Columnist Barton Swaim, writing in the Washington Post, asks: The left won the culture war. Will they be merciful?
Swaim takes note that a growing number of religious conservatives “are rethinking their role in American society and politics,” as they concede they’ve lost the fight to have the law and culture reflect their traditionalist views on marriage and sexuality. Increasingly, they now seek, in the words of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “to live faithfully in a world in which we’re going to be a moral exception.”
Many religious social conservatives (albeit with some notable exceptions), writes Swaim:
are determined only to remain who they are and to live as amiably and productively as they can in a culture that doesn’t look like them and doesn’t belong to them. In time, this shift in outlook may bring about a more peaceable public sphere. But that will depend on others — especially the adherents of an ascendant social progressivism — declining to take full advantage of their newfound cultural dominance. I see few signs of that, but I am hopeful all the same.
I’m perhaps less hopeful, given the trope of the progressive LGBT left that social conservatives denied us freedom and liberty and so now it’s our turn to take away theirs (especially when doing so serves the progressive view that “equality” supersedes all other rights). It’s all sadly reminiscent of the many times throughout history when members of a persecuted class have gained cultural and political ascendancy, and then persecuted their former persecutors, often with a vengeance.
And yes, I’m talking about, among other indications of intolerance backed by state power, forcing religiously conservative independent service providers—at risk of paying exorbitant fines and/or being driven out of business—to create gay-messaged wedding cakes and to artfully plan, cater and photograph same-sex weddings.
More. From New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, The Liberal Blind Spot:
“In a column a few weeks ago, I offered ‘a confession of liberal intolerance,’ criticizing my fellow progressives for promoting all kinds of diversity on campuses — except ideological…. Almost every liberal [responding] agreed that I was dead wrong. ‘You don’t diversify with idiots,’ asserted the reader comment on The Times’s website that was most recommended by readers (1,099 of them). Another: Conservatives ‘are narrow-minded and are sure they have the right answers.'”
(hat tip: Walter Olson)
More. Via a Wall Street Journal op-ed, ‘Freedom of Worship’ Isn’t Enough:
One Colorado, a gay-rights group…wanted to amend Colorado’s constitution to define religious freedom as “the ability to engage in religious practices in the privacy of a person’s home or in the privacy of a religious organization’s established place of worship.”
More. Via the New York Post, Evangelical Christians wonder where the hell their power went:
Politically, old guard religious right organizations such as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition are greatly diminished or gone, and no broadly unifying leader or organization has replaced them. In this year’s presidential race, the social policy issues championed by Christian conservatives are not central, even amid the furor over bathroom access for transgender people. …
“If a homosexual couple comes in and wants a cake, then that’s fine. I mean I’ll do it as long as I’m free to speak my truth to them,” said Slayden, taking a break after the lunchtime rush. “I don’t want to get (to) any point to where I have to say or accept that their belief is the truth.”
The problem, many religious conservatives say, is that government is growing more coercive in many areas bearing on their beliefs. They say some colleges — citing a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that required school groups to accept all comers — are revoking recognition for Christian student clubs because they require their leaders to hold certain beliefs. …
And this:
Trump uses rhetoric that has resonance for Christian conservatives who fear their teachings on marriage will soon be outlawed as hate speech. “We’re going to protect Christianity and I can say that,” Trump has said. “I don’t have to be politically correct.”
Progressives think they represent all that is, well, progressive, even as they go about working to deny liberty to others, and then defend themselves citing how conservatives worked to deny them their liberty—as if that then makes it ok to do unto others as they tried to do unto you.
43 Comments for “The Culture War’s Changing Tides”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Swaim takes note that a growing number of religious conservatives “are rethinking their role in American society and politics,” as they concede they’ve lost the fight to have the law and culture reflect their traditionalist views on marriage and sexuality. Increasingly, they now seek, in the words of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “to live faithfully in a world in which we’re going to be a moral exception.”
I’ll be curious to see if conservative Christians are capable of finding a path “to live faithfully in a world in which we’re going to be a moral exception”.
Christians in this country are used to living in a culture in which others are expected to tug their forelocks in deference to the norms of Christianity. I think that most will be able to make the transition to living as a “faithful minority”, but I’m not expecting miracles.
