1

"Indeed, the media, both old and new, appears to be surprised when we religious conservatives show up at the polls and vote in accordance with our values. "

I think the mainstream media, composed mainly of urbanites in the northeast, west coast and upper midwest, is more surprised to find out the DEGREE to which religious conservatives are willing to discriminate and express their satisfaction about it.

I'll be looking forward to the backlash against the backlash. America may move forward slowly but it won't move backward. Right now we've stalled out.

2

"So come on down to our corner of the blogosphere. We are always here, ready to engage in honest discussions."

I think it would also be wise for us to step out of our corners in order to be attractive to people who are looking for honest discussions. See my post here.

3

Umm, wouldn't that most influential evangelical blogger that you speak of be Hugh Hewitt?

4

Can I ask you, as a fellow Christian, to offer a prayer to those children orphaned and maimed in the war in Iraq. It is too late to offer a prayer for the souls of the 100,000 civilians already killed, but can we pray for the souls of the many who are yet to die in the battle in Faluja. I know the war in Iraq is right and that there are not many saved souls amongst those who live there, but my heart breaks when I think of the little children.

5

There are not 100,000 dead in Iraq, at least not since the beginning of the war. It's closer to 8,000.

In my humble opinion, we shouldn't bother saying a prayer for the dead, rather, we should pray for the living.

Which is why we should pray for those like Andrew Sullivan. Those whose lives revolve around the flesh instead of the spirit. We should pray that we are able to overcome our own desires, our own hellish flesh, and be strong enough to love our neighbor. That means we should be strong enough to tell our neighbor when they are doing something destructive. Not just to their flesh but to their soul.

God's love is not standing by and watching you self destruct when you have done something wrong. God's love is telling your friends that they are being destructive, your friends and your enemies alike, and risking that friendship or the wrath of your enemy, in the face of that love.

As a society we should tolerate those who choose to participate in gay sex. They should not be killed or spit upon or taunted. What we should not do is accept their choosing to engage in such actions. Just as we should not accept those who choose to engage in sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage.

Remember, love they neighbor as thyself. How did Christ put that into practice? We should do so as well.

6

You bring up a good issue with the review of evangelicals and politics. In this nation we tend to try and stay on the secular side of things with respect to government.
But as a thought experiment, supposing one subscribes to a religion which holds as a core value political activism which involves curtailing the rights of others who don't share their faith? This would seem to me a potential dilemma for a democratic culture. In our flavor of democracy we hold it as a right that one must be free to practice religion and one must free to speak one's mind and to lawfully work to persuade others of the merit of one's political view. So what if the religiously inspired political view conflicts with democractic ideals such as equality or freedom of expression?
Say a group of vegetarions who feel that eating meat is morally wrong and who practice Hinduism work lawfully to make meat eating illegal in some way, shape, or form; If they were to succeed at some level, locally or nationally, wouldn't that be in conflict with freedom and if so, how could we stop it from happening without infringing on their right to lawfully persuade others of their cause?

7

So here's a question from a libertarian who voted for Bush with some (not alot) of hesitation. The evangelical vote is being given alot of credit for W's win. The reason I voted for Bush is that for the last four years Bush has talked the evangelical talk but really hasn't all that much that is concrete in terms of moral issues. Stem cell research, gay marriage, restricting foreign organizations that encourage abortion is all I can think of. Given the evangelical votes increasing clout, I'm curious as to what specific policies evangicals want pursued. Anything other than nominating socially conservative judges? I honestly can't think of any real socially conservative policies that might be pushed during Bush's that will be enacted. Being an old small government conservative and strong foriegn policy conservative, I voted for Bush based on my belief that there won't be any real socially conservative policies enacted. I'd be curious to know if anyone here feels otherwise. Look forward to hopefully hearig people's thoughts.

8

Say a group of vegetarions who feel that eating meat is morally wrong and who practice Hinduism work lawfully to make meat eating illegal in some way, shape, or form; If they were to succeed at some level, locally or nationally, wouldn't that be in conflict with freedom and if so, how could we stop it from happening without infringing on their right to lawfully persuade others of their cause?

Actually something similiar did happen when the Christian Temperance movement succeeded in getting the 18th Amendment to the Constitution passed (outlawing booze). It was a horrible failure. One of its most obvious consequences was that it lead to the rise to modern organized crime. Fortunately we came to our senses and repealed the amendment, but much of the damage had already been done. There are also some parallels with the "War on Drugs."

9

The Temperance Movement was only secondarily an evangelical movement, though it did all-too-successfully co-opt large segments of conservative Christianity (though some were never affected, and others recovered quickly--as a drinking Christian, I know!) . . . primarily, the Volstead Amendment was the first major policy victory of a movement not commonly associated with the "Religious Right"--feminism.

Check it out historically. I have.

