Conservatives, would we be better off without the religious right?

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
The ‘religious right’, aka conservative Christians are essentially the same.

This is simply untrue. Theologically conservative Christians–even theologically conservative Christians who are by various measures politically conservative (and not all theologically conservative Christians would be considered politically conservative in U.S. terms)–do not agree at all on a whole lot of issues. Some theologically conservative Christians are very strong supporters of strict church-state separation. Their reasoning may be completely different from mine–they may believe that the state is a corrupt or even essentially Satanic institution, part of fallen and sinful world, from which the church must be protected by keeping the state completely out of religion, or perhaps that the state is a necessary institution, given the fallen state of humanity, but one to which God has given no power over matters of religion–but to the extent our totally different reasoning processes come to the same conclusions, I would count them as political allies.

Frankly, I think your claim here would be considered prejudiced or even bigoted if it were made by an atheist.

Again, I disagree. Most decisions even in the United States are made by a vote of the majority. Vote for political offices? Congressional lawmaking? Supreme Court decisions? All made by majority vote. Almost every decision made is made by a majority of those responsible for the decision, from deciding which corner gets a streetlight, whether abortion is legal, whether a law is enacted, whether it’s constitutional. There is no unanimity in this country on any subject. That behooves those who disagree with a given decision to seek change. The Religious Right is hardly unique in that regard.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The United States is NOT just a country where “the majority rules”. The Constitution removes some things from the authority of the state, even when the state governs according to the will of the majority. How to or whether or not to worship the “creator”–in other words, what the first four of the Ten Commandments are all about–are things over which the state has no authority in this country.

[NaSultainne]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**

According to at least one source(Seattle P-I, 9/25/01), Christianity is the world’s most practiced religion at about 34 percent of the world’s population. This gives value to the Ten Commandments.

So, if 34% of the world’s population believed that Christians were dangerous, deluded fools, that belief would “have value” to you? Quite amusing to see a popular poll taken as evidence of the value of a moral belief from someone who argued regarding morality that:

I prefer it be based on something other than just an individual’s preferences.

and

The collective morality isn’t in my POV necessarily an acceptable substitute for objective morality.

Or is it just that once individual beliefs reach a certain density in the world population, the automatically become moral?

You asked, not simply for the value of a moral imperative–which few concede is solely based on popular acclaim–but also asked for a refutation of those imperatives. When I say I “refute” a moral imperative, I am not arguing “all people do not believe it is good, so it cannot be moral”–I am arguing that that belief is not neccessary for moral behavior, therefore it is not a valid moral imperative. For, indeed, I think a person can be perfectly moral even if they work on the Sabbath. If your request for refutation of a moral code meant only “show me that a less that 30% of people do give at least lip service to the tenets of the Ten Commandments”, I think your understanding of the word “refutation” could use a little brushing up.

No, I used the word as I intended. I intended it to mean to 'prove false or wrong" that the Ten Commandments were a valid basis for Christian beliefs as distinguished from an individual claim of ‘morality’ without an underlying source.
I’ve never claimed that the majority viewpoint is automatically correct - I merely argue that it does lend merit to their argument and needs to be considered in response.

Speed in your car? Sure, why not? Cheat on your spouse? Sure, why not? Keep that extra ten dollar bill the cashier gave you by mistake? Sure, why not? Cheat on the test you forgot to study for? Sure, why not? After all, everybody does it. This is called subjective morality.

“Doing bad things when other people do them” is not “subjective morality”. Subjective morality merely means that we depend on our possibly falliable human judgment to make moral decisions–just as every Christian does when he reads the Bible and makes a judgement that abortion/homosexuality/holy war/killing abortion doctors is/is not wrong. Your God may have provided you with an objective morality, but you must still interpret it through your subjective human perceptions, which inevitably will result in wildly varying morals despite the putative existence of an objective moral code. Of course, it may be that only you and those who believe precisely as you do understand God’s objective moral code and every other theist on the planet is willfully blinding themselves to the Crystal Clear Truth…but I doubt it. I suspect your beliefs are no less dependent on your personal perceptions than any other person’s.

