Morally Correct

[Epitome22]

Morally Correct
by Peter Beinart



nce upon a time, conservatives considered "sensitivity" a dirty word. In the 1980s and 1990s, when African Americans and other campus minorities claimed they were victims of racism and demanded greater respect from white students and faculty, conservatives popularized a term for this group whining: political correctness. They gasped when campus radicals tried to silence criticism of affirmative action by saying it created a hostile climate for black students. They worried aloud that university administrators--in their efforts to spare minority students' feelings--were stifling debate. For a time, combating this culture of punitive sensitivity was one of the right's primary concerns.

Not anymore. In the wake of their recent triumph at the polls, conservatives have found their own supposedly disrespected minority: evangelicals. And they are playing victim politics with a gusto that would make campus radicals proud.

One of the things that galled the right during the "political correctness" wars was the way leftists casually threw around terms like "racist" and "bigot." For conservatives, some of whom knew firsthand how much harm those accusations could cause, it became axiomatic that such pejoratives should be reserved for only the most egregious, clear-cut examples of racial or ethnic animus. After Trent Lott--a man who had long consorted with white supremacists--praised Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential bid, many conservatives called him dumb and embarrassing. (To their credit, some called for his removal as Senate leader.) But very few were willing to call him a bigot. Few would pin the label even on Jesse Helms or Thurmond himself. Extreme scrupulousness about such epithets seemed like a touchstone of the conservative worldview.

That's how it seemed, anyhow. In recent weeks, prominent conservatives have been anything but scrupulous in charging Democrats with bigotry against people of faith. Just before the election, Christian Right leader James Dobson called Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy a "God's people hater." On November 8, talk-show host Joe Scarborough condemned "Democrats who take solace in their bigoted anti-Christian screeds." Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin recently blurbed a book titled Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity, noting that "Persecution exposes the hypocrisy and bigotry of the secular, anti-Christian Left." And, last Sunday, Mary Matalin chimed in on "Meet the Press," claiming that "people of faith, in the election process, they have been demonized and they have been treated with disdain and contempt." Imagine if James Carville, who was seated next to her on the show, had made the same claim about African Americans (who, although they are one of the most religious groups in America, vote Democratic, and thus don't fall under Matalin's "people of faith" rubric). Within 15 minutes, the conservative blogosphere would have accused him of politically correct demagoguery.

To be fair, occasionally liberals do treat evangelical Christians with condescension and scorn. Conservatives frequently, and justifiably, expressed outrage at a Washington Post news story that called followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command." (They tend not to note that the story is eleven years old, and the Post issued an immediate retraction.) On November 4, in The New York Times, Garry Wills suggested that America now resembles the theocracies of the Muslim world more than it resembles Western Europe, which is offensive, not to mention absurd.

But, most of the time, what conservatives call anti-evangelical bigotry is simply harsh criticism of the Christian Right's agenda. Scarborough seized on a recent column by Maureen Dowd, which accused President Bush of "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith," leading America into "another dark age." The Weekly Standard recently pilloried Thomas Friedman for criticizing "Christian fundamentalists" who "promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad," and Howell Raines, for saying the Christian Right wants to enact "theologically based cultural norms."

This isn't bigotry. What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there's something dangerous in that. And they're right. It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological.

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.) But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination. It's no different than when some feminists say that, since the right to abortion is a critical part of their identity, opposing abortion disrespects them as women. When George Stephanopoulos asked Dobson to justify his charge that Senator Leahy is an anti-Christian bigot, he replied that the Vermont senator "has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe." In other words, disagree with me and you're a racist. Al Sharpton couldn't have said it better.

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.

[madape]

hmm.. kind of like saying "if you boo Mahmoud Abdul Rauf for not saluting the flag, you must be a racist". No, people who disagree with Christians are not committing discrimination. Neither are sports fans who boo anti-American mulslims who turn their back on the flag. I must admit, however, that I think this quack is making stuff up. I haven't heard ANY whining from Christians that they are being discriminated against. If anything, some may point out the hypocracy of the left in their attacks against Christianity. What was the point of this article again? Christians have no right to complain when they're attacked? OK, whatever.

[Epitome22]

The point of the article is that conservative evangelicals are getting mired in the same politics of victimhood that minority groups embraced in the 90's. And if you don't think that christians at least 'feel' that they are under assault or being marginalized than you haven't been following much of the post election narrative.

