Morally Correct (?)

[Beatnik]

SO what do you think?

Morally Correct by Peter Beinart

November 29, 2004
© The New Republic

Once upon a time, conservatives considered "sensitivity" a dirty word. In the 1980s and 1990s, when African Americans and other campus minorities claimed they were victims of racism and demanded greater respect from white students and faculty, conservatives popularized a term for this group whining: political correctness. They gasped when campus radicals tried to silence criticism of affirmative action by saying it created a hostile climate for black students. They worried aloud that university administrators--in their efforts to spare minority students\' feelings--were stifling debate. For a time, combating this culture of punitive sensitivity was one of the right\'s primary concerns.

Not anymore. In the wake of their recent triumph at the polls, conservatives have found their own supposedly disrespected minority: evangelicals. And they are playing victim politics with a gusto that would make campus radicals proud.

One of the things that galled the right during the "political correctness" wars was the way leftists casually threw around terms like "racist" and "bigot." For conservatives, some of whom knew firsthand how much harm those accusations could cause, it became axiomatic that such pejoratives should be reserved for only the most egregious, clear-cut examples of racial or ethnic animus. After Trent Lott--a man who had long consorted with white supremacists--praised Strom Thurmond\'s segregationist 1948 presidential bid, many conservatives called him dumb and embarrassing. (To their credit, some called for his removal as Senate leader.) But very few were willing to call him a bigot. Few would pin the label even on Jesse Helms or Thurmond himself. Extreme scrupulousness about such epithets seemed like a touchstone of the conservative worldview. advertisement

That\'s how it seemed, anyhow. In recent weeks, prominent conservatives have been anything but scrupulous in charging Democrats with bigotry against people of faith. Just before the election, Christian Right leader James Dobson called Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy a "God\'s people hater." On November 8, talk-show host Joe Scarborough condemned "Democrats who take solace in their bigoted anti-Christian screeds." Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin recently blurbed a book titled Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity, noting that "Persecution exposes the hypocrisy and bigotry of the secular, anti-Christian Left." And, last Sunday, Mary Matalin chimed in on "Meet the Press," claiming that "people of faith, in the election process, they have been demonized and they have been treated with disdain and contempt." Imagine if James Carville, who was seated next to her on the show, had made the same claim about African Americans (who, although they are one of the most religious groups in America, vote Democratic, and thus don\'t fall under Matalin\'s "people of faith" rubric). Within 15 minutes, the conservative blogosphere would have accused him of politically correct demagoguery.

To be fair, occasionally liberals do treat evangelical Christians with condescension and scorn. Conservatives frequently, and justifiably, expressed outrage at a Washington Post news story that called followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command." (They tend not to note that the story is eleven years old, and the Post issued an immediate retraction.) On November 4, in The New York Times, Garry Wills suggested that America now resembles the theocracies of the Muslim world more than it resembles Western Europe, which is offensive, not to mention absurd.

But, most of the time, what conservatives call anti-evangelical bigotry is simply harsh criticism of the Christian Right\'s agenda. Scarborough seized on a recent column by Maureen Dowd, which accused President Bush of "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith," leading America into "another dark age." The Weekly Standard recently pilloried Thomas Friedman for criticizing "Christian fundamentalists" who "promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad," and Howell Raines, for saying the Christian Right wants to enact "theologically based cultural norms."

Part 2 to follow....

[Beatnik]

Part 2......

This isn\'t bigotry. What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there\'s something dangerous in that. And they\'re right. It\'s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can\'t persuade other people, and they can\'t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can\'t be theological.

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.) But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals\' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination. It\'s no different than when some feminists say that, since the right to abortion is a critical part of their identity, opposing abortion disrespects them as women. When George Stephanopoulos asked Dobson to justify his charge that Senator Leahy is an anti-Christian bigot, he replied that the Vermont senator "has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe." In other words, disagree with me and you\'re a racist. Al Sharpton couldn\'t have said it better.

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren\'t merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.

[gkg]

you know - i should have seen the writing on the wall when Kerry and the others had to keep remarking on how religious they were.  i just kept thinking that this is the land that was created by people seeking religious freedom.

[Beatnik]

And the freedom NOT to believe....

Beatnik  

[gkg]

you\'re right - i see that as part of the term "religious freedom" the right to believe what you choose, including no religion at all.  some don\'t see it that way - thanks for pointing that out!

[gkg]

http://www.retrovsmetro.org/

VERY interesting website - check it out!

oh - also - read this article... they have proposed legislation in UK that could be a precursor to something on our side just as restrictive... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041206/en_nm/religion_britain_comedy_dc

[Beatnik]

I can see that happening here.

Here are a few for you:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_1n6nation.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3035461/


Beatnik  

[the_fawnky_fangerz]

 :-/I\'m still suffering from outrage fatigue.

