Let Go, Let God, Let GOP
Uncle Andrew
Heard a fascinating article on NPR’s Morning Edition yesterday. Democratic politicians are making more of an effort to express their faith publicly these days. Many feel that the electoral triumph of Virginia Governor-Elect Tim Kaine is due in large part to his vocal acknowledgement of his Catholicism.
Apparently, this tactic has caught the attention of other Dems. In fact, Kaine’s campaign was partly funded by the Democratic National Committee as a pilot project for reaching out to the faithful.
The point that these people make is not a bad one, namely that Democrats are not lacking a spiritual side. For no particularly sane reason, the Republican party has managed to convince religous Americans in ever-growing numbers that the Democrats are not merely the party of free-wheeling, no-orifices-barred secular liberalism, but that in fact we are anti-religion. The underlying suggestion seems to be that, left unchecked, the liberals will ban religion altogether….doubtless to be quickly followed by the Compulsive Child Sodomy Act of 2006.
It would be nice to make concerned religious Americans aware that this is not the case.
So let me put this to you as simply as I can: WE DON’T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOU ARE WELCOME TO WORSHIP WHO, HOW, WHEN AND WHERE YOU CHOOSE.
This is the core of true liberalism; the conviction that people with vastly different belief systems can live and work together, with the judicious application of a little self-awareness and common courtesy. It is the philoshopy at the very heart of the liberal rallying cry, “Strength Through Diversity”. Conservative talking heads can always come up with a hard-core leftie whack job or two to flesh out their anti-Democratic diatribes, but I think it’s safe to say that, by definition, liberals tend to be more accepting of people’s differences than conservatives. Contrary to what a Bill O’Reilly or Michael Medved might say about it, this tendency includes accepting those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, Jehova, Allah, Buddha, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Those of us who believe as you do celebrate your faith. Those of us who don’t wish you all the best.
But—and this is a big, bouncy bubble but—we don’t particularly want to hear about it. It just doesn’t seem necessary to the acknowledgement of your right to worship to be forced to experience your epiphany with you. Sometimes we feel like seeing what all the fuss is about, in which case your calm and friendly indulgence might help to win a few of us over to your side. Other than that, however, we’d prefer that you try not to go overboard showing yourselves off.
This is the very behavior in which all of our friends of faith—the people who in my mind represent the very best of what it means to have one’s life informed by a divine Presence—participate on a daily basis. They artfully and earnestly straddle the line between the terrestrial and the celestial, living the life they feel God wants for them while bearing in mind the sensibilities of us, their poor, benighted, hellbound friends. I joke, but I’m serious when I say that I appreciate their efforts. These people know, really know, that their friends and loved ones are destined for the Lake of Fire if they don’t change their ways. They also know that hounding us until we can no longer bear to be in their presence will not save us, that it might in fact drive us further away from the path that will save our eternal selves. All they can do is live their lives as they are expected to do, and hope that, by example, by chance or by divine intervention, we find our way back to the light. That, to my mind, is the pinnacle of adherence to the liberal social contract. We should all be so virtuous.
“But Uncle Andrew, what about other groups like, say, the gays? Don’t you think they go out of their way to shove their lifestyles in our faces? Aren’t they violating the social contract you’re describing here?”
Um, yeah, sort of, but not really. First of all, some leeway has to be granted for groups that are marginalized by the greater society. Expressions of personal pride and empowerment are bound to be more pointed and exuberant among embattled minorities than among members of the majority. In this context, gays certainly count as a minority, both in terms of their population numbers (the numbers for this are all over the place, but most folks would probably agree that the total lies somewhere at or under ten percent) and overall national sentiment, particularly in relation to religion.
And yes, religious people in general and Christians in particular are in the majority in America. The idea that Christians are as a group locked in a battle for their survival in this country is, well, it’s pathetic. The threats, be they gay marriage, Wicca or the desire to remove the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, are to my mind so much smoke, nothing but a bit of underdone potato.
