God isn't the GOP's problem

While the GOP may need God, they don't need the religious right establishment, its leaders, or its causes. The first candidate willing to have a Sister Souljah moment with James Dobson, the Arlington Group, and their pet causes will cement a future for the party.

I read that Bobby Jindal--following the religious right's script on abortion, stem cells, creationism, and gays--is working the Iowa rubber chicken circuit. Everything old is new again.

I loved your piece today. Because it is intellectually sound and clever and vintage Ram Rod. And I also empathize with its premise. I ‘get’ what people feel as they do based on theology. But I also sense that you resist how profoundly weary (choosing a soft adjective here) of the so-called 'religious right' many, many otherwise GOP voters I know and meet and read and love have become. And more to the point, why.

This alternative and parallel reality has been hashed and re-hashed on this blog and other threads many times, many ways. And to attempt to contribute further to the debate is a brick wall once I recognized that no few Americans would apparently vote for Attila if he condemned abortion and insisted that a same-sex couple's nuptials were tacit social malaria.

Believe what one wishes. But remember what my mother told me when I was prematurely nostalgic for 'the good old days' as a young kid: "People who demand that we feel threatened by the future become its most forgettable casualties." I've lived long enough to know that mothers are smart cookies.

Congrats on the terrific column!

R.R. Reno posted a reflection on the recent election today at First Things that meshes quite nicely with what Rod argued this morning in USA Today.

[This is] the challenge for American conservatism. Voters are reading the ideological situation accurately. And they are pushing back against the instabilities that arise from conservative economic philosophy and foreign policy.... But there is a deeper point that conservatives need to make. Our sense of instability, our feeling that everything is up for grabs, and our anxious insecurity has its most destructive source in the triumph of desire over restraint in contemporary culture.... On this point, it seems to me that American conservatism must recognize the primacy of social mores over economic philosophy and foreign policy. We need to expand an old argument. A democracy depends upon citizens capable of ordered liberty. And a culture that seeks economic vitality and is committed to global leadership also requires citizens who can distinguish responsible autonomy from a life of anomic desire.

"I read that Bobby Jindal--following the religious right's script on abortion, stem cells, creationism, and gays--is working the Iowa rubber chicken circuit. Everything old is new again."

He appeared at a recent fundraiser for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a religious right group here in Iowa. And yes, he hit on the usual scapegoats so popular in that group.

Brief comments:

1) RD is right that the GOP didn't lose because of the religious right this time around, and it makes no sense to think of jettisoning the religious right.

2) That said, the GOP still faces the problem of knitting together the two chief pieces of its coalition: (A) the religious right and (B) the cut-taxes-don't-regulate secularish right. RD's prescription seems to be to get rid of group (B) instead of group (A). As a practical matter that doesn't seem like a road to electoral success any more than Kathleen Parker's prescription.

3)

The open secret of the last three election cycles – often mentioned but never really resolved – is that the “Manhattan limousine liberals” desperately need Red Staters. It is the Red Staters, including the dreaded Religious Right, that does most of the real-world working, child-rearing, and tax-paying. There can be no liberal elite without Red Staters down in the trenches. Let’s face it, a society full of George Clooneys and Maureen Dowds isn’t going to last very long.

The Culture War is over and we lost, rather decisively. But now it’s time to see how the Liberal Elite will do in governing its conquered peoples. How will it impose the message of absolute personal autonomy, while at the same time not spoiling its golden egg? The GOP will not really be able to reconstruct itself until we see how Liberal rule plays itself out.

"Your Name" at 1:25 is me. And I had no third comment. And, full disclosure, I am a lefty and have no interest in the GOP's actually solving its internal disputes; I just find it interesting to discuss.

Rod is absolutely correct here. As he points out, while conservative Christians helped carry the water for Bush (and thus do share some of the blame), it was the neocons and the corporate types who got what they wanted under Bush. Bush's policies were shaped much more by the neocons and big business wing of the Republican party than they were by conservative Christians, who as usual received very little in return for their votes.

