PC Envy

Political Correctness appears to have usurped religion’s title as arbiter of morality; Religion wants the title back. 

Political correctness has, until recently, been under the thumb of religious control. Now, religious forays into actual politics have whittled down their stature and made them simply another player in the game. The amorphous PC world is often seen by them as a rebellion against religion, but, in truth, secular opinions are only now being freely heard. This has the effect of normalizing a more secular society. All this coincides with the growth of the internet which facilitates and accelerates rapidly changing attitudes and knowledge.

It is my contention that the ascendant Alt-Right/Authoritarian/Trump wave currently plaguing society is due to their own efforts to combat Political Correctness as a whole because, without domination of the game they earn a low rank on PC scales. Their efforts result in a jealous desire for PC stature that they refuse to earn for themselves. They are clawing their way out of that self-imposed hole using the least PC tools available; those efforts make for a fierce and determined, amoral contender.

Political correctness does not come from the courts, the law, or church. It comes from the heart of society and its shared sense of humanity. Political correctness does not rely upon a specific dogma. Political correctness is a shared consensus not an actual organization or club that one belongs to. It is the spirit of the times, the zeitgeist of the moment. It has no owner or president nor structure. Anyone is welcome in the world of political correctness. All humanity and its enterprise exist somewhere on the scale of political correctness.

People and entities are ‘self-ranking’ within the politically correct hierarchy. Entities obtain status through being observed and then unofficially ranked by consensus within the society. There is no chart or record or award for ending up at some point or other on the ranking chart. An entity’s rank can change in an instant. It is a matter of a multitude of perspectives on that entity and its behavior. One’s perspective changes constantly, so, from any person’s current perspective this question is repeatedly being asked: is that entity fair to the rest of us?

The list below is an observational description of PC.

  1. One speaks respectfully about all issues and the people who hold those various opinions whether they agree with them or not.
  2. One stands up for their beliefs and asserts them in a respectful way without insulting the integrity or humanity of those around them.
  3. They listen to the opinions of others and respect them for their merit, civility, and disposition in society.
  4. Each entity puts into practice, through action, this common moral assertion: The Law of Reciprocity (do unto others as you would have others do unto you).
  5. The test for civility is not found in the designation of ‘good’ in opposition to ‘evil’ for there are many goods and many evils. The test for civility is how one – good, in-between, or evil – collaborates with others who may, or not, be good, or evil, or a mixture, in the quest to coexist peaceably.
  6. Political Correctness is about civility – shared respect and fair treatment of others.
  7. As with all social structures PC can itself become oppressive and exclusive and over-adamant of its perceptions and conclusions, and therefore become guilty of over-reaching itself. This should be pointed out and addressed when it happens.

The Trump/alt-society (including White Evangelicals, White Supremacists, and the 1%), demands a rank of high-status in the PC world similar to that of say, Civil Rights. Religions expecting their prior stature say: ‘We demand the esteem we have always had.’ Political Correctness does acknowledge their prior stature, but the alt-right’s rank is always low on the PC scale due to their rebuke of the Law of Reciprocity. This demand for a clearly un-earned high status causes the PC folks to cringe. The Alt-right’s self-righteous approach misses the point of a non-structured entity like Political Correctness with no authority-based leadership. 

“Deep and sincere religious belief” is the call of desperation from the religious authoritarian perspective. That phrase is being used to rationalize the religious domination of our culture. An example: “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination They must surely be put to death.That authoritarian command obviously runs counter to the Law of Reciprocity and common decency as well. The recent Supreme Court decision, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, illuminates the piercing point of the wedge being used to pry open the law which would allow the codification of religiously based bigotry. It comes in the form of that deceptive phrase: “deep and sincere religious belief”.

In the Alt-Right mindset, a deep & sincere religious belief alone is sufficient to override all of the following: deep and sincere beliefs of all others, the Golden Rule, Civil Laws, common sense, common decency, respect, and love. 

There is no mechanism for deciding the supremacy of deepness, I mean, a splinter in my finger feels deep but fracking shale in horizontal wells is also deep. How does one measure the sincerity of a given belief? What constitutes a ‘religious’ belief? It seems redundant. How is it different from a regular belief? “I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows,” makes for a great song lyric but is patently untrue; is it a serious religious belief? It was written by Erwin Drake, in the genre of ‘faith song’– a musical prayer. It is a beautiful sentiment that was very popular in the 1950’s pop music scene. At what point does belief overtake sentimentality; at what point does belief supersede veracity?

This dominating attitude is the cause of religion’s low rank on the PC scale. Religion is based in mystery and is full of fantasy. The verifiable qualities of their supernatural beliefs don’t exist. Rational thoughts or behaviors are irrelevant in religious belief. Insistence in the authority of ‘belief’ diminishes their stature once the bluster has settled and the face behind the facade is made visible. 

