According to Baumann, who writes for the liberal Catholic ("theolib"?) journal Commonweal, and who can't be accused of being ideologically biased in favor of Father Richard John Neuhaus, the principle target of "Theocons," the Linker book is pretty awful, lacking in insightful analysis, candor and even fairness. Linker recognizes that Neuhaus is a formidable and important figure, at least. Says Baumann:
For Neuhaus is that rare religious thinker who “likes contact,” as football coaches say. He’d rather hit than play nice. Delighting in attention, he relishes intellectual combat, and his willingness to say what others only think endears him to his admirers. He can also be an elegant and compelling writer, combining the cadences of a preacher with the clever ripostes of a practiced debater. He knows how to flatter, and he knows how to get under someone’s skin. His skill at combining the loftiest of moral appeals with the bluntest political rhetoric and tactics makes him an emblematic—and effective—figure in our era of highly partisan politics.
The problem, according to Baumann, is that Neuhaus pretty much makes theolibs and secularists lose their heads, and rush to type out "blunderbuss" books shrieking about theocracy, rather than provide a serious and substantive response to the serious and substantive challenge posed by Neuhaus's thought. And the liberal/secularist freakout, Baumann shrewdly notes, only makes the position of religious conservatives that much stronger, because most Americans think religion is a normal part of life, and withdraw from those who see a crypto-Richelieu in a man like Neuhaus, who, whatever his faults, is really nothing more -- and nothing less -- than, in Baumann's words, "a very serious churchman and sophisticated political actor."
Ross identifies a key passage from the review that sums up Baumann's core complaint against the book:
Suffice it to say that while some on the religious right are anti-democratic, the arguments Neuhaus and company make about the religious origins of our ideas about human dignity and the intrinsic value of each life are hardly a recipe for theocratic tyranny. Liberal religious thinkers embrace similar premises yet come to very different political conclusions. As Galston and Edsall note, while Americans want a firm separation of church and state, they don’t want a purely secular public square, and there is no moral or constitutional reason why they should accept one. Yet Linker thinks the explicit disavowal of religious-based moral claims should be a prerequisite for entering into the political debate. He’s wrong, both philosophically and historically.
As Ross rightly comments, "This doesn't mean that religious conservatives are right about everything or even anything. It just means that their arguments are as legitimate as any other set of arguments in the public square, and that our debates about public policy shouldn't get sidetracked by pointless and ahistorical ad hominems about the supposed existential threat America faces from "theocons" and "Christianists." Unfortunately, it isn't.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
CS,
It's possible you need to come up with different examples. Honestly, I started grinding my teeth (again) while I read your list, and what I wanted to retort was: can you please read more carefully what we are looking at here?
Roe and same-sex marriage are, in no way, preventing you (general, Christain) from practicing your religion. They are, contrarily, expressions of the rejection of your religiously motivated moral stance on those two issues, meaning they are a rejection of the notion that your (general, Christian) beliefs must dictate the actions of others. Period.
How that translates to suppression, or to a denial of Christian religion, is beyond me. Perhaps someone needs to work through that logic in small words and short sentences for me. Sarcastic, perhaps, but anyone trying will get a respectful reading by me.
The leaflet guy is an aberration, both he and the overreaction to him. Show me how this is pervasive in our country. Show me that this is ubiquitous across all our social and institutional situations. Documents, please, not "testimonials".
Sorry, CS. You began by worrying about your overreacting, and you got my cynicism instead. But still, do you see why I'm frustrated by this debate?>
FE,
It is a frustrating debate. And, I cannot & won't claim that the leaflet issue is ubiquitous (I'll add "at this time," just in case).
My perspective- you are correct that they are most likely "rejections of a religiously motivated moral stance." At the same time, they are examples of acceptance of a (non? anti?)-religiously motivated moral stance.
Sociologists will tell us that every society has values, norms and mores. We are currently in a situation where values & societal expectations are much different than they were a few decades ago. Some people yearn for the "good old days," others want to press into a "brave new world."
Meanwhile, we live with the tension and try to figure out what needs to change, what should stay the same- and why.
(Hope I have offered a little more light on where I'm coming from).>
You skirted his question, CS, though you make some very cogent arguments:
How do those two issues (Roe and Mass. same-sex marriage) stop Christians from practicing their religion?
Also - I've still yet to see a copy of the leaflet, so I will reserve judgement about whether Green was praticing his religion or attempting to incite violence.>
Loudon,
I think you've coined the blue state commandments. Maybe a monument to those should be erected in courts.>
Monuments in court house isn't the democrats cup of tea. We prefer to keep things where they belong.>
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.