Yes. As some of you know, I have issues with Obama, his reputation, and his faith, and I say that as a person of faith. Step up indeed.
Obama needs to step up and get Hermione to sign on for the rest of the series. A man of faith, indeed.
I don't even know how to describe my reaction to that Newsweek link.
I'm sure the liberal media just doesn't want us to know about Afghanistan.
Also, Atrios is right about the religious opposition to torture, but you can't just cherry-pick religion when it suits you and sneer at it the rest of the time.
No problem if you stop sneering though, religion's been hijacked by a bunch of loons who think praying to the American flag is what the Republican Party God intended for people.
DA: Can you find a Newsweek there? Probably same as ours but might be a bit different. My sense of the content laws, and Canada-editions is probably decades out of date. I am, as you suggested, the voice of the Laurier administration. I'm hitching up my Bennett Waggon to have lunch with Stephen Leacock and Morley Callaghan right now.
Exclusive: Left on the cutting room floor at Newsweek was the following quote from Watson, which originally appeared right after the "huge production" remark. It was not clear at press time whether the additional quote will appear in the Director's Special Edition of this week's Newsweek.
"Plus there's that whole debate over at Unfogged about whether it's too early to perv on Hermione," said Watson. "I mean, eeewww."
No no Doug. I told you that you didn't have much time left to perv on Hermione, and I was proved fucking right.
Has the logical problem with "too early to perv" been noted before, i.e. the earlier the pervier?
But there's acceptable and unacceptable perving.
I'm hitching up my Bennett Waggon to have lunch with Stephen Leacock and Morley Callaghan right now.
That was beautiful.
I'm going down to the mall later so I will definitely take note of what's on the cover here.
No no Doug. I told you that you didn't have much time left to perv on Hermione, and I was proved fucking right.
One can never run out of time to perv on Hermione, only on the actresses who portray her.
9: Acceptable perving?? Good god, man, what's the point?
Also, Atrios is right about the religious opposition to torture, but you can't just cherry-pick religion when it suits you and sneer at it the rest of the time.
Who's sneering? I, for example, am not religious. I don't believe the things that Christians (or any other theists for that manner) believe -- I disagree with them, rather than sneering at them. Nonetheless, I have a degree of intellectual understanding of what various Christian sects believe, and for most such sects, their publicly stated beliefs should be incompatible with support for, or condoning of, torture. I don't think expecting Christian political groups to step up on the issue is cherry-picking -- it's just a statement of what it takes for me to believe that whether or not I agree with them religiously, I can respect and trust them politically.
Uncharacteristically, I hope this thread goes with substance over perve. I've been wondering what the collective take on the religion/GWOT issue is since I read this post of Hilzoy's on the Bible, torture, the Traditional Values Coalition, etc. IANAC and all that, but still, I can't understand evangelicals siding with more draconian treatment of prisoners.*
*By this, I mean I understand it in the identity-politics way, but I suspect that it is incompatible with the actual content of the evangelicals' purported beliefs.
*By this, I mean I understand it in the identity-politics way, but I suspect that it is incompatible with the actual content of the evangelicals' purported beliefs.
Absent a fairly fixed sense of interpretation, is content ever stable enough to use in this sort of judgment?
Not likely:
Where does the religious right stand in all this? Following the revelations that the U.S. government exported prisoners to nations that have no scruples about the use of torture, I wrote to several prominent religious-right organizations. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization's position on the administration's use of torture. Surely, I thought, this is one issue that would allow the religious right to demonstrate its independence from the administration, for surely no one who calls himself a child of God or who professes to hear "fetal screams" could possibly countenance the use of torture. Although I didn't really expect that the religious right would climb out of the Republican Party's cozy bed over the torture of human beings, I thought perhaps they might poke out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.
I was wrong.
I can't understand evangelicals siding with more draconian treatment of prisoners
I think I know what you mean. One looks for some sort of doctrinal consistency to be able to keep from thinking that these people are simply craven, but I honestly don't see it here.
I think Tim is saying that because texts can be interpreted just about any old way, we can't say for sure that torture is incompatible with evangelicals' purported beliefs.
Try replacing the word "prisoners" with "Muslims". It becomes easier when you have 100% certainty that neither you nor anyone you love or anyone who is going to heaven has any chance of being subjected to the torture.
19: right. It's of a piece with the fact that the people who are most publically committed to "live free or die" or "freedom isn't free" or "liberty, huzzah" statements are the ones apparently most willing to give up freedoms or liberties in exchange for diminished risk. For a while I was hoping someone would macho up with an ad saying hey, we're Americans, we value our freedom more than our very lives, but whatever.
15: Now I'm going to sneer at some people.
My guess is that a lot of the rank and file serious evangelicals are going to have a problem with the support of torture. The religious issues are pretty clear, and sincere believers are, I think, likely to be troubled.
I don't think that's going to have much of an effect on the political landscape, though, for two reasons. First, I think a lot of evangelical political leaders -- the Ralph Reeds of the world -- are cynical powerbrokers rather than sincere believers, and they don't get anything for breaking with the Republicans. Issues of personal loyalty will keep other evangelicals from a noisy break with the cynics.
Second, I think that the political appeal of right-wing evangelicalism (or whatever you call it) extends well out beyond churchgoing Christians. The 'red state' people I know tend to think of themselves as religious Christians, but aren't churchgoers and don't think a lot about their faith. They respect and follow evangelical political leaders, but don't necessarily have the sort of active religious opinions that would get in the way of advocating torture.
18: The evangelicals are famous for taking the text of the Bible as the Revealed Word, and it seems unlikely to me that they've simply dispensed with that belief for the purposes of becoming pro-torture. So I assume there are sufficient inconsistencies in the Bible, or at least exclusions of broader moral rules, to allow them to make a textual case for torture or a broader rule that could encompass torture. And if it's true that (a) they can make that case reasonably, and (b) Christians on our side can make the case in the other direction, what's the content on this issue that you're talking about.
LB, we've had this discussion before somewhere on here. Lemme try to say what I mean more clearly.
Religious motivations aren't always welcome in politics. This is often because they are espousing very hateful policies. Fair enough. But it would be surprisingly common, in a debate on gay marriage or abortion, to hear something like 'That's just your religious belief and it shouldn't have any place in the public domain when we're interested in rights and the good of society.'
But if you want to take a religious argument against torture seriously, that does, I think, open you to not being able to dismiss some of the other hateful arguments on the grounds that 'your religious delusion shouldn't ground a policy decision.' Presumably you're (general you) enlisting the support of religious groups because you want them to make a religous argument, and I think it is cherry-picking to say 'Religious reasons are okay here, but not here.'
On the subject of evangelicals supporting torture, it's because they're a bunch of idolators worshipping the Republican party.
Emma Watson's just trying to get more money.
a lot of the rank and file serious evangelicals are going to have a problem with the support of torture.
This seems really plausible. When I spent more time in evangelical circles (as a result of some dating-related program activities) I was impressed that a lot of people took the faith seriously and made serious efforts to understand it and to live by it. I can't imagine people like this thinking extraordinary rendition is ok.
27: I think virtually all of them would be swayed by the argument "Oh, like the Democrats would be any better."
evangelicals...a bunch of idolators...
Cala, don't make me bring up your football preferences.
Mary, Queen of Victory, pray for us!
(Seriously.)
It's not idolatry if you have Touchdown Jesus.
23 is right, and excellent. Those individual consciences need leadership to organize and be effective. When it arrives, you're not likely to have seen it coming, and it's not always there when needed.
Dang, is it too late to perv on Obama?
Anyway, the debate among the Fundiebots will go something like this. "Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord." The Lord made W President and talks to him. Therefore, if W says that vengeance is his, then that's the word of the Lord.
Oh, and 26 is exactly right. Buzz, publicity, millions of little girls begging Hermione to stay on, etc.
15- As an ex-evangelical, I would say that most have no more difficulty justifying this than their ardent support for the death penalty, and on the same grounds: these people had it coming. For some reason, evangelicals have decided that although it's bad for me or you to kill, it's very much okay for the state to do so in our collective defense (one of it's primary functions). Torture is arguably different, as you're not just killing someone but instead intentionally inflicting pain, and also of course since these people haven't been tried and found guilty in court, but bringing in all that I think just introduces more nuance than most evangelicals are comfortable with. Combine this with the fact that they have an instinctive trust of Bush (he prays!), and well -- if he says we're not doing anything that's really torture, and anyways certainly nothing not absolutely necessary to keep us safe, and you have your defense. Also, ever notice that it's always DEMOCRATS criticizing Bush for this? (Plus the liberal media, plus that liberal traitor John McCain.) None of those people can be trusted -- they're all proven liars, who want nothing more than to lie to you and deceive you because they hate you and they hate your faith and they hate your God and they hate America. (Their three great loves are taxes and terrorists and abortions.) Seriously, if there were anything unsavory going on, the REPUBLICAN party would be speaking up about it, since that's where all the good, God-fearing Christian folk are.
Anyway, the debate among the Fundiebots will go something like this. "Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord." The Lord made W President and talks to him. Therefore, if W says that vengeance is his, then that's the word of the Lord.
I think we also get the usual "it's not really torture" and "we only do it to the really bad guys* in order to find out where the ticking bomb is hidden" arguments as justification.
* and of course we can tell the difference between the really bad guys and the innocent guys: we only take the bad guys into custody. I mean, why would we have them in custody if they hadn't done something really, really bad?
I see I was badly pwned.
If anyone wants further insights into the evangelical mindset, though, I'm happy to share. Seriously -- I was very committed, and know the community well.
But if you want to take a religious argument against torture seriously, that does, I think, open you to not being able to dismiss some of the other hateful arguments on the grounds that 'your religious delusion shouldn't ground a policy decision.'
I don't think atheists do want to take it seriously -- not in the sense of thinking that "God wants us to not torture" is an additional argument for not torturing within our own minds. We want to take it seriously in the sense that it is a point on which secularists and Christians can agree on goals, if not reasons (although somewhat on reasons: the atheist thinks "We should not torture because torture is cruel", the Christian thinks "We should not torture because torture is cruel and God wants us not to be cruel".)
And we want to take it seriously as an argument for convincing Christians not to support torture. I, as an atheist, can say "Christian: I disagree with you about your premises -- that God exists and the Bible is a guide to what he wants us to do. For the sake of this argument, I will accept those premises, and argue that an acceptance of those premises requires you not to support torture." If I am accurate about the nature of the Christian's premises, and make a valid argument from those premises, I should be able to convince him regardless of the fact that I explictly do not share his premises. This does not require me, to avoid inconsistency, to accept that homosexuality is an abomination because it also flows validly from the Christian's premises (assuming that it does) -- I never said I accepted those premises, just argued from them for the purpose of convincing the Christian.
On the subject of evangelicals supporting torture, it's because they're a bunch of idolators worshipping the Republican party.
This is possibly true of some big-name evangelicals, but it's not true (I think) of Joe Churchgoer.
The reason that evangelicals aren't talking about torture is that they don't know, and they don't care.
Politics, and what's happening to other people (especially non-Christians) is just not as important to them as their personal religious journey. When I asked my evangelical carpool-mate to please call his senators about the torture bill, he said, "Oh, that's terrible," and promised that he would. But he didn't know it was going on until I told him, and he won't make any further effort to find out more unless I spoon-feed it to him.
Religious opposition to torture is lacking because of a special kind of the same apathy that affects most of the electorate.
24: ok, I see that point. It just seems to me, from the outside, that the text is pretty clearly pointing in one direction rather than another, much more so than, say, on the death penalty, since there are just executions in the Bible but not a lot of just torturings.
I hope Brock is wrong, but I have little reason to think he is (cf slol's link).
"Christian: I disagree with you about your premises -- that God exists and the Bible is a guide to what he wants us to do. For the sake of this argument, I will accept those premises, and argue that an acceptance of those premises requires you not to support torture."
This is exactly right, although in my experience (datapoints: one!) it works tactically (call your senator tomorrow!) but not strategically (vote Democrat in November!).
Here are some past Newsweek cover shenanigans.
"Difficulty of empathy, of genuinely entering into the mental and emotional values of the Middle Ages, is the final obstacle. The main barrier is, I believe, the Christian religion as it then was: the matrix and law of medieval life, omnipresent, indeed compulsory. Its insistent principle that the life of the spirit and of the afterworld as superior to the here and now, to material life on earth, is one that the modern world does not share, no matter how devout some present-day Christians may be. The rupture of this principle and its replacement by belief in the worth of the individual and of an active life not necessarily focused on God is, in fact, what created the modern world and ended the Middle Ages.
What compounds the problem is that medieval society, while professing belief in renunciation of the life of the senses, did not renounce it in practice, and no part of it less so than the Church itself. Many tried, a few succeeded, but the generality of mankind is not made for renunciation. There never was a time when more attention was given to money and possessions than in the 14th century, and its concern with the flesh was the same as at any other time. Economic man and sensual man are not suppressible." ...Barbara Tuchman, Distant Mirror
One of the funniest stories is the army of Condottieri outside Avignon, besieging the Pope, threatening to sack the city and kill all the inhabitants unless they got X million florins and forgiveness of their sins. They sincerely and passionately followed the Prince of Peace while locking the gates of cities and burning them to the ground.
The only place Tuchman fucks up is claiming some kind of difference between them and us.
since there are just executions in the Bible but not a lot of just torturings.
Read the Bible much?
43: no, unabashedly. There's mistreatment of prisoners galore, right, but what counts as an endorsed coercive interrogation?
You're all missing the obvious point: evangelical Christians get erections over torture. Witness the busloads of them spilling out at theaters to see one of the most realistic and graphic torture and execution films ever made, then buying copies to watch at home. Check out artistic depictions of the Crucifixion through history. Torture is completely central to the faith.
44- "endorsed coercive interrogation"? Probably nothing. But a-okay mistreatment/torture of enemies of the state is basically the whole of the Old Testament.
