Social Conservatism Explained

Great Debates
81

Left Hand of Dorkness

My bad. Yes, I meant “I don’t want creationism taught as science”. But I see nothing wrong with allowing it to be taught in social studies as a religious belief, along with other beliefs.

AHunter3 said:

How would you feel if they demanded the same? Should public schools have a mandatory class in Christianity so that children of athiests “are not deprived of the chance to make a choice to the contrary”? Where does your desire to interfere with the parenting decisions of others stop? How about the children of Wiccans, who are raised to worship the Goddess?

So you’re okay with them teaching their kids the things you agree with, but not the things you disagree with?

What do you mean by, “Structure their laws and policies to support paternal authority?” Do you somehow think that Christians want to take away women’s suffrage? That they are against equality for all? Tell that to Karen Hughes.

acsenray said:

*Originally Posted by Sam Stone
Again, may I suggest to liberals that a winning formula does not include arbitrary attacks on cherished symbols that really don’t change a whole lot? Trying to remove ‘under god’ from a pledge strikes ME as intolerant, and I’m not religious. It’s always been there
*

Actually, it hasn’t always been there. It was added in the McCarthy era for explicitly religious reasons. But what I find depressing is that this fact probably doesn’t matter with regard to what you are saying, because, in the end, facts and reason don’t matter – it’s all about feelings and fear. And from my point of view, that’s exactly the wrong place to base your notions of freedom, liberty, and democratic government.

[/quote]

Sorry, as a Canadian, I didn’t realize that. But the point is the same. It’s been there long enough to be a routine part of life, and attempts to take it away are seen as a threat. Again, why not just support the right of someone to not have to recite the pledge if they strongly object?

Here in Canada, which many see as a bastion of Liberalism, we recited the Lord’s prayer every day in school when I was a kid in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. We also sang the Canadian anthem regularly. Tolerance cuts both ways. The way I see it, those people who start demanding that public displays of religion be abolished because it makes them uncomfortable are just as intolerant as those who demand that everyone must do it. Both sides need to compromise.

One of my Uncles was a devout Catholic. I was not, yet I stayed with them on numerous occasions and was forced to go to Church with them. It was hella uncomfortable for me as a devout non-Catholic. It was strange and frightening. Kneel down to pray? huh? What’s with the crackers and wine? How come I have to say all these strange things in Latin? How come the minister is wearing robes and a hat? It felt almost blasphemous. But I was a guest, and these were their rituals. I followed along as best I could, and got through it. And today, I’m glad I got a little exposure to something new and different. I’m a little better for it.

The way I see it, saying “under god” is no big deal if you’re an athiest. It’s just a slogan, and it comforts many of your fellow citizens. If it really conflicts with your religious beliefs, then just stand silent. If you feel a compelling need to say the oath, or someone forces you to and you can’t say the word ‘god’, just skip that part. Why do things like this have to become issues for the federal government? What happened to tolerance?

82

And I’d like to thank everyone for the nice comments. It’s appreciated.

83

OK, which one of you said something nice to Sam? C’mon, who was it?

Oh, I get it! Sucking up to the Canadian, huh? Looking for a immigration sponsor, aren’t you! Won’t catch me pulling any of that crap, despite his incisive intelligence, solid physique, and encyclopedic understanding of Warren Zevon! Nosirree! Too much self respect!

84

Pssst! 'luci! Same sex marriage isn’t yet legally recognized in Alberta. :wink:

85

In '68, you’d be amazed at how many guys I knew suddenly realised they were homosexual, right about the time they recieved a notice for their pre-induction physical. And you know, ever damn one of them made a full recovery!

So who says it isn’t a matter of choice!

86

I come from an extremely socially conservative part of Ohio.

You know what? I’ll believe that the people who surround me believe in family values within three minutes of hearing that every parent in arrears on his or her child support has volunteered to pay up. I’ll believe in family values here the second there are fewer divorces, fewer child custody battles, less child abuse, less spousal abuse, less animal abuse, less drug and alcohol abuse, less drunken driving, and fewer children out of wedlock.

Divorce is rampant here. I just did the math and 27% of the employees at my workplace are in arrears on child support. But you better not let faggots get married. That’s just wrong.

