I’m not the most religious person in the world, but even I recognize that, to many devout Christians, abortion, say, is an unpardonable sin—a social / physical act that though sanctioned by the laws of the state and therefore legal, is nevertheless irreconciliable with the basic foundational tenets of their fundamental Christian faith.
And yet somehow I can’t for a second imagine that Steve Gilliard would spend as much time explaining to “intolerant” feminists and “extremist” womens’ reproductive rights advocates why the deeply-held beliefs of fundamentalist Christians must be respected (read: obeyed)—even by those who don’t hold with them—as he does this morning explaining to intolerant westerners how the deeply-held religious beliefs of Muslims must be respected (read: obeyed), even by those who don’t hold with them—and even if doing so means that free speech is sacrificed is sacrificed in the process to the theocratic dictates of a minority tribalist religion whose demands require a rewriting of the social contract that gives them de facto control of the host country. Sorry, Gilliard seems to say, but the west started all this by letting Muslims in—so they’re just going to have to learn to deal with all this Otherness. Or else, y’know, rocks will be thrown, flags burned, embassies firebombed, etc., etc.
Now sure, in one example, the offense in question is cartooning(the critique of policy, ideology, or action via pointed satire)—while in the other instance, the offense is the termination of a life. But that’s really just nitpicking, isn’t it—because what remains constant is the call for a social “tolerance” that respects the doctrinal dictates of a particular religious group.
Or maybe Gilliard has decided that being intellectually consistent is secondary to the fact that he believes he’d look better in sandals and a flowing silken headscarf than he would in Amish highwaters and one of those big, buckle-heavy hats.
(see also LGF; background reading here)
****
I was busy watching the Superbowl (congrats, Steelers) and so I missed until now this post critical of my position—a post that manages to completely misunderstand my point despite links to two earlier posts making quite clear the context into which I place these demonstrations.
I have no way of knowing if Jill at Feministe, author of the criticism, bothered to read those earlier posts of mine, but what I do know is that she wound up somehow completely confused by my argument, suggesting that I am attempting to draw a comparison between “anti-choice” zealots and critics of the decision by western editorial boards to run those “controversial” cartoons.
Jill labels this phantom argument “simplistic”—ironic, given her very shallow reading of my post, and her complete misunderstanding of the terms of the comparison.
I’ve responded to her criticisms at some length here.
Along the same lines—but articulated far more gracefully—see Alex.
*Simple Sambo, saved from its subsequent historical airbrushing by, of all people, a COMMUNIST
Well said. The whole way through.
Ah, but it is all just nuance you know.
If you had been a Kerry voter, you’d get it.
Dadgumit, I want one of those “big, buckle-heavy hats.” I could get a whole Solomon Kane look working there.
Like i said, for a lot of westerners, western values are simply a commodity to be dealt away. That is bad enough of in and of itself, but it gets worse. None of thses folks, Gilliard, and the rest, actually get anything in return for the freedoms they bargain away. Compared to them Neville Chamberlin is Richard the Lionhearted.
The point is, there is a balance you have to strike between fidelity to your faith-based beliefs and living in a pluralistic society.
Which is why many Muslims resist pluralism. Which is fine; if they wish to self-segregate, I’m cool with that (and the same goes for fundamentalist Christians). But when they start making demands that violate the letter and spirit of the social contract that allows for actual tolerance, things get hairy. Ditto when they use their religion as a doctrine of expansion.
Best to fight back, I say.
No sin is impardonable. Christians can always be forgiven. Jesus saves.
Also, there’s a big difference between wanting to illegalize something (i.e., abortion or free speech) and arguing that a society should be more respectful to all the people in it. I don’t see the part of Steve’s post where he says that newspapers should be legally barred from running offensive cartoons; I do see the part of the anti-choice platform which says that women should be legally barred from getting abortions.
You’re right, and the longer you ignore this sort of thing. The more you delude yourself into believing that another concession will make it all better the worse things get.
I was talking to you Jeff, not you Jill. Though I would ask this. Jill, do you fear, that the Christian right is a more insidous force than Al Qeada?
Y’all are getting too complicated here.
Those of the female gender who would agree with Gilliard’s point of view are, on balance, kinda tough on the eyes. Thus, it behooves Gilliard and his cohorts to move ALL women forward on the road to the burkha. That way, all women look alike, and dorks like Gilliard will never know whether any women are out of their league or not.
Thus, in the Glorious Gilliard Future, when he goes to the Save The Gay Whales rally with a woman who looks like Andrea Dworkin or Cindy Sheehan, all he is seen with is a woman in a burkha. And who knows – as far as his pals are concerned, it could be Heidi Klum inside the burkha instead of Fawn Rainforest.
Remember – he’s a liberal, and to the liberals, it’s all about image and appearance, not reality.
Jill brings up a good point, or rather a good question:
What is the point of the protest? Is it to legally ban the printing of images of Mohamed (or ban criticism of fundamentalist Islam?) Or is it to make criticism of fundamentalist Islam socially impermissible? Or both?
What is the difference anyway? Isn’t the result the same whether it is illegal to print the cartoons or just not socially acceptable to print the cartoons?
Oh,(it’s been said before) but maybe it needs repeating that “arguing that a society should be more respectful to all the people in it” by saying “We will kill you if you don’t respect us,” is not a productive or good-faith effort at tolerance.
Actually, GM, I suspect the point of the protests is to let the Europeans know how miserable they will be should the Security Council handle Iran the wrong way. And were I a European, seeing how easy it is for the mullahs to gin up big crowd of thugs on the stalest of pretenses, I would be concerned. Of course, that is pretty rank speculation, so it may not be worth the pixels its written with.
