One reason I love podcasting is that it gives me an opportunity to hear talk shows that I miss during the day. This morning, I heard most of an interesting exchange from the Diane Rehm show (download the podcast here, among a guy from the Family Research Council, a scholar from the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life, and the head of the National Council of Churches. The topic? Religious voters this election season. It was a good discussion, though I didn't have time to hear the entire thing. One thing that annoyed me about the Rev. Bob Edgar, the NCC head, was his framing of the discussion. I know why he does it, but still, the spin is pretty irritating. He describes conservative Christians as the "far right," as if they were some sort of Christofascists. They can't simply be "conservatives" or "on the right;" no, it's the "far right," as if they were some fringe nut group on the margins of American religious life instead of well within the mainstream. In point of fact, the liberal churches that Rev. Edgar leads are less a part of the mainstream than the Evangelical conservatives (as the phrase goes, the mainline has been sidelined).
Not, of course, that this has anything much to do with the rightness or wrongness of their positions on the issues. Still, the language is intended to manipulate, and obscure understanding rather than increase it. But have you noticed that the media won't even use the word "liberal," even when it applies? There are "conservative Democrats" but "moderate Republicans," for example. There are "moderate Muslims" but not "liberal Muslims." And so forth. More on the substance of the Diane Rehm show conversation later, after I've taken Matthew to school...
Religion and politics
Thursday September 28, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Ostrea,
Your post is simply an insult.
"If your marriage is between two men or two women, well ... it is not a marriage."
That is merely your (obnoxious, hurtful, untruthful) opinion. YOU don't get to decide. In my case, it was God who decided, since we were married in our Church.
It was also the GOVERNMENT who decided that my marriage (note, no quote marks required) is avlid, and legal, and EQUAL to yours before the law.
"It is a relationship but it is not a marriage"
Get stuffed.>
Ostrea,
You really ARE fond of bearing false witness, aren't you?
"Opposition to same sex marriage "being pushed"? Nonsense."
Um, you'd best check out the 'Let's Focus on YOUR Ramily' website, or Deend Marriage, or any of a vast number of religious hate-sites for proof that you are most definitely and demonstrably WRONG!
"There is no such thing as same sex marriage."
Oh yes there is. Lots of them. Denier.
"Those promoting the notion are the ones "pushing." They are being DIVISIVE. Leave it alone."
Snicker. Howzabout YOU leave US alone.>
Hautblossom,
"we need to separate marriage the legal contract from marriage the sacramant."
Teh 'religious right' will NEVER concede to that.
"Then all citizens will be able to enter into a legal contract that confers the rights that today's concept of marriage confers;"
Isn't that already the case for civil marriages performed outside of religous institutions (except for gays, of course)?
"and churches will be able to bless or not bless those contracts as they believe to be right."
Again, the 'religious right' would NEVER concede that those on the 'religious left' ought to have such a freedom of religion. Many religious institutions are ALREADY blessing such 'contracts'. My 'contract' (UGGH!) WAS 'blessed' by my Church, and the 'religious right' wants to CURTAIL that practice. Unjustly, imnsho.
But thanks for the well-reasoned thoughts, anyway.>
Curiouser,
Why would you downgrade?
To get the people whom you feel so bitter towards to give you what you want. So that you can feel good about America, & they can feel good about America. You can have your marriage(I know it's a marriage because I have a civil union blessed by the judge and not the church), and they can be happy that things that have been since the beginning of human time(men marrying women and women marrying men)hasn't changed.
I think it's a matter of wanting what you can't have. Or, perhaps, I'm not hung up on titles, but I wouldn't care if you(or anyone) said that I had a domestic partnership & not a marriage because I was married by a judge. As long as I receive the same rights under the law, what's the big deal?
It's true that not many gays are looking for it to be recognized under God, but it seems to me that if those supporting marriage rights between gays would work a little harder at assuring religious institutions that they won't demand things from them, then everyone would feel better. I'm thinking of the adoption situation with the Catholic charities. Why not work to have the law changed so that Catholic agencies can continue to do their function without risking their tax status and not have to place kids in homes with same-sex parents?
We all act like our tax rules are written into the Constitution.(I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that we could change our tax-exempt rules for RELIGIOUS institutions in terms of supplying services to homosexual couples).
Why should you?.... Why shouldn't you? Their feelings count, too.
Those kinds of things.>
It isn't about 'feelings', watsy, otherwise this 'debate' would have ended when the first bettersoexual compared my (and YOUR!) relationship to beastiality, rape, necrophilia, etc. They don't give a toss about OUR feelings; why the F should I care a whit if granting gay people equal treatment before the law 'hurts' their feelings?
"if those supporting marriage rights between gays would work a little harder at assuring religious institutions that they won't demand things from them"
If the ijits in the radical 'religious' rightwingextremist sects and institutions actually 'believe' they have to give up something and bend to our 'demands', then they're certifiable.
Has ANY other group (religious or secular) 'demanded' Catholics accept women priests? Married male priests? Or 'demanded' that they re-marry divorced people??? Have the Catholics been successful in their (non-existent) 'demands' that the United Church stop ordaining women?
This line of 'thinking' is what is at fault, and yes, the gay community has been extremely lax in pointing it out to the betterosexuals.
IT WILL NOT HAPPEN, despite what they 'believe'.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.