For some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish. -- John Calvin
After hearing that the May issue of Harper’s Magazine includes a series of articles on “The Christian Right’s War On America”, I realized it was time to introduce an observation, similar to Godwin’s Law, on a recurrent theme in political debate. Such a clear pattern of rhetorical hyperbole has led me to codify Carter’s Law of Political Rhetoric:
As the number of religious conservatives expressing an opinion on a moral or political issue increases, the probability that someone on the political left will invoke the term “theocracy” approaches one.
“Bush gets mandate for theocracy,” cries the Village Voice’s James Ridgeway. “[T]he right-wing cabal,” warns Dr. Bruce Prescott, Director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, “is methodically pushing our nation toward theocracy.” And writing in The Nation, Barbara Ehrenreich claims that Bush’s faith-based welfare strategy “accelerates the downward spiral toward theocracy.” There’s even a project called “TheocracyWatch” at Cornell University that focuses not on existing theocracies throughout the world but on “the pervasive role of the Religious Right in the U.S. government.”
When those of us on the “religious right” hear such paranoid ranting it naturally elicits a chuckle. After all, more than half of American evangelicals are either Baptists or non-denominational. We don’t even want a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church. So where does this silly canard come from?
Since even the most pernicious lie (“Jews eat gentile children.”) contains some grain of truth (“Jews eat.”), we can’t dismiss the idea completely. After all, it is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence. As a group they likely outnumber black separatists, though they are dwarfed by the number of liberal secessionists. Their association with the election of President Bush is also rather dubious since they voted for Michael Peroutka.
But I suspect that most people who use the word simply have no understanding of its meaning. Theocracy, which literally means "rule by the deity," is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent God on earth both directly and immediately. The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws.
The term was first used by the Jewish historian Josephus to describe the way the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. In ancient Israel everyone was a direct subject of Jehovah, who ruled over all and communicated through the prophets. This arrangement was short-lived, though, and the Jews eventually rejected theocratic rule in favor of an earthly king. While the sovereign did not always enforce all of the laws of the former theocracy, he retained the authority given to him “by God.” During the medieval era, a version of this concept was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of the divine right of kings combined the secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church to form caesaropapism.
Yet even though the concept of theocracy has its roots in Jewish, Catholic, and even Islamic history, the term has somehow become associated with conservative Protestant Christianity. Part of it can be explained as a result of common ignorance. But enough reasonably intelligent people have been misusing the word that it can only be intentional. I suspect that “theocracy” has become a code word for what Eugene Volokh refers to as “"trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system."
I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.
Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.
Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs -- because deeply religious people's moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs -- in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor? Perhaps their actions were wrong on the merits; for instance, maybe some anti-poverty problems caused more problems than they solved, or wrongly took money from some to give to others. But would you condemn these people on the grounds that it was simply wrong for them to try to impose their religious beliefs on the legal system?
My sense is that the critics of the Religious Right would very rarely levy the same charges at the Religious Left. Rather, they'd acknowledge that religious people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their religious views) into law, just as secular people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their secular, but generally equally unprovable, moral axioms) into law.
This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others. There’s a sense that these critics believe that the right to vote and influence legislation should be limited to the people who have politically correct religious views. The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans.
Apparantly, everyone has a right to be heard – until they start listening to God.
1
Your analysis is rather simplistic and does not reflect any of the reasons that centrists and leftists oppose the rising religious right. Liberal Christians have the same social opinions that right-christians do in many areas, such as abortion, for example. But they are not criticized because they do not engage in the same discourses of power that evangelicals engage in.
When I listen to evangelicals talk, I hear a steady stream of lectures, talking about sin, about reshaping America to reflect "God's values," lots of war-rhetoric, and similar discourse that reflects an obsession with power rather than an expression of love. Those of us who have lived in authoritarian societies -- and I worked for a democracy movement in a police state in the country where I now live -- instantly recognize what all this talk means: the language sin is the language of control. Many of us who are alarmed at the growing hunger of the religious right for power also note its service to large corporations, its close links to US intelligence services, its utter lack of critique of its own reach and aims, the constant threats of violence, the funding from right wing billionaires such as the Coors Family and Mellon-Scaife, the links to right-wing hate organizations such as the Pioneer Fund, and so on. We notice that the Religious Right has a terrifying urge to power that does not exist among centrist progressives like myself. The progressive Left (as distinct from Communism) also does
not seem to speak in these discourses of power. Communists, of course, sound exactly like evangelicals, right down to the indoctrination of children, the demand for complete control of every human on earth and the extinction of all competing forms of thought, and the urgent need for power and control. I guess that's why y'all dislike each other so much, being mirror images.
We progressives, centrists, and leftists also notice many structural features other religious right that are quite frightening. Its organization into cell structures. Its interpenetration with far-right radical Christian Reconstructionists who occupy many of its key positions and who founded many of its key organizations. Its unrelenting missionary drive that aims at "world conquest" (as a recent speech said). The drumbeat of attacks on church-state separation, on democracy, and many other things.
If we could believe that you all were, like progressive Christians, committed to loving citizenship in a democratic state, we'd be the first to support you. But fundamentally, the difference between a liberal and a rightwinger is that for the former, God's Power = Love, while for the latter, God's Love = Power. When you stop speaking about "Dominion" and starting speaking about loving your neighbor, the center and left will stop criticizing you.
Infidel in Exile
posted on 05.02.2005 4:09 AM2
When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others.
At least on gay marriage, there's really no good secular reason to oppose it. With abortion, poverty, etal., there are reasonable secular reasons (or, as Rawls, who's always hovering in the background of this issue, would say, "public reasons").
There's yer difference, and that's what Volokh doesn't see when he swings and takes a mighty miss at the slavery issue (a law prof not knowing Rawls? Surprised me).
And that's how theocracy is used: it's the political imposition of religious strictures for which there's no good public reason.
posted on 05.02.2005 5:18 AM3
The problem is, though, the religious right isn't.
Allow for what you might call a prophetic rant here...
There is the assumption ("double standard") that what the religious right advocates is somehow morally equivalent to what the religious left advocates (an odd kind of moral relativsm).
Of course it's not.
In fact comparing the religious right to the work of say, Dr. Martin Luther King is an abomination of bordering on blood libel. You are really quite morally bankrupt if you think that Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, who paid David Duke for his mailing list is in the same category as King. As I've said, let's not say it any other way: James Dobson supports people who get their support from racists and Klan supporters. And you should be ashamed to stand in their company.
And this is not "paranoia" in a world where we have real skinheads who commit real hate crimes. It's sickening in fact.
To say "the religious left supports abortion and gay marriage" is yet another lie. We who are in the religious left support the notion that people should be able to act according to their conscience, - indeed are ultimately impelled to do so.
Which gets to the next point: the religious right wants to destroy the rights of privacy and separation of church and state.
As a Buddhist, I can only say that this type of behavior, from these type of people, will only increase suffering.
And we see it already: James Dobson's support for Tom DeLay- despite the numerous ethical problems, and in some cases apparently eggregious violations of House ethics rules if not outright criminality, shows that Dobson and his ilk are not interested in morality at all.
Abortion, gays, sex, sex, privacy. That's all that matters to the religious right. Theft, killing, lying, etc. mean nothing to them, evidently, for thse sins have been in abundance in the people they praise from their pulpits.
So please can the victim act; it's not working, you don't speak for a deity, "religously orthodox" means religiously correct, and I would have phrased what Keillor said differently: we let conservative Christians marry, why not gays?
posted on 05.02.2005 5:30 AM4
Infidel in Exile :
I see neither of us mentioned Sun Myung Moon, the kind of cultist only Jerry Falwell could love.
posted on 05.02.2005 5:33 AM5
jpe--What do you mean there are no good secular reasons to oppose gay marriage? How about, we don't change millenia old institutions to accomodate the whims of a small, vocal minority, especially when there are other vehicles to address most of their concerns and we don't have a clear understanding of the impacts to the institution that the change will cause? Since someone will bring up the millenia old institution of slavery, there really is very little comparison. The only way to address the fundamental problem with slavery (loss of liberty) was to abolish the institution. WRT gay marriage, most of the issues (inheiritance, medical decisions, property ownership) can be dealt with fairly easily within the current legal system. The other main problem, societal acceptance of homosexual relationships is not going to be changed just because a judge or minister proclaims "I now pronounce you husband and husband or wife and wife."
posted on 05.02.2005 6:19 AM6
In fact comparing the religious right to the work of say, Dr. Martin Luther King is an abomination of bordering on blood libel.