("rise of modern organized crime" is a half-truth concealing a grave error. The criminals didn't suddenly become criminals because of Prohibition. Rather, the inappropriate federalizing of a major policy issue previously handled at county levels led to the federalizing of the opposition--in this case, organized crime. Which, in turn, led to the further federalizing of law enforcement. I do think this is a good argument for a more libertarian than social-activist approach, but I would also point out that feminist Temperance rhetoric is associated with the Religious Left, not the modern Religious Right.)

Cheers,
PGE

10

Libertarian,

I honestly can't think of any real socially conservative policies that might be pushed during Bush's that will be enacted.

Since I'm saving this topic for a future post on sphere sovereignty I won't go into too many details. But one of the main policy moves that the President could do is to simply limit the amount of policy that is produced. We need to allow other institutions -- marriages, schools, churches, civic organizations, etc., -- to regain their true roles rather than allowing the federal government to do everything.

One of the differences between the social and economic forms of conservatism is not simply that social cons don't just want a smaller government simply for the sake of having smaller government. We want to reduce the power of government because it infringes on the "sovereignty" of other institutions that are instituted by our Creator.

11

Libertarian,

Given the evangelical votes increasing clout, I'm curious as to what specific policies evangicals want pursued. Anything other than nominating socially conservative judges? I honestly can't think of any real socially conservative policies that might be pushed during Bush's that will be enacted. Being an old small government conservative and strong foriegn policy conservative, I voted for Bush based on my belief that there won't be any real socially conservative policies enacted. I'd be curious to know if anyone here feels otherwise.

Let me speak for myself as a typical (I think) evangelical. I don't want judges to impose their political and social views on the rest of us. In my view, Roe v. Wade and the forced redefinition of marriage in Massachussetts are unconstitutional judicial grabs for power. Ideally, I want the legislative and executive branches of government to make policy decisions. Admittedly, if Roe v. Wade were overturned there are many (including Catholics! Don't just blame evangelicals!) who would want Congress to outlaw abortion nationwide. But that's just not going to happen. The regulation of abortion would become an issue for 50 different state legislatures -- federalism at work. Regarding marriage, what I want is innocently conservative, not sinisterly radical -- I want marriage to remain between one man and one woman. I also think that the only sane course for any government is to use its laws to encourage, reward, and support traditional marriage because traditional marriage is the engine of our economy and the "cell structure" that provides our society with its stability. I don't want to take away people's rights to live together in other sexual arrangements (and in fact I want homosexuals to be treated with respect) -- but I don't want government to be forced by courts to give its imprimatur to non-traditional arrangements.

I would be vehemently against any official religion for our country, but I think it's just commonsense that as long as most citizens are Christians and Jews, Christmas scenes and menorahs will appear on some public properties during the holiday season. I want a judiciary that is sensible enough not to freak out about this or think that it has the right to prohibit such traditional, harmless, and natural expressions of people's religious feelings.

People should be in charge of the government, not the other way around, and to the greatest extent possible, the government should leave them alone.

As you can see, most of my hopes are simply that the courts will stop imposing their own ideas on the rest of us extra-constitutionally. The fruit of a more self-restrained judiciary would take time -- it might not appear during Bush's next term.

I would be surprised, given your small-government views, if you couldn't live comfortably with this.

12

Eric & Lisa: Nice reply. Of course our dear Larry Lord would label you as discriminating and intolerant.

DS: Very good point! Might a far more illustrative example such as radical Islam make your point much better? Of course they don't beleive in political activism, but instead believe in political fascism. And they don't practice "hate the sin, but love the sinner", but instead practice "hate the sin, hate the sinner, and kill the sinner". Then of course there's their total debasing of woman.
"Tyranny" by a scant, simple majority is an issue that needs to be reconsidered, but except for a few intolerant fundamentalists on the right, and more than a few
intolerant elitists on the left, the problem is not coming from America's Judeo-Christian community.

Dear Larry: BTW, I am not a "fundie", not an "evang", just a person who believes that the wisdom from Proverbs and the love preached by Jesus would make this world a whole lot better place to be. BUT, like Joe alludes to in this post, aggressive, even if vitriolic, probing from folks like you is important and appreciated and I thank you for it. Too bad the elitists in academia don't practice the same "fair and balanced" ways of a Joe Carter.

Peter

13

("rise of modern organized crime" is a half-truth concealing a grave error. The criminals didn't suddenly become criminals because of Prohibition.

By "rise of modern organized crime" I meant that Prohibition gave local organized criminals the financial resources to nationalize. I did not mean to imply that Prohibition created organized crime, only nationalized it.

14

Eric and Lisa, in a post I'm inclined to believe is sarcastic because it is so stupidly bizarre writes:

"There are not 100,000 dead in Iraq, at least not since the beginning of the war. It's closer to 8,000."

??!?!?!!?

Please please let me know where you found this number. Otherwise I'll assume that you lied in an effort to diminish the loss of innocent lives in Iraq -- a truly sick act and a mighty hypocritical one if you pretend to call yourself a Christian.

We might also wonder why none of the other self-proclaimed Christians here bothered to correct you or wonder where you came up with those figures, a revolting instance of reality-denial.

