Religion And Politics In 2012
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-06/religion-and-politics-2012
It once looked as though religion could play a central role in this election. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon in modern times to run for president and both vice presidential candidates are Roman Catholic. But many voters don’t see it that way. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, most Americans are comfortable with what they know about the candidates’ faith. And they report their votes will have little to do with the nominee’s religion. Still, American politics is polarized by questions often connected to our religious beliefs –abortion, religious liberty, and gay marriage. But are we polarized to the point of no return? Join Diane and her guests as they discuss the role of religion in politics.
Guests
Jonathan Haidt
social psychologist and author of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion."
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, Brookings Institution. Author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Michael Gerson
syndicated columnist, author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
To AlbertLe (November 6, 2012 @ 10:53 am)
and
ecgberht (November 6, 2012 - 11:10 am)
I’m afraid you both have your history wrong. (And ecgberht, I was so close to agreeing with you completely!)
Religion played an important part on both sides of the fight over slavery, women’s rights, and equality. (Indeed, on every issue of social justice.)
Southerners cited the Bible to support their “peculiar institution”. While Northern troops marched to war singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic, one of whose stanzas goes like this:
“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea.
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make men holy, let us fight to make men free.”
Sounds pretty religious to me. (You’ll note which religion.)
And let’s not forget the role “religious views” played in the fight for civil rights, or doesn’t the name Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. ring a bell?
As for the Civil Rights Acts of the 60’s, yes it’s true Southern conservative Democrats opposed them, as did the Southern conservative Republicans. Northern liberal and moderate Democrats supported it, as did Northern liberal and moderate Republicans. Geography, and placement on the political spectrum, not party affiliation, was the deciding factor.
But what became of those Southern conservative Democrats? Why, they joined the Republican Party (with Strom Thurmond leading the way). Today, there are no more liberal Republicans left, and moderate Republicans are an endangered species.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Sorry, but it’s time today’s extremely conservative Republicans stop taking credit they don’t deserve. Had they voted in the 60’s, like Goldwater (and Rand Paul) they would have opposed those laws on the grounds of “States’ Rights”. The same argument the South used in support of slavery and secession. (And surely you know which party today has members favoring the latter.)
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 10:55 am wrote: “linda, I think what you meant to say was: . . .”
Sir, I’d take your rant a little more seriously (like the similar argument made by Republicans and conservatives in general) if that party and their candidate (both of whom you support) had a similar reluctance to using government to enforce other things Jesus and the Bible have to say. But of course they don’t.
Ban homosexuality? No problem. Ban abortion (which the Bible doesn’t mention)? Just fine. Prattle on and on about how religiously correct Americans should be? Yup. But take seriously the Bible’s literally hundreds of commandments to help the poor, sick, hungry (etc.)? Oh no, that’s for the private sector exclusively.
Also, I don’t recall Jesus extolling the acquisition of wealth, but I believe there’s a passage in the Bible about what the love of money is the root of.
I’d say the debate between the two of you is another example of why it’s an excellent idea to keep religion out of politics.
simplychris on November 6, 2012 @ 10:58 am wrote: “Christianity is a Lifestyle.”
And while you have the right to live that lifestyle, you have no right to use the government to compel others to live even a part of it. (Or, more accurately, to live as you define that “lifestyle”.)
If you have the right to force the rest of us to obey the beliefs of conservative, fundamentalist, Christians, then I have the right to force you to obey the beliefs of Jews. And one of those beliefs is that your religion is a crock of . . . .
Sorry to be so blunt about it (and don’t worry, I’d oppose any attempt to do that), but the point must be hammered home that the only thing that truly protects your faith is fealty to the principle of Church/State separation. Abandon that and all religions are fair game for whoever has the political power.
If principle does not convince you, consider this: Today Christians may be in the majority, but that may not always be true. What will you do, what argument could you make, if (after wielding the power of government to enforce your religious ideas) those of other faiths gain power and (resentful) do the same? What if they decide to force you to live according to the principles of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism - in short, every faith except Christianity. Don’t laugh. Civil wars have been and are being fought over this very thing. (Just ask the Iraqi’s or the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 11:30 am wrote: “Care to answer?”