Insidious? Yeah, I would say so. Al Qeada, at least, is pretty clear in their goals and ambitions. The Christian right in this country is working to undermine basic liberties in a much sneakier way. They are far more insidious.
But is the Christian right ultimately worse, or scarier, than Al Qaeda? Decidedly not. Not friggin’ close. While I dislike godbags of all flavors, and while I certainly feel that the Christian right is, at this moment, a closer and more direct threat to my own way of life, they aren’t terrorists. They’re crazy, and I’d hate to see ‘em get more power than they already have, but if you’re looking for someone to argue that Focus on the Family is equivalent to the Taliban, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Well, obviously not. It’s generally not socially acceptable, in this country, to print cartoons that are anti-Semitic or racist against African-Americans. But despite it being unacceptable, some publications still do so, and I would say that it makes a big difference that it isn’t illegal. And I’m not sure it would be a bad thing if there was a social consensus that it’s unacceptable to print a cartoon that is so deeply offensive to a particular faith. I am sure that it would be a bad thing if printing such a cartoon were illegal.
“arguing that a society should be more respectful to all the people in it†by saying “We will kill you if you don’t respect us,†is not a productive or good-faith effort at tolerance.”
Productive? Sure it is. All that is required is a little bit of fear on the part of the self-styled opinion makers and shakers of the society to be made “more respectful,” as aptly demonstrated by Gilliard’s post – he’s damned near ready to saw his own head off to expiate the Past Sins Of The Decadent Crusaders. As to the “good-faith effort” – to the Islamokooks, once we understand that all that is required is One Faith, everything will be swell.
Frankly, this Islam-versus-(fill in the blank) conflict is getting rather old, because all of the major world conflicts involve Islam and their need to be more “respected.”
Okay, Jill, I thank you for answering the question. I have another. Is the Christian right a bigger threat to the American way of life, and our constitutional freedoms than Al Qeada?
Well, yeah. That’s not what I was saying, though. My statement that “arguing that a society should be more respectful to all the people in it” was my summation of what I interpreted to be the gist of Steve’s post. That’s obviously not the message that’s being sent by the people burning buildings.
I was simply arguing that Jeff’s metaphor doesn’t hold in relation to what Steve Gillard actually wrote (and I interpreted Jeff’s post as responding to Steve, not to the people instigating this violence). As far as I can tell, Steve doesn’t think that free speech should be infringed upon. The protestors might, in which case Jeff’s metaphor is conflating Steve’s stated opinion with the beliefs of a different group of people. Hope that clarifies things.
Respectful to all minorities in it, unfortunately. The outrage we are seeing just plain doesn’t exist when serious tenets of Christianity are mocked and disregarded, either the mobs or the “mob apologists.”
I mean, some of the craziest wings of the internets give us stuff like this. (Warning: Anyone above the age of 29 will likely find this confusing and stupid.) Or, heck, whatever Family Guy chooses to say about Christianity at any given time.
I mean, I’m sure some slight argument can be made that this is OFFENSIVE(tm) to MUSLIMS(tm) an AGGRIEVED MINORITY, VICTIMS OF CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AND HORRID CRIMES(tm) and what not, but, mobs burning embassies DOES NOT engender sympathy.
No.
Religious zealots of all stripes are a threat. The Christian right are certainly a near and major threat to our freedoms and our way of life, and that shouldn’t be underestimated or pushed aside simply because they look and talk more like us, or because they claim to be the gatekeepers of tradition, Americanism and morality. But were I to choose to turn the reigns over to the Christian right or to Al Qaeda, it would be a pretty easy decision.
Jill, but, yes, I CAN see your disagreement with the metaphor Jeff used. I’m making “But, generally…” arguments.
I think we’re all on the same page that burning embassies is bad. Really bad. Unacceptable. And not a valid form of “free speech.”
But it seems like anyone who tries to understand the situation on a level deeper than “Crazy Arabs burning things hate free speech” is accused of thinking its ok for them to burn buildings and behave violently. It’s not. But it’s still worth examining the situation holistically.
But, I do take SERIOUS issue with Gillard’s “Fire in a crowded theater” metaphor, because that implies it is the artists’ fault.
I think this statement is off the target. For starters, the issue isn’t “Crazy Muslims hate free speech” where I am from, the issue is “Muslims angry at slights against religion respond with violence.” Trying to disregard THAT makes one look like one is excusing them at times, but it is probably because we’re so short on intelligent people who think differently that we’ve all been rubbed raw by such things.
I’ve looked at it holistically, and I still find it insanely difficult to come down on the side against the newspaper.
I like the Steve Sailor Model of Citizenry.
Being a citizen of a country should trump religion, ethnicity and race.
Muslim citizens of Denmark should put their country’s laws first, over their religion.
Of course, that also means GW (as a good citizen) should not ban human cloning just because his religion dictates it.
Or rather, I should say, difficult to not find every analysis of the situation come down heavily condemning the Muslim rioters actions.
Does the fact that the Christian right is nearer make their threat more immediate or is the immediacy about the same between Al Qaeda and the Christian Right?
Religion should be less the issue than “Is it best for the country to institute GATTACA or what not?”
The Christian right feels more immediate right now because, with things like the Alito confirmation, I live with a sense that my basic rights could be pulled out from under me any minute. My rights are more consistently challenged by the Christian right than they are by Al Qaeda, who don’t have much of a lobby in Washington these days.