Actually I fall back on my previous statement. Subjective morality holds that personal attitudes and feelings are the sole determinants of moral and esthetic values. Note the examples above. The justification that ‘everybody does it’ is just a common garden variety rationalization to boot. In addition, arguing that each person must filter such things as the Ten Commandments through a personal ‘subjective’ meter of some kind borders on moral relativism as well. As a society we’ve agreed that certain behaviors are wrong, such as murder, theft, etc. These are objective moral decisions which are indeed part of the Ten Commandments. Because they are clear, distinct offenses as opposed to ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’, which can be rationalized aside, does not mean that an objective viewpoint cannot be reached by reasoned people. It may be hard to follow such a rule, but we don’t make just easy rules to live by, or do we? I don’t claim to be the arbiter of absolute truth, the proclaimer of virtue, or some such. I do believe that having standards that require no thought, and little effort, probably aren’t worth the paper they could’ve been written on. Why shouldn’t I hope for better than that?

Seems to me the Mods usually indicate when they’re not wearing the Mod hat, not vice versa. As long as all I see is Moderator under username with no disclaimer, I assume he’s got his Mod hat firmly on

Geez, where have you been posting all this time? I assure you it is most strongly vice-versa.

Okay, I only checked a few threads but here goes:
here’s one,or this one, or even this one. Now before you post tons of others supporting your point, just give me a break believing that MODS change hats in an obvious way, 'cause they don’t all do that.

[NaSultainne]

Okay, I’m missing something on this, so here are two other threads I found:
http://www.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88701
http://www.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88082.

Sorry about that. I’ll check into what I’m doing wrong for the next time.

[NaSultainne]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
**

Originally posted by NaSultainne
The ‘religious right’, aka conservative Christians are essentially the same.

[QUOTE]
This is simply untrue. Theologically conservative Christians–even theologically conservative Christians who are by various measures politically conservative (and not all theologically conservative Christians would be considered politically conservative in U.S. terms)–do not agree at all on a whole lot of issues. Some theologically conservative Christians are very strong supporters of strict church-state separation. Their reasoning may be completely different from mine–they may believe that the state is a corrupt or even essentially Satanic institution, part of fallen and sinful world, from which the church must be protected by keeping the state completely out of religion, or perhaps that the state is a necessary institution, given the fallen state of humanity, but one to which God has given no power over matters of religion–but to the extent our totally different reasoning processes come to the same conclusions, I would count them as political allies.

Frankly, I think your claim here would be considered prejudiced or even bigoted if it were made by an atheist.

[QUOTE]

You’re splitting hairs here. If you’re going to parse Religious Right into Far Right, Moderate Right, and Centrist Right, or whatever, then we can argue that distinction. As the original OP was discussing the Religious Right, et al, we’re talking the larger category of religious Conservatives by definition, as religious Liberals would belong to the other party, correct? The term was meant to be taken in the broadest context, not in an effort to play games with semantics. And just how does that make me prejudiced or even bigoted? I’ll admit the error if you can point it out. For now I stand by my understanding of the OP and the point at issue.

Again, I disagree. Most decisions even in the United States are made by a vote of the majority. Vote for political offices? Congressional lawmaking? Supreme Court decisions? All made by majority vote. Almost every decision made is made by a majority of those responsible for the decision, from deciding which corner gets a streetlight, whether abortion is legal, whether a law is enacted, whether it’s constitutional. There is no unanimity in this country on any subject. That behooves those who disagree with a given decision to seek change. The Religious Right is hardly unique in that regard.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The United States is NOT just a country where “the majority rules”. The Constitution removes some things from the authority of the state, even when the state governs according to the will of the majority. How to or whether or not to worship the “creator”–in other words, what the first four of the Ten Commandments are all about–are things over which the state has no authority in this country.