What's being compared is the way they structured their arguments: both expressly argued from religion. We (religious & secular left) see the latter as virtuous and good, the former as theocratic. It's reasonable to ask on what grounds they're differentiated.
posted on 05.02.2005 6:31 AM7
How about, we don't change millenia old institutions to accomodate the whims of a small, vocal minority, especially when there are other vehicles...
This would be a reasonable answer if there were some huge cost for allowing SSM. There isn't, however.
8
Sorry, I didn't catch the conservative argument in there:
we don't have a clear understanding of the impacts to the institution that the change will cause?
"Who knows what will happen!" doesn't seem so compelling, does it? Inasmuch as it's an argument against SSM, it's an argument against virtually any kind of change.
posted on 05.02.2005 6:38 AM9
Infidel--You should probably hang out with different evalgelicals. When I get together with my evangelical friends we talk about work, kids, sports, etc. Sometime we talk about what the Soup Kitchen at our church needs, and about how we can help families in our community who soldier/husbands are on deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan. We very rarely talk about how we are going to set a Methodist theocracy (I always laugh when I imagine what a Methodist theocracy would look like) when we finally get all of George Bush's judges approved.
On a larger note, it is really kind of funny, on the one hand the left hides under the covers at night worrying about the impending theocracy of George W Bush, but OTOH is effusive in their praise of Cuba and worries terribly that Bush might encourage political dissidents in that real police state. I also recently had a discussion on this site with mumon in which he said (presumably with a straight face) that China was no longer a totalitarian regime. That would come as news to the 7 Catholic priests arrested on 27 Apr 2005 (http://www.laogai.org/news/newsdetail.php?id=2312) during a religious retreat or to those in China trying to access web info on Tibetan independence. Seems like many on the left are really, really concerned about totalitarian regimes that exist only in their imaginations, but can't drum up all that much concern about real ones.
posted on 05.02.2005 6:54 AM10
jpe--I didn't say it was a conservative argument, only that it was a secular one (doesn't include mention of religious authority). Remember your quote, "At least on gay marriage, there's really no good secular reason to oppose it."? But in reality it is a conservative argument. Conservatives like to conserve things, we don't like making drastic changes to traditional institutions based on whims, especially when there are less drastic measures for addressing the concerns of the minority and when we don't have a clear understanding of the costs. BTW--How do you know this is a low cost change?
posted on 05.02.2005 7:26 AM11
Infidel in Exile says "We notice that the Religious Right has a terrifying urge to power that does not exist among centrist progressives like myself. "
Does not exist? Ever hear of George Soros?
I'm amused that every time Joe writes a brilliant analytical post, it's greeted by a wordy opponent as "rather simplistic," a convenient phrase along the lines of "it goes without saying," which always accompanies some long "saying."
Then mumon makes a point, which by example, legitimizes gay marriage. Good for you, sir; this lead to the underlying question: By what Standard will laws be made and life be lived? Mumon, why not 3-way marriages, why not bestial marriages between consenting humans and great danes? Why not do away with statutory rape laws, and base judgment on the consent, the "feelings," of younger children, say as young as 12 years old, for which there's historical precedent? Why not...pick your preference?
Look, there has to be a standard. And America is at a point where more and more voices are finally saying to the other side, "You can no longer absolutely deny the existence of absolutes." The question (a threatening one to be sure) is whose standard? Why are laws by Maxine Waters and Barney Franks preferable to those by Moses or Jesus?
The fact is, if the Right were as monolithic as the Left claims, and if Joe Carter loved "power" as much as Infidel in Exile suggests (since he's an ever more influential part of the monolith), then such opposing comments would not be published. I know, because my close contacts in the intelligence services would make sure!
As my own Saturday post suggests, Let the Left Be the Left. Keep talking gentlemen. Let's continue a courteous, but honest and spirited debate. Eventually the Truth will out, and somebody will be set free.
posted on 05.02.2005 7:38 AM12
On a larger note, it is really kind of funny, on the one hand the left hides under the covers at night worrying about the impending theocracy of George W Bush, but OTOH is effusive in their praise of Cuba and worries terribly that Bush might encourage political dissidents in that real police state. I also recently had a discussion on this site with mumon in which he said (presumably with a straight face) that China was no longer a totalitarian regime. That would come as news to the 7 Catholic priests arrested on 27 Apr 2005 (http://www.laogai.org/news/newsdetail.php?id=2312) during a religious retreat or to those in China trying to access web info on Tibetan independence. Seems like many on the left are really, really concerned about totalitarian regimes that exist only in their imaginations, but can't drum up all that much concern about real ones.
On a personal note, I worked in an anti-Chinese democracy movement.
As for China being totalitarian, it IS authoritarian, but the level of control and authority varies widely, and local corruption, capitalism, and the increasing travel and international savvy of the Chinese people prevent anything like full-blown totalitarianism. Reality is always more complex than the simplistic categories we create for it. China arresting Catholic priests is hardly evidence of "totalitarianism." Back when Taiwan was "Free China" it used to jail presbyterian pastors, and of course our friend and ally South Vietnam had a distinguished record of success with Buddhist priests. Our central Asian allies are not exactly paragons of religious freedom. It's not surprising that one authoritarianism recognizes another and seeks to squelch it. If the Catholic Church were suddenly give absolute control over China, do you think that non-Catholics would be able to prosyletize there?
left hides under the covers at night worrying about the impending theocracy of George W Bush, but OTOH is effusive in their praise of Cuba and worries terribly that Bush might encourage political dissidents in that real police state.
It's interesting how progressives and the center dropped out of your discussion right away...and Left criticism of Cuba is robust and complex, and hardly worries about dissent in Cuba, let alone that Bush would encourage it.
Infidel--You should probably hang out with different evalgelicals. When I get together with my evangelical friends we talk about work, kids, sports, etc. Sometime we talk about what the Soup Kitchen at our church needs, and about how we can help families in our community who soldier/husbands are on deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan. We very rarely talk about how we are going to set a Methodist theocracy (I always laugh when I imagine what a Methodist theocracy would look like) when we finally get all of George Bush's judges approved.
One of the most frustrating things in dealing with the Religious right and its supporters, enablers, and deniers is just this attitude: I never talk about it, so it can't be true. Rob, It doesn't happen at my Church is not an argument against any of the observations I've made. The theocratic drive is alive and well and living in the US. The Christian Reconstructionists who dominate the movement count on the easygoing attitude of people like you, Rob, to enable them in their quest for power.
The really great thing is that they got you to play along with their choices while getting you to opt out of the choicemaking process, merely by harnessing your religious impulses. Neat, eh? They don't have any authority over you, so their drive for authority must not exist.
Spot the fallacy there? the funding links between the moonies and the religious right into groups like CRF or ADF don't disappear simply because you don't see them.
Infidel in Exile
posted on 05.02.2005 7:39 AM13
Exile:
Well, you've pegged us. I admit, it is a vast conspiracy. We met in desanctified churches in the dead of night to throw the progressives off. But we didn't fool you, did we? After all, given the enormous progress the progressive leftists have been responsible for during the 20th century (not least the very handy reductions in population that took place in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.), and our desire to return the world to the [pick a century you happen to particularly dislike]th century, I can see your concern and motivation to expose our risky schemes. I can also see that, exposed, we stand on shaky ground as an organization and effective conspiracy. So today, on being outed, I am here to announce that every new member to sign up this week for our venerable organization, Theocrats With Intolerant Temperaments, will be eligible for embossed cards guaranteeing a new Hummer and limitless supply of cheap gasoline. Match that! We had to think big to counter the promise of free unlimited health care forever, free unlimited day care, free sex, free condoms, free recycling, and a bicycle built for two.
jpe:
That's more properly called the Precautionary Principle. Ralph Nader, or the EU bureaucracy, will be happy to edify you on the topic. I always thought it was quite popular on the Left.
posted on 05.02.2005 7:49 AM14
Infidel in Exile says "We notice that the Religious Right has a terrifying urge to power that does not exist among centrist progressives like myself. "
Does not exist? Ever hear of George Soros?
You mean the concentration camp victim who has staked millions to fight for democracy in the US? Yeah, I know of him. Which organizations that seek to overthrow the government is he funding?
