Unfortunately for Wolcott, Red Staters have already beat him there. Nearly 20 years ago, when I was growing up in a Red State, I had a friend with a bumper sticker that implored us to, "Nuke a gay whale for Jesus." (I think it was satire...).
I've been reading this blog for just over a month, and I've enjoyed the glimpse into a mindset so different from my own. You (collectively) have a great deal of passion for your interests. However, I've grown weary of the sarcasm, stereotyping, hatred, and self-righteousness that show themselves all too often-- perhaps partially excused by post-election blues, but still. Where is the moderate voice of reason? The understanding tones of humanity? Democratic politics is your religion. You might find this article about liberal mockery interesting:
(sorry, I haven't yet learned to post a direct link.) For the record: as a Christian, I did "cringe" at the transcript of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Do yourself a favor: don't judge Christianity (which is NOT, by the way, synonymous with Republicanism, "red" states, rednecks, gay-bashers, anti-intellectualism, or just about any other label you can come up with) by its most extreme (and often most vocal) proponents. The majority of Christians would extend the same courtesy.
I'm going to continue to be surly for a while: what are we supposed to snap out of? However you slice the exit polling, people's decisions came down to either terrorism, Iraq, or values. On terrorism, I would recommend this really fine Hertzberg piece. Particularly this:
Here in the big coastal cities, we have reason to fear for the immediate safety of our lives and our families—more reason, it must be said, than have the residents of the "heartland," to which the per-capita bulk of "homeland security" resources, along with extra electoral votes, are distributed. It was deep-blue New York (which went three to one for Kerry) and deep-blue Washington, D.C. (nine to one Kerry), that were, and presumably remain, Al Qaeda's targets of choice. In the heartland, it is claimed, some view the coastal cities as faintly un-American. The terrorists do not agree. They see us as the very essence—the heart, if you like—of America. And, difficult as it may be for some rural gun owners to appreciate, many of us sincerely believe that President Bush's policies have put us in greater peril than we would be facing under a Kerry (or a Gore) Administration.
That's spot on. And, with that in mind, surely you can understand some heat from people's who are thinking, in short, "You fuckers are perfectly happy to consign us to death, and then use our deaths to justify further consignation."
On Iraq, I might be one of about three liberals who thinks it might still turn out well, but, given Abu Ghraib and planning for the occupation, it still seems unconscionable that Bush was reelected.
As for values, insofar as they were dispositive for some folks, and insofar as they did have to do with gays, then...what more is there to say?
Yes, there are moderates, and yes, we need to reach out to them, and sorry if the lines have been blurred here lately, but I won't pretend that there aren't Christian villians too, and I'm oh-so-tempted to ask where are the moderate Christian voices denouncing the extremists?
I don't judge Christianity by extremists. I don't really judge Christianity by anything - it's too amorphous. It's like jello before it sets - it'll fit just about any mold. Some are good, some are bad. Saying that there exists good Christianity doesn't negate the existence of the bad.
You're argument, I take it, amounts to this:
1) Radical evangelicals exist, but they're a minority, even if not a small one.
2) Rational republicans exist who voted for Bush on legitimate policy issues.
3) Liberals are therefore attacking a straw man.
However, we've been doing the rational republicans the favor of ignoring (on the national stage) the hard right for a lont time now, and what's happened? It's grown in numbers and power. There IS a evangelical machine out there, and it IS spawning hate and repression, and wacky armeggedon beliefs. A not insignifigant number of people voted for your guy because god chose him. What a way to vote. This evangelical movement has been systimatically closing off rational discourse. "God says so, and he speaks through (of course) me," doesn't allow for argument. I think we've ignored this cancer long enough.
It would be even better if rational republicans would care to differentiate themselves from their bedfellows. But that hasn't happened. Instead, Republican politicans have catered to a certain section of America, taken their votes and money, played a little bit to their interests, and then mostly pretended that they don't exist.
You call for rational discourse. Make an argument for it. Argue that we're wrong; argue that a vote for Bush is not effectively a vote for evangelicalism. It would set my stomach at ease if you could make it, and while I admit it's a possibility, I'm doubtful.
