Religious Fascism

Great screed by James Lileks, one of my favorite writers:

http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/05/06/061505.html

Martin Kaplan has a distinguished resume. I would like to thank Marty for adapting ?Noises Off? for the screen, which contained about 27 uninterrupted minutes of Nicole Sheridan in lingerie. He also wrote speeches for Mondale, a man who could sent charging elephants into an instant narcoleptic fit, and he has the sort of scientific, journalistic and creative resume that would make him a fascinating dinner companion, right up until the moment when he said something stupid ( The Hugh Hewitt Show - Opinion and Information with a Unique Twist ):

“Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, calls the new Christer offensive a drive toward ‘theocratic oligopoly. The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country,’ adding that ‘e-mails to the FCC are more worrisome to me than boycotts’ in terms of their chilling effect .”

In one respect, I?d agree, inasmuch as the FCC seems to take concentrated email bombings too seriously. We?ve gotten 10,000 emails! Yes, but they?re from 493 people. True, but 10,000 emails! Boycotts don?t work; they can?t chill an airplane-sized bottle of chardonnay. But that?s not the point here.

?Religious fascism.?

One of the mantras you hear invoked from time to time is ?words mean something.? But they obviously don?t. When intelligent men can make such a specious observation you realize that ?fascism? has ceased to mean anything at all, and exists now as an all-purpose slur, a tar-soaked brush to slap on anything you don?t like. Whether the Soup Nazi actually believes in exterminating the Jews and bending the nation towards race-based collectivism and militarism is irrelevant; what matters is that he doesn?t want to give you some of that yummy chowder.

If one means ?religious fascism? as the use of the power of the state to achieve a particular moral objective, you could argue that progressive taxation is ?fascism,? inasmuch as it assumes that the rich should pay more for the good of all, and this moral imperative should be enforced by law. I would not make that argument, because it would be vile. Progressive taxation is many things, but it?s not fascism. On the other hand, I?m at a disadvantage here; if gentlemen like Mr. Kaplan feel free to drop the f-bomb in order to claim the moral high ground, why should I stand down here in the moat complaining? So I put it to you that Mr. Kaplan is a fascist himself. Period. There you go! That’s easy. If pressed, I will only note that there are some of his ideas which bear a resemblance to policies one occasionally finds in fascist states - inasmuch as he wrote comedy movies, and they had funny films in Hitler’s Germany, too. I mean, draw your own conclusions, people.

It?s curious that this word should re-enter domestic politics at the same time we are not only fighting actual religious fascists, but are embroiled in a controversy over the mistreatment of the tome they regard as their instruction manual. It?s like screaming about ?Domestic nuclear targeting engineers? during the Cuban missile crisis. I suspect Mr. Kaplan subscribes to the fashionable notion that people who email the FCC to complain when a sitcom uses the Eucharist as a running gag ? literally ? are part of the dark bolus of god-bothered maniacs. Fanatics. Wild-eyed nutbombs who want to unite the world under the rippling banner of God Uber Alles first, and have the miserable sectarian wars after the secularists are dead. James Dobson, Osama ? are not both filled with terrible certainties? Is not an email campaign to bring down a TV show the metaphorical equivalent of bringing down a skyscraper? Granted, a writer who jumps from a cancelled show usually lands on his feet. But they have a certain poetic symmetry, no?

No. And anyone who tries to make the point deserves to be struck in the face with a thick, wet, cold haddock. Not that they make that point, to be fair; I?m marshalling my Clone Army of strawmen here as usual. But Kaplan?s remarks suggest he would find common cause with those who insist the problem is not the particulars of religious belief but the extent to which you take them seriously. You?re permitted to lodge complaints, but only if you come from a secular perspective. By all means, protest ? dissent is patriotic! ? but keep that Christer stuff in the church.

As the dyslexic might say, I don?t have a God in this fight; I am well aware that much in pop culture I enjoy or tolerate would be GONE if some folks had their way. But I would prefer to reserve the right to argue against some of their positions from a spiritual as well as secular perspective. In fact I suspect that if a groundswell of moderate-to-liberal Christians fought back the ?fundamentalists? and used spiritual language to make common cause with the secularists, there would be little talk of theocracy or religious fascism, even if the motivations were equally devout.