I'm amused that every time Joe writes a brilliant analytical post, it's greeted by a wordy opponent as "rather simplistic,"
Probably because...Joe's posts tend to fall along rather simplistic lines. The center and left do not oppose the right because of its views on social policy. The oppose the right because it is seeking power in an extremely ugly and direct fashion. Joe's post did not confront this fact, either to confirm it or refute it.
Then mumon makes a point, which by example, legitimizes gay marriage. Good for you, sir; this lead to the underlying question: By what Standard will laws be made and life be lived? Mumon, why not 3-way marriages, why not bestial marriages between consenting humans and great danes? Why not do away with statutory rape laws, and base judgment on the consent, the "feelings," of younger children, say as young as 12 years old, for which there's historical precedent? Why not...pick your preference?
Actually, why not just base things on adult consent? That's the sensible thing that allows everyone to live their own lives. Then we don't have sex with little kids. You could marry a great dane, but I can't imagine how you'd get consent.
Look, there has to be a standard. And America is at a point where more and more voices are finally saying to the other side, "You can no longer absolutely deny the existence of absolutes."
The claim to Absolutes is simply a rhetorical move to get the other side to shut up and accept one's values. Absolute morality is the language of power and control. That's why the center and left have rejected it.
The question (a threatening one to be sure) is whose standard? Why are laws by Maxine Waters and Barney Franks preferable to those by Moses or Jesus?
Because it's the 21st century, and Moses and Jesus never left any laws on the vast majority of complex issues we face, while at the same time the laws of Moses are brutal and evil. Do we stone our rebellious children, as Dt 21 advocates? Do we stone young women whose fathers cannot prove they were virgins when they were married, as in Dt 22? I could go on.
The fact is, if the Right were as monolithic as the Left claims,
Who said the Right was monolithic? Please re-read my post. My position is far more nuanced than that. I also note that the center has once again dropped out of the discussion.
As my own Saturday post suggests, Let the Left Be the Left. Keep talking gentlemen. Let's continue a courteous, but honest and spirited debate. Eventually the Truth will out, and somebody will be set free.
We can't have a courteous debate when one said claims to have a pipeline to the Almighty and demands that the other participants in the conversation shut up and accept it. Behind every claim to Absolute morality is a sword itching to come out.
Infidel in Exile
posted on 05.02.2005 7:50 AM15
After all, given the enormous progress the progressive leftists have been responsible for during the 20th century
Quite a bit actually, all over the world. I do not see the right involved anywhere in the kind of day-to-day slogging that moves the world forward.
(not least the very handy reductions in population that took place in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.),
This has what to do with progressives?
posted on 05.02.2005 7:52 AM16
JPE-
SSM has been voted down by the citizens of every state where it has appeared on the ballot. Are you against theocracy or democracy?
Mumon-
"Which gets to the next point: the religious right wants to destroy the rights of privacy and separation of church and state."
The link you give hear is to a post that is so contentious it boggles the mind. Unless, of course, you define the "Religious Right" as people who want to destroy the right to privacy, etc. Strict constructionism doesn't seem like the proper tool to use to build a theocracy anyhow since it would mean putting teeth back into the long ignored 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
17
Rob Smith:
we don't change millenia old institutions to accomodate the whims of a small, vocal minority,...
-same argument was used by slavers...but at least you saw it coming...
WRT gay marriage, most of the issues (inheiritance, medical decisions, property ownership) can be dealt with fairly easily within the current legal system.
The easiest way to do that is to designate a BFF, as Cartman did, I suppose... but you know what that sounds like?
Demagraphics are solving the "social respect" or whatever you called it.
Oh, and while I'm at it, speaking of "loud vocal minorities," guess what?
posted on 05.02.2005 8:12 AM18
Infidel--Please name 10 members of the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement that are in positions of significant power (i.e. not your local post-man) in government, academia, or media in the US. I could chew up all of Joe's bandwidth finding people in those positions who praise the Cuban paradise, with it's "free health care and education".
Why would you want to through the Taiwan or South Vietnam of 30 years ago into the mix? Does Taiwan still engage in the type of religious oppression that is common in the PRC (just ask Falun Gong members)? Does Taiwan have an equivalent to the Laogai? Was the regime that replaced South Vietnam better or worse with respect to allowing religious (or even academic) freedom?
BTW--I praise without reservation anybody who works against the totalitarian (or authoritarian, distinction without a difference) regime in China or Cuba (or any number of totalitarian regimes around the world).
posted on 05.02.2005 8:21 AM19
mumon--and I showed why the comparison was not valid.
posted on 05.02.2005 8:24 AM20
Terry:
The people you're talking about are hardly strict constructionists; consider the folks who have wanted to re-name the nuclear option on the filibuster (Trent Lott's term, originally) the "constitutional" option.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I might add, that the people involved include acolytes of R.J. Rushdoony, who really do want to do away with our present constitution, constructed strictly or otherwise.
Rob Smith :
I missed this bit of yours on China. I assure you sir, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Infidel in Exile is spot-on here. And try not to change the subject, this one's on the religious right as a threat to American liberty, and why some apologists want to make a moral equivalence between them and Martin Luther King.
But wait, I have another bit to say about Chinese. The most immediate threat I know of to the Chinese I know happens to be what appears to be a spate of possible hate crimes in our neighborhood , that we suspect is being carried out ...by skin heads.
You'll forgive me if I take offense at people who sweep this garbage under the rug. My wife is Chinese.
Jim:
By what Standard will laws be made and life be lived?
Allow people to live their lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, so that people are individually able, both theoretically and practically (both as principle and phenomena) to cultivate wisdom, generosity, and loving-kindness.
Seems like anybody could sign on to it.
Rob Smith:
And I showed that it takes less time and makes it easier to have at least the circumstances of gay marriages, as some would put it.
21
That's more properly called the Precautionary Principle.
As I understand, the PP devolves on scientific risk assesssments (see eg: the WTO panel report On the Matter of Certain US Beef), not social structures.
posted on 05.02.2005 8:54 AM22
Infidel:
We notice that the Religious Right has a terrifying urge to power that does not exist among centrist progressives like myself.
We're not as humble as you, either.
posted on 05.02.2005 8:59 AM23
Mumon-
"The people you're talking about are hardly strict constructionists; consider the folks who have wanted to re-name the nuclear option on the filibuster (Trent Lott's term, originally) the "constitutional" option."
But your link, http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/04/modest-proposal.html
Has as its first line a quote from somebody named Orcinus who writes:
Now, as I've argued previously, the "strict construction" of which fundamentalists are so enamored is nothing but a new name for old-style "formalism," the approach to jurisprudence that wrought such exemplars of the law as Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. As such, its ramifications for American law could be profound, since widespread adoption would mean overturning an entire slate of progressive innovations of the 20th century and return us to the bad old days of the late 19th century, when robber barons ruled the land.
This is what I meant by contentious; The constitution of any state, if it is to have any meaning, can be considered formalism. The remedy is to have a democratic process that can make laws or amend the constitution if needed. Being a strict constructionist and being a theocrat are not the the same thing. You could hardly impose a national religious dictatorship by strictly reading the constitution.
24
By the way, if anyone is genuinely interested in the issue, here's the real quick history:
liberals have typically held "public reason" as a virtue, an idea of which philosopher John Rawls gave the clearest and most famous exposition. The idea is that, in a pluralist democracy in which many people hold many different viewpoints (ie worldviews, or, in Rawls-speak, "comprehensive doctrines," or CDs for short), public laws have to be capable of explanation that is accessible to everyone that holds a reasonable CD.
So, if we want to pass a law that is binding on Christians, muslims, atheists, hindus, etal., it can't be couched in purely Christian terms, or muslim terms, or whatever. It has to be based on "public reason." Because all reasonable CDs accept that murder is wrong, for example, we can argue that killing people is bad and should be banned. So public reason is arguing from principles on which all reasonable CDs overlap.
The question of how to assess MLK, then, is one that's drawn a lot of attention amongst those interested in theories of public reason, since MLK explicitly used religious language. Here are three of the better ways, I think, the MLK problem has been addressed:
1. A perspective satisfies public reason so long as it is capable of being couched in public reason terms. All reasonable CDs accept that people are equal, so even though MLK argued in christian terms, it's still fine. By contrast, there's no way to argue for, say, the requirement that all public schoolchildren be baptized. That would clearly fail this version of the public reason test.
2. Virtually everyone back then was Christian - all CDs back then were a variant of christianity, and so christian discourse, for all intents and purposes, just was public reason.
