Redstate

aspect of the religious right, they have a problem with the obvious desire of that group to push that religion on the entire nation.

I believe that the Federal Marriage Amendment would infringe on the rights of Gays and a theoretical Human Life Amendment would seriously infringe the rights of women.  I refuse to accept that my religion or faith is less valid or worse than yours.  The success of our democracy is that our laws accomodate different faiths or lack of faith.  If I feel that, as a liberal Presbyterian, the government is assaulting my faith by passing laws or constitutional amendments that are in line with a conservative evagenlical protestant or Roman Catholic theology I will vote for people who will maintain the status quo, which after all does not infringe on your right to worship as you see fit, marry who you choose, and not have an abortion.

See his column in the Washington Post: when columnists cry "jihad."

If I feel that, as a liberal Presbyterian, the government is assaulting my faith by passing laws or constitutional amendments that are in line with a conservative evagenlical protestant or Roman Catholic theology...

If you accept all faiths as equally valid, how can government pass laws that are an "assault" on your faith when those laws do not negatively impact your church or force you to change your personal belief, but rather determine the public policy of our nation towards abortion and marriage?  

And what of those whose support for such policies are not motivated by faith, but by secular morality (as is my case on the abortion issue)?  

Are all policies that are supported by people of faith who worship and believe differently than you an "assault" on your beliefs?

Your belief appears to be that all faiths are equal, but some are more equal than others.

. . . comments like that are just a cheap shot.

Take marriage, for example. Either marriage will consist of one man, one woman, or it will be opened to include other sexual arrangements. Are Christians "pushing their religion" on the rest of the nation just because they resist that change?

I would say my beef is with social conservatism in general.  It so happens that the "religious right" provides ground troops for social conservatism, so I must oppose them vociferously.  Here's the catch - I could fight the tax-cut and spend mentality and that's fair game.  I oppose the religious right and I'm intolerant of religion.  The weapons the religious right uses, of faith and salvation and damnation, provides little means for compromise, which is the heart of government.  How can the religious right seek compromise if their vision of the American polity is written in scripture, sanctified by a higher power, and more or less the absolute truth in their eyes?  How can I negotiate with them if my principles are based on what they see as nefarious secular humanism, relativism, liberalism, pick-your-ism?

Religion is being tarnished by politics.  The entry into political activity will be fought with political weapons.  If I'm a traitor and a secularist evolutionist, than I see no reason to withhold caustic fire against the accusers.  You cannot advance a religous agenda and expect people to just lay down because you say it's in the bible.  You cannot protect your views by hiding under a priestly robe from honest disagreement.  Particularly when the religious right disrespects other faiths, calls people unchristian or "against people of faith" and generally makes itself out to be the arbiter of God's will.

references 'religion' not God.

The Founders were wise enough to suspect the motives and actions of organised religions not God, but those who would agitate by invoking the name of God.

A very wise bunch indeed, to have accurately predicted the rise of the religious right or the religious left or the religious center and to have come up with a way to keep the government secular whilst recognizing God.

I refuse to accept that my religion or faith is less valid or worse than yours.

So are all religious doctrines equivalent? It seems that you think so here, but when you talk about the assault on your faith by laws which (allegedly) embody other religious doctrines, the implication is that it's your faith is the more valid one.

The bigger question is this: why should your religious views on abortion & gay marriage be enshrined in law as opposed to the religious views of others? (Ignoring for the sake of argument the secular arguments against abortion and gay marriage.)

On abortion, many people dislike abortion-on-demand.  Furthermore, many legal scholars (and laymen) find Roe to be a bad legal decision even divorced from a moral standpoint.

On marriage, a vast majority agree with the traditional definition of marriage.  Although I disagree with that majority, who is trying to "force their view" on the entire nation there.

The underlying point is that when someone pursues a policy and they are religious, many liberals won't even listen to the argument.  It's considered unreasonable and wrong prime facie.  However, when a liberal policy is pursued (even when it forces something on the whole nation such as banning prayer in school, changing the definition of marriage, allowing the unborn to be killed, requiring higher gas mileage, raising taxes, etc), it is given a respectful hearing.  Maybe it is accepted; maybe it is rejected.

Where is your example of the religious right pushing their religion on the whole nation.  I really hope you take the time to read the whole Taranto piece.  The last two paragraphs directly address the hyperbolic claim that the religious right wants or could establish a "theocracy" in America.

Yeah, don't you hate it when the religious left defends civil rights and the religious right defends the right to life or when the religious radicals (who were Republicans then) defended emancipation.  Those religious views really have a way of screwing up our politics.

Religion is being tarnished by politics.  The entry into political activity will be fought with political weapons.  If I'm a traitor and a secularist evolutionist, than I see no reason to withhold caustic fire against the accusers.

You seem to think that religion affecting politics is a new development. You are aware, aren't you, that religion has always been important to political thought and action?

Religion has been used for political purposes, and there have been times of similar heightened religious politics, but it seems like religion IS politics for this particular movement.  Different, in my mind, from previous movements.

of Howard Dean, in no particular order:

1. Halliburton!
   
   
2. Religious Right!

MachoNachos

Where in my writing or in Taranto's do you see this:

If I'm a traitor and a secularist evolutionist, than I see no reason to withhold caustic fire against the accusers.  You cannot advance a religous agenda and expect people to just lay down because you say it's in the bible.

Our argument is that the religious right should be involved in debates on gay marriage, abortion and other issues.  That the democratic process allows you to voice your opinion, run your candidates, and propose your legislation.  However, the judiciary has taken away the legislature's rights to negotiate on many of these issues.  Couple that with the new filibustering of judicial nominees and one can see why religious activists who have played by the rules are so frustrated.  Run against their policies in 2006 just as you did in 2004.  I even agree with y'all on some of those policies.  But the "theocrats" argument and the looking-down-the-nose "What's the Matter with Kansas" mentality is one to be wary of.  It may not be un-Christian but it borders on intolerant and elitist.  Note that my emphasis in the final paragraph was on respect, not agreement.  It seems that the left is becoming more intolerant and contemptuous of many people of faith.  I don't like the intolerant wing of the Republican party and most particularly the continuing homophobic aspects, but the intolerant wing of the Democratic party is just as noxious in my mind.

both relied on religious reasoning more than the current President or many of his followers.

your point from Doverspa's in comment #9 (in this thread).

You seem to expect religious people to not be motivated by their religion. I don't think that's fair or realistic.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal-moderate, but this is exactly what turns me off from the Democrat party.  The fact that someone's views re: abortion and marriage can be derived from their faith doesn't bother me...even if it is their only argument!

Plus, I honestly don't see how the agenda of the "radical right" will affect me at all.

I haven't done much soul-searching on the two topics, simply because I don't see myself in either an abortion or gay marriage situation.  Slightly off-topic--I think I'm pro-choice and pro-civil union, but living in MA, I'm completely putoff by the SSC's decision re: gay marriage.  Probably set back the gay agenda more than helped it...

That religious groups are motivated to fight for causes is just fine, attempting to de-secularize the government is not!

We still eagerly await your first substantive point.

I don't recall Lincoln or MLK dividing the world into believers who subscribed to their policies and infidels who did not.  Because I am a liberal, I am practically excommunicate from the modern religious right.  I am literally going to hell.  I don't recall MLK using rhetoric that way.

Yours.

And you know it.

I know the relatively low value of everything I say. I suspect you're not there yet.

I just don't care either.

for pointing out the obvious to those otherwise unlikely to grasp it, but we of the social right have no problems with the secular aspect of the modern left and its philosophies; we have problems with the manifest desire of members of that group to impose it upon us, even to the point of altering the meanings of social institutions important to us, and, if certain philosophers favoured on the left are to be taken more seriously than their work warrants (eg., Rawls) compelling changes in our own doctrines.  

Try to come up with an argument, as opposed to the tired "dread theocratic menace to the sweet mystery of life" meme.

Is equally venemous on both sides, and I don't think it matters who fired the first shot.  The religious right has every right to be involved in the political process.  I have every right to question their motivation, their rationale, their commitment, their bias.  That doesn't mean I disrespect their religion, but it does mean I don't accept their religion, which can be taken as a sign of disrespect.

What I see in the Taranto piece is whining about religion being attacked.  My point is that when you engage in cultural body blows you can't expect the other side to play nice with your faith.  You are castigating them, expect the return.

I think "What's the Matter with Kansas" is spot on for this specific reason: the religious right has been up and running for years, for what?  Peanuts, that's what.  Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade, the presidency for 5 years, and nothing has happened.  The religious right is getting played, big time.  I do not mean to be offensive, although I am sure I am, but it seems the ground troops get used to advance agendas they may only tangetially agree with, if at all, and get little in return.  If this is offensive, it is no more so than Republican accusations of a plantation mentality toward African-Americans.

Doverspa, I think we agree about obnoxiousness on so many levels.  Unfortunately, we're trapped in the system that forces us to support our loons in the hopes we get what we want from the process.

Is it really?  I look at the rhetoric and what the self-described "people of faith" think about my views, my positions, my politicians, and somehow I don't think so.  Thomas, according to your own rhetoric at one point (and yes, I know I've made too much of this) my current position on abortion aids and abets a holocaust.  Call me crazy, but if you're right, I'm toast.

And neither does my Church. Nor, indeed, do most Christian denominations.

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure I'm Hellbound.

I think you are somewhat right that we're in a system that forces us to ally with some whom we disagree with.

I wish to respond to one point in your comment.  "Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade, the presidency for 5 years, and nothing has happened."  This is why the judicial nominee showdown is key.  The majority has been hobbled by accusations that their actions were a proxy for the nefarious "religious right."  I'm trying to point out that many moderates agree with the "religious right" on some issues (although rarely on all).  Judicial nominations matter to the "religious right," but they also are a matter of fairness to many moderates.  Religious advocates have been patient in their battle and have won many elections on their issues.  They deserve to be able to pursue their goals through democratic means.  I may oppose them in some of the those efforts, but I'll do it with a respect for their decision-making process and their faith.  If Democratic leaders took that path, I truly believe they would split the Republicans party.  As with many things recently, we're just fortunate that Democrats prefer the Party of No strategy instead.

If a handful of judges provides the 30 pieces of silver here, the religious right isn't worth the cloth on their clerical collars or the paper in their bible.  If, as you say, moderates also agree on judicial nominations, then it probably isn't an attack on people of faith, but merely an exercise in political oneupsmanship.  That's where the religious right goes wrong, e.g. disagreeing with MLK wasn't an attack on people of faith.

Being subject to harsh criticism for what you believe in is a part of pursuing your goals through democratic means.  See -ism, liberal.

And I think you will see Democrats moving right on cultural issues.  I think you see it now.  Look at Casey in PA.  Look at Harry Reid.  Inch right, bash the hard right, split the seam.  That's just politics.  But when doing that becomes unchristian, it changes the dynamics of the contest into something verging on critical mass.

Look, if Bush feels free to "not negotiate with himself" regarding proposals by the ruling administration and majority Congressional delegation, I see no reason why the outgunned and vulnerable opposition has any obligation to pony up ideas to either be co-opted or clobbered.  Keep the powder dry, wait for the whites of their eyes.

Democrats prefer the strategery of allowing Republicans to split the Republican party, seems to be working just fine!

isn't the issue, they are welcome to do so as long as the reasoning behind the governmental changes or action is not religious.  

Polipundit has a GREAT post today, how all those who say Christians are trying to "impose their beliefs" are actually imposing their beliefs, and that saying that actually means that some should be allowed to impose their beliefs, and some (basically Christians, who I guess many non-Christians by this logic, and it is logical, deem inferior).

Nothing more needs to be added.

Yes, one can't help but admire the recent impressive string of Democrat wins at the polls.

MachoNachos

MLK Jr's main argument was that all men are created equal which derived from his faith as it did the Founder's faith.  He believed that we were equal before God and should be equal before the law.  Trying to divorce the religious reasoning from the secular is futile.

Applying this to an issue of the day: abortion.  One can argue that we are unsure when life begins.  It can be argued secularly that we should err on the side of protecting life when it conflicts with liberty (as we do in the case of murder).  That others argue this same thing and are religiously active does not mean the issue should be shelved under the "religious right" label and dismissed without consideration.

Why are liberals so worried about letting elected officials represent the voters?  Why do they rely so heavily on the unelected judiciary to overrule the people?

he never mentions an instance of anyone saying that the "religious right" is not free to hold their religious ideas, just attacks on the efforts of members of that group to push it onto those who don't want it.

Expressing religion is fine in public and private, but creating policies that press religion onto those who want to avoid it is not

I hope that is the Dem strategy becuase it will also create a semi-permanent minority.

We all know the judicial battle is a preface to a Supreme Court nominee.  And since these decisions have been taken away from the voters, we both know that new Justices are the only way to return the issues to the voters.  The religious right isn't backwards and stupid (not withstanding the left's criticisms).  They know that the courts must be changed to allow democracy to have a say.  This is no little bone.  And liberals know it too.  Let's not play dumb.

doesn't just stop there, nor is it limited exclusively to abortion.  The rhetoric you pick on is in large part counterbattery to claims of a heathen, unchristian left.  Although I have never once laid claim to secular humanism, I am one in the eyes of many posters here on RedState.  It's much like the evolution debate - once you start wrestling with religion in the public sphere, you by default almost become one, or at least become an opposition set of principles.  Religion paints the opposition as an opposition faith.