It isn’t easy to “live faithfully” as a distinct religious minority in a culture. Ask the Amish, the Quakers, observant Jews or Muslims, Native Americans who live according to the traditional path, or any of the other “faithful minorities” living in our midst.
“Living faithfully” as a religious minority takes planning and work, and often involves a level of sacrifice) but (in my opinion, having done my best to do so) is worth it. I think that faith was deepened by “living faithfully” in a culture that is indifferent (and, as often as not, hostile) to “living faithfully”. That has been my experience, certainly, and it has been the experience of others, similarly situated, that I know.
The danger for Christians, it seems to me, is the temptation to fall into a state of permanent anger and resentment in a culture that no longer “tugs the forelock” in deference to Christianity and its cultural norms. I think that the shift since the 1950’s (when the post-WWII “normalcy” imposed a “cultural faith” on American culture) has come as a real shock to many Christians.
Christians hold the key to “living faithfully” in a world that is indifferent (and sometimes hostile) to their efforts to “live faithfully”. I hope that they will consider and learn from the experience of others (again, the Amish, the Quakers, observant Jews or Muslims, Native Americans who live according to the traditional path, or any of the other “faithful minorities” living in our midst) and find a path that allows them to live both “faithfully” and joyfully.
But the choice is theirs. Christians can follow Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer and a host of others down a bitter, angry road, demanding that the culture continue to “tug the forelock”, or Christians can follow Albert Mohler and other Christians who seek to find a path to live apart from the culture to the extent that it takes to “live faithfully”.
posted by Houndentenor on
As I live in Teabagistan I see little evidence that we’ve won except in the courts. The social conservative party runs both houses of Congress and all three branches of my state government. I can still be fired for being gay and my governor and attorney general have taken aim at trans people. Won? Only someone in a blue state bubble would think that. Winning? Yes, but it’s a slow process.
As for the main question, will liberals be nicer to social conservatives than they have been to us, I only ask this question…do they deserve to be treated better than they’ve treated everyone else?
posted by JimG on
It is not a question of whether they “deserve” it – it’s a question of “is it the right thing to do” – and especially from the “liberals”, as you call them, who supposedly understand and live the principals of fairness and equality. Will they rise to their own challenge or will they slide into the very behavior they claim to detest. So far, as I have observed, it is the latter.
posted by Wilberforce on
The only reason I can see that Stephen continues to flog this issue is that he hopes to get a job with Fox. Wedding cakes? Who cares.
And it again shows the fundamentalist ignorance of scripture. You cannot serve god and mammon. Yet that seems to be what they’re trying to do, totally oblivious to one of the basic principles.
posted by Lori Heine on
Christians are by no means united about what living faithfully means.
Some may think that it means being heterosexual, refraining from drinking alcohol or gambling or avoiding other no-no’s particularly enumerated by a materially-prosperous religious elite. Others happen to believe that it means speaking truth to power and standing up for the marginalized. Y’know…what Jesus did, and what Jesus is actually recorded in Scripture as having told his followers to do.
The religious right is attempting to pass off to the American public a falsely homogenized picture of what is actually a very diverse body of believers.
posted by Wilberforce on
Please don’t reply to me; I understand the libertarian con, changing the focus, to benefit private property; it is very boring.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Christians are by no means united about what living faithfully means.
Of course not. Christians can’t find common ground on much of anything else (hence the thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming to be more faithful to Christian truth than the others), so why would anyone expect Christians to “be united about what living faithfully means”?
It doesn’t make any difference to the point I am making, which is to suggest that conservative Christians like SBTS President Mohler, trying to formulate a workable response to living as a religious minority in a culture that no longer professes/pretends nominal obeisance to “Christian values” as conservative Christians understand the term, would be well served to look at the experience of minority religionists (observant Jews, observant Muslims, Amish and Mennonites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Native American traditionalists, Sikhs, and so on and so on) for practical advice and example.
