Redstate

....Andrew Sullivan on the left?

Why yes.  I did.

the dailykos community is far from unanimous about Ratzinger... and you can read the first comment to the linked diary as an example... (if you can stand the posting standards...)

As for the cozying up to John Paul for political reasons... there is some truth to that... not for conservative catholics, but for many conservative evangelicals.

"Conservative evangelicals" realized, with us, that they had more in common with some old enemies than they had with the new ones, some thirty years ago. If it began politically, it would take a jaded fool to think that the primary axis of relationship between the parties is now political.

Put differently: Most conservative evangelicals found something to like in this last Pope for a host of reasons, "political" certainly not being foremost.

that's also true.

and I take that as a great thing, it heals some old bigotries against catholics, for one thing.

But the diary trevino links to shows a quote from Hannity, and O'Reilly had nicer things to say after John Paul died than he did when he was against the war.

This diary by one of the best dailykos diarists imaginable makes a good case that John Paul II was very liberal economically, and conservative really only in sex and gender issues.

here it is thoughts?

....on the great issues of the day (and my senior seminar many-odd years ago was on Catholic economic theory), the Pope and American conservatives generally agreed throughout most of his papacy.

All of which is not to cast the Pope as an American right-winger.  He wasn't, and it is justly noted that he was skeptical of unfettered capitalism for its own sake.  Still, let's not pretend that the Pope or the Catholic Church rank economic theory in their top tier of issues.  They don't; to assert this equitable left/right dichotomy (according to American political usage) in the late Pope is to ascribe to him and to the office functions and priorities that are inaccurate.

Finally, Hannity/O'Reilly<>conservatism.  What Moulitsas wrote was profoundly dumb, and for him, par for the course.

I'm tempted to be snarky, but frankly I'd rather not be.  Some thoughts on this essay.

First, I will point out that faith is not politically conservative, liberal, or anything in between.  Religious faith is faith in God, who is broader, deeper, and more profound in all respects than any human political ideology.  So much so that it is, really, almost foolish to talk about it in this way, but for purposes of this venue I'll let that be.

Similarly, faith is neither inherently hierarchical, or not.  Most traditions that I am familiar with both call for the surrender of the selfish will, and also insist on the absolute integrity of the individual conscience and spirit.  Perhaps your experience is different.

There is something to your reading of the literature of Christian movements that emphasize social justice as "com(ing) down decisively on the side of works", but I think you misread that emphasis in a way that is favorable to your argument.  I suspect you do so intentionally, but I can't read your mind, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding this

This is not to claim, as some do, that the left is inherently godless.  We can be charitable and note that despite the worldwide left's propensity in the past century to spawn atheist dictatorships of a particularly murderous stripe, there is such a thing as a "religious left" in the United States and various other nations.

My first inclination is to make a sarcastic reply.    Instead I will make a sincere one: this statement is condescending in the extreme.  You can, frankly, keep your charity for someone that needs it.  All you need do to note the existence of a religious left in the US and elsewhere is to recognize plain facts.  And, frankly, you need not bother to do that if you don't care to, that community will exist, prosper, and make its contribution with or without your recognition or approval.

I'm not sure what point you're heading towards with all of this, but if you wish to claim the imprimatur of the divine for your personal political convictions, I will simply point out that there is no human category that is remotely capable of containing God.

Good luck to you.

Cheers -

what I respect, as I tend to, is anyone with principle, or lacking principles, honesty about their doubts and inclinations... so I like that the Pope, and American Catholics in general, defy these political categories which I myself find philosophically ridiculous and carve their own set of positions by their own ideology.  And the diversity of opinion accepted by the Churck is respectibly tolerant.  I recall reading there were bishops

I get the feeling from time to time (ok, all the time) that you don't think highly of markos... now I myself don't always agree with markos but I think he has a strong instinct for good subject matter.  And for an instinct it's pretty sound.

This post has several things I can imagine you possibly referring to.