Wait until an American author is brought up on charges, like Orianna Fallaci ( http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=789030 ), and the bien-pensants are forced to confront, again, a form of religious fascism closer in spirit and form than their fevered speculations about the dark hordes of emailers. The intellectual agony will be delicious to watch. But it’s depressing to consider. What will it take?

Note: if Mr. Kaplan had said he feared a drumbeat of fundamentalist religious intolerance, I wouldn?t have spent a jot on the observation. ?Religious fascism,? though ? that pricked up my ears. Words do mean something. They truly do. Or so I believe. (Devoutly.)

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[James Lileks wrote:]
One of the mantras you hear invoked from time to time is ?words mean something.? But they obviously don?t. When intelligent men can make such a specious observation you realize that ?fascism? has ceased to mean anything at all, and exists now as an all-purpose slur, a tar-soaked brush to slap on anything you don?t
[/quote]

I know just what he means. I felt the same way the first time I saw the word “islamofascist” in print.

Just to chime in, but under http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism fascism apparently isn’t just a political ideology (which is separate from German Nazism) but can also mean ‘oppressive, dictatorial control’ could that be what was meant by ‘theocratic oligopoly’?

Just curious as I’m not that up to date on American domestic politics.

Cheers

[quote]Vyapada wrote:
Just to chime in, but under http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism fascism apparently isn’t just a political ideology (which is separate from German Nazism) but can also mean ‘oppressive, dictatorial control’ could that be what was meant by ‘theocratic oligopoly’?

Just curious as I’m not that up to date on American domestic politics.

Cheers[/quote]

The problem is, you’ve got your prescriptive lexicographers and your descriptive lexicographers. Having been pussy-whipped by TV and the internet, they now fall more into the second camp, and this is what we get. By the time they add a third clause to the definition of “communism” to define it as “oppressive, dictatorial control” we will be all set for total confusion.

Actually, what the dictionary says is that “fascism” can denote just a political ideology, depending on context. A political columnist or a student of political science would do well to eschew any usage implying the more casual alternative definition.

So, let me see if I have this straight: the right is free to have huge ads in the middle of the US saying stuff like “DEMOCRATS KILL BABIES!” (I’m not making this up, I saw several such outdoor ads while driving in Texas) but the left can’t use a little bit of exagerated rhetoric to get a point across?

Give the guy a break; yes, that comment was a bit over the top, but you have to admit that the way censorship is slowly (very slowly, but steadily) creeping up in the US due to religious fundamentalism is digusting (hence my avatar). And censorship is a big part of fascism, so it’s not like he was completely out of it – just a bit superlative, that’s all…

You got it hspder, the right is free to do absolutely anything it likes, but the left is inherently bad if it were to try the same tactics.

It is constantly immoral, anti-american, angry or whatever else you might like to ascribe to it. Anyone who thinks differently or asks questions inherently falls into some criteria such as this.

LOL fundamentalist religious intolerance, given enough power and control, is exactly religious fascism. It is “Do as I say or else” that becomes a real threat to reasonable personal liberty. What else could be religious fascism if not “this book is the word of God, and therefore the law of the land”?

Agree with hspder and vroom except for the “the right can do whatever they want” bellyaching. Dudes, we all can do whatever we want. The fact that some righty guy wrote a blog entry about this Kaplan guy isn’t hurting y’all one bit. Relax. :slight_smile:

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
What else could be religious fascism if not “this book is the word of God, and therefore the law of the land”?
[/quote]

If Billy Graham were dictator and he controlled all media, instituted government control over all businesses, killed the families of dissenters, and published materials that said that America was chosen by God to be the fatherland of the Great New White Race, that would be religious fascism, I suppose. “This book is the Word of God, and therefore the law of the land,” uttered by someone who is without any real political power, is merely delusional. Not a form of government.