I don’t have the same dog in the fight that Ed Kilgore does, so maybe that’s why I’m less concerned by Damon Linker’s piece than I am befuddled. You could accurately describe me as a secular liberal who has little patience for the religious right. I support female reproductive autonomy and the right of gay couples to get married and be treated as spouses under the law. I think people should be able to get the kind of health care coverage they want, not the kind of health care coverage their whack-a-doodle religious nutcase employer deems acceptable to God. If it were up to me, I’d solve the whole religious conscience problem with health care coverage by abolishing employer-supplied health insurance entirely.
I agree with Mr. Linker and Mr. Kilgore that religion has flourished in America because of our liberal tendency to leave religion unregulated, but there’s something wrong with the argument that gay marriage regulates religion. And Kilgore makes a fine point on the contraception angle.
In the former case, aside from the Obama administration’s many efforts to accommodate religious organizations, there’s an inherent conflict between respecting the religious views of employers and those of employees—not to mention employees’ interests in obtaining health services. And when you get right down to it, much of the heat over the contraception mandate has involved the claims of religious organizations about scientific facts—particularly the claim that IUDs and Plan B birth control cause abortions rather than prevent pregnancies—where they are straying well into secular territory.
So, I might laugh a little at the poor-suffering lunatics who think their society is being ruined by gays, but I’m not actually looking to stick it to religious conservatives. I want to beat them in the political arena and I wish they would just go away and leave the rest of us alone, but I don’t want to molest their deluded congregations. Mr. Linker asks me to react to “the setbacks of [my political] opponents with a bit more magnanimity.” I feel like he’s asking more from me than has been asked of them in all the time they’ve been rampaging over my value system. I also feel like I haven’t been all that much of a sore winner. You know, I can kind of understand how some fucked up bastard might feel real downhearted every time he sees a black president on his teevee. I can feel for them. I can have a little empathy for the lonely bigot. I don’t have to dance on their dread and sense of loss. That’s about how I feel about someone who thinks contraceptive coverage in a health insurance plan is a godless Communist plot to commit genocide on the unborn. I mean, screw those people.
Liberalism means tolerance, but it doesn’t mean silence.
In any case, how can I be cocky when these fools are attacking abortion rights in the states like some kind of Mongol horde?
In the end, I just don’t understand what Mr. Linker is really asking liberals to do differently. We’re already bending over backwards to accommodate the religious beliefs of people who are living (mentally) in the 17th-Century. You want more?
What would Jefferson say?
I can’t even feel empathy for them. Certainly no sympathy. However, I cannot even empathize with them because I frankly do not understand the mindset. To a degree I can, but empathize? Fuck that noise. We aren’t “cocky” enough (is cocky even the right word? I don’t think so).
Tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue. Wingnut employers should not have the right to withhold needed medical treatment from their employees based on superstition and intolerance. Liberals need to fight to expose this sort of bullcrap, not tolerate it based on some bizarre reading of religious freedom.
I agree with you. There are places where liberals should fight the so-called Christians. I think the article Boo references was completely off base.
That said, there is a way in which many liberals practically sneer at religion, viewing it as something for the weak and stupid. I find this arrogant and I think it’s a mistake. We should all keep an open mind and heart to perspectives other than our own. We might be surprised to learn that those we don’t understand carry insights and wisdom to which we have not been exposed.
I say this as a convert to Sufism, which is the mystical branch of Islam. Though my politics remain far left of center, I’ve come to see the wisdom in certain traditional teachings, though I have no desire to impose views on anyone else.
There is a way in which secular western culture dominates and destroys traditional cultures worldwide. I don’t know that anything can or should be done to stop this. But I do think it’s important to understand how threatening modernity can be to those who see their world slipping away. This is something for which we can have empathy.
Fundamentalism arose worldwide in the 20th Century, in pretty much every faith, as a reaction to the social and intellectual freedoms that have emerged. I see it as an overreaction. As Dr. King said, in fighting a monster it’s important to do so in ways that don’t cause us to become the monster. Fundamentalism has failed that test.
At the same time, it’s completely understandable that those who experience the wisdom of ancient teachings feel saddened, frustrated and even desperate as their worldview melts away like an ice cube in a cup of hot coffee.
I’m a member of the Christian Left, a liberal religious organization, even though I’m not a Christian. I support them because they understand that the teachings of their religion do not require hatred and bigotry. To people like them, who are reasonable, I offer every respect and attempt to be understanding. To those who hate the fact that their own power is being eroded by equality, and seek to impose their views on our bodies, I offer no empathy. I agree that we should not judge all religions, or religious people, as one. But we also shouldn’t be understanding to people who are allowing their fear to lead them to evil acts. If the religious want to be treated with respect, they can damn well offer some.
Yeah, no. When it comes to balancing the right of gay people to marry their partners against the right of religious conservatives to interfere in the personal lives of people they’ll never even meet, it really isn’t that difficult.