The fact that Christians have been told by a reliable source that the world will be rent asunder might help to explain why some of them try so desperately to identify the social cancers that will rot our nation from within and bring about our downfall. (Me, I’m counting on drastic climate change to fuck us all, so I’m more inclined to blame the world’s ills on the Hummer H2.)
Here’s a handy litmus test: if a member of your group faces a quantifiable probability of being beaten with chains, hung from a fencepost or dragged to his/her death behind a pickup truck in America’s heartland simply for being a member of said group, in my book you’ve earned the right to some extra consideration when expressing your pride publicly. If, on the other hand, your group’s core message is so prevalent that it appears on your nation’s money, you probably have all the support and empowerment you really need, and can safely consider reigning in your public self-aggrandizement just a bit.
(This is not meant to suggest that anything remotely resembling a plurality of middle Americans would ever dream of participating in such brutality, just that, barring some sort of mental illness, none of them would ever consider doing such a thing to their Caucaso-Christian brethren.)
Secondly, organized marches and parades really don’t count. You’re welcome to witness them or not, depending on your preference. Ditto with television, movies and other media. Don’t like it, don’t watch it. If you are referring to “offensive” content on T-shirts, magazine or album covers, posted bills, etc., well, there’s a remedy for that: it’s spelled out in Miller v. California. Freedom of expression does not trump obscenity as perceived through the filter of community standards. So file a lawsuit, if averting your eyes seems like too much effort.
If on the other hand your objection has to do with such impositions as normal public displays of affection between homosexuals (kissing, holding hands, etc.) well, I’m sure your local Yellow Pages has complete contact information for many fine therapists in your area.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, religion and the Democratic Party. The point is, you are welcome to express your faith—or lack of same—under the Dem’s tent. The fact that it is not brought up every single time a liberal talking head opens his or her mouth should not be taken as an ominous sign; quite the opposite, in fact.
Let’s face up to something here, shall we? While the Republican platform treats religion in general as crucial to both the character of the individual and the survival of the society, the vast majority of the Republican leadership is Christian in particular. As a (lapsed, non-observing, half-) Jew, lemme tell you that being welcomed with open arms by evangelical Christian conservatives kind of creeps me out. There’s the very real possibility that their support of Judaism stems solely from their understanding that the Rapture will not occur unless the nation of Israel is in existence on Earth….so it can be destroyed.
From a purely objective standpoint, which political party do you think a devout member of a non-Christian faith would really feel accepted in? The one whose members believe with all their heart that “Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me” (particularly considering that members of this party seem to have trouble accepting the existence of people who believe in no God at all, much less those who pledge themselves to “the competition”)? Or the one whose stance is closer to “sure, whatever, it’s all good”?
Which would the impartial observer most likely decide was a good home for those who might not necessarily believe Jesus was the son of God? Or even just white?
And while we’re on the subject, does it bother anyone else that conservative Christians seem to put such a premium on their political leaders’ incessant and public proclamation of their faith? Does this not ring somewhat hollow after a while, even to those who feel they have a vested interest in seeing that people of religious conviction make it into public office? Three words, guys: Matthew Six Six. Apparently, God Himself isn’t impressed with your pious public overtures either.
Maybe, just maybe, the Democratic Party has not felt it necessary to toot their own celestial horn, not because they are utterly without a spiritual and moral core, but because to do so makes one appear smarmy and self-righteous. This would seem the, well, the honest and unassuming way to go about one’s faith.
Until, of course, some other group hoping to discredit you launches a cynical campaign to portray you as morally bankrupt and, more galling still, furthering the aims of the Enemy.
All portions of this site are © Andrew Lenzer, all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:34 am
“So let me put this to you as simply as I can: WE DON’T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOU ARE WELCOME TO WORSHIP WHO, HOW, WHEN AND WHERE YOU CHOOSE.”
Andrew, you’d make a great Mormon. You’ve just paraphrased the 11th article of faith:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I guess going to seminary all that time did stick after all.