Ahh, okay, you want to argue that the Constitution is understand uniformly and any disputes are adjudicated consistent with that uniform understanding? C’mon. We wouldn’t have arguments over the selection of Supreme Court Justices if that were true. Various groups wouldn’t advocate or condemn judicial ‘activism’ if the interpretation of the Constitution weren’t in dispute. You’re far more trusting of the infallibility of nine men and women in interpretation of that document than I am.

[MEBuckner]

You’re splitting hairs here. If you’re going to parse Religious Right into Far Right, Moderate Right, and Centrist Right, or whatever, then we can argue that distinction. As the original OP was discussing the Religious Right, et al, we’re talking the larger category of religious Conservatives by definition, as religious Liberals would belong to the other party, correct? The term was meant to be taken in the broadest context, not in an effort to play games with semantics. And just how does that make me prejudiced or even bigoted? I’ll admit the error if you can point it out. For now I stand by my understanding of the OP and the point at issue.

The term “Religious Right” no more means “any Christian whose views are, by some definition, ‘right-wing’” than “Liberation Theology” means “the theology of any Christian who believes, in any sense, in ‘liberation’”. “Liberation Theology” refers specifically to a movement by some politically “left-wing” Christians (but not all politically “left-wing” Christians) to fuse Christianity with Marxism. The “Religious Right” refers to a political movement of some politically “right-wing” Christians (but not all politically “right-wing” Christians) who believe that the United States is, or ought to be, a “Christian nation” whose laws are based on the Bible. There are disagreements and wings and splinter groups within that movement–as is true of any political movement or ideology. The more mainstream wing of the Religious Right is exemplified by such people and institutions as Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell and the now-defunct Moral Majority, and James Dodson and Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. These people claim that American political and legal institutions are and ought to be based on the Bible and that only Christians (or sometimes only Christians and Jews) should hold political power. Opponents of their views are branded as “secular humanists” (whether or not they actually fit that description); actual secular humanists are demonized in language reminiscent of a Nazi talking about the Jews. At the far fringes of the Religious Right are such types as the Christian Reconstructionists, who openly seek to transform the United States into a theocracy, in which the penalty for violating the Ten Commandments’ injunctions against worshipping other Gods or blasphemy (or such violations of Biblical law as sodomy or witchcraft) would be punishable by death.

The term “Religious Right” does not refer to all Christians who happen to be politically conservative. It refers to those Christians–some of whom I would say are actually politically quite radical, not conservative at all–who seek Christian “dominion” or outright theocracy in America.

Ahh, okay, you want to argue that the Constitution is understand uniformly and any disputes are adjudicated consistent with that uniform understanding? C’mon. We wouldn’t have arguments over the selection of Supreme Court Justices if that were true. Various groups wouldn’t advocate or condemn judicial ‘activism’ if the interpretation of the Constitution weren’t in dispute. You’re far more trusting of the infallibility of nine men and women in interpretation of that document than I am.

Of course the Constitution is interpreted differently by different people. (Of course, so is the Bible.) However, there are such things as bedrock principles. “I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me” is a bedrock principle of the Ten Commandments, and of the whole Bible. Religious liberty is a bedrock principle of American Constitutional law. To try to make the Ten Commandments the basis of the American constitutional, political, or legal system (as the Religious Right frequently and vehemently supports) will bring those two principles into conflict, and one of them will have to give. An American Monarchist movement would necessarily conflict with basic principles of the American constitutional system; the same is true of any theocratic party.

[Gaudere]

No, I used the word as I intended. I intended it to mean to 'prove false or wrong" that the Ten Commandments were a valid basis for Christian beliefs as distinguished from an individual claim of ‘morality’ without an underlying source.

So, for you, “refute the moral validity of the Ten Commandments” means “show me that people who consider them a good moral code do not in fact consider them a good moral code”? Um…Ok. You do indeed have a different interpretation of the word “refute” than I do.

In addition, arguing that each person must filter such things as the Ten Commandments through a personal ‘subjective’ meter of some kind borders on moral relativism as well.

Your personal interpretation of the Ten Commandments is indeed a relative judgement, barring you claiming that God speaks directly in your ear and everyone else who believes even a tiny bit different is ignoring some blatantly obvious objective truth. Even if an objective morality exists, it must be interpreted and practiced by subjective humans.