Think Progress said, "Conservatives are attaching themselves like barnacles to the legacy of Pope John Paul II".  It's clear "barnacles" is derogotory.  Also, it's a narrow context, it might be important what was said after that "yes" from Hannity.  

This is what markos wrote in total as you know.

Conservatives hated the Pope. Now they shower him with accolades in a cynical attempt to win the Catholic vote.

I won't even begin to defend the theory that the Conservatives hated the pope.  It's a sweeping generalization and sensational.  It's ludicrous if taken literally, but on the other hand, a pretty clearly just a characterization, that is, it's obvious the conservatives referred to ARE the Hannity set.  That's it's context.  We know who these conservatives are pretty clearly.  One might wonder if George will is in that set, but we've got Fox News in the representational set and go from there.  By all means do what you can to have a different kind of conservative representation in the mainstream press (volume matters).

I mean, -I- know there are other kinds of conservatives, but then, I only know that every person actually has a unique philosophy too.

It's always shorthand to use categories.

Now they shower him with accolades in a cynical attempt to win the Catholic vote.

This is where I see a decent point.  It's not my view, but it's not stupid either.  It's true, there are certain conservatives with this in mind.  This and nothing else.  

But on the part of the American evangelical conservatives, I think it's a more genuine clinging to the pope for hope.  They are not getting what they really want and popular culture is getting more and more outrageous all the time.

So now any symbol of religion is positive to them, in spite of a history of severe bigotry.  I'm not being sarcastic when I say that's very refreshing!  I see the silver lining in that.

There are all kinds of conservatives.  Some see religion as their demographic, even if they are devout.  They know the benefits of associating with the religious power of the pope.

I commented on this a couple of days ago.  

Of the 50,000 registered users at Daily Kos there is a significant minority that are anti-religion. They have been very loud, ignorant, boorish, and arrogant in the last few weeks.  I, and many others, have been arguing with this group about their disrespect for religious people in general and I find no matter what is said to them they feel they have no duty to show any respect to a person's religion.  I have commented over there that a Hindu or a Navajo would receive more respect than a Catholic at Daily Kos, and no one has convinced me that I am wrong about this.

I have never been as angry or emotional while participating in a blog as I have been during the last week while posting at Daily Kos.  The anti-religious crowd there are fundamentalists and they do not speak for the Democratic party or for Daily Kos.  Markos has not said too much about the Pope, and I think you are dismissing out of hand the point he was trying to make with the story you link to.  

I have always thought you have made thoughtful comments and that you don't post things just to make political hay from them.  If you are angry at the moron sect at Daily Kos for their hateful behavior over the last few weeks I can assure you that you have many on the other side of the political fence who feel the same way.  I would caution you not to paint with such a broad brush when you describe the left as anti-religious.  Those DKos diaries you link to include many comments from lefties expressing more outrage than you have at the callous comments of the anti-religion fundamentalists.  

I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to dedicate a new diary for this, so I hope trevino won't mind terribly if I steal his for a minute.

I wanted to send a thank you out to RedState.org. As a Democrat, this site has been instrumental in dispelling many of the negative stereotypes I held about Republicans.

Before I started reading RedState, my impression of the right was largely formed by Free Republic, Ann Coulter, Fox News, ect. So obviously I had a skewed and not-so-pretty idea of how Republicans acted and thought. I should have known better, but I didn't, so this site was vital in opening my mind. I was happy, not to mention relieved, to have many of my misconceptions shattered.

And while the Little Green Football's of the world still scare the hell out of me, they no longer serve as my template when I consider conservative ideology. So...thanks!

with the idea that conservatives view religion in more of a hierarchical and social way, while liberals may tend to view it as more individual and private and even relative. (although of course this is not true for everyone

My question is what does that mean?  Is one view preferable to another, and if so why?  

for taking the time to read use and be informed about political opinions different than your own.

against the heirarchies of his day.

trevino states:

"Faith is furthermore hierarchical:"  This conflates religion with conservatism.  Jesus saved his harshest criticism for religious leaders.

