As a resident of North Carolina who remembers Mr. Zappa from the ’70s, he was spot on. I’ve watched politics for decades with dismay, and the recent moves in my state toward [Christian Fascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism) make me sad. Christian Fascists watch secular protests against their agenda and toast each other with [mugs that say “Liberal Tears”](https://www.amazon.com/liberal-tears-coffee-mug/s?k=liberal+tears+coffee+mug). They didn’t accomplish (e.g.) government control of women’s pregnancies with peaceful protests, they did it through a coordinated, long-term strategy of electing Christian Fascists and taking over government. To understand how, we have to understand how our political system works.
In America, the typical political system is:
(1) two political parties producing candidates based on special-interest sponsorship in a primary contest, then
(2) a fraction of eligible voters participating in a general election for ‘the lesser evil’ to decide between those two candidates using [a plurality voting system that ensures the perpetuation of the 2 party system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), then
(3) post-election ~~corruption~~ lobbying of the elected resuming.
In this system, ~90% of state and federal government leaders’ elections are more the result of a well-funded and unrepresentative duopoly than a ‘free and fair election of the people’. In it, citizen voting is a ceremonial after-party process that happens after the parties have been paid to create the only two ‘electable’ candidates. Voters get to choose the left or right wing of one bird – the special-interest money bird – in what amounts to a forced choice against the interests of the majority of the people.
In this system, both major parties can demand that Americans surrender Constitutional rights. Each party can demand the surrender of different rights, e.g. gun rights or abortion rights – although sometimes they might agree to infringe the same right, e.g. free speech or privacy rights. The 2 party system combined with plurality voting is a divide-and-conquer strategy by special interests, and a lose-lose proposition for the people (even if both parties aren’t equally bad).
This political system is systemically broken right down to the voting method. Going from it to an actual representative democracy would require things like overturning Citizens United and using ranked voting, otherwise “government of the people, by the people, for the people” will remain impossible.
Religious special interests lobby directly for a government that enforces their ideas about morality, and sometimes only has to reward with the promise of re-election. There is no meaningful enforcement of a separation of church and state in America, because too many who are responsible for that enforcement are religious. (Following the money from churches to political influence is a topic that probably deserves more investigative journalism.)
> “I’m realizing that everything I’ve ever written about religion’s harm boils down to one thing.
> It’s this:
> Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.
> It therefore has no reality check.
> And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. **It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality… and extreme, grotesque immorality.**”
Religion apologists handwave us past religious lies and the unscrupulous people who use religion as a tool for manipulation, often by referencing the benefits of religion – except none of the actual benefits of religion require religion. They are all accessible through non-religious practices like philosophy and humanism.
You might have heard that ‘religion does more good than harm’, but this is a nonsensical way of doing moral calculus. It suggests that if we have something that produces (to speak abstractly) 10 units of good, then so long as it also produces no more than 10 units of harm it’s not morally objectionable. If it produces 10 units of good and 9 units of harm, then it still does ‘more good than harm’ – and religion apologists can argue for religion on that basis. Religious institutions have a strong motivation to get us to adopt a ‘more good than harm’ standard. It gives them a license to do harm, so long as they can assert that there is more good being done elsewhere.
Which of the harms done by religion are necessary? None. So long as the good done by religion can be done by secular institutions, then religion deserves condemnation and no favored place within our government.
No doubt people will lap this up but Zappa literally and unironically calls himself a “constitutional fundamentalist”. Zappa and his ilk are critical of individuals for being attached to the Bible yet he’s just as attached to the constitution, a random piece of paper written by random and fallible humans. There’s nothing special about it. Saying you’re for something, or believe in something, or want to defend something etc.. simply because it’s written in a dusty piece of paper from <300 years ago is moronic.
I’m convinced Zappa would be a politician if he were still alive.
It’s like he was predicting the future.
He got it right. The religious right is now legislating from the bench.