It seems just as the Democrats are finally crawling out of the entangling web of identity politics, republicans and conservatives are jumping right in.

[jacktruth]

As a Christian and political conservative, I know the discussions that you are talking about.

We do talk a lot about how Christians are not treated equally from the left. But we aren't. That is not to say that we are being repressed or disenfranchised. But, it is interesting that the ACLU for example, rarely defends a Christian's right to expression.

If you listen to the way that the far left speaks about Christianity, they are extremely intollerant. We are often referred to as "those people" and are all included under a single heading of "Christians." Many on the left use it as a curse word. Do you remember what this country was like when blacks were referred to as "those people?" It is discrimination when it refers to blacks. Yes it is different. It is a choice to be a Christian. However, those two things are protected using the same language in the constitution.

Prayer and bible study in school is constantly being challenged by school systems. It is perfectly constitutional, yet public funded school systems are challenging it in court using public tax money. All the while the doors are flying open for muslims to be excused from class for prayer time.

Can you imagine if blacks weren't allowed to speak a different English dialect, or if ESL students were not allowed to speak in thier native language at school? Of course not. If you were to challenge it in court, you would be a racist.

Evolution is continued to be taught as the absolute truth even though it is scientifically discreditied and no longer is backed by very many leading scientists. It's teaching as fact violates every rule of scientific analysis. The only reason it is still pushed so strong despite its huge holes is that the only other choice is creation, which is a Christian doctrine. There is better scientific evidence for creation and there is a longer written history and oral tradition. Yet it is avoided because of fear of Christianity.

But the truth is it is not considered discrimination because the Christian right still has a powerful influence in this country and that influence is getting stronger, not weaker. Rightly so, since this country was founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion. Discrimination against an influential entity simply is not considered discrimination in this country, even though they are protected by the same language as less influential minority groups.

[Drbio]

And that folks is the jacktruth.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[mavsman55]

I've already tried talking with Epitome about Christianity. And I stil have a bone to pick with him.

I'd be more tolerant of Christians if they were tolerant of Jews, Muslims, Gays, etc...

See, up until that point, I thought that Epitome was tolerant of everyone and that he thought all men are created equally, despite their beliefs. Obviously I was wrong.

And since when are Christians intolerant?? They are the most loving and caring religion on this earth. When's the last time a radical Christian has murdered someone from another religion to get his/her point across?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
As a Christian and political conservative, I know the discussions that you are talking about.

We do talk a lot about how Christians are not treated equally from the left. But we aren't. That is not to say that we are being repressed or disenfranchised. But, it is interesting that the ACLU for example, rarely defends a Christian's right to expression.

I'm glad you said rarely, the ACLU has defended fundalmentalist christians when their liberties were challenged by government. It's also fair to say that as the dominant philosophy, christians rarely need defending.

If you listen to the way that the far left speaks about Christianity, they are extremely intollerant. We are often referred to as "those people" and are all included under a single heading of "Christians." Many on the left use it as a curse word. Do you remember what this country was like when blacks were referred to as "those people?" It is discrimination when it refers to blacks. Yes it is different. It is a choice to be a Christian. However, those two things are protected using the same language in the constitution.

There's also language in that document which talks against the mixture of that right of faith and the laws of the land. That is where the derision of Christians emerges, when their beliefs are forced.

Prayer and bible study in school is constantly being challenged by school systems. It is perfectly constitutional, yet public funded school systems are challenging it in court using public tax money. All the while the doors are flying open for muslims to be excused from class for prayer time.

As long as these activities are outside the classroom or public demonstrations, they should be allowed.

Evolution is continued to be taught as the absolute truth even though it is scientifically discreditied and no longer is backed by very many leading scientists. It's teaching as fact violates every rule of scientific analysis. The only reason it is still pushed so strong despite its huge holes is that the only other choice is creation, which is a Christian doctrine. There is better scientific evidence for creation and there is a longer written history and oral tradition. Yet it is avoided because of fear of Christianity.

The biology classes teach these as theorys. That's all they are. The schools should not be teaching any religious theory.

But the truth is it is not considered discrimination because the Christian right still has a powerful influence in this country and that influence is getting stronger, not weaker. Rightly so, since this country was founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion. Discrimination against an influential entity simply is not considered discrimination in this country, even though they are protected by the same language as less influential minority groups.