45 is pretty offensive, honestly.
The goal posts will have been moved significantly from "torture" by the time the pamphlets are printed and mailed or the political endorsement is delivered. Certainly right-thinking religious people will never endorse torture, but there's no problem here, since no one is torturing anyone. It really doesn't matter what the text says about torture; the question will not come up.
LB, I really don't want to get into this 'cause I have a lot going on today. Suffice it to say that 'taking it seriously' doesn't mean 'accepting that homosexuality is an abomination.'
You're also right about the procedure. No one's saying atheists have to believe in God in order to understand Christian arguments and refute them with Christian premises. It's about whether Christian premises are useful premises to have around, and if they're the sort than can get admitted into public debate. And if they are, I don't see an easy way to draw a line that isn't with 'when I need your argument, I'll rattle your chain.'
Sort of like this. Ogged and I have an argument, and he enlists B to make a feminist point against me who he disagrees with on different grounds. But later, when B brings up a feminist point, Ogged says shush, shush, feminism isn't good grounds for argument.
I'm thinking that it's not going to do much for ogged's professed support of feminism if he only calls on B when he needs to score points. And that's sort of my beef with Atrios.
46: gah, I knew we'd have this problem of "but what OT lessons do Christians endorse" sooner or later. Maybe I'm just reading the thing through the wrong lens.
Ogged can be a real jerk sometimes.
he only calls on B when he needs to score
Yeah, I've gotten some late-night drunken phone calls from Ogged, too. Pretty demeaning.
It's about whether Christian premises are useful premises to have around, and if they're the sort than can get admitted into public debate. And if they are, I don't see an easy way to draw a line that isn't with 'when I need your argument, I'll rattle your chain.'
But all the non-Christian is really doing is asking you to be consistent as regards the principles you claim to hold. He's not saying that he has those same principles, or that he should be allowed to be inconsistent on the basis of the principles he believes.
45 is pretty offensive, honestly.
This is your way of telling us you have a woody, isn't it?
45: Torture is indeed central to Christianity; but it's pretty clear that torture by the state (Rome) is bad and evil, and those who condone it are the evilest of the evil (the blood curse). And the middle eastern guy who got tortured, along with the criminals who were tortured with him, are martyrs and saints. Really, the story of Christ's trial and execution is practically tailor-made to oppose the US patriot act: the mock trial, all of it. I'm amazed it hasn't occurred to me before, and I bet it hasn't occurred to a lot of people. A commercial or two pointing this out would make huge waves among evangelicals.
54: Works better as a response to 52.
Agree with SCMT -- someone who loudly and publicly professes a set of beliefs and principles can be called upon to act on those prinicples by someone who doesn't share them.
40 pretty much gets it right and says what I'm trying to say.
Also, I think the torture/stealing/etc themes in the Old Testament are ones that a lot of theological work has been done to reconcile that with later ideas of God. So it's not as simple as 'point to a place in the Bible where there's torture, that means God likes it.'
Catholicism's position on torture would get you no torture, but the same argument against torture knocks out abortion, euthanasia, the Iraq war, and um, capitalism. It's hard to pigeonhole a religion developed by philosophers.
52: OT, but a British friend asked what "booty call" meant. I assume the notion exists in the UK by a different name ("fanny ring" or summat like tha'), but my luckless, clueless friend was no help. Anyone know?
I'm thinking that it's not going to do much for ogged's professed support of feminism if he only calls on B when he needs to score points. And that's sort of my beef with Atrios.
But I don't (and atheists of my political beliefs generally) don't support or purport to support Christianity. We tolerate it, and feel strongly that it should be tolerated and will fight for its right to be tolerated, and we can ally with Christians on issues, but we wouldn't feel bad if twenty years from now there were no Christians in the US. C-Ogged has a problem in the case you describe because he's a hypocrite -- he's saying that he's a feminist when he really isn't. If what c-ogged says, explicitly, is "I'm not a feminist, but even B, who I think you accept as a feminist authority, disagrees with you on feminist grounds here," he isn't doing anything wrong at all. His argument may be weak -- you may not accept B as an authority -- but he's not wrong or hypocritical for making it.
Brock, this is exactly why Muhammed, may peace be upon him, had to clear things up.
45 is pretty offensive, honestly.
You got a better explanation for the persistence in the belief of Hell?
Also, I think the torture/stealing/etc themes in the Old Testament are ones that a lot of theological work has been done to reconcile that with later ideas of God.
Not to mention shrimp. And bacon. And the wearing of two different fabrics, etc.
"in the belief of Hell" s/b "of the belief in Hell"
54 was unnecessary, since 53 works very well indeed as a response to 52.
All this talk of how to debate with fundamentalists (Yoo hoo, here we are! Come to Unfogged!) is somewhat interesting to we liberal, um, navel gazers. But it's a pretty pointless exercise. We shall not meet Jerry Falwell on some stage and go back and forth with pointy points and convince rational spectators. Many churches (offices, unions, gas stations) are the personal fiefs of control freaks and their flock of submissives (sorry, Tia). If we really want to combat this we're just going to have to follow Kotsko to the seminary and engage in a long campaign of infiltration. Then, when we're all pastors we can spoonfeed our own message one congregation at a time.
I guess I'm saying that it would be hard, if I were serious about my faith, for me to ally strongly with someone whose position is 'We tolerate you, but we wouldn't care if you disappeared, but wouldn't you mind jumping up and making this argument for us, thanks so much.'
We shall not meet Jerry Falwell on some stage and go back and forth with pointy points
Given that interlocutor, I'd prefer pointy sticks, myself.
Falwell can only be killed by something tipped in silver, I'm sure of it.
49/62: Wait. So are you saying I'm being played, or not? Is Ogged just using me?
69: What more enthusiastic attitude do you expect an atheist to have toward your religion? I mean, I expect the reverse is true -- a Christian would be not merely indifferent, but delighted, to hear that in 20 years all the atheists had become Christian.
when I need your argument, I'll rattle your chain
making this argument for us
But it's not about arguments. It's, "make this phone call," or "put this in your newsletter" or whatever. That makes all the difference in this case.
And that's sort of my beef with Atrios.
I can see your beef in general but I don't know if it's a fair characterization of Atrios's position. He wasn't addressing himself to people whose minds he wants to change, but to people who are already Democrats and to people who presumably do oppose torture. So he's saying, "guys, tactically, this would be a good thing to talk about," not, "guys, given your premises, these conclusions should follow."
I don't know what the right attitude is, LB, but I know enough people who vote Republican, knowing all of the shit that the party pulls, because the Democrats are hostile to religion. Presumably, the Republican party has some atheists and manages not to have the same vibe.
I am pwned by ogged.
Tia is going to have millions of ogged's pwnbabies.
but I know enough people who vote Republican, knowing all of the shit that the party pulls, because the Democrats are hostile to religion.
There's a little bit of chicken-egging going on here. I'm not sure that Democrats as a whole are hostile to religion. And those that are usually have some specific religious policy or tendency at which to point when explaining their hostility.
But mostly I doubt that Dems are hostile to religion.
Presumably, the Republican party has some atheists and manages not to have the same vibe.
They do it by combining true-believers with those willing to cynically exploit them. At least we're upfront about it.
But mostly I doubt that Dems are hostile to religion.
Not individually, and maybe not even party-wide (for a tight enough definiton of hostile) but that's certainly the perception.
Hate that I missed the perving on Herminone thread. I had a crush on her in the first movie, when she dissed Ron in the rail carriage en route to Hogwarts.
Not a sexual crush, of course, but a crush nonetheless. Bossy girls are a weakness of mine.
--As for Christians and torture, the fundie evangelicals are so deep into their us/them mode, they can't even understand their own gospels any more. The idea that God is equally dissatisfied with (1) James Dobson and (2) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that they are both sinners unworthy of grace, is beyond them.
79, 81, 83: I think this stems from the fact that the Republican Party makes a concerted effort to appeal to evangelical Christians; the Democratic Party, in contrast, is not hostile to evangelical Christians per se but does take positions contrary to those many evangelical Christians hold dear, and this is interpreted by them as hostility to religion.
85: The Republican Party also takes positions contrary to those many evangelical Christians hold dear - for example, torture, and not caring even a tiny little bit about helping poor people. This isn't interpreted as hostility to religion because the Republican Party is constantly saying "We are the Christian party," and has bribed evangelical leaders into saying "Yes indeed, if you are a good honest person who finds wisdom in my radio show, there is absolutely no chance that I want you voting for the Democrats."
The Democrats try to demonstrate their goodness by good deeds, rather than good words, which obviously doesn't work.
Neiwert on Torture ...Tristero at Digby's calls out Yglesias for MY's arguments from disutility or consequentialism; some of T's commenters defended MY
Rape & Torture ...Beyerstein ponders whether attempting to argue about torture is like trying to marshall useful arguments against rape. Discussing why rape is a bad thing I think damages me.
Somebody with power comes to me and talks torture I pull my gun. Just because I can't build a political action program around that doesn't mean I am wrong.
Bushco has deliberately, intentionally put us and our opponents into this position. Pur opponents have to defend atrocity and we have to somehow, with patience and restraint and magnanimity, try to stay rational.
I'll be rational when they get their boot off my neck.
85- this is it. And note that such a "concerted effort" is something the Dems *could* do, if they wanted to. I mean, it's not like the Rep. party agenda matches the religious agenda down the line -- there're only a few areas of true overlap. (The areas of overlap seem to have grown over the last few decades, as many religious have come to associate Rep. policies -- low taxes, etc.-- with Christianity itself, although there is no necessary or historic connection there.) Dems have the latitude to play this card as effectively as the Republicans --they could be catering to religious voters, emphasing anti-poverty policies, human rights, etc. Some do, but they seem more the exception than the rule.
82 is exactly right, but why don't the Democrats have people willing to do the same? (And please don't answer with anything like honor or somesuch nonsense -- this is electoral politics, and there are plenty of cynics for both sides. A "pure" party is a losing party, guaranteed.) I can tell you the answer to this question -- they'd (mostly) not make it through the primaries, because the sorts of democratic voters who vote in primaries mostly *are* rather hostile to religion. So the Dem. Party's hostile reputation is, in that sense, not wholly undeserved.
Totally pwned by 86. But the last line of 86 is bullshit, IMO.
79: 74 was brusque, but I didn't mean it to be hostile, just clear. The 'secularist hostility to religion' meme bothers me, because it seems so powerful, but the sort of behavoir that bothers you, for example, who I'm taking as the least touchy and most reasonable of believers, seems unavoidable without massive hypocrisy. Anyone who does not themselves believe in but nonetheless actively 'supports' Christianity, rather than tolerating and being willing to ally with Christians, seems to me to be a contemptible cynic. I'm hoping to hammer out a position an atheist can hold that is neither offensive to Christians nor revoltingly hypocritical.
I can tell you the answer to this question -- they'd (mostly) not make it through the primaries, because the sorts of democratic voters who vote in primaries mostly *are* rather hostile to religion.
This is just nonsense. We elect god-bothering evangelicals all the time.
Okay 91, then you tell me your answer to the question. I stated that in strong language, but should have made clear it was only a hypothesis. Off the top of my head, even. (But I don't think it's just nonsense.)
Okay, just nonsense was rude and I'm regretting it, but what do you mean? The Democratic electorate ate up Obama telling us about the Awesome God we worship in the blue states; Clinton talked about his faith all the time... what evidence of the Democratic primary voters' hostility to religion do you see?
Heh -- 93 wasn't a response to 92; I hadn't seen 92 yet.
One thing that might be going on isn't a hostility to religion among the Democratic hard-core, but a high value for expressed religious toleration. Non-hostile secularism. I don't think there's any significant percentage of Democratic primary voters who would have a problem with an outspokenly religious candidate. I do think there's a significant percentage of Democratic primary voters, including churchgoers, who would have a real problem with rhetoric that they understood as claiming "I and other Christians are better citizens than the non-Christian due to our Christianity." It is possible that it's going to be hard to attract the evangelical vote without making those sorts of claims.
It's okay, LB. I understand you were just being rude because I'm religious and you hate me.
Look, if you're going to ask for evidence, my theory will fall apart. My only evidence is the fact that the Democratic party does not seem to make a concerted effort to embrace the Christian community. Which is something they would normally be expected to do in an electoral system, as Christians are a significant presence in this country (for better or for worse). Obama is an exception, as was Clinton, and Carter too. And plenty of others. But that's somewhat beside the point, as I think even you'd admit that the Republicans do much more active courting of the Christian community. (Right?)
the Democratic party does not seem to make a concerted effort to embrace the Christian community.
This seems like a good explanation. By and large, all Dems can offer Christians (and, in particular, evangelical Christians) are allies. Republicans can offer Brothers in Christ. If your faith is sufficiently important to you, the choice seems clear.
My only evidence is the fact that the Democratic party does not seem to make a concerted effort to embrace the Christian community.
Aside from the Jewish members of the caucus, can you name ten Democratic members of Congress or one Democratic governor that isn't a Christian?
"I and other Christians are better citizens than the non-Christian due to our Christianity."
Well, this sounds offensive as stated, but break it into two parts and I think it's exactly what they need to be doing/saying:
(1) I and other Christians vote Democratic due to our Christianity.
(2) Persons who vote Democratic are better citizens.
all Dems can offer Christians
See 97. The Party is OVERWHELMINGLY Christian.
But that's somewhat beside the point, as I think even you'd admit that the Republicans do much more active courting of the Christian community.
I am literally unsure on this point. Republicans have closer relationships with the evangelical community -- there are more Republican Christian organization than Democratic Christian organizations. It's my sense that the Democrats do put a fair amount of effort into outreach to religious groups -- they just have an uphill battle as far as results go.
"the Republicans do much more active courting of the [part of the] Christian community [that thinks it and it alone represents true Christianity]."
There, now your statement is true.
This is the program, and I can think of examples going back centuries.