As a resident of North Carolina who remembers Mr. Zappa from the ’70s, he was spot on. I’ve watched politics for decades with dismay, and the recent moves in my state toward [Christian Fascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism) make me sad. Christian Fascists watch secular protests against their agenda and toast each other with [mugs that say “Liberal Tears”](https://www.amazon.com/liberal-tears-coffee-mug/s?k=liberal+tears+coffee+mug). They didn’t accomplish (e.g.) government control of women’s pregnancies with peaceful protests, they did it through a coordinated, long-term strategy of electing Christian Fascists and taking over government. To understand how, we have to understand how our political system works.
In America, the typical political system is:
(1) two political parties producing candidates based on special-interest sponsorship in a primary contest, then
(2) a fraction of eligible voters participating in a general election for ‘the lesser evil’ to decide between those two candidates using [a plurality voting system that ensures the perpetuation of the 2 party system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), then
(3) post-election ~~corruption~~ lobbying of the elected resuming.
In this system, ~90% of state and federal government leaders’ elections are more the result of a well-funded and unrepresentative duopoly than a ‘free and fair election of the people’. In it, citizen voting is a ceremonial after-party process that happens after the parties have been paid to create the only two ‘electable’ candidates. Voters get to choose the left or right wing of one bird – the special-interest money bird – in what amounts to a forced choice against the interests of the majority of the people.
In this system, both major parties can demand that Americans surrender Constitutional rights. Each party can demand the surrender of different rights, e.g. gun rights or abortion rights – although sometimes they might agree to infringe the same right, e.g. free speech or privacy rights. The 2 party system combined with plurality voting is a divide-and-conquer strategy by special interests, and a lose-lose proposition for the people (even if both parties aren’t equally bad).
This political system is systemically broken right down to the voting method. Going from it to an actual representative democracy would require things like overturning Citizens United and using ranked voting, otherwise “government of the people, by the people, for the people” will remain impossible.
Religious special interests lobby directly for a government that enforces their ideas about morality, and sometimes only has to reward with the promise of re-election. There is no meaningful enforcement of a separation of church and state in America, because too many who are responsible for that enforcement are religious. (Following the money from churches to political influence is a topic that probably deserves more investigative journalism.)
I recommend anyone to read Greta Christina’s great essay [The Armor of God, or, The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful](https://the-orbit.net/greta/2009/11/25/armor-of-god/):
> “I’m realizing that everything I’ve ever written about religion’s harm boils down to one thing.
> It’s this:
> Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.
> It therefore has no reality check.
> And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. **It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality… and extreme, grotesque immorality.**”
Religion apologists handwave us past religious lies and the unscrupulous people who use religion as a tool for manipulation, often by referencing the benefits of religion – except none of the actual benefits of religion require religion. They are all accessible through non-religious practices like philosophy and humanism.
You might have heard that ‘religion does more good than harm’, but this is a nonsensical way of doing moral calculus. It suggests that if we have something that produces (to speak abstractly) 10 units of good, then so long as it also produces no more than 10 units of harm it’s not morally objectionable. If it produces 10 units of good and 9 units of harm, then it still does ‘more good than harm’ – and religion apologists can argue for religion on that basis. Religious institutions have a strong motivation to get us to adopt a ‘more good than harm’ standard. It gives them a license to do harm, so long as they can assert that there is more good being done elsewhere.
Which of the harms done by religion are necessary? None. So long as the good done by religion can be done by secular institutions, then religion deserves condemnation and no favored place within our government.
socially retarded is a sick burn, but also quite accurate.
“Decased” WHY WOULD THEY OPEN A DECEASED ROCK STARTS CASKET!? And why is Frank Zappa able to talk?
Sorely missed at this time of the universe
The episode of Crossfire is even better
No doubt people will lap this up but Zappa literally and unironically calls himself a “constitutional fundamentalist”. Zappa and his ilk are critical of individuals for being attached to the Bible yet he’s just as attached to the constitution, a random piece of paper written by random and fallible humans. There’s nothing special about it. Saying you’re for something, or believe in something, or want to defend something etc.. simply because it’s written in a dusty piece of paper from <300 years ago is moronic.
Zappa was an absolute gem.
funny which side of the aisle the censors come from now
The curse of those who travel by moonbeam — they see dawn ages before the rest of the world.