The judiciary protects the minority, and it enforces the rules about not allowing church to become state, or state church.  Elected officials primarily represent the people who vote for them, otherwise they find themselves unelected.  This is fine, it is the system, but judges are the unelected check to the pressures of majoritarianism.

Is the next one.

Constitutional amendment would do it too - and more cleanly, I might add.  But that's too high a hurdle.

If this is the opening salvo I hate to see what round two brings.

of a constitutional rights way than a religious way, at least by those who can influence policy.  And all the aspects of it you mentioned above are what most people debate about I think.  And the reason liberals are "afraid to let officials represent voters" is that those in power now seek to make changes that would directly and unconditionally affect 100% of the population, even though 49% might disagree with the policies

was laboring under the misconception that the judiciary was there to enforce the law without fear or favor. You know there is always the outside chance that a law abiding majority might need protection from a minority of extremists, like Michael Needow and the ACLU.

That is the role of the judiciary.  Which means popularity or lack thereof is not a component.  Judges do not need to seek the favor of anyone.  Congressmen and Presidents do.  And the judges do protect the majority from the minority as well - just nobody gets quite as hot about it.

to have 100% of the population affected though 51% disagree?

Aren't you living in the wrong country or something?

Isn't the position of the anit-judicial filibuster crowd, 'every nominee deserves and up or down vote if they have majority support'?

I am being faceitious here, because I never thought that was their position, even though they claim it is.

I always knew that the issue was really about religious conservatives wanting to nominate Judges, specifically Supreme Court Justices, who will make rulings that they agree with. The Dem's practice of filibustering judicial nominees is getting in the way of that and now they want to take that ability away from the Dems.

Religious conservatives aren't stupid and neither is the rest of the American public.  It isn't hard to see through the 'everyone deserves an up or down vote' veil. People will realize what the underlying agenda is and IMO they won't like that the Repubs are pushing that agenda.

again compels me to believe that if something "seems to be working", that would indicate that it one should be able to point to current success at some/any level - rather than a hopeful wish that might better be expressed as "we sure hope it will work in the future."

MachoNachos

Cause and effect.

That you fail to understand the basic difference between the present and future tenses. Or perhaps, more accurately, you are deluded into believing that your fondest wishes for the future have already come true.

MachoNachos

The President has the right to nominate judges and receive an up-or-down vote on them.  This President was elected with full knowledge that he is pro-life and with full scare tactics from liberal groups that argued his re-election could overturn Roe.  He still has the right to nominate his judges and have an up-or-down vote.

If the nominees are "out of the mainstream" then convince 6 Republicans to vote against them.  If you can't do that, then maybe it is the Dems who are "out of the mainstream" and not the nominees.

"So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right."

George Grant, Coral Ridge Ministries:

"Christians have ... a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ--to have dominion in civil structures. ... Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. ... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land--of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

National Reform Association, mission statement:

"Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government.  Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents. The civil ruler is to be a servant of God, he derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.  The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments."

Jerry Falwell, knucklehead:

"[T]hese perverted homosexuals.absolutely hate everything that you and I and most decent, God-fearing citizens stand for.Make no mistake. These deviants seek no less than total control and influence in society, politics, our schools and in our exercise of free speech and religious freedom..If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America!"

Does it seem odd that someone who is put off by "self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism" would seek shelter in the arms of people like this?

Is not good enough either way, for lifetime appointments.

That seems silly. It's no less silly for approving.

Abide by the rules of the Senate or nuke em!

I'm waiting.

Both positions are not mutually exclusive.  

I just don't believe the Republicans hold both positions.  As you have pointed out elsewhere on Redstate a large majority of Americans believe that each nominee deserves an up or down vote. I believe that as well.  If I thought for a second that this was really about up or down votes I would be on the side of the Repubs on this issue.

No one has yet to reconcile for me the supposed 'up or down' vote position of the Republicans with the fact that sixty of Clinton's nominees did not receive an up or down vote.

That is why I think the American public won't believe the Republicans want to kill the judicial filibuster out of fairness.  I don't think they will buy into the majority support corollary to the Republican 'up or down vote' position either.

This is really just a game of Chicken between the Republicans and the Democrats.  At this point I don't see how Frist can swerve first without getting the Religious right up in arms.  I think Gengisdon earlier point is spot on. If the Republicans don't come through on judicial filibusters for the Religious Conservative branch of their party that branch is going to ask why it has done so much work to help put Republicans in office.  

Barring another terrorist attack, I think what happens with the judicial filibuster is going to be the tipping point for the next election.  Frist better handle this right or he is going to be put into the position of defending the agenda of Religious Conservatives for the next year and a half.

actually act to overturn a Senate rule which contravenes 200+ years of precedent and the logic of the separation of powers.

and has served them well in the past but is considered superfluous in the exigencies of the moment.

you are forgetting the fact that it has never been used in this fashion.  Hence it never served them at all.  In fact, they rejected the option of using the filibuster for Clinton's appointments and confirmed such poor choices as Ruth Bader Ginsberg despite disagreeing with their viewpoints.

that all faiths are equally valid or true.  What I am complaining about is the implication that because I hold liberal views on abortion and Gay marriage (and that I am generally politically liberal) that I am less "christian" or "unchristian".  I believe my views are wholly consistent with Christianity and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or abortion under any circumstances would be an assault on those beliefs because it would deny existing or potential rights.  On the other hand the lack of such  amendments does not deny rights to the religious right.  You have the right to believe what ever you want and to convince me of the rightness of your views.  What you don't have is the right is to codify a religious dogma as the law of the land.

They're not making me say the Pledge!  Secret Service!  Someone!  Protect me!  Please please please I don't want to die!  I'm too young to die!

What you don't have is the right is to codify a religious dogma as the law of the land.

So why do you have the right to have your religious dogma (e.g. that the fetus is not a human being) codified as the law of the land?

imposing policies.  Name one issue that the 49% are proponents of that both personally affect individuals who oppose it and eliminate all options for those individuals.

I am every bit as disgusted by the intolerance and anti-Christian bigotry of the Left as anyone else here. But that does mean I am going join in celebrating the same phenomenon on the other side of the aisle. I remain convinced that the best policy is for religion and politics to keep each other at arms length and not interfere with one another. Religion and politics are about very different things and history shows that nations which allow them to become intertwined suffer for it. At a minimum, in the corruption of the institutions of religion by worldy concerns, and at the worst, in society-shattering struggles between opposing creeds. By all means religious people will vote their consciences, as they should. But can they not do so as individuial citizens rather than as members of a special interest group and without screaming about it?

I believe my views are wholly consistent with Christianity and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or abortion under any circumstances would be an assault on those beliefs because it would deny existing or potential rights...

What you don't have is the right is to codify a religious dogma as the law of the land.

I can't believe you actually wrote this repetitive comment without realizing how your statements continue to conflict. You're clearly one of those people who's very tolerant...except when it comes to all those things of which you are intolerant.

Using the shell of "created rights" doesn't stand up on any close inspection (as MLK Jr. pointed out repeatedly, a law is just or unjust). What you're really saying is: any law based on religious beliefs inconsistent with yours is an "assault" on your faith that "codif[ies] religious dogma as the law of the land."

Assuming that you actually mean what you say, your position is idiocy at best and bigotry at worst, driving anyone who takes their faith seriously in informing their worldview out of politics entirely. Your argument is also an insult to anyone who believes that a law you disagree with (in this case, laws against the right to a dead baby) is a just law for reasons other than faith, a position you don't respond to at all because it's inconvenient for your skewed view of the world.

your church and tell them to start marrying homosexuals or else.  They just want to give equal rights to citizens in the eyes of the government.  

Likewise most people don't want to push religion out of school, they just don't want an overt presence that can't be avoided by those who wish to.  Who's imposing on whom in these situations?

you are perfectly happy with having a minority impose policies so long as you agree with the policies. And you are unhappy with an elected majority imposing policies you don't like. All of which makes you the winner of a Sore-Loserman t-shirt but it imparts neither nobility nor superior morality.

Imposes upon everyone. If I had my 'druthers, I'd sooner take 15% of my income and put it a nice, solid IRA. However, because of a policy dispute settled before my parents were even born, you could accurately say that I have no choice whatsoever in the matter.

That's just the nature of policy. Whenever any issue is decided upon by the government, some people are going to have their choices to do things they would like to do removed (such as my choice to drive over 70mph has been removed in Arkansas and Tennessee).

In the discussion over abortion, the exact same principle must apply. The decision must be made between the government's interest in protecting the unborn versus the individual's interest in terminating the unborn. If the public policy choice is made in either direction, (even the pro-choice direction), a significant subset of the population's choice is legally removed in the matter. You could ask about 40 million people whether anyone is affected by a nationwide pro-choice policy today, had they escaped the womb to tell the story.

MachoNachos

That the other side is screaming a lot louder about religion in politics than the churchgoing middle class.

The voters get to decide whose philosophy is more valid, regardless of whether it's informed by faith or not. The statements of several commenters on this thread clearly show that they're only uncomfortable with that variety of faith that does not lead to the same conclusions they hold dear.

As for your statement that "history shows that nations which allow [religion and politics] to become intertwined suffer for it."

That's a completely false reading of human history and Western Civilization. You really have to cherrypick examples if you want to back that one up.

to votes alone.  It never has.  Having a majority, particularly a slim and hard-fought one, does not mean you can do anything you want with government.  It didn't mean that when Democrats had the whip, it doesn't mean it for you now.  Surely you agree that there is some degree of protection for minority interests beyond that which a slim majority decides to grant?  Who provides that protection?

Or you wouldn't make a comment like this. He's got a lot more in common with John McCain than he does with Jerry Falwell.

MachoNachos

In Lincoln's case, his "religious" reasoning led him to abolish a practice that is explicitly endorsed by the Bible.  It's a good thing for every black American today that Lincoln did not practice the kind of strict literalism seen in modern conservative evangelicals.

The rights of the losers in elections are protected by the law. Their interests are up for grabs.

You can only deny my claim that mixing religion and politics is bad if you are not using the history of Christendom (or Islam, or China or India, or Japan...) The record of ecclesial corruption, of worldy scoundrels hiding under clerical robes, of jihads, inquisitions, progroms, religious wars, etc. etc. is so profound throughout history you will not need to "cherry-pick" at all. The cherries lies strewn all about your feet, at least a foot deep, and they are foul and rotten fruit indeed.

Name any century in European history AD alone and I can come up with examples of the above.

Some definition of marriage will eventually prevail in this country. Right now a definition prevails (in most places) that is perfectly satisfactory to about 75% of the population. A narrow faction opposes this definition, and is prepared to impose their definiton on everyone else.

As it happens, there is a legitimate way to effect such an imposition: legislation, either in the state assemblies or in Congress. But since such legislation is in most places quite out of the question, the faction opts for usurpation through the courts, which have no legitimate power of legislation.

The proper definition for this is tyranny.

Is not about political positions being informed by faith.  It's about advancing political positions behind the shield of the church and enjoying the luxury of casting those who disagree as unbelievers.  I'm totally comfortable with differing beliefs - I wouldn't have stuck around here this long if I wasn't - but that doesn't mean I can't fight them.  I'm not against "people of faith."  I don't think the left as a whole really is.

Another problem is the whole neutrality/secularism debate.  Probably for another thread, but conservative Christianity seems to define neutrality as openly hostile to their belief, and I don't quite know how to appropriately respond.  To me, the concept that neutrality is not neutral, and must be overthrown in favor of something else, is why I start worrying about minority positions.  Neutrality would seem to protect everyone, but you guys honestly don't think so.

that having religion is politics is not having religion in politics: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim the Greater, Kim the Lesser, Murat/Robespierre, etc.

Technically he's not one of them.  He's just rooting for them.

He's not the pot calling the kettle black, he's just rooting for the pot because the kettle's black.  Makes much more sense now.

to your issue:

Probably for another thread, but conservative Christianity seems to define neutrality as openly hostile to their belief, and I don't quite know how to appropriately respond.  To me, the concept that neutrality is not neutral, and must be overthrown in favor of something else, is why I start worrying about minority positions.

for instance, Matthew 12:30, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters," doesn't, at first blush, seem to place a high premium on neutrality.

That's right: aggressively secular nations have fared so well. Jacobin France: model of sane goverance. Leninist Russia: perfect paradise. And so on.

You mistake human corruption for some uniquely wicked religious corruption.

I am basically a libertarian who has typically leaned Republican in the past (I also call myself a "fiscal conservative"). Something I've noticed a lot of in the recent 4 years is many Republicans blaming a lot of society's ills on the judicial branch, claiming judges are "activist" for things like Roe vs. Wade, limiting the use of religious phrases in government institutions, and allowing gay marriage.

I find this to be quite scary. As someone who has held these Republican-leaning ideals for almost 8 years now, I have never felt the judicial branch is overstepping it's bounds. In fact, on the most recent public outcry of "activist judges", gay marriage, all I've seen is the judges strictly interpreting the constitutions of various states when the legislatures fail to act in a timely manner. It began in Massachusetts, where the state's constitution did not define marriage as between only one man and one woman, but simply said "two people" or somesuch. It seemed to me that those state judges were not activist, but simply doing their job and strictly interpreting the letter of the law, the same thing many Republicans are crying that they are not doing.