The "Right" says or does something outrageous, offensive, illogical, unsupportable. Their followers are forced out of reason into emotion, appeals to and the comfort of tribal loyalty.
The opponents(us, the left) are forced to devalue and reject their own feelings, to rationalize and intellectualize their positions. They say:"Bush is a strong leader" We get all empirical, and say:"Dude, the evidence really does not support that assertion."
We get depressed. desperate, frustrated, withdrawn. Senators remain silent during torture debates.
Maybe I could go throught those threads of ogged and Tia to see what's going on in the torture debate. Maybe I should take another look at the "ten points."
100: We probably ought to bother to define our terms. We're good with African-American Christians, I assume we own the Episcopals, and, as I understand it, we used to be quite good with Catholics. We suck with evangelicals. And that might be just the way it is.
101 - okay Apo. I accept the statement exactly as you've written it. Given that this is a very significant electoral block, why don't the Dems do more to court it?
(Cynically, if necessary. Not all of the Republican courtship is heartfelt, I can assure you.)
103 -- We're also big with the Congregationalists.
when there's a "perception of X" that makes the Democrats look bad, we can't assume X. Maybe we just have to change a false perception.
On the other hand, as an individual I'm hostile to religion, and I'm a Democrat. If there are people who will vote for Bush, knowing what he is, because someone like me is a Democrat, what should we think then?
On the one hand, I think that they're being deluded and used. And frankly, they seem like hypersensitive, silly, intolerant tools. I absolutely don't run the Democratic party. Even Kos and Armstrong barely spoke to me when I met them.
As far as Obama goes, he's made a lot of noise about his faith, and people like Atrios and I have found it annoying, but we let it pass, pretty much, even though it's Liebermanesque. So Atrios is saying, "Fine, Obama. You're a Democrat, I'm a Democrat, here's a place where we can agree. Here's a chance for your faith to do some good." I can't see a problem with that.
As for the evangelicals, it's hard to underestimate their limited horizon, their fear, the way they can cherrypick the Bible, and in many cases their smug self-satisfaction. They have the angry God, the destruction of Sodom, and so on to draw on.
As I've said in the past: Christians will be judged too. (A lot of them feel exempt because they're saved, like Jesus is their connection in the county courthouse).
And some Christians, but not all, can be saved. Go ye therefore.
FL in 15:
When this, violence and christianity, was brought up on Real Time with Bill Mahr, the christian Fox News lady brought up Revelations. Evangelicals are really big on that book, I understand.
Yeah, the Dems have much of the atheist vote locked up, so we get the hostility rap. But it's more than that. The fundies are not just the only true Christians, they're the only true Americans (same thing?).
Like the letter to the editor I never wrote: no we don't hate America, John Q. Letterwriter. We hate you. You're fucking up our country. Please stop.
95:"Look, if you're going to ask for evidence, my theory will fall apart." ...BL
Bob, all-meta, all the time. Even started talking about myself in third person.
Hermione:Natalie Portman went off to college. Ms Watson might be wise, I wouldn't give up the years 15-20 for a million pounds, especially if I already had a million pounds. I suspect she will regret either decision for the rest of her life.
Given that this is a very significant electoral block, why don't the Dems do more to court it?
They do a fair amount of courting, but there are some tactics that would give them trouble with their base. What I said in 94 -- anything that conveys that Christians are necessarily better citizens than non-Christians? That's going to be a problem. And a lot of the symbolic issues: 'Under God' in the pledge, the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, fall into that category. There's no reason to fight for them unless Christianity is a necessary aid to civic virtue. If Democrats are ideologically locked out of that position (and I think we are), then while we don't have to care a lot about these issues -- ignoring them is fine -- once anyone's fighting about it, we can't consistently be on the "Christianity=civic virtue" side.
Of course then Bradley Whitford asked her if she really believed in the literal truth of teh bible (she did) and then whether Dick Cheney was going to hell or was the camel going through the needle's eye. She was stumped. Hilarious!
This seems like a good explanation. By and large, all Dems can offer Christians (and, in particular, evangelical Christians) are allies. Republicans can offer Brothers in Christ. If your faith is sufficiently important to you, the choice seems clear.
This is pretty much it. I think I have a better response to LB's 74 now, and I don't think it requires an atheist to be hypocritical. It's just that toleration is an awfully weak endorsement. I can tolerate someone or something I find repulsive. I ain't gonna vote for someone who finds me repulsive.
And while the Republican leadership I'm sure is just as cynical, there's a difference between 'We respect and value your beliefs and hope you contribute in society by turning those good beliefs into votes and policies, and we'll be allies whenever our coalitions overlap' and 'We'll tolerate you, but you're really not welcome here.' I think the Dems could sell the former successfully.
We're not going to win over evangelicals, but fuck them, we don't need them and we won't get them. I'm thinking here mostly of my home parish. Lots of people that are moderately religious: use birth control, go to Sunday Mass, try to be nice, not particularly anti-SSM but not foaming against it, concerned about the Iraq war but not sure what to think, want their kids to use condoms but aren't sure they want the schools to promote it but could probably be talked around to it.
These guys are voting Republican. Why? Because good religious people vote Republican. Because the Democrats are anti-religion. Stupid, maybe, but that's how I see it, and I really think that the moderate religious vote is completely winnable.
Evangelical Christians have certain policy preferences. They vote for pro-life candidates. The "respect" issues are a sideshow. It isn't a matter of outreach, Evangelical Christians are not going to seriously consider switching parties until democrats switch their policies.
This would be stupid for democrats to do. For one reason, there are more pro-choice voters than pro-life voters.
They do a fair amount of courting, but there are some tactics that would give them trouble with their base.
Wait, I'm confused -- this was basically what I said and you yelled "nonsense!" at me.
Cala, I know you're partly kidding but
I ain't gonna vote for someone who finds me repulsive
is that "theater-critic politics" that so upsets me. It's about policies and outcomes, and to vote in ways that lead to bad outcomes for the sake of some kind of cultural or religious solidarity seems...idunno, bad? Wrongheaded?
Competence, not ideology!
Now the oral sex!, and back to the political discussion.
If "not being willing to endorse the claim that being Christian makes you a better citizen than being non-Christian" is the same thing as "hostility to religion", then yes, that's basically what you said.
I don't see the two statements as anywhere near equivalent.
If, to not appear hostile to religion, Democrats have to endorse the position that Christianity (with a pass for observant, but not secular, Jews) is necessary to civic virtue, then that's what Democrats have a problem. I just want to get clear on what Christian believers require as a standard of non-hostility.
I don't believe that people vote based on outcomes. I am perfectly willing to accept that this is bad, wrongheaded, and stupid, and I point to the American citizenry as evidence on this point.
More charitably, a lot of people don't have strong opinions on most issues because it's sort of confusing what policy works to get what outcome. So they vote for the policies & issues by proxy, or vote on the one issue they do have a strong opinion about.
'We respect and value your beliefs and hope you contribute in society by turning those good beliefs into votes and policies, and we'll be allies whenever our coalitions overlap' and 'We'll tolerate you, but you're really not welcome here.' I think the Dems could sell the former successfully.
See, I think Democrats can do this. I think we try to do this. I think we are unfairly seen as not doing this when we actually are. I keep on bringing up all of the devout Christians Democrats elect, but it's a real thing. Of course we (as a party) don't find Christians repulsive, and it's incomprensible how you could think that we do. We adore Clinton. We treat Obama like a rock star. We elect far more devout Christians than members of any other religious or non-religious group. The toleration I'm talking about is toleration and alliance, and I'm not holding it out as something that might happen in the future, it's the current state of affairs now.
We're just committed to not claiming that being a Christian makes you a better citizen than anyone else.
hey this is like a way cool conversation we're having here.
And each of you *has* phoned both of your Senators today, right?
And maybe phoned Leahy's office just to thank him for speaking out against the bill?
'cause it just might make a difference.
Wait I'm supposed to call again today? Cause I did yesterday and the day before. Is there a new development?
White evangelicals are too deeply intertwined with Republican policy to win back at this point. It doesn't even make sense from a strictly religious standpoint - we're talking about people who are overwhelmingly pro-death penalty who worship a man who was wrongly executed - but there you have it.
To attempt to prod this thread back to the original subject, I do think liberal Christians could do a lot of good in the torture debate. Right now I think the only resistance to this abomination are secular groups like the ACLU that seem to exist to get ignored by bullet-headed thugs like Bush and McCain, and we could seriously use some fire and brimstone on our side.
We're just committed to not claiming that being a Christian makes you a better citizen than anyone else.
I don't know why I bother. Yes, that was exactly the point of everything I wrote. The Democratic party should say that Christians are better than everyone else, because that's the only viable alternative to 'We'll tolerate you, but we wouldn't care if you disappeared in twenty years.'
Christ on a stick.
people who are overwhelmingly pro-death penalty who worship a man who was wrongly executed
I have heard this argument but never quite got how it should cut against pro-death penalty Christians. I mean if the death penalty had been abolished in ancient times, or even if the contemporary safeguards like habeas and appeals and stuff were in place, then no wrongful execution for Christ, so no forgiveness of Our Sins. Christianity and opposition to death-penalty reforms seem totally compatible to me.
LB, I'm not just trying to fight with you on this. I want Democrats to win! Perhaps some of your frustration is that this seems inconsistent, or illogical, or unfair. If that's it: agreed. We could all use some physical affection at this point.
Basically, 112 is right, although I for one am not at all sure the evangelical comminuty need be written off. (Though acknowledge that they are perhaps an inappropriate starting place.)
Unfogged: now even more humorless than before!
I don't think Christianity & being pro-death penalty are compatible, but the reason they aren't compatible has nothing at all to do with the Crucifixion, and the lack of Roman due process, &c.
The Democratic party should say that Christians are better than everyone else, because that's the only viable alternative to 'We'll tolerate you, but we wouldn't care if you disappeared in twenty years.'
I'm not the whole Democratic party -- I'm an atheist. There aren't a lot of us. I vote, enthusiastically, for Christians. I respect the things Christians have done on the issues I find important (e.g., the Civil Rights movement). I am a member of the Democratic Party most of whose members are Christians. It's not an organization of atheists, just one that welcomes atheists.
My attitude toward the institution of Christianity is indifferent -- it wouldn't bother me if it faded away. I don't see that you have any reason at all to find that offensive, unless it is offensive to you that I do not believe in its truth. My attitude toward the Christians I know, and work with, and am related to, and am politically allied with, is not indifferent -- it's affectionate and respectful.
127 -- right, sorry, when I said "totally compatible" I was thinking "as far as this particular argument goes".
I don't think Christianity & being pro-death penalty are compatible, but the reason they aren't compatible has nothing at all to do with the Crucifixion, and the lack of Roman due process, &c.
I just thought it was an obvious irony. Who Would Jesus Execute? Why, Jesus, obviously.
I am humorless, but not particularly annoyed. But I am bowing out of the major portion of this debate because frankly, I don't care that much and I'm supposed to write a chapter.
Fuck the chapter, too. Actually, pretty much fuck the world. The world can get back to me when it doesn't suck.
I mean if the death penalty had been abolished in ancient times, or even if the contemporary safeguards like habeas and appeals and stuff were in place, then no wrongful execution for Christ, so no forgiveness of Our Sins.
Or more realistically, no wrongful execution for Our Christ, and Our Christ goes on to do some other stuff, and an entire theology doesn't form around the concept of martyrdom.
125: I'm arguing with you and Cala here because I think you are asking the impossible, and that you stand in for a lot of Democrats and moderates who believe (in my opinion wrongly) that the Democratic party is, as an organization, hostile to religion.
I think you may be right that we can't get the evangelicals back, but we can get Cala's people back -- liberalish Catholics, Protestants not in strongly political denominations -- and this belief that what the Democratic party does now is hostile to religion is what's keeping us from getting them back. I don't think the Democratic party has room to embrace religion much more fervently than it does without ceasing to tolerate the non-religious and members of other religions. As an atheist, I'd like to maintain that tolerance. So I really want to change the perception that tolerating me means being hostile to religion.
Not that I'm necessarily being effective about it, but that's what I'm trying to do.
I don't believe that people vote based on outcomes. I am perfectly willing to accept that this is bad, wrongheaded, and stupid, and I point to the American citizenry as evidence on this point.
I'm with Cala on this point, except that I'm completely unwilling to (a) describe it quite this way, or (b) accept that it's stupid or wrongheaded. You elect representatives as agents. Accordingly, you want them to vote as you would, had you the time and information that they will. Using a few policy matches as a proxy for finding such agents isn't crazy. Neither is matching up core principles. It's what we all do. Pretending that this can all be resolved by reference to "competence" pretends, it seems to me, that we understand the world much better than we actually do.
Our problem, with at least some Christians, is that we disagree with them. With Catholics--eh, we should constantly decry evangelical denunciations of "papists," whether or not evangelicals actually make such an attack.
132 -- Right but if an entire theology does not form around the concept of martyrdom, then you have no Christianity, so no modern Christians, so nobody to be opposed to or in favor of the death penalty on Christian grounds.
128: I assumed since we were talking about party politics & Democratic strategy that when you said way upthread that atheists have no obligations to support the truth of Christianity that you were conflating 'atheist' and 'healthy smart Democratic party line', where everyone else was someone to be tolerated. We weren't talking about individuals. And while I don't give two goddamns if you personally don't believe in God (and I think you know that), it is different if it's the position of an organization that atheists are right, but others can be tolerated, especially when they're useful.
Now, you seem to think that the Democrats are pro-Christian enough. I'm saying that from what I've observed, that message isn't getting through to the average swing voter.
Matching up your core principles with their political speeches which completely betray their core principles is a load of shit, though, and it's exactly what is happening.
Most Christians believe Bush when he says 'we do not torture.' If the Republicans said "Yes, we support torture because it's fun!" then they probably would suffer severe repercussions.
LB, in my opinion your 128 is the most effective thing you've said, because in it you admitted your own marginality, minority status, within the party largely made of people who think and feel differently from yourself.