 Who are the modern-day Sadducees and Pharisees?  Who prays in public rather than in secret in thier own closet?  Who are the modern hypocrites?

The Sabbath was made for man....

You have to look far and wide to find much of anything "conservative" that Jesus said.  

First, for pigeonholing Christ in the terminology of present-day American politics.  Religion may lend itself to that -- Christ doesn't, really.

Second, for ineptly avoiding the elephant in the room: namely that, in general, those who are most assiduous about following Christian orthodoxy in the modern day tend to be conservatives of some stripe.

....hierarchies -- or religious leaders -- per se.  He even left a hierarchy and some religious leaders behind.  Funny, that.

In any case, to make things clear for the slower readers, an observation about the general nature of faith (not restricted to Christianity by any means) is not ipso facto an attempt to link faith to conservatism.  I'll be overt about things when that happens, no worries.

Who are the modern-day Sadducees and Pharisees?

Bone up on some history, kid.  No real parallels here.

Who prays in public rather than in secret in thier own closet?

No argument that there are plenty of people guilty of this, left and right.  So what?

Who are the modern hypocrites?

Probably the folks who claim religious belief, state that they're personally opposed to abortion (because, you know, it's murder by the lights of their faith), but then shrink from implementing or advocating any policy to address that wrong.  John Kerry.  Condoleeza Rice.  Et al.  Why?

piousness with conservative politics.

Your assertion that Republicans are more pious than Democrats smacks of a certain New Testament type.

Who makes a big deal about praying in public?  No doubt, the Conservatives make a bigger public fuss of their prayer and do quite well at patting themselves on the back for their own righteousness.

the dreaded leader of the filibuster strategy for the Democrats.  Do you really want to say he is not a man of faith?  

In any case, to make things clear for the slower readers, an observation about the general nature of faith (not restricted to Christianity by any means) is not ipso facto an attempt to link faith to conservatism.  I'll be overt about things when that happens, no worries.

So, what exactly is your point?  Or, do we wait until the next exciting chapter to find out?

Cheers -

It appears that a lot of your heartache would be alleviated if you had understood what you read.  Let me set this out for you in short words.  Piety is a thing that is in God's eyes -- I assume this much is true across faiths.  We therefore cannot equate it with a political party, as we have no means of ascertaining it and its worldly correlations beyond vague generalities.  There's a reason I focus upon religious orthodoxy, which is something rather different and more easily observed.  (If you don't know the difference -- and I have my doubts -- I urge you to hit the interweb for details.)

If the anti-religious nature of much of the left disturbs you -- and there are historical reasons for it that are even, in many cases, quite rational -- my suggestion is that yelping about the ostentatious religiosity of many social conservatives won't do much to help matters.  However right you may be on that one point, it does nothing to obscure the larger issue.

Someone learned non sequiturs in debate club!

was a group of lowly, somewhat dimwitted followers who were no match for Rome or the Sanhedrin. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Peter later of Rome.  Paul was itinerant.  

Yeah, that was some monolithic heirarchy, with Paul calling Peter a hypocrite over the issue of circumcision--with the accusation in the Bible itself.

You state:

"In any case, to make things clear for the slower readers, an observation about the general nature of faith (not restricted to Christianity by any means) is not ipso facto an attempt to link faith to conservatism."

  Uhh, sure you are, after following through the maze of words to the intended meaning.  That's the whole point--that religious folks are naturally conservative....

Bone up on some history, kid.  No real parallels here.  

Nice specificity.  Perhaps it is the hypocritical angle of those in power who profess certainty about knowing God's will for others.  Yeah, I guess there are no parallels.

No argument that there are plenty of people guilty of this, left and right.  So what?.

Actually, methinks it is the Conservatives who want to impeach judges for ruling that public prayer in schools is not a good idea.  