I believe I already did (though probably back when you asked Eric that question, and after you asked it of me), so I won’t repeat myself.
Elaborating on equality for gays is very simple. Think of all the legal rights you enjoy (including the right to marry). Then imagine being deprived of them simply because you’re heterosexual. Also imagine being fired from your job merely for being straight, and politicians winning elections by proclaiming what a “threat” heterosexuals are, how they molest children, rape women, etc. If you would object to any of that for yourself, than you should object when it's done to gays and lesbians.
As for the Mosques, I’ll provide two (you can easily discover the rest, and I’m not doing research for you): Ground Zero, and Murfreesboro Tennessee. (Of course, in both cases the attempt to ban the Mosques failed. But that doesn’t change the fact that the attempts were made, by conservatives.)
Finally, challenging ideas is fine. But proclaiming that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in this country (or remain here), objecting when a Muslim Congressman takes his oath on the Koran instead of the Bible (for a ceremony that’s actually just a “photo op”), proclaiming secularists and liberals “un-Godly”, un-American, and a threat to the nation - that goes far beyond “challenging ideas”. It is slander, plain and simple. Conservatives have done all these things, and a lot more. (You know it as well as everyone else.)
And I wasn’t just talking about what happens “here” - as you well know. Enough with the sophistry.
This was a duplicate Comment that I've removed.
mmb on November 6, 2012 @ 11:34 am wrote: “Except that religions don't have to be ‘perverted’ into an excuse for evil; . . . .”
And they also have passages condemning all of that. (And they don’t all have those things either, nor does any one religion have all of them.)
I notice you ignore the examples of the misuse of non-religious beliefs. I assure you the people forcibly sterilized in the name of Darwinism, gassed and cremated for the good of “the master race”, and imprisoned in the Gulag in the name of the “worker’s utopia”, didn’t care a whit whether or not there was “chapter and verse” in the books of those philosophies calling for that to happen.
Nice try making your own excuse for evil.
(In your case: religious bigotry.)
ecgberht on November 6, 2012 @ 11:48 am wrote: “So imposing views is ok, so long as it's not coming from the right?”
More sophistry. I never said “imposing views”, I said imposing religious views. The adjective is all-important.
On December 8, 1941 some people had the “view” that fighting Germany and Japan was a good idea. Some had the “view” that it was bad. The former “imposed” their view on the latter. It’s called democracy.
But under the Constitution there are some things which are beyond “majority rule”. Jews can’t ban the consumption of pork (or cheeseburgers) or force circumcision on non-Jews, Catholics can’t ban divorce (or eating meat on Fridays), and Muslims can’t ban films mocking Mohammed. (Though they have as much right to peacefully protest the insult, as Christians have to peacefully protest insults to their faith.)
You’d be funny, except this topic is too serious for such dishonest arguments.
mmb on November 6, 2012 - 11:52 am wrote: “Without the aid of reason, much less the scientific method which accounts for the nonsense religions preach.”
And, of course, pure reason, and devotion to science always avoids nonsense, persecution, and evil.
There was no Reign of Terror during the Age of Reason. Conservatives never used Evolution to justify predatory Capitalism (in the name of Social Darwinism), the Eugenics movement (with its forced sterilization) had nothing to do with science, Nazism and Communism . . . been there, done that.
Yes, people can justify evil by claiming the are doing “God’s will”. Just as they can claim to be following the dictates of reason, the demands of science, or any other faith or philosophy.
I repeat, your Anti-Theism is simply the mirror-image of the thing you claim to oppose. You are as much a “fundamentalist” as Pat Robertson - and just as ignorant of history.
Elroy on November 6, 2012 @ 12:04 pm wrote: “On October 18 Whoopi Goldberg went after Ann Romney on the View with a false accusation about Mormons refusing to serve in the military. On October 19 Diane Rehm accused Romney of being a misogynist due to his Mormon religion.”
Excuse me, but that’s completely incorrect.