Minority religionists have a lot of experience with “living faithfully” in a culture that is indifferent and/or hostile to their beliefs and practices, and have explored different models of doing so. Because that experience exists, conservative Christians don’t have to reinvent the wheel, and that is my only point.
posted by Houndentenor on
About Kristoff’s article. Yes, in some departments of some schools there is open hostility to conservatives. This is mainly in the humanities. In other departments of other schools the funding has come from far right sources so if you are a liberal economist or business professor, you will not get hired. It works both ways. I have a lot of very conservative colleagues where I teach and in addition to knowing to keep my mouth shut about politics (as I am not tenured) I also don’t talk about being gay either because it would be completely legal for them to fire me for that in this state. So the belly-aching from conservatives in academia and in Hollywood and a few other pockets of liberal majority workplaces rings a little hollow with me because I remember liberals on Wall Street keeping their mouths shut and even enduring a barrage of “Hillary is so ugly” jokes for fear of not fitting in. Perhaps the lesson is that politics is not an appropriate topic for the workplace but in deep blue and deep red areas it doesn’t occur to the majority that the minority even exists, even if they are 35-45% of the vote there.
posted by Kosh III on
“are determined only to remain who they are and to live as amiably and productively as they can”
This is what the “gay agenda” has always been. Life, liberty and pursing happiness. Did religionists/GOP/Conservatives allow us this freedom? Of course not. They strove for centuries to destroy anyone who didn’t “tug the forelock” and it is still their goal to destroy gay people.
Do I wish them to be subjected to years of hateful death and misery? No. But if that happens: Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn.
posted by Kosh III on
Like Houndentenor I live in a place where the GOP control all parts of the government and the Southern Bigot Convention still holds much influence.
It has only gotten worse. These avowed homocons should live for a year in Marion AL or Jersey AR and see what their “conservative” paradise is really like.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that it is important to keep three things in mind: (1) the only thing that public accommodations laws do is to require all public businesses covered by the laws to serve the public on an equal footing, without discrimination on the basis of protected class, (2) in this regard, Christian business owners are treated no differently than any other business owners, and (3) if the requirements of public accommodations laws can be shown to impose a substantial burden on the religious practice of Christian business owners, for whatever reason, the courts can correct the situation under the Sherbert/Yoder test, even as eroded by the Rehnquist Court in Employment Division.
I notice that Stephen has upped the rhetorical ante (as he always seems to do when he is on the losing side of an argument, making no headway) and is now claiming that conservative Christians are “persecuted” by enforcement of public accommodations laws.
Let’s be clear: States and localities with public accommodations laws covering sexual orientation are not “persecuting” Christian business owners, singling them out for special treatment or discrimination under the law. All that is being required is for Christian business owners to operate in accordance with the law, to play by the same rules as all other business owners.
We can debate the wisdom of public accommodations laws, as the Libertarian Party candidates for President did last week in an argument over repeal of the public accommodations laws embodied in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We can debate the wisdom of the “substantial burden” requirement of the Sherbet/Yoder test, discussing the ins and outs of reducing the requirement to mere “burden” (as the proposed “religious freedom laws do for the most part), allowing any burden, no matter how trivial or far-fetched, to trigger the requirements of “compelling interest” and “least restrictive means”. We can, in short, discuss much.
But to argue that public accommodations laws “persecute” Christians is nonsense, and should be called out as such.
posted by Jorge on
But to argue that public accommodations laws “persecute” Christians is nonsense, and should be called out as such.
The deciding factor for the persecution which public accommodations laws visit on individuals is doctrine which they follow.
This is a plain and apparent violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the US Constitution, and should be not only called out as such, but halted through such mobilization.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is a plain and apparent violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the US Constitution, and should be not only called out as such, but halted through such mobilization.
Do you feel the same way about a Christian business owner who is required to provide services to an inter-racial marriage, or a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian, or between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, or a couple that is being remarried after a divorce by one or both of the parties? If not, why not?
posted by Jorge on
Do you feel the same way about a Christian business owner who is required to provide services to an inter-racial marriage, or a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian, or between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, or a couple that is being remarried after a divorce by one or both of the parties?
No.
If not, why not?
I am not convinced that the deciding factor for the persecution which the public accommodations law would visit on them is the doctrine which they follow. It seems to me more likely that the doctrine would follow the social views rather than the other way around, making the deciding factor the businessperson’s social views instead.
posted by Jorge on
(I missed that you also asked about inter-faith marriages.)
I am undecided as to that question. It seems to me that it depends on whether the faith in question is orthoprax or not. Christianity generally is not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So, if I understand you, public accommodations laws are “an apparent violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the US Constitution” if and only if such laws ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
John in CA’s comment comes to mind: “It’s clear that it’s not non-discrimination laws that are the problem, it’s the “include LGBT people” that are the problem. Pretending it’s some principled position is just encouraging ridicule.”
