I just wanted to say that if you found my lengthy condemnation of the perversion of the judicial and legislative system mean-spirited towards those of religious faith, then you have missed the point of the post completely. I have no problem with individuals who are deeply religious- I have a major problem with people who are profoundly religious and think it is an ideal that should be foisted upon the rest of society. And that is precisely what Tom DeLay and his ilk are trying to do.
When I use the terms ‘jihad,’ and ‘zealots,’ and ‘radicals,’ it is because that is how I have grown to view them. Religion is a wonderful source of divine inspiration for many, and in the past I have defended the Pope from what I felt were unfair attacks. Religion and religious teachings can be a wonderful source of morality and a foundation of guiding principles and laws, but they should not be the law itself.
You can count the recent failings of the Republican party as an epiphany for me, something I should have noticed earlier, but didn’t, or maybe didn’t want to. As a Republican, I spent most of my life in the minority party, so maybe I overlooked some things now that my side was in power. The signs were there, though- the growing overt hostility towards homosexuals, the marginalization of out-groups, the general sanctimoniousness, the groupthink, all tied in with the corporate cronyism best exemplified by the give-away to the credit card industry.
I don’t think religion has lost its way. Who should we expect to defend the existence of Terri Schiavo if not the Pope and other religious leaders? I would demand nothing less, and I would lose respect for them should they change their beliefs to suit the fickle will of the people. But the Pope and religious leaders do not and should not set the legislative agenda, nor should we all be forced to live by religious mandate. Clearly we can still recognize the difference between calls for moral behavior and the attempts to impose a Judeo-Christian version of Sharia.
While religion may not have lost its way, I do think my party has, although I reject the idea of a conservative crack-up. This isn’t a ‘crack-up’ so much as it is an internecine struggle for the soul of my party, and if you really think about it, as I have for the past couple of weeks, we just aren’t very ‘conservative’ anymore anyway.
Unless, of course, conservative means a profound lack of respect for individual liberty and individual wishes, a blatant disrespect for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, a condemnation of federalism and an outright hostility to limited government, as well as bloated government and heavy regulation of all media, including political speech. Then, of course, we are real damned ‘conservative.’ We have become nihilists, saying whatever is necessary to achieve short-term gain while holding almost no principles, other than retaining our death grip on the different branches of government.
I don’t want any more of it, and if it means we need to lose power, so be it. We have already lost our way, and I personally find myself much more comfortable opposing the stupid laws that came pre-1994 than I do now, when my party is the one proposing even worse legislation. And to make matters worse, we have been more disciplined and more successful passing bad legislation.
Look at these quotes to see how far we have strayed:
“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.”
“It’s political Daddyism and it’s as old as demagogues and despotism.”
“Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. ”
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
The Bull Moose is right- Barry Goldwater wouldn’t recognize our party anymore, and I get the growing suspicion that William F. Buckley doesn’t, either. Ever wonder why William F. Buckley has the position he does on our drug policy?
I am sorry if you are deeply religious and I offended you- that was not my intent. I want you to look at what these radicals we have elected are doing- systematically dismantling our democracy in the pursuit of cash and power.
I am sorry if you think I am all soapbox and no soap. There are plenty of other blogs out there for you that can and will give you the party line. I may be wrong about a lot of things, but my beliefs are genuine.
And I am sorry if I sound ‘shrill’ or ‘extreme’ or ‘unhinged.’ I confess- right now I am all of the above, but for good reason. I have taken a good look around, including in my own archives with their damning accuracy, and I just don’t like what I see. Let me just say that there is no monster as scary as the one staring at you in the mirror.
If that means I am no longer a member of the good Republican club, then I will just have to live with it. I most certainly am not going to throw everything I believe out the window to become a Democrat, so I am going to remain shrill and extreme and unhinged and a member of the GOP until things start to change and we regain our focus, because right now I feel a lot like Dr. Frankenstein. Quitting the party would be the easy way out. I helped break this, I need to help fix it.
