I must admit that Stone Island makes so many mistakes regarding political theory, history and philosophy that I am finding it harder and harder to believe that he is what he says he is.
You should read
Matt Taibbi's piece in the latest Rolling Stone ragazine. He goes undercover in John Hagee's church, and spends a week at a retreat. Here's a bit of it:
One thing about this world: Once a preacher says it, it's true. No one is going to look up anything the preacher says, cross-check his facts, raise an eyebrow at something that might sound a little off. Some weeks later, I would be at a Sunday service in which Pastor John Hagee himself would assert that the Bible predicts that Jesus Christ is going to return to Earth bearing a "rod of iron" to discipline the ACLU. It goes without saying that the ACLU was not mentioned in the passage in Ezekiel he was citing — but the audience ate it up anyway. When they're away from the cameras, the preachers feel even less obligated to shackle themselves to facts of any kind. That's because they know that their audience doesn't give a ****. So long as you're telling them what they want to hear, there's no danger; your crowd will angrily dismiss any alternative explanations anyway as demonic subversion. A team of twenty of the world's leading scientists wouldn't be able to convince so much as one person in this crowd that homosexuals are not created by pedophiles.
I think that pretty much explains it all, don't you? Neuhaus wrote it, he's considered "credible" by his audience, therefore it much be true. My impression of this thread is that SI posted his initial stupidity, and as the thread continued, he answered each objection by flipping through one of Neuhaus's books and then basically cutting and pasting his arguments into this thread. Actually thinking about these positions? I doubt SI has even considered that idea. The conclusion is what matters: for whatever reason, SI needs to classify himself as better than others based on his belief in the mythological deity of ancient Middle Eastern people. Since self-esteem is a tough thing for some folks, they often take the easy way out, and classify another group as being "second class"... or, in SI's case, "not capable of being good citizens."
I always wonder how empty someone's life must be, that their main source of pride has nothing to do with any accomplishments, but in something silly and arbitrary and most foolish of all
based on simply not being part of a group that you are bigoted against. It is identical to a racist saying "well, at least I'm not black" or "Mexicans don't belong in
our(white) country." There IS a method to the madness, of course. The people who take pride in being part of a group, instead of in their accomplishments, usually don't have much in the way of real things to be proud of, because those things take EFFORT. It doesn't take much effort to be a member of a group based on believing something and saying the right words on cue. That's why people like Neuhaus define "good citizenship" in the way they do... the way they define themselves as a good person is by excluding people outside of their "club."
Most people define good citizenship based on rational, adult standards. Good citizenship is generally defined by the works a person does to improve the country they live in. That includes things like participation in the political process, volunteer or charity work, public service including but not limited to military service, and other active efforts to be a part of a thriving and healthy society. It involved dealing with your fellow citizens in a decent and honest way, paying your taxes, working a job, and helping out people in need. The religious right-wing, on the other hand, defines citizenship the way a small, not very bright child would: by being a member of the Christian "club", and learning all the "secret handshakes" of the club. It is all about symbols like the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, and putting a Jesus Fish on your bumper. The practical responsibilities of citizenship don't mean anything to them, unless they can be publicly displayed as yet another meaningless symbol. The only people they feel any obligation to are their fellow club members. And, worst of all, the ideas of decency and honesty are not valued by many of these people if it gets in the way of the ideology. Maintaining the power of the "club" and its symbols is far more important than integrity or compassion.
In that way, it is much more logical to say that a person like Neuhaus is not only unfit to judge what makes a good citizen, but is also unlikely to be a good citizen himself. Not because he's a Christian, but because he rejects the idea of civic duty in favor of his religion.