Now that the Republicans have been routed, however, secular Republicans in the press want to use "religious right" as a convenient scapegoat for failures that they had a much large role in creating. This plays well in the press because it confirms the prejudices of secular leftists, who despise social conservatives much more than they do neocons and big business. Look at Obama's cabinet for crying out loud. Also, blaming the "religious right" is a favorite pastime of both secular Republicans, who want the votes of conservative Christians, but look down on them, and secular leftists, who are much more passionate about social issues such as abortion and gay rights than economics or foreign policy.

In the end, however, secular Republicans can't afford to dump the "religious right." It would be fun to watch them try though. If conservative Christians didn't vote Republican, the Republicans would for starters lose the entire South. It's hard to imagine them adding many votes to the Republican party to replace "the religious right," and I doubt country club Republicans alone could carry a single state by themselves. On the other hand, the Republican party could win without the country club types who if anyone is kicked out of the party should be the first to go. Conservative Christians plus "Sam's Club Republicans" could do the trick under the right circumstances.

rr

The problem for secular Republicans is that for

Until we have Christians and Republicans who have strong objections to preemptive war, torture and unfettered government spending, I would say that God will be a big problem for those who persist with those clearly un-Christian practices.

Good article. While I love Jim Wallis' work, it does bother me how sometimes he hints that voting Democrat is the Christian thing to do, even though he (correctly) states that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat.

There is some confusion among ends and means for many Christian conservatives and evangelicals. No one objects the extent to which the principles of Jesus or even the stated rules of a church animate anyone’s political philosophy and direct his individual actions. The problem comes when persuasion gives way to coercion and admonition becomes legislation. In a real sense the movement to ban a given practice (e.g., abortion or gay marriage) is a tacit admission that you’ve lost – or are losing – the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans. That being the case, any attempt to anchor your political party to these ends condemns you to irrelevance in the future. Yielding that platform plank, however, does not stop you from continuing to try to persuade your fellow Americans that they should eschew abortion and refrain from same-sex marriage.

A common sense test:

If Bush were running against Obama, who would you have been voting for?

If your answer is Bush: your vote is based solely on your religious beliefs.

The problem is, Rod, that Christian Right activists have been the shock troops of the Republican party. They've been more committed to the disastrous Bush Middle East policy than anyone bar the neocons, and their cultural politics have provided a convenient cover for financial deregulation.

And you say they shouldn't be blamed for this mess? Ordinary churchgoers, sure. But Dobson, Hagee, Robertson and all their financial/media empires are in this hip-deep.

Also, who was more enthusiastic about "Sarah the Unready" than the Christian Right? I recall you yourself getting rather enthused about her early on.

Are Christian Right cultural policies toxic to the GOP? Maybe, maybe not. But the Christian Right itself most certainly is toxic. They carried water for the wrong people, and they'll have to pay the price.

On this point, it seems to me that American conservatism must recognize the primacy of social mores over economic philosophy and foreign policy. We need to expand an old argument. A democracy depends upon citizens capable of ordered liberty. And a culture that seeks economic vitality and is committed to global leadership also requires citizens who can distinguish responsible autonomy from a life of anomic desire.

The problem is that our current cultural climate old and young worship at the altar of modernity and the autonomous self so they find absolutely nothing appealing about traditional religion whatsoever. Just look at countries like France and Britain who we are only slightly behind philosophically when they are asked what they think about traditional religion particularly Christianity, they just roll their eyes and say how boring.

Dean P wrote: "Maybe not those who 'consistantly voted democratic' but there is a large chunk of southern and libratarian democrats who hated Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul just because they were "too" religious, but they also thought Obama was too liberal and too much of an 'elitist'." Good observation. One problem, however. Those southern and libertarian democrats live and vote in those red states that will vote for any Republican candidate over any Democrat. In short, their vote won't be missed. Perhaps you will join with me in trying to convince others to dump the Electoral College, enfranchising every red vote in every blue state and vice versa. For the foreseeable future that would mean closer presidential elections for Republicans, who appear on the verge of being locked out of the Electoral College by the Northeast/Midwest/West Coast axis.

As Reno points out, functional cultural authority is the source of deep existential stability.