I am not trying to start a flame war here. This is a serious inquiry as to why the "religious right" feels that the judicial branch has failed to support the rule of law.

Is it because they feel judges must also take into account tradition in addition to the letter of the law when deciding cases?

Or because judges must also take into account the Christian faith of the founding fathers and most of the population during the time this country was born?

Thank you for any insight, since this issue really confuses me.

Is the key word there.  Very different from neutral, or passive.

Check out my argument here, if you are really interested in this question. You'll note that it relies not one whit on theology.

I'm just wondering if he happens to see all those things he claims to despise in the very movement for which he's "rooting".  

I shouldn't have implied he was a radical.  I don't consider myself radical-- but I'm sure if I stuck up for Wade Churchill, on the basis that some of his critics were raving lunatics, you all would surely point out the inconsistency there. :)

between being "aggresively secular" (which in the examples you described actually meant aggressively anti-religious) and being a de facto (or de jure) confessional state wherein the interests and ukases of one favored religion take precedence. Apart from a very few egregious failures , our own nation managed for a very long time to maintain that happy balance. Over the last generation a band of (I know no other word) fanatics has ruined that balance.

This thread might not be directed at you then.  It is directed at the growing tendency of Democratic leaders to look down on religious voters and think of them as "backwards."  As I pointed out earlier it is more about respect than agreement.

As for neutrality, I think that has to do with how you define it.  Nevertheless, it is a major underlying point and one where a majority of Middle America and the MSM disagree strongly.  Is a moment of silence at school neutral?  Should a valedictorian be able to thank God for his/her success?  Should sports teams (even ones that are 100% of the same religion) pray before a game?  Should we have a Christmas holiday?  Should we have a gospel choir? What is the "neutral" position on these issues?

I think leftism has defined neutral as secular.  There should be no God in school and that is neutral.  I would assert that as an endorsement of secularism.  We can debate whether that is right or wrong, but taking 8-10 hours out of a child's day and banishing God is taking a stance; it is not neutral.

I think there is an accepted "neutral" in the MSM that is rejected by a large minority in the country.  That minority was ignored for a long time and is now being heard.  Whether I agree with them or not, I think they should have a say in policies and politics.

That technically, traditional marriage (one man, one woman) has historically been the law of the land in all 50 states. This is true at all levels, for statutes and state constitutions.  And at the national level, overwhelming congressional majorities (over 3/4s in both the Senate and House) - joined President Clinton in supporting a federal definition of marriage by enacting DOMA in 1996.

In Massachusetts, the Goodridge decision held that the long-held statutes defining marriage were inconsistent with the state constitution, which didn't have anything about the matter.  The Massachusetts Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas to hold that the everyday meaning of the word "marriage" is "arbitrary and capricious."

In my ideal world, those special interest group you mention and their intolerant counterparts on the other side would both be sidelined.  I have gone out of my way to criticize Falwell and, most recently, Robertson.  You might note that you're quote unelected special interest groups.  If the Republican leadership ever took these positions, I'd be on the outside looking in.  But these aren't the party positions.  And I can agree with these groups on some issues including specifically that nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, that abortion and gay marriage should be decided by voters not judges, and that religious people should be respected.  I'm sure I disagree with these groups on much more.  But I seek no shelter from these people.

neutral or passive. Unfortunately the Left is neither. The original Establishment Clause allowed states to establish their own religions without federal interferrence (North Carolina retains its well into the 19th century). That was neutrality.

I wonder which state you have more in common with.

Re: I think there is an accepted "neutral" in the MSM that is rejected by a large minority in the country.  That minority was ignored for a long time and is now being heard.  Whether I agree with them or not, I think they should have a say in policies and politics.

But why does this minority feel itself aggrieved? What is the source of its complaint? These people are free, absolutely free, to go to the church of their choice whenever they please and to worship in the manner they see as fitting. They may obtain religious literature and other materials in a myriad different outlets--the free market will serve them there as it serves everyone else. They can believe anything they please and even if that belief is absurd no one will suffer no legal disadvantage for it. They can enter a voting booth and pull whatever lever they please for whatever reason: the secret ballot insures them of that right. If they dislike the public schools for their children they can educate them in church schools, or even at home.

In short I cannot see any legitimate reason any of these folks have for any complaint or grievance. They are free to believe and worship as they believe fitting--what's the problem?

I suspect of course that the problem is an illegitimate grievance: they are not free to compel others to believe and worship as they do. And they feel they only validate their own belief by compelling it of others as well.

America, as it was, befoer all these latter day Savonarolas got revved up.

I, too, am turned off by the far left's complete rejection of religion. I look at European politics and am horrified by the complete demonization of religion in it. It's political suicide in many places over there to make any mention of God or other religious notion.

But I also look at the far right and am equally turned off by their desire to impose Christian ideals on everyone based on "tradition" and the fact the Republican party has regained majority power in the government.

The separation of church and state is not to limit the role of religion, but instead to keep religion safe from the corruption of the government and the backlash of different religions. It's a very wise position to keep.

Now, the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics. It's fine, and in fact honorable, for politicians to be guided by their religion. Publically taking pride in their religion is a noble action.

If I ever get into politics, I would want the freedom to do the same. The biggest difference in my case is that I'm not Christian, I'm Buddhist. But I have no animosity towards the Christian faith, and am happy to see other people turn to Christianity for happiness and guidance.

My biggest hope is that all politicians of faith (Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, whatever) and secularism in America try to not impose their own personal beliefs on everyone else. As long as it isn't a matter of life and death (I can see how abortion and the death penalty can be real issues, so I'm not talking about them), keep the government out of it and let individuals decide for themselves.

To use a a phrase I've heard many fiscal conservative Republicans use in the past: "let the free market decide!".

Thanks, Augustine. Would you (or any other reader) happen to know of any neautral (well, as neautral as possible on this issue) sources that have a complete analysis of the Massachusetts situation? Covering the differences between the statutes and the state consitution, how the federal laws affected it, etc.? I'd really like to read up on this, but really don't have the time to page through multiple sites or web searches.

Take the two points separately . . .

First gay marriage.

If there is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage it does not change the status of "traditional marriage" one iota.  What it does is preclude same sex couples from getting married.  It stops states from allowing same sex marriages (traditionally marital laws are a province of the states) if they wish.  No Church is going to be forced to perform a same sex marriage.  Churches today are free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they wish and often perform same sex marriages (even if they are not legally recognized).  Your marriage, or mine will not be threatened because the couple who owns the antique shop down the street is able to file their income tax jointly.

As for abortion, this is how I see it.  Your Church (I assume you are Roman Catholic) tells you human life begins at conception.  My church isn't quite sure.  Between your certainty of human life beginning at conception and viability there is an area where there is a lot of debate as to whether the fetus is a person and what rights if any the fetus possesses and how they balance with those of the mother.  These are not questions that can be answered scientifically, but are theological, moral, and philosophical.  A secular government should tread lightly in these areas and accomodate individual freedom not the most rigid view.

You say that religious people can take their children out of public schools and either homeschool or privately educate them.   So religious parents have to pay extra for a religious-based education while secular parents get a free secular-based education.  How is that neutral?  Why is thanking your parents and teachers in a valedictorian speech okay but thanking God is not permissible?  How is that neutral?

My personal solution is to allow full school choice to all parents.  You can send you child to a very religious or very secular school (or anything in between) and the government gives that school X amount of dollars.  AZ was close to doing that but the Dem Governor vetoed it because they can't have all those children leaving public, secular schools you know.

My point is that there are some legitimate grievences out there.  I don't agree all the time, but just because an issue is religious based doesn't mean it is automatically a theocratic demand.

I had a much higher opinion of you prior to this thread.

Re: Why is thanking your parents and teachers in a valedictorian speech okay but thanking God is not permissible?  How is that neutral?

I would happen to agree that many of the ACLU's anti-religious cases are about making mountains out of molehills. Nothing at wrong with "Under God" in the Pledge or acknowledging God in a public speech. I was not defending that degree of nitpickery, which I think is asinine. I am OK with America having a sort of vague, generic "civil religion".

As for the schools, though, there is no solution save neutrality. Yes, it costs people more to take their kids out of public schools.  But if we allow, say, the Baptists to dominate the public schools then everyone who is not a Baptist (and does not want their kid proselytized by Baptists) will have to incur that expense. No, neutrality is best here. And he govrenment does not owe anyone a religious education! If parents want that for their kids they should spend their own money on it.

I'm sorry your opinion of me has suffered. A good thing you did not know my card-carrying GOP father (he died back in `91). He hated the Religious Right far worse than I do, and used to say in the 80s "Reagan needs to kick those Holy Joes out of the party! They'll be the ruin of this country!" (Actually, the words were a bit coarser than that). Contrary to facile belief hereabouts, there are sources of opposition to the RR that are not grounded in the Democrat party, or any form of liberalism.

The definition of marriage is something we can allow to vary individually (because each marriage is unique to itself and no marriage, by its existence, limits or threatens another marriage).

The definition of personhood is not something that can vary individually. This is something that the governbment must settle with a common definition over all of society, else it is impossible for the government to fulfill its role.

Several states had established churches.  Now that the 1st Amendment applies to the states, that would no longer be possible - is that not still neutrality?

were homosexual, and you were not, you would accept them telling you that you couldn't visit your "wife" in the hospital after hours?

... with your argumentation on both issues:

1. Gay marriage: "traditionalists" understand marriage as a public institution, i.e. as an "entity" which plays a particular role within the life of the society/culture/state. If marriage is redefined so as to include gay marriage, the meaning of marriage as a public institution will have been drastically changed; in the law, one understanding of marriage & its place in society will replace another. Protestations of tolerance & neutrality not withstanding, the "content" of marriage will be changed.
   
2. Abortion: again, current abortion law is neither neutral nor tolerant, despite the claims of its proponents; it in fact accepts & therefore promotes the view of one side in the debate: the side which denies the humanity of the embryo. You say that individual freedom should be accomodated; alright, let's accomodate the freedom of the embronic human! Again, it seems that your apparently-tolerant proposal (who doesn't want to accomodate individual freedom?) in fact hides an a priori position on the issue at the heart of the matter: the moral status of the human embryo.

The commonality is the imposition of a particular viewpoint under the guise of neutrality & tolerance.

I'd just suggest that - despite your opposition to a large number of middle class Americans with commonly held views who happen to go to church on Sunday - if those same people did not vote, donate, and work for Republican candidates, the Democratic Party would dominate at nearly every level of government.

In other words, had your late father gotten his way, 1994 never would have happened, and Reagan's hope of winning back the Congress and the Senate would never have been fulfilled.

It's certainly a chip away at neutrality. In a republic, if the state is really neutral toward religion, it will allow the people their perogative in matters of religion; and it will not isolate their perogative to a purely private sphere because it will not adopt the emphatically sectarian position that religion is a purely private affair.

The church-state separationism dominant in the legal field today is just that: a sectarian position -- one that maintains positive propositions about the nature of man and his duty toward his Creator. The First Amendment, as Fr. J. C. Murray demonstrated in his We Hold These Truths has been infused with theological content.

Hardly worthy of response. Come back to me when the first homosexual republic is founded.

is that there are really two forms of true neutrality.  Either no religion, or all.  If we start spending classroom time on the Christian God, the rest of the pantheon gets equal time as well.  I think the evil William Brennan summed it up best (at least I think it was Brennan) when he talked about "ceremonial deism."  There are some manifestations of religion in public life, but that doesn't really serve as an endorsement.

God is not banished from the child.  God, presumably, finds all this very amusing and/or irritating, but is not restricted by it one whit.  

committed by the Christian based churches throughout Europe and the millions they slaughtered world-wide, especially in the America's. That it was those historical moments that guided our founders thought processes. Infact, many of them reflect such thinking in their more than popular published memoirs.

The arguements you make today, are remarkably similar to the points that were brought up to those who finally drafted our Constitution.

It was the satanic hatred, fueled mostly by very devoted Christians and how they seemed so confortable with the thought that blacks were not human at all, but beast to be sold and bought and that these thoughts were repeated every single day in the south at nearly every Christian church is the point I think he is making.

The poor young girls that were put to death for having been poisoned by bad wheat in Salem Mass. and going into convultions from it, was interpreted by mostly Christian society, that it was possession and witch craft, they all lost their lives, is the point I think he is making.

The children that die because their parents think that God will save their children from the sickness they suffer from and deny that child proper medical care is the point I think he is making.

In my view, it merely preserves the perogative of all people to believe as they see fit, without the government telling them squat.  I'm truly not trying to be obtuse here - if the church-state injunction merely instructs government to not instruct religion, how does that interfere with religious freedom?  I would think it would preserve it.  Beyond the mindless excess of restrictions on valedictory speeches and football prayers, the bar on teacher-led prayer seems grounded in complete common sense.  

shared heterosexuality?