However, I watched the WTC towers fall from my bedroom window. I am certainly not operating under the illusion that Al Qaeda is a distant threat.
jill,
Go here.
Look at the signs your pals are carrying, then read the above again.
Now go away.
Look, Corvan, lemme help. I can take the those eeevil Christian nutters. The Muslim types though, they’re packing AKs or what not. I cannot take them so easily. So the Christians who don’t play to the Christian tolerance we should shoot for, they wanna start crap. I say bring it on.
I’m a Christian meself, I can take them.
Muslim extremists, on the other hand, I’ll need backup.
I know that doesn’t answer your question, exactly. I’m not sure I have an answer. I guess, on a basic level, I would classify the Christian right as more immediate, if the question is solely one of immediacy. But I think the fact that Al Qaeda is so much larger a threat—and a threat that seeks death and destruction, not just control—certainly should be taken into account.
So, in the interest of straightforwardness, the Christian right is more immediate. That doesn’t make them worse, or infer that Al Qaeda is somehow not immediate.
And, besides, I’d have backup from a good 55% of the country AT WORST in outdoing Christian extremists, so, yeah, I fear them like I fear the French.
BMoe, why the hostility? I think I’ve been pretty respectful here. I’m not showing up to troll. I obviously agree with you guys on the basics of this argument, and I’m just here to engage. Don’t people on this blog often criticize others who are only interested in speaking into an echo chamber?
Just a few pro-choice or anti-war people carry particular signs doesn’t mean that they speak for all of us. And, again, carrying a sign at a protest is pretty different from actually trying to legislate something. I like that we live in a society where a protestor can carry an “Illegalize heterosexuality” sign, but that actually illegalizing consensual adult sexual behavior is seen as pretty unacceptable.
OHNOES, don’t be dumb
1. there is whole lotta money to be made in biotech. GW is pimping nanotech–why not biotech?
2. biotech would be good for the health of the citizens. longevity, cure for diabetes, cure for alzheimers, cure for parkinsons….
*that should be “Just because a few pro-choice or anti-war people…”
Now, Jill who exactly is the Christian right? What constitutional privileges would they abolish?
That’s a bioethicist discussion. We could save millions by summarily executing old people and using their nutrients to feed the living, but, I don’t think we do that. Seeing as how I’m not an ethics expert, I’ll let the professionals take the reins on that discussion. Still, religion should not be the SOLE reason for banning this or that. We’d need logically grounded ethical reasons, too. I don’t support it or oppose it, I’m waiting for an open discussion.
Jill, only the nutters. We’ve been inundated by trolls for the past several threads. We just don’t GET many intelligent dissenters so our posters *Glares at B Moe* seem to FORGET their MANNERS when dealing with someone with two brain cells to rub together.
Geez, Jill
Alito has been at SCOTUS, what, less than a week now and rape is still illegal and abortion is still legal.
Guess he was distracted by oppressing his wife into planning their SuperBowl party.
Jeff
If I have any quibble about your analogy is that, as much as I may disagree with them, many pro-lifers have legitimate questions about lassiez-faire abortion.
Abortion is just not an equivalent for threatening “another Holocaust” over cartoons.
Maybe if Christians were rioting and threatening death over US law that allows women to drive or retain their maiden names after marriage…would Steve or Jill be so
apologeticunderstanding of Xtians?Sorry, I am just tired of this issue getting off track on every thread I see. This is what’s important here:
Why were the cartoons drawn in the first place?
Why are the protests happening after this long a time?
Where did all those Danish flags come from?
This is not about grass roots Muslems being pissed about a few cartoons. I just wish to fuck you people would view the Islamic world with half the damn suspicion and paranoia you view the Christian right.
I said:
Future conditional tense. Could be. Not have been.
B Moe, honey, not vinegar.
Jill, I’m sure you understand that I dismiss the the Christian extremists as nearly a non-force in society largely because the huge amount of ill will aimed at them by people such as yourself.
Ill will read: Scornful criticism of harmful policies that they would see to effect.
Jill,
Who is the Christian right? What constitutional rights would they abolish?
Falwell, Robertson, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, et al.
Given enough power, they would certainly abolish the right to sexual privacy—that is, the right to access contraceptives, the right to abortion, and the right to engage in consensual adult sex outside of marriage, and/or with people of the same sex. We of course can quibble about whether or not the Constitution actually protects these rights, but right now they are established Constitutional privileges, and so they would certainly fit into your question.
Additionally, they would likely abolish the church-state separation, and the careful wall that has been built to deflect the establishment of religion in government.
Let me get a few more weeks into Con Law and I’ll be able to answer this question more thoroughly.
strawman.
B Moe
Read here
Emphasis mine. Couple that with radicalized moslems from France to Denmark to England, the vision of Islamist theocracies beckoned. But how to take advantage of a citizenry already cowed by a multiculturalism belittling to the national culture and obsequious to ‘the other’? Demand even more after being “offended.”
I cannot tell you how like gangbanger “culture” this whole episode is.
And western apologists for it are playing their learned part, too.
I think a lot of us do. But I know that I tend to focus more on the Christian right because of simple proximity. Yes, I’d rather live under Jerry Falwell than the Taliban, but Jerry Falwell is a whole lot closer, and there are a lot of people working to have his ideals legislated and codified into law, in my country.
I’m not saying that to justify my own lack of criticism of oppressive governments and worldviews elsewhere. Your point is well-taken—that is something that I could certainly improve upon. I just don’t think it’s an either-or scenario, and I think we can criticize others and simultaneously clean house.
