Monday, August 29, 2011

#241: John Lofton

Lofton is a paleoconservative political commentator, columnist and editor of The American View radio program (run by Michael Peroutka), after a long career associated with the GOP (and as an advisor to Pat Buchanan).


He has made numerous appearances on various political talk shows (for instance) and written columns for a wide variety of outlets but is perhaps most famous for his 1986 appearance on Crossfire in which he debated musician Frank Zappa about the Parents Music Resource Center's campaign to identify music albums unsuitable for children (it went viral again in 2006, apparently – I think this is it). Lofton’s arguments are so detached from anything resembling reality it’s rather hilarious (it's okay to censor music because "words mean something"; America has suddenly acquired an "incest problem" in the last 20 years (before 1986) because it was mentioned in songs (Lofton is unable to identify any); pop music encourages children to have sex with animals). His outrage over something in this exchange is also worth seeing.


Lofton is a genuine theocrat who literally believes that Biblical law should be the civil and criminal law of the US. That includes stoning for premarital sex (women, not men) and adultery. He is thus among the conservatives who “wish Ann Coulter would shut up”. He wishes that Ann Coulter would shut up because of the way she dresses (like a harlot); she is “[u]tterly lacking in discretion and thus standing out as a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout – and always wearing the attire of a harlot – this disgusting female, who says she is a Christian …” Yup, that’s John Lofton for you. He dislikes Sarah Palin as well; her claim that “the issue of whether moms with small children should or should not work outside the home is a "petty, little, superficial, meaningless thing" and “reveals, with a vengeance, that she is a hard-core feminist, with no Christian/Biblical view whatsoever of what a wife/mom ought to be.” Palin is, in other words, too liberal and not sufficiently Christian.


He is also an ardent fan of Ken Ham. The website Christian Worldview, run – it seems – by one Randy Pope, calls Lofton a “modern philosopher”, and as an illustration gives us this quote: “ALL of us have a "bias." The question is: "Is your bias TRUE?" If your "bias" is in accord with Scripture, the Bible, the Christ, it is true. If it is not, it is false.” The website is apparently not a poe.


Diagnosis: Lofton is pretty explicit that the Taliban is his ideal for how a society should be run. He is, in other words, clinically insane. His influence is probably somewhat limited, but he seems to be idolized by a not completely unsubstantial subset of the religious right’s religious right’s most fanatic wingnuts.

15 comments:

  1. I am NOT a "paleoconservative" anything. I am a Bible-believing Christian. I am NOT "closely allied" with the Constitution Party and in fact have NO CONNECTION with the CP. The Taliban is NOT my "ideal" for anything. I would be killed by the Taliban because I am a Bible-believing Christian. All your false witness against me could have been prevented had you checked your facts with me instead of relying on other sources, in this case sources also bearing false witness against me. And if I am "clinically insane," why bother saying anything about me since I would, by definition, not be responsible for my actions?

    John Lofton
    Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a bloviating jackass who got his ass handed to him, on CNN's Crossfire in 1986, by Frank Zappa.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for the feedback. I hereby ask all readers to disregard the Constitution Party connection, then, and I officially declare my dissatisfaction with the fact that the sources linked could misrepresent facts, which is a travesty. The Taliban idolizing stands because the principles on which Lofton and the Taliban think society should be run are identical in most relevant respect if differing ever so slightly in degree (the fact that they justify the principles by different speculative metaphysics is less relevant, as is the fact that they would gladly kill each other doesn't exactly undercut the similarity). It is correct that a clinically insane person is not held responsible for his or her actions in civilized societies, but the words they utter still have meaning and can have effects on the world regardless of whether the speaker is morally responsible for them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The reference to the Constitution Party has been removed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. G.D., clinging to his absurd analogy, says: "The Taliban idolizing stands because the principles on which Lofton and the Taliban think society should be run are identical in most relevant respect if differing ever so slightly in degree (the fact that they justify the principles by different speculative metaphysics is less relevant, as is the fact that they would gladly kill each other doesn't exactly undercut the similarity)."

