Mob Mentality


There have been discussions and studies on mob mentality. Christians are familiar with it as well as anyone. Its been used as a defense and excuse, and its been used as blame. There must be lots of studies about it.

It occurred to me that what we see a lot of today is mob mentality. (or as much as any other time) Most conservatives understand we have a republic not a pure democracy or mobacracy. Mob rule is not difficult to spot, we know it when we see it. How many evils were committed by the mob mentality? But it is not an excuse that should leave the individual off the hook like it is sometimes used. After all, conservatives strive to recognize the individual.

My issue here is not about the definition. Its about the effects. We just saw how a gang rape in India touched off a firestorm of protestors that came out to denounce those acts. I was shocked to see details where a witness saw long strands of intestines being pulled from the woman, who did not survive. If that is not disturbing I don’t know what is. What would cause people to commit such things? Mob mentality? But history is filled of these kind of things. They make TV shows about them. I’m not saying it was the mob mentality that caused all of them because individuals do disturbing things as well.

We tell children “if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you too?” Kids can understand those examples. We don’t want them to participate and blindly follow others in acts of evil. We warn them about peer pressure. We tell them just say no. Sadly, its nothing new; it’s part of humanity.

Christians understand mob mentality in the crucifixion. It was the exceptions and examples like Mary we remember. And other individuals who stood up to buck the trends in the New Testament. There was Stephen the martyr. Roman soldiers mocked Jesus. And Jesus tells the thief he would be with him in paradise. We see over and over the damage mob mentality can do. Look at Pilate.

We’re continually reminded of gang and mafia related violence and killings. They can rule neighborhoods.

We’ve seen stories of out of control mobs in stores at sales, where people were trampled. Police have crowd control tactics. Rodney king was a famous as a victim. Crowds form protests and they boycott businesses.

Media have their own wolf pack mob mentality. They can get in the way of the story they are covering.

I’m not just trying to list all the various forms, and you probably know where this is heading.

We see the mob mentality encouraged. Unions and organizations try to use mobs by organizing people. We have a president who comes from that background.

Of course, you don’t have to think too hard to wonder how mob mentality applies in our government and in Congress. I’ve been thinking how it is the same thing. The effects are all around. We see the pork they pass in bills and the idea is everyone does it. They follow the mob. It’s part of the process. There’s the “I got mine” philosophy.

Hey kids, if everyone is doing it, so guess who just HAS to do the same thing as everyone else? Our honorable reps. Don’t try that at home. We may not have a mobacracy but they do have the mob mentality working there.

So I started to wonder how much the mob mentality really plays into our process? It’s the same damaging philosophy. We hear about polls every day. The “big momentum”. The election process starts way early, mobs form. No different with legislators and the legislative process.

Years ago, we saw John McCain and his gang of 14. We see legislators hold government hostage to preserve their power and agenda. The mob mentality is the culprit, and they act as if its the solution. Politicians will lecture us against mobacracy and mob rule, while they use it as a vice. The founders warned about it in Federalist 10.

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

But instead of working toward the cure, we have a part of our political process who plays the game of encouraging and using factions for its political benefit – like a tool. Another side wants to encourage or support the individual in general. And some see themselves only in the group identity and demographics. How do we control and combat the effects of the extreme identity politics the left has created?

The point is the Right believes in idividuals and appeals to them. But you know how the Dems always tell us about diversity? Yea and the party of quotas and supposedly of minorities has a mob problem. They don’t see Latinos or minorities as individuals but as a group. All part of their extreme identity politics Democrats engage in. They pander and talk to them the same way, by the group. One set of policies for illegal immigrants, one set for blacks, one set for gays, one set for unions, and for women. And they use class warfare in economics.

They cater to the group or mob, it is not about the individual. A person just fits into his/her identity group. They relate to the person through one’s identity group. In the Obama campaign, his website had lists for various groups. You could search your group to see the policies related to being a Latino, a gay, a woman, et al, or even Christian.They were proud of the way they organized it. That is if you want to be known by that. Imagine having lists of Indians, Arabs, Asians, Mexicans Christians, blacks, Buddhists. It seems like it would be insulting. The same people attacked Romney for having binders of women for jobs.

Its mob politics – identity or group politics. No wonder it seems like mob rule. In the capitol they have their caucuses by identity group, the black caucus and the Hispanic caucus. They probably would have a communist caucus but they seem to overlap other groups. You caucus with your identity group — except if you are a black conservative. Then they lecture the Right on quotas and identity politics. Obama got over 90% of the black vote, what’s going on there? Yet the left will complain about large, powerful groups of conservatives. And they’ll talk about Republican “dog whistles”.