15

> a revolting instance of reality-denial

Larry, if that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Why not make the effort and at least do a little Googling on your own before you spout off such drivel.

There are plenty of critiques of the flawed Lancet methodology that arrived at that derived number of 100.000 and it doesn't take much effort to find it.

16

"We want to reduce the power of government because it infringes on the "sovereignty" of other institutions that are instituted by our Creator."

And yet when you passed the anti-gay marriage bans you gave more power to the State to define what is at heart a religious sacrament. Churches are now weaker in their ability and jurisdiction to define a marriage as they see fit. You have actually reduced your own freedom to practice your religion as you wish.

You don't want to limit the State, you want to become the State. And in the process you are destroying the freedom of religious choice for everyone.

17

William, the limitations of Lancet's methodology were well-documented from the moment of its publication. Every survey has its flaws.

Regardless of what you think of Lancet's survey, the idea that only 8,000 Iraqis have died from coaltion attacks is beyond absurd. Do you disagree, William? Are you a pretender too that will pick the lowest number of dead because that is the number which weighs least heavily on your conscience?

18

Peter I suppose Islam would work but basically the question is how does one treat an organization which uses freedom to persuade others to limit or repeal the freedoms of all when it's based purely on religion?

In my Hindu example, which I used to avoid emotionally charged issues, the hypothetical vegan Hindu majority isn't satisfied with merely observing vegetarian practices for themselves. It's part of their religion which considers the killing of animals a moral wrong, and therefore something everyone must observe. Don't bother arguing with him, for he's convinced that it's the moral equivalent of eating people. In his religion, people might be reincarnated as cows.

The Hindu can also whip out mortality tables and study after study showing links between over consumption of meat and vascular disease. So he has some grounding in data that it would really be better for everyone if they didn't eat meat.
Furthermore let's give this hypothetical Hindu majority a tendency to evangelize his religion, to use political means to elect individuals who support his goals, and the political muscle to get those folks in office.
My question is not whether or not the Hindu is 'right', or whether or not I've characterized the official Hindu position correctly with regard to eating meat. My question is not whether or not eating meat and killing animals is morally wrong, my question is how do we as a free society balance what is in this case two conflicting rights?
For we have a dilemma do we not? We cannot stop the Hindu from exercising his right to free speech and his right to vote, nor can we deny him his right to practice his religion which includes infringing on the rights of cheeseburger lovers everywhere. We cannot prevent him from pursuing through lawful means the enforcement of his religion precepts as policy for all and to see that those rules are enforced on everyone, even those who are not Hindu and who enjoy eating meat. This is the dilemma.

19

Heading back towards Joe's original observations about the lack of connection between elites and the religious, I'm not optimistic that the situation will change. The intellectual elites have trained themselves to think that religious people are unlearned and unnuanced. There is an openness to dialogue from the right, but a great lack of curiosity on the left -- worse, the left maintains a disdain for religious people that arises from their own sense of moral superiority.

How does one learn humility? And how can dialogue and understanding take place without it?

20

Patrick wrote, "And yet when you passed the anti-gay marriage bans you gave more power to the State to define what is at heart a religious sacrament. Churches are now weaker in their ability and jurisdiction to define a marriage as they see fit. You have actually reduced your own freedom to practice your religion as you wish."

Spot on, Patrick! The double standard at work is that those who don't like what the government is doing claim that the government should stop legislating morality. The people who like what the government is doing claim that the government is somehow legislating without morality in some objective sense, or some such nonsense. They are simply lying to themselves.

The fact of the matter is that government is people. We, as people, cannot separate our worldviews, which are largely shaped by our religion and/or opposition to religion, from our actions. Christians want to see the government reflect their Christian values regardless of the size of the government it may produce and/or freedoms which the average citizen must relinquish.

I, for one, like the Christian morality and am more than willing to create a bigger government, if need be, in order to suppress people's ability to hurt themselves through gay relationships, i.e. freedoms.

21

I also think that the only sane course for any government is to use its laws to encourage, reward, and support traditional marriage because traditional marriage is the engine of our economy and the "cell structure" that provides our society with its stability.

That's more or less the equivalent to arguing in the mid-19th century that slavery should be maintained because it drove the economy. Neither argument cuts it.

I don't want government to be forced by courts to give its imprimatur to non-traditional arrangements.

That's the real reason. To rephrase it more succinctly: 'Gay marriage should be banned because I want it to be.'

The legal arguments against gay marriage are pretty weak, so in my estimation it's only a matter of time that many states will at least be compelled to recognize civil unions by their respective state judiciaries. So, I disagree substantively with the anti-civil union bloc, but tactically they did the smart thing by passing state constitutional amendments.

22

DS wrote about a hypothetical Hindu activism in America. So long as I am not asked to give up the Gospel, I am good. As a Christian, I can fast from meat if the government decides to ban meat consumption. Of course, I would try to work against it through legal means, but I could live with that.