Probably the folks who claim religious belief, state that they're personally opposed to abortion (because, you know, it's murder by the lights of their faith), but then shrink from implementing or advocating any policy to address that wrong.  John Kerry.  Condoleeza Rice.  Et al.  Why?

Gee, not like you are afraid to judge, lest you be judged not.  Ah, that isn't how the scripture goes, is it?

Start by striking out every other word--you'll find it really helps.

The old windbag who went on and on....He was the one who ironically said "Brevity is the soul of wit."

I also like "Et tu, Bruti...."

Less is more.

of Jesus, or more devout whatever their religion?

Wanna stack your personal morality up against Harry's?  It is not a good or productive exercise, I agree--but you are the one making the comparison of relative piety between the parties...

So, let 'er rip.  Tell us how personally immoral Harry is.

I find to be honest; the Right covers-up with cute little sayings like "hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

No, the Left is not hostile to religion, just hypocrisy.

Professions of orthodoxy, which is typically defined as the prevailing norms of the Right, is better than piety....

Just give the conservatives their illusion....Keep all that troubling stuff to yourself and let us pray in public...

While I would ordinarily defer to your long experience in dimwitted followership, I rather doubt any serious historian -- to say nothing of theologians -- would ever describe Saul of Tarsus as such.  It's this sort of gross incomprehension that makes one wonder whether you should be taken seriously at all.

Besides every other thing you write, I mean.  "[M]onolithic heirarchy" (sic)?  Are you sure what you're arguing toward at this point?

Ah, that isn't how the scripture goes, is it?

Actually, if you read the verse immediately after the one you paraphrase, you'll see why I don't particularly mind pointing out failures of leadership on this issue.  Please, try to know what you're talking about: Christ enjoined us to eschew hypocrisy, not all moral faculties.

You really aren't the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

Here, let's declare that Harry Reid is a more moral person than I am.  He's pro-life, and it may well be quite true.  So done.

Now, what changes in my post?  Nothing?  Right.

You don't really know what constitutes religious orthodoxy, I take it.

But the original twelve didn't get much right, did they?  They ran when things looked really hopeless; the women stayed.

Tell me, though, who outranked whom between Peter and Paul.

I certainly do wish I had the same dumb, bovine faith in the virtue of my ideological fellow-travelers as you do yours.  It's a gift.

....you're groping your way toward something here.  Ordinarily I'd assume you were being socratic about it, but my guess is that the questioning is for your own heuristic purposes.

....you have taken the injunction toward spareness to encompass reason itself.

"orthodox."

Here it is:

"conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b : CONVENTIONAL"

So, "orthodox" means the established, or I would say, the approved belief or religious practice.  But, ah, the secondary defintion--"conventional"--sounds so much like "conservative."   We're back to this thing about heirarchies.  Sounds like authoritarian to me.  

And, responding to your original diary, yes, following one's conscience is the most appropraite thing to do, rather than following those men who say they are in charge.  Christians tend to believe that the Holy Spirit will guide each one appropriately ....Perhaps a Protestant view.

which is your point.....

Jesus was not all that hierarchical--he certainly did not like the earthly versions he encountered.

You Republicans are not God's party or the approved party of Jesus.  Is that clear enough?

you can say that I don't know what I am talking about or am wandering aimlessly....No need to use a fancy fifty-cent word....

But there was a point as described above...

Christians tend to believe that the Holy Spirit will guide each one appropriately ....Perhaps a Protestant view.

Oy.  They do?  That's a hope and a possibility, not something that will "tend to happen."  And lots of Protestants are even more pessimistic on the subject.

original post that the Left consists of those who are atheists or heretics.  See, you didn't need so many words to say that...

So, Harry Reid is either an atheist or heretic...(But I suppose you would say Harry may be orthoprax but is still unorthodox...)

And I use the word "heretic" where you suggest that the Religious Left is unorthodox.  But here is your assessment of the "orthodox," the conservatives:

"The former, notably, tend toward the creation, or at least the sustainment, of something approaching a cohesive civil society with morals, rules, and arbiters thereof: no small things in the dark corners of Africa."

