"Theocons"

Well, I read the review and all I can say is:

Is this all there is?>

I'd like to expand on CS's point, and ask those of you on the CC side of the aisle to offer a serious and sincere perspective.

It is not my intent here to focus on tolerance, per se. I wish to shed light on the notion that the mechanics of public discourse belong to someone, that someone (or thing) should be the arbiter of those mechanics, and in the end it's not the philosophical notion of tolerance that is important, but the ability to express oneself in an atmosphere of tolerance.

Some key words that come to mind are intimidation, censorship, credibility, civility and validity by volume (I'm the loudest, the most people can hear me, therefore I'm right).

For example, from my personal POV, Christian tradition and custom has dominated the public square from the founding of our nation (and before) up to about 40 years ago. There is no dividing line in the chronology, but a gradual transition, where public discourse is no longer couched solely in the customary trappings that Christians came to expect. Things as trivial as prayers to Jesus at the beginning of public events; things as intense as the loss of trust or the withholding of credibility to religious leaders as a default.

Consider, as an exemplifying situation, the notion that the pastor/minister/priest is automatically considered a leader of the community. This has been fading away during the last 40 years or so, to the point where a person coming to a new town might not go to the local branch of the home church first, second or at all, as a result of the assumption that one can have a ready-made community even before one makes the first acquaintanceship in the new home.

There are, of course, other considerations involved here, many of which have nothing to do with my main point, so please don't let my choice of examples distract you from my intended goal: it's not that religion is being devalued in our society, it's that Christianity as the default religion is no longer an assumption. It is being forced to share the main stage with a host of "lesser" players, in direct contradiction to the majority-rule concept.

My personal criticism is for the perspective of "we are being suppressed" that I hear many Christians giving voice to in various ways. My criticism is simple: when you are having the whole pie for so long, only being able to have half the pie can indeed look like suppression, but not when you look at the move up from nothing to a piece of the half that non-Christians see, many of them for the first time in US history.>

Franklin,
The problem is, Christians are afraid to be like Jesus was when he walked the earth.

The fervor and striving earnestness of Christianity - from the early Puritans to our current prosperity-gospel mongers - bears little resemblence to the wandering Jesus of the Bible.

Jesus was a man in no hurry to get anywhere or do anything. He allowed himself to be distracted at nearly every turn, and when he did perform certain miracles, he instructed those lucky few to tell no one.

He was late for at least two healings that we know of - and so he raised them from the dead.

His life is a great example of divine restraint, and it's a lesson that the modern church in America could stand to learn again.>

This entry was about theocons and putting religion back into politics and into the public square. It really didn't touch on why this is happening. You said that it had to do with losing part of the pie and feeling suppression because they no longer were able to dominate public squares like they used to(you say it better, but you get the point).

I think that it goes beyond not sharing. Our culture has degenerated. Women are sexualized terribly in our media industry. People are shooting each other in the inner cities like it's part of daily life. Movies and music glamorizes violence.

They blame liberals and taking religion out of the public square. It's not that they don't want to share. It's that they've decided that the best answer to "fix" our culture is to put religion back into the public forum.

I believe that a lack of spirituality is part of the problem. I don't agree that the answer must be "Christianity." I'm looking for a better answer for America that's respectful of all people and all religions without ignoring the problem.>

mm:
SV Steve,
$160,000 just doesn't buy what it used to.

Truth. Once upon a time, Linker could have bought the Son of God for thirty pieces of silver. Now some diocesan priest who writes lots goes for the better part of 200k! Inflation's a killer.>

Franklin,

I'm not sure your analysis is entirely accurate. The tension has in large part been a result of establishment clause jurisprudence which has, in an attempt to protect minority rights, prohibited or limited the ability of Christians to publicly exercise their faith in situations in which that courts have deemed (often tenuously) coercive state action. This has not resulted in the need for Christians to share the public square with other faiths (to which many Christians would not object), but has in some cases prohibited certain Christian expression in the public square.

In many circumstances, other faiths have received a pass; perhaps because their untruths make then inherently unpersuasive. But, nevertheless, there has been a disparity in treatment between Christian faiths, non-Christian faiths, and the ever popular American faith of pragmatic and empirical scientific materialism.

A prime example was Ron Rosenberger's Christian publication at UVA in the early 90's. My recollection is that the Mohammedans had a publication subsidized by student fees. When Ron applied for a subsidy he was turned down due to the religious (read: Christian) content of his magazine. Fortunately the Supreme Court recognized and rejected this disparate treament; but the fact that it happened at a big school with a lot of smart people is instructive.

So, fair enough that gays and witches, for whom at least red state culture is pretty hostile, find it odd that in a country in which a majority of its citizens (and, doubtless, a majority of its illegal criminal invaders) believe that Jesus Christ was as a matter of historical fact the son of God, Christians can ever claim discrimination. But when Christians note the hostility of the elites against them, it's not a sour grapes "we don't get to steer the ship any more" complaint but a genuine concern stemming from the fact that the public expression of their faith has been and is being suppressed. This is particularly problematic for Catholics who tend not to view life in its public and private segments but as an interconnected whole. As religious faith is pushed out of the public square, America will become more sectarian. These sectarians will either (1) leave the public square and retreat to the compound or (2) attempt to secure for themselves special protection in their religious expression through the political process. Neither of which is healthy for a republic.>

LiaF,

If I may be so bold, you have served to strengthen my premise by shoring up what it lacks, areas in which I did not express an idea or which were left to implication and ambiguity.