I read the Hertzberg article. I'm not a "rural gun owner," and I actually live in a coastal area, but I confess that I've never felt personally threatened by terrorism. 9/11 was shocking, but distant. Maybe I can say a few words in defense of us "fuckers"?
In the Christian worldview, some things are more important than physical safety, well-being, or prosperity. Lots of things in fact. Better to do what's right, regardless of the consequences, than to do whatever it takes to ensure self-preservation. Maybe you have a similar ideal, but we probably don't agree on what's right. And even if we did agree on what's right, it isn't all that simple to translate one's ideology into a political endorsement, especially when you only have two choices.
So, as for values: I think a lot of Americans believe that core moral values (such as the sanctity of life) are crucial because they will have everything to do with how decisions are made in every arena. So they vote based on what is important to them.
You will say that Bush's policies in Iraq do not show a value for the sanctity of life. Perhaps. But isn't this whole war on terror happening in the interests of the big-city coastal dwellers whose lives are threatened? I simply wasn't convinced that Kerry had a better plan-- it's easy to criticize someone else's mistakes, harder to come up with a workable plan yourself, especially if you don't have a solid foundation on which to base your decisions (as far as I could tell, anyway).
And a word on gays: no matter what I say, if I tell you that I consider homosexuality to be wrong, you will consider me a "gay-basher." A close relative of mine, who is gay, does not-- we can agree to disagree. Here's a subtle distinction for you: hate the sin but love the sinner?
Mabye there are moderate voices out there, but they don't get much attention because they just aren't as fun to read. And you can't caricature them so easily.
Thanks for being reasonable, Danielle. Where we differ isn't so much in the substance of our views--though we do differ there--but in believing that your religious reasons, by themselves, are sufficient grounds for advocating public policy. You are saying, in effect, that you want a Christian nation. That's not acceptable (and not just to me, but in America, per our Constitution). Abortion is a tough case; no one is for it--but you're still trying to constrain other people's choices based on your religion. On homosexuality, I've never seen a non-religious argument against it.
So, despite the fact that you are perfectly reasonable, and a moderate by all indications, I don't see any substantive difference between your views and those of the extremists. So, where to?
"You call for rational discourse. Make an argument for it. Argue that we're wrong; argue that a vote for Bush is not effectively a vote for evangelicalism. It would set my stomach at ease if you could make it, and while I admit it's a possibility, I'm doubtful."
(How do I put text into italics in this mode?)
While evangelicals are obviously more likely to vote for Bush, I don't think it follows that a vote for Bush is a vote for evangelicalism. Honestly, I tend to cynically think that anyone with the qualities that it takes to become president (ruthlessness, prowess at political jockeying, the ability to put the right spin on anything) isn't likely to be capable of taking an uncompromising stand on anything. But Bush occasionally seems to come close. Like I said, we vote based on what is important to us. This may be sheer naivete, but I have hoped that Bush, after the exposure to criticism during this election, would be forced to re-evaluate some of his decisions, maybe take dissenting views more into account. I'd be as happy as you to hear him admit to making a mistake. No one really knows what a candidate will do, do they?
If a vote against the first gulf war and support of the nuclear freeze can't be be reasons to oppose a candidate, there's not much to say here. Lots of people didn't looooove Bush, but thought Kerry was a wet. So there's a legit policy difference. I know you think Abu Grahb (and the administration response to same) should have sunk the Bush presidency. That's a respectable, pricipled, but highly debatable position. And I think it's a mistake to fault the American voter for not seeing it this way.
And really, what am I to make of this Hertzberg piece?I got to "defied logic" and then started to glaze over. I don't think it defies logic that in a basically good economy, an incumbant wins. Nor do I think it defies logic that someone who waged a war poorly is preferred to someone who seems to have no intention of waging that war, or if they have that intention, can't really present it in a convincing way, and whose "plan" consists of ex post facto criticism and cosmetic ideas like UN involvement and a big summit.