The conservatives are the good guys...the ones on the side of Mother Theresa and civilization.  (And as you argued elswhere, the ones who oppose birth control.)

Rubbish!

....to let God make the pronouncement on that point, as opposed to some fellow online with a tenuous grasp of the subject matter.  Suffice it to say that Lincoln's pronouncement on the necessity of being on God's side versus God being on ours is a sound one.

While I appreciate your desire to conceive of Christ as a radical egalitarian (and in many ways, he was), the bottom line is still that it's ridiculous to portray him as against all hierarchy per se given his establishment of the early clerisy in the Apostles, and given, of course, that he extolled the virtues of obedience to God.

....the conservatives are largely the good guys.  There's little question in my mind on that count.  If this notion continues to offend, there is a website called the Daily Kos you might find delightful.

Now, if you really want to get into the ins and outs of Africa in particular, we can do that.  Be warned, I enjoy the subject and have been there, oh, once, twice, or three times to my recollection.  I've seen who does what, and why, and how.  You?  No?

As for Harry Reid, I appreciate that you may need a concrete example to wrap your head around, but I assure you, he is indeed a far more virtuous and noble man than I.  Indeed, yes.

The GOP is the party of the former slave states. :)  Sorry, but can't ride on Abe's coattails forever...

Lincoln's pronouncement on the necessity of being on God's side versus God being on ours is a sound one

Uh-huh...Yeah, that is certainly honored in the breach by you Republicans.

obedience to God.  As defined by whom?  Oh, silly me.  As defined by Dobson, DeLay and Frist.  

but I have lived in the third world--why do you think I am a Liberal?

And you can think of yourselves as the good guys--that is not offesive, although I disagree.  What is offensive is saying that we liberals are the bad guys, the godless opponents of Christ, heretics, unorthodox or whatever....But you knew that.

If you really want to jettison me to dKos, you certainly can do that at anytime....But then who would challenge you?    

You're getting better...

the believers that man is inherently sinful--the doctrine of original sin taken to an extreme degree.  

Of course, one may always refuse to follow one's own conscience....

As you know we Liberals love Rousseau....people can be brought around--even you.  :)

but I prefer the Borders in Union Square.  City Lights is a little cramped with those narrow stairways and Borders has almost everything anyway.

Your account of the celebrity sounds interesting...Perhaps condemning prostitution might help--but really, they do call it the world's oldest profession for a reason.  

many of the so-called "conservative" Protestant churches are anything but conservative theologically. Their beliefs and practices represent quite a radical departure from the ancient tradition (now expressed in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy)  and even from the Reformation-era Protestant churches (Epsicopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.)

I am not trying to bash people's beliefs or start sectarian bickering here, but I think you have to admit that there's a vast theological gulf between Rome and, say, a Pentacostal assembly.

We have a wealth of intelligent opponents around here, gifted with reading comprehension skills even greater than that of seventh graders. I know, I know, you have a hard time fathoming this. I'm sorry. It's true, though.

Not all liberals are godless enemies of Christ. Just at least a plurality.

I, personally, think you're a liberal because you never made it past the seventh grade. A lot of that stuff seems real clever in junior high. Given that the most conservative Christians the world over spring from the Third World, I rather suspect your liberalism has nothing to do with that.

trevino -

Once again without snarking:

In any case, to make things clear for the slower readers, an observation about the general nature of faith (not restricted to Christianity by any means) is not ipso facto an attempt to link faith to conservatism.

Perhaps not ipso facto, but it would be far less than difficult to argue from your words here that in fact you are making precisely that attempt.

In reading this, I kept finding myself waiting for the point to arrive.  Are you just making observations?  Are you setting up the argument for the point which will arrive in part II?

Your central observation appears to be that faith leads natural to a socially and, perhaps, politically conservative stance.  Don't know if I agree in so many words, but that's probably no suprise.  Is there more?  Did I miss your point?  If so, please advise.