But cowboy on, Jorge, defending anti-gay bias to the last ditch.
posted by Jorge on
You’re inverting the cause and effect, Tom.
Before there ever were civil rights laws about either homosexuality and African Americans, there were Bible verses and hundreds of years old religious doctrines about homosexuality and African Americans.
Or, there were not.
Whether there were or there were not is I think rather relevant.
And it’s rather a bit much to say one must presume that the Bible says the EXACT same thing about women, gays, blacks, transgenders, cripples, and aliens.
posted by JohnInCA on
Hey, you’re the one saying that Christians that say serving gays is a sin should have their beliefs protected while Christians that say serving blacks is a sin shouldn’t have their beliefs protected.
Seeing as you’re picking and choosing which religious beliefs are worthy of government protection, I don’t think it’s unfair to expect you to defend this.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sophistry, Jorge. Simple sophistry.
posted by JohnInCA on
There have been what, a half-dozen lawsuits, over the last decade, involving gay people denied public accommodations?
There have been more involving employment, but while we hear about the start of those cases we don’t hear the end of ’em, so I’m assuming the plaintiffs normally lose (employment discrimination is notoriously hard to prove).
If that’s what Christians “living faithfully” are worried about, then it sounds like they don’t have many concerns to me. Fare fewer concerns then the people they claim are persecuting them.
posted by Jorge on
The Supreme Court recently wrote a decision on a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC against a company.
The district court after dismissing the claims for every single woman the EEOC brought forward, awarded over $4 million in attorney’s fees. The appeals court reversed on two of the women’s claims, reviving them, and thus vacating the attorney’s fees. Those two cases were disposed of, and once again the district court awarded over $4 million in attorney’s fees. The Court acknowledges It is nine years after the lawsuit and it’s once again kicking the case down to a lower court.
Worry. Lawsuits can spell death to a business. Over $4 million in attorney’s fees are down the drain for a case in which only a single woman was helped.
posted by JohnInCA on
That would be more relevant if there was any serious effort in this country to undo non-discrimination laws *other* then non-discrimination laws that include LGBT people.
Until that happens, however, it’s clear that it’s not non-discrimination laws that are the problem, it’s the “include LGBT people” that are the problem. Pretending it’s some principled position is just encouraging ridicule.
posted by TJ on
I have zero problem with more Americans (of every race, color and creed) becoming less homophobic and giving up their opposition to civil right legislation.
I do not see much change — in attitudes or policy — in my neck of the woods. If politicians and priests can get people to write them checks to fight a war against bathrooms and baked goods, they are still willing to do so.
posted by Jorge on
I’m perhaps less hopeful, given the trope of the progressive LGBT left that social conservatives denied us freedom and liberty and so now it’s our turn to take away theirs
If true, then by definition, that means it’s not freedom that was denied, and a brutal turnabout is ethical, justified, and within the definition of measured.
There is no law that says it’s only oppression when the oppressers get their way most of the time. Getting a good kick every five years, or every five states, is still quite powerful, and does much to alter the cultural equilibrium.
That said, I think you have a narrow view of the left that doesn’t account for the generation that’s dying out but that is still holding deep positions of power. I do not think all those old ex-homophobes are going quietly into the night to no effect. This columnist cites a Catholic using the term “principled pluralism,” that letter to the LGBTQ Task Force by all those old Jewish gays some months ago used the term “principled pluralism”, it seems to me there is a political will that wants to pass down a lesson or two (about ****ing time the media started considering the idea that–hey!–left-moderates and right-moderates talk to each other, too). Might skip a generation or two, but will it really fail catastrophically?
I’ll be curious to see if conservative Christians are capable of finding a path “to live faithfully in a world in which we’re going to be a moral exception”.
Not curious enough to vote for Rick Santorum as president, I’ll wager. Or should I say, curious enough not to.
To the rest of your point, it seems to me there are two types of Christian loudmouths, those who proclaim the only other religion is Wrong Religion, and those who pretend the only other religion is No Religion. It’s your classic “the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about” situation. I think the latter are more common. It’s a very sad situation; it’s not much to ask people to notice that, “Hello? There’s ‘Other Religion.'” But the people who are willing to say that aren’t the loudmouths.