Hey, I wish everybody were more tolerant of gays. I wish all my gay friends could get married. I wish bigoted people didn't vote. And while there are non-bigoted opponents of gay marriage, I realize many opponents are bigoted, and these people likely voted overwhelmingly for Bush. [no disrespect intended to you, Danielle!] But let's not kid ourselves that this issue sunk Kerry, or that poisonous views exist only on one side of the aisle.
Michael:
Let us imagine someone says "slavery is wrong, God made us all to be free." Let us imagine someone else says "slavery is wrong, because of the principle of self-ownership explained by Nozick" Do I take it as your view that the first, as it involves a religious reason, is a poor argument, inadmissable in the public sphere, while the second is a good argument, and admissable in the formation of policy?
"So, despite the fact that you are perfectly reasonable, and a moderate by all indications, I don't see any substantive difference between your views and those of the extremists. So, where to?"
You may be right. After all, since my beliefs are such that I believe you are created by and for God whether you believe in him or not, I can't just say, "well, whatever you believe is fine, it's true for you, I don't care." That's the problem with a belief in absolute truths-- they are absolute for everyone.
However, it is not true that I want a Christian nation in a political sense. This is maybe where many Christians disagree? I think the government exists to provide basic protections, life and liberty. So, I think abortion should be illegal (though I would admit to very restricted exceptions) because a "fetus" needs to be protected from those who would harm it. As for homosexuality... that's a hard issue. I think it's wrong, but I don't expect people who haven't committed to following God to follow his rules anyway. (Even though I think his rules are designed for their good.) So, for others like me, gay marriage is objectionable mostly because it takes away from marriage as God created it. Why is it that gays want more than just civil unions? Why do they want the sacredness, social blessing, and all the time-honored trappings of "marriage"? The aura attached to traditional marriage is there because of its history; that history is besmirched by high divorce rates, infidelity, Britney Spears, and, I would argue, by gay marriage.
I don't know where to, in a political discussion-- I guess I don't have much faith in politics to change the world.
D, you do italics by wrapping the text in <em> and </em>
Danielle, the problem with gay marriage and civil unions is that the government recognizes marriage as having some kind of status that, as I understand it, it does not extend to civil unions. If the government just dealt in civil unions, and left marriage to religious institutions, that wouldn't be an issue (except for gay people whose religions wouldn't permit them to get married). I'm sure there are gay people who don't want to get married in a church (by which I mean, under the aegis of a church, not physically in a church). If a gay couple gets married before a magistrate, what does that have to do with the sacredness of marriage? (If a straight couple does, same question.) Marriage isn't solely a christian or religious at all institution.
As for social blessings and time-honored trappings, can you really not know why gay people would want them? The symbolic value, and fact that the government regards it as a special relationship, are the only things that could convince me to marry. These are social blessings and time-honored trappings we're talking about here; they're desiderata, right? More importantly, they have nothing to do with religion. Even if it were the case that until recently marriage was primarily a religious arrangement (I suspect that the opposite is the case) the social value it now has is independent of its religious origins, and can easily be furthered by marriages which, if the partners were of the same sex, everyone would agree were optimal.
(Tangential but: I'm waiting for some blogger to say that "That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the Magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby, ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the Protection and Service of another Prince. For by this means the Magistrate would give way to the settling of a forreign Jurisdiction in his own Country, and suffer his own People to be listed, as it were, for Souldiers against his own Government.")
Correct, Ben W! Likewise, "I oppose slavery because it decreases utility." Not an argument in your view? Or ok because in principle (ha!) falsifiable?
In any event, I do see arguments like #2 advanced as good arguments by those who would fight tooth and nail against #1. The point this was meant to illustrate was that some people employ a one drop rule with respect to religion in the public sphere: If God touches it, it must be bad. This is silly, given the primary role religion has taken in most beneficial reform movements. Its' also not like the folks calling it "jesusland" are doing a transcendental deduction on why you need to oppose the death penalty. Know what I'm saying?