And what is the source of functional cultural authority? Simple. The Church.

Get out there and make disciples of all in your nation, brothers and sisters in Christ. Move fast. If you wait till daylight returns, the hour will be too late. Be prepared to shake a lot of night dust off your feet.

God was actually the solution to the GOP's problem. See, what everyone has failed to identify is the GOP's actual problem. The problem is simple:

The American people, in general, disagree with the neocons.
The American people, in general, disagree with the social conservatives.
The American people, in general, disagree with reducing government services and taxes.
The American people, in general, disagree with reducing government regulation of businesses.
(Those last two have large overlap, but aren't actually the same thing. Libertarians are both, but libertarians are a tiny group. )

And, more importantly, the American people, in general, agree with the left on 75% of the issues.

The GOP has solved this problem by wielding those multiple groups, all who agree with the GOP on one issue listed above, (along with some other minor groups), into a single party that occasionally gets elected.

You can sit here and argue about the 'real GOP', but without all those last three groups (The people who still agree with neocons are negligible, but might be needed.), the GOP would be permanent minority status.

The problem is that none of the groups trust any of the others anymore:
The social conservatives realized that the other groups think they're all idiots and has been playing them for decades.
The 'reduce taxes and services' group doesn't trust the social conservatives not to outlaw their favorite activities, and actually does think they're idiots. And has run like hell from the 'reduce regulation' group.
The 'reduce regulation' group is in hiding, trying not to get lynched.
And the only people still supporting the neocons are racist morons or warmongering fools.

It should have read:

Moreover, televangelists or radio broadcasters don't define Evangelicalism.

If John McCain hadn't placated the religious right with Sarah Palin; and instead picked Joe Liberman... well, he'd probably be president right now.
The problem with Republican religious fundamentalists and fanatics is that they don't understand compromise, which is essential in a constitutional republic. They also don't get that we live in a pluralistic society (a lot of them socialize in bubbles that contain only fundamentalists of the same stripe).
Those of us outside the fundamentalist bubble have friends with different faith persuasions... and it's not the end of the world. We also see the hypocrisy of folks like James Dobson. (Really, what does Mr. Dobson do to save the 'unborn' besides toot his horn? Dobson's got a multi-million dollar enterprise. What portion of it is devoted to pre-natal care for poor expectant mothers? What portion goes to get kids out of foster care?)

The religious right is the Republican's beast to bare!

@RJohnson: His conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism will become a point of great scrutiny, as will his alleged exorcism of demons. We can expect a repeat of the Obama-Wright fiasco, but this time with Jindal and his own actions/beliefs the focus.

@Alkali: I'd bet against that. If Jindal runs, Bill Maher and some others will hit the ground running with that stuff, but you aren't going to see advertising or commentary from Democratic elected officals addressing it.

No, it won't be Democrat officials putting it forward. To be honest, I doubt it would be Democrats doing it at all. I strongly suspect you will see it start within the GOP, probably from the Huckabee camp, and picked up by the Romney camp.

We know that Huckabee is capable of such antics, since he played the game with Romney's Mormonism this past cycle. And Romney will want to deflect critique of his Mormon religion in any way he can. Jindal will be a convenient target.

"I've lived long enough to know that mothers are smart cookies."

Wise words! My mother told me that no matter what they said, the only social problem the republican party really wanted to solve was the servant problem. The religious right could have benefited from her advice.

Welcome to the Age of Chaos.

Thanks! If it's anything like the Roman Empire ca. 33-313 A.D., Christians should feel sufficiently not-at-home to eschew the material trappings (and spiritual traps) of the age and, instead, accomplish some serious evangelizing, catechizing and saint-making.