As I live in Teabagistan…
I’m offended, you Teabagliban.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
To the rest of your point, it seems to me there are two types of Christian loudmouths, those who proclaim the only other religion is Wrong Religion, and those who pretend the only other religion is No Religion. It’s your classic “the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about” situation. I think the latter are more common. It’s a very sad situation; it’s not much to ask people to notice that, “Hello? There’s ‘Other Religion.’” But the people who are willing to say that aren’t the loudmouths.
That might be true (as in SBC President Bailey Smith’s “God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.” assertion some years ago), but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the points I was making.
The point I was making is that it is possible to “live faithfully”, living the faith and values of your religion, even though the requirements imposed by “living faithfully” are at odds with the dominant culture, and that Christians should consider the experience of non-Christian religionists in finding a path to do so.
Observant Jews and Muslims do it, Mormons living outside religious pockets of Utah do it, Amish and Mennonites do it, Jehovah’s Witnesses do it, followers of traditional Native American religions do it, and so on. In fact, adherents of every religion other than the dominant religions that have historically shaped our culture do it, and have done it for years.
Christians have not, for the most part, done it, at least in this country. Because Christian religionists were so dominant for so long in our history, Christians were able to shape cultural norms and our laws to their religious values. Adherents of other religions had to work around the Christian cultural juggernaut, and “living faithfully” for them took planning, work and sacrifice.
Now the Christian cultural juggernaut is coming to an end (and good on that), Christians face the question, for the first time in our country’s history, of how to “live faithfully” in a culture that does not mindlessly accord Christian values as cultural values.
We are seeing two primary responses, it seems to me.
The first (which seems to me to be a path chosen by Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer and other denizens of the “Religious Right”, as well as their political party of choice) is a determination to reinstate “Christian values” as normative values. Efforts range from the moronic (demanding that non-Christians working in business greet customers with “Merry Christmas” during the endless “Christmas Season” that now starts right after the 4th of July, it seems) to the dangerous (demanding that our laws grant Christian business owners special discriminatory rights against gays and lesbians). That path, it seems to me, will lead to bitterness, resentment, frustration, and, ultimately, failure.
The second (which seems to be the path chosen by Pastor Mohler and other more sensible Christians) is to recognize that our country’s normative values are no longer “Christian values”, a development unlikely to reverse itself, and to learn to “live faithfully” within a non-Christian culture.
Christians, it seems to me, can learn from the experience of non-Christian religionists, who have learned to “live faithfully” in a culture that does not reflect, and as often as not stands in opposition to, their religious values.
But Christians can do so only if they look to that experience, which brings your observation and my point to a nexus. Christians may have been so blinded by Christian cultural dominance over the years that they cannot see anything to be gained by those who have experience with “living faithfully” in a culture in which they are a minority view.
posted by Jorge on
The point I was making is that it is possible to “live faithfully”, living the faith and values of your religion, even though the requirements imposed by “living faithfully” are at odds with the dominant culture, and that Christians should consider the experience of non-Christian religionists in finding a path to do so.
That’s really only possible within a worldview that acknowledges that there even are other faiths. I am not at all sure that worldview exists among the people you would like to practice it.
Otherwise what you are asking people to do is akin to suffering under an oppressive regime. Connecting state/nation adoptions of gay marriage laws to a Christian historical experience of suffering more akin to what I have read some Catholic leaders have said.
posted by Jorge on
Let me be a little more clear at my point here.
A message of suffering implies that there will be some kind of deliverance.
But it does not always imply that the deliverance will occur in the world beyond. It can also mean that history will vindicate the sufferers.
Pope Benedict, in his discussion of the beatitudes in Jesus of Nazareth describes the silent suffering as a rejection of evil.
It may be a little much to ask of Christians to consider gay marriage in a pluralistic society as simply different people having different ways of honoring God and life. There will remain a social tension about it, a warning that someday, society may reverse itself.
posted by JohnInCA on
“It may be a little much to ask of Christians to consider gay marriage in a pluralistic society as simply different people having different ways of honoring God and life.”
I’m not sure about “honoring God and life”, but if it’s too much to ask Christians to “live and let live”, which is what’s actually being asked, then Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the First Amendment and un-American.
If that’s your claim, that’s your claim, but I don’t think you’re giving Christians enough credit.
posted by Jorge on
but if it’s too much to ask Christians to “live and let live”, which is what’s actually being asked, then Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the First Amendment and un-American.