87

Gay marriage is okay here. I was the photographer at a wedding of two lesbian friends of ours. No prob.

JsGoddess: You’re making an incorrect leap here, one that someone else made earlier in the thread. The fact that there are deadbeat dads in conservative areas, or even that these areas have high divorce rates does not refute the point. People are people. They are good and bad, selfish and generous. They get married for good and bad reasons, and divorced for the same. This has nothing to do with the desire to structure your society around social structures like marriage.

It’s like saying that Christian values are wrong because the people who abandon those values do bad things. Or even that Christian areas have equal rates of non-Christian behaviour. It’s irrelevant, even if true.

As I said in an earlier message, one of the things I learned from my rather diverse upbringing is that you can find good and bad people everywhere.

88

They have the opportunity to structure their society around social structures like marriage and are rejecting said opportunity and then blaming other people for their failure to structure their society around social structures like marriage. How much more clear can it get?

89

“they” are rejecting it?

Sounds a lot like the old conservative line about “welfare queens”. Remember when liberals said you aren’t supposed to tar an entire community based on the actions of a few? Does that not apply here?

90

I’m judging the people who don’t pay for their children and then say they want to protect family values. These aren’t imaginary people, or supposed statements. They are proud they voted for Bush. They are in arrears in their child support. They are divorced in most cases, parents of illegitimate children in others. When these people, these specific people, start practicing what they preach, then maybe I’ll believe that they care about family values.

With your OP you are massing a very large segment of the population and attempting to explain their beliefs. If you’re allowed to do that, I think it’s certainly allowable for me to say that I do not agree. If you get to generalize, so do I.

91

But not legally recognized, which is what I said, and I believe Ralph has threatened to open up a can of notwithstanding if anyone tries to make him. Though I guess to be fair, for the purposes of my quip the relevant agency would be Immigration, which does recognize same sex partnerships, even if the feds don’t yet officially recognize out and out marriage. But dammit, it was supposed to be a joke!

92

It’s really difficult to have an exchange with you, Sam. I read your views and responded here. You read my views, I assume, did not respond, and continued to ask the same level of questions that showed that you had not processed anything I had offered.

I thought you wanted to have a Great Debate instead of offer an Humble Opinion.

On rare occasions I will read a well-written statement and realize how precisely it describes what I am thinking, and yet know that I would never have been able to put it into words. That is pure education. I thank you.

You were referring to the removal of under God from the Pledge when you wrote that, but I think that covers a multitude of sins from perhaps both sides. We (all sides) perceive something to be worse than it is or motivated by less than honorable causes. So we dig in our heels on issues.

The situation is made worse by unfounded rumors, people who misunderstand the laws, and extreme cases that make the headlines. Again, this happens on both sides.

Good example! Maybe things are better now. I’ve been out of the classroom for fifteen years. But while I was teaching, religious rights of both students and teachers were violated until the very end. There were Bible readings over the intercom, prayer at teachers’ meetings, hellfire and brimstone sermons in the gym, harassment by superiors about taking All Saints’ Day and Ash Wednesday for religious observance, etc.

In my particular situation, it was evangelical Christians harassing a more liberal Christian. I have no way of knowing how our students from other religious faiths handled their situations. I do know that the schools in Nashville have become even more diverse since I left teaching. It is imperative that the religious rights of everyone be protected.

And, of course, that includes Christians. I certainly think they should be allowed to pray. But the problem is when? where? School days are very structured and teachers are legally responsible for students at school. They can’t interrupt classes with their prayers or force others to hear their prayers. I think that accomodation varies from school to school. But Christians should be aware that it also leaves the door open to other kinds of worship at school.

Teachers can have Bibles on their desks and they can bring Bibles to class if they wish. Some schools still buck the idea that students cannot lead prayers at events if they want to. Other schools draw the line at required attendance events or official events. (Should Christian students be forced to listen to student lead prayers to Allah at their own graduation? I don’t think so, and the reverse is also true.) Students can certainly express religiously-based opinions if they are related to the topic under discussion in the classroom. If by “politically correct” you mean that they are not allowed to be crude or rude to other students, you are probably correct. It is still a classroom and some measure of decorum is expected.