I like a lot of what I read here, but think you missed the boat on this statement, "Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom." We are not truly free currently and individuals are restrained. You make my point in this paragraph, "Besides, was it the religious right that conceived and executed the disastrous Iraq war? Did preachers deregulate Wall Street? Did evangelical leader James Dobson screw up the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to Hurricane Katrina? Jack Abramoff — did he concoct his crooked lobbying schemes during long protest vigils outside abortion clinics? To be fair, religious conservatives didn't stand up to any of this. We own a share of the GOP's failure. But to scapegoat us for the Republican implosion is preposterous." The problem comes from a "politically correct" enlightened government. Just as God gives us a free will to choose to sin, people should be free to fail. If we remove/reduce the government in the equation and reduce the restraints on the individual, we give the church room to fill the void being taken up by bloated government programs currently. Who is more committed, the one who chooses freely or the one compelled by an outside force to make a certain choice? Either way, we as individuals and the church will have to answer to God for allowing ourselves to be pushed out of the arena (not totally out of course) God intended us to fight in. The ultimate arena where we should be operating in is pointed to in this quote, "All political problems, traditional conservatism teaches, are ultimately religious problems because they result from disordered souls." When Gods works a work of making something dead alive (a no longer disordered soul), that is where true liberty begins. From there, with and through the direction of the Holy Spirit can we get involved in others' lives. Pray for that same life giving work in their lives. We can do this best with the least kind of government restraints on the individual needed to provide an orderly and safe society.

Excellent essay, Rod. I would love to see a Republican party like the one you describe.

In fairness, the Religious Right & traditional conservatives have labeled the moderate wing as 'RINO's. And this socially conservative sect is equally vocal in blaming moderates, centrists, and even Libertarian-Republicans as the source of Republican troubles. Here's just a sampling of some of the current commentary:

"Rush Limbaugh: Time to cleanse Republican Party," Joe Kovacs
"Rino Season Is Now Open," Ted Nugent
"Thinning the Herd: RINOs Lose Big," Lowman S. Henry
"Five Hard Truths For RINOS," John Hawkins

However this infighting is necessary to rebuild the GOP, so it's unavoidable. Because each group feels under appreciated and targeted, and neither are in the mood to compromise, they both feel defensive in this fight for dominance -- to see who will get the upper hand in setting the agenda, picking candidates, promoting policies, etc. Of course the GOP needs both groups just to start with, plus several million more independents and center-left Democrats to succeed in 2012. Thus the real issue is over control of the message that will seek to win the middle.

But as a moderate/centrist, I must admit that Rod's message - echoed by others - triggers a Fight-or-Flight instinct:

"Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom."

Limiting freedom is not an American answer to immorality -- it's a poor excuse for weak churches and morally-superior members to impose their will upon the free market. Worse yet, it goes against the teachings of Christ who refrained from force. Christians do not believe Salvation can be imposed because every person must choose a love for God by exercising Free Will.

"And he may well have to go into some detail to explain his experience as an exorcist and faith healer...two professions that can easily be confused with televangelists like Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn."

Nothing that can't be done. You can read the entire article here:

http://www.kulo.org/NewOxfordReview.BobbyJindalsDemon/NewOxfordReview.BobbyJindalsDemon.html

He was a "witness" to his friend's exorcism and also questioned what he had actually witnessed that night:

"I also learned a lasting lesson in hu­mility and the limits of human understanding. Was the purpose of that night served when so many indi­viduals were inducted into the Church? Did I witness spiritual warfare? I do not have the answers, but I do believe in the reality of spirits, angels, and other re­lated phenomena that I can neither touch nor see."

If anyone really thinks an article (like this) written 18 - 22 years prior to someone running for president is going to sink someone--c'mon. The quote bandied about Calvinism during his election to governor produced a backlash because, well, it was a stupid and gross mischaracterization of the context in which he said it.

Jindal does need to mature as a politician a little bit. If he does position himself as too close to the "religious right" or merely a conservative Catholic, then he's sunk (just as a democratic politician associated with the far left would be). Perhaps to balance out his advocacy of castrating serial sex offenders he could try reforming the public defender entities down there. I hear in some areas they have so few scant resources that the PD can't even do their job properly!

Sorry, Rod, but when McCain picked Palin, it became explicitly "about God." When Palin went off on a bunch of verbal attacks against "non-real America," everyone knew what she was talking about ("us real Christians versus you godlessheathenatheistlibruls.")

As far as "too much freedom" and "too much individuality," I sincerely think that any attempt to rebuild either the conservative movement or the Republican party on those mantras is not going to get much attention.