Whoopi Goldberg merely asked Romney whether the Mormon faith prevented military service. She clearly indicated that she might be wrong in that belief, and invited Romney to correct her if she was wrong. Which Ann Romney did. And given that she was basing this on something she had read, Goldberg was clearly giving Romney the opportunity to dispel a false rumor.
Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/check-out-the-odd-questions-whoopi-goldb...
That’s a conservative website, so you can be sure it’s true (since we all know conservatives never say anything untrue). Although you have to beware of the “spin” it puts on the exchange.
As for Diane Rehm, during the Friday news roundup they discussed the “binders of women” remark Romney had made during the debates, and the reaction to it. There was a discussion of how it sounded “like out of another era”, as one guest said (10:32:13). Rehm replied:
“But doesn't the response on women go back to the Mormon Church, where the focus is that women stay in the home? And perhaps that was his thinking, that, you know, he has surrounded himself with a lot of men, and women are in the home. Somebody is going to call me out on that, and that's fine.”
Hardly a claim he was misogynist, but simply a clumsy attempted speculation that Romney was unused to thinking of women in business because his Mormon experience has women in the home. It was a stupid remark by Diane, but hardly a “sinister White House plot”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Source: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-19/friday-news-roundup-domesti...
But I do wish the punditocracy and the commentariat (“left” or “right”) would stop pretending to knowledge they don’t have. Such speculation should be beneath Ms. Rehm.
partisan politics on November 6, 2012 @ 1:30 pm wrote: “By the way ES, what's with the pre broadcast comment.”
I assume you are referring to the first Comment I made here (since the others were either during or after the broadcast).
I was responding to another person’s Comment, one that did not relate directly to the broadcast itself, though it was “on topic”. One need not wait for the broadcast to reply to such a Comment.
On the other hand, too many people post pre-broadcast Comments assuming what’s going to be said on the show (and are often spectacularly wrong). That’s what I make objection to.
To ecgberht, writing on November 6, 2012 - 1:31 pm:
A) You advised that I should read the First Amendment. I replied that I have. If my reminding you of that fact is so painful for you, why bother asking me to read it?
(See? I can make snarky remarks too.)
B) I note you only addressed one of my four questions. Why evade and avoid the others?
C) Your “answer” to question 3 isn’t one, and it’s frankly meaningless in this context. Of course the Bill of Rights restricts the power of the government. That, in fact, is what the Constitution does as a whole: declare what powers the government does and doesn’t have. Except for Prohibition, there is no part of the Constitution restricting citizens in any way. Though, of course, the powers granted to the government include putting restrictions on citizens. We can’t commit treason (if Congress says so), we can’t violate patents and copyrights granted by Congress’s law, and we can’t conduct interstate commerce in ways that violate Congress’s regulation.
But what does any of that, or your “answer”, have to do with your original statement that it would be more accurate to refer to “the separation of state from church”. Answer: nothing.
D) It’s really tiresome when you pretend to knowledge of logical terms (especially in Latin), and then misuse them utterly (such as non sequitur). My conclusion, the answer to my questions, was anything but. I was addressing the oft made remark that the phrase “separation of Church and State” isn’t “in the Constitution”. Having demonstrated all the things that are and are not in the document, I then explained that it’s because of that very principle. If you were as knowledgeable of the Constitution, its history, and Constitutional Law as you pretend to be you’d know that.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
It’s also an appropriate response to your remark about what “would be more accurate”. The whole point of Church/State separation is to prevent any religion from using the government to advance its interests, especially while denigrating the rights of those who don’t share that faith. That’s why, as Washington said, “it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
- “Letter to The Members of the New Church in Baltimore”, reprinted at page 834 of George Washington, Writings, The Library of America Edition (1997) [Emphasis added.]
He was referring to the No Religious Test Clause (Article 6, Paragraph 3), which was put in the Constitution precisely because of the principle of Church/State separation. Or, as one Founder said in support of that Clause:
“religion is ever a matter between God and individuals and therefore no man or men can impose any religious test, without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
- Reverend Isaac Backus, The Debate on the Constitution - Part One (The Library of America, 1993), Page 931 (emphasis added).