Back to the gay marriage issue for a moment: based on much of what you are saying, ben, I voted against the gay marriage ban in my state. But, when it passed, I felt a rush of relief. Why is that? And why is it that, in the African village I lived in for half a year, I would have been laughed off the Sahel for even suggesting the idea of two men (women) getting married? Are we so progressive, or is something wrong here? Rhetorical question, not because I know the answer, but because there is no easy answer.
Danielle, if you're looking for anthropological values, certain American Indian tribes allowed sam-sex unions.
Anyway, baa, as to your questions. Despite the problem of #1 not being a real argument, it's also inadmissable because it violates the seperation of church and state. If religion has good ideas, they can all be phrased secularly, and must be done so to be admissible as policy arguments.
If a vote against the first gulf war and support of the nuclear freeze can't be be reasons to oppose a candidate, there's not much to say here.
Remember that until the first Gulf War that Iraq and the US were not only on friendly terms, but we were actively (and sometimes quietly) supporting Saddam? I mean, just right before the invasion Saddam was talking to high level White House officials. Do you think he would have invaded if he though we wouldn't sanction it? From what I read, that was certainly his impression. Furthermore, some backchannel seemed to have given him the nod. As to why we changed our minds, maybe we were baiting him on purpose, or maybe it was public pressure, or international pressure. We did use that military action to install military bases in Saudia Arabia. Remember, neocons pride themselves on being sneaky and clever.
And as for the nuclear freeze, there was literature out there which suggested that Kerry's action was exactly the right thing to do. Of course there was Huntington's famous Clash of Civilizations, but there were also more substantive reports about the state of the USSR's economic situation. It's certainly not impossible to think that Kerry believed that a nuclear arms race was entirely unnecessary - which it turns out it was.
Nor do I think it defies logic that someone who waged a war poorly is preferred to someone who seems to have no intention of waging that war
*shudder* Are we, as a nation, really this pro-war?
Clarity revision: I forgot to conclude that bit on Saddam Hussein. The point was that for me it makes it rather difficult to vote against Kerry on that issue, because on the other side of the ticket are people who's conduct in that situation I find even more dubious.
I'm starting to feel drawn to these guys.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 10:19 AM
Unfortunately for Wolcott, Red Staters have already beat him there. Nearly 20 years ago, when I was growing up in a Red State, I had a friend with a bumper sticker that implored us to, "Nuke a gay whale for Jesus." (I think it was satire...).
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 11:37 AM
I've been reading this blog for just over a month, and I've enjoyed the glimpse into a mindset so different from my own. You (collectively) have a great deal of passion for your interests. However, I've grown weary of the sarcasm, stereotyping, hatred, and self-righteousness that show themselves all too often-- perhaps partially excused by post-election blues, but still. Where is the moderate voice of reason? The understanding tones of humanity? Democratic politics is your religion. You might find this article about liberal mockery interesting:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04313/408396.stm
(sorry, I haven't yet learned to post a direct link.) For the record: as a Christian, I did "cringe" at the transcript of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Do yourself a favor: don't judge Christianity (which is NOT, by the way, synonymous with Republicanism, "red" states, rednecks, gay-bashers, anti-intellectualism, or just about any other label you can come up with) by its most extreme (and often most vocal) proponents. The majority of Christians would extend the same courtesy.
Posted by Danielle | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 3:46 PM
Bingo, Danielle. Come on guys, snap out of this.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 4:14 PM
I'm going to continue to be surly for a while: what are we supposed to snap out of? However you slice the exit polling, people's decisions came down to either terrorism, Iraq, or values. On terrorism, I would recommend this really fine Hertzberg piece. Particularly this:
That's spot on. And, with that in mind, surely you can understand some heat from people's who are thinking, in short, "You fuckers are perfectly happy to consign us to death, and then use our deaths to justify further consignation."
On Iraq, I might be one of about three liberals who thinks it might still turn out well, but, given Abu Ghraib and planning for the occupation, it still seems unconscionable that Bush was reelected.
As for values, insofar as they were dispositive for some folks, and insofar as they did have to do with gays, then...what more is there to say?
