Untangling the Tangled, a little more

[bellatrys]

The thing I was trying to say in the last two posts, which keeps getting lost in the thickets of detail, I'll try to spell out a little more (beyond FISCAL CONSERVATIVISM = SOCIAL CONSERVATIVISM = FISCAL CONSERVATIVISM = LIBERTARIANISM) and show how under it all, when you dig down past the ZOMG! Naked Boobies On TV! Dudes Kissing! Ebol Bishops

Comments

[lyorn]

Given that the parish schools that everyone I knew was fighting to not have to pay extra to send their children to were 50% Latin@,

Latin as opposed to English-language, or Latin as opposed to Eastern orthodox? Or something else?

Latino/Latina

[bellatrys]

Their families however had been here as long or longer than any of mine, and all spoke English at home and had again as long as my Northern-European immigrant ancestors had, so I was really confused when I moved up North and encountered the whole "Mexican=furriners-with-furrin accents" thing, and the talk about English-only legislation in the national papers. None of it made any sense to me, since everyone I had known who was Latin-American was just as mainstream Middle-American as we were, or more so. (Some years I was the only kid in school whose parents sometimes *didn't* speak English at home, to avoid being understood by me. Or had even traveled outside the US.)

Though there was also a Latin-vs-Eastern Rite thing going on in our community - that was the doctrinal fight with the diocese I mentioned! No wonder my hindbrain is weirdly wired...

Re: Latino/Latina

[lyorn]

Back in the 1950s, when my late husband was in parochial schools, they were free to parish members, who were expected to contribute at least $X annually to the parish, which was tax-deductible to the parents as not for the school but for the church. And the expected contribution wasn't all that much because the grade school teachers were nuns making about 3 cents an hour, and the high school teachers were teaching brothers making a little more. (Sex-segregated high schools, of course; the grade schools were ethnicity-segregated because each ethnic group had its own parish, which led to ethnic strife when they were funneled into the same high school

Interesting...

[bellatrys]

Here's a mention of the anti-Whitman-naming thing on a transportation site, and no, I never heard about it - and man, that must have been weird, especially when your husband's class got to HS and found out that they were supposed to honor Whitman as this Great American Poet, and nobody in the Norton Anthologies and so forth were mentioning his queerness except maybe veeeery obliquely

[violaswamp]

Yes, this is exactly right. I often encounter liberal- or moderate-leaning people who say that they really have a problem with social conservatives, who are racist and sexist and homophobic, but not with fiscal conservatives, who just disagree with them on the economy.

But no--it's all part of the same thing, it's about Those People being entitled to services that good responsible people like us pay for.

The funny thing is, the mindset is very un-Christian

[bellatrys]

not to mention un-Buddhist, un-Hindu, un-Jewish, un-Moslem, but since so many of them plume themselves on being better/realer Christians than the rest of us, or on being Christians vs non-Christians period, I say again 'tis quite ironic: the whole "Poor people must deserve their sufferings otherwise they wouldn't be poor" is explicitly debunked in the Gospels and repeatedly. At least the irreligious Objectivists are being internally coherent...right up until they try to explain why "De'il take the hindmost" isn't a sociopathic philosophy but instead is REALLY for the common good

Re: The funny thing is, the mindset is very un-Christian

[violaswamp]

King John and the Sherriff are *not* the Good Guys in the story, people! (Unless you're Ayn Rand, that is.) "I"m not a bigot, I just think it's okay to exploit everyone equally!"

Possibly they don't realize it's exploitation. They think of "the economy" or "economics" as some abstract subject.

Also, King John and the Sheriff raised taxes, so I just bet there's some libertarian somewhere who thinks the corporations are like the poor people of Nottingham. (Never mind that King John taxed the poor to give the rich even more luxury, which...sounds a lot like mainstream corporate Repub-and-Dem policy, actually!)

Also...

[violaswamp]

...if you ever feel inspired to post about how these attitudes are un-Christian (-Hindu, -Jewish, -Muslim, etc.), I'd be very interested in reading that post. I will admit to being a cynical nonbeliever who thinks there's plenty in religion to support these attitudes, but I would love to hear from those who think otherwise.