MaxedOutMama
Saturday, November 20, 2004
The 80/20 Country
The Radical Centrist makes an excellent point in this post.
"Most liberals are just a bit to the left of center, and most conservatives just a bit to the right. As Waldman has pointed out, the two "groups" (to the extent that they are really distinct groups) are not all that different. Unfortunately there are people out on the tails of the distribution (back to the bell curve) who do fit some of the stereotypes, and they get a lot of press. Most liberals believe in morals, but some don't, or at least believe in a sort of morality that is hard to recognize. Most conservatives don't want to force religious views on others, but a few very much do. There will always be folks out on the fringes who are trying to hog the microphone. I don't worry about that. I worry when I see those sorts of folks being handed the microphone, and getting warm applause."
I worry too, for several reasons. One, demonizing or misrepresenting your opponent obscures the real issues and prevents a consensus from forming. Two, inevitably such a strategy ends up stalling the national dialogue. Do we really want 20 percent of the population to control our public-policy perceptions? There is a libertarianish religious coalition of the right, of a sort, in this country, but it is not likely to want to entrench itself, because the coalition is constructed from many different religions with different precepts as well as those who have none. There is a "leftist" coalition in this country, but it too is a broad construct. To allow extreme voices, such as Michael Moore, to carry the banner for either coalition ends up sliming that coalition in the eyes of the massive middle.
In his post the Radical Centrist links to this article by Steve Waldman, which is worth reading because it will irritate you no matter what side you believe you're on. Steve writes:
However, not only are liberals not, by and large, Satanic or anti-Bible, they’re mostly quite religious. Voters who went to church monthly split 50%-49% for Bush and Kerry. Those who go to church "occasionally” went for Kerry 53%-47%, while people who attend church weekly went for Bush 58%-41%. More important, 61% of Democrats pray daily, 59% are "certain" there’s life after death, and most believe in God. The spiritual lives of Democrats are, statistically speaking, somewhat less based in houses of worship than those of Republicans but they are believers nonetheless.
and:
Liberal columnist E.R. Shipp said conservatives wanted a "Christian Jihad." The Village Voice declared Bush had a "mandate for theocracy." Others have compared the current administration to the Taliban. This is profoundly insulting to most conservative Republicans in the same way it is insulting to liberals when they are called Communists or defenders of terrorism. Yes, religious conservatives want a greater role in public life -- perhaps more than liberals want or the Constitution allows -- but President Bush's faith based initiative is highly pluralistic and he has spoken out for religious tolerance. Equating him or his supporters with regimes that execute dissidents or blow up buildings is heinous.
The truth is that religion - many different religions - have only thrived in the US because none may be granted a monopoly. This has freed religious organizations to compete in the marketplace of individual hearts and minds, and that has kept religion alive and relevant to the majority of the US population. The banner-carriers of the conservative movement know this.
Furthermore, the religious coalition in this country is not indulging in hysteria when they talk about the religion of secularism. I live and work in the Bible Belt, and the small unit where I work is made up of three hard-core bible-carrying, oil-annointing fundamentalists, one agnostic skeptic, me, and the Catholic gay guy. It was one of the bible-carrying, oil-annointing fundamentalists who hired the gay Catholic man, and he is fully and warmly included in all social functions. He babysits the kids and is "one of us".
There are political and religious questions upon which we don't all agree, but no one perceives him as being "other" because he is not. He is going about the business of living in an uncertain world in precisely the same way as the bible-carrying oil-annointing fundies - trying to do the best he can and give the best he can - and they know it. They believe in sin, and would define sin as practices which cause harm to yourself or others. That is the biblical definition of sin, and you have to really read both the Old and New Testaments to understand the pragmatic nature of sin. The reason you talk about sin is that the harmful nature of some things is not immediately clear - it's like warning someone that people keep getting food poisoning when they eat at a particular restaurant.
Sleeping around is wrong because it spreads disease, can cause unwanted pregnancies, and ignores your own emotional needs - now and then. Being irresponsible or failing to give or help those in trouble is wrong because other people's needs are as important as your own. Walking around talking about your own holiness gets you nothing in God's eyes, and the worst possible thing you can do in this world is to tell someone else that God's mercy and salvation does not exist for them, because this is blasphemy against the Spirit. Condemning someone else leads to your own condemnation in God's eyes. That's what Jesus said, and they can quote him on it. They do believe that you will be judged by the same standards as those by which you judge others. Sexual sins abound, and they know darn well that theirs are the same as his. They would like to see him settle down with someone, preferably a woman because they know how that works, but one man would be a lot better than living his life alone. They would like to see him to a safe place, wherever that might be, but he's doing pretty well now and no one wants to rock that boat either.