By contrast,
See, I think Democrats can do this. I think we try to do this. I think we are unfairly seen as not doing this when we actually are. I keep on bringing up all of the devout Christians Democrats elect, but it's a real thing. Of course we (as a party) don't find Christians repulsive, and it's incomprensible how you could think that we do. We adore Clinton. We treat Obama like a rock star. We elect far more devout Christians than members of any other religious or non-religious group. The toleration I'm talking about is toleration and alliance, and I'm not holding it out as something that might happen in the future, it's the current state of affairs now...
...We're just committed to not claiming that being a Christian makes you a better citizen than anyone else
speaks for a "we" which imagines the party as being much like yourself. That party is more a wish than a fact, but a lot of people vote against that party, as if it were real, perhaps because of the vividness and passion with which you project it.
Sorry, I can see how that could have gotten confused. I was talking for myself "and atheists of my political beliefs generally", which I believe includes Atrios, and making the point that indifference to the institution of Christianity doesn't imply hostility to or revulsion for Christians.
The Democratic Party isn't an atheist party. The atheists tolerated within the party work with Christians. They ally with Christians. They vote for Christians. And the party's position on them is that they are as good citizens as Christians are.
You found Atrios's post hostile to Christianity. I think you were wrong to do so. It was written from a non-Christian perspective, but that's not hostility to Christianity. I am hoping that you and people of your political views can be convinced that people like Atrios and me aren't hostile to Christianity, and that the Democratic Party, made up overwhelmingly of Christians, doesn't become hostile to Christianity by tolerating us.
140 to 137; 139 makes a useful point.
"You" of course only takes you as representative, not to imply you, personally, have alienated millions.
137: Now, you seem to think that the Democrats are pro-Christian enough. I'm saying that from what I've observed, that message isn't getting through to the average swing voter.
See, I don't think that this is, or ought to be, the message, which would explain why it isn't coming through. The Democratic Party is not "pro-Christian" but rather "pro-policies which ought to resonate with moral people of all faiths, as well as those whose morality is not grounded in religion".
LB, I think you might be conflating secular Christians, like myself, with (wc?) committed Christians, like those in Cala's parish. Those are two related but distinct groups, and I think most public Dems probably fall in the former category.
We probably don't have to say that Christians are better Americans. We probably don't have to say anything about Democrats at all. Just put our brand on how they like to think about theirselves. Just "You, you, you, Democrats. You, you you, Democrats."
143: Well, yes. I don't think the Democratic Party should be 'pro-Christian', in the sense of favoring Christianity over any other religion or non-religion at all. I think we should be, and are, not hostile to Christianity. I think as a matter of fact we mostly are Christians -- our elected officials overwhelmingly so. But it is not the business of the Democratic party to favor one set of religious beliefs over any other.
135: Alright, well then, a response to 124 that doesn't rely on counterfactuals:
It's silly to argue that Christians should be grateful for the institution of capital punishment for its role in the death of Jesus, because historically speaking Christians have never done anything but villify and smear everyone even tangentially involved in Jesus's death, regardless of the theological rewards of that death (see, for example, centuries' worth of persecution of the Jews, the historical villification of Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate, The Passion of the Christ, etc.). The only notable exception to this is Rome itself, which officially converted to Christianity a couple hundred years after much of the New Testament had been written. The point being: Christians do not actually, generally see the death of Jesus Christ as a good thing.
We do call it Good Friday.
Ha ha. "Good" in that sense is an archaic synonym for "Holy."
But we don't get our biscuits and wine that day. And no sex. So despite the name, it's not so good.
Christians do not actually, generally see the death of Jesus Christ as a good thing
Indeed they do not, generally, agree that it ocurred.
But the kickoff for the Harrowing of Hell, one of my favorite bits of (probably obsolete these days) doctrine. So good in that regard.
I just really like the picture of Jesus running a jailbreak. "Everybody -- run!!!"
Why no sex?
Isn't Easter supposed to be the actually good part about it? If he just died, it'd kinda be a downer. He dies and then comes back; that's why it's the feel-good religion of the millenium.
I know. Just razzing you. 135 is otherwise quite right, and it would be a pretty stupid justification for capital punishment on the grounds that Jesus was executed unjustly and therefore we must continue the tradition.
You can't go and run the massive Prison Break without dying first, so it's a sad day, but a good day, and basically four days of incessant church services.
I didn't know about the sex thing.
LB, in my opinion your 128 is the most effective thing you've said, because in it you admitted your own marginality, minority status, within the party largely made of people who think and feel differently from yourself.
True, but ouch.
and it would be a pretty stupid justification for capital punishment on the grounds that Jesus was executed unjustly and therefore we must continue the tradition.
Not that I wouldn't bet that someone hasn't made it. For bizarre Biblical justifications for capital punishment, though, this is the one I hear the most often.
it would be a pretty stupid justification for capital punishment on the grounds that Jesus was executed unjustly and therefore we must continue the tradition
I was thinking more along the lines of, the state should continue to persecute the innocent in hopes that this will serve continually to expiate the sins of humanity.
157: It's still a stupid justification unless you follow the rest of the Old Testament code. And it's an even stupider justification if you try to use it in support of our current capital punishment system: 'If any man be suspected of shedding blood, and he hath not the shekels to purchase the lawyer to defend him, and be born of an unrenowned family and displayeth a dark skin tone or a mind such that he knoweth not who he ith, let his blood be shed.'
158: Not unless they're all little godlettes, too.
156, 128, et al: The reason I personally prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican Party is that, despite my marginal, minority status within the party with regard to belonging to the same religious group, the party is largely made up of people who who do not think and feel differently from myself when it comes to policy issues. And since policy issues, not religious issues, are the raison d'être of political parties, I am not in the minority on the issues that matter.
I'm pretty marginal myself, and vote for and support candidates whose policies are different, and differently motivated from my own. And while my views are also used to unfairly characterize, and slander the Democratic Party — under the name Socialism even though that doesn't describe my views either — that charge seems to have lost its bite, for the most part, even though you still hear the Republicans use it to fire up the base. Maybe the same will happen with religion.
Yeah, I'm not hostile to religion per se, but I am completely and irredeemably hostile toward the (minority) bloc of Christians that the GOP spends so much time courting. If they perceive that, their perceptions are spot on. I consider it my civic duty to keep their dirty little hands off the levers of government as much as I can.
Because they are fucking insane.
"Eye babies" is good though, you have to admit.
The funny thing about the video Apo links in 162 is that it's marketed as a sort of expose -- a "gotcha" documentary, as if it was footage from inside one of the CIA's secret prisons in Afghanistan. But the camps are not secret at all, nor are they in hiding. You could attend one and they'd be very open and welcoming. (I've not attended the camp featured in the video, but several that were practically indistinguishable from it.)
No, they're quite open about their insanity. Proud of it, even.
Christians do not actually, generally see the death of Jesus Christ as a good thing
Indeed they do not, generally, agree that it ocurred.
Um, Clown, which Christians would those be? Anybody of significance since the 4th century? Just checking.
---The problem with "Christians" and the Democrats is how few "Christians" are Christians. It's become a team, not a religion.
I don't believe the problem lies with christians who percieve others as hostlie to religion. As far as I can see, it lies with chrisitans who insist that we should be hostlie to other religions (with a little lip service paid to judaism, sometimes), and to the non religious. What can you really expect to gain with people who are actively hostile to a secular democracy...
You could attend one and they'd be very open and welcoming.
Right up to the point where you mention voting for John Kerry and planning to marry your lesbian girlfriend in Boston next summer.
Oh christ. My nieces and nephews are completely going to end up like this and I have no idea how to stop it.
So Cala, what do the main Democrats (not LB) have to do to win back the people in your parish? This is a real question; I'm not sure how they're supposed to demonstrate lack of hostility to religion. Cave in on abortion? Make anti-atheist pronouncements? Is it just a matter of doing better PR about how all the Democratic Party leaders are in fact Christians except for a few Jews? (And hey, Specter.) I'm just not sure what you're saying Democrats should do to counter the perception that good religious people are Republican, when I don't know what that perception is based on.
I have no idea how to stop it.
Get them marijuana first.
Is it just a matter of doing better PR about how all the Democratic Party leaders are in fact Christians except for a few Jews?
Yes.
166: Which is why redefining "Christian" around optics -- the War on Christmas and the Ten Commandments and prayer in the schools -- and issues of marginal theological relevance (which pretty much starts and ends abortion, which for decades was an issue only among Catholics, and I'm kind of shocked that nobody examining why Democrats are thought of as anti-Christian has mentioned it) rather than any kind of reference to the values espoused in the Gospels has proved to be such a winning move for the Christian right. These are emotionally resonant issues, but Democrats can't, or at least shouldn't, simply yield on these issues.
I'm not Cala, except insofar as we're all actually LB, but I'll offer some thoughts on 170: it's really tough. Because the real shift has come from the fact that religious leaders have swung hard towards the Republican side of the aisle. The parishoners are mostly just taking their cues from the man up front (who -- being their religious leader -- they trust immensely).
So what do Democrats need to do to change this perception? Get some religious leaders on their side. Catholic bishops and Cardinals. Evangelical pastors. Television evangelists. Etc. And I don't think that's going to be easy, mostly because I think the primary motivator for their collective swing towards the right has been abortion, where Democrats are obviously not willing to compromise by and large. (Abortion in recent decades. Things like gay marriage have become as or perhaps even more important in the last half-decade, although by then of course the swing was already nearly complete.) I don't know how Democrats get past this. But at the same time I don't think it's impossible. As mentioned upthread, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the Republican party -- a feeling that all the flowers and sweet poems during courtship were really all about getting in my pants, and you never really cared for me at all you fucking bastard. Maybe that gives the Democrats an opening. But they need to stand boldly for those policies that could appeal to the religious electorate -- it's wrong to torture people, it's wrong to neglect the poor, etc. And it would help if these appeals were laced with explicitly religious rhetoric, not as a ruse but because that is rhetoric that a lot of poeple understand, and with which they identify, and that they find persuasive. (But again-- not persuasive if their pastor is saying the opposite.)
I think it's mostly PR. Maybe it would help if there were well-publicized Democratic-religious partnership initiatives on the common ground stuff that went on all the time, just not before elections. Part of the problem seems to be that the pro-life rhetoric goes on all the time, 24/7, and the Democratic counter is what, Clinton attending a church service during the campaign? It's very easy to spin that as a cheap attempt to win votes (let's clap out of time with the gospel music once every four years).
(And come on, we may love Clinton & Obama, but it's not because they go to church.)
Basically, we'd have to break the connection between 'authentically religious' and 'Republican.' And I think it would go along well with what Emerson's always saying about the Democrats organizing in between elections and keeping people on the payroll in between elections and quietly promoting the religion-friendly service stuff in between elections so that when it comes to election time, it doesn't boil down to 'Well, I don't really know about the economy, but abortion is an important moral issue to me.' but instead 'Well, I don't know about the economy, and the Democrats are authentically in line with my moral beliefs and the Republicans are for killing people.'
166: Stop calling the "Jesus freaks" behind their backs, stop bitching about Casey, and start finding politicians who sound at least mildly sincere (e.g., Clinton) when talking about either their own faith or the good works that have been the result of faith.
Yes, I realize that I'm not Cala either. Except in the sense that we are all one in Cala, and thus partake of the Calahood.
bitching about Casey
?? The abortion case, or what?
Stop calling the "Jesus freaks" behind their backs
I've always been more of a to-their-faces kind of guy myself.
Abortion is a weird issue, but I think the Democrats could still support abortion rights and make inroads in some conservative circles.
The reason I believe this is just stupid anecdotal experience, but quite a lot of my college friends are Catholic conservatives. Several of them voted for Kerry in the last election, and their answer to 'what about abortion?' wasn't that they weren't pro-life -- they are -- but simply that what really matters is not killing babies, and that during Democratic administrations there are fewer abortions due to better, more caring economic policy (& probably birth control, but my friends are pretty practical on that front when it comes to other people, even if they all try NFP themselves.)
The secret camps are in places like Poland, IIRC.
Were I asked, I'd say that the Democrats are too nice to Christians. But I am not likely to be asked, and a good thing too. I think that Cala's parish has a wrong impression, maybe because their priest wants them to, maybe because they read a crappy newspaper. If they're strong anti-abortionists, that might be the reason too.
I think that torture and crucifixion are wrong, and I don't believe in capital punishment in any form, but we have to face the possibility that Jesus was guilty. My feeling is that he should have been kept in custody indefinitely, in case exonerating evidence showed up proving that he neither was, nor claimed to be, the Son of God.
If he really was the Son of God, though, you might as well crucify him, because you were dog meat the minute you took him into custody.
178: The pro-life Senate candidate, I think. But how many people are bitching about that outside of the Kossodrome? Harry Reid is a pro-life Mormon -- do people hear Dems going, "hrrm hrrm, let's take that funny underweared ancestor baptiser out behind the woodshed"? Of course not (which is not to say a few pro-life politicians in high places who don't show a great deal of commitment to the cause can or should appease people for whom abortion is the most important thing to vote on).
For my dad, who voted for Carter(!), when the Democrats didn't let Bob Casey, Sr. speak at the convention in 1992 because he was pro-life, it cemented for him -- and I'm guessing a lot of other people -- that Democrats are rabidly anti-religion. For what it's worth, he's also pretty impressed by Obama.
181: I doubt he got crucified for either being or claiming to be the Son of God.
when the Democrats didn't let Bob Casey, Sr. speak at the convention in 1992 because he was pro-life
Ok, this proves it's PR, because this is false. They didn't let him speak because he wouldn't endorse Clinton. Other pro-life Democrats spoke.
Can I have a calahood too? It will protect me from the elements. I prefer it to the calabat.