As a society we’ve agreed that certain behaviors are wrong, such as murder, theft, etc.

So you say “murder” is wrong. But what is murder? Is killing someone to prevent them from killing another person murder? No? Then is killing an abortion doctor not murder? Yes? Then you are morally obligated to stand aside while a person kills yoru wife? Do you not see the rampant subjective human decisions necessary to interpret your “objective” moral code?

I do believe that having standards that require no thought, and little effort, probably aren’t worth the paper they could’ve been written on. Why shouldn’t I hope for better than that?

I believe morality can require a great deal of thought and effort, and should. I think you are railing against a simple “I’ll do what I can get away with morality” and contrasting it with a morality based on some God-given objective rules (which despite their “objectivity” will be interpreted through our subjective perceptions), as if those are the only two choices. But they are not. If you wish a discussion of moralities which are neither dependant on a Deity’s orders nor simply “what everybody does”, I suggest you run a search in the Great Debates archives with “moral” in the subject headers. It really is too much to get into right now, IMHO, and quite a hijack from the OP.

Now before you post tons of others supporting your point, just give me a break believing that MODS change hats in an obvious way, 'cause they don’t all do that.

Your first example shows JC posting without his moderator hat. In your second, I count three “regular poster” mod postings and one “moderator” mod posting. So your score is three to two against, which is hardly a rousing victory considering you handpicked them. ::shrug:: Besides, your original statement was not that sometimes mods posted as a mod without their hats, which I could agree with…you said that mods were more likely to indicate when they were posting as a member than when they were posting as a mod, yet IME only on rare occaisions do moderators make a point to say “I am posting as a member now, not a mod,” while they do often make a point to say when they are acting officially. So I stand by my first rebuttal.

If you want an easy way to tell the difference between posting as a moderator and posting as a member, I am sure this quick summary will help:

Typical Mod posts as a Mod:
I am locking this thread.
Your comment was inappropriate for this forum.
I am deleting your spam.
I am editing your posting of a copyrighted article.
I am moving this thread.

Typical Mod posts as a Member:
My balls itch.
Gosh, I really like pepperoni pizza.
I think George Bush is actually a alien clone.
Liberals smell funny.
My beanie babies are plotting to kill me.

…and see, there you go! Easy as pie.

[NaSultainne]

MEBruckner, if you’d be so kind as to indulge me. I know this feels like I’m beating that dead horse, but upon this definition hinges my defense of the question posited in the OP, namely the position of the Religious Right in the Republican/Conservative Party. Having read your explanation, I spent some time doing a web search. Having checked Ask Jeeves, Google, Yahoo, Dogpile, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, and finally US News & World Report, I have to quibble with you. Most of the sites referenced were what I would politely consider to be partisan, namely atheist, or liberal. I looked, quickly, through the Christian Coalition, and one other religious site(name escapes me at the moment), and didn’t find the RR used. Ditto on all the news sites with the exception of USN&WR, which did have quite a few articles using this term. Interesting point, though, just reading the summary of the article(for the sake of time), many articles appeared to use CC and RR interchangeably. Which brings me, finally, to my question. If you have a definitive source for the term Religious Right that could be applied to current religious organizations or principals, please let me know. If I’ve been wrongly presuming the term applies to all politically conservative and theologically conservative viewpoints, then I’ll have to withdraw or qualify much of my previous support for their inclusion in the party.

Gaudere, one for you, please. Regarding the question of when a MOD is a MOD, there’s a thread on the ATMB right now, 'bout a month old, with many posters voicing the same difficulty I have in knowing the MOD vs poster identity. Several of them have very high post counts, so I have to believe it’s not just me. It’s this site. Thanks.