3. Public reason is a way of ensuring that laws are capable of being accepted by those against whom the law is being enforced. Since the vast majority, if not all, of the people opposing MLK were Christian, his use of Christian discourse was acceptable.
Those are some of the contenders. For anyone interested, there's no shortage of scholarship and thought on precisely the question that Mr. Carter raises.
posted on 05.02.2005 9:31 AM25
By what Standard will laws be made and life be lived?
Allow people to live their lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, so that people are individually able, both theoretically and practically (both as principle and phenomena) to cultivate wisdom, generosity, and loving-kindness.
mumon,
You are invoking terms (wisdom, generosity, loving-kindness) that assume absolute definitions, and assume general public acceptance of those definitions. That is the very assumption that gives rise to persecutorial cultures. I'm appealing to an objective standard, i.e., one we acknowledge as higher than our own.
But, I strongly believe that people on the Right have not earned your trust or respect, thus rendering these discussions interesting, but of not much practical value to the public good in the long run. The relative anonymity of forums like this don't help that too much, other than the general good will we all assume from Joe's readers.
You've got a right to expect more from the Right.
Aside: These exchanges are delightful, even when we sling a few hyper-barbs.
posted on 05.02.2005 9:42 AM26
Hello!
This is off-topic but I was trying to find a link here to request being added to the "Church Directory" blogroll. I have a copy of a blogroll, that may be old, on my site that I got from yours. just wanted to see if my blog could be added. let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks and take care,
Cameron
27
I must admit to befuddlement to the claim that there is no "secular" argument against same-sex marriage. Even more befuddling is the inability of those opposed to same-sex marriage to state an argument. Well, here it is:
1. The the design of human sexuality is heterosexual. 2. The male-female union is the one through which human beings come into existence. The fact some couples can't or choose not to procreate does not blunt the second component of the argument or change the essential biology.
For these reasons, it is not prejudicial or irrational for society to "prefer" male-female unions over same-sex unions. As a matter of fact, the insistence they be treated alike is an insistence that society ignore reason, rationality and that which is plainlty evident. Also, in no way is this an imposition on conduct or any private decisions or choices a person might make. From a legal and civil standpoint, two persons of the same sex can order their lives as they please, just as they are now doing. However, it is incongrous to demand a change in the public and legal definition of marriage, while declaring any such change invalid based on the privacy of such relationships.
In general, with respect to the untold confusion on the "church-state" issue, there is a distinction between that which is uniquely religious and a belief that is espoused by one or more religions, but is also accessible to those outside those particular religions (i.e., prohibitions against murder, theft, etc.).
posted on 05.02.2005 9:55 AM28
JF Hanna, those are excellent reasons for maintaining heterosexual marriage. As a society, most of us acknowledge that heterosexual marriage is a good thing. What you need to explain to make your argument work, though, is why it's a zero-sum game; how is it that allowing SSM will hurt heterosexual marriage?
posted on 05.02.2005 10:04 AM29
Yet even though the concept of theocracy has its roots in Jewish, Catholic, and even Islamic history, the term has somehow become associated with conservative Protestant Christianity. Part of it can be explained as a result of common ignorance. But enough reasonably intelligent people have been misusing the word that it can only be intentional. I suspect that “theocracy” has become a code word for what Eugene Volokh refers to as “"trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system."
I think it goes a bit beyond that. I would think it is code for "imposing religious dogma on the legal system and using nothing but religious dogma to justify it". Martin Luther King and the abolitionists might have quoted the Bible & cited religious beliefs in support of civil rights, ending the war in Vietnam, and abolition of slavery. However, their arguments went beyond religious beliefs. A Jew who did not accept King's belief in Jesus or Baptist dogma would still find convincing arguments for civil rights in his speechs and writing. Even if you look at a more radical figure like Malcome X, you do not need to assume Islam to follow his arguments. Likewise you can agree or disagree with their conclusions without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with their religious beliefs. There were people who were Baptists who disagreed with King and there were those who agreed with Malcome X without becomming Muslims.
Now look at this and compare:
Then mumon makes a point, which by example, legitimizes gay marriage. Good for you, sir; this lead to the underlying question: By what Standard will laws be made and life be lived? Mumon, why not 3-way marriages, why not bestial marriages between consenting humans and great danes? Why not do away with statutory rape laws, and base judgment on the consent, the "feelings," of younger children, say as young as 12 years old, for which there's historical precedent? Why not...pick your preference?Look, there has to be a standard. And America is at a point where more and more voices are finally saying to the other side, "You can no longer absolutely deny the existence of absolutes." The question (a threatening one to be sure) is whose standard? Why are laws by Maxine Waters and Barney Franks preferable to those by Moses or Jesus?
Implicit in this passage are the following assumptions:
1. The laws of Bush (or the 'religious right') are the laws of Jesus and Moses.
2. If you believe in Jesus & Moses then you have to believe in the laws of Bush (or the 'religious right')
3. To oppose the laws of Bush or the 'religious right' is to oppose Jesus or Moses. Hence the 'religious right' cannot be wrong unless you can show that all of Christianity is wrong. (Or I suppose I should say 'real' Christianity since the right has a habit of redefining dissidents out of existence as in 'Catholics love the new Pope, those that disagree aren't really Catholics to begin with).
On a larger note, it is really kind of funny, on the one hand the left hides under the covers at night worrying about the impending theocracy of George W Bush, but OTOH is effusive in their praise of Cuba and worries terribly that Bush might encourage political dissidents in that real police state
Who exactly is offering 'effusive praise' for Cuba?
posted on 05.02.2005 10:26 AM30
1. The the design of human sexuality is heterosexual. 2. The male-female union is the one through which human beings come into existence. The fact some couples can't or choose not to procreate does not blunt the second component of the argument or change the essential biology.For these reasons, it is not prejudicial or irrational for society to "prefer" male-female unions over same-sex unions. As a matter of fact, the insistence they be treated alike is an insistence that society ignore reason, rationality and that which is plainlty evident.
1. More accurately the design of human sexuality appears to be mostly hetrosexual with a distinct minority of homosexuals and possibly other minorities being other variations (bi-sexual, asexual)
2. The need to 'prefer' one union over another only makes sense if 'prefering' one hurts the other. In other words, if homosexual marriage doesn't hurt hetrosexual marriage then it is silly to argue that the former must remain outlawed to protect the latter.
2.1 One benefit of marriage (providing a stable unit to produce and raise children) does not rule out other benefits. Marriage has a host of other benefits that have nothing to do with children. Here's an incomplete list:
a. It provides greater economic security for adults since one adult can 'fall back' on another if they hit hard times. (Plural marriage, BTW, dilutes this security)
b. Despite those unhappy with the Schiavo case, it provides a useful way to easily assign guardianship for an adult who is no longer able to make decisions for themselves.
c. It provides emotional comfort and security.
d. It discourages promiscous sex outside of the couple (either homosexual or hetrosexul) which reduces public health problems.
2.2 The argument does not work against homosexual marriage since such marriages would provide all of the above benefits to society and individuals without hurting the benefit of providing an institution to raise children. It's not like gay people would otherwise settle down in hetrosexual marriages if they don't have gay marriages available to them & it certainly would seem that it would be a bad idea if they did so since that would lead to unstable hetrosexual marriages with lots of problems.
Also, in no way is this an imposition on conduct or any private decisions or choices a person might make. From a legal and civil standpoint, two persons of the same sex can order their lives as they please, just as they are now doing. However, it is incongrous to demand a change in the public and legal definition of marriage, while declaring any such change invalid based on the privacy of such relationships.
3. Unfortunately that is not what those opposed to gay marriages are actually doing. If you ever read Andrew Sullivan you would be aware that not only are laws being introduced to reinforce the rejections of gay marriage but also to even go as far as to refuse to enforce 'private contracts' between individuals if they appear to simulate any of the rights of marriage.
posted on 05.02.2005 10:42 AM31
At least on gay marriage, there's really no good secular reason to oppose it.
There's no shortage of secular reasons to oppose "same-sex marriage". I've seen plenty on the marriagedebate.com web site. Of course, "good" is in the eye of the beholder... but the claim that all such arguments are theistic is false.
32
If you ever read Andrew Sullivan you would be aware that not only are laws being introduced to reinforce the rejections of gay marriage but also to even go as far as to refuse to enforce 'private contracts' between individuals if they appear to simulate any of the rights of marriage.
