Some people just don't know when to leave well enough alone. Like Kathleen Parker, who decided to add insult to her "There's too much of God in the Republican Party" injury:
Despite its sudden popularity, oogedy-boogedy is nonetheless causing some consternation and confusion. What does it mean and whence does it come? In the Dec. 15 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru writes that he doesn't know what oogedy-boogedy means, "but I gather it's bad."
Not so bad, really, but not so good either. Like most things religious and political, it's a matter of taste and timing. (See Ecclesiastes 3:1). [...]The list of commentators who ain't got oogedy-boogedy is long, though Ponnuru is the most recent to out himself. While dismissing assertions - mine and others' - that the Republican Party has a religion problem, Ponnuru acknowledges that social conservatives "could present themselves more attractively," and "pick their spokesmen more wisely."
That's a start, but let's take it another step. How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one's values, but let reason inform one's public arguments.
That was and remains my point. It isn't so much God causing the GOP problems; it's his fan club.
The broad perception among centrists, moderates, conservative Democrats, renegade Republicans, etc., is that the GOP is the party of white Christians to the exclusion of others, some of whom might also be social conservatives. [...]
As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican Party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.
The cause is not helped when someone of the stature of Rick Warren interviews the leading presidential candidates in his church, questioning them about their faith. If that's not a religious test, I don't know what is.
The glue that binds the GOP's religious right - social issues, especially abortion - is not insignificant and doesn't deserve to be dismissed. But nor should those issues be tied to Scripture. Some religious conservatives understand this, but the memo apparently isn't reaching all the pews.
So God's not so much the problem. I'm sure He's relieved to hear that.
But in all this verbiage, Parker's not helping her case all that much; in fact, she seems to be trying to cram her other foot into her mouth, to keep the first one company.
(More:)
In the first place, Parker's glib and cutesy non-definition of "oogedy-boogedy" leaves one with the impression that by that phrase, what Parker really means is "People who are more openly religious than I think is in good taste." Her example of televangelism aside, Parker doesn't seem able to demonstrate that some known quantity of "oogedy-boogediness" is characterizing the GOP--we'll know it when we see it, she says, even though most of her critics haven't really known or seen it.
Moreover, the notion that the mere perception by some undetermined percentage of Democrat-leaning voters that the GOP is controlled by the religious right is enough reason to muzzle that contingent is, if you'll forgive the frankness, a thoroughly stupid one. Sure--the GOP should alienate and antagonize supporters it already has because of the grand illusion that doing so will attract enough others to replace the ones they drive away! Except that Aesop wrote a rather pithy tale about that strategy: it involves a dog, a bone, and the dog's reflection in a still pool of water.
And Parker clearly doesn't know what a religious test for public office is, if she thinks the Warren interview comes even remotely close enough to qualify. A religious test would mean that the law excludes certain candidates from holding office by virtue of their religion. The mild questioning by a private citizen during the course of an election to which candidates were merely invited doesn't come close, although some of the judicial confirmations wherein a suggestion that devout, practicing Catholic candidates ought to be denied office on the grounds that their religion won't allow them to affirm the all-fired wonderfulness of aborting as many Americans as desired comes a little bit closer (but still falls short of the mark).
Perhaps most frustrating of all is Parker's suggestion that religious believers need to check their Scriptural references at the door of the political sector; it's not that I think specific religious arguments are the most effective ways to discuss issues with non-believers myself, but I'm alarmed by the growing push to see the notion of religious freedom as "you're free to be religious--in church." Parker's way of putting things plays right into that mindset.
There are lots of reasons why John McCain didn't win this election, but all this alleged oogedy-boogediness, and it's supposedly mythical power to drive would-be eager young McCain voters into reluctantly supporting Obama instead wasn't even in the top hundred. It would take some kind of weird magical thinking to convince yourself that was even remotely one of the big factors that cost McCain the election--in fact, if you'll forgive the term, I'd say it's a little "out there."
(What--you thought this Yankee was gonna say "oogedy-boogedy?)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The problem I tend to have with people who are aware of my faith (I don't go to great pains to hide it, yet I don't necessarily wear it on my sleeve) is that it's often impossible to have a rational discussion with them without them going back to the straw-man faith argument crutch. Try and give them rational, sociological, scientific, and/or practical reasons for your stance on social issues like abortion and gay marriage (of which there are plenty) and they try and talk jargon about faulty theology, ensoulment, and so on. Don't you know you can't be against gay marriage in this country without being labeled a 'bigot' and trying to keep the gay man (or lesbian woman) down? And of course all pro-lifers are male chauvinists who are trying to control every aspect of the woman's life, including her own biological function.
There was a time in this country when one really had to be a shady character to be labeled 'bigot' or 'chauvinist' where as now these terms are merely used as punch lines to further a political, sociological, or ideological agenda. The truly sad aspect of this phenomenon is that their really are such things as racism, sexism, and bigotry. The ones who throw around these terms haphazardly and render their stigma next to nil undermine their own credibility and make it harder for legitimate victims of these crimes to be taken seriously.
Max,
Metaphysics isn't science. It is philosophy. I don't have a problem with teaching philosophy in public school, but you don't teach it in science class. To teach it in science class, it has to be ideas that can be formed into testable hypotheses. If you can't test it with measurable outcomes, it isn't science and doesn't belong in science class. Kids today are bad enough at science, as it is. It is a terrible idea to muddle things more by teaching unscientific ideas as alternative 'theory'.
How's the GOP doing in the Northeast these days? Social conservatives consider Rudy Guliani and others like him a RINO. Why?
Is it because he is very strong on defense and has been tested under fire?
No.
Is it because he has a record of cutting costs and revitalizing New York's finances?
No.
Is it because he has moderate (not liberal) views on social issues?
YES!
I understand that you're offended by the idea that independents and centrist-Democrats are repulsed by "oogedy-boogedy" Christians, but in truth the repulsion goes both ways. You might not want to hear it, but Kathleen Parker speaks for millions of Americans who voted for Obama instead of McCain.
"Max,
Metaphysics isn't science. It is philosophy."
Z, if you read my posts, you will see that I do call for metaphysics in a philosophical context, and not in a "science" class, that is, science as we normally use the term today. Though science IS a bit more than natural science, but I quibble. Basically, we are in agreement here.
"You might not want to hear it, but Kathleen Parker speaks for millions of Americans who voted for Obama instead of McCain."
And I'm sure they will be happy in their choice.
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.