I can’t imagine that anyone would be concerned about Ashcroft studying the Bible at his workplace before business hours. The problem that I do see is that some employees might feel pressured to participate if it became a group thing. Also, who is paying for the extra lights, water, etc.? Would another group be allowed to study The Way of the Tao? These are the sorts of things that REALLY concern a liberal – not whether John Ashcroft wants to worship God.

How reliable is Michael Kinsley? Since I don’t know the facts, I won’t dispute what he said. But keep in mind that not all of the ACLU’s causes have been on the Left side of issues. They fight for civil liberties. Probably their most famous battle for the extreme Right was in support of a Nazi group’s right to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois.

Regards to you, too.

93

I think you’re on target there, Zoe, and I appreciate the pragmatic approach to education. We all seem to more about how to educate children than the people who do it.

For instance, take this Supreme Court thing about In God We Trust, and so on and so forth. I like the idea of “ceremonial deism”, the use of the God as formal and invocating, a serious ceremonial, but not therefore necessarily a religious activity. I can buy that, not because it reflects some big hairy ass truth, but because it offers a way out, a compromise, a way to accept certain minor impositions and get on with it, without getting tied into a knot whether God is a Cosmic Muffin or a rough and bearded desert Diety of shepherds.

I would like to find a way to accomodate my religious fellow citizens without surrendering to them! If they would profer the same consideration, I’m sure we could work something out. Maybe work it out by not working it out, maybe just shrug and go along 'cause, hey, whats it gonna kill me?

As for the ACLU…you bet, they’re a pain in the butt, don’t know how many times they’ve totally pissed me off! Somewhere north of 50. But, thing is, you almost need fanatics on the civil liberites front. The Forces of Darkness don’t take big bites, they nibble, they erode, a little here, a little there. So, sure, they piss me off. But when I’ve got a couple of bucks to soothe my liberal conscience, I usually send it to them.

94

Not “invalid,” just irrelevant. If you want to get a civil contract, fine. But the religious aspect of it is purely personal. If you want to have a religious ceremony and pour cooking oil on your head when you buy a house, that’s up too you but the government doesn’t give a shit and there’s absolutely no reason a government needs to recognize any private religious impramatur given to civil contracts.

Any talk about the government “rejecting” or “invalidating” religious ceremonies is just so much horseshit. They’re not “rejecting” anyting which has any public significance in the first place. Contracts are about paperwork. If you do the paperwork, then you’re good to go. The religious cermony is completely superfluous and dopes not constitute a legal contract in itself.

Should the government recognize ceremonial religious commitments for financing a car or getting a mortgage? You can certainly perform such a ceremony but it doesn’t constitute a legal contract.

I think people have a huge misconception about what legal marriage is. It’s not a way for the government to recognize your spiritual union. The government could not give less of a fuck about your spiritual union, nor should it. The government only cares about your new tax status and legal responsibilities. The religious ceremony is just your own private party.

95

Someone could do a “Liberal Multilateralism Explained” thread ?

96

Basically what I take from the OP is that the social conservative front is driven by fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of “them” getting their way. Fear of change.

Most of us knew that already. The most frustrating thing about the 2004 election is not this fear that characterizes Middle America, since nothing is new about that reality. The thing that bothers me the most is that the GOP banked on this fear. They threw gasoline on it, took a match to it, and then fanned the flames with all their might. Most of the fear is based on ignorance, but the GOP isn’t about trying to eradicate the ignorance. No, because it is too precious of a commodity.

The Republican party needs fear like a honeybee needs nectar. The fact that they prey on people’s insecurities and pander to bigotry (because that is what they do, no matter how hard folks dress it up) is why I fail to see how anyone who calls themself a social liberal can get behind them.

A cursory glance at history can tell us a lot. The liberal movement usually gets its way, eventually. It may take time, but eventually the walls of xenophobia and fear and ignorance break down. With each passing generation, the conservatives shift leftward. Their minds open up and they embrace new ideas. Industry moving into the community? Used to scare the wits out of them. Now, even though Walmart faces the occassional roadblock, most conservatives want industry to come in because it means jobs. Blacks and whites marrying? A thing that was almost unspeakable fifty years ago. Now, its almost not even worth a few minutes of gossip. Jim Crow and slavery, once something the conservatives literally fought tooth and nail to keep, is an royal embarrassment to them now. Women used to automatically be shunted into the role of happy homemaker, but now, even in Middle America, it’s not a given that women have to make a career raising the kids. And it’s not cool to spit on the Mexican immigrants anymore, because the stereotype of them being freeloading bums is starting to expire.