Respectfully, you have not stated a rebuttal: you have described the symptoms of the breakdown in the system, of areas in which the rules have been bent or broken. I will not condone such bending and breaking, even when it is clear that this activity is taking place in an attempt to balance or right a wrong.

As religious faith is pushed out of the public square, America will become more sectarian.

I must disagree with the phrasing "pushed out". I can understand the reaction, but in truth they are not being pushed out: they are being jostled and made to make room in a space they've called their own for so long, it doesn't occur to them that anyone else would want to inhabit it.

Yes, there is overreaction going on daily. Yes, there are institutiions, from the local school to the major university, from the village council to the big-city mayor, that just don't understand what's being asked of them, and can't wrap their political minds around simple concepts like balance, and sharing, and compromise. The transition I described earlier is anything but smooth and painless.

That mistakes have been and will continue to be made is not sufficient reason to stop the process, and definitely not justification for putting things back to the way they were. I would turn the reactions to my paranoia (a US theocracy) around and admonish: your fears of an anti-Christian society are unfounded and well nigh impossible in this country. The very same aspects of our laws that I'm citing and using to jostle you and make room for myself will in turn protect you from our going to the opposite extreme.>

Franklin,

Loudon convinced me that it is a territorial thing. In many respects, I can see his point. If you live in a town that's 99% Christian, it seems kind of crazy that a kid can't say a public prayer in the name of Jesus at graduation.

On the other hand, my husband and children are Jewish. It could be their graduation, too. Why should they be excluded from the prayer?

It seems to me that one's "wholeness" in Christ can't be taken away simply by saying that you can't feed God to others in all settings.

I like Franklin's suggestion of ethical guidelines for "goodness" outside of a spiritual context.>

LiaF,

I've reread my posts on this combox, and I don't see where I've even come close to endorsing scenario #1 in your last post. Indeed, it is my desire and intention to endorse #2, though I'd have to add that your descriptions in all three are rather simplistic... but I do believe I understand your points without needing further details.

Please point out to me where I state or imply that "blue state ethics" are to be given dominance. The closest I can see is:

"I think what we need is a culturally-promoted code of ethics, one that embodies all the good that we want to protect, and shows us clearly when that protection is necessary. If we avoid stating it in religious (or even spiritual) terms, it becomes by definition accessible to everyone."

If this is what you are pointing to, then I respectfully suggest you describe your logical path from that general statement to "blue state ethics".>

LiaF,

I think I see our disconnect.

My point is that religious actors do not view their public actions to be coercive, nor, in most cases, the public actions of other religious actors to be coercive.

This is decidedly not true about Christians, specifically those who are complaining most loudly about being suppressed.

The combination of the Great Commission and "none may approach the Father save through me", and the "liberal" interpretation given to them, is a compelling reason to request that Christians share the stage. It is the source for the Christian claims of suppression, that they not be allowed to set the stage with, "We are the One True Way, but we will tolerate your Satan-inspired fallacies so long as you don't try to seduce our children with them."

That's not an exaggeration, nor is it intended to paint all or even most Christians. It is a core tenet for those who are most vocally complaining about sharing the stage.>

Franklin,

I assumed your secular culturally-promoted code of "ethics" is blue state ethics." Which are:

1. Be nice.
2. Get yer consensual freak on.
3. Don't kill anyone except yer kids, retarded people, smelly old people or people who consent to be killed.
4. Don't litter.
5. Don't smoke (cigarettes, that is).
6. Don't steal, unless the guy has consented to having his stuff stolen by being rich.
7. Don't lie, unless the guy doesn't have the right to the truth and thereby consents to being lied to.
8. Covet tastefully as it's good for the economy.
9. Don't tip for poor service, but other leave at least 18%.
10. Don't take someone else's parking space at the mall if the guy backing up just happens to block him, but not you and you know that he's been waiting longer for you, unless, of course, he consents or is deemed to have consented because you are late for a movie.>

Without overreacting (hopefully), I think one example of where the "suppression" stuff occurs would be the examples of having "blue-state" ethical principles dictated by judges, etc.

Examples- Roe v. Wade is considered by many conservatives to be judicial activism.

-Mass. judicial decision about the "right" to samesex marriage.

-The English case of Stephen Green, arrested for distributing "anti-gay" leaflets.

There are other examples, and we can debate each situation ad infinitum.

The problem is, when culture is in flux (as in U.S. over past 50 years), how do you navigate the changing social mores? Who decides the controversial issues? Upon what basis?

Unfortunately, sometimes it comes down to a simple power struggle.>

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).>

Loudon,

I think you've coined the blue state commandments. Maybe a monument to those should be erected in courts.>