Excuse me, and I say this with utmost respect.
Bovine excrement.
All right, I believe Jerry Falwell is a Southern baptist. I have no clue what denomination Pat Roberson is. Does that matter? In other words are, say, Methodists that are opposed to abortion members of the Religious right? Or is it only Southern Baptists?
Jill, you give Falwell and Robertson more respect than ANYONE I HAVE EVER MET.
Darleen-
Are you seriously arguing that, if they had nothing in their way, the Christian right would not wipe the right to privacy out of Constitutional law?
startingfightswheretherearenonetobehad.
No, denominations don’t matter. By the way, I identify as Christian, so I’m certainly not lumping all of us together.
The Christian right has identified itself. Falwell, Robertson, etc would all self-identify as members of the Christian right, or the moral majority, or whatever they want to call it. I can’t draw clear lines for you there, just like you probably can’t draw clear lines in the diverse Muslim populations that people so often criticize.
OHNOES,
Do you believe that the christian right then is a shadowy oragnization with no set roll of members, or is memebership clearly delineated? And do you truly believe that it’s goal is Christian theocracy from the Atlantic to the Pacific?
Jill
You engage in conflating a whole number of issues under “right to privacy” – a tactic well-worn in debates in which one lumps legitimate debate with the ridiculous in order to paint questioners of the legitimate as ridiculous themselves.
Questions on limiting, or even outright banning of abortion are not “privacy” arguments. Neither is contraception. Neither is same-sex marriage. And “separation of church and state” is NOT in the Constitution (but you knew that, right?). Only the weirdest tiny “Christian” cults advocate a theocracy and I’ve never heard a mainstream Christian either advocate nor support a call to one.
Most Christians I know that are politically active just want what other “groups” want…influence at the polling place. They are into political persuasion not bomb throwing and beheading.
And you know that you can be an insulting and offensive to the Christian or Jewish “godbags” all you wish cuz they are neither going to demand your censorship by the government, or execute you in the street ala Van Gogh.
Which, I guess, is one of the reasons so many love to beat up on those Zionist/Xtians.
Look, when I say “the Christian right,” you all know who I’m talking about. Kind of like when you guys say “the left” or “feminists.” There’s usually not a membership list.
And I never said that it’s their goal to create a Christian theocracy. Do I think that a handful of them are crazy enough to do it if they had a chance? Certainly. But there’s a whole lot of space between the system we have now and a theocracy. I believe they would move us far, far more to the right—and farther away from basic American values and Constitutional rights—than I’m comfortable with.
What Constitutional rights would they shred? Or is it your belief that a general move to the right in American politics would be a disaster for the nation?
Darleen, I didn’t conflate them. The Supreme Court apparently did. I said:
That would be Griswold, Roe, and Lawrence. All major privacy rights cases.
I’ll give you same-sex marriage, but sorry, you just can’t argue that abortion and contraception are not privacy rights issues. Those things are legal in this country because of the right to privacy in the Constitution. You can definitely make the argument that, in your opinion, no such right to privacy exists. That can be a good, valid argument. But the Supreme Court has noted that such a right does exist, and that contraception and abortion fall under it. So, yes, questions about banning or limiting contraception and abortion are privacy arguments, at least in a legal sense. You’re welcome to argue that they’re more philosophically complicated than that, but we’re talking about Constitutional law here.
I think I already answered the first question. And I think that a move to the right would be bad for the nation. A move very far to the right could be disasterous, yes. I also think that a move to the extreme left could be disaterous.
I’m watching the Superbowl, so not much time to say this. Excuse any ineloquence.
The analogy was meant only to show that different religions hold things sacrosanct; the way they balance their religious beliefs within a society of law is the analogy. I simply chose abortion as an example because it was something I coulnd’t envision Gilliard standing up for as a right that needs to be tolerated.
Also, this post is written in the context of the two posts I wrote on identity politics, western liberalism, and these Muslim protests. This whole week of political theater has been about demanding tolerance from within a paradigm that doesn’t reciprocate (nor feel compelled to), and about the ill-advised (in my opinion) western conciliation to such an arrangement—even if the conciliation only comes in the form of a fiery internet advocacy preaching a tolerance for the supposed “aggrieved” that would, in effect, alter important components of liberalism. Or, to put a much sharper point on it: it’s about being played like a useful idiot by an identity group learning how to use the trappings of identity politics to build political power within the western sphere.
Jill writes:
…And I don’t see the part of my post that says that Steve is censor. Instead, my point was that he seemed to eager to defend a point of “tolerance” toward a particularly important article of faith to Muslims whereas I suspect he wouldn’t provide the Christian fundamentalists with the same zealous defense.
So when Jill then writes:
…I find that disingenuous; again, I’m not saying Steve has called for the infringement on free speech directly; instead, he makes the oblique argument that by printing the cartoons in the first place, the west has (within its rights, perhaps) acted as the aggressor by not respecting the doctrinal demands of Islam.
Which is simply a soft way of arguing that, though the Danes could, legally, print what they printed, they shouldn’t have—because doing so was an act of aggression and “intolerance.” And that assertion, in turn, is an argument that the feelings of Muslims in a “tolerant” society should perhaps ethically trump the law, all things being equal.
I simply question whether or not that same paradigm hold for Steve when those who are feeling oppressed are fundamentalist Christians?
****
Darleen —
I am not drawing a direct analogy. I am drawing an analogy over how different groups are able to reconcile their faith-based beliefs with pluralistic societies. And beyond that, I am seeking to highlight how (and under what logic) these groups are either defended or condemned.