No lack of politiking from the pulpits – 2

Can’t get no, can’t get no… satisfaction … no, no, no. (Part 2

[Read part 1 first for context]

Part 2– the previous post and this update was written some time ago. The last part at the end is new.

Update. The above was written a little while back but the story carries on.

Now we have president Obama going to the Prayer Breakfast – a place he was not fond of going in the past – to lecture to Christians that his policies are a matter of his faith and that Christians should embrace them, and him, because they are fulfilling Christ’s instructions to us. The church is supposed to enthusiastically embrace him and his policies based on that premise. Since when did we render the church to Caesar? Some have, and others are ambivalent about it.

He tells us his socialistic policies are just what the church orders, so what is the problem? At the very same time he is presenting his case that he and his administration is on exactly the same page as the Christian church, he is also telling Catholics that their faith and conscience should divert to the state. Again, render the church to Caesar. We are not supposed to see a problem with this. However, the Catholics who willingly embraced ObamaCare and went along, despite the concerns and warnings, are finally declaring their grievances. But this was one group that even Obama touted as supporting his plans while it was being passed. Now they have found their voice of dissent. Now Obama wants to use Christianity and the church to make his case for and defend, his policies.

Flash Forward

For a counter argument, look no further than a group of Catholics who call themselves “Catholics for Choice”. But do not simply mistake them for a rogue and disgruntled group. They are continually raised up on a pedestal for their views that poke conservatives, and evangelical conservatives, in the eye. There are several groups like that doing pretty much the same thing; as if the secular Marxist left really needs their assist. Though it is kind of a self-serving, possibly selfish, platform they occupy. I think it has less to do with their faith or “freedom of religion” than it does their appeasement of the left. (for various other reasons)

I’ll give one sampling of an article C4C had:
(for illustrative and educational purposes — you can find the link)

Jacques Berlinerblau blames the secularism movement for lack of effective leadership. But the political parties share blame here too. The GOP for its pact with the religious right, which makes it beholden to its refusal to adapt or compromise and unable to attract any other voters [read minorities, non-whites] as a result.

The Democrats, for lack of imagination in responding to the GOP’s supposed dominance over “religious” voters and fear of talking about church-state separation. The Democrats for buying the claim that voters want to hear about politicians’ religiosity, that voters want to hear about how faith informs policy, and that voters want politicians to listen to religious “leaders” (i.e., those with access and power) and adapt policies to suit them, even if it harms other citizens. (Case in point, the contraception coverage requirement.) But what happens when, as in the case of the bishops, their constituents disagree with the religious leaders who have lobbyists, and access to the White House and Congress?

Notice the lopsided criticism they use, while attempting to sound objective and fair. How they refer only sparingly to Dems that they haven’t gone far enough down the secular humanist path to utopia. But, on the contrary, that scathing resentment they show for the conservative right and evangelical right-wingers.

If you really listen today to what emanates from the pulpits, its much more about the social justice or the left’s utopia, than it is about what cones from the wisdom of the Bible. And Obama’s base is covered with those like Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners who tow the social left line.

Fox News reported: (one pastor who Obama called a spiritual adviser)

Obama: “When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” President Obama told ABC News.

[Pastor] Hunter says he told the president he disagreed with his interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage. Hunter says the president reassured him he would protect the religious freedom of churches who oppose gay marriage.

[Protect it like he did with ObamaCare?]

Scratch another one off Obama’s Christmas card list. But of course, according to those like the C for C, the problem is those disagreeable dissenters, who want to push their religious views on others. Say nothing of the arrogance in shoving their agenda down the throats of conservatives and Christians alike.

Here is a classic example.
Rev Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine was confronted about his funding ties to George Soros. He promptly denied it. Though he could not deny the facts to the contrary.

“Correcting his initial comments denying the charge, Rev. Jim Wallis of the left-leaning Christian group Sojourners has acknowledged that his organization received grants from the Open Society Institute (OSI). Funded by the financial speculator George Soros, the OSI is a backer of many political causes including legal abortion and homosexual activism.

Marvin Olasky, a writer with the evangelical publication WORLD Magazine, had reported that Sojourners, an inter-denominational Christian organization which backs left-leaning political issues, received several hundred thousand dollars from Soros’ OSI.

In an interview with Timothy Dalrymple of the Patheos website, Wallis denied that claim. He compared Olasky to radio and television show host Glenn Beck who in Wallis’ view “lies for a living.”

“No, we don’t receive our money from Soros … Our books are totally open, always have been. Our money comes from Christians who support us and who read Sojourners. That’s where it comes from.”

Read more:

Occupations R us

Sojourners CEO, the Rev. Jim Wallis, on #OccupyWallStreet from cathleen falsani on Vimeo.

Their message is render your faith to government; render the Church to Caesar.