And with that, let me leave you with one more quote:
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
And it IS our liberty that is at stake.
*** Update ***
How about this for a bellwether? When you read Maureen Dowd, and say to your self, “Shit. She is 100% right,” it is time for some serious soul-searching.
John
So your basic argument seems to be people can be religious as long as they don
John Cole
Not a straw man at all. I respect their right to practice as they want, and I respect their desire to live ina moral society. I don;t respect their desire to force it on everyone else.
It is the distinction betwen prosyletizing and being Christian.
CaseyL
John, Terri Schiavo is not “mentally retarded.” She is not a moron, an imbecile, or an idiot. To be a moron, an imbecile, or an idiot requires having a functioning cerebral cortex. Terri doesn’t have that. No amount of appealing to religiosity is going to change the fact – the medically verified fact – that her cerebral cortex has turned to liquid.
But John’s insistence on giving religion not just equal place with verifiable fact, but primacy over verifiable fact, very nicely points up another absurdity in the Religious Right’s takeover of the GOP.
The GOP’s conservatism used to be based on the idea of rugged individualism, once considered the quintessential manly trait. Real men made their own way, with their own wits and strengths. Real men liked real facts, not a bunch of sociological, psychological mush about racism, sexism, and “validation.” Real men certainly didn’t go in for public religious hysterics, and they didn’t tolerate a bunch of preachers telling them what Jesus wanted them to do.
That, according to the tenets of Real Manism, was for weaklings, liberals, and women.
Yet now, what do we see? We see the leading lights of the GOP proclaiming that Terri Schiavo is not in a PVS, and can indeed “recover” with time and the proper therapy – this, in the face of actual medical facts. We see the leading lights of the GOP dismissing actual medical facts in favor of appeals to some vague hope of divine intervention. We see the GOP appealing, not to Real Man science, rationality and reason, but to feelings, and faith. To “womanish” things, in other words.
Today’s GOP has traded its Real Man heritage for a mentality straight out of Lady’s Home Journal.
Tadeusz
The typical canard is that one cannot legislate morality. Now obviously this is not true. We do it all the time. I won’t belabor this point as I think you already understand it.
What we should not do is legislate godliness, a higher standard than mere morality. But basic morality is essential to the maintenance of a civil order.
Maintaining America is a complicated course for the nation to run. There is no clear and easy path with five simple guidelines to follow. Where is the dividing line between necessary morality, and overweening intrusion? I’m not sure. That is one reason I don’t support too much libertarianism. Its too simple, too easy. But I’ll be happy to support some libertarianism.
Provided libertarians don’t go around picking fights just for the heck of it. I’ve seen a lot of it recently. I usually take the role of trying to point out the benefits of the partnership to both the greater socon side and the lesser libertarian side, and try to spread oil on the water.
But I’m starting to think maybe we need to set the oil on fire. I’m starting to feel like a guy who keeps getting pushed for no good reason, and is losing his patience.
If the lightweight in politics (that would be the less active, less numerous and divided on Iraq group–the libertarians) keeps wanting to push around the heavyweight then perhaps the heavyweight out to wind back just one punch. Lay the lightweight out. Might cost us the next election, but like I said, I’m starting to get a bit cheesed off.
So I’m glad to see Insty emphasizing how cordial his disagreement with Hewitt was. There, thats not so hard. And if you really think the opposing side in the party is “Jihadi” then why aren’t you arming yourself for revolution? The obvious answer is that it is hyperbole, and particularly unhelpful to the Nation and to the Conservative cause and to the Libertarian cause because words like that make people want to reduce your political power quite severely.
Tadeusz
Jay
Bravo!
Misha I
OK, so let me see if I have this right:
I’m free to be a Christian but, if ever I find myself a legislator and propose a bill, then I’m a jihadi and a zealot if said bill contains anything that anybody might claim had something to do with my faith? Damn, I’d be hard pushed to come up with anything that couldn’t be traced back to the Ten Commandments, just for starters.
I guess I’m a wild-eyed, terrorist jihadist then.
Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works, anymore than it would be sane to demand that a Democrat is free to be a Democrat as long as his legislative efforts do not reflect that fact.
John Cole
No Misha. It is the imposition of your faith I object to, particularly, as in this case, when the imposition is specially intended to upset numerous court decisions and estabolished law.
Misha I
But John, I can no more be apart from my faith than I can be two people at once.
My beliefs come from my faith and vice versa.
I’m not trying to force anybody to be baptized, nor am I trying to force anybody to accept holy communion, I’m merely advocating beliefs that I hold near and dear to my heart.
Obviously, they can’t be apart from my faith since that is part of who I am.
Scott Chaffin
Sure you can, Misha. St. Michael of Schiavo is two people. He’s a loving husband who only desires his wife’s wishes carried out, AND he’s a normal man who’s moved on to the next phase of his life with his new love. It’s easy — even the Law says it’s cool.
You might try finding an identity that exists outside of the Republican party and the conservative movement, Cole, or just go ahead and become a politician. You feel like Frankenstein because you are.
Incog Neato
Wow. You have done an amazing job of convincing me(a Democrat) that not all of your party has lined up at the Kool-Aid counter.
You have won a new fan. I may not always agree with you….but I will always respect you.
Fight the good fight.
Incog Neato
My advice to you Misha: Do not go into Politics. There is not a single Politician out there(from any party) that does not put his or her own personal beliefs on the sidelines in order to get elected. Probably one of the reasons that Politicians are not looked upon as being amongst the most honest folks in our society.
The Sanity Inspector
Well, if we want to talk about role inversions, we have the spectacle of liberals in this case, too. Libs used to be the ones who wanted to expand the circle of society’s protection, to extend the franchise to the formerly outcaste, to protect the weak, to be one big American family. Not this time! It’s giving them psychic indigestion having this woman around.
John, your points are fairly made and well taken. But I disagree with your seeming presumption that religion is properly a private vice. Consider these two quotes:
“The problem, of course, is that neither [church nor state] is prepared to remain within its institutional boundaries. Government, if it is to be
sustainable, engages beliefs and loyalties of an ultimate sort that can properly be called religious. As the impulse of the modern state is to define all public space as governmental space, so the consequence is a tendency toward “civil religion.” Religion, on the other hand, if it represents a comprehensive belief system, speaks to the human condition in all its aspects, including the right ordering (the government) of public life….Thus each institution is, in the eyes of the other, constantly bursting its bounds. Therein is the foundation of the open-ended argument between church and state. Open-ended, that is, so long as a society professes to be democratic.”
— Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square, 1984
“Would you really be more proud of and more connected to your Judaism if it had nothing to say about hunger or homelessness; nothing
to say about capital punishment or abortion; nothing to say about
euthanasia or rationing health care; nothing to say about genetic
engineering or third world debt, violence or pornography, poverty or slavery? Woud Judaism truly inspire you and uplift you, would it transform your soul and realize your dreams if it was merely a
complete theory of candle lighting and bread blessing?”
— Marc Gellman, “Joe Lieberman as Rorschach Test”, _First Things_, Dec. 2000
CadillaqJaq
It appears to me that the inmates are running both asylums: Republican and Democrat.
What the Schiavo issue has made clear to me, as I posted somewhere recently, is that it has brought out the worst of the worst at their worst: in politicians and in ordinary folks.
Frankly, I’m fearful of where this contention and bitterness will lead the country.
Oatmealman
What makes a cup useful is the emptiness it hides inside. When filled, it is the contents that we use. When a cup is filled to the brim, it runs over, spoiling the contents. If we empty ourselves, we may forever be filled. If we seek to pour our beliefs into the emptiness of others, such will be our destiny. It is natural to want to fill the cup. It is harder to open oneself, to empty the cup. Thus, it has been so wisely said, “it’s what’s inside that counts.”
Godspeed.