The real worry that my fundamentalist friends have in countenancing same-sex marriage or hate-speech laws protecting homosexuals is that such laws will be interpreted as banning the Bible, in which they have found their own safe place. Their concern is not unfounded - that's why I posted European reflections. They know that the Supreme Court referred to the laws of other nations in Lawrence vs. Tribe, and they know we could very well get to the point in this country at which referring to biblical texts in a church would be cause for criminal prosecution - as has happened in Norway:
"During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
They don't believe that the constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion would necessarily protect them, because there is an even more explicit guarantee of freedom of religion in Norway and it did not protect that pastor against being convicted of hate speech. It is possible for them to approve of civil unions, because they aren't responsible for other people's behavior, and the likely effect would be to provide a way to safeguard those they regard as vulnerable, such as our friend and coworker. But before that happens they would like a provision in which their own rights to their "alternative lifestyle" would likewise be protected. Their religion predicts that the world will be angry at any genuine attempt to follow in Jesus' path, so they aren't surprised at all that, for example, Canadian courts have ruled that quoting certain texts in the Bible may be hate-speech:
"Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy for the EFC, told CT, "Christians have seen their rights to dissent restricted by case after case in the courts." In a recent case brought under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, the EFC said, the court ruled that certain Bible verses were used to incite hatred.
"Darrel Reid, president of Focus on the Family's Canadian branch, said the legislation might lead to self-censorship. "It is likely that this will inevitably influence the way the church speaks about marriage and family," he said."
My personal belief is that a public ethos supporting the right and duty of same-sex couples to take responsibility for each other would encourage healthy behavior, happiness and long-term relationships. Most of us are not equipped to live life alone, either in religious celibacy or in civil closets. There are plenty of same-sex couples who have had successful long-term relationships without legal sanction of them, but this doesn't mean a legal recognition of such relationships wouldn't encourage a few more.
But I don't believe suppressing people's rights to discuss the implications of religious texts would be a healthy thing, and I perceive a bitter irony in a cry for tolerance that expresses itself in a demand to censor the expression of traditional religious beliefs. I can not say for sure that either side is wrong on this issue, and slandering those who believe in a biblically based religion is just as wrong as announcing that all homosexuals are innately perverse human beings and should be persecuted for the public good. My guess is that the huge mass of people in this country wish to do neither, and would find themselves much more comfortable standing on this middle ground.
"Most liberals are just a bit to the left of center, and most conservatives just a bit to the right. As Waldman has pointed out, the two "groups" (to the extent that they are really distinct groups) are not all that different. Unfortunately there are people out on the tails of the distribution (back to the bell curve) who do fit some of the stereotypes, and they get a lot of press. Most liberals believe in morals, but some don't, or at least believe in a sort of morality that is hard to recognize. Most conservatives don't want to force religious views on others, but a few very much do. There will always be folks out on the fringes who are trying to hog the microphone. I don't worry about that. I worry when I see those sorts of folks being handed the microphone, and getting warm applause."
I worry too, for several reasons. One, demonizing or misrepresenting your opponent obscures the real issues and prevents a consensus from forming. Two, inevitably such a strategy ends up stalling the national dialogue. Do we really want 20 percent of the population to control our public-policy perceptions? There is a libertarianish religious coalition of the right, of a sort, in this country, but it is not likely to want to entrench itself, because the coalition is constructed from many different religions with different precepts as well as those who have none. There is a "leftist" coalition in this country, but it too is a broad construct. To allow extreme voices, such as Michael Moore, to carry the banner for either coalition ends up sliming that coalition in the eyes of the massive middle.
In his post the Radical Centrist links to this article by Steve Waldman, which is worth reading because it will irritate you no matter what side you believe you're on. Steve writes:
However, not only are liberals not, by and large, Satanic or anti-Bible, they’re mostly quite religious. Voters who went to church monthly split 50%-49% for Bush and Kerry. Those who go to church "occasionally” went for Kerry 53%-47%, while people who attend church weekly went for Bush 58%-41%. More important, 61% of Democrats pray daily, 59% are "certain" there’s life after death, and most believe in God. The spiritual lives of Democrats are, statistically speaking, somewhat less based in houses of worship than those of Republicans but they are believers nonetheless.
and:
Liberal columnist E.R. Shipp said conservatives wanted a "Christian Jihad." The Village Voice declared Bush had a "mandate for theocracy." Others have compared the current administration to the Taliban. This is profoundly insulting to most conservative Republicans in the same way it is insulting to liberals when they are called Communists or defenders of terrorism. Yes, religious conservatives want a greater role in public life -- perhaps more than liberals want or the Constitution allows -- but President Bush's faith based initiative is highly pluralistic and he has spoken out for religious tolerance. Equating him or his supporters with regimes that execute dissidents or blow up buildings is heinous.