What's the alternative to freedom and individuality? If it's true, as Charles Cosimano has said above, that nobody gives a damn about Catholic theology (as just one case in point), what's the remedy? Force people to adhere to a particular religion? Been there, done that in Europe in the 9th-17th centuries; got the t-shirt. European religious wars were one reason the new American experiment got a big shot in the arm.

People change their hearts and minds by persuasion. In an open society, it's the only tool conservatives have. But I don't hear much persuasive rhetoric coming out of the right-wing squawk boxes these days, just a lot of "the sky is falling" negativity and bile.

I've said it before and will say it again. To rebuild conservatism, focus on small government, individual efforts and responsibility, subsidiarity, self-help and initiative, and *lose* the anti-gay, anti-"people who don't live like I do" and anti-"people who don't worship as I do" stances. Come to a consensus on sex; that if it's not done in the street where it scares the horses; if it doesn't involve minors or force, then it's personal business, and focus instead on what the various groups *do* have in common re: conservative thinking.

Or retreat to little pseudo-monastic communities spread across the US; continue to gripe; continue to wonder why a lot of the kids raised this way don't adhere to it when they grow up. That would be a great waste, though.

God isn't the GOP's problem. The problem is that sometimes people think that they own God or they get to define who God is or that God is a code word for Jesus. God is everything and belongs to no one.

What's the remedy? Force people to adhere to a particular religion? Been there, done that in Europe in the 9th-17th centuries; got the t-shirt. European religious wars were one reason the new American experiment got a big shot in the arm.

Don't forget the "Religious" wars brought on by Rousseau and Robespeier's Rein of Terror that opened the floodgate for the Humanist Religious dogma that ushered in the new religions of the modern age. Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism. And of course Hitler too. . All of these responsible for the deaths of millions. These were all religions too, but instead of worshiping God they worshiped at the alter of human autonomy and the possibility of the perfection of human nature. So see. My how the 20th and 21st century has come so far. We are just so much more civilized now that we are getting rid of those pesky religious fundamentalists and that nasty ole traditional Judea/Christian religion.

As someone above remarked earlier, "The more things change the more they stay the same."

"Michele Obama's Senior Thesis at Princeton...written 1985. Google that and then come back and let's discuss how past writings might be used against Jindal."

Which got scant coverage--much less than it deserved.

Jindal's writing on the exorcism will come up--all he has to do is be prepared to make a speech up front sounding like an even-tempered guy. His article is less troublesome that either Michelle Obama's thesis or Barack's bat-shit crazy preacher-father.

The Calvinism quote is utter drivel.

Of course, I have no doubt you'll try to make it a point.

I agree that the religious right didn't cost McCain the election. But I do think that the religious right is in danger of alienating young people and a large swath of the electorate from not only the Republican Party, but worse, from the gospel. Their refusal to criticize Republicans on any issue at any time, their incrasing reputation as Know-Nothings, and their moralizing without any discussion of the need for grace, are not helping either cause.

In your article, you said: "There is a rich and varied library of postwar writing by men such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet, who were part of the traditionalist conservative school. Traditionalist conservatives focused on questions of cultural and social health." I don't know about Weaver or Nisbet, but Kirk's "focus on questions of cultural and social health" caused him to oppose desegregation. Though I'm an evangelical and very conservative theologically, it's that type of political conservatism that keeps me and others I know from having much interest in conservatism. (I can't help but note with sad irony that many conservatives - despite their professed concern for "social and cultural health" - don't seem very interested in doing whatever it takes to lessen the risk of an economic depression and the resulting social and family problems it would cause.)

"and *lose* the anti-gay, anti-"people who don't live like I do" and anti-"people who don't worship as I do" stances."

I don't think that was what the article was advocating.

"Michele Obama's Senior Thesis at Princeton...written 1985. Google that and then come back and let's discuss how past writings might be used against Jindal."

Hmm. A college paper written by a presidential candidate's wife is not given as much attention as the writings of an actual governor and potential presidential candidate? I wonder why that might be.