If you knew history, you’d know that Backus was a Baptist - a denomination actively persecuted in much of the States, and denied public office because of such religious tests. Thus he keenly appreciated that unlike in Massachusetts (his home State), the Federal government couldn’t bar Baptists from government service. The Congregationalist Church of his State could use the government to advance itself, but it couldn’t use the Federal government. The Federal government was forbidden from interfering with his Baptist faith, which meant that Church couldn’t use that government for that purpose. Church and State were separate from each other.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
By the way, that’s why Jefferson’s letter speaking of a “wall of separation” was written to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut. All Baptists were keenly interested in that wall.
E) So now we indeed “come to it”. According to you (and most conservatives), anyone who believes in separation of Church and State, and doesn’t want religion (any religion) making laws to control our lives, must be a “secular humanist”. The Founders, especially Reverend Backus are spinning in their graves - hopefully with laughter!
F) I’ve explained what I mean by “impose their faith” too many times (not just with respect to this particular show) for your disingenuous remarks to be taken seriously. It’s simply more sophistry on your part. But I’ll go through the exercise one more time.
Yes, it’s impossible for anyone to completely separate their faith from their thinking. One does indeed “inform” the other. But there’s a big difference (a constitutional) difference between being influenced by a religious viewpoint, and trying to shove that viewpoint down another’s throat.
The first part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test requires a “secular legislative purpose” for legislation to be valid. The second part requires a principle or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. That means that provided a law is primarily secular in origin and effect, it doesn’t matter if there’s some religious aspect involved. (For example, Sunday closing laws have been upheld as a fulfilling the secular purpose of providing a day of rest, even though they have an obviously sectarian element.) But if those laws went further, and mandated church attendance? Forget about it!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
That’s the letter of the Constitutional law, but we can also consider the “spirit”. I don’t want people telling me who I can marry, or what women can do with their bodies, simply or primarily because their religion commands it. And even if a “secular legislative purpose” can be crafted to rationalize those laws, I (as a voter) can do what the courts are reluctant to do: look behind the rationalization and see that the source of the law is a desire to force me (or others) to obey a religious directive.
Hence my remark about Judaism. One could construct a “secular legislative purpose” behind a ban on pork and cheeseburgers: public health. But I wouldn’t swallow it for a minute, especially if the law was proposed by a President who was an Orthodox Jew!
So, enough with the sophistry already.
P.S. - This is how I write when I am criticizing you. I thought you might need a few examples to tell the difference.
Ciao, for now.
Do you think anybody actually read all that? I sure didn't. I skimmed some of it, so I'll just respond on two things.
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear, does it make a sound.
"Southerners cited the Bible to support their “peculiar institution”."
'The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.'
Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice
So what's your point?
"But what became of those Southern conservative Democrats? Why, they joined the Republican Party (with Strom Thurmond leading the way). Today, there are no more liberal Republicans left, and moderate Republicans are an endangered species."
Pure rhetoric. And I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is "middle of the road" to you.
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Spin it how you like. The only reason there was so little participation by Republicans in the racist south is because there were only 11 of them total between House and Senate. That was your party. Don't try to lay them off on the Republicans. THAT'S history.
I'm not going to reargue The "church and state" thing with you again. You're simply wrong, and again, no amount of rhetoric is going to put "church and state" in the Constitution, and no amount of rhetoric is going to refute the fact that the Bill of Rights - including amendment 1 - exists to protect the people from their government - not the other way around. That is ALSO history.
climatewiz1 on November 6, 2012 @ 4:45 pm wrote: “@ jediwoman: what is at issue with most Americans who you would consider on the ‘religious right’ is not weather you should, or should not have access or freedom to the things you mention. What is at issue is weather our collective tax dollars should be spent to pay for these things if you have a moral or religious objection to them.”
I’m afraid that’s not only non-responsive to what jediwoman wrote (November 6, 2012 - 3:09 pm), but it’s also incorrect.