As Paul says, "We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed. But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fastings; by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit.."

23

During the debates on gay marriage there was a massive hue and cry that allowing gay marriage would lead to polygamy, incest etc. being legitimatized... In other words down a slippery slope.

Therefore, I find it vastly amusing that the people, in passing these definitions of marriage as between a "Man and a Woman" have now made it legal for a son to marry his mother, a brother to marry his sister, etc. And of course, since these are state constitutional amendments, they actually trump regular laws against incest, etc. It looks like the slippery slope just got a lot more slick.

24

Gedi I appreciate your response. The point isn't whether or not you could live with it. We could all probably live without meat; although I don't know if I would really call it 'living' without my fajitas and my barbque :)

But I could probably come up with a scenario where the result of the'majority' would be something you can't stand or don't feel like you should have to put up with for no good reason other than it violating the religious precepts of one group or another who manage to gain power.

The question is how does one juggle the two sets of rights without inflicting limits on one group to protect the other in a free and democratic soceity? I don't have an answer by the way. I see no clear solution. Someone, either the hindus or the cheeseburger lovers, is going to have to be told 'no'.

25

~DS~
Why are you confused about what you should do? You would join and contribute to a PAC and try to get the laws forbidding your beloved cheeseburger revoked. Do all the regular democratic processes to get your side heard. Perhaps you would break the law have an outside barbie and try to fill the jails with objectors.

What's the big deal? I don't see how this is so puzzling for you? The Christian/Evanglical movement wants what laws which you afraid of being enacted? And why is do you want to suborn the democratic process to prevent it?

26

DS wrote, "I would really call it 'living' without my fajitas and my barbque :)"

I am in bratwurst country. It would be livin', but it wouldn't be livin' life to the fullest.

DS wrote, "But I could probably come up with a scenario where the result of the'majority' would be something you can't stand or don't feel like you should have to put up with for no good reason other than it violating the religious precepts of one group or another who manage to gain power."

..probably not without me attempting to leave this country for rosier climates. If, for instance, slavery were reinstituted, I would have to leave if I could. I would not fair well in such a situation. However, even that, I could put up with for the sake of the One who put up with everything on my behalf.

DS wrote, "Someone, either the hindus or the cheeseburger lovers, is going to have to be told 'no'."

Bingo! Freedoms are always restricted by governments for the good of the whole. I cannot drive on the left side of the road for the good of the country, for instance. I would in this case hope for the hindus would to be restricted, though I am a big fan of spicy food like curry as well.

27

Well Indian food is damn good no doubt Gedi. But oh baby them fajitas and grill cooked burgers are aweful good also!

Not being a hindu, and feeling that if someone really believes that a human conscioness resides in a cow they should be prepared to provide some pretty solid evidence for it before they should expect me to believe them, I wouldn't feel bad about telling the hindus they can't do what they want to do with my deitery habits.

The founding fathers were aware of this dilemma when they wrote our Constitution although they of course were more concerned about various sects/denominations of Christianity gaining undue power to intrude into our lives than they were about hinduism. It seems kind of odd now, but apparently back then the differences between Methodists, The Church of England, catholicism, Puritans, or whatever all they had, were big enough that the thought of one group forcing beliefs and lifestyles onto another via majority vote was a big enough sticking point in inter-state relations that it threatened to kill the whole idea of banding together to form a country.
So they instituted a seperation of Church and State and they held as self evident the idea of equality among citizens (An equality which at that time only held for wealthy white male landowners but you get the idea).
And that freedom is one of the values in this nation that most of us hold very dear. It's a 'traditional value' in the sense that it's been with our nation from the very start. It was a pretty revolutionary idea at the time. Not totally unique but not very widespread. And it worked out pretty well. People all over the globe saw the US as a beacon of freedom, and they flocked here in droves to escape their own countries often due to oppresive ideological-religious practices.

It's one of the core values that has come to define America. I'm pretty proud and lukcy to live in a country that values freedoms like those.

Another poster asked Joe to review what he/she referred to as traditional values. I would suggest that freedom of religion and freedom from a specific religion, is one of our most traditional values as a nation in every sense of the word.

28

Larry, I am no pretender, just put off by your uncalled for remarks. No, I don't argue for 8,000, though your straw man efforts are demeaning. Let me just say the stuff is so flawed that it should be thrown out and never referenced again.

29

I am a little confused. Most of these traditional marriage proposals passed by around a 75-25 split in states Bush won, and a 55-60% total in Kerry states...

Tell me again how the evangelicals are solely responsible for all this? Do all those homophobe bigot charges apply to all 75 percent of the electorate, including the many, many Kerry voters, or do just the evangelicals get the label?

Or is 59% in Michigan , 57% in Oregon of the electorate evangelical Christians? Bush got 48% of the electorate there. And he sure did not get 75% of the votes in those red states...

Looks like there was a groundswell of support for Kerry too among the evangelicals I guess.

Who would have thought this nation is 60-75% evangelical Christian!!! Let the crusades begin!