I've read Andrew Sullivan. Not lately, I don't find any value there nowadays. But I have read Sullivan's claim -- and read the counterarguments, and read the text of one such law in question for myself. I've seen nothing to substantiate Sullivan's claim. I don't think he's a credible authority in this area.
posted on 05.02.2005 11:00 AM33
Jim:
Thanks for the kind words. I truly mean that. Although barbs abound maybe, just maybe, we can avoid a repeat of the Thirty Years' War or any other jihad/crusade.
You are invoking terms (wisdom, generosity, loving-kindness) that assume absolute definitions, and assume general public acceptance of those definitions. That is the very assumption that gives rise to persecutorial cultures. I'm appealing to an objective standard, i.e., one we acknowledge as higher than our own.
Ah, not actually ;-). And here we go into the philosophical discussion. ;-) But first, I have to be somewhat candid: I did not pull those words entirely out of thin air: all I did was pull out the ideals of the Declaration of Independence (which has proved relatively benign, compared to say, Mao's China), along with what would be summaries of the highest goods to be cultivated,...er...uh... in Buddhism.
Before folks say, "He wants a theocracy TOO!" I want to note that what I'm advocating is a maximum of individual liberty because it's been shown to be the wise thing to do. I don't care what religion anyone follows, if they can cultivate loving-kindness (or compassion), wisdom, and generosity. Let them be atheists, Muslims, whatever.
Now on to the philosphy part:
assume absolute definitions...I'm appealing to an objective standard,...
Your "objective standard" assumes an absolute itself; the choice of which absolute is absolutest (?) is, inevitably, a subjective choice.
But this does not mean that there are no absolutes, nor that one should insist only on absolutes. To insist on absolutes only or to ignore absolutes altogether is to ignore the interdependency between principle and phenomena.
As the Harmony of Difference and Sameness states,
Phenomena exist; box and lid fit;
principle responds; arrow points meet.
Or, as another translation has it:
Each thing has its own intrinsic value
and is related to everything else in function and position.
Ordinary life fits the absolute as a box and its lid.
The absolute works together with the relative,
like two arrows meeting in mid air
The absolute does not appear apart from the relative; and in neither is there any hindrance.
posted on 05.02.2005 11:03 AM34
Boonton--While I haven't kept up with Cuban praise from the left recently, I did live in Florida during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco. During that time much (not all, but certainley a sizable majority) of the left was singing the praises of Castro's Cuba, with its free health care and education, and how much better Elian will because he will be getting an extra bag of rice a month due to his celebrity status.
posted on 05.02.2005 11:31 AM35
jpe, boonton:
The definition of marriage does not have 5 or 6 components, one of which is that the parties be male and female. The union of a male and female is what marriage is. This definition has never been rooted in prejudice or an interest in excluding anyone. It merely reflected the reality I described in my previous post as the "secular" argument for maintaining this definition. When I speak of the design of human sexuality as male-female, I am not referring to merely our inclinations or desires, but to the fit of the male and female anatomy.
In so far as I can tell based on my reading, the driving force behind the movement to change the definition of marriage is a legal/societal declaration of the equality of same-sex relationships. In other words, it seems the primary issue is not necessarily the relationship between the interested couple, but what society thinks of it. For the reasons stated, I don't think society should make such a declaration.
Boonton, the benefits you list are currently available without a redefinition of marriage. Those which aren't can be contracted.
posted on 05.02.2005 11:40 AM36
Hey Guys
Overblown rhetoric that demonises people who in the end are coming from exactly the tradition of dissenter Christian faith that led to much of the rise of modern liberty is all too revealing.
For instance, in the letter that discusses the wall of separation between state and church -- to PROTECT churches -- Jefferson was replying to the Danbury Baptists.
It was Baptists, again, who first seriously and successfully evangelised among the slaves in my native land, Jamaica, and that includes black american missionaries such as George Liele and Moses Baker. Fifty years after they came, slavery was ended, and not by coincidence: the final slavery rebellion -- which started as a strike for pay -- is known as the Baptist War for good reason.
So, it is no accident that it is out of that same baptist church that several acknowledged national heroes of the liberation struggle in the period 1782 - 1865 came: Sam Sharpe, Paul Bogle and George WIlliam GOrdon. All of them martyrs.
So, kindly climb down from overblown rhetoric.
Theocracy IS possible, and can be tyrannical, but not a prospect unless it is Islamist theocracy! {Here I think of Eurabia . . .]
But in fact the clear evidence is that it is those who have to a great extent imposed an ANTI-theocracy in the name of a manipulated form of Jefferson's note to the Baptists, who are fussing now that people are wising up and are objecting in the name of protecting themselves from further impositions.
[FOr instance, it is a direct implication of creating a right to so-called homosexual marriage, clearly now on the agenda, that CHristian faith that takes the Bible seriously will be illegal and subject to prosecution. WHo is to blame if people see that and now stand up and fight back?]
SO, if you threw the first punch, stand up and take the return fire like a man!
Not to mention, the antitheocracies of the past 100 years have caused 100+ Million deaths. Last time I checked, the toll from the American Holocaust -- that's what the history books will ultimately call it -- was 44 millions anc counting at about 3,000 per day. FOR SHAME!
TIme to think again
$0.02
Gordon
posted on 05.02.2005 11:46 AM37
Rob Smith:
Conservatives like to conserve things, we don't like making drastic changes to traditional institutions based on whims, especially when there are less drastic measures for addressing the concerns of the minority and when we don't have a clear understanding of the costs.How, then, do you categorize the "conservative" position on social security, for example?
It's also worth noting that it's complete B.S. to talk about "traditional marriage" as if it were some etched-in-stone unchanging institution that dates back "millennia." There have been many, many changes to the institution over the centuries, some even in recent decades (allowing interracial marriage, for example). Allowing/disallowing divorce; allowing/disallowing polygamy; arranged versus consensual marriages; the list goes on. So spare us the "marriage has never ever changed so why change it now" line.
Jim:
By what Standard will laws be made and life be lived? Mumon, why not 3-way marriages, why not bestial marriages between consenting humans and great danes?Why does the debate over gay marriage inevitably lead to conservatives complaining about people screwing goats or other domesticated animals? What part of "two consenting adults" do you not understand?
In any case, as to "by what standard," the answer to that question is the same standard we've always used. Our nation's government derives its power from the consent of the governed (us), so we collectively make and change those rules. Over time, as we recognize moral failings, we make corrections and adjust the laws accordingly. It's really quite simple.
I wonder, however, where you suggest we get these laws from? If there's a be-all and end-all document that discretely and clearly lists the rules by which we must live, I'd like to see it. (And don't even suggest the Bible, unless you think there only ought to be two rules...)
posted on 05.02.2005 11:46 AM38
Stanley Kurtz has an excellent article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp) on these wild-eyed Christian Dominionists who want to take over the country and establish an Old Testament style theocracy. It's really amazing how many mainstream lefties buy-in to this trype, but it also kind of scary. Once you can start equating Nazis with even mainstream Evanglical Christians in the minds of a substantial group of people, real oppression of Christians (like the kind you see in China or Cuba) enters the realm of the possible in the US. I wonder how hard people like Boonton and mumon would object to real oppression of Christians in the US.
posted on 05.02.2005 11:49 AM39
Hey. this is the first time I ever responded to a thing called a blog. I did do a THM thesis in the 80s criticizing Greg Bahnson and Christian Reconstruction. If anyone thinks that these guys have significant impact on evangelicals in American public life, they simply don't know what they're talking about. Even in the most conservative of the Reformed churches from which they sprang, have rejected their views. And you think that the "Left Behind" reading evangelical public is buying into it!
Where, btw, does one apply for a job in the coming theocracy?
40
Oh the irony.
Here's evangelical Christian leader Pat Robertson, one of the wealthiest and most powerful evangelicals in the country:
--------------------
Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
...
Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
-----------------------------------
Pat Robertson is a disgusting idiot. And if you think that Pat Robertson doesn't want a Christian theocracy in the United States you are an even bigger idiot.
posted on 05.02.2005 11:55 AM41
Tom--I characterize the conservative position on Social Security as conservative;). How do you characterize it? Conservatives are trying to conserve the Social Security system, but with the understanding that it can not survive, without substantial changes. Is the institution of marriage not going to survive unless we change it to allow same-sex unions? That would be an interesting argument. But really Tom, I agree that marriage has gone through cosmetic changes (interracial marriages, polygamy, etc.) over the millenia, but the fundamental premise of a union of one man and one woman has always remained unchanged. Even in polygamous marriages, the second wife did not marry the first wife, the marriage union was exclusively with her husband. But aren't we getting a bit off track here, does oppostion to same-sex marriage automatically translate into support for a theocracy?
posted on 05.02.2005 11:58 AM42
The union of a male and female is what marriage is.