****
Oh. And again—not Christian, but is it incorrect to assume that some sins are unpardonable because the sinner doesn’t consider them a sin to begin with and so doesn’t ask for forgiveness?
In you previous answer to that question you said you believed that memebers of the Christian right were intent upon creating abolishing the separation between church and state. Later, you said, they weren’t intent upon establishing a theocracy. Pardon me if I’m being pednatic, but a thoecracy is a governement in which the separation between church and state has been abolished. Do you believe that or not? I’m not trying to be rude. I’m trying to find an answer you will stick with.
Sorry to jump in here, but this it too much. You seem to be implying—if not stating outright—that today’s America is roughly centered where it was over two hundred years ago. That American values are nicely balanced right where the original Constitution would have them.
If that’s your assertion, obviously it’s nonsense, both in terms of historical evolution of 200 year-old culture and society, and in terms of direct observation of the state of this union in 2006.
Claiming that the US is at risk of going excessively right when it’s arguably and demonstrably far left, far more authoritarian, and far less constitutional than it was in the beginning is simply irresponsible. Then erecting villains on the extreme right who, given just a little more reign, would convert the country into a wholesale Nazi regime is equally foolhardy.
“Farther away … than I’m comfortable with†is enough wiggle room that I really don’t know you’re suggesting. But invoking the Constitution as a contemporary gage that convincingly says an inch further to the right and we’d better start preparing retina exams and biblical mind dumps doesn’t exactly jive with reality.
Jeff
Understood.
I guess what I find amazing about Steve or Jill or Juan Cole or any number of people saying we have to understand why moslems have become so exercised as to call for a “second Holocaust”, burn down buildings and aggitate for beheading the infidels is these self-same tolerantistas would never brook an argument questioning the wisdom of a rape victim wearing a short skirt or getting fall-down drunk at a frat party.
The separation of church and state is a concept which, as I understand it, has been defined in detail by decades of case law. Losing this separation, or tweaking it in a way which would allow the government to give preference to a particular religion, wouldn’t necessary establish a theocracy. A theocracy is a government ruled by a particular religious authority. We could lower the wall of separation, or even eliminate it, and still not have a pure theocratic government. However, we would have a system that looks very different from what we have now.
I’m not sure that the Christian right’s ideal government would be one of divine rule. However, I think that their ideal system would allow them to push their morality on everyone else, and hold up their ideal standard as the only option.
Separation of powers and the diffusing of power away from one sole branch-is one precaution against a theocracy. The Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment protects against the creation of a state religion. If legislation were passed doing so to any degree, as hard as that is to imagine, it would be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts as fast as you could say “paranoid conspiracy theory”. It’s a two way protection….the Constitution protects minority rights and the Judicial guards against laws which defy those rights.
If “Dominionists†try to force all Americans to pay church tithes, or call for the execution of blasphemers and witches, I will oppose them. But that is not the danger we face.
I think the sitiuation exposes a paradox built in to ‘Identity Politics Multiculturalism’, the left-wing modern version of multiculturalism. It expects its adherents to tolerate and accept the cultural values of other cultures. The problem is that the cultural doctrine in question this time is cultural purity, or an intolerance of multiculturalist tendancies. You have to tolerate them, and that means tolrating their intolerance of you (or, more specifically, your cultural values).
Further adding to the confusion is that those of us whose cultural values have long been criticized by the left are now saying to them “whoa, you never tolerated our cultural values when you could brand them as intolerant. Why are you tolerating their values?” The answer seems to be that we are part of their culture, and should share their culture values. We’re the heretics in their culture, not owners of our own culture. Whereas the Islamic culture is a seperate legitimate culture, able to define its own culture values and entitled to tolerance.
Islam also has the advantage of being able to shift from a religion to a culture, society, political movement or ‘race’ depending on which is most advantageous from an argumentative standpoint.
I think the difference between modern left-wing ‘Identity-Politics Multiculturalism’ and old-fashioned centrist ‘Assimilative Melting-Pot Multiculturalism’ is that modern multiculturalism is focused on culture as a group trait, and the old-fashioned multiculturalism is focues on culture as an individual trait.
It used to be that you could largely practice your cultural beliefs as an individual so long as you didn’t encroach on other individuals. As such, individual people were more able to evolve their own culture by interacting with society as a whole. They generally tended to absorb some of the cultural traits from the majority society, especially those meta-values dedicated to maintaining the individuals cultural rights… freedom of speech and of religion. It wasn’t perfect in practice, but it was generally stable.
Modern multiculturalism is dedicated to maintaining culture as a group in a state of stasis. This is supposed to be more authentic. As such, cultures are allowed to police themselves to remove outside contaminants and maintain purity.
Personally, I’d like to sit back and let the left appreciate the magnitude of the situation. There used to be constant talk of the chilling effects of the American governments admonitions towards caution, all while people spoke out more and more. Now we really see what a chilling effect on free speech looks like. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can afford to sit back.
So, are they intent on establishing a thoecracy or not? And while I’m at it are all the constitutional rights the christian right would shred releated to procreation? Are there any others?
Jill
re: the right to access contraceptives
The only contemporary arguments about contraceptives are not about “privacy” but about whether or not private businesses can decide to carry them or not, or whether pharmacists can opt out from personally providing them. In other words such “access” arguments have not a thing to do with Griswold
Again, conflating and/or obfuscating issues in which to be able to paint those who object as “unreasonable.”
