Letters to the Editor
Monty Johnston
Published Letters: 120 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Thanks, John, Louis -
[Read the article: Are you going to hell?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When John Marks said, "...religious experience is a real and valuable part of existence - regardless of whether you believe in God," I thought we were going somewhere. But the interview took a different turn, which was ok too. What's interesting to me is that atheists, obviously, don't hold no truck with religious experience, but neither do conservative Christians. Oh, they may get their holy roller buzz, but that's just mood alteration. No, for them it's Son, and sometimes Father, but no Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, holy spirit is considered New Age and selfish.
I know atheists and conservative Christians, among others, who are not New Agers yet experience egolessness. Some call it religious experience, some spirituality, some nothing at all.
I did discussions on this for two-plus years at a drug and alcohol rehab. The most confused were the conservative Christians. They didn't know what the fuck I was talking about. I quoted to them, "The kingdom of God is within you," talking their language, and they started to get it. Like John Marks indicated, all their religion hadn't kept them from being hopeless drunks and addicts. I suggested they might want to revise their relationship to their egolessness - "higher power" is what I said. (You can have a higher power through egolessness and remain atheist. And non-fanatical.)
No, it's worth appreciating the way most atheists and religionists are identical in their practice of egofulness. I should say that most of us are egoful a lot of the time, and, yes, I'm speaking for myself. But there are moments. You do your best thinking when you stop thinking.
Best -
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
Yes.
[Read the article: How to turn white evangelicals into Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Evangelical Democrats were with us through the '30s but, because segregation was non-negotiable for them then, they became Dixiecrats in the '40s and then, later, Republicans. Segregation is not their issue now and they're due to come home to the party of the not-rich. But Republican operatives have tacked on abortion, gays, and latte liberals to the Democratic brand. Amy Sullivan is saying moderate evangelicals are beginning to see through that.
Another way to say it is that in the old Democratic alliance evangelicals joined the rest of us. Republicans weaned them away by saying that since you go to the same church as your boss, and you listen to the same music as your boss, and he talks the same, and you want to be as rich as he is, wouldn't you like to vote for the boss's party? which they fell for. They voted against themselves. They met our modern post-'60s world by circling their sociological clique's wagons. They needed that comfort, to be with what they would call their own.
Fortunately George W. Bush and his ilk have been a bad advertisement for religion.
To join us, evangelicals need to be willing to embrace the wider American world. We are everybody. We are not this narrow little in-group "our people" thing. I see it happening. Amy Sullivan sees it happening. Good.
Best -
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
So you won, so drop out -
[Read the article: It ain't over yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In 2000 George W. Bush won while losing the vote. Hillary can only win the Democratic nomination by losing the vote. She had best not do to the Democratic Party what W. did to America. No more politicians, please, who don't listen to the voters' votes.
A good question to ask all candidates is, "If your election is near a tie, would you ask for a fair recount to make sure you were elected by a majority of the people?" It never occurred to me before W. that this needed to be asked. She's losing. She lost. Live with it. Move on. We need to win this presidential election, for us and our country.
Best -
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
Dear DMG -
[Read the article: My half-brother locked me in the closet and I think I'm to blame]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, as Cary and many posts say - Permission granted for therapy. The rule of thumb that I learned: If after 3 sessions you both agree you can work together, keep going. If not, find someone else.
Someone mentioned the Stockholm Syndrome. Also I'm reminded of the phrases "blaming the victim" and "identifying with the oppressor." It was natural for you to do what you did when he did what he did. There is a certain domino-falling logic to the horrors of dysfunction and torture, and an obverse relief to unraveling it.
Sorry to say, but I agree with others that your parents should have noticed. I guarantee you were giving off enough hints at the time, either intentional or symptomatic. I don't say this to blame them, or even your step-brother - though you may well need to go through necessary anger at them all - but that it's hard to untangle your reactions to abuse until you're frank about what the abuse was. Bigger people ignoring abuse is abuse.
Fortunately the anti-victim fad is dying. People who tell you not to be a victim and to just get over abuse tend to be victimizers. The posters who wondered why you were so upset when they'd survived the same things just fine - I believe they're unwilling to do for themselves what you feel compelled to do to heal. It's not always easy but it's not as bad as the abuse itself, and it can finally be just fine. Life looks different without a monkey on your back.
Best -