She mentioned the following specific examples of what she considered to be violations of Church/State separation:
· Opposition to gay marriage
· Denying a woman’s right to choose abortion
· Anti-Sharia laws
· Defunding Planned Parenthood
Only the last involves “tax dollars”, and even then your argument doesn’t apply. By existing law, no tax money can be used for abortions (except to save the life or health of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest). For this reason Planned Parenthood keeps two budgets, that are strictly separate.
One, which can include tax money, is used for everything except abortion services. Things like mammographies, pre-natal examinations (to insure the pregnancy is going well), pre-natal counseling (to inform the woman of the things required for a successful pregnancy, and what to do after birth). I assume you have no “moral objection” to any of that!
The other budget is strictly for abortion services. No interchange between them takes place. Not one penny of tax dollars is spent on them. So “defunding” Planned Parenthood won’t affect abortion in anyway, but it will increase the number of women who go without screening for breast cancer. (And some of us have moral objections to that!)
Thus, while the distinction you mention is valid, it’s also mostly irrelevant to what jediwoman was saying.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Moreover, there is less to the distinction than you think, because there is no constitutional right to be free from laws (or taxes) you have a moral or religious objection to.
Bob Jones University practiced discrimination, forbidding inter-racial dating by its students. That was a violation of Federal law, for which it lost its tax exempt and tax deductible status. The University sued, claiming this was a violation of its religious freedom (which banned “race mixing”). It lost.
Native Americans sued for the right to use peyote (a “controlled substance”) in their religious ceremonies. They lost.
And, of course, you can’t perform a human sacrifice, and literally get away with murder!
Now, while there may be no such constitutional right, there can be exceptions granted as a matter of legislative “grace”. Most States have laws that prevent child cruelty or negligence. In such States parents who refused life-saving medical treatment (such as transfusions) would have the child removed from their custody, and the treatment performed by order of the court. They might even face criminal prosecution. But in some States an exception was made for religious beliefs. Parents who deny treatment because of their religious convictions are exempt from those laws (for example: members of Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists).
And that’s what ultimately happened with the Native Americans. After they lost in the Supreme Court, the Congress changed the drug laws so that an exception was made allowing the use of peyote in their ceremonies. Congress was under no constitutional duty to do this; it was an act of legislative grace.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
But, such grace must be given on a case-by-case basis. Anarchy would arise if we merely declared that people could ignore any law they had a moral or religious objection to. After all, why should pacifists pay taxes to support the military? Why should Atheists pay taxes for Christmas decorations (or those of any religion)? Why should religious segregationists or racists pay for educating Blacks (or members of any race they despise)? The list is infinite.
In fact, at least to those who believe in absolute separation of Church and State, even paying taxes for “faith based initiatives”, or for vouchers to religious schools, is “morally objectionable”. In that case, though, they can at least say the Constitution expressly says there shall be “no establishment of religion”.
(I’m not saying I necessarily agree with that particular argument.)
P.S. - And please stop with the OPM (Other People’s Money) rhetoric. As I’ve just pointed out, anytime someone favors a government program, whether it’s Social Security or the Army, it will involve spending “other people’s money”. But it also involves spending their own! (Liberals pay taxes too, including for the programs they support.)
P.P.S. - And of course you can’t legislate what’s in a person’s heart or mind. But you can control their conduct. Even the worst racist, the vilest Anti-Semite, the most insulting Anti-Theist (people who actively mock religion) have an absolute right to hold those views, and proclaim them. But they have no right to burn down a Black’s home, bomb a Jewish Deli, or murder people for attending Church. Neither must the laws be altered to accommodate their bigotry.
johnandere on November 8, 2012 @ 10:05 pm wrote: “Do you think anybody actually read all that? I sure didn't.”
I think people can read whatever they want. I also hope that anyone seriously interested in these issues, and in honest debate, will read and consider “all that”. Obviously, you don’t qualify.
I could respond in kind, and thus ignore the rest of your Comment, but someone has to be the adult here.
