npj

this is going to be an experiment, and i am not sure how it is going to work. basically this is going to be an occasional feature in my blog - it is going to the email exchange between me and an ex-colleague. it will be the "political" debates we have (i will still clear of the other debates we have as sometimes talking about the state of welsh rugby can get pretty ugly).
ok some background about npj - he is about my age, he is opinionated and passionate about many things, well read on many subjects, a bit (ok a lot) of an anorak when it comes to matters military (and trust me when a man comes back from seeing a movie like gladiator to say they didn't have stirrups back then - you know you are dealing with an anorak of a major type!) npj is welsh - which will explain some of the digs that go back and forth between us. he is also dyslexic and a bad typist - which will explain some of the spelling errors (i can only claim bad typing as my excuse). he also has a tendency to use initials for shorthand, sometimes these are obvious and sometimes they are not...... it all adds to the fun. i am not going to amend the emails - you get them as they are. where possible i will add in links to the relevant piece that has sparked it off. sit back enjoy. (this is for you cliff - you wanted it you got it......)

npj (this is in my inbox early)
Even Gary Younge is in on the act, and of course brings out his tried and trusted post colonial arguement against secular liberals intolerance and misunderstanding of the religious. You'd think he was delighted that the effete liberals lost their bid to the white house to those wonderful folks of true faith, who like flying the good old stars and bars ala John Ashcroft.

And this weekend's Grdn had a loaded article on the Dutch situation, hell you'd think van Gogh was a rabid racist who commited suicide to spite society.

Are people of faith stupid or nutters, yes and no, just like secular liberals, each camp has twits.
That prick Galloway before the Iraq war said he wasn't a pascifist and Dressden deserved what it got in WW2, he should read about it some time the pig, it wasn't the SS melting in the inerno.
I know I am often in danger of patronizing religion myself because I can't buy into it, yet I know inspirational people who get it, plus I recognize liberals can be as sanctimonious and preachy as anyone.

Yet peoples faith only needs to be respected if its worthy of such.

Secular liberals, there will be religious liberal though mostly jewish, can and should engage the religious in America, (I'd start with where's your love they neighbor mindset gone, doh there I go again), because they won it for George, who won it for business and the old testament God, but they didn't win it by much.
So let's not delude ourselves shall we by suggesting that everyone attending church in the US is a gun owning, gay hating, bigot, but let's not kid ourselves either that it's all gangstas and neonazis doing the hatine thing; or delude ourselves that we can cross the middle ground and give up womens and gay rights to catch the religious floks block vote shall we?

the article in question is this one

my reply was

Not sure what you are trying to say here!
Somewhere in there the rant loses direction……

I am going to have start posting some of these on my blog.

I have had a non invovlved weekend, all ruined by the fact that boris has been sacked.

(as you can see i am up for the debate....... needed that coffee.....)

undettered npj comes back with

Hypocricy is the crux of it.

Gary Younge has joined the band wagon of blaming the Democrats for not engaging the religious block, and sniping at elitist liberals for having a go at religion, which in Europe is prevelent amongst the minorities, and so for good meassure he yet again goes on about post colonial closet racism.
Problem is, until November 2nd, Gary Younge was with that liberal elite that hadn't taken seriously enough those faithful legions and is yet another pundit not only wise after the event, but suddenly eluding to a faith of his own.

I find it as patronising as I guess the religious find being told they are out of touch, except that now it is secular liberals who are out of touch and rapidly becoming a silly minority with too much to say about what is no longer important to the majority.

I mentioned the Netherlands piece to emphasise the deference being paid to religion and the media bias, when after all its the critic of an aspect of a religion that is dead.

I could have mentioned that I keep reading about liberals being respectful of islam while ridiculing christianity, yet what I actually read is them ridiculing hypocrits like George Bush and not people like Archbishop Williams or Pope John Paul.

I am tired of cheap shots and blame when its the other lot who are creating the problems.

i strike back with

The problem is not that the american religious voted – at best karl rove was only after 4 million of their votes – its that others didn’t vote the way they thought they should. Such as the youth vote which according to some didn’t vote the way they were supposed to.
Additionally I think it would be a gross stupidity to believe that all the anti-gay, all the anti-abortionists and all the pro-gun people were necessarily religious in any sense of the word. You don’t have to be a believer of any god to want to beat up gays or place a protest vote. I am sure the kids who killed the gay barman on the south bank were all regular church goers (mind I am going to feel stupid if they turn out to be regulars at the local parish).
Plus as a pal of mine said bush made a big deal about how he would protect america, kerry didn’t get that across. (it matters not that the world is a lot less safe under bush than it was 5 years ago!)
We live in the period of politics of fear – and the politicians are not singing songs of hope and bright futures they are telling us that without them it will be worse and darker.

(by the way the pal in question is tammi - name changed to protect the guilty)

npj comes back with

I think he was after more than 4 milln, 70% of Americans attend church, plus you've synogoes and mosques. But I know what you mean about the fear factor, and the media let the Republican party play it shamlessly. Dick Chenney persisted in talking about links between alQeda and Iraq even after his nations intelligence community admitted to none and the media let him.

Last week I mentioned the role of the media, and the difficulties of getting a message across that people don't want to hear, or vested interests don't want them to. Remember the NRA was running spots for Bush on the netwoks, TV evangelists were stating the President was a man of faith, and this with the majority of the electorate being poorly informed and attaching huge significance to single issues.

I appreciate your point about the teen trash that beat the gay barman to death, they may well be unaware of the recent activities in the Anglican Synod or Islams stance on homosexuality, having received no moral instruction from anyone, religious or otherwise. Just as I accept that not agreeing with something as evangelicals don't in the case of homosexuality isn't the same as taking malicious or even civil action against it. Not everyone with religion is professing the word 24 7, or even beyond their place of worship.

I think the Democrats can fight a much better more focused campaign, none of which is served by the headless chicken reaction I've descerned post election from it's supposed supporters.
The shock is the lose, not the margin, which while a clear margin isn't great.
On a platform of social justice and opportunity that express the essential aspirations of all religions, the democrats can appeal to the best elements in Americas religious community. They should look to court the inclusive not the exclusive, but if those of an exclusive mind set are a significant factor, then heaven help them all.

now i did reply to the above but it seems unfair that i get the last word.

so there you go - the first of the npj emails. remember there may be more ......