|
anybody else.
I concluded that she is rightwing on the abortion and gay rights issues. People who want to impose their religious views on others--and infuse these personal religious beliefs into politics with the goal of restricting other peoples' freedom with government power--do not understand two of the most basic premises of democracy--freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws. These are quite typical rightwing views and they are often accompanied by associated anti-democratic policies such as curtailing freedom of speech and rule by elites--generally rich white corporate elites (fascists). I am NOT saying that anyone who is PERSONALLY against abortion, for their own reasons--religious or otherwise--is a fascist. I'm saying that people who want to use the powers of government to ban abortion (to the back alleys) are fascists; and I say the same about those who want to use the law to ban gays (back to the closet).
Thank you for correcting me, as to Marina Silva being a rightwinger on other issues (extrapolating from her desire to impose her religious views on other people via the law). That is what I was asking, and you clarified it very well. I would be concerned, though, that she could be a "wolf in sheep's clothing," since our corpo-fascist rulers here in the U.S. are so adept at co-opting rightwing religion to serve their profit and power agenda. And I do find rightwing religion and enviromentalism to be a very unusual combination--also rightwing religion and social justice policies.
The timber industry and other corporate exploiters and polluters were, for a time, trying to paint environmentalists as "Pagans" in the U.S.--obviously trying to appeal to rightwing 'christian' bigots, and to ridicule and marginalize the environmental movement. And the corpo-fascists here have a long history of painting as "godless communists" anyone and everyone promoting social justice. The Catholic Church hierarchy and predatory capitalists were at one on this particular demonization, for many decades. I grew up with this devious combination of rightwing religion and corporate propaganda, so I am very sensitive to it. I think that corporations' alliance with rightwing religion is extremely cynical and manipulative, and dangerous. But I DO want to understand Brazilian politics and I realize, from your posts, that I must be more careful about making assumptions about Brazilian politics based on the politics that I am most familiar with, that of the U.S.
I also constantly have to remind myself that Latin American countries have an unique history with the Catholic Church, not replicated here in the much more diverse, pluralistic north, which was founded by Deists, on strictly secular principles, and has been most influenced by Protestantism (including a heavy does of Puritanism). (That is why we could witness the spectacle here of a U.S. Attorney General putting a blanket over the Statue of Justice to cover the statue's naked breasts, and the FCC fining a major TV broadcaster because a singer, during the half-time show at a big televised football event, showed her breasts. We must seem quite nuts to the rest of the world, at times. )
But, be all that as it may--our Puritan roots--we've BECOME a quite diverse, multicultural and multi-religious country. And, despite the Bush Junta's and the Corporate Rulers' efforts to establish "Christianity" as the state religion here--for war profiteering purposes--we still have a Constitution that forbids such "establishment" and a long tradition of the "separation of church and state"--very unlike Latin America.
I see both positive and negative aspects to the Catholic Church's influence in Latin America, but I do know that I don't understand it fully (and maybe no one does--it's full of quite interesting contradictions), and that it is VERY DIFFERENT from the U.S. in this respect. I try to keep this in mind in evaluating political issues and figures in Latin America.
But perhaps I don't quite grasp how MUCH the influence of the Catholic Church has created a "mainstream" that is opposed to full equality for women (and for back alley abortions) and is opposed to equal rights for gays (and really would like gays and lesbians to return to the agonies and deformities of a closeted existence), and is perfectly comfortable with the government imposing these policies on everyone, as a matter of law. To me, these are extremist rightwing positions--fascist positions--but maybe they do not strike most Latin Americans that way. Is this what is going on, and why I have trouble understanding it--that most Brazilians consider Marina Silva's sexist views as mainstream?
I'm aware that Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff have had to dance around on these issues. They both hold progressive views on these matters (pro-secular society, pro-human rights views), but they have not pushed the envelope, to assert them, and to get these principles established as law. They are not unlike our Democrats, who have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the devilish combination of rightwing 'christians'--who are NOT in the majority, here; in fact, are a tiny, extremist minority--and the corpo-fascist PRESS which has given this minority a BIG TRUMPET, way out of proportion to their numbers, with which they bully progressive political leaders and blast their religious propaganda at us all. HOWEVER, perhaps Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff are dealing with a much bigger religious constituency, which is leftist on economic policy and rightist on equal rights for women and gays--a constituency schooled in these views by the Catholic Church from baptism onward, over many centuries. Is this the case? Is this why Marina Silva can have what, to me, are very contradictory and puzzling policies?
I'm aware that the Catholic Church is being rivaled by Protestant Evangelicals, but, however that contest is going, the Catholic Church remains a pervasive influence with deep historical and cultural roots. Does this account for people like Marina Silva, whom I would otherwise describe as leftists, wanting abortion to remain illegal, and gays to remain unequal? These are not normal leftist positions in the U.S. or, indeed, in the rest of the western world. And leftist leaders like Chavez, Morales and Correa have broken away from Church influence on these issues. (In fact, the Chavez government risked their whole 69-amendment package, put to a national vote in 2007, by including equal rights for women and gays--which is the main reason the package lost, in a very close (virtually 50/50) vote, in my opinion. (The Church was very opposed.) These are still difficult issues in these countries, but the leaders are leading--are actively trying to achieve equal treatment before the law, for women and gays. My last question: Is Brazil different? Is there some reason that Brazil is behind the progressive curve on these issues?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