(oh..you mean you can be against changing traditional marriage and NOT be a homophobic bigot?)

30

"Larry, I am no pretender, just put off by your uncalled for remarks. No, I don't argue for 8,000, though your straw man efforts are demeaning. Let me just say the stuff is so flawed that it should be thrown out and never referenced again. "

Are you joking? This published study should "never be referenced again" because it is "so flawed."

Is it really that flawed, William? Since you aren't willing to defend the 8,000 (nor are willing to call that number what it is -- a bizarre unsupportable figure pulled out of someone's butt to make them feel good about a nightmare), why don't you tell me what you think a reasonable estimate is and let me know how you came up with the number.

While you're at it, how about taking a crack at how many innocent people are going to die when we assault Fallujah in the coming days.

31

DS,

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights gives you the right to eat whatever you want. You have this tacit right in America because of the Christian faith of the majority of America throughout time. They see no need to limit the variety of your food intake because Jesus said, "Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts".. etc.

The Christian worldview with which you live in affords you this right, uniquely might I add. We have in fact forced our food habits on you. You do not mind because our food habits, barbque and fajitas included, are to your liking. I am not down with kosher, nor halal. Indian food is ok, but the Indian meat dishes are far better.

God bless, DS

32

"Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights gives you the right to eat whatever you want. You have this tacit right in America because of the Christian faith of the majority of America throughout time."

Why didn't the Christians in California stand up for my tacit right to horse meat?????

Just out of curiosity, are there are any "red states" where eating horse meat is illegal?

33

Gedi you're not making any sense. Rights exist as legal constructs independent of religion all over the world. The question is how do we deal with issues in which the rights of two different groups collide?
Our founding fathers gave that right to the irrelgious via the establishment Clause which states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thus not only are my rights not secured by your religion, they cannot legally be secured by your religion or any other rleigion. There is no way possible for any religion to legally secure me a legal right in this nation under that document.

34

Larry wrote, "Why didn't the Christians in California stand up for my tacit right to horse meat?????"

I have missed you, Larry. The issue is, as always, more complex than a comment on a blog site can do justice. We prohibit the eating of endangered species, etc. out of the perceived notion that as the ones who have been given dominion over the earth by God, we should be good stewards of this earth. God bless, Larry.

35

"Rights exist as legal constructs independent of religion all over the world."

This is where you and I have differing viewpoints. No legal construct is independent of religious and/or philosophical beliefs, imo.

"The question is how do we deal with issues in which the rights of two different groups collide?"

Precisely. Someone has to give. The First Amendment prohibits the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion. It does not restrict the making of laws based upon particular commonly held beliefs which may have been (I would argue, *are always*) influenced by religion/philosophy to one degree or another. The Hindu pushing the cause is more fanciful than, say the muslim population requiring halal only meat. Even in India, I ate mucho meat with many Indians. However, muslims based upon their belief system have restricted the eating of meat in *every* country which has strictly enforced sharia law. Regardless of your personal faith or lack thereof, you cannot eat barbeque porkchops in Medina.

You, however, live in a predominately Christian society. Nobody is pushing to limit your dietary variety *yet* because we are Christians *for now*. We don't care about what you eat because Jesus doesn't care about what you eat. There could be conceivably a time in the future when a majority of the American population is muslim, God forbid, because Allah cares whether you eat pork or not. Thus, the 28th Amendment to the Constitution could be a ban on meat prescribed by the majority muslim population. This would not force you to worship Allah (laws establishing a religion), but you would have to give up the ribs. You could claim it is an infringement upon your free exercise of religion (same clause) should you make rib eating a requirement for your religion. This is not without precedent. We wine drinking churches were allowed to use wine for sacramental reasons during prohibition for the free exercise of our religion. After all, God doesn't appear in sparkling grape juice, you fruitcakes, and you know who you are.

I like bacon. I like wine. God forbid any more amendments concerning consumption.

36

Gedi says

"We don't care about what you eat because Jesus doesn't care about what you eat."

Wow, you sure know a lot about what Jesus thinks, gedi.

Does Jesus care if I eat lysergic acid or hash brownies? I ask only because a lot of his followers seem to have a problem with that.

37

Gedi again you may be understanding me too narrowly here and I'm sorry I haven't been able to articulate myself better.

The meat analogy could be anything. I chose meat and hindus so i would avoid topics such as Gay Marriage, Mormon Polygamy, Native American spiritual consumption of hallucenogenic drugs, stem cell research, capital punishment, a ban on eating pork, prohibition, slavery, etc. Things which a lot of people have strong rleigios opinions on. Some of those may have pros and cons, but we do not in general want the government in the business of enforcing the religious views of one group on the whole of the American people without an awful damn good reason. I have no problem with treating murder as a crime even though one of the commandemtns in the bible could be found to agree with my view here.

Not being forced to participate in purely religious practices, or prevented from practices purely becuase of the opinion of one flavor of religion in which no one is being hurt, is a BIG BIG part of what it means to be 'free' Gedi. That's America; Freedom.