184: It wasn't because Casey was pro-life; it's because he wanted to give a pro-life speech in contradiction of the party platform. Other pro-life politicians spoke at the convention on topics other than abortion. (Casey apparently considered running in the 1996 presidential primary; he was not a fan of Clinton.)
Like I said, optics.
Then get the PR machine in order. Seriously, if it's broken that badly that everyone missed it, including Casey, Jr., then fix the PR machine.
Everyone will have calahoods in the restored calaphate.
"Stop calling the 'Jesus freaks' behind their backs, stop bitching about Casey"
Look the Democratic Party is not going to become a lovefest. Not while I'm in it, anyway. Political parties don't really work that way. And Jesus freaks can continue to say mean things about me and mine if they want. Half the democrats do already anyway. The whole premise that hurt feelings is a major factor strikes me as way off.
Casey had opposition, but he did get the nomination. Where's the problem?
I think that the only way Democrats can change the voting pattern is to push new, different issues in front of queers and abortion. Discrediting the Republicans, which can be legitimately done from a Christian POV, is also something that will help. If the Christians go back to staying home on election day that helps us.
There is something deeply malfunctioning about the dems' p.r.
I don't want to have to wait for the calaphate; I need my hood now.
180- I'm fairly militantly pro-life and I voted for Kerry. (Although not, I should say, without a lot of hesitation, over this very issue.)
One thing that I think could be effective is to just take abortion off the table, even if that's a little bit disingenuous. Just repeat, again and again and again, that Mr. Elected Politician's views on abortion do not matter (or even better- that he's "personally opposed"), because it's not an electoral issue. It's been declared a fundamental right REPEATEDLY by the Supreme Court, and thus it's been taken out of Mr. Politician's hands. "So at this point, all we can do to end the plague of abortion in this country is get down on our knees and pray." And do our part to persuade our friends and neighbors, etc. It's no longer a matter of legitimate public policy, and not an issue for political debate.
Just repeat this over and over and over. Give no other answer to the question.
[Related: the fact that this is actually true (more or less) is the justification I used myself in deciding to vote for Kerry.]
184: I thought that was a myth -- didn't Casey get disinvited to speak because he refused to endorse the ticket, not because he was pro-life? I mean, he refused to endorse the ticket because they were pro-choice, but that's not anything they could have done anything about.
185: Well, if we're going to get all factual about it, my sources say that no historical Jesus who actually existed had much of anything to do with the Christian Jesus. I believe that the Biblical indictment is blasphemously claiming to be God or to have a special relationship to God.
You know, maybe he was guilty and had it coming to him. Isn't that what the Protocols tell us?
is to just take abortion off the table
This strikes me as a better way to lose women voters than to gain evangelical ones.
Really, fuck conservative Christians and their whiny we're-so-oppressed bullshit. They aren't coming back to the Democratic Party and there's no reason to chase them. Good riddance, y'all can go hang out with the segregationists that flocked to the GOP in the 70s and 80s. Large overlap between those crowds already.
The best way to approach conservative Christians is to convince the rest of the country that the GOP is beholden to a bunch of religious nutcases cheering for a holy war. They really aren't as popular as they (or apparently, most of the people here) believe them to be.
The point remains that Casey, known to represent a view at odds with liberal elite opinion, was not permitted to speak.
I also wouldn't mind if Pat Robertson's screeds against Catholics received some more airplay. I have no idea why anyone Catholic would ally with that rat.
The fact remains that Mumia, known to have pro-black views, was executed. It's the "for the sake of" relation that matters here.
Also, I note with some pride and some shame that I once took a detour of moderate length for the sake of visiting Searchlight, NV, the home town of Harry Reid.
The point remains that Casey, known to represent a view at odds with liberal elite opinion, was not permitted to speak.
But the view was that he didn't support the ticket because of his disagreement with it! How would it have made sense to have him speak at the convention? The point is a silly point.
The fact remains that Mumia, known to have pro-black views, was executed.
No he wasn't.
Fucking analogies.
The fact remains that Mumia, known to have pro-black views, was executed.
Mumia is still alive.
Miracle of miracles! He's alive, he's alive!
198: It's not that he "represented views at odds with liberal opinion", it's that he wanted to give a firebreathing pro-life speech. How many speakers at the 2004 Republican convention got to give stemwinders about the immorality of the Iraq War?
I'll note on the "Dems are hostile to religious people" front that when the Ted Strickland, an ordained Methodist minister, was nominated as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio, the Republican candidate Ken Blackwell and his allies at World Harvest Ministries started telling evangelicals that he wasn't really a minister and that he didn't attend church enough. When that didn't catch on, they started a rumor that he was gay and that his marriage was a sham and hinted that he was a pedophile, but that's just disgusting dirty politics; the relevant part here is that people with liberal politics, concerned with poverty and child welfare, can't be "real" Christians, and contrawise that liberals can't be real Christians. There's a website, truthabouttd.com, where you can see a checklist explaining that Strickland -- again, an ordained minister -- isn't a Christian because he's not against abortion, human cloning, and homosexuality.Who's hostile to religious people?
189: This is piling on you, and putting pressure on you, and it's unfair, but we need help from the liberal Christians like you on the PR. I'm thinking of whatsername, Amy Goodman? at Washington Monthly, who's all about scolding Democrats for being hostile to religion but she never tells us what, specifically, she wants us to do differently, or what, specifically, we did wrong. (And to the extent I've been snappy with you about this, I've been visualizing you as Amy Goodman, which is unfair of me.) And then the stuff she writes is out there as 'Even liberal Christians recognize that the Democratic party is hostile to religion.'
It would make me happy if people like you, and her, would be out there saying 'Actually, the Democratic Party isn't hostile to Christianity. That's kind of a myth.' It means a lot more from a Christian insider than from an atheist insider like me. Be the PR you want to see in the world.
He lives on in each of us.
And inside a cell somewhere.
He is Risen! Free Mumia!
You know, I thought I'd check that, because I wasn't sure, but then I thought, well, it'd been so long. Crap. The point stands, though.
truthabouttd.com s/b truthaboutted.com. Try "Ted vs. the Bible".
"Be the PR you want to see in the world."
My dear mum tucked me in with this advice each night. She was rather insincere.
Fontana Labs: willing to kill a black man, just to make a point.
But what about the Dems' unfriendliness towards professional wrestling? When they didn't let Ted Dibiase speak at the 2000 convention--despite his considerable wealth--that's when my dear old pops decided, enough with this abuse.
My father is Ted Dibiase.
"Who's hostile to religious people?" in 206 is a PR line I wouldn't mind seeing disseminated with vigor.
213: Dammit. That's why I said Whatsername. I knew I had it wrong. Amy Goodman is the radio person?
I hate names.
fuck conservative Christians...They aren't coming back to the Democratic Party and there's no reason to chase them.
Mmm.. I'm pretty sure this is wrong. In my own personal experience, conservative Christians of my generation have moved considerably left of their gen x counterparts, especially concerning matters of social justice.
I came over, for example. (Largely due to Kotsko, incidentally.)
I've been skimming this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating or interrupting, but the Democrats have a substantive dilemma with religion. There are lots of Christians who are concerned with peace and social justice who tend to vote for Democrats. But those people tend to be more socially conservative (not crazily so, but not trivially so either), and Democrats are always trying to balance hanging on to their votes with not alienating the die-hard socially liberal base.
(It's also worth noting that evangelicals, as Republican shock troops, go out of their way to paint Democrats as anti-religion, no matter what Democrats actually do. If there's going to be Democratic PR on religion, it shouldn't be "message: I care about Christ," but increased use of words like "mercy," "compassion," and "justice." And you can talk that way about almost any issue.)
I came over, for example. (Largely due to Kotsko, incidentally.)
Oh. My. Gawd.
Uh, I hate to sound totally cynical: the Democrats might also want to demonstrate mercy, compassion, and a sense of justice, but you know, baby steps.
Yeah, I echo 218. (Although I don't think I'm of the same generation.) I'm not really a "Democrat", but I've certainly undergone a significant right>left shift and now vote generally democratic. Choosing between the major parties is generally about choosing who is less incompatible with my beliefs. Democrats could go a long way towards making that case to voters.
Although I don't think I'm of the same generation.
I am of the generation after generation X.
218: Yeah, I have the sense we have a few raised evangelical and conservative, now kinda leftish types around here. Brock, for one, Kotsko, AWB (she seems more of a conventional apostate, although come to think of it I don't actually know that she doesn't still think of herself as a member of her church of origin) and I think I'm missing some others. The leaders have stayed on the right, but there's a trickle of people coming over.
224: I think it's a prerequisite for posting at Kotsko's.
I'm reasonably sure I'm accurately representing AWB's views when I say I don't think she considers herself a member of her church of origin.
Who was it that was talking about leaders? They were right. I don't see why people would believe absurd-on-their-face things like Democrats being anti-Christian if they weren't being told these things by people they trust.
For Democrats to try to persuade voters that they're not anti-Christian would be a mug's game. They need trusted people to make this argument on their behalf.
Also, when Apo says, "fuck conservative Christians; they're a lost cause," some of us are probably hearing, "fuck your parents; they're a lost cause."
Would it reassure the Christian commenters to realize *why* the Dems have a contradictory and confused position on religious belief?
Because they're Dems. That's how they are about *everything*. It's not like they're picking on *you*.
some of us are probably hearing, "fuck your parents; they're a lost cause."
Um, no, I don't think anybody heard anything about fucking their parents. That was just you.
Don't fuck your parents, that's illegal.
But did any of them come over due to a softening of the Democratic Party's (non- and never-has-been-existent) harsh rhetoric on religion?
226: That was my guess, but I realized that I didn't actually know. BTW, anyone who would be inclined to sympathize with AWB but hasn't looked at her blog in a bit, she's having a bad day and might appreciate some friendly comments. (Not that there aren't plenty already, but more can only help.)
Also, when Apo says, "fuck conservative Christians; they're a lost cause," some of us are probably hearing, "fuck your parents; they're a lost cause."
To be fair, though, mine really are. Sorry, mom and dad!
You! I knew I was missing someone.
Actually, to be fair, the Repubs are contradictory, confused, and strident, while the Dems are contradictory, confused, and pusillanimous.
Kotsko doesn't want his blog to become too Christian. I'm not the only non-Christian who posts there.
I also don't hate all Christians, except conservative political Christians when they're being aggressive and vicious, which they often are. I had tons of Christian education and can speak the language up to a point.
And in general, when people say that Democrats need to change their issues to appeal to hostile group X, or that they need to do more to appeal to hostile group X, I bridle at that.
What the Democrats need to do is get their message out more effectively, especially between elections, nominate candidates that are capable of campaigning, and create some new media along the lines of Air America..
What the Democrats need to do is get their message out more effectively, especially between elections, nominate candidates that are capable of campaigning, and create some new media along the lines of Air America.
And a pony.
(Sorry, but this AWOL on the torture bill last week has me *really* pissed off.)
The problem with the "take the abortion issue off the table" argument is that it will never work, and indeed will backfire horribly. If the Party takes an issue that has been a central plank of the platform for decades and says, "We don't have any opinion on that," it does nothing but reaffirm the Democrats' image as opportunists that don't stand for anything. In fact, it won't just be an image; it will be reality.
If abortion is the issue that trumps everything else for you at the ballot box, then you have a party: the Republicans. Democrats pretending not to have a stance on that won't change the way you vote. You'll vote for the actively anti-abortion party.
In the meantime, it's the sort of mealy-mouthed, half-assed, poll-driven stance that would likely make me give up on the Democratic Party altogether, and I'm pretty certain I wouldn't be walking out alone.
One point that was briefly addressed, but that I think has merit in re torture is that many conservative Christians are making a value judgement based on what has been presented in the press and by Amnesty Intl. as being done by "our boys" is not "torture". For example- making a video of cutting off a captive's head would qualify, whereas putting panties on a detainees head does not. Talking about habeus corpus for unlawful combatants causes a discontect for your average churchgoer, and he/ she sees the politician making that argument as not serious about GWOT. That having been said, "that which you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." I think this is the approach that the Dems must take to be considered by the conservative religious types. The ACLU going after nativity scenes, school prayer, Waco- it's all of a piece. But my local Episcopal Church is in trouble with the IRS, so who exactly is hostile to religion?
I think maybe that's where "They got these torture techniques from Soviet Russia!" might help. It's true -- the KGB pioneered torture by sleep deprivation. And didn't Jesus basically die from having his arms pinned high, like this guy?
Maybe it requires "that which you do unto the least of me" to get around the unlawful combatants issue, although maybe it just requires publicizing that lots and lots of the torture victims are innocent.
242: See, I think those sorts of arguments are likely to make things worse, not better. My sense is that Democrats sometimes come off as smart know-it-alls who try to bludgeon people into positions through argument, and (in the past, at least) sometimes through sloppy/erroneous/appeal to authority argument. All that does is (a) make people feel slightly stupid, (b) make people suspect we're baffling them with crap while we pull something off. Result: they go with the guy they trust to be a "good guy," whether or not they agree with his policies. (I think Sommersby has written a few nice paragraphs about this phenomenon, in connection with the Clinton autobiography.)
Matt- that is exactly my point. Sleep deprivation as torture is a hard sell. Holding a guy up by his arms until he sufffocates- torture.
Apo- but my point is that it *is* off the table, as a practicle matter. We can elect all the pro-life legislators in the world, and it won't do anything to make abortion illegal. Sure, they could pass a few laws to trim away at the rights along the margin, which may or may not be struck down in court, but these are mostly symbolic gestures that pro-lifers don't in their heart of hearts care about so much anyway. All the talk about abortion in election campaigns is just that -- talk -- since abortion is a judicially-recognized fundamental right. I really think *that* should be the talking point, instead of jabbering on (by both sides) about how much one does or does not support the right to choose. It doesn't fucking matter -- it's all rhetoric.
The 'that which you do unto the least of my brothers, etc' I don't think would sell well; it's sort of got the ring of 'but your god died of a bad capital punishment practice.'
