Centerfield

The only part I really disagree with, by the way, is the assertion that the concern about theocracy is a thin facade to disguise something much more boilerplate: disagreement on policy grounds. "A Christian is allowed ... to mix religion and politics in support of sweeping social reforms— but only if those reforms are safely identified with the political Left, and with the interests of the Democratic party," says Douthat, but that statement is too narrowly drawn to account for Republicans who voice concern over theocracy. I'd suggest that a more accurate statement is that it is not that people resent the assertion of faith because it produces policies opposed by the left, but that people resent faith whenever it is asserted to justify policies with which they disagree.

Posted by: Simon at August 24, 2006 05:18 PM

And then there's this:

Christian Coalition Losing Chapters

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 05:29 PM

A profound and well-reasoned essay, that serves as a good rebuke to hysteria. As a Bible-believing Christian, I certainly believe that faith is critical to all areas of public life. While it's clear that are legitimate examples of religio-political extremism on the right, many of these authors pretend as if there isn't an equal amount of secular extremism on the Left. In fact, it seems like they overstate the case, lumping anyone who takes faith seriously into the theocrat column, in order to further the removal of religion from the public square. For all there hostilities towards religious fundamentalism, they're really no different-- they are simply secular fundamentalists.

Don't get me wrong, there are numerous debates to be had over the proper role of religion in society, or the politicization of religious issues (by both sides), and the demagoguery of certain issues (also by both sides). The problem is, they willfully exaggerate, to distort the debate, no different than what the religious extremists on the right do. There's no balance. If you belief the Bible is true, or that abortion is wrong, or that faith ought to have some influence on politics, you're a theocrat. Heck, even if you're on the Left, you're a theocrat (although it varies in their thinking).

As a Christian, who is a moderate liberal politically, I get heat from both sides. As far as faith politics, I have no problem with faith in politics. I just want the politics out of faith.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 24, 2006 08:12 PM

Rafique,

I'm not sure how you can have it both ways. When one inserts religion so thoroughly into politics, including making political sermons from the pulpit, it is inevitable that politics will become part-and-parcel of the faith.

The authors mentioned in the article are extremists, absolutely. Liberals are so very frequently their own worst enemies when they go too far. Of course, this is somewhat balanced out by the conspiracy theories of Religious Fundamentalists who think there is an, "abortion industry." as if to compare the Pro-Choice movement with the Nazi Holocaust. That too, is just obscene on its face.

Truth is, the liberals don't understand how the Religious Right would push a theocracy. In this country there are diverse communities and NOT so diverse communities. In the former parts of the country there is such a thing as behavior unsuitable for POLITE company. That it is impolite to make people feel uncomfortable when they happen to be a religious minority or just not in agreement with the majority in the room. The Religious Right today doesn't respect that line of politeness. I believe they are sincere, but telling someone that they are damned because they happen to have opinions of their own is just RUDE and obnoxious. But no apology is ever profered.

The idea is to recreate the environment that existed in some parts of America before the 1960's where your business was everyone elses in the community. There wasn't anything happening with you that people wouldn't know about.

The role of government in this process is actually fairly limited, at least at first. The idea is to convert as many as possible and to make people uncomfortable with their dissent from the majority opinion. Of course this is typically accompanied by a VERY LOVING and inclusive communitarian environment. But your thoughts are supposed to be the same as everyone elses. And if they aren't, and you don't have anywhere else to turn, you're MEANT to feel left out. That way they can come back to you and say, COME ON, we LOVE YOU, please come to the body of Jesus Christ. Which means the group, all of which is socially required to think the same.

For people more grounded in Enlightenment philosophy this is scary stuff. Further, the politics of the GOP has shifted in the last decade from a Populist Conservatism to a more Establishment and Religious Conservatism. The focus recently on appealing to the Hispanic Community and the revival of the more conservative Jesuitical part of Catholicism, as well as the movement of some Hispanics to Pentecostalism is further part of this movement.

The effect that these new voters are meant to have on the GOP is to help completely excise any and all "progressive" or reformist ideology as well ideas based on the enlightenment which is anathema to many of them. This helps lead to a politics that has the effect of giving corporate and other established institutions cart-blanche, because these voters don't get excercised on their own behalf, but on the behalf of the guy in the pulpit.

I don't know how far this movement will continue. I think it has corrupted the Conservative lable and allowed George W. Bush to get away with calling himself one when he is not.
But the reach of these communities isn't likely to get to a majority nationwide in the near future, which means in some places this will permeate, but not in the majority of the country.

But much of the focus IS on the poor black, and especially Hispanic communities, because THAT is a strong potential area of growth. Given the strong ethnic and racial dynamic in these communities it's hard to see how far they might get with this, but who knows?

None of this is MEANT to be conspiratorial except that there are talking points that the members of some of these groups take in order to present a more acceptable public face, covering up the group-think inside the community when they know that outsiders just won't understand.