And as you don't seem to grasp the purpose of a hypothetical, I'll lay it out more plainly:

The issue for most homosexuals is that they are denied rights that heterosexual people are not.  Like it or not, that is discrimination, and as such it doesn't matter if 99% were happy with the system

about the Catholic clergy and faithful during the various revolutions in Mexico. Or the 12 or so million who died in Nazi concentration camps. Or the millions of kulaks deliberately starved to death during the collectivization of the Soviet Union. Or the millions killed during the strangely named Cultural Revolution in China. Or the million or so starved and clubbed to death in Cambodia.

No, gentle reader, Christians and other religious folks are incompetent pikers when it comes to mass slaughter. You secular folks take first prize here.

for the valedictorian speech.  And I doubt that the ACLU got involved with that case if it is true.  If they did it was probably in support of the student.  They do protect individual expression of religion after all (including wearing of crosses).  

I don't have children yet I willingly support public schools.  It is part of being a member of society.  You are not taxed on the number of children you send to public school, everybody pays for them and they are available if you want to use them.  If you choose not to use them that is your choice but don't expect a refund.  I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support private schools.  

there is no right to marriage. So it is not discrimination. You don't have a right to practice law. You don't have a right to drink at age 18 - though you are citizen and can vote. Marriage is a contractual relationship defined by the state.

I like your article. First off, it is well-writen and concise. I'll assume that the statistics in it are accurate, since I don't have the time to go fact-hunting right now nor do I want to go into a deep analysis in this comment.

I only have two major problems with your article...

The first I have with your article is that you use the term "urban elite" to imply stuck-up liberals are the ones supporting gay marriage. That's not really accurate, in my experience. I live in a smallish southern city (Tallahassee, FL) that has a fair mix of conservatives and liberals of many different types. In my experience, while the conservatives that oppose gay marriage are fairly typically rural, religiously conservative folks, the liberals who support it run a wide range of types. I've met plenty of rural, academic, socialist, or civil libertarian liberals who support gay rights.

So I think your portrayal of gay-supporting liberals as urban elitists is flawed. Those supporters are a very diverse bunch, it's just that they're a clear minority in American society.

I must make a disclosure: I, too, support gay marriage rights, due to my Libertarian beliefs. However, I accept that gay marriage is best left as a social issue for the American populace as a whole to decide on. Since, as you point out in the article, a supermajority of the American people oppose gay marriage, I calmly accept that and let the issue be resolved the way it is.

Your article does a convincing job of explaining why some people believe the judiciary should have no major role in deciding this issue. I, too, agree with the majority rule, especially if it is a supermajority rule. If that is the argument against using the courts to decide this issue, then I agree, despite my personal stance supporting full gay marriage.

But, my second problem is that I still don't blame the courts from trying to resolve this issue. It has seemed to me that the courts have just been doing their job, nothing more, nothing less. As far as I've understood it, the courts should act when the existing laws are vague or contradictory, and the legislature fails to act in a timely manner. Thankfully this is changing with regards to this issue, since most states have now had public referendums and ballot votes to decide the issue before their respective state courts have to. So you could say the courts did their job by forcing the legislatures to sit up and take notice.

The people to blame are the supporters of gay marriage that have been trying to use the courts to resolve this issue. I believe that should be the target of Republicans, not try to label judges as "activist" and attempt to change how the judicial branch is appointed or functions.

without the government telling them squat.

Nonsense. It tells them that their public square (yes theirs) must remain naked.

Again, it is a sectarian position (though admittedly a naturally American one) to assume -- for you have assumed it -- that religion is only about what a man believes, and thus that so long as the state does not interfere with what he believes, it remains neutral vis-a-vis religion.

But religion is much more than that. It would be nearer to the truth to say that religion is the world a man inhabits. It encompasses practices, mores, traditions, assumptions, conventions, and communities.

To say to a community that it can have no public affirmation of its faith, because its faith includes no public features, is to divest it of its republican liberty.

The political realities in Florida vis-a-vis the gay rights debate are not equivalent with the rest of the country. As a former resident of south central Florida, I can say from admittedly anecdotal experience that the percentage of the population as a whole that's openly homosexual is higher (much higher) than in most other regions of the country.

Just an observation.

MachoNachos

No, the proud foundation of our country is republican government, rule by the people, not by the factional minority.

also believes that toddlers have a right to life.  I guess we should legalize murder or else we have inserted religion into politics.  It also teaches that rape is wrong and should be illegal.  Another cause of the theocratic state I see.

I err on the side of life.  I think the law should as well.  When one can prove that an unborn child is not alive, then we can permit its killing.  But I believe the burden should be on those who wish to do the irreversable act.

Is not the same thing as government action.  Religion can and does occupy the public square.  Just not at the behest of government.  Government preserves that square (or at least should) without favor to religion.

When you left?

As I have mentioned before, I believe the blue slips were wrong and I'm glad the practice is behind us.

Also, if a committee voted to table a nominee, I would have less of a problem (although I haven't been convinced that these committees are necessary) than this filibustering.  Mainly because it would be a majority providing its "check" on the executive.  This is also why I will support any Republicans who vote "No" on a judicial nominee.  The check in the check and balance is between the majority of the Senate and the Executive.

Are you gay-baiting me? I knew you were trollish, but this seems to me to be a new low even for you.

What's offensive is not that you're implying that I'm gay, it's the shallow-minded way in which you assume that I'd be insulted by the implication.

have the right to practice law, but whether I have as much right as you do.  Same for drinking at 18.  Discrimination is the essence of the marriage amendment and other similar policies.  And it is a contractual agreement that descriminates based on sex at the moment.  Other such policies have fallen for the same reason.

that even approaches a simulacrum of an argument.  You write that there are those who do not wish an overt religious presence in schools when it cannot be avoided.  Neither do I want an overt secular, religion-is-a-fine-piece-of-mythology-that-makes-our-lives-colourful-but-ha
s-no-permanent-truth-by-which-we-ought-to-live presence in schools when my children will be unable to avoid it.  And when you get your way, they can't; and I have been denied the right to alter this injustice by means of democratic politics.  Who is imposing upon whom undemocratically?

As regards marriage, the point has been ably adressed by other respondents to your babbling.  I wish to add but one point: some or another definition of marriage will prevail in this nation, and when it does, it will be felt as an imposition by all those who dissent from it.  Should marriage become detached from its historic, and I would argue, essential meaning, my marriage no less than the conjugal simulacrum entered into by gay men will mean something other than what marriage means at the present time: it will degenerate into a legal ratification of a relationship grounded in sexual desire and perhaps certain financial perks, and if you cannot distinguish this from the meaning that marriage now has, or at least has for those of us who actually honour, not merely Western civilization particularly, but human civilization in virtually all of its manifestations, then I must sincerely doubt either your sincerity or your capacity to engage in rational discourse on the subject.

By the way, last year I read an unbelievably turgid law review article, the name of the author of which escapes me presently, in which it was argued that the next frontier of human rights legislation will be the liberation of members of groups (generic term...) from the strictures of the requirements and traditions of said groups, meaning that individuals must be legally empowered to possess and reformulate traditions, and remake organizations, without regard for the integrity and identity of those bodies, without placing themselves beyond the bounds of those bodies.  What this means is that there are already voices in the academy developing rationales for the compulsory and coercive redefinition of non-governmental bodies, including churches.  

I would be careful.

The twin genocides of the native peoples of the Americas (hard to count because most of that was caused by disease, not deliberate extermination although where the contact was direct the extermination was carried out with brutal efficiency) but certainly involved at least 10--20 million people over the space of less than 150 years; and the slave trade in Africa which most certainly involved deliberate extermination through labor and cost 20--40 million lives stacks up nicely against the 20th century atrocities of secular societies.

You also have the Crusades (which not only targeted Muslims but also the Orthodox Church), the various and numerous pogroms against the Jews in Europe and Russia--right up to the Revolution.  The years of wars as the Catholics and Protestants fought against eachother for control of Europe.  World War I--good Christian countries all--except for Turkey of course.  And don't forget all those lynchings carried out by good Christian people in the south and parts of the midwest (mostly against blacks, but also Jews and Catholics) in this country.  Almost 5000 documented cases between 1880 and 1965.

And the religious killing didn't stop in the twentieth century.  How about Kosovo and Bosnia?  The Oklahoma City Bombings.

I suppose the Christian history of pogroms did not inform Nazi anti-semitism?  It just occurred in a vaccuum?

Actually, this is a silly conversation.  Governments without internal checks do bad things, religious or otherwise.  Churches can be institutional checks on bad government, but they do it better by being independent of government.  Otherwise, they can be "captured" as just another arm of government.

Blue slips are wrong.

State senator vetoes on court nominees is wrong.

Tabling nominations, court or otherwise, is wrong.

The ability of a committee to do anything worse than report a nomination to the floor with a negative recommendation is wrong.

And, FWIW, my opinion hasn't changed since Hormel was abused by my party.

talking about the founders and their impressions specifically noting the Christian faith churches.

These thoughts and how they call into play distinct lines of seperation has served this country more or less pretty well. It has lots and lots of give and take without trying to smother anything.

Now how to handle the others that do the same thing is another issue that certainly needs it's own checks and balances as well. Any effective checks and balance system that keeps people from suffering in any way is step in a good direction no matter what the issue.

A good way to keep society well balanced mentally, physically and spritually (pursuit of happiness) is spiritual maturation in whatever form each individual decide to worship.

Just because the Christian based religions committed horrific crimes against humanity (re: Pope John Paul's apologies) it does in no way say that other such thing were not repeated in other venues in other times.

I am sure those who drafted the Constitution knew that it was common practice for one group, one religion, one tonwship's interest to attempt to take over and eliminate it's rival.

Because this post concentrated on religion and it's anticipated effects on functional beaurocracies I too choose to reply to the direct subject matter and try not to confuse the issue by comparison to other issues.

Yet a good discussion on how to keep all special interest at bay and in check always has my interest.

Protection of the minority.  Sometimes more honored in the breach, but still important.

were religious killings? When did I miss that?

MachoNachos

Flintstone, meet line.  Line, Flintstone.

schools discuss the ultimate truth of any religion without endorsement or rejection?  Why can't we just not talk about it, and leave it for the big world outside school?  We don't have to, and shouldn't, dismiss religion as mythology.  We should just talk about math.

10-20 million? By what count? Do you have a before and after census? Of course not. No one even knows how many people were in the Americas much less how many were killed. So this number is BS.

20-40 million? By what count? Is this the number that caused the sharks to change their feeding patterns so they could chow down on all the dead slaves thrown overboard on the Middle Passage. Ditto on the BS alarm.

And the audacity, even assuming for the sake of argument that any of your numbers are correct, to compare deaths over several centuries with deaths over only a few years just leaves one slackjawed at its fatuousness.

doesn't mean you have to listen to them or take them seriously. It just means you can't imprison them or sell hunting licenses for them.

I really appreciate our discussions because your arguing sincerely.  But here you just ignored my last few sentences about how a school system could be set up that was neutral.  Allow religious parents a religious option and secular parents a secular option.  AZ came very close to enacting it and if Napolitano loses in 2006, it will probably pass.

"But if we allow, say, the [Seculars] to dominate the public schools then everyone who is not a [Secular] (and does not want their kid proselytized by [Seculars]) will have to incur that expense."

That is the view of many of the religious right.  Like most seculars, they would prefer to be left alone.  Instead they have to pay for both secular schools and religious ones.

by not taking them seriously.

And you know it.  We're not talking about Democrats or liberalism here, we're talking about minor religions, ethnicities, etc.  Streiff, you wield a heavy cudgel, and wield it well, but you frequently smash more than you should.

was the slaughter of Slavs, Gypsies, the handicapped, the retarded, political opponents, the unwanted, the untermenschen.

Is common ground so hopelessly lost that we cannot have public institutions like schools any longer?  Is that the only answer here?

minorities and they have, by definition, already voted against you.

It also discriminates against polygomy and against 8 year olds marrying 40 year olds.  I presume you want to end ALL discrimination right?

Look I agree with you on this issue, but it isn't a Constitutional Right nor a Natural Right.  It should be won by convincing a majority of a state that gay couples should have the same priviledges of marriage that heterosexual couples have.  CT passing the civil union legislation is a great model (and we got a Republican Governor to sign it).  The expansion of the term "rights" to encompass everything liberals want has devalued the term.  

but why would I place my children in an environment that is hostile to their beliefs and teaches things that I find reprehensible?

Doverspa, that was a very generous comment: a fair and even vigorous defense of your opponents. Thank you.

secular side would champion the great secular killers of history like Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, nor would we wish to proclaim them as part of our rich cultural legacy or celebrate institutions founded in such blasphemy.

And if you run off all the non-RRs from the party, it will be back where it was in the 1970s as well.  That's why we have the big tent.  So Aleks and Augustine can both be in the majority.

Political minorities which, you correctly state, have voted for you.  Now they want to collect.

Congratulations, you have the tiger by the tail, don't let go and be carefull of those teeth.

minority. We were talking about protecting the interests of political minorities being protected. Check my response #40 following, #70, #73, #77. That conversation is about a political minority.

And clearly both our major parties are multi-racial and multi-ethnic so any attempt to read into my comments something about racial or ethnic minorities is just a misstatement of my position and the whole conversation.

I think the rise of homeschooling is probably an indication that that is somewhat true.  I also think it would have happened earlier if we were a richer society.  Only recently have non-rich people been able to afford to pay for both monopoly public schools and outside education for their children.