I do find it interesting that the only other group you came up with that is excessively vocal in their beliefs is the homosexuals. I’ll grant you that your litmus test would include blacks, jews, muslims, mormons, irish, women, etc, etc… depending on what point in history you are looking at. Is the “gay agenda” only an issue because it hasn’t been resolved yet, (here assuming that other minority issues are resolved because they don’t make the news anymore). Are these other groups with strong beliefs less entitled to be vocal now that they are more socially acceptable?
The right to practice your religion is the very first thing in the Bill of Rights, (though nobody seems to know that). After that comes freedom of speech. So as I see it your argument is doubly screwed. Not only do I get to be religious, I can talk about it all I want.
Getting back to your original point I think you are absolutely correct, but perhaps in the converse. It is the fact “the democrats” are ok with just about anything that bothers conservatives. “Anything goes” is not a philosophy that folks with um, traditional values are comfortable with. It is much easier to decide if you agree with a group if you can deduce what they believe in. How would you know if they are not “furthering the aims of the Enemy” if they’re basic philosophy is “yeah, we’re cool with that too…”?
November 14th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Thanks, I think you’d make a great secular humanist! But hey, don’t ever change; I love you just the way you are.
I liked going to seminary with you; it provided an interesting contrast to the Statanic Bible and Rituals, which I was also reading at the time.
In fact, Gavin, you are one of the people to whom I was referring when I talked about friends of faith who earnestly straddle the line between the terrestrial and the celestial. So nyeah. 😉
I focused on gay issues because it’s one of the few human rights issues on the scene that an appreciable plurality of people still feel comfortable attacking. The pejorative “faggot” still reigns where the word “nigger” no longer dares tread. The gay marriage issue is a perfect example: only the most hard-core racist still believes that interracial marriage will ultimately destroy the United States; on the other hand, a lot of Americans believe that gay marriage is wrong. In another twenty to thrity years, I predict that this sentiment will seem as backward and unreasonable as the former. I sure hope so.
(And before it happens, let’s just stroll right past the argument about how interracial couples can still reproduce while homosexual couples cannot. If marriage as a legal contract is about bearing children, there are a lot of straight married couples that are bound for the hoosegow, myself and Margaret included.)
The point is that everyone is allowed to celebrate their similarities and differences, but for those who do not yet have an equal footing in the society at large, it might be nice to grant them a little more freedom in expressing themselves. Not “let’s make a law about it”, just use a little common courtesy.
Absolutely. Have at. Mazel Tov. Your sect in particular, however, seems to understand how unbelievably obnoxious excessive public peity can be, and takes great pains to keep out of people’s faces. Good for you! Don’t you think, though, that a political party made up largely of members of a particular religion trying to bring the issue of belief in God into greater public light as a tactic to further their aim of complete governmental control kinda sorta sounds like a potential future violation of the Bill of Rights’ proscription against state-sponsored religion? Not that I feel that there’s anything that can be done about it, but it bears mentioning. And much eye-on-keeping.
Of course it’s not about “anything goes”; it’s as much about making sane choices on this side of the aisle as it is on that one, isolated nutters with axes to grind notwithstanding. Of course, if you like, we could commission a poll to determine the number of liberal Satanists in the country versus conservative Klansmen and use that as a reference point…. 😀
Seriously, though: you make it sound as though you know what a person believes in if you know what religion they follow (if any). Even more to the point is the question of whether you know what someone will do based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. I don’t have any data to back this up, but I sincerely doubt that violent crime rates in America are lower among people who claim memberhsip in a religion than those who do not. Do you check the religious affiliation of the parents of people your kids associate with, or do you bear in mind the actions they take down here on Earth? Does a fellow Mormon with a Domestic Assault complaint trump an atheist who runs the local food bank? Of course not.
This is the very point I’m bitching about: the RNC is making the sweeping indictment that people who do not (publicly, vociferously) claim fealty to God are rudderless moral ciphers and not to be trusted with the reigns of office. And the Democrats have been suckered into responding to it, saying, “no, wait, we’re pious, we’re humbled in the presence of the Almighty, really!” instead of saying, “Actually, our religon or lack thereof isn’t really the point, nor is it any of your business.”