If someone doesn't like freedom and really wants to live in a country in which such freedoms are not guaranteed then one can do three things basically:

1. You can work to change it, and destroy one of the cherished foundations of liberty if you succeed,

2. You can tolerate it and in return be assured that your own faith will be tolerated.

3. You can move, start up your own little village or colony, or join an existing one in which everyone agrees to abide the specific set of religious rules and not pay attention to the rest of the world.

Option three doesn't affect me. Option two is acceptable to me and I'm willing to tolerate religious or mythological practices I don't practice and frankly think are bunk be they Native American superstitions, Voodooism, or mainstream religions, and I'm willing to tolerate Moromons taking more than one wife or people living together or gay marriage, etc.

But option two involves changing the Consitution to the point that it no onger guaruntees freedom as we now enjoy it and in the form we extoll the virtues of to the world. This would impact me, and sooner or later it would impact everyone. Cultures don't stay static. If you repeal the Establishment Clause you've paved the way for government sponsored religion and whatever it mutates into. Our experience in human history with this has been pretty awful.

Besides right now in this country things aren't perfect, but think about where we're at. We are the most powerful nation on earth, we have the largest economy on earth, we can grow our own food and we can defend it, we enjoy freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom from religion, we are the most technologically advanced nation on earth. Most of these parameters have been achieved in the last 100 years, and especially the last fifty under both Democratic and Republican governments and without rejecting the freedoms we enjoy ... it's like a paradise here compared to most nations throughout history and compared to the conditions most of the people in the world live under.

Why in hell's name would anyone want to go f***ing around with the system that has put us here?

38

Larry wrote, "Wow, you sure know a lot about what Jesus thinks, gedi."

It helps to read the Bible. Jesus can let you know what He thinks if you read the Bible too. Eat your hash brownies if you so choose. :) As with alcohol, the Bible speaks of consumption in moderation being okey dokey.

39

~DS~
Nobody here gets your point. Nobody is suggesting repealing the establishment clause. If some majority passes a law prohibiting "meat eating", it doesn't violate the establishment clause. I've never heard anyone suggesting repealing that or subverting it. Why do you keep thinking it will happen?

I think you are confusing a legislator (or voters) being guided by their faith with some sort of theocracy. Clue in. You are guided by your beliefs too, and they're just as much a matter of faith as the next man's.

All legislators pass laws based on their beliefs. Restricting laws to only those supported by utilitarian principles is just as bit a violation of the establishment clause as restricting them to Hindu or Hebraic ones. We vote in legislators who we feel repsect our views. After that, the process (Constitution and compromise) takes care of the rest.

40

Gedi writes

"Eat your hash brownies if you so choose. :) "

What is the smiley face? Is that Jesus saying that he approves, as long as it's in moderation? What about lysergic acid? You said that Jesus doesn't care but I don't see any reference to Jesus in the sentence I quoted above. That could be just your opinion on the subject, which doesn't much interest me, frankly.

41

DS wrote, "I have no problem with treating murder as a crime even though one of the commandemtns in the bible could be found to agree with my view here."

And you would base this on... I would guess growing up in America, a land with a moral system infused in Christian beliefs.

"Not being forced to participate in purely religious practices, or prevented from practices purely becuase of the opinion of one flavor of religion in which no one is being hurt, is a BIG BIG part of what it means to be 'free' Gedi. That's America; Freedom."

Agreed. What one does on with one's God is typically off limits, though there are limits to the free expression of one's religion as protected in the First Amendment. These limits, of course, are also based upon Christian values. Human sacrifices are not protected even under the free expression of religion. Why? We Christians don't like human sacrifice. If you lived in an Incan society, you would not be afforded that protection.

I really don't think you will 'get it'. It is the same issue which Joe was speaking about in the beginning of the topic. Liberals, though I would include secularists along the whole political spectrum, do not understand a huge factor of America and never will. Without faith, one does not understand the implications of living with faith (though I would argue that lack of faith is in and of itself influential upon the secularist's belief system, including his inability to grasp the fact that he has his own belief system).

And I was never talking about repealing the Amendments.

DS wrote, "We are the most powerful nation on earth, we have the largest economy on earth, we can grow our own food and we can defend it, we enjoy freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom from religion, we are the most technologically advanced nation on earth."

Sorry, no. We have no freedom from religion, or any other philosophical ideology such as American secularism. Even if we wanted one, it is just an impossibility.

42

Mark O writes

"You are guided by your beliefs too, and they're just as much a matter of faith as the next man's. "

Totally bogus. On the other hand, Mark, you undoubtedly do rely on logic and "materialistic" assumptions every day of your life, just as I do. You've just thrown an additional big chunk of magic and supersticion into your beliefs that I discarded when I was twelve. There's no problem with that, of course, unless you start claiming that your irrational beliefs deserve extra respect and warrant discrimination against others.

