The debate continues
Posted by Greg on October 11, 2006
The Douthat/Linker debate continues at TNR. Ross’ comments today include the following:
The American experiment has succeeded for so long precisely because it doesn’t force its citizens channel their “theological passions and certainties … out of public life and into the private sphere.” It forces them to play by a certain set of political rules, yes, which prevent those passions and certainties from creating a religious tyranny. But it doesn’t make the mistake of telling people that their deepest beliefs should be irrelevant to how they vote, or what causes they support. The kind of secularism that you’re promoting–and that Neuhaus and the rest of the “theocons” were originally reacting against–is an attempt to change those rules and impose greater restrictions on religious Americans than have heretofore existed.”
Interesting view, but it doesn’t really seem to mesh with the facts on the ground. I make a definite distinction between conservatives of faith and “religious Americans”. God is not owned by any one political philosophy and it is presumptuous to act as if such were true.
How does treating gays as equal citizens restrict conservatives of faith? How does maintaning confidentialy in doctor/patient relationships restrict conservatives of faith? How does expecting parents to be responsible and use the remote control and off switch restrict conservatives of faith? How does demanding rigorous academic standards and the teaching of real science restrict conservatives of faith?
It seems the issue is less about restrictions and more about the unwillingness to be exposed to differing viewpoints and independent analysis.
Mick Stockinger said
Welcome to politics my secular humanist friends–you’d like to crush to faithful–they would like to crush you. Isn’t it a great system?
Actually God is owned by the Republicans–by default. Sure, there are people of faith who also happen to be Democrats–I’ve met some personally, but the party’s ideology and its elite don’t reflect any kind of recognizable religious sensibility. To put it into a context that Democrats might relate to, consider the relationship between Republicans and Blacks. I don’t know any Republican racists, but I think its safe to say that among Blacks, that’s the perception. The way the Republican party is changing that perception is to welcome Blacks into the circle of elite Republican officials. Its tough to say Republicans are racists when you’re listening to Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice giving another news conference on administration policy. Similarly, Democrats, if they want to be perceived as a welcoming party for the faithful, need to put real, recognizable Christians into positions of power and influence within the party, and I don’t mean John Kerry.
Of course, that will never happen, because if we are honest about it, the Democrat party is welcoming only of secular Christians–you know, people who have a nominal, cultural and social affliation with their religion–sort of like Harry Reid with the Mormon church. Mormons aren’t fooled by Harry Reid–they know that his positions are iminical to the principles of their church–hell, they aren’t too sure about Orrin Hatch either…
If we are going to be honest, Christianity has place for homosexuals, but no place for gay culture–that’s just the simple reality. If you want a war, and its apparently that at least Andrew Sullivan is up for this, then you’ll get a war, but you’ll lose. I would recommend a more rational approach, but that doesn’t seem in vogue these days–accept civil unions–all the rights, none of the confrontation (or far less). It was within the grasp of the gay community, but greed overwhelmed them.