stone-Campbellism.
Of course, you’ve already established in your short comment here that I can’t carry on a rational conversation with you. The Christian Church has thousands of congregations and over 1 million members in the United States, yet you proclaim that it is not a denomination of Christianity. You do realize — and I know you do — that if you asked the Baptists, the Methodists, the members of the church of Christ, etc., in your community if the Christian Church is a denomination, they would reply yes, correct? If the congregation you minister to was the only congregation like it in name and beliefs in the United States, then you might have an argument.
Scholars of religion don’t classify denominations simply by governing structure. I realize that your argument that the Christian Church is not a denomination is founded on the fact that the congregation itself is largely autonomous in its governing structure. That distinction, however, is not enough to merit it not being called a denomination, a word which simply recognizes that there are a substantial number of members and congregations that share a common history and belief system.
In fact, I remember very well that the old church building of the congregation that you’re ministering to now, the one that was across the street next to the Baptist church, had a brick with the words “Church of Christ 1895″ on the side of it. That places your congregation decidedly in the historical development of the Stone-Campbell Movement.
The most humorous part of this exchange however is the severe level of compartmentalization that you must participate in in order to write these words: “Yes, it was once called a cult, but calling it a cult and being a cult are two different things.” You write those words after declaring the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints — otherwise known as the Mormon Church — a cult yourself.
So, I guess we can apply your own bit of wisdom: a country preacher calling it a cult doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Mr. Sutman, you’ve just been served. Times 1,000,000.
Matt, I’m not trying to argue. I am quite sure you know volumes more about the Stone-Campbell movement than I. I just cringe at the thought of being even considered a denomination, while simultaneously coveting their advantages. Yes, I am a country preacher, now. Not sure what that means! As far as the Mormons being a cult, I don’t say that alone. I do realize that semantics often force people to disagree about things and that, too, bothers me. From what we know about the Mormon church and from what you know, how would you classify them and what is your (I really hate this phraseology) definition of a cult?
BTW - Thanks for stirring the pot!
PS - I get served daily!
First, what I do here and what the other contributors do here is not “stirring the pot.” We fight for justice; we are defining the future. We are speaking to the new mainstream of American culture, the new middle that’s forming, the new governing majority. We’re not stirring the pot as much as we’re filtering out the dregs.
No, you don’t say that Mormonism is a cult alone, but no-one in the mainstream of American culture says this and no scholars say this. The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints does not meet the standard definitions of a cult. A cult must be small, relatively new, and typically has a living founder. The LDS Church is far too old and established (and actually well within the mainstream of American Christian culture) to be called a cult. From the secular mainstream of American culture, there’s really difference in strangeness between the LDS Church, Campbellites, or Baptists. They all have their peculiarities, and the LDS Church, for one, has a much stronger reputation in the wider United States for stronger family life and missionary efforts.
Let’s talk a little about the word “cult.” It has a definition, we could look it up. But instead, we know it has a negative slant when used to describe another church. That is why people like Sutman use it to negatively taint the Mormon Church. That is exactly why 100 years ago Methodists (I only use them as an example since I am one)called “the Christian Church”. That is exactly why 100 years before that the Anglicans called Methodists a cult. And a couple hundred years before that the Catholics called the Anglicans a cult. A thousand and a half years before that the Romans called the Christians a cult.
None of them were right by the real definition of course, but that wasn’t the point, was it?
And of course by common use any smaller break-down of the Christian Church beyond protestant is a denomination…like Baptists, Methodists, “The Christian Church,” and yes, even Mormons. What probably makes you mad more is that I include the Mormons in this list of Christian churches. Same God, Same son sacrificed for our sins, same heaven, etc.
I look forward to having this discussion with you in Heaven, assuming we all make the grade!
Not quite. Mormons do not have the same heaven by any means.