And from the brief summaries I saw, it looks pretty innocuous for a 1985 college student's paper. I guess that's why you had to attack it by vague reference instead of with specifics. Even if it had wacky ideas, it was still written by the wife of the president, not the president. When Michelle Obama runs for office herself, let's talk about it.

If Jindal did run, the supposed exorcism would be a fair topic of discussion. I haven't seen him discuss it, but if he now spoke of it as something done in the arrogance of his youth, I think it would become a non-issue.

Dean P, I call "Godwin." Anyway, my comment was about *forcing* people to adhere to a particular religion (often determined by the apparatus of government.) Certainly there's some happy medium between Stalinism and the kind of religious oppression which led many to come to America in the first place.

RR: Nonetheless, what "happens in private" with respect to sex most definitely has an impact on our society that can't be ignored, including in some cases in politics. The high rates of divorce (and with it childhood poverty), out of wedlock births, VD, abortion, and so forth didn't just come out of nowhere. When it comes to sex, the public and the private can't entirely be separated.

So target the behavior which has public / public health implications, without impinging on people's fundamental liberties. Further, non-Christian and "conventionally religious" people see the problems in these things too.

Having a "Christian society" doesn't guarantee freedom from these problems, either. I have pointed out elsewhere that the very (publicly at least) religious 19th century had no shortage of VD, out of wedlock births, clandestine abortions, etc.

Finally, it is worth asking whether or not conservatism minus religious conservatives is even conservatism at all.

That is a good question. It may be that we are entering a "post-conservative" era.

z is correct. Red states take more than they give.

They also have the highest percentage of tax-paying units that do not pay any income tax.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

Note that Bush's tax reformation greatly increased the number of non-payers through the child tax credit increase. That was payback to the social conservatives, no?

Anyway, it will be interesting to watch the GOP wander in the desert for a period. Until it is their time again.

"Not insignificant when taking into account their associations with Rev. Wright."

You still haven't said what the problem with the college paper was, or why it matters given that it was written by the wife of a presidential candidate. If Michelle Obama pulls a Hillary and runs for office in her own right, then maybe, maybe it becomes significant.

But, admittedly, we're getting pretty far off topic. So you can have the last word.

"So Bobby Jindal witnessed an exorcism and wrote about it--who cares? It all depends on how he handles the situation--is he going to frame it as a pragmatic politician, or will he play theologian pull a Rick Santorum?"

As I wrote, I probably wouldn't care, as long as he said the so-called exorcism he participated in was something done in the arrogance of youth

Reading the many comments here about exorcism, I am impressed that exorcism may be exactly what the Republican party needs.

All three major Republican factions have to do some rethinking and shift positions. The moderates, with their fixation on money, seem to vaguely understand that more social democracy is coming and that they have to become critics from within that rather than stand outside. The classical Right folks likewise won't get much further with Cold Warish and antiArab fixations; there are new blocs of power forming, new aspirants to prosperity.

These two articles about social/religious conservatives start from the extremes about how social conservatives will need to shift positions, Hart saying all there is may be discredited. Rod rightly says much is highly viable yet is fairly dodgy about admitting what of importance is not.

If I may offer an opinion, the orthodox Christianity derived from the Gospels is rather intact, is not entzaubert in the American public mind. The elements of orthodox Christianity ascribed to or derived from Paul are certainly in a bit more trouble.

You could substitute "overeating" for "sex" but we don't try to legislate caloric intake.

A. People might think you were a bit of a jerk if you were constantly hastling people about their weight, but everyone would agree you had a point. Meanwhile, it's not only considered a jerky thing to do, it's considered immoral to hastle people about their unhealthy, masturbatory sex lives. Our culture doesn't even recognize that it's wanking itself to death.

B. Last I knew, no one was advocating legislating whom anyone slept with. In which state was that legislation introduced? I do remember a little-enforced Texas law against sodomy that was recently struck down. Is there a ballot initiative to introduce a Sodomy Ammendment to the US Constitution? Where's that petition, and who are the signatories? Dobson? Hagee? Reverend Oogedy-Boogedy? C'mon. At least argue with arguments that are true.