Religion and Political Correctness have different goals:

  • Religion is attempting to define good and its opposite, evil. Political Correctness is an attempt to make manifest the ways we all get along together.
  • Religion places people in good or evil categories (often for their obsessive concern: sex) while PC individuals self-rank according to collaborative fellowship without fantasy or mystery.
  • There is no organization or hierarchy or dogma for PC ranking; it amounts to organic fairness. Religions create dogma, rules and rituals to maintain authoritarian dominance over its followers; this creates a with-us or against-us mentality.
  • Good and evil or a mixture of the two exist in all people to some degree. Both religion and PC control the mixture through a shunning process. Religion has legalistic authoritarian rules that lead to exclusion when violations occur. Low PC ranking amounts to a natural repudiation from society, but not outright exclusion. 
  • The rules of religion are spelled out in documented legalese. The rules of Political Correctness ebb and flow; they resemble a sensibility of the moment more than a list of moral approbations.
  • Mystery-based, ancient religious edicts regarding moral behavior may contain any number of extraneous, sexually misbegotten, non-instinctual, older, authoritarian demands. PC seems respectfully amorphous in contrast and a bit avant-garde. 
  • We all have stock in Political Correctness, but most of us have zero stock in any more than one Religion; none of us have stock in every Religion.

When the Alt-Right seeks to pick a fight with an amorphous foe, how do they know where to aim their arrows? Trump’s scattershot answer to that question is to be amorphous too, in an aggressive way. If PC has no structure why should he? Sure, he can codify their bigotry into laws through an ambiguous ‘belief,’ but the stacked court can’t define politically correct; that is our collective pride and privilege to decide. We need to be politically active about what is correct.

Wedding Cake Harbinger

 

The Vagaries of Religion are Protected by the Constitution

The time is here to become a Pastafarian. The constitution protects religious: fluctuations, variations, quirks, peculiarities, oddities, eccentricities, unpredictability, caprice, foibles, whims, whimsy, and fancies under the guise of “deep and sincere religious beliefs” especially when it comes to pastry. The constitution makes no allowance for the absurdity, inhumanity or diabolical behavior of the belief. There is no scale to judge the merit of the core faith. If people call it a religion then it has constitutional protection. It must be respected under the law. If your religion hates Christians then it must be accommodated by law. Or so the recent ruling about baking religiously sensitive cakes by the Supreme Court seems to say. Open mockery of the flights and fancies of some religion shows disrespect, you can’t do that. Satanists, Witches, Vampirism, Jediism, must all be given equal and complete respect within the judicial and enforcement communities so the holy baker wins.

Of course, LGBT people deserve the same respect. So, Once more into the mildewed beast my friends, Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination They must surely be put to death” has equal status with – “We’d like a wedding cake because we love each other and want to get married.” Who wins? Well that isn’t part of this decision. The battle continues, but just look at how often the phrase “deep and sincere religious beliefs” or something similar is used in the decision. That is the harbinger we face now.

An Authoritarian’s Authority

What authorizes an authoritarian to be an authority?

There are two ways to be an authoritarian: one is to be the follower of a particular authority, the other is to be the authority. The passives submit to the authority and defend the authority’s stature in society. They don’t lead, yet with extreme devotion they blindly follow those who take charge. They mimic the arrangement within their own families, using the tradition of a man in charge, and the women and children who submit to his will.

Gigantic evangelical super-churches with thousands of members who flock to highly populated services where they passively follow the show-biz leader’s televised, amplified, melodramatic moralizing illustrate the Evangelical authoritarian theology. They present glossy showmanship and scripted passions. They speak to the ‘audience’ not the individual. People enjoy the show-like ‘service.’ They don’t want fellowship, where everyone knows their name, they want the society of a fast food joint. They walk in, encounter strangers, watch some moralish show-biz presentation and then leave. No muss or fuss. Passions are best raised when someone else is being condemned. Pick on outcasts to develop serious passions and genuine animosity in the crowd. It sells even better than speaking in tongues! The audience walks away having felt something significant. Their prejudices and fears have been justified. They shared a commonality with a big room full of strangers. And guess what, no thinking! This wan’t complicated, it was simple and powerful. The band was great, the lighting spectacular and the sermon was funny and did you see that hairdo? And, Oh yeah, they said, “Jesus” a lot.

Rock Religion

Church or Rock Concert?