But story of nice Innocent Guy Accidentally Swept Up and Tortured would appeal to the same values.
But story of nice Innocent Guy Accidentally Swept Up and Tortured would appeal to the same values.
Only if they believe it.
It does matter, though, Brock, because we elect people who appoint justices who decide how to interpret these rights. And I think that if the Republicans make abortion an issue and the Democrats say 'leave it to the judges', then we hear screeching about judicial activism, blahdihoho.
Maybe better to remove some of the focus on abortion by stealing the pro-family stuff. Sure, we support legal abortion. But we also want to make it so that pregnant teenagers can still go to school, have health care, make it to college, &c so they don't feel that they have to choose an abortion in order to have a fulfilling life. The Republicans force women to hide and be shamed and panic, and their idea of a fix is outlawing it and hoping it goes away.
Hell, I dunno.
Sleep deprivation is torture when done to Americans by non-Americans. That point shouldn't be a hard sell -- there's a lot of information out there.
Rather than taking abortion off the table, something else has to be pushed in front of it. In other words, change the terms of the argument, instead of always playing by Republican rules. Make them respond to us, instead of always responding to them.
I say this a lot, but anyway: I think that a lot of the Democratic weakness comes from the fact that the centrists were committed to their policy agendas (Israel, war, free trade) even if they meant that the Democrats would lose.
since abortion is a judicially-recognized fundamental right.
With all due respect, are you on crack? I count at least four solid anti-Roe votes on the Supreme Court right now. And the anti-choicers have done an excellent job of making abortion inaccessible to poor women in a lot of places.
246: Dude, please. We're one Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade. The GOP has been packing the courts for decades in preparation for the legal assault.
If Stevens stroked out tomorrow, Roe would get challenged almost immediately. Democrats would try to filibuster the nominee and the Republicans would invoke the nuclear option and install him. The Court sends the whole kit and kaboodle back to the states and the 2008 presidential election takes place amid raging abortion battles in nearly every state in the country.
It isn't a settled matter.
The 'that which you do unto the least of my brothers, etc' I don't think would sell well
Sure it would - to the right crowd, in the right rhetoric, coming from the right people. "Torture is bad" is not a radical message. Dress it up with some god-talk and put it in the mouth of a reputable, well-liked liberal Christian. That this hasn't happened yet is what Atrios was complaining about.
250 says what 252 meant more politely.
And when I say pro-lifers don't care about those things, what I mean is that they're not putting anyone into office with the goal of getting laws like that passed. Trust me here.
They *do* care about them in the sense that they'd likely be inclined to vote against (or at least dislike)someone who campaigned in opposition to those policies, because, well... those people are baby killers. Which is why I think the position outlined in 246 is so good for Democrats. Don't even answer questions about your general position on abortion -- just stick to the (true!) line that it doesn't matter what your views are because it's been declared a fundamental right that elected politicians can't do anything to change.
Honestly, on reflection I'm not sure everyone could pull this off without sounding evasive. But I'm quite certain some people could. (Because, again, it's *not* fundamentally evasive -- it's just highlighting the irrelevancy of the question.)
I wonder how many of the Democrats in Congress even know the "nice innocent guy tortured" stories. To judge by some keyword searches in the Congressional Record, not many.
Why doesn't the Republican Congress just pass a bill, by simple majority, that strips the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases? I mean, if it's good enough for habeus corpus which has its own section in the constitution, then surely a penumbra right can is eligible!
You people are unwilling to think outside the box.
when I say pro-lifers don't care about those things, what I mean is that they're not putting anyone into office with the goal of getting laws like that passed.
Who's putting forward the trigger laws then? I mean, I'm sure you know more about the pro-life movement than I do, but I cannot comprehend this.
they're not putting anyone into office with the goal of getting laws like that passed
The President of the United States is on record advocating a constitutional ban on abortion with rape and incest exemptions. So is John McCain. The Speaker of the House has voted four times to amend the constitution to overturn Roe.
Wait, trigger laws are exactly the sorts of things pro-lifers *do* care about. They want abortion gone, not tinkered with at the edges. Trigger laws are sweeping reforms, to take effect in the event of a Rv.W overturning.
And I do of course understand that politicians vote on/appoint judges. This is, again, a rhetorical rather than a substantive strategy. Deflect the question and move immediately onto other issues -- Republican support for torture would be a good place to start.
261- yes, again, that's exactly what they want. And that's exactly what I'm saying they have no legislative authority to provide. If it's going to come, it'll take some judicial changes. (A constitutional amendment will never pass.)
Look, maybe I'm being really unclear; I never sleep anymore. What pro-lifers don't care much about are the tinkerings around the edges of abortion law. (Don't care about in the sense laid out in 256.) They would of course love to see Roe v. Wade disappear.
OK, then, whence came the "partial birth" ban and the PA abortion law and parental notification laws and waiting periods and Phill Kline's snooping around abortion clinics and the plan B controversy and the federal stem-cell funding ban and and and? Not from pro-choicers.
I just don't think there's any way to evade abortion using finesse. We need to convince people that abortion isn't the most important thing,and if they still think it is, we lose them.
I get what Brock's saying, I think -- all the nibbling around the edges laws are a way to keep the issue salient, rather than anything that pro-lifers care about for what the laws actually do. It doesn't matter how many abortions are stopped by a law requiring fradulent 'counselling' -- it's about the political value of passing an abortion related law.
At least some, though I've no idea whether they would count as "most" or even "many," of the people who think the Democratic Party is inherently anti-religious are people who have not chosen to question at least some of what they are told, or who have no opportunity to do their own investigation of those questions when they decide to face them. (I suspect more fall into the former category, but the latter still exists.)
There are plenty of religious voters who do vote Democratic and plenty more who could or would vote Democratic if they really tried to reconcile their personal convictions with political causes, but many voters - religious or not - do not do so because they have busy, busy lives. mrh finds a carpool-mate shocked at the torture bill and finds himself spoon-feeding accurate data to the guy, but that's what the guy needs - he's spoon-fed all data, accurate or not, because not everyone has time to do the legwork themselves and real journalists are too busy telling us which white lady disappeared today.
I suspect that the strong sincerity of some commenters' replies are a result of the personal significance of their own process of questioning and reconciling, over time, their personal beliefs with their personal ideals and the beliefs and ideals around them. It is not an easy process and those who weather it are rightly protective of whatever ground they take for themselves in the political and religious spectra.
Those who are religious and knee-jerk Republican who choose not to question their own beliefs and assumptions probably do so because those beliefs and assumptions are comfortable - even flattering - and they see no percentage in undoing any portion of that. Someone who believes that theirs is the only right spiritual path is going to have no patience with someone who is happy to see the believer at a political rally but disinterested in converting to their faith. In the eyes of a True Believer, disinterested tolerance is no better than open aversion. Once the Word has been shared, there is no difference between the two positions; failure to capitulate and blatant rejection are effectively equal sins. These people are locked up by the Republicans and we should never, ever kid ourselves that it would be good to go after them. These are people who believe that the ultimate experience of faith is the sacrifice of another for their own benefit, and they have the goalposts of the religious approval game mounted on wheels for easy mobility.
You see it in individual churches and communities all the time - someone is fine until suddenly whatever they're doing isn't religious enough, pious enough, whatever enough. It is a common tool of psychological control within small communities and those who currently run the Republican political machine - note that I try not to smear individual Republicans by saying this - have figured out that it can be used just as well against groups as it can any individual. (I suspect they learned this trick by watching televangelists, who have spent many years vilifying one another for this and that, and who in turn learned it from the microsocieties of their own denominations and congregations, especially from the histories of their various foundings.) There will never be any such thing as positioning the Democratic Party to please people who already distrust it and feel they have the Republican Party in their pocket and the people in charge of the rhetoric can move those goalposts up and down the field.
When one party has "we are the religious, right-living party" already etched into popular consciousness, a statement of "we are also the religious, right-living party" does not constitute an alternative. I think the alternative is to say "we are the party that will let you think and live for yourself," which dovetails neatly with the idea of becoming the party with genuine concern for individual rights and liberties. These are positions that could find themselves very welcome among certain followers and communities of religious belief if expressed the right way. (I mention again my parents, who are pushed further to the left every day by Bush Administration policies they view as blatantly sinful and find it offensive for a political or religious figure to dictate religious or political belief, respectively.)
However, I think in twenty years a lot of this will be moot. Give it fifty and it'll seem amazing that this was ever an issue in politics or political conversation, as foreign and abstract as the gold standard vs. the silver standard seems to most of us today. It's my personal belief that this is because the generations who fall into the "would question but have no means of finding out for myself" category are going to be dead and thus out of the picture and increasing ease of mass communication - not mass media, but mass communication - will make it much, much easier for those who follow them to talk to other people who are also questioning or may even have some of the answers. It is increasingly difficult to create an insular and controlled environment in which to enforce a given belief system as The Only Way - this is, I think, why the religious right increasingly agitates for self-segregation. school vouchers, the noise the Southern Baptist convention makes more loudly than ever about pulling all their kids out of public school, trying to push Creationism into schools - I see all of these as overboard reactions conservatives are having to the reality that there is nowhere to go and no place to live and work where they can deny the reality of other beliefs, attitudes or norms.
As each generation comes to power, the previous generation's hard-fought battles become treasured victories. The nation slowly but surely trends more to the relative left with each major chapter of our history; yes, the pendulum swings to either side, but never quite as far right as it once did. I think this, in fact, is why people like Rove or Cheney or Bush seek to redefine the powers of the government on the sly, because they have looked back across history and seen that every great cause of whoever considered themselves the vanguard of conservatism at the time has fallen in flames and they know that the system, as it was designed, will produce almost no other result, ever, given enough time, so they seek to undo the system.
OK, I have tried to wrestle this comment down from Farberian heights into something shorter and it's just not happening and I have a ton of work to do, so I'm just going to fucking post it even though it's spammy and unreadable. Also, I think at the end this turned into a comment meant for ogged's post about the coming tyrrany, but whatevs.
264- No, these are all issues manufactured by Republicans to make an issue out of abortion. These weren't grassroots movements, any of them. These are exactly the sorts of things I'm talking about -- no pro-lifer elects a politician on the single-issue hope that he'll get a waiting period for abortions set up. Although, as I said in 256, they might vote against someone just because he campaigned vigorously against such a policy.
I fee like I must be being really unclear right now because no one is understanding me. Which means I should probably sign off.
Stem-cell funding is different from the rest.
Not that "Farberian heights" means "spammy and unreadable," I just mean in terms of comment length. Later, w-lfs-n will create a special script to strip the names from lengthy posts and we'll sit around and try to match the post by length and stridency to the original poster.
266 - LB gets it! And it's by and large the Republican Party that uses these things to keep the issue salient -- it's not the people.
Whew.
OK then. But those policies have nasty real-world effects and need to be opposed anyway. Pro-choice Democrats can't just say "Hey, do what you want up to overturning Roe, it's no big deal," because it is a big deal.
OK then. But those policies have nasty real-world effects and need to be opposed anyway. Pro-choice Democrats can't just say "Hey, do what you want up to overturning Roe, it's no big deal," because it is a big deal.
If it really is a big deal, we'll win, rather than lose, the white female vote as Roe looks increasingly endangered.
271 - Fine, understood. But I really don't think that's the best thing to campaign on (if you want to pick up more moderate pro-life voters). And my point is that I don't think it's necessary to do so, without being evasive or wishy-washy or anything of the sort.
I'm willing to concede that my perspective here may be hugely distored by the fact that I'm pro-life.
Ass fuck a horse, I'm really writing some unclear things tonight. 273 was just awful. Really, I'm done.
The problem is (see Scott Lemieux passim) that a lot of the effects disproportionately affect poor women and kids. White suburban women may say, "What's the big deal about a 24-hour waiting period? It's just another drive to the clinic." For poor people in Mississippi not so much. IOW, it's a big deal in real terms but maybe not politically.
SCMT, I'm not quite sure what you're saying -- is it that it's OK to let them drive up to overturning Roe, because then the white women will flock to the Democrats? I don't think the policy of surrendering up to that point would put us in a position of strength there. Or you could be saying that fighting for choice is a net vote-winner, to which yay.
I'm willing to concede that my perspective here may be hugely distored by the fact that I'm pro-life.
A bit. I can see that the nibbling-round-the-edges laws aren't practically a big deal from your side of the issue; but they are practically a big deal from our side. While your advice to duck abortion fights where practical is probably a good one politically, it really isn't practical in most instances unless we're going to substantively abandon the issue.
Ass fuck a horse
and you get a mule.
273, I'm not saying it is the best thing to campaign on, I'm saying it's a matter of principle (for us pro-choicers) that may be worth some political sacrifice. And also that sacrificing matters of principle usually isn't the best campaign strategy; if Feingold started following your strategy he'd just look wishy-washy.
I'm saying it's a matter of principle (for us pro-choicers)
I fail to understand how "my personal opinion on abortion is immaterial to my elective responsibilities. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared abortion a fundamental right protected by the constitution, a fact I'm powerless to alter, whether or not I'd like to." is an insufficiently principled position. And unless the speaker had exceptionally weasily-eyes, or beads of sweat dripping from his forehead, I don't see this as sounding wishy-washy.
"I'm powerless" doesn't really seem like a winning electoral slogan. Just sayin'.
While your advice to duck abortion fights where practical is probably a good one politically
In what way is this the case? At least half the country considers itself pro-choice; nearly two-thirds want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe. How is it politically smart to duck abortion fights?
278: because the Supreme Court has left a lot of latitude to restrict abortion one way or another, and you have to come down somewhere on those restrictions. I'm saying that a lot of people have principled reasons not to support as many restrictions as the S. Ct. will let them get away with.
I think that Brock's advice might be good for individual candidates, but the national party just can't follow it.