The fundamental answer is one that you can ask yourself.  Would you mind sending your children to the other's type of school?  For a secular, would you mind sending your child to an evangelical or Catholic school?  For a religious rightist, would you mind sending your child to a secular school?

If we can't agree on one of those, maybe providing school choice is a "neutral" way of solving the problem.  It may not be ideal, but it may work.

you own them.

to have been on both ends of the tiger. I prefer owning the end that has teeth.

Or, more precisely, silence inculcates the assumption that those things about which one is silent are matters of indifference, matters inessential to life and the ordering thereof - in other words, that they are matters of personal preference akin to one's taste in clothing or automobiles.  This is such a commonplace of historical analysis of the evolution of secular states in the aftermath of the wars of religion that I marvel that it has to be raised afresh in this discussion.  Americans evolved a means of escaping both religious tyranny and indifference, and now have the latter thrust upon them by the heirs of the European developments.

Why cannot a democratic majority that regards religion as central to life have something of that conviction reflected in its schools?  Or is it the case that only the minority view of religion, or even the view of the village atheist, is a fit topic of educational discourse?

Thanks

I agree with your position on the Blue Slip Veto.

My point is the Republicans have a history of blocking judicial nominations of the other party.  I don't believe they will be able to convince the American public, or me for that matter, that their desire to get rid of judicial filibusters has much to do with an up or down vote.  

I am really sick of hearing the 'but they did it too' argument from both sides of the isle.  I think it is whiny and shows a lack of conviction.  I also believe it doesn't resonate with the undecided voter.  If this were the position of the Dem's I think Frist could shrug it off, but Reid is making this a 'the minority shouldn't be ignored' battle instead.  I happen to agree with him about that, but regardless, I think that arguement is closer to the heart of the issue, and therefore, will be the one that the Republicans will have to respond to.  Their response to that argument so far isn't very convincing, IMO.

I disagree that the minority plays no part in the checks and balances between the Legislative and the Executive branches of our Government.  If the framers of the Constituion wanted to make the advise and consent role a strictly majority rule one they would not have made it the duty of the Senate since representation in it isn't based on population.

right that says that women can vote?  Is that just a legislative whim that can be reversed if we have enough people to do so?

I disagree that the minority plays no part in the checks and balances between the Legislative and the Executive branches of our Government.

Is that based on something other than your opinion?

If the framers of the Constituion wanted to make the advise and consent role a strictly majority rule one they would not have made it the duty of the Senate since representation in it isn't based on population.

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If they had really been concerned about the issue they would have spelled out a percentage of votes needed, like they did for amendments, to override vetoes, approve treaties, etc.

You might want to read up on U.S. Government.  If gay marriage advocates could pass a Constitutional Amendment supporting gay marriage, then a) I'd be really really impressed, b) this debate would be over.

In case it is fuzzy in your mind, here's the whole document.  And here is the 19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Re: 10-20 million? By what count? Do you have a before and after census? Of course not. No one even knows how many people were in the Americas much less how many were killed. So this number is BS.

This is actually a conservative estiamte. I have seen estimates go as high as 90 million.

But: nearly all of it was due to diseases to which the natives had no immunity. Of the various Old World powers who founded empires in the Americas none ever followed an explicit policy of extermination. The Spanish and the Portuguese sought to make Los Indios their subjects, generally as serfs. They did not seek their elimination. Hence the huge native populations surviving in much of Latin America to this day, and the even larger mixed race population.

The French respected the Indians as their allies. The Louisianian tribes had largely died off from diseases spreading north from Mexico by the time new Orleans was founded, but in Quebec large numbers of natives survived (and still do) and  they intermarried a great deal with the French settlers, who were short of French women. Today's Qubecois are mostly "half-breeds" in fact.

The Dutch sought to buy the natives off.

The English sough to clear them off the lands they desired for themselves, with some vague notion that they would not encroach any further once they were removed. This was one of the causi belli of our Revilution since the English government forbade white settlement west of the Appalachians which lands, won from the French, were set aside for the natives in perpetuity. Which of course did not happen once the American Republic fell heir to those lands.

All in all, and at the risk of being flamed for being anti-American, it was our own nation whose record with the natives is arguably the worst and the most prone to outright genocide.

about owning?

Re: Should marriage become detached from its historic, and I would argue, essential meaning, my marriage no less than the conjugal simulacrum entered into by gay men will mean something other than what marriage means at the present time

Your marriage has whatever meaning you choose to give it. Unless you allow others to do so, no one else can change that.

"Meaning" does not come from the political order. It comes from within us (and for the belivers in the transcendant, from an order of being beyond the ages).

as low as 40 million. But I don't intend to argue imaginary numbers with anyone.

The facts are indisputably that 1) no one knows how many Indians were in the Western Hemisphere at any point until the late 19th century and 2) no one knows how many died as a result of the actions of colonists.

However, feel free to indulge your guilt.

Read the post.

Re: Gay marriage: "traditionalists" understand marriage as a public institution, i.e. as an "entity" which plays a particular role within the life of the society/culture/state. If marriage is redefined so as to include gay marriage, the meaning of marriage as a public institution will have been drastically changed; in the law, one understanding of marriage & its place in society will replace another. Protestations of tolerance & neutrality not withstanding, the "content" of marriage will be changed.

Traditionalists are wrong. Yes, it's a public institution, they're right there. And so is citizenship. Nobody is talking about "changing" marriage. The discussion is about expanding it to include people not currently included. That is not a "fundamental" chnage since it leaves the people already included unaltered and unaffected. By comparison we expanded the definition of (full) citizenship several times since the country was founded: to include non-Protestants, non-property-owners, Blacks, Native Americans, women and the 18-20 year old group. In doing so did we change citizenship in any way for the original group (white, Protestant property-owning males?) You can in fact argue that we did dilute their power by adding all those other people, yes, but they retained all the same rights and duties they had before. And in expanding marriage there would be no dilution effect since each marraige is self-copnatined and does not limit other marriages (i.e., there is not a finite supply of marriage licenses, still less a finite supply of love. There is a finite supply of mates, but the change being discussed, unlike polygamous unions, would not alter that balance)

cute pussy, stay back now, no!, stay back, stop that! Aaaargh!

Why is the wedding ceremony such a public event, then? Why do men and women swear vows before the state, the community, their families and God? Why not just swear to each other and leave it at that?

Because, of course, marriage is a public institution.

I'm a firm believer in backing up statements, so thank you for the opportunity here.  This talks about the valedictorian case.  I missed one fact, it was a quote in the yearbook that was removed by the faculty "because it was religious."  It was in fact a Biblical passage.  Note that I did not mention the ACLU.  In this case, you are correct they defended the student.  My point is that schools are not "being neutral."  And the RR has some justification to feel defensive about secular schooling.

order or it is a function of human will, an artifact.  Gay "marriage" is an example of the latter, and one, at that, which obscures the transcendent meaning, which, as you note, does not come from the state, but which the state should recognize.  Marriage being by nature a public institution and not merely a public ratification of a private sexual arrangement, any change in the definition of marriage to accomodate "gay marriage" will change the definition of all marriages in the nation.  You are free to disagree, but disagreement on this point renders one a nominalist where marriage is concerned, and nominalism does not mix well with tradition or the transcendent.

I find this argument logical gobbledy-gook. Let's replace "religion" with "race". If a state is neutral toward race is it therefore favoring one race over another? True, it is making a (negative) statement about race, but the statement is a null statement, without formal content. therefore no race (or religion) is advantaged over another.

By comparison we expanded the definition of (full) citizenship several times since the country was founded: to include non-Protestants, non-property-owners, Blacks, Native Americans, women and the 18-20 year old group.

Yes we it -- by legitimate acts of legislation that emerged from the people's duly-elected representatives. Gay marriage, if it comes, will come via an act of tyranny, that is, the usurpation of power by a body not granted it.

Let's replace "religion" with "race".

Let's not, because it would be absurd.

Separationism is a positive view about religion, a kind of theology of negation, a marching negative. It is not neutral.

Re: Nonsense. It tells them that their public square (yes theirs) must remain naked.

But that is only a procedural statement, not a statement about religion at all. It is saying, Because we cannot determine which religion is "true" and "good" through the political process we will withhold that judgment.

And why is the public square so important anyway? Running throughot this discussion there seems to be a profoundly statist assumption: that the public square is the source of all worldly legitimacy and importance in human societies. An opposite view could hold that this public square is trivial and unimportant: it's just a little old cul de sac in some back alley where pompous people who are little touched in the head like to rant and rave and pretend they are junior gods. The really important stuff is happening in the public marketplaces and in the several churches and temnples in town, and in the laboratories and libraries of science and in the myriad private homes and gardens. From time to time we may need to visit the public square, but let's not make it or those touched ranters more important than they need to be.

And against the sort of January--December relationship you pose, but in the case of say Mass, the law does not discriminate against same sex marriage.  It says nothing about it.  It merely requires an age requirement, a licensing fee, a degree of unrelatedness, and a blood test.

The court ruled that excluding same sex couples who meet all these legislated requirements on the basis of their matching gender violates the state constitution.  They provided the legislature an opportunity to clarify the law before opening the doors to same sex marriage.  I think this is a pretty conservative legal judgement based on the laws present on the books.  It is absolutely NOT a case where the "Judicial Activism" meme rings true.

So I turn it around to you Doverspa if (in Mass, or anywhere that the law has not explicitly excluded gay marriage)the law does not preclude gay marriage isn't it incumbent upon those who would deny this right to same sex couples to pass laws making it illegal?

Re: In other words, had your late father gotten his way, 1994 never would have happened, and Reagan's hope of winning back the Congress

1994 happened because Hillary Clinton tried to create some monstrosity of a quasi-socialized quasi-HMOized healthcare system, that appalled many people. Secondarily it happened because the congressional Dems had grown corrupt and lazy and incompetent after 40 years of power: a warning to the GOP of today.

you simply ignored the remainder of my comment where I expanded on what I mean by public square. Moreover, you made no effort to address the core of my argument in it, namely that religion is not a purely private thing.

Therefore, respectfully, I do not see why it is necessary to reply to the substance of your comment.

I came to those conclusions based on the nature of the Senate itself.

North Dakota and Texas have the same number of votes in the Senate.  

Senators were not initially voted into office by the citizens of their state.  They were voted into office by their state legislatures.

Senators are elected to six year terms.

By creating the Senate with those rules, it is pretty clear to me that the framers wanted the  Senate to be less beholden to public opinion, and therefore a place where the opinions of the minority are given greater weight than in the House of Representatives.  

If the framers wanted the strong objection of 45% of the Senators to be irrelevant they wouldn't have given the Senate the duty to confirm judicial appointments in the first place.

I did miss your point. And I could support a system that allowed for parental choice. Believe it or not, several European countries do that, without controversy. As long as no one has to suffer his children having someone else's religion preached at them., and with some limitations as to how far off the rails the school can go (no Muslim Jihadi-training academies, for example) I would fine with your idea.

about that? In Miami and Lauderdale and Key West, of course there are lots of gays. And in Tampa, Orlando etc. , as in any big city anywhere. But everywhere? Florida (I live in St Pete) is a VERY diverse state. The poster cited Tallahassee. That place is not a noted gay mecca!

to be overcautious when it comes to separation issues and the RR latches onto as if that particular Board's bad decision is the correct reading of current separation jurisprudence when it is not.  This sounds like such a case.

that the MSC could find in the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest surviving legal document in this country, a right to gay marriage, where none had previously been found before.

I would daresay that the document in question did not specifically preclude gay marriage on the grounds that it would have been inconceivable during that time period for two individuals of the same sex to even seek the status of "married."

Which is why, recognizing the danger and divisive nature of the beast, the Founders had the good sense to include the establishment clause which did not encroach on the personal.

The Establishment Clause written by the Founders accepted with equanimity clauses in the state constitution like these:

South Carolina, Article XXXVIII: That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.

Massachusetts, Article II: It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. Chapter VI, Article I (oath of office): I ___, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth. [this oath remained in force until 1822; and the establishment of religion in Massachusetts until 1833]

North Carolina, Article XIX: That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. Article XXXII: That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. [these provisions remained in force until 1876]

Is that the "good sense" you are talking about?

I would daresay that the document in question did not specifically preclude gay marriage on the grounds that it would have been inconceivable during that time period for two individuals of the same sex to even seek the status of "married."

The 2nd ammendment reference to a "well regulated militia" did not concieve that the US would at some future date become the worlds sole and demonstrably superior superpower, nor did the ammendment concieve that one day its citizens would rely on the ammendment to arm themselves with weapons of the destructive power of assault rifles.

Pray tell are the intolerant statements coming from on the part of the Democratic Leadership?

for things that happened before I was born.

And whatever quibbling one does on numbers, I don't think we can deny that an awful lot of people died.

Meanwhile, if you followed the tenor of my post, I was trying to say that most of the deaths were not deliberate and (though not stated) Christianity was not responsible for them.

the "anti-christ" comment from Sen Salazar just off the top of my head

itself derives from the same transcendant order so your dichotomy is a false one. Let's not forget that we humans are not soulless automata but are endowed with Something Else from beyond the "walls" of Time and we too participate in the process of creation in this world,  and we create Meaning, Truth, Beauty and other good things (and yes alas viciously evil things on occasion). We are neither pets nor robots of God.