If your interest is in protecting a definition, then presumably you wouldn't have a problem with creating a perfectly parallel institution and calling it "flarriage"?
posted on 05.02.2005 12:00 PM43
Boonton--While I haven't kept up with Cuban praise from the left recently, I did live in Florida during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco. During that time much (not all, but certainley a sizable majority) of the left was singing the praises of Castro's Cuba, with its free health care and education, and how much better Elian will because he will be getting an extra bag of rice a month due to his celebrity status.
that's really strange, I recall most of the arguments for returning Elian to his father centered around the fact that the boy should be with his father who wanted him rather than distant relatives. I seriously do not remember people arguing that Elian should be returned to his father because that would ensure extra rice. If that was the argument for returning him to his father certainly critics of the decision could have chipped in and purchased a two bags of rice per month for Elian thereby neutralizing the argument nicely.
The definition of marriage does not have 5 or 6 components, one of which is that the parties be male and female. The union of a male and female is what marriage is. This definition has never been rooted in prejudice or an interest in excluding anyone.
That's interesting, when Patrick mounted an argument recently for marriage being the union of male and female aspects Scrappy attacked him voraciously for being unclear and ill defined. What exactly is the definition of this 'union' if it not simply poetic and spiritual?
In so far as I can tell based on my reading, the driving force behind the movement to change the definition of marriage is a legal/societal declaration of the equality of same-sex relationships. In other words, it seems the primary issue is not necessarily the relationship between the interested couple, but what society thinks of it. For the reasons stated, I don't think society should make such a declaration.
Boonton, the benefits you list are currently available without a redefinition of marriage. Those which aren't can be contracted.
What's behind the 'movement'? Why not simply address the arguments presented. Laws do not tell society what to think. Legally Brittany Spears's marriage is equal to your grandparents who have been together and faithful for 40 years. Catholics have long recognized (or 'thought') that remarried divorced couples were not legitimatly married yet legally their marriages are as equal to anyone else's.
What's curious about the benefits I listed is that making them available without redefining marriage (ala civil unions) actually ends up hurting hetrosexual marriage while simple homosexual marriage would not. It's not the existence of homosexual marriage that has been hurting the institution in countries like Norway but the exitence of various flavors of 'marriage-lite' that allow for easy redefinition of a partnership for hetrosexuals. For the record many of the benefits I listed can be contracted but only at some serious expense while marriage provides a blanket 'default contract' that is both simple and easy for participants to understand.
[FOr instance, it is a direct implication of creating a right to so-called homosexual marriage, clearly now on the agenda, that CHristian faith that takes the Bible seriously will be illegal and subject to prosecution. WHo is to blame if people see that and now stand up and fight back?]
Who is subject to prosecution if homosexual marriage is legal? The Catholic Church, for centuries, has operated in countries that permitted civil marriages that it did not recognize...yet it has survived without persecution from democratic countries. When was the last time a priest was charged with a crime for refusing to recognize the marriage of a divorced person? (BTW, the Catholic Church goes beyond even that...Catholics who get married only in a civil ceremony might not be considered legitimately married in the Church's eyes hence may be 'living in sin')
posted on 05.02.2005 12:07 PM44
As an Evangelical, I cringe whenever Pat Robertson (or Jerry Falwell) opens his mouth. Both are good men, who would be terribly surprised to find out that they support establishment of a theocracy, but I wish Stephie, et al. would update their Rolodexes and get some different people to give a broader representation of Evangelical thought. How hard would it be to get a hold of Joe or Donald Sensing or any number of others for a different Evangelical perspective?
posted on 05.02.2005 12:13 PM45
"As an Evangelical, I cringe whenever Pat Robertson (or Jerry Falwell) opens his mouth. Both are good men,"
Really? Do you know them personally?
Does anyone who says "Praise Jesus" into a giant microphone automatically qualify as "good"?
I find it incredibly odd that you defend Pat and Jerry as "good men" but "cringe whenever they open they open their mouths."
Maybe they aren't good men. Maybe they are the worst sort of men, the sort of men who prey on the religious beliefs and ignorance of people less clever than they are, in order to gain power and wealth for themselves.
Try a new salad dressing, Rob.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:17 PM46
Rob Smith:
During that time much (not all, but certainley a sizable majority) of the left was singing the praises of Castro's Cuba, with its free health care and education, and how much better Elian will because he will be getting an extra bag of rice a month due to his celebrity status.Funny, I never heard any of that, and I'm part of the "left." If you're going to make accusations like that, you'd better be prepared to back them up with cites. And I'm not talking about a few obscure knuckleheads, I'm talking about evidence that prominent liberals were taking that position, and that a fair percentage of them were doing so.
Of course, you won't do that, because you can't, because it didn't really happen that way.
For the record, it really hurt that we had to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba, but if we are to respect parental autonomy at all, then sending him back to his father was the right thing to do.
(As an aside, what is it about the state of Florida and the use of victims of tragic situations to grandstand and angle for cheap political points?)
Conservatives are trying to conserve the Social Security system, but with the understanding that it can not survive, without substantial changes.So I suppose these guys weren't really conservatives, then?
I agree that marriage has gone through cosmetic changes (interracial marriages, polygamy, etc.) over the millenia, but the fundamental premise of a union of one man and one woman has always remained unchanged.Dude, I can't even believe you typed that! Do you not even know what polygamy means? And polygamy and interracial marriage are minor, cosmetic changes? Good Lord! (Also, see below about "one man, one woman.")
JF Hannah:
The union of a male and female is what marriage is. This definition has never been rooted in prejudice or an interest in excluding anyone.Better tell that to Jacob, Esau, Elkanah, David (confirmed), Solomon, Ashhur, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Jehoiada. (Note that Solomon and his wives are condemned, but not because he has many of them: instead because they were foreigners whom God had forbidden him to marry, and because they turned Solomon to false Gods. The polygamy itself is not condemned.)
And, of course, if God wasn't keen on polygamy, then there wouldn't be much need for this rule, either.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:28 PM47
Thanks Larry, but I'll stick with Ranch. Why does it not surprise me that you would call someone you don't know personally a digusting idiot, but not allow me to call that same person good? I am pretty sure that you would welcome concentration camps for Christians, hell you'd probably volunteer to man the guard towers.
Boonton--Your memory of the Gonzalez fiasco is faulty. You couldn't swing a dead cat without some lefty telling you how wonderful Cuba's free healthcare and education were and how much better Elian would be in Cuba. BTW--How do you know his father wanted him? Every where he went he was under the control of Cuban security and his family was still in Cuba under Castro's control. Do you really think he had a choice about wanting his son? If I lived in Cuba, I would rather my son live with distant relatives in the US than in slavery with me in Cuba, but hey I love my son.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:35 PM48
So, the only non-religious arguments against SSM I've seen are the argument from religion and the general argument from social conservatism, neither of which cut much ice.
Two things: this is the source of the theocracy charge. The contrast between the thinness of the secular arguments and the passion with which they're advanced strongly suggests that religious fervor is the real motivation behind DOMA amendments and laws.
Second: the thinness of the arguments is exactly courts have and will continue to rule that there's no rational basis on which to prohibit gay marriage.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:35 PM49
On Cuba: every so often, people start talking about how Cuba's medical and educational systems are super. I'm pretty sure Rob's right about that, although it's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:37 PM50
So, the only non-religious arguments against SSM I've seen are the argument from religion
That should be "argument from definition."
posted on 05.02.2005 12:38 PM51
Jpe, I believe, actually gave the best statement that highlights the current problem. The liberal belief in the ability to reconcile comprehensive doctrines (CDs).
So, if we want to pass a law that is binding on Christians, muslims, atheists, hindus, etal., it can't be couched in purely Christian terms, or muslim terms, or whatever. It has to be based on "public reason." Because all reasonable CDs accept that murder is wrong..
I'm not trying to pick on JPE here because he was just making a point, but this example shows the problem of trying to reconcile CDs. A Muslim view of murder will be different from a Christian and different from a Hindu. Which means that one view is going to be selected or some almagamation thereof. If you can't get an agreement on a basic concept of murder, then I doubt you'll get an agreement anywhere else.