This may be what’s needed to turn the tide of sentiment, but it doesn’t make me particularly happy.
November 14th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Damn I miss you! It’s so nice to debate with someone who has a brain and isn’t just repeating the headlines from CNN.
Personally I think the idea of politicians trying to differentiate themselves on the basis of morals of any kind is hilarious!! I also find it funny that the Democrats would spend effort defending themselves on this point instead of going out and leading by (hopefully better) example, (does that make the Reps pompous for using it as a platform or the Dems spineless for not having a platform of their own…?). Just pretend the Republicans are exercising their right to speak about their freedom of religion.
I equate Washington DC to Hollywood, with a slight difference in pay for the primary actors. So much time and money is spent watching, supporting, sponsoring, lobbying, reporting, debating, and rumoring about the actions of a small group of people that few will ever meet. The end product out of Hollywood is usually much more entertaining though. And, like TV, if the ratings are bad enough the show gets cancelled and we get to watch something new next season.
November 14th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Almost forgot:
“on the other hand, a lot of Americans believe that gay marriage is wrong. In another twenty to thrity years, I predict that this sentiment will seem as backward and unreasonable as the former.”
I’m certain you’ve read The Forever War… 🙂
November 14th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Andrew,
Amen, brother!
November 14th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Um….why….yes, yes I have! Indeedy! Quite a book, that. Um, yep.
[hauls ass off to Amazon.com….]
November 14th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
“The gay marriage issue is a perfect example: only the most hard-core racist still believes that interracial marriage will ultimately destroy the United States; on the other hand, a lot of Americans believe that gay marriage is wrong. In another twenty to thirty years, I predict that this sentiment will seem as backward and unreasonable as the former. I sure hope so.”
But then, where do you draw the line…:
“You are infringing on my civil rights! I love my llama, there’s nothing wrong with inter-species marriage!”
“Gosh, remember when you couldn’t marry children under 16? Talk about age discrimination!”
“Why can’t we practice polygamy?” oops, oh yeah, we tried that and it’s still against the law. So how ’bout it Roo? If they ok gay marriage can we have ’em legalize polygamy? C’mon we can even back it with “freedom of religion”. How about if we have a parade?
November 14th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Gawd, not this wizened old chestnut….
Here’s the rub: restrictions need to exist, of course, and a society can decide where those boundaries should be drawn. Personally, I could not give one nickel-plated shit if someone wants to enter into a group marriage. If your religion/emotional needs/sexual kinks make that the rational choice for you, I’ll personally throw organic bird seed at your wedding (the rice is bad for the birds’ tummies, dontchaknow). And if a Constitutional Amendment regarding the legalizing of polymgamy came to a vote, I’d probably be in favor of it.
The other two milk bottles are patently easy to knock over: according to US statute, neither a llama nor a sixteen-year-old can legally make decisions regarding their marital status. We’ve decided as a society that sixteen-year-olds do not have the intellectual/experiential basis for informed consent, and a llama is property, not a person, and as such does not have any rights to speak of.
In fact, a llama is so down on the “rights” food chain that it is not illegal to have sex with one in this state, with or without its consent.
Funny you should mention that last one; how’s the Alpaca farm going? Anything you’d like to share with the viewing audience? 😀
EDIT: Margaret just pointed out to me that the age of consent to marry varies greatly from state to state, and goes as low as age 14 with parental consent and/or court approval in, among others, those bastions of anything-goes moral relativism Utah, Texas and Alabama. 😛
On the other hand, apparently both Mississippi and California have effectively no lower age limit on marriage. Guess it just goes to show that genuinely creepy behavior knows no party affiliation. 😯
November 15th, 2005 at 6:09 am
The Republican electoral strategy for the last generation has consisted of attacking the Democrats on elements of their agenda that lack universal support within the party. The so-called wedge issue. The problem for the Democrats is not that their underlying principals are out of step with society; it is that elements within society accept the principals of the Democratic Party but balk at their implications.