Traditionalists are wrong

No they aren't.

Mark Henrie writes in Understanding Traditionalist Conservatism the following:

The currently controversial question of gay "marriage" is the reductio ad absurdum of the liberal conception of marriage -- marriage, as Kant put it, as a "contract for the mutual exercise of the genitalia." But the bundle of legal "benefits" (and encumbrances) to which gay couples say they seek access were never legal recognitions of "love." Rather, these features of traditional marriage were accommodations to the "facts of life," the fact that it is from the union of a man and a woman that new life arises -- and the recognition that children are best reared to responsible adulthood in the setting of a stable, well-capitalized household with a mother and a father. Marriage is naturally about children.

Hence were marriage redefined to include gays, it would no longer be marriage.

pah.

I know a guy with a functional 20mm anti tank rifle.  

are you aware that the State's role in marriage is a fairly recent thing in Christendom? At one time marriage was a purely religious rite. There were no marriage licenses of civil services. In fact, in the original canons of the Christian Church, even the religious rite was not required. A marriage could be witnessed only by God with no public component at all, and it was seen as valid (hence in Shakespeare the marriage of Romeo and Juliet)

Ironically, it was the French Revolutionaries, seeking to take the Cvurch down a few pegs, who introduced the state into marital matters.

Is all I can say, truly shocking.

when one remembers the first word of the First Amendment.

without invading teh so-called public square (which is really just a euphemism for the Government Square.)

The market is public, churches themselves are public. We engage in all sorts of activities which are quite public without it involving government.

No one wants the churches to be secret and hidden away from view.

I'm happy to see religion in public. Last Saturday night I wish we Orthodox could have paraded our Easter icons and resurrection hymns right through downtown St. Pete and not just around our church parking lot.

But I do not want to see any church (including my own) calling the shots in government.

http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_82A1.htm

and it isn't what I said.

The law does not forbid it.  By what authority can the State prevent it if the citizens of the state (through their duly elected Representatives) have not granted the State the power to do so?

51 to 49 is not good enough either way, for lifetime appointments.

Funny, it was good enough for 200+ years.  What about 52 to 48?  That's the margin Clarence Thomas was approved by.  Do you think he shouldn't be sitting on the Supreme Court now, despite being approved by the Constitutional process?

Enlightenment then.

people get married for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with children.

I got married for the second time at the age of 39.  My wife had a medically necessary hysterectomy at the age of 30, long before I met her.  We are not planning on adopting children and having children naturally is of course impossible.  Yet our marriage is legal and no one would question our right to marry (well maybe some people would since we are both divorced).  There are millions of couples just like us who choose not to have children or are unable to have children.  In our society saying that "[m]arriage is naturally about children" is just silly.

I'm not saying that there isn't one.  I just haven't seen it yet.  Are married people who never have children breaking this law?

Oh yeah, the Taranto article.  I read it.  It pretty much sums up why non-religious, non-Christian me roots for the religious right and votes Republican.

Since we don't have kids and will not be having kids unless we adopt at any time in the future, I'm not really married?

Honey!

we could go back to religion being in the purview of the church and civil unions being the state's mirror image of marriage.  This is what happens when the state expands its power.  It now gets a say in what marriage is.  That should be up to each individual church to decide.  If only we could put that genie back in the bottle.

Perhaps one side or the other enjoys a 1 2 3 or lets say, even a 50 percent victory in election results. The people from the other side are still there and so are there interest.

Such a description on how countrymen should co-exist can easily be compaired to how that type of personality and thought process must also be being applied to other co-habitation environments that they would be exposed to and the way they would apply such a thought process and philosophy to others in their everyday life.

If this person for example, sees this philosophy as viable for co-habitation of human beings, then lets take that and apply it to other co-habitation scenerios.

At home with their wife or husband, does the spouse in this persons home that loses, let say an arguement or the popular opinion of the family members, have their interest "up for grabs"?

Or course not, it goes well within the borders of the totally preposterous.

When a child loses a school election for President when he runs, are his interest "up for grabs", it's absurd, only a mad man would concieve such a thing.

I'm bigger than most people you'll ever meet, standing in at 6'10 and 385 lbs. I have very little that can threaten me hand to hand. Because I win the election of natural selection when it came to size and power, does not entitle me to take the interest of others as my own.

Unless of course we lived a couple of thousand years ago, then it would be more like, "When in Rome", and "if you don't, you yourself may die" or worse.

Yes, thankfully we have progressed out from that cycle of thinking, well, for the most part.

was not a religious issue, my God, what the....?

That was a totally Nationalistic temperment that spiraled way out of control. Had ZERO to do with religion.

I can't believe I just read that, Jesus....

I agree with your conception of the Senate.  That is also why I agree with the filibuster (although I prefer the stand-up and delay until you drop kind) on legislative business.  But appointing judges and others is the duty of the executive.  The Senate is merely to advise and consent to the appointments, it doesn't even have to approve or like them.  With a minority in the Senate impeding the executive's ability to do his/her job, the Senate is being obstructionist and unreasonable.  The Constitution specifies where more than 50 votes are needed (treaties, impeachment, etc) and does not include judicial nominees.

Your effort is noted, but I think you're stretching the Constitution to fit your desired end.

are outlawed just as easily under utilitarian ethics.  Rape is not only wrong because God declares it to be so-- if the God you believe in forbids it, then it's simply overdetermined to be wrong.

Surely you recognise that there is a difference between secular rule-utilitarianism and religious doctrine, even though in some cases they overlap.  Or are you suprised that we haven't yet legislated against eating meat on Fridays and coveting thy neighbour's goods?

comment is itself a religious statement. Christians have been calling other Christians whom they disagree with "anti-Christs" since the disciples of John were arguing with the disciples of Peter over the date of Easter.

One issue down, we'll unite America yet!

of your "arguments" to finish your sentences. Or make actual points.

It does not follow from the fact of the freedom of the will that human beings are within their rights, morally speaking, to contravene the natural moral order - the transcendent - in their cultural formations.  I leave open the question of whether we create meaning ex nihilo or merely participate in and extend the meaning inherent in the created order; nevertheless, our creative faculties ought not be exercised in such a way as to undermine the nature of things.  That, I believe, in Christian theology, is called the Fall.  Our calling is to a responsible freedom, not to a negation of the transcendent order...

That may well all be true, but the necessity of the role of the State arises when the earlier organic unity of a culture is shattered, when, for the sake of order, the State must define things which were previously left to other bodies.

But the extreme right-wing evangelicals I quoted and Republicans in office are becoming more and more entangled.  I would say the evangelicals are being exploited for votes to some extent, but the close relationship still bothers me.  

Among elected officials, types like Sen Coburn of AR-- whose stated belief is that abortion providers should be sentenced to death-- I think come close to what you could describe as intolerant (and certainly serf-righteous).  I will do some digging to see if I can find some more concrete examples for you, I'm sure I can find a few choice quotes (on issues like legal sodomy, gay marraige, affirmative action, judges) that may suprise you in their anti-pluralism and intolerance.

Really, though, it's kind of a stretch to say that the author was only referring to elected government officials when he talks about the "religious right" and "secular left".  The connotations at least include a much broader spectrum of people.  Even if you do interpret the author in a very narrow sense, I still don't think it exhonorates the inconsistency of his argument (I'll find some quotes for you sometime today).

Which means that those of us in Arkansas can add the Sooner Senator to the Sooner football team on the list of things that we're unreasonably jealous of Oklahomans for.

MachoNachos

pthp, thats mearly a 50 cal.  20mm Solithorn ATR.

4th image down, on left.

http://www.inert-ord.net/atrkts/50-55-20/

I think the legality of abortion should be determined through elected representatives the same as rape and murder were.  Furthermore, I think that one person's right to liberty (choice) ends where it imposes on another's rights (including life).  That is why we outlaw murder and rape.  It could also apply to abortion.  But I'm not permitted to make that argument and have my pro-life Representative, pro-life Senators, pro-life Governor, or pro-life President do anything about it.  I've done my part elected people who agree that we should not infringe on the rights of the unborn, but the courts have taken this issues away from the legislatures.

My point is that just because some argue from a religious perspective does not make an issue "religious right" vs. others.  Now the filibuster debate is being framed that way.  Many moderates agree that judges should be voted up-or-down, many moderates are against abortion-on-demand, and many moderates support traditional marriage.  Just because a position has religious support doesn't mean it is only a religious issue.

Finally, I know the difference between utilitarian logic and faith-based reasoning.  But where in the Constitution does it say we must make decisions solely on an utilitarian basis.  

Re: It does not follow from the fact of the freedom of the will that human beings are within their rights, morally speaking, to contravene the natural moral order - the transcendent - in their cultural formations.

I don't think it's possible to do that, any more than we can violate the laws of gravity or electromagnetism. Immoral, even evil, things can be done-- but unnatural things, by simple defintion, cannot.

I'd start with Sen. Coburn of OK.  Although the one you reference is probably not the best one to go for.  He believes that abortion is murder and once it is made illegal, he supports the death penalty for abortionists.  That may be extreme but it isn't intolerant to any group of people.  Many politicians support the death penalty and if abortion is ruled to be murder (as it would be in OK if given the chance to vote on it), some would pursue the death penalty for those who violate the law and take a life.

Try his lesbianism statements, they're much juicier.  For that matter, quotes about homosexuality is probably where you want to be digging.

FWIW, I don't doubt that some on the right have said intolerant things.  Then again, the right has been portrayed as intolerant for a couple generations now.  The left was the home of tolerance and diversity.  That was one of the things I admired about the left when I was a swing voter.  It was their growing intolerance and their lack of heart in the War on Terror (and the War in Iraq) that pushed me into being a more partisan Republican.

it was the state which did the original shattering

We can always use another Sooner fan!

Moore High School and former Boomer Sooner, I appreciate the invitation, but my next scheduled move is over the eastward border into Nashville, where I will have yet more reason to lament the sorry condition of my local college football team.

O Discordia!

was closely associated with the Christian Identity movement.  Like it or not there is an extreme right wing in this country that claims Christianity as the basis for their hate filled ideology.  Google "Christian Identity" and see what you come up with.  They are every bit as evil and scary as the Taliban.  True Christian terrorists right here in the U.S.A.  They are closely associated with groups like the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan (the Grandaddy of them all).

Even though children may not come from a particular marriage (whether that's deliberate or otherwise), the structural orientation (even for that marriage) is still towards procreation in a way that can never be in a gay relationship.

when you said that they "claim" Christianity as the basis for their hate filled ideology. That is a quite different animal from actually having Christianity as the basis for a hate-filled ideology that spawns terrorists.

I can't recall Jesus ever imploring his followers to set out after Easter and kill infidels wherever they found them, and I've got more than a passing familiarity with the Bible.

MachoNachos

No licence for this either?

Surely the ATF tracks who has these in their posession, tell me that much at least?

The only other 6'10" 350+ lb guy I know holds precisely the opposite opinion, and is generally one of the gentlest folks around.

And can unbend steel.

That Clarence Thomas is unqualified to be on the Supreme Court in both intellect and Judicial philosophy.

Performance in office settles the issue.

Has marriage sunk to this?

Marriage is not about sex, heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, whatever.  It's not just about sex, when you grow up you will begin to realise this, if you are already grown up then I pity you.

Were married by a priest.

Friar Lawrence was a friar. Those are lay brothers.

And could have been either.

That you're not a big fan of administrative law decisions.

If not for debates like this?

So smile the heavens upon this holy act,

That after hours with sorrow chide us not!

So usefull and yet, so useless.

Could you ever have imagined?

I'm glad I took typing in 9th grade.

Wave bye-bye.

I'm pretty sure that's excessive.  Afterall it's girth that counts.  Or is it length....

Wait a minute it's mass times velocity, that's what makes this thing a ridiculous excess as well as the .50 cal.

correlates with the evolution of modern economic systems, which, being predicated upon private property in a stricter manner than was the case previously, required more in the way of legal documentation - and formalized marriages as a means of assigning inheritances and the like.

Whatever the case may be, my point as regards marriage in the contemporary world remains untouched.

Relax, Flintstone: I never said marriage was only about sex. But sex is a part of it (do I really need to explain this?), and (like it or not) one of the purposes of sex (NB: not the only one) is procreation.

Hence, the structural orientation of marriage (which, again, does involve expressions of sexual love as a necessary but insufficient condition) is toward children, even if some marriages are childless.

A very different conception of the State, pre-Westphalia.

thwarts, impedes, prevents or precludes the perfection or attainment of the Good of the things or persons involved, the end towards which these are oriented by nature.  