If you want to argue that Proposition 8 was an unjust imposition and not a rearguard defense of a good cultural institution currently on the ropes, then make the case (against thousands of years of Western social tradition) that marriage, as a founding, basic, cultural institution, ought to be between two people of either sex and have nothing intrinsic to do with the sexual intercompatibility of the spouses. Argue that all our culture should be concerned with is the number two, and that that number has nothing to do with the number of sexes and only with ... well, with whatever two has to do with.

Establish the proposition that there is no intrinsic responsibility of the culture to do its best to see that each child conceived as a union of an egg and a sperm have the advantage of being raised by the contributors of said egg and sperm. (And notice this is not an argument against adoption. This is an argument for privileging the basic, standard, natural mode of conception.) And prove against the wisdom of ages that sons and daughters don't need fathers or mothers, just "parents". Then, perhaps, we'll have a discussion on our hands.

But to pretend that the cultural Right is seriously contemplating a special branch of the FBI devoted to investigating Magnum PI mustaches and girls with big Adam's apples ... please.

You imply that a Country Club Republican (CCR) believes in, "a concept of freedom developed in a world without objective truths." You should know that Thomas Jefferson - perhaps our greatest President - matches your description, and we are all the better for it

Jefferson isn't arguing against objective truths. He thinks objective truths are so powerfully true that no weight of vice or prejudice could ever hinder the realization of that truth wherever a number of wealthy, classically educated, slaveholding white men get together to discuss said truth.

Excuse me, "with a single iota of seriousness."

by and large, america is a forward looking society. and social conservatives inability to address the realities of modern world, are going to continue to be a hindrance to their influence.

in the marketplace of ideas; promoting creationism, discrimination based on sexual orientation, and draconian regulations and punishments on a womans right to make her own health decisions, simply are not going to sell. and stamping god's name on these political positions is not going to make them more attractive.

what social conservatives may self-servingly term 'traditional values' or 'standing up for what is right', come off to the vast majority of americans (especially younger and more multicultural americans) not as some noble and admirable stand, but as simply backwardsness and closemindedness.

and backwards and closeminded are not two characteristics that are much celebrated in the american lexicon. and until social conservatives can articulate a progressive positive vision for a newer generation of americans, what they imagine to be belief and philosophy will continue to be written off as archaic at best.

religion and faith will continue flourish in our nation. but expect the narrow and harsh brand of social conservatism that currently drives the right-wing bus will continue to be less relevant to a modern diverse world, and to continue on it's slow, but inevitable, path to american extinction.

Jon,

It is a small price to pay until you find yourself in one of the groups that is no longer in favor...then the price can go up considerably.

Freedom in the modern world is defined as the ability to do what you want. Before the enlightenment and the separation of nature from thought, there would have been a very different definition of freedom. Freedom in a world with objective truths would be based on an individual's dignity and responsibility. In the modern west, freedom just means entitlement. (btw this is why the democrat's economic policies are not as super Christian as the media assumes)

Jefferson is the greatest example of why just laws have to based on objective truths. Jefferson wrote some of the most inspired words on the diginity of man. Words that were the forerunners of a democratic revolution around the world. Yet Jefferson owned slaves.

If Thomas Jefferson could not see the humanity of the slaves that were right in front of him, how can we be so certain that we fully appreciate the dignity of the unborn children that the world wishes to hide?

"This is an argument for privileging the basic, standard, natural mode of conception."

It's a pretty p!ss poor one then, Jon W., considering that non-conceptive heterosexuals are still allowed to "marry". And no same-sex marriage has ever prevented any "child conceived as a union of an egg and a sperm [from having] the advantage of being raised by the contributors of said egg and sperm.

Re: "make the case that marriage [has] nothing intrinsic to do with the sexual intercompatibility of the spouses..."

Um, when a gay men marries your daughter, trust me Jon, there will be zero "sexual intercompatibility of the spouses". But when gay couples marry one another, there's lots of sexual intercompatibility.

"John McCain didn't get his clock cleaned because of his ardent advocacy for unborn life or his stout defense of traditional marriage"

Give me a break.