The tool the Republicans use to turn people against their principals is the rhetorical war. First they identify an issue and declare those who do not support it victims of special interests then they frame champagnes using the rhetoric of war. Abortion kills babies, Homosexual Marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage, and Racial Quotas steal the opportunities you deserve. Finally, they overreach. Take absolutist stances, no abortions even in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. Make ridiculous claims, Homosexual Marriage is a smoke screen for legalizing pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality. Appeal to people’s baser instincts; do you want your kid loosing his/her chance at Harvard to some crack head?
Critical to the success of this technique is making the argument transparently ridiculous to anybody who views the issue favorably. This creates polarized camps that keep the issue alive perpetually, drawing voters away from voting their interest. The biggest threat to this strategy is success. Affirmative Action has all but been struck down, now talk of racial quotas has all but disappeared from politics and the Republicans are out an issue to split the Democratic Party.
The depressing thing to me is that Democrats have to make a show of embracing religion to validate their political stances. This makes the politician weak by exposing him to attack for taking votes that his opponents construe as contradictory to his stated faith. Also, as somebody who finds much in organized religion suspect, I worry that pandering to the faithful creates the opportunity for wingnut charlatans such as the Pat Robertson or James Dobson to impose litmus tests on candidates that drive them away from their secular constituents. Ultimately, I believe the Democratic Party would be better off if they could effectively articulated positions on contentious issues that resonated with religious voters without linking the issue with the candidate’s faith.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Yes Joe you’re absolutely correct. It’s called politics. It’s their (both parties) job to say (not really to do) whatever it takes to keep getting paid. It’s just the same as office politics only you don’t get an interview on CNN or Faux News for being vocal at work. It’s not really about religion is it? It’s more akin to selling advertising. It’s just the marketing campaign of the season. Being mad about the Democrats reacting pooly to the Republicans is equivalent to getting upset because Ford is outselling GM this year. Basically if there is nothing to fear or no ideology running rampant then we don’t need either group to “protect” us and our rights, and the politicians stop getting paid.
Andrew, you gotta stop listening to NPR. You’re going to give yourself high blood pressure to go along with your other infirmities. I do agree with your last post. Our laws come from the will of society. But why then are some of the current marriage laws ok (you said it was only illegal to marry a llama) and others so gosh darn wrong? (no minimum age in California, icky. I really gotta move) I find it funny that those who say the current laws on marriage need to change always say “Well of course there need to be limits” but don’t realize we could be debating inter-species relations right now instead, which most of us find absurd (there’s that darned will of the majority thing again). The current trend in the will of the people is going towards being ok with homosexuality and away from being tolerant of religion. Twenty years from now who knows?
Thanks for playing by the way. I always hesitate to get into long heated debates on forums or blogs as there are those who take this stuff way too seriously and can’t tell I’m just poking fun, (till it bleeds).
As far as alpacas go, we have two recent babies, but neither one looks like me thank goodness, er, um, I mean…. 😛
November 15th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Man, that would be sweet. I don’t know how much chance it has of happening, though. I think many people who profess to a strong religious affiliation feel that
a) It so informs and shapes their lives that their faith and their beliefs are completely intertwined (and who can blame them; I wouldn’t want to argue with God if I heard His voice either)
and b) They associate their personal beliefs or the core beliefs of their church so closely with those of the overarching church—or religion in general—that to hear someone say, “I am a [belief]itarian” is tantamount to them saying, “I believe exactly as you do.”
I mean, you are starting from a position of, “the Supreme Being told the original leader of our church that this is the real and correct path to righteousness.” If as an attendee of a particular church you believe that (or if the Supreme Being in question actually tells you this personally), how can you not feel that you have it right, and that others who claim to follow the same path must believe as you do?
Mind you, this isn’t some sort of “mind control” argument about religion, and I think this effect is largely unconscious, but I think it’s there nonetheless.
I always ejoyed arguing with you, Dude. Guess the blog has replaced long drives over the Pali or out to Hawaii Kai. 😉
Your secret’s safe with us. If either of them start saying “mama” and “dada”, you’re on your own. 😀