If you consider the logic of Justice Blackmun, in Roe v Wade, it’s striking in its lack of rigorous philosophic reasoning.
Blackmun’s judgment rested on the conviction that the court needn’t resolve the question of where life begins. “When those in the fields of medicine, theology and philosophy are unable to arrive at consensus, the judiciary is not in a position to speculate on the answer.”
So, within that judgment, Blackmun asserts the fallacy that the presence of disagreement indicates the absence of truth.
This idea he posits, that the question of “what is a human life and when can it claim protection of the law” as if it’s a question only of religious or theological weight and therefore one of private belief, is an assumption.
This assumption reflects a tendency in our public discourse to equate moral questions with matters of religious faith or private belief, which cannot be judged finally as true or false. It was as if the matter of abortion, as a profound moral question, was somehow cut off from the process of weighing evidence and testing arguments by the canons of principled reasoning. Justice Blackmun however, did not subject to the test of principled reasoning his own assumptions about the nature of the fetus and its standing in the eyes of the law.
Oh, and I’m sorry, but I have to ask this. Do you think abolishing the separation between church and state woul result in an overthrow of the American government?
Given this, Jill, what do you think of a government so established in the private sector that it holds increasing sway over education, medicine, housing, birthing, income, property rights, psychology and psychiatry, and just about anything else you care to mention as part of degrees of humanistic and nihilist philosophy.
I would rephrase like this: A functional theocracy is a government ruled by a particular philosophical authority that has all but outlawed private religion because it knows nearly no bounds in the private sector.
With that reality-based perspective in mind, where would you say the Constitution practically falls in 2006?
It’s very simple. The moral cowardice of the left goes hand in hand with common physical cowardice. They will heroically protest the beliefs of people they know, for all their posturing, will not respond with suppressive violence.
There definitely are nutbags on all sides; indeed (and I shit you not, though I do get my information from a Harvey Cox book from the 90’s) if you really want a non-trivial Christian analogue to the Taliban, some guy called Rousas John Rushdoony apparently advocates (or did advocate) for a return to Old Testament law–stonings of harlots and gays comprehended–and ‘dominion theology’, the idea that the kingdom of Christ on earth is something which should be realized by his followers through their own political works in this age (One might note that Cox has no but no problem with politically active ‘liberation theologians’–but these are not generally advocating murder). Certainly, we on the right or rightish should take such persons seriously. And I think one can fairly accept that Pat Robertson is a dingbat and leave it at that regardless of one’s political orientation. (Most righties of my acquaintance and daily reading do.) But the really hard-core fundamentalists like Rushdoony also say that you’ll go to hell for listening to rock and roll–which consigns most of your Campus Crusade for Christ and suburban megachurch types to the flames right there–so don’t make the mistake of thinking that the serious gaga crazies are anything but the fringe of a fringe.
And as for other extremist ‘godbags’–I frankly admire honest, undiluted, sincere, all-consuming religious fervor–as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. There is something very admirable about anyone brave enough to ‘will one thing’. If you want to handle poisonous snakes, drink arsenic, stand at the summit of a tall column for months on end, wear hair shirts and flog yourself with chains, kiss lepers and clean their sores with your mouth, even, indeed, (if no one compels you to do it) to wear a heavy burqa in 100 degree heat every day, it’s no one’s right to stop you–no one but you can, finally, know if you’re doing the right thing in the eyes of God, or if you’re really coming closer to Him by these mortifications or not. But, at the same time, the true man of faith is not going to be frightened by mockery–it can only do him good as a test of faith–so I see no reason why the common sense secular folk of this world should be forbidden from making fun of any religion. The only legitimate problem I can see with ‘Piss Christ’, for example, was the fact that it was government funded–by the very people it was meant to mock. But this problem aside, there is no reason to make any religion immune from the whips and scorns of the atheists or other religions; especially not for ‘politeness’’ sake.
That is to say, a mature religious person can bear to be argued with and laughed at–much as can any other person with a legitimate claim to believe in anything. Indeed, Western society could do with significantly less substanceless pussyfooting packaged as tolerance and politeness, and not only in the matter of interfaith dialogue (Indeed, Cox’s book which I mention above also recorded a marvelous and spirited argument between Muslims and Pentecostal Christians, Bibles and Qurans in their respective hands, on the streets of London–in which no figurative punches were pulled, but both sides were very careful to let no literal punches fly) So screw the so-called ‘politeness’ and ‘tolerance’ as ideal principles–the only argument for their application in the Danish case is purely pragmatic.
Biblically, there is only one unforgivable sin; blasphemy against the holy spirit. Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10. (Different denominations have differing definitions of what exactly “blasphemy” is. I had one baptist and a pre-Vatican II Catholic tell me that gay sex and sex outside of marriage are both blasphemy against the Spirit.)
Privacy and the establishment clause are the top two things I can think of. Laws against fornication, against contraceptives, against divorce, and in favor of creationism in our schools would be about where we would begin. Perhaps even a rollback of civil rights gains, such as prohibitions against religious or sexual discrimination.
Some equal protection losses too, like Roemer.
Medical research migth also lose, and so would business as sabbath laws return. The Do-gooders much reach as far as booze too.
Hi Actus,
So, unlike Jill, I suppose, Jill hasn’t clarified yet, you believe that the goal of the christian right is to abolish the separation of church and state?
I think one goal is to weaken the establishment clause, so that we can have religious instruction in public schools, taxpayer money going to faith work by faith-based groups, and effective religious tests for publich office.
actus
Please put down and step away from your well-worn copy of The Handmaid’s Tale
Hmmmm.