Well, the one concession I’d make is that we shouldn’t be too quick to resort to accusations of bigotry. There are probably people out there who are still uncomfortable with the concept of same-sex marriage but who might be ultimately persuadable. Calling them bigots isn’t the way to do it, though.
I don’t know that I agree with you, Stralka.
I remember the Civil Rights fights of the early 60s. I remember hearing (on the 6 o’clock news opinion piece) how not everyone opposed to civil rights was a racist. They were wrong. EVERYONE opposed to civil rights at that time were racists.
I personally think that everyone opposed to gay marriage is a bigot. And should be called out for it. You aren’t going to lose anyone.
Yeah, I’m with you BooMan. I’m done being nice. Liberals have been being far too polite for the last 50 years. I’m completely over all the abuse and demonizing of the Liberal viewpoint. It’s time they started being nice to us, not the other way around.
Jefferson?
Do you mean Thomas Jefferson?
No.
George Jefferson.
My experience with my Republican friends and acquaintances is that the politicians and politicized religious overstate the culture wars. My friends and acquaintances pass on culture war propaganda on Facebook with the same ease they pass on LOLCats and Doge pictures (and interestingly some of George Takei’s pictures). But when faced with a complex issue, they are often thoughtful and can step out of the culture war frame. What is looks like is a canned social response to a litmus test that determines whether you are social or excommunicated by the minority who are most vocal and aggressive. It is very much like the litmus test interactions I remember from the era of enforced segregation (the huge culture war of its time).
The culture wars are an attempt at totalitarian social control and like most attempts causes the support for those positions to be an inch deep and a mile wide. The must be maintained through constant propaganda, blacklisting, and excommunication. And those three phenomena are exactly what we see from the right wing.
But the fact is that they can intimidate people into pretending or deluding themselves into assent, but given the chance of an alternative that support quickly evaporates. That disenthrallment is beginning to happen now and it is scary to those whose incomes and careers have been built on maintaining the propaganda. And they to the extent they continue to have money will not go down without a huge rhetorical firestorm. In some places conservative religious right grifting is the only industry that pays good money.
The rapidity with which some culture war opinions have changed over the past few years — support of gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, for instance, that are now majority opinions in this country — suggests that you are right about the shallowness of many people’s commitment to some of these “traditional” values. Unfortunately I don’t see attitudes about the rights of women to control their own bodies moving the same way — in some ways we’ve fallen behind where we were in the 70s.
They don’t respect my religious views, or lack thereof, why should I respect theirs?
There are no gods, only fairy tales. Fairy tales to explain away the dark, justify sex with children, and profit. This bigotry I embrace, the intolerant are animals, are less than sufficiently evolved, less than human, and need be taken out back of the barn and summarily executed. This world will never know Peace otherwise.
No fear.
There are religious people who respect your views. I’m one of them. In a sense, whatever God is is so beyond human comprehension that it’s just as true to say there is no God — since we do in fact create our own conception of God and that conception is far too limited.
Beyond that, I and many other religious people believe in the First Amendment and, with it, the right to believe whatever one believes in the sacred confines of his/her own heart, mind and soul. One might say this is a belief in the most essential of all freedoms.
It’s interesting to note that the word Islam means surrender. It’s very similar to the Buddhist concept of non-attachment. By its very nature surrender must be voluntary. There’s no such thing as coerced surrender. Therefore, every religious person would be wise to understand and appreciate the importance of freedom to believe or not believe anything. If one really has faith that there is God, then there’s no need to control others. If one lacks that faith, then I question whether that person can truly be said to be religious.
YOU might respect atheist views, Parallax, but your CHURCH doesn’t. If it did, it would voluntarily give up the tax exemption.
Not when there is a church on just about every street corner in America.
The major problem with the religionists is the fringe who are Literalists. What is disappointing is the general silence of main-stream religions when the Literalists embark on further insane positions based upon a literal meaning in their Holy Book. I refer to such Literalists as “snake-handlers.”
After the Moral March in Raleigh on Saturday, you can’t talk about the silence of mainstream religions.
There are two things going on.
The media is complicit in promoting fundamentalist or conservative Roman Catholic religion as the only religion and ignoring most of the denomination’s activities and social positions. Episcopalians and Lutherans have gay clergy and bishops, for example. Numerous American Baptist churches, even in the South, conduct same sex weddings (in spite of the fact that they are not legal marriages until the couple travels out-of-state). You never hear of the extent to which this is going on because the national media focuses on the religious right and so does the alternative media.
The evangelical and overbearing nature of religious right culture warriors exerts an influence through their friend, family, neighbors, and co-workers on the tone of local congregations. Business prayer groups are particularly places of subtle intimidation, and business owners and managers are generally the political powers in local congregations of mainstream denominations. Even to the point of censoring an censuring the clergy sent by bishops in those denominations that have bishops. And they will use the size of their contributions as a means of control.