Finally, what gets me so excersized about the involvement of these groups within the GOP is that there just is no coalition building. When they enter the room, they become the room. They ARE THE ROOM. This is what they did to the state and local Republican parties in the late 80's and throughout the 90's which had atrophied because, let's face it, most of the election holding functions had been transfered to state governments. So when these local parties began to look like tea parties, coffee clatches, and the ladies auxiliary, it didn't take too many Church members to show up and take over the edifice. Even if the edifice had very little political power of its own. The idea is to BECOME the ROOM. To BECOME the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Finally, it isn't the abortion issue or the Gay Rights issue that bugs me the most with these groups. In either case, I believe there is an 80% solution which, unfortunately, would never be enough for them, but which could serve as the basis for cooperation.

As I said in an earlier post yesterday to our visiting Presidential Candidate, Michael Smith, THEY ARE the GOP at the moment, and they're unlikely, from a political standpoint, to be willing to negotiate party strategy.

But the thing that really gets me, is a real and avowed opinion that, in fact, NO Separation of Church and State exists in the Constitution and that American law has it's basis in Christian theology, NOT Enlightenment Philosophy.

Don't even GO THERE.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 24, 2006 09:51 PM

And YES, that is my, "FINAL," answer.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 24, 2006 09:58 PM

Random comments (as a Christian centrist).

1) Maybe we should let those who are deathly afraid of the "secular humanists" duke it out with those who are terrified of the "Christofascists"?

For people more grounded in Enlightenment philosophy this is scary stuff. Further, the politics of the GOP has shifted in the last decade from a Populist Conservatism to a more Establishment and Religious Conservatism.

Why does it surprise us when a large block of voters is attracted to one party that that party starts to "pander" to them. Isn't that what happens in politics. Don't we all find it odd when Democratic candidates who rarely if ever attend church find themselves "in the pulpit" appealling to black voters by.

Christians have always struggled with not becoming too "cock-sure" of themselves. How many times did Jesus speak against the Pharisees. It's still easy for us to become Pharisees. (Now were the Pharisees Democrats or Republicans? I forget.)

On the hand Christians throughout our nation's history have been a real "pain in the ass". John Brown was rabidly anti-slavery and even tried to start a war. Carrie Nation campaigned against drunkeness and vandalized a few while she was at it. Elizabeth Seaton cared for the injuried confederate AND Union soldiers. MLK really irritated a lot of people by insisted God made black and white equal. Religion has enriched America. Now what has keep that alive is America's great insistence on a separation between religion and state. That tension will alway lead to a lot of arguing. So be it.

Posted by: c3 at August 24, 2006 11:53 PM

Cav:

I'll be the first to recognize extremism on both sides, right and left. As far as having it both ways, I don't see a contradiction. Faith can influence your policy choices, and political decisions, but it shouldn't divide up the faith. I guess what I'm saying is, whie disagreements on political issues within faith communities will doubtless occur, I think it's problematic when you have too much division. For instance, when it begins to divide churches.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 25, 2006 12:24 AM

There's a lot of hostility in such a topic as religion. I'm sure we all know how heated such discussions can become. A good start to changing this dynamic of hostility would be to have more civil discussion. Not justy more discussion, with people leveraging their free speech to toss bombs, but rather more CIVIL discussion, with the assumption of good will, the granting of benefits of doubts, the reluctance to posit malice, and all that good stuff. Not sure how optimistic I am though.

By a happy accident, I ran across a very interesting article in an old Sunday Globe which discussed the relationship between the religiously faithful and pro-choice advocacy. It suggested a small growing trend, but seemed based on anecdote more than data. It got tossed before I could find it online, but I am hoping to track it down, and if I do, I'll share it.

Posted by: bk at August 25, 2006 07:58 AM

Rafique,

I don't have any problem with faith informing people's opinions. It troubles me that the introduction of this movement into the political process seems to have turned the Democrats into the secular party and the GOP into the Religious Party and when any Republicans object to that it's like they're OUT of STEP with the times.

Part of why this is might be that religious fundamentalists, until recently, were pretty apolitical, so they have very little history of working for common interests. They take the biblical command to remain separate from the world quite literally so when they enter the political arena it's like they don't want to get their hands dirtied by association with the other voters.

They're in it, but not of it.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 25, 2006 12:32 PM

Yeah, in general I don't find the notion of mixing religion and politics as inherently objectionable. But I don't like it when someone religious enters politics and somehow suggests in one way or another that because they have the moral authority of god, certain things aren't fair game and so on and so forth.

If you choose to enter into and play politics, it brings any number of things onto the table as fair game for everyone. There's no use whining about it, that's the way it is.

Like Robert Cray says "you're bound to wind up muddy when you're playing in the dirt." Play politics, and you're GONNA git some on ya.

