| [ |
mood |
| |
 contemplative |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
"A Strangely Isolated Place," Ulrich Schnauss. |
] |
Neither Obama, H Clinton nor McCain
While I have been avidly following the pre-elections, I'm only now tuning in re: Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama's (I presume he needs no introduction) subsequent public defence and distancing from said ecclesiastical figure. So far I've kept my mouth shut for two reasons:
a) I'm not an American, and didn't believe I have the proximity and affinity to credibly comment;
b) Quite related to a), the crux of the pre-elections (issues of content) pass me by, either because they're not topics that live in my country or topics that have been resolved.
However. As a direct answer to the Wright event, I must say that I feel neither candidate is suitable for the presidency. To the US citizens, maybe, but not to the world.
It all comes back to the classic separation between church and state, a separation theory that is 'classic' for a reason. Whenever I watch any of the pre-election speeches a sadness overwhelms me connected to this exact theory. Sure, American politicians have a knack for claiming favouritism where high and mighty God is concerned ("God has a special place for us [America] in his heart"), but the religious rhetoric part, present and future administrations (for all three candidates employ it) vested in these speeches makes me want to turn away and claim distance. Mixing religion and politics is a most powerful tool, an absolute tool that corrupts absolutely. Perhaps said candidates would like to read up on Dante's Inferno (published as early as the 15th century), where several warnings against ecclesiastical meddling in the state setting are given.
In contemporary times one can see such warnings echoed in the works of most notably Michel Foucault (check out Foucault 1977; 1978; 1984; 1994). In a nutshell, to spare you said readings, Foucault is opposed to the notion dominant in politics and philosophy that knowledge is immune from the workings of power. Instead, power in fact produces knowledge. All power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on and reinforces existing power relations. Thus, there's no such thing as 'truth' existing outside of power - how can history have a truth if truth has a history? Truth isn't something external to social settings but is instead part of them.
I feel this is the core to the whole debate. Truth cannot be claimed, as much as the politicians listed above do in fact claim truth is on their side. A religious truth. A Christian truth. I mentioned that this might work in the US, for the US as I know it is a country heavily imbued with Christianity. This is how it becomes historically viable, but, at the same time, it's artificially given a fixed meaning, and itself caught up in the practice of sovereignty by producing the discourse about it. The political strategy in it is the fact that, since religion and politics mutually reinforcing each other, it cannot be falsified.
In case any Christians feel particularly offended by what I'm saying: it goes for any religion. Judaism. Islam. Any organised religion. Even the universally understood pacifist Buddhism, as we see now in the China-Tibet conflict. Belief can be beautiful, and believers of any kind have as much right as anyone to run for office, sure. But they should not abuse said office to preach their ideology. Just as the fact you're a vegetarian only matters when you have a meal, and just as the fact you're a MSc only matters in a narrow professional setting, every individual has multiple identities and uses them selectively depending on the context they find themselves in.
"Yes, but you're Dutch, everybody knows your country has already gone to the dogs", you might say. Not quite in that sense, and it saddens me. A secularised state by law and constitution, two of our three current coalition parties are Christian parties, with all the consequences it brings. If you haven't heard yet of the precarious international commotion that already exists about the yet-to-be-launched anti-Islamist film by one of our right-wing politicians: said Christian parties are explicitly polarising from Islam, a phenomenon that both dominates the media and the minds of the citizens. I may be a minority, but I believe that a secular, nonreligious reaction unaffected by dogma would have led to not only a much friendlier, but also a more objective stance on this issue. Comparing it to the US, well, it cannot be denied that elements of a crusade accompany the Iraq war, again pitting two religions with overwhelming reach and power opposite each other.
We're on dangerous ground, folks. If Dante didn't warn you, maybe the casualties on TV and the hardening political climate do. One cannot afford subjectivity in politics, especially not when the stakes are so high. Coming full circle here, a separation of church and state, a clean cut, is what the current global atmosphere calls for, especially in a country as pivotal and influential as the US.
There I went all philosophical. I surely didn't intend to make my argument this long. But it had to be said. Comments and criticism welcome.
- Your friendly neighbourhood secular progressive liberal f-lister.
|
content
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}