There has been an ideological fight for 40 years (since the civil rights era and Vatican II) in mainstream churches. The congregationally organized churches (like Baptists) have been the quickest to change, politicized in 1978 beginning to withdraw from being a Republican front group just this year). Those with bishops have been the slowest to change because the fight occurs at the national conferences as well as in local congregations.
The issue is not with evangelicals. There are a lot of left-leaning pacifist evangelicals, for example. It is not really with literalist fundamentalists. The issue is with those congregations and denominations that have subordinated their Biblical ethics to the party line of the Republican Party or various other right-wing political movements. That includes certain, but not all Catholic cardinals and bishops, a slew of megachurches, most Church of Christ (not the same as UCC) congregations, a subset of Southern Baptist ministers and congregations affiliated with certain large Southern Baptist churches like First Baptist-Dallas and First Baptist-Atlanta, independent churches with ties to various religious universities like Bob Jones University, Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, and Regent University. The megachurches and the universities have media “missions” and teach how to influence the mainstream media. In addition, over time graduates of these universities have become figures in mainstream media at various levels of responsibility and work to shape their organization to the “mission”. Similar efforts at placing more liberal religious in media have be subject to organized internal office politics attacks from conservatives.
The culture wars have not be civil controversies without underhanded tactics. Fortunately, as far as we know, it hasn’t come to the sort of assassinations that beset the early Church councils in the era before Constantine.
And when exactly has the American “conservative” movement been magnanimous to the left throughout ITS decades of victories? Each defeat of the hated libs encourages the Right to kick ’em harder. See gun rights, etc.
This doesn’t go to your main point but the idea that there have really been some decisive lib’rul culture war victories seems a tad premature. There have certainly been some state by state advances on gay marriage, but there is little real possibility that this will become a national federal right either by legislation or Supreme Court ruling.
So far, each side has won some initial lower court rulings in the quickly multiplying health insurance contraception battle (as incredible as it may seem that “conservatives” have wildly succeeded in making this a viable battlefront.) Obviously the whole ball of shit is making its way to Roberts’ Repubs and I am perfectly willing to predict that these cases will be decided not by logic but by “conservative” ideology.
The RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) + Katholic Kennedy don’t really even pay lip service to engaging in objective legal analysis on these conservative agenda lawsuits. With some exceptions in the gay marriage area, the law always seems to turn out to be what a conservative male activist wishes it would be—quite amazing!
And of course the idea that the “conservative” movement is in any way “losing” (let alone has lost) on the reproductive rights front is comic, as Roe rights cannot remotely be said to exist across vast areas of the country, with various Red State Repubs daily outdoing themselves in vitriol and extremism against women, and the Repub congress frequently attempting to enter the game in the party’s escalating War on Wimmin—a war that has not caused House Repubs the slightest political trouble to date, and hardly any in the states.
So there isn’t much reason for extreme “cockiness”, and I sure wonder where these writers are even seeing such. We’ll see how cocky the left is on the cultural wars after Arch-Bishop Scalia remakes free exercise clause law (by reversing his own prior opinion) to find made-up-out-of-whole-cloth CEO rights to personally determine the morality of employee health insurance packages….
Conservative use the dire peril of “losing” to rally the troops against the hyperbolic collapse of civilization or clash of civilization.
Yes, but battle fatigue is beginning to set in. Actually, it has set in in many cases. It takes a lot of energy to be fearful, angry and belligerant all the time … especially when you’re old.
I’m not sure we’re seeing a “moderate” take back so much as we’re seeing the old farts just getting tired. I know I am.
Every conservative’s freedom begins exactly where your freedom ends.
Get it yet?
If it were up to me, I’d solve the whole religious conscience problem with health care coverage by abolishing employer-supplied health insurance entirely.
Leaving those affected with nothing? I didn’t know you were a Republican. “Let them die!”
Derrick Jensen in The Culture of Make Believe (2004) pp.106-107, writes:
“From the perspective of those who are entitled, the problems begin when those they despise do not go along with–and have the power and wherewithal to not go along with–the perceived entitlement…
“Several times I have commented that hatred felt long and deeply enough no longer feels like hatred, but more like tradition, economics, religion, what have you. It is when those traditions are challenged, when the entitlement is threatened, when the masks of religion, economics, and so on are pulled away that hate transforms from its more seemingly sophisticated, “normal,” chronic state–where those exploited are looked down upon, or despised–to a more acute and obvious manifestation. Hate becomes more perceptible when it is no longer normalized.
“Another way to say all of this is that if the rhetoric of superiority works to maintain the entitlement, hatred and direct physical force remains underground. But when that rhetoric begins to fail, force and hatred waits in the wings, ready to explode.”
Similarly, Frank Rich, “What Killed JFK
The hate that ended his presidency is eerily familiar.”
(New York Magazine, November 2011):
“After JFK was killed, that hate went into only temporary hiding. It has been a growth industry ever since and has been flourishing in the Obama years.”
With kudos to Nancy LeTourneau
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html
Sorry, the direct link to the Nancy Le tourneau piece is
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/11/hate-is-not-new.html