[gkg]

every third person in this country thinks other peoples\' sex lives are their business.  well, it ain\'t so and i\'ve been making a stand on that for years.  i walked away from boarding school one autumn day of my senior year because my stepmother had decreed my father\'s money wasn\'t going to help put me through college.  at least, not so long as Max was in my life.  yep, you got it, the same Max i live with now, 3 decades later.  Max and i broke up over my walking away from a shot at college, but 5 years and two kids later, we were back together stronger than ever.

why did my stepmother give a shit?  because Max is a woman and so am i.  this from my hippy artist stepmom - blew me away.  she has since tried to deny it, but even my own mother remembers this very clearly, and they never talked much.  dad\'s gone of course.

you see, even in seemingly liberal households, these things can crop up when you get into personal territory.  sex is a very personal territory; in fact i don\'t think you can get more personal then whom you choose to make love with.  

because it causes a gut reaction in people, they go all crazy over trying to regulate who / how / when / age / type / race the whole thing.  it\'s a powder keg.

[Beatnik]

It is a highly charged topic.  I don\'t see what business it is what any consenting adults do behind closed. I saw a great bumper sticker yesterday:

[glb]Just say NO to sex with Right-to-lifers![/glb]

It drives me batty that "good christians" (oxymoron) concern themselves with what OTHER people do - especially when they lack the ability, imagination, drive or desire todo it themselves. It is either based in fear, ignorance, or jealousy.  

My  husband and I are very open minded. We have both had same sex encounters in our lives and we are both fine with that, as well as our subsequent choices. Experimentation is healthy. Its natural curiosity. Any one who denies at least having thought about it, probably denies mastubating, and we know what the truth is about that!  

The real solution is that these people need to get laid, and get off(if possible) more often!  

Beatnik  

[Maja]

Now I have been reading some of your comments regarding christianity and the christians and felt the urge to respond.
I think you don\'t do justice to some people.
  Who are t h e christians?
You seemingly enjoy lumping all christians together. But this "way of thinking" had always been and still is wrong and dangerous.
I just dislike it and think one must be a little more careful by using expressions like ...t h e christians or t h e muslims etc.  As if all muslims were potential terrorists or as if all christians are as fundamental as Bush and support him, just because he claims to be a reborn christian?   :-/

I hope you understand my point of view.
thanks for reading.

[Beatnik]

I do understand, and you do have a point. The people I am refering to do not just belong to the Lutherians, or Baptists, or Born Again, or Mormon philosophies. I do support the right to believe what ever their faith calls them to. However I take exception for being judged because I choose not to believe. This happens ALOT. I also take exception to those who would attempt to have their beliefs legislated into law, when I do not subscribe to the same point of view. For instance, what my husband and I do privately, is our businees and ours alone. It is not for the conservative interests within our government to decide what we can and can\'t do. We are consenting adults within a strong monogamous relationship. I will take my pleasure any way I like, laws be damned.

Beatnik  

[gkg]

ok - this runs long, but...

the original premise of our government was to protect the rights of all to worship as they chose, including not to worship at all.  the legislation has moved further and further into legislating selections from the old and new testaments into law.  they pick and choose as they see fit, and find a way to couch it in terms that are nearly invisible to those who don\'t understand how they are undermining our standards.  the phrases "family values" and "american values" have become a mantra for those wanting to legislate based on religion.  back when JFK ran for office he had to promise NOT to run the country based on his Catholic beliefs - Bush and Kerry both made a serious point of saying the WOULD run the country with their religious beliefs as their grounding.

in the long run, all christians ARE a part of the christian community, just as all americans are a part of the american community.  the only way to have people accept that you do not support the views of the group as a whole, is for you to confront the group and hold it accountable for its positions.

it is not enough in life to sit on the sidelines and say - "don\'t blame me, i\'m a different sort of person" but to stand up and say "i\'m a different sort of person and what these other people are doing/saying is wrong and i will not support it."  donate (time +/or money) very aciduously.  particpate judiciously.  make noise where it can be heard and acted upon.

as for who said what about whom... life is simple.  it is human nature to make generalizations, as wrong as that is.  we all do it in one way or another.  if you don\'t like what people say about your community, be they christians, muslims, gays, blacks, redheads or parrots, be a light for change within that community.  rather than being uncomfortable or unhappy with it - stand up for your views.  i don\'t just mean with the person who says something you take offense to, but stand up within your particular circle.  the only way to change perception of those outside your circle is to work to change the behaviour of that circle, and in turn for it to change the behaviour of its greater circle.  life is a ripple effect; but remember that there will always be some asshole who will say something negative, so pick your battles.

we are each in control of only so much - let\'s not hand that control over so easily.

[Maja]

Yes, you\'re right. It\'s time that more people (in this case, especially also the real christians) stand up for their views and hold demonstrations in the streets or where ever their voice be heard.
We have to show the world that we don\'t agree with Bush\'s irresponsible policies and his values (which are more -anti-christian- than  christian....)   :-/



thanks for your encouraging comment.  

[spencer]

I don\'t wanna take everyone off topic, but did anyone see that movie Shattered Glass? it\'s the true story of a New Republic writer who faked half of his articles, and got in big trouble for it.  

Cool movie.