Yes, there are moderates, and yes, we need to reach out to them, and sorry if the lines have been blurred here lately, but I won't pretend that there aren't Christian villians too, and I'm oh-so-tempted to ask where are the moderate Christian voices denouncing the extremists?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 4:58 PM
I don't judge Christianity by extremists. I don't really judge Christianity by anything - it's too amorphous. It's like jello before it sets - it'll fit just about any mold. Some are good, some are bad. Saying that there exists good Christianity doesn't negate the existence of the bad.
You're argument, I take it, amounts to this:
1) Radical evangelicals exist, but they're a minority, even if not a small one.
2) Rational republicans exist who voted for Bush on legitimate policy issues.
3) Liberals are therefore attacking a straw man.
However, we've been doing the rational republicans the favor of ignoring (on the national stage) the hard right for a lont time now, and what's happened? It's grown in numbers and power. There IS a evangelical machine out there, and it IS spawning hate and repression, and wacky armeggedon beliefs. A not insignifigant number of people voted for your guy because god chose him. What a way to vote. This evangelical movement has been systimatically closing off rational discourse. "God says so, and he speaks through (of course) me," doesn't allow for argument. I think we've ignored this cancer long enough.
It would be even better if rational republicans would care to differentiate themselves from their bedfellows. But that hasn't happened. Instead, Republican politicans have catered to a certain section of America, taken their votes and money, played a little bit to their interests, and then mostly pretended that they don't exist.
You call for rational discourse. Make an argument for it. Argue that we're wrong; argue that a vote for Bush is not effectively a vote for evangelicalism. It would set my stomach at ease if you could make it, and while I admit it's a possibility, I'm doubtful.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 5:07 PM
I read the Hertzberg article. I'm not a "rural gun owner," and I actually live in a coastal area, but I confess that I've never felt personally threatened by terrorism. 9/11 was shocking, but distant. Maybe I can say a few words in defense of us "fuckers"?
In the Christian worldview, some things are more important than physical safety, well-being, or prosperity. Lots of things in fact. Better to do what's right, regardless of the consequences, than to do whatever it takes to ensure self-preservation. Maybe you have a similar ideal, but we probably don't agree on what's right. And even if we did agree on what's right, it isn't all that simple to translate one's ideology into a political endorsement, especially when you only have two choices.
So, as for values: I think a lot of Americans believe that core moral values (such as the sanctity of life) are crucial because they will have everything to do with how decisions are made in every arena. So they vote based on what is important to them.
You will say that Bush's policies in Iraq do not show a value for the sanctity of life. Perhaps. But isn't this whole war on terror happening in the interests of the big-city coastal dwellers whose lives are threatened? I simply wasn't convinced that Kerry had a better plan-- it's easy to criticize someone else's mistakes, harder to come up with a workable plan yourself, especially if you don't have a solid foundation on which to base your decisions (as far as I could tell, anyway).
And a word on gays: no matter what I say, if I tell you that I consider homosexuality to be wrong, you will consider me a "gay-basher." A close relative of mine, who is gay, does not-- we can agree to disagree. Here's a subtle distinction for you: hate the sin but love the sinner?
Mabye there are moderate voices out there, but they don't get much attention because they just aren't as fun to read. And you can't caricature them so easily.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 5:30 PM
Sorry, that last comment was me. I posted it before reading your comment, Michael.
Posted by Danielle | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 5:33 PM
Thanks for being reasonable, Danielle. Where we differ isn't so much in the substance of our views--though we do differ there--but in believing that your religious reasons, by themselves, are sufficient grounds for advocating public policy. You are saying, in effect, that you want a Christian nation. That's not acceptable (and not just to me, but in America, per our Constitution). Abortion is a tough case; no one is for it--but you're still trying to constrain other people's choices based on your religion. On homosexuality, I've never seen a non-religious argument against it.
So, despite the fact that you are perfectly reasonable, and a moderate by all indications, I don't see any substantive difference between your views and those of the extremists. So, where to?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 5:54 PM
"You call for rational discourse. Make an argument for it. Argue that we're wrong; argue that a vote for Bush is not effectively a vote for evangelicalism. It would set my stomach at ease if you could make it, and while I admit it's a possibility, I'm doubtful."