What Boonton, tgirsch, mumon, et al. want to deny is that as a Western country, the U.S. has a cultural tradition that is derived from Christianity. It doesn't mean that the Bible is used to create laws, but it is the basis for the concept that because God created man he has his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What does this have to do with Joe's post? I believe that certain groups believe that if we get rid of that Christian underpinning and replace it with a secular rationalization of CDs, we'll end up with a wonderful country. In reality what will happen is a secular, authoritarian society which has to dictate what is acceptable to maintain "diversity", or a balkanized society.
As a result of this push to remove that Christian underpinning, any Christian group that opposes the move obiviously wants to start a theorcracy. Christians that support their goals are fine as they usually fall in the "religion is personal and not public" realm of belief.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:40 PM
52
I do recall some advocates of keeping Elian used a materialistic argument...namely that he would have more prosperity here in America. Liberals countered that argument by noting that materialism wasn't everything. That's the closest I remember anyone serious ever coming to arguing that Elian would have a 'better life' in Cuba.
The hard facts were that there are millions of people in Cuba (11.3M according to http://worldfacts.us/Cuba.htm). Like people everywhere they have children and the biological parents should be presumed to be the default guardians of children unless good cause can be shown otherwise. Since Elian's biological mother died during the trip that left his biological father whose only identified fault was that he wanted his son to be raised with him in the country of his birth. Are the millions of people who have children in Cuba unfit parents because they are having babies under a bad gov't? If I made a trip to Cuba and kidnapped 50 children from their parents and brought them to America should I be allowed to keep them because any biological parent who'd want their kid returned to them should be considered unfit by default?
posted on 05.02.2005 12:40 PM53
If you can't get an agreement on a basic concept of murder, then I doubt you'll get an agreement anywhere else.
To make that work as an objection, you're going to have to prove something pretty counter-intuitive: that they actually differ on the general rule that murder is wrong.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:48 PM54
Tom--nice try, but you added the word "minor", it was not in my post, but yes polygamy and interracial marriages are cosmetic changes, they don't effect the underlying premise of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Cosmetic changes can be large (polygamy) or small (interracial marriage). But again, how does opposition to same-sex marriage automatically translate to being in favor of establishment of a theocracy? Do you share Infidel's concern that Evangelicals want to set up a theocracy?
posted on 05.02.2005 12:49 PM55
This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others. There’s a sense that these critics believe that the right to vote and influence legislation should be limited to the people who have politically correct religious views. The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans.Apparently, everyone has a right to be heard – until they start listening to God.
And with these few words Joe Carter officially enters the Cult of Victimhood now so prevalent in the nation today. Welcome! You will find your cross in the locker room and nails in the box by the door.
And it's not Theocracy that Christian extremists, (they are NOT Conservatives) want our nation's laws to reflect. Rather it is the imposition of Sharia, where the punishment of the State is to be the same as the punishment of God.
They may well succeed in their efforts. Of course, they will have destroyed their own personal religious freedom in the process, but hey, the achievement of a "moral" society is worth the sacrifice, right?
posted on 05.02.2005 12:51 PM56
To make that work as an objection, you're going to have to prove something pretty counter-intuitive: that they actually differ on the general rule that murder is wrong.
Many Muslims believe that it is acceptable to kill someone who has renounced Islam.
How about the Hindu practice of killing the wife when her husband dies?
I bet you'll find some people who consider it murder to defend yourself against an intruder.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:51 PM57
I'm not trying to pick on JPE here because he was just making a point, but this example shows the problem of trying to reconcile CDs. A Muslim view of murder will be different from a Christian and different from a Hindu. Which means that one view is going to be selected or some almagamation thereof. If you can't get an agreement on a basic concept of murder, then I doubt you'll get an agreement anywhere else.
No one said that CD's can be or ever will be fully reconciled to each other. Of course there will be differences between Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. over what is murder exactly, why it is wrong, and how it should be addressed. Even within these religions there is conflicts and disagreements over CD. The point, however, is there is a shared space of 'reasonable CD's' that agree murder is wrong & should not be tolerated. Take a simple example of someone who walks down the street shooting people in the head. There is no CD that I'm aware of that accepts this as ok. Even in a country with a large number of different religions (like India that has a lot of Hindus, Muslims and even Christians) there's no serious dispute that such activity should be outlawed. Where conflict erupts, however, is when policies are justified with near exclusive reliance on one sects CD....for example the Hindu rules against killing cows.
What Boonton, tgirsch, mumon, et al. want to deny is that as a Western country, the U.S. has a cultural tradition that is derived from Christianity. It doesn't mean that the Bible is used to create laws, but it is the basis for the concept that because God created man he has his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The problem I have is that our modern worldview is not derived directly from Christianity but rather the reaction against Christian theocracy that took place during and after the Enlightenment. The idea of religious freedom, for example, was never seriously considered in Christian society until the Enlightenment. Even Martin Luther embraced religious persecution when the religion being persecuted was one he disagreed with. What you're doing is a bit like arguing that the US Constitution 'dervied from' monarchy because the English colonies were once ruled by the English monarch hence the constitution is really consistent with Monarchy!
What does this have to do with Joe's post? I believe that certain groups believe that if we get rid of that Christian underpinning and replace it with a secular rationalization of CDs, we'll end up with a wonderful country. In reality what will happen is a secular, authoritarian society which has to dictate what is acceptable to maintain "diversity", or a balkanized society.
Except this was already done. England, 300 years ago, was probably the least Christian of Christian nations. Where else, for example, could a converted Jew become Prime Minister without civil war? England was also the first nation to seriously break with the Roman Church (and not for reasons of theology like Luther's break) & one of the first to make religious concerns of minor importance in public policy (hint; which nation justified colonizing the new world on the grounds of converting the natives...which did it as a joint-stock venture?). I suppose Holland might be considered as coming close to England in this regard but the point holds.
posted on 05.02.2005 12:54 PM58
Many Muslims believe that it is acceptable to kill someone who has renounced Islam.
Most Muslims will also believe such a sentence is not to be carried out by an individual but by a religious court with authority to hear such cases. By definition then, many Muslims that live in secular societies would agree with non-Muslims that murder should be illegal.
How about the Hindu practice of killing the wife when her husband dies?
Is this legal in India?
I bet you'll find some people who consider it murder to defend yourself against an intruder.
If it was easy to figure out every possible case there's be no need for democracy.
59
Chris Lutz:
What Boonton, tgirsch, mumon, et al. want to deny is that as a Western country, the U.S. has a cultural tradition that is derived from Christianity. It doesn't mean that the Bible is used to create laws, but it is the basis for the concept that because God created man he has his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I certainly don't deny that Christianity has had a large influence on our culture and our politics. It's not a question of whether it has, but of whether it (or any other religion, for that matter) should. I submit that it should not.
Also, you're treading dangerously close to the oft-debunked "America was founded on Christian principles" argument. "Nature's God" as referred to in the Declaration of Independence was the Deist creator, not the Christian God. The complete absence of any mention of God in our Constitution (with the notable exception of using "Year of Our Lord" to denote the date, which was then the standard irrespective of religion) goes to the point that the framers did not envision a religious republic.
I bet you'll find some people who consider it murder to defend yourself against an intruder.Probably so, but not many. And that definition generally has little at all to do with this religious tradition or that. In agreeing upon such definitions, people largely ignore religious tradition, which goes to our point. Look at the currently-held legal definition in most states, and you'll find little that ties it to Christianity or any other religious tradition.
Rob Smith:
Tom--nice try, but you added the word "minor", it was not in my post, but yes polygamy and interracial marriages are cosmetic changes, they don't effect the underlying premise of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.Umm, how does polygamy not effect the "one man, one woman" dynamic. Polygamy is one man, many women (or, less frequently, one woman, many men) by definition.
And sorry, but your use of the term "cosmetic" is clearly intended to imply that the historic changes have been trivial and unimportant to this discussion. The only definition of cosmetic that even remotely works in your context is adjective defintion 3b. You can try to back off the "minor" implication because you didn't explicitly use that word, but the implication was clearly there.
But again, how does opposition to same-sex marriage automatically translate to being in favor of establishment of a theocracy?It doesn't; not by itself anyway. But when you look at the rhetoric advanced by religious conservatives (e.g. Dobson), it's very clear that they want to impose their particular interpretation of Christianity upon civil law.