Using the term un-American in a defense of pluralism strikes me as contradictory.
The First Amendment only operates as a check against the actions of the state and federal government, not against the conduct of private citizens.
posted by JohnInCA on
Funny, the same self-identified Christians you’re defending are deeply interested in making sure the actions of the state and federal government are all up in *your* “conduct of private citizens”.
And again, if non-discrimination laws are a violation of anyone’s First Amendment rights, then that’s true for *all* non-discrimination laws. The argument that it’s *only* such a violation when they cover gay people? Is laughable.
posted by Jorge on
Funny, the same self-identified Christians you’re defending are deeply interested in making sure the actions of the state and federal government are all up in *your* “conduct of private citizens”.
Actually, they are not.
And again, if non-discrimination laws are a violation of anyone’s First Amendment rights, then that’s true for *all* non-discrimination laws. The argument that it’s *only* such a violation when they cover gay people? Is laughable.
Do you or do you not believe that the Bible and centuries old religious tradition say the exact same thing about homosexuality, melotonin content, African ancestry, alienage, disability, and being female?
To quite Scalia, you’ve got four answers to choose from: Yes, No, I don’t know, or I don’t want to answer.
posted by JohnInCA on
Laws regarding sodomy, adoption, marriage, service in the military, “obscene materials” in the mail system, security clearances… that they have recently started *losing* in their attempts to control and ostracize gay people using the government does not mean that they didn’t try (successfully, I might add) for the majority of American history and continue to try where they can get away with it.
And frankly, if you think *my* beliefs on whether Billy Joe Bob is the right kind of Christian are relevant, then you need to go to a remedial civics course. The government does not have a legitimate interest in deciding whether racists citing the bible are “not real” Christians, while homophobes citing the bible are “good enough” Christians. That’s why we occasinally get silly stories about some guy that got his driver’s license photo with a pasta strainer on his head.
So it doesn’t *matter* whether the Bible and “centuries old religious tradition” say the “exact same thing” about anything. All that matters is that the person has a religious belief. But you know, as long as we’re on the topic, you should go check all the bible-thumpers that opposed integration on religious grounds. And opposed abolition on religious grounds. And opposed women’s suffrage on religious grounds.
posted by Jorge on
And frankly, if you think *my* beliefs on whether Billy Joe Bob is the right kind of Christian are relevant
I am not asking for your religious opinion about how to be a Christian. I am asking for your academic opinion about what the doctrine of Christianity (well, actually, religion in general) is.
Religious doctrine and religious belief are subject to certain protections under the non-establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Is smoking Peyote socially deviant, or is it a religious practice? Is saying “Jesus Christ” in a town hall meeting privileging one religion over another? Whether or not something actually is a tenet of religious belief is actually quite relevant.
Now I grant this is not universally accepted–there is a minority view that every possible social and ethical belief is protected under these clauses regardless of if it derives from religion or spirituality. It seems you are of this view (“pasta strainers” indeed).
See, when I ask people questions that reveal the weakest point of their arguments, it’s quite common for people to refuse to answer or pretend there’s some reason why they should’t. That’s how I tell whether I’m dealing with someone who’s dishonest or who has a black-and-white view of the world. If you think the question isn’t relevant or isn’t decisive, the best way to prove it is answer it and describe the dissonance.
But you know, as long as we’re on the topic, you should go check all the bible-thumpers that opposed integration on religious grounds. And opposed abolition on religious grounds. And opposed women’s suffrage on religious ground
Abolition and women’s suffrage are constitutional amendments, so those examples are not relevant.
With respect to opposition to integration, I am unconvinced. I suspect their religion was based on their social beliefs. It’s only a 60-40 chance (what happens when you pass down such beliefs to children?), but that’s more than enough to unravel in court if the cards come out a certain way.
posted by JohnInCA on
So you want me, a raised-agnostic guy, to decide who is and isn’t a “real” Christian?
Yeah. That makes sense. Or, how about this: if someone tells me that their religious beliefs are [insert belief here], I take them at their word? It is not my place, or your place for that matter, to decide who is and isn’t a “real” Christian. Or a member of any other religion.
To put it simply, it doesn’t matter whether someone says their religion requires them to wear a tiny hat or a pasta strainer, “if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket” and all that jazz. It’s when it starts breaking legs and picking pockets that government actually cares, and at that point the concern isn’t whether the belief is “sincere” or properly traditional, but whether it can be reasonably accommodated.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am asking for your academic opinion about what the doctrine of Christianity (well, actually, religion in general) is.