This country was in no way "founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion" as there were non-christians in the congress at which it was formed. The specific statement in our founding document forbidding any corrolation between the power of religion with the state should be explanation enough.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I'm glad you said rarely, the ACLU has defended fundalmentalist christians when their liberties were challenged by government. It's also fair to say that as the dominant philosophy, christians rarely need defending.

Agreed, when you are correct, you rarely need defending.

There's also language in that document which talks against the mixture of that right of faith and the laws of the land. That is where the derision of Christians emerges, when their beliefs are forced.

The talk is that, government cannot implement a "State Religion". Just like the Church of England where they came from. They did not want Government to control religion, not the other way around. Religion is all in the government documents, but the writers of the constitution didn't want the Government to control religion -- not that God shouldn't be involved in government.

As long as these activities are outside the classroom or public demonstrations, they should be allowed.

Why does it have to be outside the classroom or any public place? The Lord is still the Lord of all of us, no matter how you "pray" to him, or whether you give him the respect he deserves or not. If you believe in evolution, and self, then your religion has you praying to "self" or "satan (the father of lies)". Either way, their should be nothing keeping anyone from praying anywhere.

The biology classes teach these as theorys. That's all they are. The schools should not be teaching any religious theory.

This is a religous theory. It is a religion that states that Man is in contol of everything, and doesn't have to listen to anyone. It has been debunked by common reasoning and knowledge for years. It is only continuing because too many "knowledgable" people are so self centered and selfish that they do not want to swallow their pride and admit that they might be beholden to anyone. Make no mistake, it is still a form of religion, and should be removed from all textbooks because it has been proven wrong over and over again.

This country was in no way "founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion" as there were non-christians in the congress at which it was formed. The specific statement in our founding document forbidding any corrolation between the power of religion with the state should be explanation enough.

[/quote]

There is not a document forbidding corrolation between religion and state. Their is one that states the government (state) cannot form a state religion. All people have the right to pray to God in the way that they think is proper. Whether you be baptist, methodist, or Catholic.....everyone has the right to their own religions traditions.

And this country was founded by people who believed in God, otherwise there couldn't be unalienable rights. If there are not unalienable rights, then government makes the rights -- they were totally against that idea.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dalmations202

Agreed, when you are correct, you rarely need defending.

No agreement then. Dominance does not equate to correctness. I see that attitude is pervasive in your view on the seperation of state and religion.

If you listen to the way that the far left speaks about Christianity, they are extremely intollerant. We are often referred to as "those people" and are all included under a single heading of "Christians." Many on the left use it as a curse word. Do you remember what this country was like when blacks were referred to as "those people?" It is discrimination when it refers to blacks. Yes it is different. It is a choice to be a Christian. However, those two things are protected using the same language in the constitution.

There's also language in that document which talks against the mixture of that right of faith and the laws of the land. That is where the derision of Christians emerges, when their beliefs are forced.[/quote]

The talk is that, government cannot implement a "State Religion". Just like the Church of England where they came from. They did not want Government to control religion, not the other way around. Religion is all in the government documents, but the writers of the constitution didn't want the Government to control religion -- not that God shouldn't be involved in government.[/quote]

Christianity is a religion, forbidden from being imposed on all Americans.

The founder's faith in a god is in the their documents, not a specific religion such as christianity. Is there any mention of Jesus? of christianity? nope, none.

Prayer and bible study in school is constantly being challenged by school systems. It is perfectly constitutional, yet public funded school systems are challenging it in court using public tax money. All the while the doors are flying open for muslims to be excused from class for prayer time.

As long as these activities are outside the classroom or public demonstrations, they should be allowed.[/quote]
Why does it have to be outside the classroom or any public place? The Lord is still the Lord of all of us, no matter how you "pray" to him, or whether you give him the respect he deserves or not. If you believe in evolution, and self, then your religion has you praying to "self" or "satan (the father of lies)". Either way, their should be nothing keeping anyone from praying anywhere.[/quote]

If it is iin the classrooom it is turning those schools into parochial ones. Your Lord is not the same Lord to all people of faith.

Evolution is continued to be taught as the absolute truth even though it is scientifically discreditied and no longer is backed by very many leading scientists. It's teaching as fact violates every rule of scientific analysis. The only reason it is still pushed so strong despite its huge holes is that the only other choice is creation, which is a Christian doctrine. There is better scientific evidence for creation and there is a longer written history and oral tradition. Yet it is avoided because of fear of Christianity.