If you're driving to something in Part II, I'm happy to wait until it arrives.

Cheers -

Second, for ineptly avoiding the elephant in the room: namely that, in general, those who are most assiduous about following Christian orthodoxy in the modern day tend to be conservatives of some stripe.

Baptists are about as far from traditional Christian "orthodoxy" as one can get, and they tend to be perceived as on the "conservative" side of today's debates.  

Given the kind of person Rousseau was, I find this fits rather well.

Gets to control the debate.

when you lamented the Enlightenment and wanted to go back to the Middle Ages.  

I don't discount Rousseau's ideas merely because he was a loathesome scoundrel in his personal affairs.  That would be akin to Donatism.  I just find your affinity for him nicely apropos.

I get to issue you your one posting rules warning.  Watch it.  And no, this isn't a two-way street.

....when you started arguing points that the kids don't understand!

conservative.  Sure there are theological differences and ertswhile hostility between the various denominations.  But here in the U.S. the social conservatives of various denominations are pusing a similiar political agenda.  

I do agree that that agenda is not a very good rendition of Christianity but they think they are the modern-day crusaders.

Rarely have I been so insulted by someone with so little comprehension of my words. I have just earned great credibility among those who use both their mouth and nose to breathe.

Where you're considered only a tad slow.

That you don't bother to learn anything about the denominations at which you, if we may be generous, take aim.

 A little "two-way street" decorum would not be a bad thing.

"I rather doubt any serious historian -- to say nothing of theologians -- would ever describe Saul of Tarsus as such"

I.e., itinerant.

Saul of Tarsus, no.  Paul, yes, voluntarily so, after an initial period of study, and after presenting himself to Peter and the others for their blessing.  And, with joy at the privilege.  Please see the Acts of the Apostles.

Cheers -

"the elephant in the room: namely that, in general, those who are most assiduous about following Christian orthodoxy in the modern day tend to be conservatives of some stripe"

Two comments:

1.  In general in this thread you conflate faith with orthodoxy.  These are not the same thing, and I think you'll find it useful and accurate to distinguish between them.
   
2.  As I understand it, the purpose and proper role of the church in its relation to society and political institutions -- i.e., the world -- is to bear witness to the word of God and the person of Christ.  Depending on the social and political context, this may lead people of faith to take any of a variety of stances WRT the social "conservatism" and/or the religious orthodoxy and/or hierarchy du jour.

For example: during the advent of Hitler and Nazism, the "official" church in Germany was arguably an enabling institution for institutionalized, politically sanctioned evil.  In contrast, members of the Confessing Church placed themselves in opposition to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the place and time, and embraced a reading of Scripture that was arguably somewhat radical, but which was informed by IMO a truer, more faithful response to the imperatives of their faith.

My point here is that, if you want to claim that religious faith leads naturally to a position that is socially conservative, theologically orthodox, and respectful of ecclesiastical hierarchy, IMO at a minimum you should qualify that to particular social and political context.

A preemptive note: I am not equating anybody with Nazis.  I am offering the experice of the confessing church during the Nazi period as an example of a case where faith, properly and thankfully, led people to a position that was neither socially conservative, theologically orthodox, or respectful of ecclesiastical hierarchy.  That's all.

God, and faith, are larger and more dynamic than any human category, and will not be contained by any accident of history.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers -

Re: In general in this thread you conflate faith with orthodoxy

There is a very deep confusion about orthodoxy itsewlf. In historical terms it would mean fidelity to a set of theological propositions (which may vary somewhat depending on the Christian church whsoe orthodoxy we are talking about.) The Niecene Creed is an excellent exampelk of this. Yet the modern-day "conservative" churches are uninterested in these matters, else there would be some sort of serious and public debate between, say, Baptists and Catholics concerning their very different beliefs. Instead "orthodoxy" has been hijacked and applied to a set of merely political propositions most of them having to do with sex in some way or another.