@ Jill
“Godbag”?
Go fuck yourself.
Oh, lovely ed.
/sarcasm
Actus, I believe that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights!
OooooOOooOOooooo! I’m going to geeeee-eeet yooooooou!
let us try an experiment. here is a satire i wrote on the culture-of-life. a glimpse of one possible future.
Jeff, i will make good on the bandwidth, i promise.
Message from the Multiverse
/begin transmission/
Greetings, Past-people, from the Shortlifes of the Life States of America of the Level III Branching Path Multiverse. We transmitt to you from nearly 100 years in the future, the year 2105. We abjectly plead for your help.
In your year of 2008, the Holy Randall Terry split the republican party with his introduction of the theocratic party, and their slogan, Jihad for Terri! The resulting massive democratic victories swept the democrats to power such as they had never known, and enabled the passage of pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-euthanasia legislation. The resulting backlash among the the theocrats was awful to behold– the Holy Triumvirate of Jesse Jackson, Randall Terry, and Rick Santorum was carried to power on the bloody wave of the Culture of Life Revolution.
It is now the year 2105. At great personal risk we have stolen this tachyon beam transmitter from the more scientifically advanced Canadians to send our plea for help. Life States of America is a dismal place today, and we shortlifes suffer mightily. Contraception became illegal in 2010, and the resulting burden of over population has caused massive famine, poverty and disease. Citizens of the Life States of America are not allowed to emmigrate by edict of the Holy Triumverate or many of us would leave. The world outside our shores teems with miraculous biological enhancement therapies that have raised the world average lifespan to 200 years of active health, but those “unnatural” technolgies are banned in the Life States of America. We would buy them on the blackmarket, but our GDP has sunk so low that we cannot afford them. The rest of the world calls us shortlifes for this reason. Yet even though our lives are short the burden of mandated unlimited reproduction swamps us with burgeoning population.
We have researched your history exhaustively, and our scholars and historians think our situation could be remedied if only the incipient theocrats could be convinced that Terri Schiavo was in truth, braindead, negating the neccessity of the Jihad for Terri! Culture of Life Revolution. We have attached the trial transcripts and medical reports for your edification, as these were apparently not reviewed in your original decision. As your descendents we pitifully implore you, please make the right decision this time.
Sincerely,
the Shortlifes of the Life States of America,
of the Level III Branching Path Multiverse
/end transmission/
Haven’t read it years. Instead, have been paying attention to the likes of focus on the family and christian coalition.
I don’t think we’ll ban women from having money.
I prefer ‘godheads.’ Makes me think of Bob Dobbs.
ummm…did that make anyone mad?
Oh, and on the constitutional rights issues, how could I forget the other part of the first amendment: the speech clause. I think they’d like to see that eroded. To see the clock turned back on ‘decency’ in most forms of communication, including the Internet.
Actus,
I’m going to amke a statement here. You tell me if it is true. At this moment a large number of people on the left hold as much contemtp for people wiht whom they disagree on policy issues, as they do for people that are trying to murder them quite dead. Am I being over dramatic? ridiculous?
Which religion would become the official one? And what the hell makes anyone think the Catholics would stand still for restrictions on alcohol sales?
For that matter, look up the Catholic Church’s position on evolution.
And finally, here’s something for actus and Jill to chew on: If the religious far-right tried to get these things passed, the not-so-far-right would oppose it. There are a hell of a lot of people in the “just leave me alone” group who, at the moment, see the political left as a much bigger threat to their being left alone.
I mean, Christ, you folks want government to decide what medical treatment I can get. How scary is that from a privacy standpoint?
I believe that every human life is special!
*rattles chains in Shinji’s attic*
Five words: “hate speech”. “Free speech zones”.
Ain’t the right pulling that shit, baby.
Especially when people are indecent to our muslim friends, using the Internet to spread upsetting viewpoints. People should know better than that.
How exactly does this differ from any group which seeks political leadership?
You call it “pushing their morality” but how does that differ from, say, the Greens wanting to abolish SUVs? They have a position they want to impose on everyone, and to them it is a moral position.
To Jill, et.al. I’m so doggone tired of being highlighted as some sort of insidious force. “The Christian right are certainly a near and major threat to our freedoms” says Jill. Just stop it, please.
Yes, I go to church, and bible study, and hold some absolutes as guidance for myself and my family in this wonderfully rambunctious country of ours. Yes, I would be mortified if my daughter emulated the slut-like behavior of popular icons, and would be sorely disappointed in my son (and myself as a father) if he chose herd mentality over doing the right thing. I enjoy, and respect, Dr. Dobson. Yes, I own guns. I hunt. I fish. I enjoy Christian radio and pray regularly. I believe in God, and Jesus, and America.
I am also an assiduous reader – from Jeff’s work (I find him both scorchingly funny and insightful), to geopolitical screeds of all persuasions, to popular novels, to – Lord help me – books of the self help genre. I don’t hold abortion up as the crucible of right and wrong, believing it to be between a woman and her God while still believing, on a personal level, that it is wrong. I try, and fail regularly, to love my enemies as Jesus instructed. I have dear and loving friends who would, on a political continuum, populate the liberal left. I believe Pat Robertson to be an idiot. And I believe, by and large, to live and let live.
I’m of the Christian right, Jill. I’m sorry you find me scary. I wish my kids would when my I’m hollering at them to clean the kitchen.