My point is easily understood if you bothered to read all of what I wrote in context, instead of just trying to play a game of “gotcha”. (And playing it ineptly, I might add). I was responding to the statement of AlbertLe (November 6, 2012 @ 10:53 am), who asserted that “religious texts” weren’t used to abolish slavery, and one of ecgberht (November 6, 2012 - 11:10 am), who I almost agreed with completely because he correctly stated that opposition to slavery was based on religion (or “moral principles” as he put it), thus refuting AlbertLe’s claim.
I simply completed the historical fact by pointing out that religion (and specifically the Bible) had been used to justify both slavery and the abolition of slavery. So, thank you for the Shakespeare quote (one of my favorites), which eloquently and succinctly stated the point I was obviously making: “The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
(See how much time and energy you wasted by not reading “all that”?)
As for the Civil Rights Acts (etc.), I wasn’t trying to “spin” anything (as you clearly) are. I expressly said: “Geography, and placement on the political spectrum, not party affiliation, was the deciding factor.”
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Again, if you bothered to read “all that”, you’d know that even more important than geography (North vs. South) was the ideological divide (liberals and moderates on one side, conservatives on the other). So, yes, the fact that there were more conservative Democrats in the South than conservative Republicans is why more Southern Democrats opposed civil rights than did Southern Republicans.
(By the way, the percentage of Southern Republicans who voted against the laws was greater than the percentage of Southern Democrats. That doesn’t really mean anything, but since you like citing useless statistics . . . .)
Of course, even with your numbers the plain fact emerges that a greater number of Democrats voted for those laws than did the number of Republicans. But, again, partisanship didn’t matter, political ideology did!
(Which is why your crack about Pelosi doesn’t matter either. Call her a “flaming leftist” for all I care. It was “flaming leftists”, liberals, and moderates in both parties who supported civil rights. It was the conservatives in both parties who opposed the laws.)
Which, of course, brings us to the point you are so desperately trying to evade and avoid: What became of those Southern conservative Democrats? Many, if not most, joined the Republican Party. (Ever hear the term “Southern Strategy”?) That’s how, as LBJ predicted when he signed those laws, the Democratic Party lost the South for a generation (and beyond).
And what became of liberal and moderate Republicans? The former no longer exist, and the latter barely exist.
That’s history!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
As for Church and State, all you offered (and offer) is pure rhetoric. I offered historical facts, relevant quotes from the Founders, and Supreme Court decisions.
And speaking of empty rhetoric, where (pray tell) did I say the Bill of Rights existed to protect government from the people? Answer: nowhere! You dreamed up that piece of nonsense as part of your desperate ideological need to avoid reality.
P.S. - So once again, eggie (or Johnny), this is how I write when I’m criticizing what you’ve written!
Ciao, for now.
"I expressly said: “Geography, and placement on the political spectrum, not party affiliation, was the deciding factor.”"
So when Democrats do what you like, you'll happily own them, but when they do something you don't, they belong to somebody else! Brilliant!
Oh, and on the "all that"? Since we're into scripture, here's another verse for you to ponder:
“When you pray, don’t babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think they will be heard merely because of their many words."
Matt 6:7
"I note you only addressed one of my four questions. Why evade and avoid the others?"
Because I'm under no obligation to answer or address anything you write or ask and often don't have the slightest interest in doing so. Get it?
" Of course the Bill of Rights restricts the power of the government. That, in fact, is what the Constitution does as a whole: declare what powers the government does and doesn’t have. Except for Prohibition, there is no part of the Constitution restricting citizens in any way. Though, of course, the powers granted to the government include putting restrictions on citizens."
That is the biggest pile of double-talk gibberish I've ever read.
ecgberht on November 7, 2012 @ 9:57 am wrote: “So you admit we've become depraved, it's just a question of why?!”
Well, I admit your writings certainly are depraved!
;-)
(See, I can make with the cheap shots too.)
No, I admit nothing, and see no reason to. My only statement was that the conservative myth about school prayer doesn’t stand up to facts, and that “I’d say there’s a few holes in your argument, about a mile wide each."
I notice you haven’t contested that.