A hint: it does not follow from the fact that something can be observed in the natural world, eg., homosexuality, that it is natural properly speaking.  It does not take profound Christian insight to perceive that the world is broken in some sense; if there is no difference between the "is" of man and the world and the "ought" and the perfection of man and the world - the difference between man-as-he-is and man-as-he-could-be-if-he-realized-his-essential-nature, in the formulation of Alisdair McIntyre - there is, quite simply, no such thing as ethics.  In other words, there is only nihilism.

so I am not clear on the meaning of your statement.  I only meant to claim that while at an earlier stage of our history, these matters were left to the Church and families, this was because everyone understood what marriage was; in the present, where there is so little agreement, even among those who claim to profess the same religion, it is necessary that the state define things so as to prevent chaos and anarchy, especially where the creation of future generations is concerned.  Or, more abstractly, that organic function of government is even honoured in the breach.

and traveled rather frequently to Daytona, Orlando, Dade county and (a couple of time) into the Keys - and that was my very distinct impression - as I said, that's my anecdotal experience. I'll confess I've never been to the gulfside bay so the situation may be completely different there - but I'll bet that even in Tallahassee it's very much different than it is a few miles down the road in either Mobile or Atlanta.

And adding.

We can travel back to when Christian marriage was a to-the-lions offense, too. You're trying to impose post-Westphalian notions of the State and Enlightenment concepts of the political order on a time that embraced no such ideas.

Since he's accepted as Juliet's confessor.

I love debating the Religious Right usually...I

m glad I am not alone in terms of being libertarian on this board (Don't worry folks...I also take it to DailyKos with the libertarian viewpoint as well)

Anyway let us start with the Webster's Dictionary of "secularism" is

"a system of social ethics based upon a doctrine that ethical standards and conduct should be determined exclusively with reference to the present life and social well-being without reference to religion"

Basically, its a statement of neutrality in itself. I am sure you all consider Atheism as a religion. I sure do. Since secularism is a conduct without reference to religion, it would be ludicrous to believe that secularism and atheism are on in the same. Secularism is all about not putting ones beliefs upon each other.

Secularism is necessary for the public sector in order to have a society where individuals are free to lead their personal lives as they fit. However, in the lives of private citizens and organizations...since they are private...they can profess any faith or belief they like at anu place. It is secularism that keeps them private.

Does the Bible have some laws that have relevence today? Sure it does! That thou shalt not kill one is a great idea! However, does that fact justify every law mentioned in the Bible to become legislation...no!

Basically the public sector itself needs to be secular but the people working within it do not.

Another point is that when you really get to the bottom of it, government is rather powerless in the culture war. Arguably we have been in one of the most conservative eras of modern American politics, and yet society itself couldn't be more liberal! So legislation is useless anyway, so why invoke it to win the "culture war" when the battle is being really fought in the minds of private citizens...it just makes peoples lives worse.

Enjoy life!

I appreciate you responding and noting my effort. :-)

I think we disagree as to what constitutes obstructionist and unreasonable.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the filibuster.  If you are only interested in granting a supermajority when it is noted in the Constitution I would think you would be opposed to any type of filibuster.

The Constitution also doesn't describe what constitutes 'advice and consent'.  We are both interpreting the Constitution.  If either one of us could point to an article in the Constitution that specifically addresses this issue we wouldn't be having this discussion.  

P.S. I agree with you about the stand-up and delay until you drop kind of filibuster.  They took all of the drama out if it when the got rid of that requirement.  Maybe we can agree to bring that back?

One issue done; We'll unite America yet.

That is one less.

How do you feel about bringing the spork back to the  school cafeteria?  Some say it is an unfunded mandade, I disagree.  Your thoughts?

Have a good night.

As the original poster of the story, I too am a moderate libertarian.  Just a reminder that those who are not members of the religious right can recognize the problem with anti-religious intolerance.  I hope you take the time to read Taranto's whole piece.  G'night.

i'm sorry..but i am just not seeing it..once again it appears that people of faith are faithless...putting too much stock in government to affirm their faith.

"But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land."

I have already pointed out that secular means "without religious influence." It's basically neutrality. I have no clue how one can feel persecuted by neutrality..just seems hysterical to me.

"The religoius right did not attempt to impose its views through a theocratic revolution and did not discredit the rule of law by ignoring it or reacting violently. They went about creating a movement to put decision-making back into the hands of elected politicians."

I'm sorry, but legislation in terms of personal conduct and beliefs cannot be justified by ad populum arguments. Personally I see lobbying and violence both dispicable and the refuge of the lazy and unconvincing.

True change happens in the grassroots...change minds...legislation will not do jack.

Is that supposed to refute my argument somehow?

I disagree with much of what you post here, but I've never taken you to be this lazy in response to what I think is a very valid criticism.

I'm sure you'll find some other meaningless one liner to respond to this.  Kind of a waste of time I think.

I think you're right, conservatives have had a bad reputation for a few decades that is undeserved in the 21st century.

The right was rightly (no pun intended) portrayed as intolerant following their adament opposition to integration in the 60's.  The reputation stuck.  It obviously doesn't apply now to most conservatives, although I would say you need look no further than the Alabama State legislature to find the kind of modern day version of the intolerant, racist conservative.  And this is from a native of Birmingham, AL.  Whether it's explicitly endorsed by elected officials or not, racism is alive and well in a vocal minority of conservative Southerners.

As far as the left's supposed intolerance on the War on Terror, I'm not sure I know what that even means.  Do you mean that Democrats are sympathetic  to OBL?  Do you mean that a few Dems opposed sacrificing our soldiers for a cause that was tangential (at best) to the war on terror?

I'm 100% behind Afghanistan.  But, strangely enough, I never seem to hear about that war in the news anymore.  The vestiges of the group that attacked us in 2001 are still for the most part free (although I will credit Bush along with the Pakistani govt for a few major arrests). Our focus is now on Iraq, which has gone from a secular dictatorship to what will likely be a government made up at least in part of radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Is doubting the validity of this war intolerant?  I really do respect your opinion on these issues, I'm just not sure I understand what you mean here.

As long as you're conceding that there's a difference between a position that's supported by religion, and something that's entirely a religious issue-- will you condemn Bill Frist for calling pro-filibuster Democrats anti-faith?

( The utilitarian point was more in response to your hyperbole about murder and rape, as well as the references here to Lincoln and MLK-- who actually went against a literal reading of the Bible to endorse the strongly utilitarian goal (that they may have personally felt God endorsed) of equal rights for black Americans. )

how the state is more trustworthy on this matter than are churches. The state is subject to the vagaries of public opinion and the claism of tradition have no formal claim on its policy. The church, being deliberately charged with teh preservation of tradition and the teaching of  ethics, is surely a more dependable guardian of such institutions.

And as evidence of this I point out the obvious fact that marriage, under the state's tutelage, has gotten into agreat deal of trouble.

As an aside here, I am puzzled to see you arguing from natural law grounds. This is a Roman Catholic and Western tradition which evolved out of medieval scholasticism and its virtual canonization of Aristotle. It is alien to the thought of Eastern Christendom.

But if one is going to argue on natural law grounds, one cannot do so successfully if one is wrong about "nature" to start with.

Well, then, gay marriage can be accommodated under that "even if...childless" clause.

From a conservative POV, this reinforces the moral teaching that sex oughtt be limited to marital relationships, which I believe is even more fundamental than the claim that sex is only for procreation, which has never been universally accepted and does not accord well with the facts of human biology.

that there are more GLBT folks hereabouts than in other areas (up North, out West, wherever) of similar population concentration.

I do believe I read somewhere that the largest concentration of gay men is in San Francisco (no surprise!) followed by Washintgton DC .

of a common societal understanding of marriage and how such necessity derives from our rational knowledge of the chaos that not only has followed upon the dissolution of the family in the wake of the sexual revolution, but would be exacerbated to the uttermost if members of every sexual grouping were able to define for themselves the meaning and duties of marriage, it would be pointless to continue this discussion.

If you are unable to perceive the wisdom of tradition and how that wisdom does constitute a substantive claim upon states and individuals, it would be pointless to perpetuate such fruitless dialogue.

If you are unable to comprehend how and in what manner the notion of "The State" may be more than the devil-principle of libertarian "thought", incapable of anything but evil and ruin, it would be an exercise in mutual intellectual masturbation to engage in further internet social intercourse.

If you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that marriage declined in this nation not because the state granted the licenses but because people en masse stopped respecting its inherent norms and dragged the state along into the endorsement of their failures, most prominently with no-fault divorce, and that same-sex marital simulacra would only further entrench the moral and social chaos, there is, simply stated, nothing left about which we can talk.

1.  I do not believe that the natural law tradition is entirely alien to the Eastern tradition.
   
   
2.  Even if I am mistaken in this judgment, the notion that marriage is a private matter in which society and state have no interest, a matter open to those who do not fulfill the traditional requirements, and a matter infinitely malleable according to the autonomous and ungrounded determinations of individuals acting as source and ground of all moral laws they wish to observe, is so alien to the Eastern tradition that the mind boggles.  The Byzantines would never countenance homosexual "marriages".
   
   
3.  I'm not wrong about "nature", not least because without something like "my" conception of "nature", one's only consistent intellectual option is nihilism.

that would be how?

To say my childless marriage is structured towards procreation is ridiculous.

You might as well argue that the purpose of marriage is so that young women will not end up destitute (since they can not own land independently and their career choices are extremely limited) or to solidify alliances or to secure wealth for their fathers.  All reasons for marriage in the past (regardless of your romantic traditionalist view that marriage has always been about raising children) that are quaint today.

gay marriage can be accommodated under that "even if...childless" clause.

No it can't, because it isn't oriented toward procreation.

the claim that sex is only for procreation

A claim I never made, and hence is irrelevant here.

that would be how?

B/c the nature of the (hetero) sexual act is procreative, as you well know.

that are quaint today.

Assertions of quaintness are not an argument. Quaintness has nothing to do with sex as structured toward procreation; it's the nature, the essence of the thing. Just b/c people have forgotten something doesn't mean that thing no longer obtains.

And this brings us back to the larger issue... if marriage isn't about (among other things) kids (even if none come from a particular marriage), what do you think it is about? Love? Okay, what kind of love? Does it have to be sexual? Why, or why not?

The sad thing is that the general form of arguments from gay marriage proponents is seeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition, apparently unbeknownst to many of those proponents. If you want to remove that tradition & its influence from political issues, then you'll have to start from the ground up. And the only gay marriage proponents I've seen do that (i.e. the only ones whose arguments are entirely consistent) are also in favor of all sorts of marital structures which most people see as beyond the pale.

So if you're going to argue that sex & marriage aren't about procreation, and that marriage can be redefined to include gays, then please provide the principle by which you will admit gay marriage while prohibiting other marital units.

B/c the nature of the (hetero) sexual act is procreative, as you well know.

Without running afoul of the posting rules, I'll just say that this statement seems to exclude some things which I would consider sexual acts.

Can you find a link for "anti-faith" because I don't think that is what he said.

I'm split on the religious spin on the filibuster.  I don't think Republicans should have put it into a religious discussion, but I recognize that some judges are being opposed becuase of their "deeply held beliefs" which sounds a lot like being a person of faith.  So I do agree with Republicans that there should be not religious test to become a judge.  There should be one question: will you uphold the rule of law above your personal views?  Yes.  End of questioning.

First, thanks for recognizing that some of the stereotypes of conservatives are undeserved.  FWIW, the Democrats did most of the eggregious things in the South during the 1960s (more Republicans signed the Civil Rights Act for one).  Those who despise the South will throw Republicans in with them by association.  I truly believe the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot thinking the South is Republican because of race.  It makes them feel better, but they don't know how to make a comeback if they don't understand the importance of a) repsecting religion, b) pro-life sentiment, c) the attachment to the 2nd amendment, d) and the history of individualism in the region.

As for the War on Terror comment.  My words for "a lack of heart in the War on Terror."  I think Dems have now acknowledged it is a war although for awhile some argued it should be dealt with as a police issue.  Nevertheless many Dems still seem to think multilateralism is a goal in and of itself.  The War on Terror does not seem to be their #1 foreign policy issue.  They are playing politics with our future UN Ambassador as they did with the Secretary of State.  They have relentless criticized the President's long term goal of democratizing the Middle East.  I can't think of any long term solution they are offering?  If someone asked me what was the Dems plan to win the War on Terror, I'd be befuddled.  So I think they are 100% behind the idea.  It seems like they are saying "we have to look like we are fighting a War on Terror, have moral values, and know how to talk religiously" instead of actually believing in any of those things.  It's the phoniness that makes me think they don't have the heart.

And one final point, I would love to hear more about the success in Afghanistan.  But since they are successes that the Bush administration would have created for I doubt we'll hear much about it unless a massive death or some other bad news happens.

They have.  Abortions are down since the early 1990s and more young people are pro-life than in the past.  But I think even as a libertarian you support limiting murder and rape because one of the government's fundamental roles is protecting the rights of its citizens.  Why is it wrong for some to argue that unborn child deserve the same protection as a toddler?  Why should that not be something legislatures debate?  Even the Libertarian nominee for President in 2004 was pro-life.

And although it is less important to me personally, I believe acting like secularism is not an ideology is a good way to misunderstand religious people.  When a non-religious person sends their child to a non-religious (public) school, then they are reinforcing their own teachings.  When a religious parent sends their child to a non-religious (public) school, they are in a tussle with the school over how religious their child can be at school.

As a libertarian you should see the obvious solution: do away with public schools.  Let parents send children wherever they want without making them pay for public schools.

Finally, I probably agree with you on a lot of the censorship type issues.  But I really hope you don't dismiss religious arguments out of hand.  There are legitimate greivences, most of which are due to an overzealous judiciary taking the right to self-rule away from the country.

hetero or homosexual, are not necessarily about procreation--that is the point of birth control and non-vaginal intercourse.  It is also about commitment, intimacy and love.  And in the case of sex, sometimes just for fun, recreation and pleasure.