(How do I put text into italics in this mode?)
While evangelicals are obviously more likely to vote for Bush, I don't think it follows that a vote for Bush is a vote for evangelicalism. Honestly, I tend to cynically think that anyone with the qualities that it takes to become president (ruthlessness, prowess at political jockeying, the ability to put the right spin on anything) isn't likely to be capable of taking an uncompromising stand on anything. But Bush occasionally seems to come close. Like I said, we vote based on what is important to us. This may be sheer naivete, but I have hoped that Bush, after the exposure to criticism during this election, would be forced to re-evaluate some of his decisions, maybe take dissenting views more into account. I'd be as happy as you to hear him admit to making a mistake. No one really knows what a candidate will do, do they?
Posted by Danielle | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 5:55 PM
If a vote against the first gulf war and support of the nuclear freeze can't be be reasons to oppose a candidate, there's not much to say here. Lots of people didn't looooove Bush, but thought Kerry was a wet. So there's a legit policy difference. I know you think Abu Grahb (and the administration response to same) should have sunk the Bush presidency. That's a respectable, pricipled, but highly debatable position. And I think it's a mistake to fault the American voter for not seeing it this way.
And really, what am I to make of this Hertzberg piece?I got to "defied logic" and then started to glaze over. I don't think it defies logic that in a basically good economy, an incumbant wins. Nor do I think it defies logic that someone who waged a war poorly is preferred to someone who seems to have no intention of waging that war, or if they have that intention, can't really present it in a convincing way, and whose "plan" consists of ex post facto criticism and cosmetic ideas like UN involvement and a big summit.
Hey, I wish everybody were more tolerant of gays. I wish all my gay friends could get married. I wish bigoted people didn't vote. And while there are non-bigoted opponents of gay marriage, I realize many opponents are bigoted, and these people likely voted overwhelmingly for Bush. [no disrespect intended to you, Danielle!] But let's not kid ourselves that this issue sunk Kerry, or that poisonous views exist only on one side of the aisle.
Michael:
Let us imagine someone says "slavery is wrong, God made us all to be free." Let us imagine someone else says "slavery is wrong, because of the principle of self-ownership explained by Nozick" Do I take it as your view that the first, as it involves a religious reason, is a poor argument, inadmissable in the public sphere, while the second is a good argument, and admissable in the formation of policy?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 5:55 PM
"So, despite the fact that you are perfectly reasonable, and a moderate by all indications, I don't see any substantive difference between your views and those of the extremists. So, where to?"
You may be right. After all, since my beliefs are such that I believe you are created by and for God whether you believe in him or not, I can't just say, "well, whatever you believe is fine, it's true for you, I don't care." That's the problem with a belief in absolute truths-- they are absolute for everyone.
However, it is not true that I want a Christian nation in a political sense. This is maybe where many Christians disagree? I think the government exists to provide basic protections, life and liberty. So, I think abortion should be illegal (though I would admit to very restricted exceptions) because a "fetus" needs to be protected from those who would harm it. As for homosexuality... that's a hard issue. I think it's wrong, but I don't expect people who haven't committed to following God to follow his rules anyway. (Even though I think his rules are designed for their good.) So, for others like me, gay marriage is objectionable mostly because it takes away from marriage as God created it. Why is it that gays want more than just civil unions? Why do they want the sacredness, social blessing, and all the time-honored trappings of "marriage"? The aura attached to traditional marriage is there because of its history; that history is besmirched by high divorce rates, infidelity, Britney Spears, and, I would argue, by gay marriage.
I don't know where to, in a political discussion-- I guess I don't have much faith in politics to change the world.
Posted by Danielle | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 6:11 PM
Neither is an argument at all, baa.
D, you do italics by wrapping the text in <em> and </em>
Danielle, the problem with gay marriage and civil unions is that the government recognizes marriage as having some kind of status that, as I understand it, it does not extend to civil unions. If the government just dealt in civil unions, and left marriage to religious institutions, that wouldn't be an issue (except for gay people whose religions wouldn't permit them to get married). I'm sure there are gay people who don't want to get married in a church (by which I mean, under the aegis of a church, not physically in a church). If a gay couple gets married before a magistrate, what does that have to do with the sacredness of marriage? (If a straight couple does, same question.) Marriage isn't solely a christian or religious at all institution.