Guys – just a minor point here, but one that hasn’t been made so far, at least from what I can tell. I’m seeing all these delineations of the “religious right” in terms of what “they” believe and the risks “they” might pose. The problem is that I’m still not certain who “they” are.
If the Religious Right is defined, as some here seem to be saying, as anyone who could be classed as Protestant fundamentalists, then some re-thinking is in order. Simply put, the charges levelled don’t match up with what those churches teach and hold to be true. Personal experience here – a lifetime in the “Bible Belt South,” and an upbringing in one such “fundy” establishment, the Church of Christ. CoC teachings pretty consistently discourage political involvement in connection with faith – indeed, some even extend that logic to military service. As a boy, I never knew a single CoC minister who was not a conscientious objector, on grounds of their faith. Church of Christ congregations would not be used for political rallies, and never once did I hear a minister offer his pronouncements on political matters.
And the same is true, from all I can see, of numerous other fundamentalist churches – the Baptists, Methodists, Church of God, etc., etc., hew to the same line. It’s the old Augustinian dichotomy between the City of God and the City of Man in action, although few would perhaps express it that way.
Perhaps it’s different elsewhere within America, but in the reddest of Red States, what I’m citing is the ground truth, and has been for quite some time. This “Religious Right” panting to enslave others to their theocratic will doesn’t accord with the reality of churchgoers that I’ve experienced.
Two things seem to drive this odd little double standard:
1) The multiculturalist “noble savage” myth of the morally superior “other”—while Christian morals are silly anachronisms that oppress Western women and holds back scientific progress, we cannot judge the non-Westeran, the “other.” No! That would make us xenophobes, or in common parlance, bigots. And we’re better than that.
2) Violence. Violence creates pressure. Violence requires a response.
Now realize, #2 has no value, even negative value, without #1, which is the wedge by which the violence gains legitimacy. Violence in a noble cause can be appeased; violence in a wrong cause must be crushed mercilessly, and mocked for being what it is. Thus the “otherness” (non-Christian-ness) of the violence is crucial.
Once you admit that everyone must be held to the same standards, regardless of weakness or strength or “otherness,” suddenly you are forced to start making <objective</b> value judgements about some aspect of the “other.” And we cannot, say the Left, for there is no objective standard, all cultures are equal, and we are not bigots who would apply our own societies’ standard to the “other!”
The question the apologists on the Left cannot answer, that exposes the moral relativism paradox: how is this violence any different than Christian extremists blowing up abortion clinics?
It isn’t. They’re both reprehensible and in both cases those committing violence are worthy of our mockery, ridicule, and disgust, regardless of what religion they claim to be standing up for.
What, are you trying to say I’m some sort of boogeyman? That those noises from outside the window are caused by the wind, or something?
That all this time I’ve spent in actus’ closet, coiled to strike, was not only ironic but pointless?
I don’t think the disagreement is simply over good policy or not, its also about regulation of ourselves and our friends. For example, I don’t just have a policy disagreement with the people who are passing these gay-marriage amendments that ban civil unions. It also is something that hurts my friends. I don’t just have a policy disagreement with someone who thinks that the law should do something about my cohabitation and pre-marital sex.
As for the contempt, I think its a basic answer of opportunity. We get more opportunities to express our contempt for people who are acting politically here, because we see their viewpoints and exchange viewpoints more often with our political opponents than with our terrorist opponents. We have more a yearning to do that. And our expression matters more. If one organizes, talks and fundraises, that helps to defeat their political opponents. It doesn’t help so much with beating terrorist ones.
I’m sure. I was asked to hypothesize what the religious right would do if they had the power.
I like the FDA like any other, but I don’t really think that they’re privacy intrusive when they regulate medical practices.
Here’s how it looks from somewhere in the neighborhood of the 30degrees north and 102 degrees west:
I don’t know that there will ever be enough middle ground in the abortion debate to even have an honest argument. To the Jill’s of the world it’s a privacy issue and they refuse to even consider the possibility that there might be life/death issues involved. The other side believes that because there is a life/death aspect involved, that privacy issues are trivial and are trumped big time by the need to protect human life. Neither side will ever agree to conduct the argument on the other side’s turf. They can’t afford to give up that much percieved high ground.
Because the pro-abortion crowd insists on seeing this issue only through the lens of the privacy argument, the easiest and most logical conclusion for them to draw is that the Christian right’s sole agenda is to deny them their hard earned rights to privacy. And it’s not enough to assume that the Christians only concern themselves with denying other people’s privacy in the area of abortion, because that doesn’t rile up a large enough base. Only hetero-sexual women, between the ages of 13 or so, and 50 someodd, and their semen donors are affected. So it’s quite natural to extend the fear of invasive Christians to include the issues of birth control and extra-marital sex also. That way you can scare a much larger population into getting up in arms about your cause.
From out here in flyover land, I can see the Christian right pushing to overturn Roe et al because they believe that the state is allowing actions that are morally wrong to happen legally (ie murder). I don’t see the Christian right making any headway against birth control or extra-marital sex whatsoever. There’s just no enthusiasm for that whatsoever in the larger population. I don’t see them even trying very hard. But it gives the Jill’s of the world more amunition for their pro-choice argument if they throw the other issues into the mix.
In summary, Jill I think you need to get out of NYC and find out how the rest of the country thinks. I think you think you know how the rest of the country thinks, but all you know is how NYC liberals think that the rest of the country thinks. I’ve known some pretty intolerant Christians in my lifetime, but there will never be enough of them to enact the changes that you say you are scared of. And most of them would draw the line at bombing an embassy also.
How accidentally lucid.