Now do I want to limit the franchise of marriage to two people, yes.  But why you say, if two people are allowed to marry regardless of sex, why not 3 or 4, a man and his dog, or a woman and her ficus tree?  That last two examples are so ridiculous they don't deserve consideration, but I can draw a bright line at polygamous relationships.

Although there are situations of truly consensual and shall we say balanced "polyamorous" relationships the vast majority of polygamous relationships tend to be coercive in nature where a single dominant man is exercising control over a number of wives, often marrying them at a very young age and segregating them from society.  It is in the government's interest to protect these women and prevent these types of arrangements.

The Republican Party that placed more signatories on the Civil Rights Act has long since passed.  Many of those Republicans would be repudiated as RINOS and/or squishy.  The Democrats you refer to were fighting their national party, more or less, from Strom Thurmond forward.  They were voing for Goldwater, for Nixon, for Reagan.  I'm fine with the statement that race is not as relevant to partisan affiliation as it once was, and the statement that the Democratic party was, for over half a century, the party of institutional racism, but the modern partisan alignment owes some of its structural framework to racial conflict.

Your other points are well taken.  The traditional South and the modern Democratic Party are frequently at odds.  But I'm curious if you've looked at the demographic data about red state growth and looked at where the population growth is occurring.  This isn't really a state-v-state kind of thing, it's an urban-rural thing.  And Southern growth is in the metro areas.

(cranky, teething baby), I see the mistake to which you are pointing.

As usual, you are at least two steps ahead of the rest of us.

that their vote on the Civil Rights act would make them RINOs? Because if so, I'm taking back all the nice things I said about you earlier.

Support for the civil rights acts was a natural logical consequence of being the party that was founded upon the principle of eliminating slavery.

I would also like to know your basis for the assertion that

The Republican Party that placed more signatories on the Civil Rights Act has long since passed.

Can you find me one instance where the Republican Party of today is opposed to any provision of the Civil Rights Act?

Re: The Byzantines would never countenance homosexual "marriages".

Marriages? Of course not. But they did come up with the adelphopoeisis rite for same sex couples. And something like that would be my solution (politically that is, although I do think it would be a good idea for Christianity to bring back the old "brothering" rite for gays): Marriage for heterosexuals; a parallel institution for gays.

it was designed to kill tanks at the begining of wwii, and unlike most ATR designs, it actually did for a few years into the war.

I don't think the Civil Rights component is what would make them less welcome in the current Republican Party.  These were Republicans more in the mold of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, even Arlen Specter.  No not all of them, yes, I recognize given the different issues of the time, comparisons are difficult, but these were different Republicans.  Barry Goldwater, the "founder" of the modern conservative movement, was maligned by "Rockefeller" Republicans as too extreme.  Unlike now, the "Rockefeller" Republicans were a real strength in the party.  Goldwater later criticized the modern Republican Party as too conservative, too focused on social issues.  I don't think I'm being unfair here.

History on the fly, will accept corrections to the above, but I think the overall point stands.  Again, I'm not pulling the race card here.  At ease.

Christian marriage originated in the 9th century long after the lions were no longer a danger.

that the party that supported the civil rights acts is no more, it does tend to lead one to believe that in your opinion, if the civil rights acts came around again, the current GOP would in large numbers vote against it, no?

Would be that 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 establishes that they were occuring in the first century. Indicentally, 1 Corinthians is a book that even F. C. Baur concedes was actually written by Paul in the first century.

they were rites, is much controverted, and the scholar (whose name eludes me) who propounded the interpretation of those rites, or alleged rites, as medieval gay marriages was claiming rather more than any of the sources could possibly support.

In any event, the Byzantines would never countenance such a union being predicated upon sexual relations between the same-sex couples, inasmuch as Byzantine morality does not recognize the legitimacy of homosexual relations.  Hence, the meaning of the rites, were they found to be historically viable, and were they to be revived, would be something on the order of,"If you are not oriented toward members of the opposite sex in the relevant sense, find a same-sex partner, live as companions, and don't have sex."  I know men who have done this, without the sex and, obviously, without the rites, and it is obviously a far cry from the redefinition of marriage, assuming it to be a legitimate option for them.

Elizabeth F. Emens makes a case for polyamory in Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence (link is to a PDF version of the paper published in NYU Review of Law & Social Change) that is pretty compelling if one see no problem with gay marriage.

Among other things, she demonstrates that many of the same charges made against polyamory today were made against gay marriage a few years ago.

If there is no intrinsic link between sex (& marriage) and procreation, then there is no principled, non-arbritrary reason to exclude any consensual adult relationship from marriage.

I know I'm probably asking for trouble, but here goes:

Let it suffice to say I think the current GOP would not accept what was going on in the South any more than GOP of 40-50 years ago.  The method by which the problems would be addressed would perhaps be different.  Whether that would be better or worse than what was done would not be a question of intent, but methodology.  Sound vague?  Good.  I'm not sure this GOP would be as willing to use the heavy artillery of Federal intervention to the same extent.  But not because of latent or patent racism.  Better?

It is somewhat facile to try and apply political parties from times past to current issues, or vice versa.  It is due to my point that we are doing this, so I apologize.  I find it generally wrongheaded when people try to tell me what the Framers would think about PRAs, or what Lincoln would make of Evolution, etc., so I shouldn't really mess around too long trying to apply 60s Republicansism to today.

You've engaged in enough subterfuge to throw me off your trail (and that's not easy to do). :-)

First, I wasn't around for all this so my knowledge is only scholarly dismiss it at will.  But when a bunch of Southerners vote for Reagan, I see Dems jumping to the "racists" label to explain it instead of the anti-Communist, super-patriotic label that in my understand had more to do with it.  It seems eerily familiar in seeing liberals blame 2004 on the gay marriage amendments that statistically had no effect whereas the War on Terror had a substantial effect (esp. in NY, CT, and NJ area).  It seems Dems and the media prefer a feel good "we lost because we're morally superior" explanation than understanding where they actually lost votes.

I'll admit I don't know the details of how the "Southern Strategy" worked.  But I am skeptical about the conventional wisdom after watching how 2004 was spun.

Philosophically, conservatives have always been in favor of civil rights and equality under the rule of law.  That is why they are the main force behind the colorblind movement.  They did oppose affirmative action and other race-based policies because they entrench a race-based society.  Liberalism focused more on equalizing incomes, jobs, and other outcomes and thus pushed what we now call "Civil Rights" which includes many race-based policies.  There is a legitimate debate on these issues that Mr. Cosby has re-ignited but has continued since DuBois (liberal) and B.T. Washington (conservative) clashed a century ago.  Conservative views (i.e. colorblindness) was characterized as racist and played up in the media that way.  I think the desire to move past reverse discrimination and the tri-racial society that is developing along with people like Mr. Cosby speaking out will help the conservative ideals become more acceptable.  That's a good thing.  And I highly, highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality for a more in depth understanding of how we got to where we are and how the liberal concept of "Civil Rights" is not the only one.

SOUTHERN GROWTH

I am actually looking at migration data a lot recently, although mostly at a state level.  I am aware that most growth is actually not in urban or rural areas, but rather highly Republican exurbs.  I wrote about those areas after the election.  Here is the LA Times article that caught my attention original and a couple quotes from it:

In this month's election, President Bush (news - web sites) carried 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties, most of them "exurban" communities that are rapidly transforming farmland into subdivisions and shopping malls on the periphery of major metropolitan areas....

These growing areas, filled largely with younger families fleeing urban centers in search of affordable homes, are providing the GOP a foothold in blue Democratic-leaning states and solidifying the party's control over red Republican-leaning states....

The enormous gains in just eight years underscore the potential value of these communities to the GOP. Almost all demographers believe these "edge" counties will continue to grow rapidly, which means they will pose a growing threat to Democrats if the party cannot improve its standing there....

Bush's popularity in the high-growth counties propelled his victory in Florida, brought him close to winning in Minnesota and largely thwarted Kerry's hopes of competing in Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia, despite solid Democratic performances in more urban areas....

For Republicans, these fast-growing counties offer another dividend. Just over four-fifths of them are in red states that Bush won twice, with Georgia (20 high-growth counties), Texas (12 counties) and Florida (9 counties) leading the list. That growth helped the red states gain seven more electoral college votes after the 2000 census -- and seems certain to power further gains during the next reapportionment in 2010.

Hope that wasn't too much.  Best wishes.

Marriage is between two people. Stop. The non-moral reasoning being, it confers certain legal rights (and responsibilities) that the state has a vested interest in maintaining between pairs of individuals rather than within groups. The other relevant issue being, polygamy is a learned behavior; homosexuality is intrinsic.

But kudos for the "consensual adult relationship" clause. Some of the people arguing against gay marriage feel under no such rhetorical restraint.

As an aside, how does polygamy suffer from the procreation argument against gay marriage? Seems like you're starting to define marriage in terms of "it isn't this, or that, or this other one..."

incorrect and/or assumed in this post, but one thing you've said hits on the critical issue of why the state is allowed to define marriage any way that it sees fit:

it confers certain legal rights (and responsibilities) that the state has a vested interest in maintaining between pairs of individuals

This is exactly correct. And it is up to the state to decide which relationships between pairs of individuals that it has a vested interest in maintaining - hence it will grant them marriage "licenses". The state has a vested interest in maintaining a check on the ability of individuals to drive a car, and so it issues driver's "licenses." If a state decides that it's not in its vested interest to license 14 year olds, then it's perfectly within its legal boundaries to do so. If a state decides that it has no vested interest in maintaining relationships between homosexual couples, then no court has the legal standing to compel it to do so on the basis of discrimination.

It is an unjustified smear to say that Democrats do not "respect religion".  Show me one quote by a Democratic party official that "disresepcts religion".  And the Southern Democrats were Democrats in the '60s because Lincoln was a Republican.  All the black leaders were Republican for the same reason.  Forty years later the tables have turned because white southerners have finally gotten over that fact.

As for the war on terror, my heartburn with the Democratic Party is they have not criticized enough.  The president has made a complete mess of it and we (the Democrats) have let him get away with it.  He squandered the goodwill of the world from 9/11;  didn't finish the job, politically or militarily in Afghanistan; launched an unnecessary illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq; talks about but does little to actually achieve democracy in the middle east while cozying up to dictators in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and other countries;  claims to believe in the rule of law yet sets up a system of secret detention centers where detainees are deprived of all rights and are mistreated and tortured or simply disappear;  renders detainees (sometimes victims of mistaken identities) to countries that are known to torture on the flimsiest of assurances that they will not.  I could go on, but you get the gist of my argument.

to make a point that landed me in a lot of hot water the last time I (perhaps somewhat less politely) made it, if the state decided that gay kids couldn't drive but straight kids could, I tend to suspect there would be legal complications...

Look out, here comes everyone screaming homosexuality is not a protected class, akin to race. And so we go around and around...

We all wear them from time to time.  When you tell me philosophically, conservatives have always been in favor of civil rights, I simply have to say you are wrong.  Conservatism at it's root "conserves" the traditional order.  That can mean lots of things.  But I would argue it was a conservative philosophy that wanted to "keep doing things the way we always have" that defended Jim Crow.  That it was a conservative instinct to resist outsiders, pushy people from the city and from the north from telling the South what to do.  It certainly was the "conservative" Democrats who drug their feet during the Civil Rights Era.

It wasn't the Reagan vote that started that cry.  Look at the electoral map.  Again, shooting from the hip, historically.  Thurmond runs in 1948 as a Dixiecrat, carries 4 deep South states on a platform of segregation (LA, MS, AL, SC).  Same run of states show up in 1964, joined by GA.  Goldwater was not a racist man, but he was a true defender of federalism, which included opposition to the 1964 voting rights act that made him popular in the South.  In 1968, George Wallace makes his run, taking 5 southern states again (swap SC for AR).  Wallace was a Democrat in the old Southern Democrat sense, and he rebelled against the national party, in large part on segregationist grounds.  

The Republican Party was not oblivious to all this.  The Southern Strategy was crafted to appeal to these disaffected whites, not by direct racism, but by proxy - railing against Washington telling people how to live, etc.  Then Roe.  Then the gun control wars.  Then the rise of the religious right.  All are factors.  Some are more important than others.

It is very important for folks who read this to understand that I am not making claims that the current GOP is racist.  I will argue race is still relevant, but things have moved somewhat beyond the history of 40 years ago.

It is nice to think we can have a colorblind society but we still have a long way to go.  Within the last ten years both Mississippi and Alabama had ballot initiatives to remove their anti-miscegnation laws from their state constitutions (both had been void since Loving v. Virginia invalidated, all such laws back in 1967 so it was just a formality).  In both cases, the initiatives passed (the laws were stricken) but still garnered less than 60% majorities.  So that tells me that in those two states, more than forty percent of the voters think that interracial marriages should be illegal.  

Just this past year Mississippi failed to remove laws from its books that stated public education was not a right of children in Mississippi, a law that was passed in response to Brown v. Board of Education so Mississippi could shut down schools rather than integrate.  By the way conservative Republicans led the charge on keeping that law.