43

"And you would base this on... I would guess growing up in America, a land with a moral system infused in Christian beliefs."

This, of course, explains why murder is perfectly acceptable behavior in China and Japan.

44

Mark O wrote, "You are guided by your beliefs too, and they're just as much a matter of faith as the next man's. "

Do you need more proof that secularists just don't 'get it'? It is part of their belief system to deny a belief system.

45

Larry wrote, "This, of course, explains why murder is perfectly acceptable behavior in China and Japan."

I never said Christians were the only ones who frowned on murder.

46

DS,

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion in your discussions on conflicting "rights" has to do with a bit of a misunderstanding of what's at stake. Your example of Hindus attempting to outlaw meat-eating isn't really a conflict of "rights" at all. Or, at least, if you want to call it a conflict of "rights" the two rights in question are quite different structurally.

On the one hand, you have the "right" (so to speak) to consume critters. On the other, you have the "right" to force others not to do so. But notice how these 'rights' aren't symmetrical. What you're actually asking is what we should do when one group's legislative priorities (state-enforced vegetarianism) conflicts with individuals' rights.

Well, in general of course, the rights act as "trumps" (to use Ronald Dworkin's phrase), though they're trumps that can be overriden. If we were to take the argument as it was, then you could say, a-ha, see, you evangelicals are treading on rights, just like the vegetarian Hindus. The problem, as I see it, with that analysis is that it doesn't apply all that well to the sorts of issues evangelicals tend to focus on, especially abortion (and other life issues). The question isn't whether the evangelicals' legislative priorities (outlawing abortion, say) violate others' rights; the question is whether those "rights" are rights at all. And to know whether they are properly rights, we have to work out all sorts of moral, philosphical, and, yes, religious questions. The latter might make non-believers nervous, but our understandings of rights are to my mind inextricably linked to our moral views which are in turn inextricably linked (for some, at least) to our religious views.

In this way, I think religion properly, even necessarily, plays a role in our public deliberations, though it shouldn't nor can it play a singularly decisive role (in part because we are a very diverse country and in part because religious beliefs very rarely get you all the way to policy decisions).

Cheers,

47

"I never said Christians were the only ones who frowned on murder."

That is correct. And I never accused you of saying so, so why are you so defensive?

Oh, I know: because you stupidly implied that there was necessarily a causal relationship between your (bogus) claim that America's "moral system [is] infused in Christian beliefs" and someone's views about whether murder is bad.

You stupidly implied the above causal relationship which obviously does not exist and you were called on it. Rather than admit that the causal relationship doesn't exist, you pretend that I was accusing you of saying something about Japan. But that wasn't my point, of course. And you know it.

Nice try, though, gedi. Try being honest for a change. I recall having this discussion with you before. You still need to work on the honesty thing.

48

Oh, one other thing, gedi:

God bless me!

49

Larry wrote, "But that wasn't my point, of course. And you know it."

Honestly, I am never quite sure what point you are seeking to make.

My point stands. DS is making the assertion that murder is wrong in his view *because* DS has a viewpoint. My assertion is that his viewpoint is most influenced by the dominant worldview in America, Christianity. He just trumps Christianity with a secular American ideology when it suits his needs. One such need would be gay marriage.

And yes, God bless you, Larry!

50

The "mainstream media" has actually started to notice the religion divide. Not that they didn't get it before, but I know they were getting it this time around. Maybe it is crystallizing for them. E.g. USA Today ran a big front page story about it a while back: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm

They did talk more about back in the 90s though I think. Some of the discussion, as the USA Today article is an example, gets mixed in with trying to figure out conservative Catholic voters. Which leads to, for example, Kerry trying to suddenly sound religious. (Maybe he is, I am just saying, he never seemed to say much about it early on.)

As for the anti-gay thing, I think that phrase could be taken just as much to mean anti-gay-rights/platform as anti-gay-person, and that probably carries more of the meaning of how guys like Sullivan and Reynolds mean it. Maybe? I dunno.

51

I'd be curious to see your list of the top A-list bloggers in the "god-blog" ghetto, to use your term. :) We know A-list secular bloggers, but I'm not sure I've yet come across the vibrant Christian bloggers who are well-reasoned and intellectual (at least not ones who post at the frequency of a Koz, Instapundit, and the like.)

52

Ever heard of Donald Sensing, djchuang?

53

Larry,
You think it is a bogus claim that you are guided by your beliefs. What guides you then? If you don't understand you are guided by your beliefs, then you are a puppet, sub-human, or lying.

If on the other hand, you think your beliefs are completely rational. You just have an incomplete understanding of either what you believe or what foundation those beliefs rest upon.

54

Mark O there are ultrafundamentalists who are working to repeal the Establishment Clause and they are now feeling emboldened. I don't mean to imply that everyone who is a Christian is such a person. But Christains in general are likely to be less critical of these folks and write them off as 'kooks no one should worry about' than those of us who don't share their faith.
My 'belief' is that the system we have is robust. It has susrvived assualts from the extreme left and the extreme right, communism and fascism, assisinations, depressions, financial collapses etc. So I don't really see any need to change it. If we agree on this then I'm satisified.