    The difference between Christianity (my faith) and Islam is a difference in KIND and not just in "degree." For example, I believe society should be run according to the Laws of God, the God of the Bible, the only true God there is. The Taliban believe society should be run according to the laws of Allah who is NOT the God of the Bible and in fact does not exist. For Christians Jesus is God; for Muslims Jesus is NOT God. Another difference: a Taliban would probably kill me because I am a Christian. I would not kill a Taliban simply because that person was a Taliban. These differences are NOT differences that disagree "ever so slightly" unless, well, unless one is "clinically insane."


    John Lofton
    Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is it really John Lofton posting here?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok, Lofton might disagree on which religion should constitute the backbone of society and may as such hate the Taliban (and no, the Taliban would probably not kill him because he is Christian). The relevant point is that the actual policies they advocate are the same: the role of religion in society, women's rights, education, entertainment, dress code, the legal system and punishment, the role of science and science-based policies, and so on and so forth. So the Taliban society is the ideal one, insofar has they actually managed to institute these policies whereas Lofton has (thus far) failed.

    Another notable similarity is their hatred of Western values such as autonomy, liberty, equal worth of persons, religious freedom, tolerance and individual human rights in general. The reason the Taliban rejects them is (officially) because they are associated with the decadent West. The reason Lofton rejects them is because ... well, for the same reason, really. Liberty, integrity, autonomy, religious freedom, equal worth, democracy, respect for individuals are outcomes of the development Western secular society stemming from the development of secularly based moral principles and theories during the Age of Enlightenment (Locke and Kant in particular). There is not the faintest trace of such values in the Bible, and values such as liberty and autonomy are in flat out contradiction with the moral codes prescribed by the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Um, a couple of points. If Jesus is God, who is God? Accordingly, this guy seems to be losing his monotheistic focus. And if, as he confesses, believes in the Bible, or some version thereof that contains the Torah and original books of the Old Testament, then how can he profess not to believe that Allah is not the same entity as Yahweh or God? Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, as was Mohammed. The Supreme Deity remains constant. And until the 3rd Century until the original canon was set, Christians had problems with Jesus as God too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here you can see him argue that there is "no reason" why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race or nationality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. All things considered, Lofton is a bit of a loon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What I am most impressed with is Mr Lofton's gentle, forgiving, Christian nature. He exemplifies the "turn the other cheek" advice from his saviour. He does not judge lest he be judged. Perhaps he should be redefined as a "hypochristian" or "christianist"? (The latter has more in common with a terrorist than christian.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I watch the Crossfire episode at least once a year. It is a fascinating snapshot of the culture of the US in 1986. It was a time in which Dungeons and Dragons and heavy metal music were vile dangers that would lead wayward teens towards satanism, human sacrifice, etc.

    Lofton is best described as a "Dominionist". He wishes to make his private beliefs public policy and wants the (secular) State to be the agent that enforces his narrowly held beliefs. It should be noted that his issue with the Taliban is merely theological differences, and not the concept of theocratic governance.

    It brings a wide grin to my face each time marriage equality wins in a state; not only because it is the correct moral action, but also because it infuriates those whose beliefs are primitive and barbaric, such as John Lofton.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lofton croaked on 9/17/14 after a long expensive stay in Johns Hopkins. He got superb care. (Note Lofton's hypocrisy in accepting Medicare while labeling it ungodly, unconstitutional).

    Everybody is boo-hooing Lofton's demise on FB. Yet here was a "man" whose only courage was to exalt a Puritanism that allowed slavery, racism, flogging/pillory, denial of women's rights, child beating etc. Here was a Christian "man" who REJOICED over the burning of so-called heretics, witches and blasphemers. Here was a "courageous man" who vilified Lincoln and ML King, yet never uttered one word against White Power villains like Lester Maddox, adulterer Strom Thurmond, Ty Cobb, Preston Brooks.

    Lofton's "courage" including butting into private conversations at McDonald's, delaying store lines to scold a clerk, and shouting/interrupting during interviews.

    ReplyDelete