I think the "safe, legal and rare" approach to abortion has possibilities. The Dems' approach should be, "hey, no one likes abortion -- but prohibition won't work, and will just ruin even more lives. Let's work on *why* women want abortions and what we can do -- contraception, child care, whatever -- to help make *keeping* your baby seem like a better option."
That won't placate the fundies, who are about keeping women down, not ending abortion; but it would play well to the swing voter who's uneasy with abortion.
Anderson, "safe, legal and rare" is pretty much the Democrats' approach already. Nobody's suggesting recreational abortions for people who like the experience.
I don't think that the issue can be finessed. It can be superceded by more important issues. though.
Abortion is a tough one; I don't know what to do about it. It's one of those radioactive issues (same-sex marriage is the other) where finding common ground seems to be impossible.
"Safe, legal, and rare" sounds good from our side, but those things are in priority order. The other side is interested only in "rare."
"Safe, legal, and rare" is preaching to the choir. Try, "none of the government's fucking business". Western strategy damnit. Hands off the guns, and hands off the wombs.
There's something refreshing about that. Here's a real American's response to government, middle finger, now give me a beer.
I'm telling you, people, the way to go is to be really empathetic about saying that yes, abortion is a difficult decision for anyone, and then to go on about how all the women you know personally take children and these things *very* seriously, and really, you think that these kind of difficult moral issues are best left to the conscience of the people making them. AKA the "do you trust women?" strategy, although I'll concede, since Cala hates that question, that maybe a less aggressive summary would work.
Following up on 248 -- Globe Op Ed.
I'll just repeat that some people are lost to us, and we should leave it that way.
It's not just abortion for them. For a lot of them sexual freedom, with or without abortion, is the main enemy, and for some of them it's the freedom of women, even without sex. Some of them believe that women should ask their husbands for permission to leave the house to visit friends.
The morning-after pill was a litmus test for these people, because only the grossest misrepresentation makes it a kind of abortion. The most extreme fanatics oppose condoms and VD education programs.
288: Pwnage! The question that dare not speak its name! Seriously, I don't think 'safe, legal, & rare' is preaching to the choir if the emphasis is on 'rare' (and look at all the cool things we do to help pregnant women), and we're not after the tiny percentage of women who need to ask their husbands before they go outside. We're after the generally-liberal-but-pro-life, which is a pretty substantial group of people, and we don't need more than a small percentage.
282 is probably right.
'Safe, legal, and rare' is a great strategy, methinks, if it can ever be put forward as a serious message. I don't think it has been so far -- the 'rare' is not only the last point, it's really just an afterthought, and I think a lot of people uttering that phrase couldn't care less if abortions are rare, because they don't see anything wrong with them in the firs place. (And this attitude comes across to the listener.)
I'm fine with safe and legal if we're really serious about rare. But to me 'rare' means more than giving away condoms at school, it means discouraging most people, in most instances, from having abortions. This is not really a role for the state, mind you, but I don't want the government's policies sending the opposite message.
Emerson: Anderson, "safe, legal and rare" is pretty much the Democrats' approach already.
Landers: 'Safe, legal, and rare' is a great strategy, methinks, if it can ever be put forward as a serious message. I don't think it has been so far
Insofar as whatever some platform document that no one ever reads says, Emerson's probably right. Insofar as the general impression of the public goes, Landers is surely right.
As usual, the Dems allow the Repubs to define them. It's amazing how much need there is for a regular, steady barrage of TV commercials simply educating people about what the heck the Dems actually believe, instead of letting Fox and CNN and Katie Couric do it for them.
I guess I'm missing something. "Safe, legal, and rare" is an old Democratic slogan, and as far as I know it's never been superceded or renounced. So that step has already been taken. What's missing? What's the additional thing that's being suggested?
"Rare" at the end isn't really an afterthought, but the main point, in the climactic position.
As I've been saying, on abortion I think that Democrats should continue to do about the same thing, while convincing right-to-lifers that there are more important issues.
I think that nationally there are other problems than the ones we're talking about. In Minnesota here Democrats and even very liberal Democrats (Wellstone) do very well in a constituency which includes a lot of churchy liberals who tend to be pro-life. For whatever reason, this hasn't been done, or hasn't worked as well, in a lot of other places.
it means discouraging most people, in most instances, from having abortions
Now, *that* won't fly, without a lot of explanation as to what "discouraging" means. I'm in favor of *alternatives* to abortion ... making it a lot easier for women to bring babies to term, keep them if they want them, etc.
But "discouraging" sounds like stick, not carrot. And as Bitch reminds us above, this isn't a stick situation, by a long shot.
Anecdote, since I heard about this yesterday. Friend from law school, unmarried, gets job at white-shoe firm; gets pregnant, doesn't tell anyone who the dad is, has the baby. The dad turns out to be married w/ 3 kids, which comes out after he tells his wife about kid # 4. Friend takes leave of absence to deal with the emotional mess, and when she comes back, she gets fired. From having been editor of law journal, she's now thinking of leaving the law altogether.
Would she have been better off, on any # of standards, having an abortion? Obviously. So I admire her for keeping the baby ... and am sickened by how hard our supposedly pro-life culture (I'm in a *very* red state) is on women in my friend's position. I mean, her story's practically an *ad* for getting an abortion.
So, carrots please. No sticks. Plenty of those already.
"Safe, legal, and rare" wasn't a platform document, it was something Clinton said on TV.
If the perception is inaccurate, it leads to my other main point: The Democrats are massively outcampaigned by the Republicans, and the media are not helping us at all.
And as I said, for many voters abortion and gay marriage are absolutes, and are the only absolutes in play.
This will sound cold and unfeeling- but in conjuction with the safe, legal and rare must be the ackowledgement that abortion is ending a human life. Society as a whole has sactioned the taking of life in many ways, the death penalty, justfied shootings, etc. but in each case we admit that yes, someone is dying here. Abortion advocates seem to wish away this problem by talking about the fetus. To most pro- lifers, it's a baby and always was.
Leech, explain how the Democrats would swing that. "Killing innocent little babies should be safe, legal, and rare"?
Once you give the question the right-to-life spin, the Democrats lose. I don't think that fetuses are people, so your point doesn't work with me, but if you do say they're people, there's no spin except an anti-abortion one.
safe, legal and rare must be the ackowledgement that abortion is ending a human life
Oh hell no.
This will sound cold and unfeeling
No, just condescending. It's not like we've never considered the issue.
But I think that reframing the issue as "choice" has made what could be supporters into opponents. Hiding behind the word choice is the fact that the choice being made is ending a life. And as cold as it may seem, I'm OK with that. It is a choice that women have made for centuries.
302: Dude, people aren't hiding their beliefs. Most pro-choice people really, really, really don't believe that an abortion is killing a baby. Saying that it is isn't fessing up to the truth that we all pussyfoot around, it's just not something we believe is true.
OK- I just feel that there are many people like me who are pro- life, but don't think abortion should be criminalized. On this issue that makes me Republican, I guess.
No, 'don't think that abortion should be criminalized' leaves you on our side. I think your position (a fetus is a baby, but it's still all right to kill it) is a small minority one, though.
LB, I'm not so sure it's a small minority one. An awful lot of pro-choice arguments wave away questions about trying to pin down exactly what we mean by human, and when a fetus deserves recognition as a human, on the theory that all that is completely irrelevent because it's a parasite on the woman's body. And no one should be able to force her to endure pregnancy against her wishes. And people will have abortions anyway, just dirty, dangerous ones in back alleys with rusty coat hangers. Comparatively little of the debate seems to me to be hard thinking about when exactly this clump of living cells, that everyone can agree is a *potential* human, has developed sufficiently to deserve some legal protection of its own rights.
All those are arguments for why abortion ought perhaps be legal even if it is an unborn "baby" we dealing with. (Or at least are valid arguments whether or not it's an unborn "baby".)
In fact, far from being a small minority, wouldn't people with something close to this view be the entire "abortion is wrong/sad/tragedy, but ought not be criminalized" chunk of the pro-choice camp? (The rest being the "there is nothing whatsoever wrong with abortion, it's no more morally complicated than having cancer cells removed" crowd, who really don't think we're dealing with a "baby" or anything even begnining to approach cognizable rights.) I don't this is at all an insignificant group of people.
There's lots and lots of space between "abortion is not at all morally fraught" and "abortion is killling a baby." I think the 'parasite' arguments are philosophical ones (like that of Judith Jarvis Thomson) that don't actually move many people.
Okay, well I don't know what does or does not move people, and maybe the parasite argument isn't the best example, but my point is that most of the arguments offered in favor of the pro-choice camp have little if anything to do with whether the fetus is or is not a "baby".
Restated: if it's nothing but a clump of cells, why on earth is it a "tragedy"? Why would one be "personally opposed," but support legality? These are very common sentiments, and they don't really make any sense unless one views this as a rather complicated balancing act between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. Which I think is all TLL was getting at.
An awful lot of pro-choice arguments wave away questions about trying to pin down exactly what we mean by human, and when a fetus deserves recognition as a human, on the theory that all that is completely irrelevent because it's a parasite on the woman's body.
I think those arguments come up a lot in philosophical discussions, and because of the nibbling-round-the-edges late term laws. I think they're sincerely argued, but often counterfactual -- "You, who thinks an embryo or fetus is morally a baby with all the rights of one from day one, should nonetheless oppose the criminalization of abortion." They're attractive arguments from the pro-choice point of view because there's no real way to argue about the moral status of an fetus, so it's nice to have an argument that doesn't depend on it.
But I'm pretty sure that most pro-choice people actually believe something more like Hilzoy's position (to whatever level of vagueness they've considered it at) -- that a fetus isn't a rights-bearing or morally significant entity when it's at a stage of development that isn't yet sentient.
Rights-bearing? No. Morally significant? Well, here's where you've lost me again when you say "most". Many, for sure, but again the statements in 308 don't really make much sense if this if your position. I think there are quite a number of people who are pro-choice even though they don't view a fetus as entirely morally insignificant.
Oh, and by the way, part of what TLL and I (and I'll go ahead and say Cala too, although she's free to jump in and correct me if I'm wrong) are saying is that the Democrats would be tactically smart to let those voices be a little more prominent in this context, and to keep people like you more quiet. No offense.
why on earth is it a "tragedy"? Why would one be "personally opposed," but support legality?
(1) Religious reasons, which don't depend on the rights-bearing status of the fetus. "I, as a Catholic, am personally opposed to abortion because I believe God has forbidden it and it is sinful. I am similarly opposed to contraception. Nonetheless, I think it would be wrong to impose my religious beliefs on others -- I am personally opposed to both, but think neither should be banned by law." (2) An attempt to sound respectful to the moral scruples of pro-lifers. (3) A wistfulness about loss of potential -- imagine a couple who were actively considering having children on a particular occasion, and decided against it and had sex with contraception instead. It would be reasonable for them to, under some circumstances, feel wistful about the possible child they might have had if they had unprotected sex. The same feelings are compatible with abortion, even in the absence of believing that the fetus had any rights or that the abortion was wrongful.
I can't help but think of all the damage to our social fabric the divisiveness due to this issue has played a hand in enabling. These disastrous Republican majorities would have been impossible without it. Sometimes I think that if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else, and sometimes I don't.
310, 311: See, I think the Democrats have done exactly what you advise in 311. It's my 312 (2) -- anyone who can scrape up a moral scruple about abortion is put front and center of the discussion so that pro-choice advocates appear to have common ground with prolifers. And that's why you think of it as the most common opinion -- mine, while I think it's the most common among pro-choice people, is not particularly acceptable in public discourse.
314: You opinion very well may be that most common among pro-choice people. I just don't think that TLL's position is a "small minority one". But you could be right, I don't really know.
I probably shouldn't get into another abortion discussion, but as I understand your 310, you don't think a fetus (let's keep the discussion to pre-sentient; first two trimesters) is a baby or has the rights of one, but you do think it's morally significant.
Can you lay that out more explicitly for me? It doesn't make sense to me. I get thinking that a fetus is a baby with rights, and killing it is infanticide. I disagree, but I get it. I don't get thinking that it isn't a baby, and it doesn't have any rights, and yet it is still importantly morally wrong to kill it.
I don't get thinking that it isn't a baby, and it doesn't have any rights, and yet it is still importantly morally wrong to kill it.
Huh, I can sort of see that. I would think that you could make an argument about what it's going to become, and an argument about preventing abortion as an act demonstrating the sanctity of life, even if that life is not yet human.
314- If this is what they're doing, they're doing a very bad job of it. The thing is, when most pro-lifers hear "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but don't think it shoudl be illegal", what goes through their mind in a lot of cases is: is it a baby or is it not a baby? If it is a baby, why should killing it be legal? If it is not a baby, why are you personally opposed to it?"
The proper response is something along the lines of "I don't know whether or not it's a baby. This is a question for moral philosophy or religion, and we don't want the government siding with any particular philosophical or religious views in such a controversy. Therefore, it's a decision left to each person to work out in her own conscience."
But this response is rarely if ever articulated. So we're left only hearing committed pro-choice dismissals of "it's not a baby! it's meaningless blob!" And anyone who feels as if the situation is more complicated than this is therefore left to wonder... hmm, I'm not really sure whether or not it's just a blob. Am I therefore pro-life?"
I suppose I retract 311.
317 works as a response to 316. 316 itself misunderstands exactly how pro-life I actually am.
I don't think people are as easy to fool by foregrounding and backgrounding the variety of opinions as is implied here. I think many people with some pro-life feeling can be induced to vote for Democrats on other issues. People for whom it is the moral issue of our time cannot.
hmm, I'm not really sure whether or not it's just a blob. Am I therefore pro-life?"
And I submit 304 as evidence.
Fundamentally, I'm with TLL, except that I don't really regard most fetuses as human beings with rights; in fact, I've gotten down-right radical in my abortion views in these last few years online. Which is why I don't often speak up in abortion debates and will be bowing out right now.