The truth is that religion - many different religions - have only thrived in the US because none may be granted a monopoly. This has freed religious organizations to compete in the marketplace of individual hearts and minds, and that has kept religion alive and relevant to the majority of the US population. The banner-carriers of the conservative movement know this.
Furthermore, the religious coalition in this country is not indulging in hysteria when they talk about the religion of secularism. I live and work in the Bible Belt, and the small unit where I work is made up of three hard-core bible-carrying, oil-annointing fundamentalists, one agnostic skeptic, me, and the Catholic gay guy. It was one of the bible-carrying, oil-annointing fundamentalists who hired the gay Catholic man, and he is fully and warmly included in all social functions. He babysits the kids and is "one of us".
There are political and religious questions upon which we don't all agree, but no one perceives him as being "other" because he is not. He is going about the business of living in an uncertain world in precisely the same way as the bible-carrying oil-annointing fundies - trying to do the best he can and give the best he can - and they know it. They believe in sin, and would define sin as practices which cause harm to yourself or others. That is the biblical definition of sin, and you have to really read both the Old and New Testaments to understand the pragmatic nature of sin. The reason you talk about sin is that the harmful nature of some things is not immediately clear - it's like warning someone that people keep getting food poisoning when they eat at a particular restaurant.
Sleeping around is wrong because it spreads disease, can cause unwanted pregnancies, and ignores your own emotional needs - now and then. Being irresponsible or failing to give or help those in trouble is wrong because other people's needs are as important as your own. Walking around talking about your own holiness gets you nothing in God's eyes, and the worst possible thing you can do in this world is to tell someone else that God's mercy and salvation does not exist for them, because this is blasphemy against the Spirit. Condemning someone else leads to your own condemnation in God's eyes. That's what Jesus said, and they can quote him on it. They do believe that you will be judged by the same standards as those by which you judge others. Sexual sins abound, and they know darn well that theirs are the same as his. They would like to see him settle down with someone, preferably a woman because they know how that works, but one man would be a lot better than living his life alone. They would like to see him to a safe place, wherever that might be, but he's doing pretty well now and no one wants to rock that boat either.
The real worry that my fundamentalist friends have in countenancing same-sex marriage or hate-speech laws protecting homosexuals is that such laws will be interpreted as banning the Bible, in which they have found their own safe place. Their concern is not unfounded - that's why I posted European reflections. They know that the Supreme Court referred to the laws of other nations in Lawrence vs. Tribe, and they know we could very well get to the point in this country at which referring to biblical texts in a church would be cause for criminal prosecution - as has happened in Norway:
"During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
They don't believe that the constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion would necessarily protect them, because there is an even more explicit guarantee of freedom of religion in Norway and it did not protect that pastor against being convicted of hate speech. It is possible for them to approve of civil unions, because they aren't responsible for other people's behavior, and the likely effect would be to provide a way to safeguard those they regard as vulnerable, such as our friend and coworker. But before that happens they would like a provision in which their own rights to their "alternative lifestyle" would likewise be protected. Their religion predicts that the world will be angry at any genuine attempt to follow in Jesus' path, so they aren't surprised at all that, for example, Canadian courts have ruled that quoting certain texts in the Bible may be hate-speech:
"Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy for the EFC, told CT, "Christians have seen their rights to dissent restricted by case after case in the courts." In a recent case brought under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, the EFC said, the court ruled that certain Bible verses were used to incite hatred.
"Darrel Reid, president of Focus on the Family's Canadian branch, said the legislation might lead to self-censorship. "It is likely that this will inevitably influence the way the church speaks about marriage and family," he said."
My personal belief is that a public ethos supporting the right and duty of same-sex couples to take responsibility for each other would encourage healthy behavior, happiness and long-term relationships. Most of us are not equipped to live life alone, either in religious celibacy or in civil closets. There are plenty of same-sex couples who have had successful long-term relationships without legal sanction of them, but this doesn't mean a legal recognition of such relationships wouldn't encourage a few more.
But I don't believe suppressing people's rights to discuss the implications of religious texts would be a healthy thing, and I perceive a bitter irony in a cry for tolerance that expresses itself in a demand to censor the expression of traditional religious beliefs. I can not say for sure that either side is wrong on this issue, and slandering those who believe in a biblically based religion is just as wrong as announcing that all homosexuals are innately perverse human beings and should be persecuted for the public good. My guess is that the huge mass of people in this country wish to do neither, and would find themselves much more comfortable standing on this middle ground.