This whole event accommodates the anonymity of those in attendance. The edge of the stage, which serves as a barrier between performer and audience prevents genuine interaction. The social pressures of ‘political correctness’ can easily be dismissed in this environment. So, while the spectacular service is a far cry from a KKK rally, similar sentiments can thrive. They condemn the LGBTQ population with a particular vehemence that parallels the rhetoric of the KKK. This creates a specific “us” (the Christians in the room) and places them in opposition to both the specific, and often un-named “others” who exist “out there.” Muslims? Fags, People of color? Immigrants? Whatever frightens you are the enemy. Evangelicals get away with blatant bigotry under the guise of a moral, god-sanctioned, charlatan-lead, feel-good scam. Want fries with that?

I have spent my life in showbiz, both commercial showbiz and fine art, non-profit theatre, ballet and opera. I know the high-end tricks of the trade so to speak. I know the cheap tricks too.  We use the full range of theatrical techniques to accommodate the needs of what is being communicated; we search for subtext and implied meanings of the presentation to find the appropriate level of spectacle required. Rock shows are all spectacle. Industrial trade shows are meant to sell something, they use gimmicks and cheap theatrics and spectacle. Serious art uses the sophisticated, subtle dramatic effects sparingly, only in accordance to the needs of the show and not for the sake of spectacle alone. When a church starts using mindless spectacle to sell its product, that is the sign of a lack of substance and a commercial intent.

Now, a glorious cathedral with incense and music and costumes and grand architecture and cannibalistic rituals (eating the body and blood of a man/god) is a spectacle. But, this spectacle is focused on the teachings of the church, it is the same at every performance whether five or five hundred people attend the service. What ever opinion you may have of the event, it is always coherent and purposeful. The showbiz spectacle of megachurches seems to be focused upon a more commercial intent. Their goal is numbers and dollars and if some moral imperative is not popular, like say divorce, well it kind of disappears from the program. The people on stage aren’t interchangeable the way priests are. The personality is the draw; so star personalities are the selling point not the principles of the faith.

I have been going to USITT conferences since the mid 1970s. This is the US Institute of Theatre Technology. At some point in the 1990s perhaps, I recall, a major shift that added the category of ‘religious theatre’ technology to the concerns of the Institute. It was a clash of cultures to start, but once the realization that money was readily available from evangelical churches for equipment, technology and employment they started to fit right in. Rock-shows had always been the big money innovators in lighting and sound technology. Suddenly, these churches had more cash and desire to buy the tech than fine art theatres did.

So, a Mass is a Mass, but a megachurch is not another megachurch, they are selling different

pay to sin

entertainments and their message is flexible. A lot of money is involved and their flexible moral foundations allow for mulligans for horny politicians the way Catholics sold indulgences in the middle ages. Trump is the perfect star for this kind of production. His salesmanship and showmanship provide the ultimate con for gullible and unthinking followers. Trump is the Pied Piper of the submissive authoritarian Evangelicals.

 

So, while the Catholic Church is authoritarian in the sense that it is autocratic, dictatorial, tyrannical, draconian, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic; disciplinarian, domineering, overbearing, iron-fisted, high-handed, peremptory, imperious, strict, rigid, and inflexible, it relies upon adherence to a legalistic and clearly defined set of rules. The head of the church is more or less trapped by the established codes and mandates of the 2000 year old institution. His status has been achieved by surviving a political bureaucracy.

anti-gay megagay

The cult-like following of a megachurch leader is personality-driven and that translates into dollars. The codification of the theology is in its infancy so there is no permanent legalistic formula for compliance. The charismatic leader is likely to teach what he feels rather than what some academic theologians have concluded so the theological infrastructure is already on shaky ground. When times get rough, hate rhetoric is the tie that binds the allegiance. It is more emotive than say, God is Love; they may agree with that aphorism but faggot enflames them to the core. Passion = dollars and butts in pews.

Anti-Gay Tract

It takes a lawyer to read and comprehend the details of Pope Francis’ APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION on LOVE. He did make an effort to dress up the language, to make it readable, but that merely confuses the vile attitude toward LGBTQ folks in the document. The Catholic approach uses a thinking person’s bigotry as a foundation while still relying on the awe of the cathedral, the smell of the incense, and the glorious music to sell their spiritual bureaucracy.

 

The Evangelical approach is pure passion, no need to read or translate anything. This is from a 2010 Guardian article on the Saddleback Megachurch:

…popular evangelical Christianity is religiously vacuous. It is directed to secular ends which, arguably, should be promoted by secular means. Saddleback is religion for people who don’t like religion: transcendence is not on the menu.

Evangelicals live in Madonna’s Material World and they are material girls (metaphorically). Her song is about choosing a mate but the criteria is cash, and love is never mentioned. Donald Trump is the ultimate material guy. Trump needs God the way a material girl needs love. She doesn’t.