Gedi, morals-what you may have referred to as beliefs- such as 'killing innocent people is wrong' are aqcuired like language. Human children pick them up without conscious effort early on and refine them consciously and unconsciouosly through their lives. This explanation makes testable predictions such as a high correlation between the cultutal morals of the culture one grows up in and the individual in that culture. It also predicts that people raised with no exposure to culture, say feral children or children who are neglected and isolated such as being chained in a basement their whole lives, will have no morals or very rudimentary ones.
This is what we observe all over the world. so it's safe to assume provisionally that morals are relative to the culture one grows up in to a high degree.

55

Unfortunately, you guys have actually lost the "morality" argument, but in winning, at least the rest of America, and those who voted with you will see the fruits of your labors.

You have elected the most greed-filled, murderous, and depraved administration in history. You have supported a regime that wants endless war on the poor and underprivileged.

And, yes, it does have to do with your worldview.

For more, come see the recent entries in my blog.

56

Just what is it evangelicals want? What will evangelicals request of a President who was re-elected because they worked so hard for it?

A few thoughts here. First, it is interesting to observe the MSM now calling the group “evangelicals,” not the Christian right, or religious right, or fundamentalist fringe. That’s a new thing.

Second, it is more complicated than some may think to answer the question of evangelical desires, because evangelicals are not a monolithic group, any more than Catholics or union members, or Hispanics. On many issues of economic policy or foreign policy evangelicals have many views. In fact, the group can’t agree on many theological issues—its made up of the dispensationalists and the charismatics, the Wesleyans and the Calvinists, the fundamentalists and the grace movement. They say if you have two Baptists in the room there are three opinions.

But there are some actions that a large majority of evangelicals would want from President Bush in his second term.

Here’s what I believe are the 10 things evangelicals want from the President. Check it out at:

http://therooftopblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/what-do-evangelicals-want.html

57

Actually, the death toll is around 8,000. This of course does not count those people who are soldiers and died fighting on either side, nor does it count the terrorists that are still dying there.

But so what? I have no moral qualm with innocents that might die in war. As long as I know that we tried to protect the innocents while making war and that the war was just.

58

On the issue of bigotry amongst elites:
I have a great story.
When I was in graduate school in education, I noticed after the first semester that the bias against Christians was intense. So in my second semester, I performed an experiment. I simply did well and hid my fundamentalism. Many times I had my essays read out loud by the professor before the class. Actually, she only read my essays. She even said once that she was reading my paper and had to call her collegues because she was so excited about the content. I was easily her favorite student. BUT...
She was Angela Davis-type, leftist, feminista radical. I mean she was a Christian hating, wealth distributing, pro-abotion-in-all-cases radical.
So, after the last class session, I approached her. I said to her, "What do you think is my stance as a writer." She said, "Well, I know you graduated from Stanford and are well versed in science, but I am not sure. I have been thinking about that." To this I said, "Who are the most ignorant and uneducated people in our 20th century American society."
To this she said and I do not lie, "Your not a Christian are you."
"The only one you have ever met. I am a fundamentalist Christian", I said. She admitted that she had never met a born again Christian before.
I explained to her that I had sat in this class listening to her stereotypes, and I decided I am going to help this woman understand the depth of her bigotry. I told her you see Christian like clansmen see little black sambo. I explain to her that most of my friends have advanced degrees from prestegious schools and still believe in the bible.
She was floored. She confessed she had stereotypes and that I had helped her to see that she was wrong.
The bigotry is very real out there, but we can win folks over one relationship at a time.

59

Once again the republican party has betrayed the anti-abortion movement. During his first post-election press conference, President Bush said nothing about asking congress for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Naturally, he will recommend for appointment supreme court justices that will surely affect Roe v. Wade, but this does not ban abortion, it simply allows the states to choose. The time has come for all people of good concience to rise up and damand nothing less than a constitutional amendment on abortion.

60

DS,

Thanks for agreeing with me. :) You and I are influenced most heavily by the worldviews of our society.

You agree with the Christian worldview on the topic of murder. I would venture that you agree with 90% of the Christian worldview. You *probably* agree with such Christian concepts as the equality of man, right to eat whatever you want, etc.

If you can agree with the Christian worldview on something as far reaching and important as murder, why wouldn't you agree with the Christian worldview on something as relatively remedial as opposition to gay marriage, abortion, etc.?

It seems... logical to be consistent.

God bless, DS.

61

Last week, "The Daily Show" was looking for Canadian "social conservatives" in Toronto supportive of President Bush's winning a second term to interview for a segment. At least one "so-con" -- an evangelical -- interviewed by the production staff was ruled out for being too well-spoken and educated. The evangelical didn't really fit the picture of the Bible-thumping fundy they were looking for -- a thinking, evangelical conservative just isn't funny, I guess -- too hard to mock.