A smart, rational conversative should be able to see this. Even though right now it may look like the GOP is winning all the hearts and minds, eventually the people will evolve. And they will evolve to be more accepting and more tolerant of differences, not less. We are already starting to see some Republicans jump ship because the current trajectory of the party is heading not towards the future, but towards the past, a place where folks wanted to curtail the rights of blacks, women, immigrants, and anyone else who wasn’t a God-fearing caucasoid heterosexual male.

One does not have to be Miss Cleo to see into the crystal ball. Thirty, twenty years from now or maybe even less, history will look at the Republicans just like we now look at the “Dixiecrats”. The Americans of tomorrow will see the Bushites for what they are, which is how nearly half the country already sees them. Bush will be the Strom Thurmond of 2030.

97

Thanks again Sam for starting this thread.

Our culture has a Judeo-Christian history and religion has been an enormously big mover and shaker over the centuries. Damn right I want the kids of atheists, Wiccans, other NeoPagans, Taoists and so forth exposed to Christianity. Any American unfamiliar with the key concepts of Christianity as a belief system is considerably more deprived, education-wise, than someone unable to tell you the ways in which Apollo was the antithesis of Dionysius or that Jupiter was the Roman equivalent of Zeus.

(I also want the kids of Christians to be exposed to Taoism, Islam, Judaism, atheism, and some NeoPaganism. Not really for the same reasons — they aren’t as central to the history of our culture — but because I don’t think anyone’s kids should be raised unaware that multiple religions exist and that they have areas of agreement and of disagreement).

98

Zoe: I’m sorry, I didn’t intentionally ignore you. It’s just that there’s often so much to respond to that I wind up missing people. I have to take my daughter to music class now, but I’ll get back to your message later.

You with the face said:

How about if I said that liberal positions are characterized by fear? Fear of Christianity. Fear that the rich will take over. Fear that big brother is on the march?"

Do you think that’s a useful description? Or is it just another way to label your opponents as being irrational?

As for your ‘inevitability of liberals winning’, it sure doesn’t seem like it from here. In fact, it’s conservative ideas that have been winning, in case you didn’t notice. And not just in the U.S., but all around the world. Roll back the clock to 1975, and have a look at the world. Trade barriers everywhere, strong union movements, wage and price controls, 55 MPH speed limits, socialist governments all over the place, the rise of ‘industrial policy’ with Japan as the lead example, nationalization of industry throughout the 1st world. etc. Today, free trade is the rule, exchange rates fluctuate, markets are freer, wholesale privatization has occured, wage and price controls are a thing of the past, and free market theories in general are on the ascendancy.

Even Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over”. Perhaps rather than a liberal ascendancy, what we’re seeing is the death throes of the old one, a last gasp of the old power structure.

Bush plans to partially privatize social security, one of the biggest government programs of all. Canada’s public health care system is tottering, and people are starting to talk about free market reforms to save it. Even Europe is moving to the right.

99

OTTOMH,

Apollo was the son of two gods while Dionysus had a human mother. He came by his immortality only due to the scheming of IIRC Hera, which resulted in the accidental death of his mom while Dionysus was still in utero. Zeus reacted by rescuing the embyro and sewing it up in his thigh for 9 months or so.

Worhip of Appolo was stately and organized, while Dionysus’ worshippers tended to get really drunk and out of control.

Apollo slew a dragon (which provided the fumes that gave the Sybils their prophetic trances) and can be viewed as the force of art lifting humanity to a higher state above their animal nature. Dionysus was more into celebrating and releasing the animal side. The case of one of his Maenads killing her own son for sneaking into the festivities is a good example.

Apollo also has a martial aspect, and AFAIK Dionysus does not. Achilles refers to Apollo as Apollo Shootafar. Apollo also used a bow to slay the above mentioned dragon. OTTOMH I can’t think of any tale in which Dionysus did direct combat or slew anything.

And sometimes Jove.

100

Psst- Sam, I think you’re forgetting that the thread is about social conservatism, not economic.