As for social blessings and time-honored trappings, can you really not know why gay people would want them? The symbolic value, and fact that the government regards it as a special relationship, are the only things that could convince me to marry. These are social blessings and time-honored trappings we're talking about here; they're desiderata, right? More importantly, they have nothing to do with religion. Even if it were the case that until recently marriage was primarily a religious arrangement (I suspect that the opposite is the case) the social value it now has is independent of its religious origins, and can easily be furthered by marriages which, if the partners were of the same sex, everyone would agree were optimal.
(Tangential but: I'm waiting for some blogger to say that "That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the Magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby, ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the Protection and Service of another Prince. For by this means the Magistrate would give way to the settling of a forreign Jurisdiction in his own Country, and suffer his own People to be listed, as it were, for Souldiers against his own Government.")
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 6:47 PM
Correct, Ben W! Likewise, "I oppose slavery because it decreases utility." Not an argument in your view? Or ok because in principle (ha!) falsifiable?
In any event, I do see arguments like #2 advanced as good arguments by those who would fight tooth and nail against #1. The point this was meant to illustrate was that some people employ a one drop rule with respect to religion in the public sphere: If God touches it, it must be bad. This is silly, given the primary role religion has taken in most beneficial reform movements. Its' also not like the folks calling it "jesusland" are doing a transcendental deduction on why you need to oppose the death penalty. Know what I'm saying?
Off to walk in the park...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 7:12 PM
D, you do italics by wrapping the text in and
Cool. I always knew I should learn HTML.
Back to the gay marriage issue for a moment: based on much of what you are saying, ben, I voted against the gay marriage ban in my state. But, when it passed, I felt a rush of relief. Why is that? And why is it that, in the African village I lived in for half a year, I would have been laughed off the Sahel for even suggesting the idea of two men (women) getting married? Are we so progressive, or is something wrong here? Rhetorical question, not because I know the answer, but because there is no easy answer.
A walk sounds like a great idea.
Posted by Danielle | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 8:41 PM
Danielle, if you're looking for anthropological values, certain American Indian tribes allowed sam-sex unions.
Anyway, baa, as to your questions. Despite the problem of #1 not being a real argument, it's also inadmissable because it violates the seperation of church and state. If religion has good ideas, they can all be phrased secularly, and must be done so to be admissible as policy arguments.
If a vote against the first gulf war and support of the nuclear freeze can't be be reasons to oppose a candidate, there's not much to say here.
Remember that until the first Gulf War that Iraq and the US were not only on friendly terms, but we were actively (and sometimes quietly) supporting Saddam? I mean, just right before the invasion Saddam was talking to high level White House officials. Do you think he would have invaded if he though we wouldn't sanction it? From what I read, that was certainly his impression. Furthermore, some backchannel seemed to have given him the nod. As to why we changed our minds, maybe we were baiting him on purpose, or maybe it was public pressure, or international pressure. We did use that military action to install military bases in Saudia Arabia. Remember, neocons pride themselves on being sneaky and clever.
And as for the nuclear freeze, there was literature out there which suggested that Kerry's action was exactly the right thing to do. Of course there was Huntington's famous Clash of Civilizations, but there were also more substantive reports about the state of the USSR's economic situation. It's certainly not impossible to think that Kerry believed that a nuclear arms race was entirely unnecessary - which it turns out it was.
Nor do I think it defies logic that someone who waged a war poorly is preferred to someone who seems to have no intention of waging that war
*shudder* Are we, as a nation, really this pro-war?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 10:27 PM
Clarity revision: I forgot to conclude that bit on Saddam Hussein. The point was that for me it makes it rather difficult to vote against Kerry on that issue, because on the other side of the ticket are people who's conduct in that situation I find even more dubious.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 8-04 10:30 PM