Radio and T.V. talk show host, newspaper columnist, converted Jew and advanced guard of the right wing moral agenda, Laura Slessinger has succeeded by blending a pseudo-logical mindset with the unreasonable “toughness” popular in right wing thinking and the support of a return to “traditional” values.
Links to other people who have other problems with Slessinger:
I find the new popular appeal of traditional values very strange, but this is understandable in light of the popularity of "toughness" in politics. The type of people stupid enough to consider toughness an asset in leadership, as opposed to intelligence which they distrust, are the same type of people who would like the western world to step backwards into the dark ages of tradition. These are the types of unevolved people that need not only to be told what to do, but need a justification for the illogical and unreasonable prejudices they are born with. Their fear of the unknown is an excellent instrument in the hands of the relatively intelligent opportunists which vocalize the traditionalist agenda. Rather than educate these people and teach them how to think critically about the world, the traditionalists romanticize a past when the barbaric ideals of religion and ruled the world and one's irrational xenophobia was called "moral instinct".
The popularity she has gained is also due to the fact that by supporting the right wing moral agenda, she lends credibility to the right wing economic agenda as well. The right wing economic agenda benefits the large corporate bodies who have in turn supported her through advertising dollars and access to a vast number of media outlets.
This is important to consider when discussing the sincerity of her message. One of her biggest long time sponsers has been the manufacturers of “The Phonics Game” , a company who has a vested interest in the continued degredation of the U.S. public school system. Given that the Republican party, the number one political outlet of the right wing moral and economic agenda, has always been known to cut funding to the school systems, one can see why a company like that would want to back a media personality who supports the agenda of such a party.
She is against divorced mothers dating, which is understandable when you consider how much she rants against single motherhood. If single mothers don’t date, then they aren’t as likely to remarry. If they don’t remarry, then there’s a bigger “problem” of single motherhood to point to for credibility. By crude remarks about “shack ups” and “studs” she pretends that the enforced loneliness of a divorced parent is in the best interests of children.
This is part of her opposition to any cohabitation outside of marriage, because she believes that marriages won’t last if the couple knows each other before hand, and that the oaths and paperwork are vital for a relationship to be successful. She often uses a statistic linking pre-marital cohabitation with likelier divorce, pretending not to realize that it has more to do with the attitudes of the couple. Simply put, if one is of a traditional mindset about pre-marital cohabitation, they are likely to be of a traditional mindset about divorce as well.
A traditional mindset about marriage is usually the result of childhood indoctrination, which is almost always accompanied by the physical abuse and lower status of women in the household that is part of tradition. Fear of divorce being a sin is a major factor in cases where women remain in abusive relationships. Laura can talk about not approving abusive relationships all she wants, but abusive relationships are part and parcel with the traditionalism she supports. Abuse is what enforces tradition, be it execution of dissidents and heretics or beating the woman when she gets out of line, support of tradition is support of abuse.
Her traditionalism has to be analyzed as well. Ideas which are rooted in tradition are directly connected to abuse and oppression because tradition is abusive and oppresive. She pretends not to acknowledge the fact that the decline in moral values came along with a great rise in the status of women and minorities. If we were still living in the “good old days”, she wouldn’t be aloud the avenues of communication that she has. This link is not incidental. Tradition is what it is because it is tradition. Traditions have always been oppressive because the fact of tradition itself is based on oppression. A traditional mindset is a mindset opposed to new ideas, and given to superstitions and prejudices of all sorts. The two are one in the same.
A shake up comes along, a major decline in traditional values, and things change for the better. Soon the changes become part of tradition, which clings to other prejudices in place of the one that was destroyed. The rendition of tradition that we are slowly floating into is one that, while still rooted in the archaic Judeo-Christian philosophy, now allows for improved status for women. For now. The return to traditional values in Afghanistan under the Taliban should be looked into by such traditionalists as Laura Slessinger, and they should be asked if they really support it. Of course they don’t. But what they pretend not to realize is that Islam, Judaism and Islam are almost identical, and that the return to traditional values in the west will take on the same charactaristics in time. Allow the puritan homophobia and enforced monogomy to return under the banner of Christianization, and a generation later will re-discover the forgotten element of Sexism in Christianity, following the return to tradition with it’s logical consequence. The logical consequence of a return to tradition is a return to tradition, not necessarily in the form of tradition you’ve romanticized.
She seems to be of the mindset that religion is always good. She’s talked about the “emptiness” of atheism, which is a myth to cover up the insidious effects of childhood religious indoctrination on the adult. The emptiness is the hidden guilt of the individual who, because of childhood indoctrination, can’t completely escape the religion they were brought up with. If the religion they were brought up with isn’t tolerable to them, they will still have an inclination to religion in general. For more on this, read my essay: Better A Soul That’s Empty And Cold Than A Hot Head Full Of Shit.
Her other defense of religion is that religion is a good influence on morality. It also makes all forms of superstition and prejudice possible, as one cannot possibly be a rational thinking individual when they base their view of the world on things that are unlikely and unproven. She’s even pointed to the apparent universality of certain traditions like homophobia and enforced monogomy, while shying away from the apparent universality of sexism that is directly attached to those values.
If one is going to call themselves a Christian, a Jew or a Moslem, then they should follow the teachings of that religion or call it something else. It comes as a package, and Holy scripture doesn’t prioritize it’s values. If you’re going to use the bible to defend homophobia, then you are obligated to follow the bible’s teaching in other regards. Otherwise, you fall into the category of “False Jew” and “Lukewarm Christian” mentioned in the bible, to be called liars and spewn out of your creator’s mouth.
Laura Slessinger should read those parts of scripture carefully. According to them, she shouldn’t scold or teach religious concepts. This is the entire basis of her show, so if she’s really a believer, she should get off the air. If she’s not, she should add a disclaimer admitting that she’s a lying, conniving hypocrite with an ulterior economic motive.
Some ask what the connection is between the right wing economic and moral agendas. If one can see that the right wing economic agenda is intended to benefit a powerful minority at the expense of the majority, one can see the connection.
In order to persuade a majority to oppose it's own best interests, one needs to emotionally and psychologically cripple them to make them obey. Read The Mass Pyschology Of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich and one sees how the moral agenda of traditionalism is intended to do just that.
In addition to all of this, she's also spouted just about every medical myth supporting circumsision that can be found. She's even gone as far as to say that all opposition to circumsision results purely from anti-semitism. This is strange coming a person so vocal about a child's best interests. Face it, lady, genital mutilation is NOT in a child's best interest. This useless operation serves one purpose, to reduce sexual pleasure, which is why it comes with the anti-sexual nature of Judaism and Islam, along with other barbaric traditions.