Let me try to spell it out to you, so that (possibly) even you can understand.
Even if we accept your premise that we’ve become “more depraved” since Engel v. Vitale was rendered, the causal connection you assert isn’t supported by the facts. PERIOD!
Since you like throwing logical terms around, mindlessly, I’d say you’re guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
climatewiz1 on November 7, 2012 @ 1:58 pm wrote: “you missed the point on both of my posts.”
On the contrary, I responded to what I considered the relevant parts of the posts, and ignored what I considered to be absolute nonsense. Let’s take your point #1 first.
This passage (which you quoted in your Nov. 7th Comment) is a good example:
“Your reasoning is flawed. Agency is a basic human right - regardless of religion. Believe or don't believe - vote your personal values. You want to thwart or change that system? It works as much for you as against you"
That had absolutely nothing to do with the question of religious freedom, as expressed in the Constitution. (That was the topic of my original Comment of November 6, 2012 @ 12:22 am, which you were responding to.) Nor did it relate to the rest of what you babbled about in that paragraph: peer pressure, unions, family influence, race, personal belief systems and chosen or birth culture or life style. Blah, blah, blah. (Your Comment of November 6, 2012 - 11:01 am)
Although I did respond to the first part of that paragraph, which I considered relevant, and comprehensible, thusly:
“how dare you assume “those of faith” will vote one way, and “those who have no religious affiliation” will vote another. I am a Jew, but I will not vote for any candidate who uses government to impose their religious ideas on me, or anyone. That is the true distinction which must be made: between those who believe faith should wield the sword of government, and those who believe in “rendering unto Caesar” only those things that belong to Caesar. Religion isn’t one of them!
Source: My Comment of November 7, 2012 - 12:42 am.
What “agency” has to do with this, much less how it’s “a basic human right” is frankly beyond me. The rest of what you wrote in that Nov. 6th paragraph was pure gobbledegook.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
At the end of the day you are completely oblivious to the issue. It’s not what “influences” a person’s vote. It’s what that person is trying to do with that vote. I have no problem with “those of faith” seeking to advance “secular” goals (even if “informed” by their faith). But banning abortion because of religious doctrine, banning gay marriage because of religious doctrine, declaring one will only vote for “godly” candidates, are all examples of imposing a religious and sectarian view on the nation. That I oppose.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
As for your point #2, merely repeating what you wrote before doesn’t enhance your argument. You can shout it a dozen times, it’s still wrong (for the reasons I stated on November 9, 2012 - 4:42 pm).
And as for “word games”, as I stated in my earlier Comment that is the term which correctly describes your remark that “The 1st amendment came after the ‘founding’ of the nation. . . .” (Your Comment of November 6, 2012 @ 11:01 am). Again, I note you make no response to what I actually wrote in reply. You ignore the true history I laid out for your consideration. (Or “bloviate” as you call it.) Instead you evade and avoid the point.
And by the way, “word games” such as that, and evasion and avoidance, are also examples of sophistry.
Oy vey, indeed!
I can’t help observing that if you had a valid and relevant argument to make, you would have made it. That you didn’t is proof you have none.
P.S. - And next time, be so kind as to include date and time references to what you are "responding" to (as I do). It makes it far easier to follow the "thread" of the discussion.
ecgberht on November 7, 2012 @ 2:11 pm wrote: “Me? ... strudel?!!!”
Yes, you eggie.
As I already stated, I merely asked for information and you misconstrued it as criticism. That sounds “thin skinned” to me.
And clearly you don’t “know when it's being used in less than a complimentary way”. Had I (for example) said “It’s inapposite, and therefore irrelevant”, or accused you of “evasion and avoidance”, that would have been a critique and “less than” complimentary. But, when combined with a request for further information, it’s clearly nothing more or less than an expression of puzzlement.
Obviously, you are so used to being criticized on these pages (by me and so many others) that you interpret anything less than fulsome praise as a critique. Again, “thin skinned”.
“I'm just going to assume you're disagreeing to be disagreeable.”
Looking in the mirror again, are we?