So we're left only hearing committed pro-choice dismissals of "it's not a baby! it's meaningless blob!" And anyone who feels as if the situation is more complicated than this is therefore left to wonder... hmm, I'm not really sure whether or not it's just a blob. Am I therefore pro-life?"
See, that's why the philosophical arguments about parasites -- the idea is that even if you're unsure about the moral status of the fetus, the argument doesn't depend on them.
I would think that you could make an argument about what it's going to become, and an argument about preventing abortion as an act demonstrating the sanctity of life, even if that life is not yet human.
See, I can't think of any other context in which anything, much less something as burdensome as continuing a pregnancy against one's will, is morally required, despite the fact that it offends against no one's rights, to 'demonstrate the sanctity of life'. It's possible that there's an argument here, but I can't think of what it is.
319: So you're in the "A fetus is a baby" camp? That one makes sense to me.
Further monolog commenting:
The proper response is something along the lines of "I don't know whether or not it's a baby. This is a question for moral philosophy or religion, and we don't want the government siding with any particular philosophical or religious views in such a controversy. Therefore, it's a decision left to each person to work out in her own conscience."
You know what this is? It's almost exactly Bitch's "Do you trust women" argument. It's cool hearing a pro-lifer describe it as the most appealing pro-choice argument available.
See, I can't think of any other context in which anything, much less something as burdensome as continuing a pregnancy against one's will, is morally required, despite the fact that it offends against no one's rights, to 'demonstrate the sanctity of life'. It's possible that there's an argument here, but I can't think of what it is.
How about something as burdensome as not using any birth control?
Also, I don't understand 322 at all. It seems contradictory. Is JM radically pro-choice or pro-life?
Bitch's "do you trust women" argument is very good.
See, I can't think of any other context in which anything, much less something as burdensome as continuing a pregnancy against one's will, is morally required, despite the fact that it offends against no one's rights, to 'demonstrate the sanctity of life'. It's possible that there's an argument here, but I can't think of what it is.
First, you--probably, in part, because you can and have been pregnant--evaluate the burden differently than others. Second, it might be easier to see the shape of the argument better if I step back to the position that I don't know if the fetus is sufficiently a person that it should have rights or not; I don't see that as a very big move, though it may be an all-important one. If I'm taking the latter position, I might analogize abortion to blowing up a building that might or might not have civilians in it. For sufficient cause, everyone's for it. But there's a fair bit of debate about what is "sufficient."
328 is also right. It's an argument about the potential destruction of life.
All tactical considerations aside, do you agree with WJC that abortion should be "rare," LB? It seems a matter of indifference to some people.
Nobody likes abortions. I think most pro-choice people would be happier if there were no unwanted/complicated preganancies and so no abortions.
Brock, I think I've made peace with the possibility that I'm of the party of death.
326: Okay, but I don't think there are many people at all who find a ban on contraception morally required without a religious prohibition -- I don't think there's any secular argument that stands up there.
328: Second, it might be easier to see the shape of the argument better if I step back to the position that I don't know if the fetus is sufficiently a person that it should have rights or not; I don't see that as a very big move, though it may be an all-important one.
I think it is a big move, and big or small that it is all-important -- that the argument is "We are morally required to act as if a fetus were a baby, because we don't know that it isn't."
330: Yes. I see no positive good whatsoever in a pregnancy ended through abortion rather than a pregnancy avoided in the first place; wherever a woman does not want to bring a pregnancy to term, it is absolutely preferable that she should be able to avoid getting pregnant rather than that she should have an abortion.
I'm all for safe, legal, and rare.
331: But why? Why isn't it of no matter whatever? Why wouldn't a simple, clean abortion procedure without any discomforts or side effects be a perfectly acceptable birth control technique?
332- then what does "fundamentally, I'm with TLL" mean?
331: (1) No discomfort or side effects describes no procedure available in the current state of affairs. Abortion is worth avoiding for that reason alone. (2) Respect for those disturbed by abortion. (3) Given that it's seen as an important moral issue by so many, it makes sense to avoid it where possible.
336: I think it means that she's radically pro-choice, despite personally believing that abortion is strongly morally undesirable under most circumstances.
I think it is a big move, and big or small that it is all-important -- that the argument is "We are morally required to act as if a fetus were a baby, because we don't know that it isn't.
Right. I should clarify a bit, though it probably doesn't affect the argument. First, I'm claiming that there are a non-trivial number of people who think of fetuses as potential lives. I think this is why we treat people who gut punch pregnant women differently than we treat people who gut punch people who have just had a big lunch. (I'm guessing at the difference in treatment. But, like everything else, lunches are large in Texas, and so Weiner should test the hypothesis.) Second, I'm claiming as an empirical mattter--and completely and entirely without any empirical evidence--that it is relatively easy to get people who think of a fetus as "not a human, but a potential life" to move to the position of "we don't know if it is a human life or not." (Testing this seem tedious, so again we'll leave it to Weiner.) And that's more or less as far as the argument of that point goes.
I guess I see a distinction between respecting, so far as possible, the moral opinions of others and what I called a tactical consideration. Respecting others' moral opinions is itself a moral commandment, other things being equal. But you're not claiming any personal qualms about it.
335: For the same reason that liposuction isn't a perfectly acceptable dieting technique.
I want to live in an America where liposuction is safe, legal, and rare.
potential life
"Life" in this context, annoys me. A turnip is alive. A mouse is alive. A kidney ready for transplant is human, and it's alive.
I'm not annoyed at you, or at anyone particular for using it -- it is the most conventional of possible language in this context. But it conveys no useful meaning to me. If 'potential life' means 'potential person', sure.
If 'potential life' means 'potential person', sure.
I'm not sure if that's to me, but feel free to substitute at will.
344: Okay, but there's a real point there. Talking about 'when does life begin' is idiotic -- there is no moment in conception or fetal development when something that was not alive becomes alive. Eggs are alive, sperm is alive, zygotes are alive, embryos are alive, fetuses are alive, babies are alive. When does human life begin isn't any better -- eggs are alive and human, and so is sperm, and so forth.
The moral question here is when and whether a fetus must be treated as if it had the rights of a person (or if there is some other moral requirement for treating it in a certain fashion): 'life' doesn't enter into it except as question-begging rhetoric.
The moral question here is when and whether a fetus must be treated as if it had the rights of a person (or if there is some other moral requirement for treating it in a certain fashion): 'life' doesn't enter into it except as question-begging rhetoric.
I thought that's what "potential person" was meant to address.
Now that I've said that:
First, I'm claiming that there are a non-trivial number of people who think of fetuses as potential livespeople.
Sure. I should think everyone does -- what else are they? And certainly, that's why punching a pregnant woman in the gut is seen as worse than punching a non-pregnant woman -- you are interfering with her and the father of the potential child's attempt to bring a new person into the world, and possibly risking that when that new person is born, that they will be injured. Bad.
I still don't get the jump from 'potential people' to 'there is a moral requirement to treat them as people even before they are people'.
I'm all for safe, legal, and rare.
Let me expand on Clinton's phrase: I'm all for safe, legal, rare, and readily accessible. It doesn't count as a positive reduction in abortions if you're making it harder for women to get access to abortion clinics, or if you're making it harder for poor women to afford abortions. To the extent that we're making abortion "rare," the focus should be on contraception. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I've seen have most emphatically not been supporters of sex education programs; their idea of "making abortion rare" is "making it much harder to get an abortion."
Doesn't it quite obviously mean potential human life? What else could it mean? Potential person is fine too.
And I refuse to actually engage in another abortion debate qua abortion debate, but the argument is that you're killing what is biologically a developing human being, even if it hasn't gotten along quite far enough to have developed the attributes that we as a society have deemed "human" in a moral sense. But it will, and very soon. It's rather like a hermit (no family friends who would mourn the loss) in a coma, but expected to recover in a few months. Okay to kill? (To save the money that the life support machines would cost to run?) Most people answer no.
But I bet that answer would change, at least for a lot of people, if the cost of keeping the hermit alive wasn't the dollars spent on life support, but strapping some woman down next to him for those months at great inconvenience to her and risk to her health. And if this wasn't just an isolated problem -- there were millions of these hermits landing in hospitals every year. Your own daughter might end up strapped to one.
Now, killing the hermits might be justified in the weird second hypo, whereas it seems really offensive in the first. But at this point we're just bargaining over the price: the moral worth, or status as a "human", of the hermit doesn't change.
I still don't get the jump from 'potential people' to 'there is a moral requirement to treat them as people even before they are people'.
I think there are a couple of steps in there that have been conflated. Do you buy that a non-trivial number of people who would be willing to call fetuses "potential persons" could be readily moved to "not sure if the fetus is sufficiently a person to have moral rights"?
you are interfering with her and the father of the potential child's attempt to bring a new person into the world,
To unpack this a little, I think if someone went to an IVF clinic, and spiked the growth medium with a poison that killed all the patients' eggs and sperm before fertilization, we'd think of that as a very bad and wrong thing to do, even if we don't think contraception is wrong.
350: The thing is, I think anyone thinking straight would call a fetus a potential person. What else could you call it?
So all I can understand of your question is: "Out of the entire population, how many do you think are unsure enough of the moral status of a fetus to think that it should be treated as if it were a baby?" To which I say, dunno -- what do the polls say?
349: Sure, I think that's the best possible argument that abortion should be legal for someone who either thinks that the fetus is, morally, a baby, or isn't sure whether or not it is.
To which I say, dunno -- what do the polls say?
That's basically my position, too. If Weiner weren't off dicking around making fun of people from flyover states, he could do the research.
348: This is going to be cranky, snide, and unfair, but yes, I do sometimes get the impression that there is a portion of the prolife movement that would be happier with a world where abortion is illegal, there are a million unwanted pregnancies every year, and ten percent of those are aborted illegally, than a world where abortion is legal, there are 50,000 unwanted pregnancies a year, and they're all aborted.
Wait, did I really just do all that backwards? Fuck. I was supposed to do "it doesn't have any rights and yet it's still wrong to kill it", instead I did "it has rights and yet it's still okay to kill it." Fuck. Well just flip everything in the hypo around backwards and you'll get the other argument. That's what I meant.
Did I mention I've been up for several nights now, dealing with a crying decision-not-to-abort?
Our baby seems very, very angry that we didn't abort him.
Oh, poor baby. I don't know if I've said this before, but someone's told you that the studies show absolutely no connection between colic and later difficult personality or ill-health? When it's over, it's over. I'd give helpful colic advice, but I'm afraid I haven't got any.
356: No, I think that's right, simply based on the observation that the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement wants to ban nearly all abortions, despite a basic familiarity with the history of illegal abortion in the United States. Along those lines, I don't think I'd actually met a single pro-lifer I'd actually describe as "pro-life" (as opposed to "anti-abortion") until I'd nearly graduated college.
Here's an idea:
Of the pro-life population, a large percentage believe in the existence of souls. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Christian religion, at least, that says, necessarily, when souls come to exist. But the default position seems to be, pretty early.
So you or I say, "that thing is a peanut." But so what, if the peanut's got a soul? That's what you have to deal with, and I don't know how, personally.
Now I will return to exile.
Then again, the point "some people cannot be convinced" is probably one you've all considered. Carry on.
365- This doesn't seem intractable to me. The question can be formulated as "when does a developing person become 'human enough' to deserve moral consideration and/or legal protection?" or as "when does a developing person become ensouled?" They're both philosophical/religious questions, not ameniable to objective resolution. It's really the same question, asked with a different vocabulary.
Note that I'm not trynig to dismiss your point entirely. Where it comes into play, I think, is that religious persons very often believe a person has moral worth from the moment of conception because that's when they are ensouled, which is a religious belief. What I'm trying (and failing) to say is that even though the two questions posed in the first paragraph are really the same, you are right that many religious persons for religious reasons are likely to answer "really fucking early".
I'm not allowed to discuss abortion with (or in the presence of) pro-lifers. Something about the concept of limits on the power of the state to reach into the most intimate decisions of individual citizens just sets them off. And 'oh yeah, well how about we treat it as a life independent of its mother when it's capable of living independent of its mother' does nothing to restore the situation.
This is especially true just now, as I recently finished a book which featured prominently the procurement by Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury of a statute providing that a person who denied full and complete transsubstantiation could be burned at the stake.
I'm not anti-religion, but I am anti-anti-human rights.
As I say, I'm not allowed to discuss these subjects in polite (or mixed) company . . .
356: One doesn't just have to imagine what would happen if they were in charge.
I've been tossing over in my mind the woman who had trouble getting emergency contraception, because the nurses she talked to said she wouldn't pass the doctor's tests (she is unmarried). That's just pure desire to punish a woman for having the wrong kind of sex; the desired result is presumably that women should have children out of wedlock, not in it. Of course the result of this kind of policy will actually be more unwanted pregnancies and hence more abortions. It's easier to plan a long trip for an abortion than it is to make one in an emergency because no one will prescribe you medicine.
And this seems to be what too many hardcore anti-abortion people want. Are there any pro-choice people who would endorse such needlessly cruel slut-punishing policies? It's the pro-lifers who are pushing "conscience clauses"; well, some of the pro-lifers. (Brock, I know we've discussed this before and I don't mean to catch you in this umbrella; it's a pro-life movement thing.) If those pro-life swing voters we're talking about really are motivated by preventing abortions, then "safe, legal, rare, and access to birth control and EC" should really appeal to them. But I worry that these voters' revealed preferences are more complicated than their expressed motivations.
This maybe goes back to 296. I'm worried that trying to accommodate the general moral sense of mushy pro-life voters actually means something more like getting all frowny or worse on women who have sex.
This maybe goes back to 296. I'm worried that trying to accommodate the general moral sense of mushy pro-life voters actually means something more like getting all frowny or worse on women who have sex.
There seem to be two separate questions: is it bad policy, and, eve if bad policy, is it good politics? Dunno on either of them. Certainly abandoning the field to the pro-life camp would be both bad policy and bad politics. But inside those boundaries? I don't know.