Do you share Infidel's concern that Evangelicals want to set up a theocracy?In a word, yes. Certainly not all of them, but far too many of them. They might not want to go so far as to outlaw competing religions, but they certainly want to establish -- in law -- that Christianity is preferred here. This is why they want to do silly things like put Ten Commandments monuments in front of courthouses and statehouses and public schools (which is silly when you think about it, given that they ought to be placing two commandments monuments, but that's another rant...) and fight for the "right" to start all government business and school functions with an explicitly Christian prayer, even to the extent of denying non-Christian prayers from being allowed. All that kind of nonsense.
But even more compelling than that we know they want to do this because they've said as much.
posted on 05.02.2005 1:18 PM60
Suttee isn't legal in India. So, what we see is that every reasonable CD forbids murder, though many have a set of exceptions. Therefore, we ban murder. Is there a reason for being able to kill an infidel that isn't explicable solely in terms of the Koran? No? Ok, so we don't allow that, since there's no overlap between that CD and the others. And so on.
What's key about public reason is that it proceeds from social contract theory as espoused by Locke, Rousseau, etal, and enshrined in our Declaration of Independence ("no government except through the consent of the governed"). In order for the governed to consent, if only in theory, a law must be capable of being explained in terms that are cognizable.
Take our infidel-killing Muslim. I can tell him that he wouldn't like it if I were to kill him for not being a Christian, and this line of thought is cognizable; he can make sense of it. He may not agree, but he can make sense of it. If, on the other hand, I tell him that Brahma was the world sacrifice and his feet ended up being day laborers, which is why our Muslim friend has to work 12 hours a day for a dollar a day, that wouldn't even be cognizable to him.
In other words, what Boonton said.
posted on 05.02.2005 1:19 PM61
Boonton
Apart from endorsing Hanna's retort, I guess I should comment briefly on your remarks:
The need to 'prefer' one union over another only makes sense if 'prefering' one hurts the other. In other words, if homosexual marriage doesn't hurt hetrosexual marriage then it is silly to argue that the former must remain outlawed to protect the latter.
--> This reflects exactly the attitude that "I demand the right to the default assumption" that is not relevant to this case.
--> The basic principle of community is that civilisation is built on restraining and channelling our passions, through principles of justice, mutual respect and prudence: if we all do as we please, chaos results. SO some restraint is necessary, but just what, and with what justification is the question.
--> Then, please observe: our concept of "rights" is actually a mirror image of the concept of "duties." For, if I have a "right" to life, liberty, reputation, property etc, it implies that other members of the community have a duty to justice to respect these rights . . .
--> In short, "right" is inescapably social and moral in character, and my behaviour and claims NECESSARILY affect others who just happen to live in community with me. (This of course includes one's sexual behaviour and claimed sexual rights, as my native land all too sadly demonstrates. Long, sad story.)
--> Next, observe: MArriage is a covenantal relationship that is recognised in law because it provides stability to sexual behaviour and the upbringing of children [lack of whic is the root cause of much of the chaos that has overtaken my homeland . . .]
--> Now, the key step: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THANG AS A RIGHT TO BE MARRIED. For, there is no-one who has a duty to marry you or me (absent a prior promise to marry): nobody want you, tough luck . . .
--> Further to this, marriage, as Hanna notes, reflects the basic biology of reproduction (and I add, the implications of the prolonged dependence of human offspring). Thus, across thousands of societies across the world, for millennia, marriage has been recognised as a foundationstone of family -- and we have learned the hard way that polygamy and similar arrangements are distinctly and damagingly sub-optimal.
--> Easy divorce, for instance, and associated no-fault divorce law [the last "reasonable experiment" in this area] contributed materially to the situation where a man who abandoned his marriage could insist on starving and dehydrating his crippled wife to death whilst blocking the MRI or PET tests that could have shown that something was wrong.
--> Same-sex marriage, so-called simply does not fit the biologically based pattern that makes marriage a fundamental institution, and it is evident that by demanding a "right" in a domain of covenantal commitments and mutual sacrifice for the sake of the good of society and offspring, we are looking at a massively radical reorientation.
--> And I note that "rights" speech has been let in the door without proper deliberation, in a context where it properly is inapplicable, this is telling.
--> Indeed, the further implication is that the evident focus of the same-sex marriage push, is on personal convenience/ enjoyment and in fact is trying to exploit the coercive power of the state to create the perception that the novel type of union is substantially equivalent to marriage as hitherto understood across time and cultures.
--> THis is further underscored by the way the point that the benefits allegedly sought are potentially available through other, less drastic measures. But, that's not good enough for the radical activists.
--> Therefore, one is properly led to strongly suspect a hidden agenda: the complete delegitimisation of traditional morlaity and the institutions that support it: in the USA, the Bible-believing churches, typically. The seriousness of this concern is is underscored by the evident ideological alignments at stake, and the tone of the rhetoric being employed, e.g. as is discussed in this thread.
So, plainly, the root issue is NOT what is the good of the community and its offspring, but a hidden agenda that could not stand on its own merits.
Well did the Apostle Paul warn:
EPH 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. . . 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another . . . RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Of course, at least one Pastor, in Sweden, has already gone to gaol for reading from and expounding these texts. DO we really want to take Western Culture down that road, when for whatever reasonable claims the homoosexual community may have, there are less radical, proven effective remedies?
Or, if there is an insistence on the radical path, coupled to demonising those who object, is that not evidence that the intent IS to impose a radical and destructive agenda, targetting the very people who are being demonised for objecting?
So will the real would-be tyrants kindly stand up?
$ 0.02
Gordon
62
Now, the key step: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THANG AS A RIGHT TO BE MARRIED.
Your analysis of the marriage right is off. It's not a right of one person to be married; it's the right of a couple to be married.
So I declare; so the courts have held.
And I didn't even have to resort to sounding like the Time Cube guy to get my point across.
posted on 05.02.2005 1:55 PM63
What Boonton, tgirsch, mumon, et al. want to deny is that as a Western country, the U.S. has a cultural tradition that is derived from Christianity.
Its cultural tradition is derived from a reaction to Christianity.
The folks who founded this country knew well about religious intolerance; not just the Baptists and Congregationalists and Catholics w.r.t. England, but the whole Thirty Years' War- which was saw the greatest number of civilian deaths in history up until WWI.
The folks who founded this country knew that priviliging a religion is a recipe for strife, bigotry, and hatred, and did their best, first and the federal level and later at the state level, to minimize the influence of religion.
Still, Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers, was murdered by religious bigots, as was Joseph Smith.
posted on 05.02.2005 2:03 PM64
Tom--Polygamy does not effect the one man, one woman dynamic because each marriage is a unique occurance. The subsequent marriages are between the man and woman, not the man, the woman, and his other wives. Now, a group marriage (where several people are married in commnon) would effect the dynamic, but that is not the traditional understanding of polygamy.
posted on 05.02.2005 2:04 PM65
Tom--So I stand by my statement that outlawing (or even allowing) polygamy is a cosmetic change.
posted on 05.02.2005 2:07 PM66
Tom--nice try, but you added the word "minor", it was not in my post, but yes polygamy and interracial marriages are cosmetic changes, they don't effect the underlying premise of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Interracial marriage is a cosmetic change but hardly polygamy. Let's compare changing the law in the US to permit interracial (or even gay) marriage to a hypothetical change to allow polygamy.
Interracial - Simply required striking a prohibition on different race marriage. The fundamentals of how marriage works in the legal system, the inheritance of property, the rights in regards to making decisions on the partner's behalf, the justifications of divorce and the mechanisms of enacting divorce all could remain unchanged.
Polygamy - This opens up a huge array of unanswered questions...not only unanswered questions but also ones without an obvious answer. For example;
Is there any limit on how many people can form a polygamous marriage? Four, five, six?
Do all partners have to agree? In other words, if the husband wants to take a second wife does the first wife have to agree or not?
How does such a marriage divorce? What happens to community property? Is it like the a business partnership where losing one partner dissolves the entire relationship requiring remaining partners to enter into a new agreement if they wish or does losing one partner allow the marriage to continue with the remaining partners?
How are children handled? If you have a polygamous marriage of husband, wife 1 and wife 2 and the first two die does wife 2 take the children from wife 1 or are they considered orphans?
If you look at cultures that gave polygamy a serious shot you'll see they answered these questions in their own ways. You'll also see, though, that altering US marria