Academic, indeed, in the sense of “not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest”.
The government cannot pick and choose among religous beliefs, granting protection to one on the grounds that it is a “valid” belief but denying protection to another on the grounds that it is a “not valid” belief. The courts have been clear on this over a long period time, and even “moral approbation” (which is the secular equivalent of religious tenet). Government attempts to do so smack of establishment, and are routinely denied.
The constitutional considerations aside, how in the hell could anyone tell the difference between a “valid” religious belief and a “not valid” religious belief?
Even limiting the inquiry to “the doctrine of Christianity” and ignoring “religion in general”, it is impossible. Christians have been tossing “apostate” and “anathema” at each other for as long as Christianity has existed as a movement, and even on core issues (the nature of the duality of human/divine in the man-god) Christians don’t agree with each other. Resort to “the Bible” doesn’t help, because for every text cited by one Christian, a contradictory text will be cited by another. Attempts to find “universal” belief sets among Christians are doomed to failure, unless the inquiry is so surface-limited as to produce pabulum.
While it is easy to dismiss marginal denominations, resort to size-matters doesn’t help, either, when it comes to determining “the doctrine of Christianity”. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination by far, and stands firmly against divorce after remarriage. Other Christians weasel out of the Biblical texts on which Catholic doctrine is based on a variety of pretexts, but the fact remains that religious opposition to remarriage after divorce has both clear Biblical grounds (in the Christian Scriptures, anyway) and is the doctrine of the largest Christian denomination. And even that combination is of no help when it comes to determining “the doctrine of Christianity”.
And, of course, expanding the inquiry to “religion in general” compounds the problem. Are Jews to fulfill the role of “light of the nations” or is the Christian man-god? Is Israel the “suffering servant” or is the Christian man-god? Two religions, reading the same texts from Isaiah, reaching diametrically opposite conclusions. And outside the so-called “Judaeo/Christian” tradition (which doesn’t exist, except in the minds of Christians who run roughshod over Jewish understanding of the relevant texts), the problem compounds even further, getting worse if you try to reconcile other religions.
But even if it were possible to show that all religions clustered around a common belief-set about a particular issue (e.g. if all religions shared early Christianity’s dim view of women, from which the legal doctrines of women as chattel and other oppresive laws largely derived in Western culture) what relevance is that to rights of citizens under the Constitution? None.
When I asked you how you justified government protection for a religious opposition to same-sex marriage, but spurned government protection for religious opposition to remarriage after divorce, inter-racial marriage, inter-religious marriage, inter-denominational marriage and so on, you deflected the discussion into twaddle — “Do you or do you not believe that the Bible and centuries old religious tradition say the exact same thing about homosexuality, melotonin content, African ancestry, alienage, disability, and being female?”
Of course not. But in terms of the law, the answer is, “Who cares?” Or perhaps “Sophistry. Simple sophistry.”
posted by Jorge on
The government cannot pick and choose among religous beliefs, granting protection to one on the grounds that it is a “valid” belief but denying protection to another on the grounds that it is a “not valid” belief.
Sincere, Tom. Not “valid.”
The government does not need to accept malingering as a religion.
While it is easy to dismiss marginal denominations, resort to size-matters doesn’t help, either, when it comes to determining “the doctrine of Christianity”…
That’s a fair argument.
It does not in the slightest convince me of the sincerity of white southerners’ religious beliefs against integration. You’re being too theoretical.
Of course not. But in terms of the law, the answer is, “Who cares?” Or perhaps “Sophistry. Simple sophistry.”
Can you find anyone who does? Or did?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I leave the Christian theological issues to Christian theologians. I am addressing much more practical and mundane aspects of “living faithfully”, situations in which “living faithfully” means living counter-culturally — more at the level of “How Do I?” rather than “What’s the Theology?”.
Whatever the theology, and whether or not conservative Christians will be vindicated in this world or the next, conservative Christians now face a host of practical decisions about how to “live faithfully” in a world that is, at best, indifferent to their theological concerns. It is at the practical level, not the theological, in which the experience of minority religionists might be helpful for conservative Christians.
posted by TJ on
1. If a science professor decides not to teach evolution, because he is a conservative Christian, he is probably going to get into trouble (unless he has tenure).