The biology classes teach these as theorys. That's all they are. The schools should not be teaching any religious theory.[/quote]

This is a religous theory. It is a religion that states that Man is in contol of everything, and doesn't have to listen to anyone. It has been debunked by common reasoning and knowledge for years. It is only continuing because too many "knowledgable" people are so self centered and selfish that they do not want to swallow their pride and admit that they might be beholden to anyone. Make no mistake, it is still a form of religion, and should be removed from all textbooks because it has been proven wrong over and over again.[/quote]

That is all your interpertation of evolution. You can continue to believe such, but don't subject everybody else to that opinion by not presenting the theory of evolution to students.

Evolution has not been proven wrong just as it hasn't been proven absolute. That is why it is a theory, as I said above.

But the truth is it is not considered discrimination because the Christian right still has a powerful influence in this country and that influence is getting stronger, not weaker. Rightly so, since this country was founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion. Discrimination against an influential entity simply is not considered discrimination in this country, even though they are protected by the same language as less influential minority groups.

This country was in no way "founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion" as there were non-christians in the congress at which it was formed. The specific statement in our founding document forbidding any corrolation between the power of religion with the state should be explanation enough.[/quote]

There is not a document forbidding corrolation between religion and state. Their is one that states the government (state) cannot form a state religion. All people have the right to pray to God in the way that they think is proper. Whether you be baptist, methodist, or Catholic.....everyone has the right to their own religions traditions.

And this country was founded by people who believed in God, otherwise there couldn't be unalienable rights. If there are not unalienable rights, then government makes the rights -- they were totally against that idea.[/quote]

You stated that the US was "founded by Christians for the purpose of practicing and spreading the Christian religion" which is totally false.

It seems that your umbrella of faiths that have the right to pray" and "right to their traditions" are only those that happen to have christianity as its basis. That too is false, all faiths have the right to their traditions, and those who are not christians who wish to practice their faith have just as much right to their beliefs, and to not have christianity forced upon them.

[Mavdog]

double post

[Epitome22]

Amen

[Epitome22]

Ok here's what my Conservative theology major friend has to say about the article.


"He's right that the what the left practices towards Christianity isn't bigotry. But he uses the fact that some claim this as the first step towards building a straw-man that he will use to draw unjustified conclusions about the interplay between politics and personal values:

Arguments towards a conclusion about values might be based on reason and evidence, but to assert that values themselves have purely emperical origin is quite a significant philosophical move, and one that is quite difficult to justify. What the author does instead of trying to justify this untenable thesis (which would make his reasoning valid) is to draw an artificial dichotomy between "religious values" and "all other values" in order to imply the absurd conclusion that, while religious values divide people irrevokably, people agree on all other values to the extent that the only thing needed in order to settle disputes over such values is the presentation of purely empirical evidence. By making this artificial distinction, he allows the fact that any values, religious or not, cannot easily be seen as simply being justified by empirical evidence, to be ignored. Since people associate "religious 'insert term here'" so easily with "faith," he is able to simply relegate religious values to the realm of the non-evident, without addressing the question of whether other values that are not obviously religious in their origin (the values that, he falsely presumes, we all agree on, and shoud thus be the basis of public policy decisions) should not be subject to the same skepticism about their validity."

[sturm und drang]

Mavsman asked:

"And since when are Christians intolerant?? They are the most loving and caring religion on this earth. When's the last time a radical Christian has murdered someone from another religion to get his/her point across?"

Not recently. And you know why? Because Christians are in a position of a power. They are not the "other." They are not, in 99% of cases, the discriminated against. It's easy to throw the gauntlet when you are in control.

I am a Christian, and am embarrassed by our intolerance. When you compare Christianity to the other major world religions save Islam – that is, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. – we definitely come out on the intolerant end of the spectrum. Homophobia - yes! Women subservient? Yes! Grudging acceptance of racial parity - which is, meanwhile, a very recent pheonomen for many Christians – Yes!

The "most loving and caring religion on this earth?" I think not. Certainly not: Inclusion isn't something most Christians do particularly well. Please.

My favorite bumper sticker ever: "God, protect me from your followers."

[MavKikiNYC]

When's the last time a radical Christian has murdered someone from another religion to get his/her point across?

1998?