[edited to fix url-Czarcasm]

[Edited by Czarcasm on 09-28-2001 at 07:37 AM]

[Gaudere]

I don’t really see it, NaSultainne. Cnote expressed some reservations, and kniz had a couple hypothetical circumstances that have not happened and in all likelyhood will never happen. This out of 17k people? It’s hardly ringing support for you. And still, yet again, your original statement–the one I first argued against–was that moderators were far more likely to make it explicitely clear when they were posting as a poster than vice versa, and it is still incorrect in my rather comprehensive experience on this MB. If your original statement had been, “I sometimes have trouble telling the difference between mods posting as mods and mods posting as posters” I would have not argued; it is manifestly clear that you do sometimes have trouble telling the difference, although it seems the bulk of the posters here do not. I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, but it seems whatever it is is quite a hijack from the topic and bears little resemblance to your original statement that I disagreed with.

[Moderator Hat ON]

So how 'bout if you want to discuss this further, you do it in ATMB and not this thread? This is not the forum for questions about the board; I only spoke up in the first place because I thought it would be quickly enough resolved so as to not be a distraction. If you’re going to go into this in depth, ATMB is the place.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[elucidator]

I occupy a position on the conservative wing of the extreme left. However, I worked for Goldwater in '64 (when LBJ was the peace candidate). Even thought Ayn Rand made sense. I go over it.

But to lob one in anyway…hell, yes! Governance in a sane republic is best done from the center: liberal enough to be flexible, conservative enough to be cautious. A vigorous dialogue on that basis is the very essence of the Founding Guys vision.

On the assumption that all conservtives on the SDMB are of this sensible stripe, I regret to advise you that you got that backwards (gratuitous political swipe deleted).

Are you quite sure you are in a position to jettison them, or are they better positioned to jettison you?

Well, the best of luck to you. Now I gotta go argue with a normally sane buddy of mine who thinks he’s got about $3,000 coming 'cause his grandmother was black. (Hell, I’m part Cherokee, and you can all go back to the Old Country)

[jkusters]

I see the assertation bandied about frequently, here and elsewhere, that laws are based upon religious principle. I’m sorry, I can’t go along with that. Most laws are based on fairness, perserving property, and preserving order. Just because the law says “do not kill” and religion says “do not kill” does not mean that one was based on the other. I’m no anthropologist, but I would bet that Hamarabi’s code (spell check?) included things like “do not kill” and I would bet that it pre-dates most modern religions. Was Hamarabi’s code prescient or something? No, it was common sense. No-one wants to be killed, so a law prohibiting it is in the best interest of nearly every member of the community.

Would conservatives be better off without the religious right? Well, I would probably be a member of the Republican party except for the extreme socially right-leaning influence of the religious right. So, yeah, I think so.

-JOhn.

[MEBuckner]

Ditto on all the news sites with the exception of USN&WR, which did have quite a few articles using this term. Interesting point, though, just reading the summary of the article(for the sake of time), many articles appeared to use CC and RR interchangeably. Which brings me, finally, to my question. If you have a definitive source for the term Religious Right that could be applied to current religious organizations or principals, please let me know. If I’ve been wrongly presuming the term applies to all politically conservative and theologically conservative viewpoints, then I’ll have to withdraw or qualify much of my previous support for their inclusion in the party.

Well, yeah, there is no definitive “unbiased” definition of the term “Religious Right” anymore than there is of the term “liberal”. It’s mostly a negative term, so no one really uses it to describe themselves. Conversely, sometimes it may be used unfairly to attempt to stigmatize someone whom the speaker disagrees with who isn’t really a member of the Religious Right. You note, though, that you found one presumably unbiased source which uses the term more or less synonomously with the Christian Coalition. That should tell you something right there. Basically, we’re talking about the Christian Coalition and organizations and individuals with similar views–the Family Research Council, D. James Kennedy, Phyllis Schlafly, Donald Wildmon and the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Tim LaHaye, and so forth. I guess the first “Religious Right” organization to really gain prominence was Jerry Falwell’s old Moral Majority.

You might want to read Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy by Frederick Clarkson. I think he actually prefers the more accurate Theocratic Right, but the book will give you an idea of the sort of groups I’m talking about (which I’m pretty sure are the sort of groups Czarcasm was talking about as well).