This is the only major type of scenario where a conservative Christian professor is generally seen as being an idiot. If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you DON’T have to be an atheist or a a libertarian or a liberal. You do have to respect the science.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m pretty sure that there are quite a few states where he won’t get in trouble.
posted by Jorge on
So you want me, a raised-agnostic guy, to decide who is and isn’t a “real” Christian?
I want you to move away from the hypothetical “if one religious objection can be accepted, every claimed religious objection must be accepted” and into the concrete: what are the religious objections?
I want you to move away from the hypothetical and toward a fact-based inquiry: who is expressing a sincere religious objection and who is malingering.
Just because you yourself are an agnostic does not mean you are any more or less qualified than a person of faith in reviewing and applying the First Amendment to a given factual situation. That would be a violation of the First Amendment. Or are you, an agnostic, claiming a religious objection to applying the law?
Yeah. That makes sense.
I always make sense.
Or, how about this: if someone tells me that their religious beliefs are [insert belief here], I take them at their word? It is not my place, or your place for that matter, to decide who is and isn’t a “real” Christian. Or a member of any other religion.
Sure. That would be easy. But that’s not the question. The question is whether a particular law infringes upon a person’s religious expression; or whether a particular law privileges one religion over another.
It is not too much to ask of someone to have them define what their religion is under cross-examination, or explain why a law infringes upon it. The reason you reject this idea is because you do not want to admit that putative religious objections are more likely to survive cross-examination when applied against gay rights policies than when applied against other civil rights policies. That would require you to admit that there are in fact religious objections to gay rights and there actually were not religious objections to black civil rights.
To put it simply, it doesn’t matter whether someone says their religion requires them to
Stop.
You assume for the sake of the argument that the statement “their religion” is equally true in all policy matters. I do not accept that assumption. Go back. Do not talk past this point.
posted by JohnInCA on
Dude, I’m not sure what question you *thought* you asked, but here’s what you *actually* asked:
“Do you or do you not believe that the Bible and centuries old religious tradition say the exact same thing about homosexuality, melotonin content, African ancestry, alienage, disability, and being female?”
and then
“I am not asking for your religious opinion about how to be a Christian. I am asking for your academic opinion about what the doctrine of Christianity (well, actually, religion in general) is.”
So yeah. There’s a yuuge reason I didn’t answer the questions you actually asked (as opposed to the questions you thought you asked).
That said
“That would require you to admit that there are in fact religious objections to gay rights and there actually were not religious objections to black civil rights.”
Why would I admit that? We have it in the judicial record that people sincerely religiously believed God mandated the segregation races. Why should I, on your word alone, believe all those people were lying about their religion?
Which is what it comes down to. I’m not interested in calling people liars because I don’t like their religion. You’re *eager* to do so.
posted by TJ on
Meanwhile….
a. Many LGBT people lack civil rights in areas such as employment, housing and transportation.
b. Many students are harassed wih little or no recourse.
c. Bathroom bills suggest that transgender people cant be trusted and cant use any bathroom outside of their home
d. Globally..
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Trump uses rhetoric that has resonance for Christian conservatives who fear their teachings on marriage will soon be outlawed as hate speech. “We’re going to protect Christianity and I can say that,” Trump has said. “I don’t have to be politically correct.”
Of course he will. The President Presumptive has already pledged to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice from a list that is a cherry-pick of the most conservative, anti-equality judges in the United States, and to rescind the Obama administration’s Executive Orders banning discrimination against gays and lesbians at the federal administrative level.
I’ve been watching The President Presumptive at the Faith and Freedom conference, in which repeated chants of “USA, USA” define the theological parameters of American conservative Christianity.
At the conference, as always, The President Presumptive was a refreshingly direct spokesman for Republican themes that have long been cloaked in political-correct double-speak, and your note above is a good example.
Republican politicians have been twaddling about “religious freedom” since Obergefell, conjuring up absurd examples about Jewish wedding planners being forced to decorate a neo-Nazi wedding, and on and on. The President Presumptive doesn’t twaddle; he comes right out and says, as plain as a goat’s ass, that it is all about protecting the legal and cultural dominance of conservative Christianity.
So be it. Homocons look at The President Presumptive and see a kindred spirit. I look at him and see a catastrophe in the making. A difference in perspective.