fas•cism (fash′ iz´əm)

I picked this word this week because it was flung like a weapon at me in a facebook battle.  I wasn't prepared to do battle the day the word was placed before me, like a gauntlet being thrown down.  But once it happened, I realized that I needed to understand the word.  (All the better to fight you with, my dear!)

The battle began with my hunger, I'll admit it.  The truth is that when I'm hungry, I can be irritable.  So when an acquaintance posted a Sinclair Lewis quote which said "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible" I was already on edge.  I consider myself a person who could be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible, so I took it pretty personally.  To be thorough, I would be wrapped in other things and carrying other things, too, lots of them, but my "self-symbolic outfit" would definitely include those two items.  It was not news to me that the politics of the woman who posted the quote were different from mine, and somewhere in my head a timid voice whispered that facebook battles are always, always a waste of valuable time, so I restrained my hands, though they were itching to  input a comment that would be both insightful and personally stinging to her.

Is this the face of a fascist?

"REAL MATURE! " I bet you're thinking, because when I read my own words, I'm thinking the same thing.  My sweet husband, Charles, urged restraint and a 24 hour waiting period, much like the one required when someone purchases a gun.  He's a smart and kind man.

I restrained for a couple of hours, all the way through our family home evening lesson (taught by Charles) about Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.  The thesis of the lesson was that these young men were 1) brave enough to stand up to the king's servant when they were required to do things they had covenanted not to and 2) wise enough to present a solution which would simultaneously   a.benefit the servant, the king and themselves and b.  prove the benefits of their covenant lifestyle.  A great example.

As the children were consuming their f. h. e. treat, I was already sitting at the computer (WAY before the 24 hour waiting period was up) composing the first of a dozen responses, each one wrong.  I finally came up with one which I thought would work.  It wasn't angry, it wasn't personal, and it probably wasn't very effective.  I typed, "Very hip sentiment, but it sounds like you're saying that patriotic Jews and Christians will be the downfall of America.  Is that what you intended?"

Of course she hadn't intended that, she said.  THAT would have been stupid and offensive.

So what DID she intend?  Now I can't be sure since my final defiant facebook act was to UNFRIEND her.  (Take that, you!)  From the posts I read before my exit from the arena, I gathered that she was mostly reacting to the news about the Restoring Honor Rally which took place on August 28th.  She didn't like it, and didn't like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.  They come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible.  Are they fascist?  I don't know!  I don't think she knows, either.  I realized I'd better find out, especially if I was going to answer a claim which caused such a visceral defensiveness in me.

Fascism is defined in the dictionary as "a system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism and racism, militarism, etc."  (etc.?  In a dictionary definition?  It's like Webster is saying, "Why don't you go ahead and fill in the blanks."  What?)   Hitler was a fascist.  Mussolini was a fascist.  Some South American guys appear to be fascist, like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Apparently lots of other people get called fascists, too. . . Wikipedia had this to say, which I think hit the nail on the head.


 Richard Griffiths argued in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".^[36]

Fascist?  I can't quite get my head around it!

<sup>And,


George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".[79]</sup>



So maybe she was saying, basically, that patriotic, Bible-toting people are political bullies.  I had to think about that.  I would agree that many on-air personalities are trying to be bullies.  I, too, worry about their rhetoric.  I worry about extremists of all stripes.  (Nothing against striped people!  We're all God's children.) But I worry even more that the rally at the capitol represents the final, gasping breath of the concept that political opinions sprouted from the seeds of religious conviction are legitimate.  Before I responded to the Sinclair Lewis quote, I noticed that my friend's comment had caused several people to click the "like" button.  I looked at their faces as my computer presented them for my view.  All appeared to be college-aged.  Since I was, and still am, quite sure that none of those kids could pin down a definition of "fascism," I assume that they "like" the idea that patriotism and religion are baaaaaaaad.    (bleat this word out, like a goat would.) This is what our young citizens believe.  And it's not only them.  The people planning to attend the rally were instructed NOT to carry political signs of any type.  If this was to be a rally about morality and values, there was no place in it for politics.  That's what even the "extreme" right wingers had accepted as fact.  Does that scare anyone else?

George, being fascist.

George, being fascist.

Here's what Neal A. Maxwell had to say on that topic--in 1978.

"We will see, in our time, a maximum effort made to establish IRreligion as the state religion.  It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value-essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.  Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted.  A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus and to not get uppity about it.  This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive, concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.  In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending towards those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values.  In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to nullify the opinions of those who still worry over standards, such as those in the 10 commandments.  If people, however, are not permitted to advocate, to assert and to bring to bear in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold which grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would we be, anyway?  Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established, nor to have a particular religion favored by government.  They wanted religion to be free to make its own way.  But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church."

Wow.

All opinions come from deeply held beliefs.  Why on earth would it help any of us to pretend that certain of our opinions are just shallow, surfacey political opinions, not connected with who we really are and really hope to be?  Don't we need people to live by their most important values in every aspect of their lives?

Don't we really need more Daniels--more people committed to holding firmly to what they believe, and working wisely to make it a winning situation for everyone?

There's nothing fascist about that.