Posted by: bk at August 25, 2006 12:43 PM

Cav:

It troubles me that the introduction of this movement into the political process seems to have turned the Democrats into the secular party and the GOP into the Religious Party and when any Republicans object to that it's like they're OUT of STEP with the times. Part of why this is might be that religious fundamentalists, until recently, were pretty apolitical, so they have very little history of working for common interests.

Part of the article's argument is that it is precisely the polarization of the Democratic party towards militant atheism -- not secularism, incidentally, which is, along with "agnostic", a term that has been utterly misunderstood and largely vitiated in public debate on religion and politics -- that has forced many of those who are religious towards the GOP. That is, the driving force behind this trend is the Democrats attempt to force religion out of the public square which created a need for a vehicle through which to push back.

Frankly, even as an agnostic, I am far, far more offended and concerned by the militant atheism of the Democrats than I am by any tendancy towards the excesses on the part of the religious right.

On the other hand, let me offer a story from the trenches. Our County Party recently held elections for a chairman, and the winner was a member of a particular Christian sect - perhaps pentecostal, I don't really remember or much care. So anyway, he has apparently started having party meetings at his church, and when the county fayre rolled around, the stand was manned by him and some folks from his church. And a guy tried to come up and get some information, but he got kind of cold-shouldered, and these folks from the chairman's church are standing around giving the guy's wife reproachfull and disapproving looks. Why? Well, because she was wearing slacks, instead of a skirt, and that denomination apparently thinks that's "insufficiently demure attire for a lady." That story really shocked me, and I sincerely hope that it's wholly incorrect; I didn't join the GOP to subjugate women, and I have no intention of starting now. It's really quite shocking to me that there are people who'd hold such flagrantly mysoginist bullshit views in private, let alone admit to them in public - good grief, no wonder liberals can call us the "AmTam" ("American Taliban") with impunity. So that really disturbed me, and reminded me that there are some issues on which I disagree very, very strongly with the religious right: the two "F"s (federalism and feminism).

Posted by: Simon at August 25, 2006 02:29 PM

Simon, let me get this straight? Do you think the mainstream of the democratic party is trending towards miltant atheism? Or are you saying that the small fraction of democrats who are atheists worries you more than the comparatively larger fraction of republicans who are strongly religious?

Or is it even more simply the case that for whatever reason you find atheists to be more troubling than strong religious conservatives? (I'd even agree with that in at least one sense, because atheists harbor that special conceit wherein they can't acknowledge that atheism is a faith-based perspective, where strong religious conservatives will acknowledge that cheerfully.)

Fopr my part of the cheerful conceding, I'll cheerily concede that you might find more militant atheists on the left than the right, but my sense is that they're a fringe, and a pretty small one, if vocal. Now it so happens that when the separation of church and state issue comes to the fore, that's a reliable way to draw them out of the woodwork. But IMO one can advocate a very strong policy of separation without trafficking in any atheism whatsoever.

Presuming polls are to be at all trusted, I believe they show the percent of Americans who are atheists is MUCH smaller than the percent of Americans who consider themselves to be of strong religious faith. So even if ALL atheists were democrats while only a fraction (say 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) of the strongly religious were democrats, how much more troublesome would one atheist have to be than one strongly religious person in order fo the religious demographics of the democrats to be more worrisome in sum than the religious demographics of the GOP?

Just kidding around, you can't do calculus with such stuff. Finding those percents would be intersting tho.

Posted by: bk at August 25, 2006 03:40 PM

Simon,

I think as far as the Democratic Party is concerned they're committed to keeping Religion out of government. Many in the party are Atheists, and the effect of their policies may be to reduce the dependency of Americans on private and religious institutions (which I believe is wrong), but I don't think they're out to establish Atheism as the state religion.

Many are uncomfortable with God because they know he's been used in the manner I described above to use social pressure to establish political controls.

I know the difference between Athiest and agnostic, but what is the difference beteen Athiest and Secular? By the way, GOP pundits always rant against secular, NOT athiest. I don't think I've ever heard them even utter the word.

And can you describe why, as an Agnostic, you find the Democratic policy more objectionable? I've never heard the, "why," part of your opinion.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 25, 2006 04:22 PM

Brian,
It's more what you were saying in your second paragraph, although I do think that the Dem mainstream is moving left, and moving left almost invariably means embracing atheism.

Regarding the percentage of atheists in American society, I think you have to eliminate the percentage of the public who aren't politically active - people who don't vote don't count. So let's say 50% of the population don't count. If atheists are more likely to vote than people of one faith or another, atheists will be disproportionately overrepresented among the politically active population, n'est ce pas?

Posted by: Simon at August 29, 2006 09:46 AM

Pretty big if. Do we have ANY statistical basis for thinking that atheists are more likely to vote?

Posted by: bk at August 29, 2006 12:56 PM