Whatever merits John McCain has, and he has many, he can never offer a "stout defense of traditional marriage" because, like many other Republicans who hold great cachet with the Christian right, John McCain trashed his own marriage in a particularly despicable way. What Republicans, including Rod, need desperately is a sense of shame. There will be no progress without repentance.

Hypocricy and the fact that so many in the GOP have never read the US Constitution and couldn't care less about civil and individual liberties are what cost them the election. Throw in their anti-intellectualism and you have that perfect storm.

The majority of Christians (protestant, catholic, orthodox) supported Baby Bush twice. Most of them were evangelicals. I was one of them who believed that Baby Bush was a Christian. The sad truth is that we got fooled, not once but twice. Here is a quote that Babt Bush had problems articulating as we had remembering. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Pehaps Baby Bush could not spit it out because he knew it would come back to haunt him. In any case, we Christians must accept a great deal of responsibliity for how the GOP screwed up this country and helped Obama get elected. Evangelical leaders are especially guilty, because they were Republican Party cheerleaders during both terms. Dr. James Dobson is at the top of the list, but let us not forget about Dr. Richard Land, Gary Bower, Pat Robertson, et. al. Pleae note these are all protestants. To be fare, they did have plenty of help from catholics. Also, keep and mind that the majority of christians who supported Hitler were (evangelical) protestants and catholics. Yes the GOP did much wrong, but would not have been able to without christian votes. All conservative christians must accept responsibility and learn from our mistakes.

God is no the GOP's problem, but christains are.

Jon you are making my point. Everything you mentioned has to do with perception and will....nowhere did you allude to truth. But what happens if wills collide? What happens if perceptions are malformed? What happens when Jefferson doesn't "perceive" the humanity of the slaves?

An individual's perception of an act is a pretty poor indication of the actual goodness of the act. We are all human beings. When we feel pressured, threatened or scared we often react in threatened ways.

every generation is influenced by the presuppositions of their time. We all have blind spots. What are ours?

Re: Jon you are making my point. Everything you mentioned has to do with perception and will....nowhere did you allude to truth.

I'm not really sure what your point is. But so you know where I'm coming from, I was trained once upon a time in quantum physics and so I tend to see the world through those meshes. The act of perception inevitably alters what is being perceived, and to the extent that reality is objective it cannot be local, and to the extent it is local it cannot be objective.
God, being the Author of Reality, can transcend these strictures, but we his creatures cannot. That is why we are called not to Knowledge, but to Faith (and Hope and Love).

Jon,

we are called to faith in God's saving activity among men, most especially through the life, death and resurrection of His Son. (I am assuming you are Christian) Once we have participated in this mystery(and continue to participate in it), we are called to love him by keeping his commandments. This presupposes that man has a dignity that is true and knowable. For you can not keep what you do not know.

I would be wary of saying that human being are only called to faith and not truth. Right before Jesus is condemned, He says "I have come to testify to the truth" which pilot replies "What is truth?" and then condemns him. Isn't this the theme of our time...with regards to abortion or marriage or euthanasia....what is truth....?

Sorry my previous point isn't clear. Trying to do too many things, I guess. Take a look at my blog if you are interested. Good Luck

what is good that is not first true?

Jesus had two precepts, not one.

God doesn't merely have empathy for us. He wishes to save us, body and soul. He wills good for us. We are supposed to do the same. To say this is all unknowable is cop out and to question why God put us here.

Love that is merely empathetic is in danger of subscribing to sentimentalism.

empathy without truth is to temp another person with indulgence.

i never said that you said that God is unknowable, I said that you are assuming that good is unknowable. That the dignity of man is unknowable and can not be informed by objective truths, it can only be "felt" by contextualized perceptions. if this is true there is no need for the ten commandments and they certainly don't need to be carved in stone. redemption by definition has to be a calling to something beyond yourself.

how can you say that seeking and doing good are not necessary to be a Christian?

i never claimed a monopoly on truth. i am just saying there is a truth and that is knowable. And while that doesn't give a full experience of God, it is still of consequence. Intellect is a good and something we will be held responsible for.