Greg Burton
John, I appreciate that you’re trying to articulate a rational, conservative position. Often, I suspect the liberal conservative dichotomy is a false one. The authoritarian/libertarian axis, the collective/individual axis, the public welfare/public security axis – these are all more important than a simple liberal/conservative reading that misses the point of our real similarities and differences.
Your quotes from Goldwater remind me that he and JFK were friends who disagreed on politics. I remember Goldwater talking (on CBS?) about how if Kennedy had lived, they had an idea of doing a whistlestop campaign across Amerca – together. And how they would lay out their different visions – together. And how bitter Goldwater was about the way LBJ chose to turn the campaign into win at all cost demonization.
I don’t think that it’s only a coincidence that LBJ and Bush both come out of Texas politics. I say this half in jest, but perhaps the real issue isn’t liberal/conservative – but is really Texas-style politics.
John
Well CaseyL, if it makes you feel better to assume that Terri is in PVS that fine, of course most “Real Men” wouldn’t deny water to a potted plant let alone a person. FYI I don’t believe in God, but I understand that for some their morals and values are tied to their faith. What John Cole is asking for is impossible for a true religious person. Either you are living according to the tenets of the Bible, or the Koran, or any other religion, or your not. There is no pretending with a God, and God takes presidence. Order of operations God > Family > Country.
AT
John Cole, let me propose a hypothetical situation.
1. Suppose you believe strongly in the sanctity of life.
2. Suppose you believe the state has a duty to protect life. In fact, you believe this is the state’s primary duty, since no other individual rights matter without life.
3. Suppose you believe there is an individual whose status of life is in dispute, with credible evidence on both sides.
4. Suppose you believe that, while this question has been litigated in state courts, you believe so many errors exist with the proceedings and so many factual questions remain unanswered that you do not believe due process has been allowed.
5. Suppose you are a federal legislator, and the one thing you can do is grant federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims that this individual’s right to life is being violated.
Do you do the one thing you can do, the thing that you believe you must do, or do you not do it, because that would violate somebody’s notion of federalism, or limited government?
Do you act against your conscience, letting it go as acceptable collateral damage?
Do you really think people who disagree with you on this are one step removed from locking little girls in a burning school because they weren’t covering their faces?
Is your anger over this really rooted in any principled disagreement, or is it really that you disagree over the facts of one person’s condition?
Can you tell me that Marjorie Nighbert was adequtely served by due process in state courts?
Jesurgislac
AT, that’s an interesting hypothesis, but you’re surely not trying to claim that George W. Bush or Tom DeLay believe in the sanctity of life? They’re both pro-death penalty and pro-war.
(And, as I presume you know, point 4 is plain untrue.)
AT
Jesurgislac:
Why yes, it’s totally inconsistent that I can be against abortion and yet think Saddam Hussein should be hanged in an alley. Next.
As for #4, do you think it’s unreasonable to think that a federal court should have jurisdiction over claims that the right not to be deprived of due process by a state without due process has been violated? Now maybe you think it’s a bad idea, but is it unreasonable?
For reference, the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
For the record, I don’t think Michael Schiavo is a bad person, I don’t think the Schindlers quite have it together, I think it is more likely than not that Theresa is in a PVS, I am not religious, I am concerned about Congress’s involvement in this issue, and I am not happy that Congress passed a public law applicable to one person. I am with those who are disturbed by every aspect of this fiasco, and more than the case of Terri Schiavo, I worry about the cases of Robert Wendland and Marjorie Nighbert.
Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is insane or stupid or evil? Do you really think this takes us that much closer to a society where men are beaten for shaving?
I worry about them coming for me and killing me. That’s what really concerns me.
Decided FenceSitter
AT,
Question, how do you combine the reductions in Medicaid, restrictions on Tort reform, the concern with Ms. Schiavo’s life, and the fact that she’s been supported by both a tort case AND medicaid?
And considering the trust fund, if I remember, is down from millions to a mere 50K, the fact that Mr. Schiavo would probably have gone bankrupt trying to pay for the treatment? How are these supportive of the culture of life?
I can accept being pro-life in this case, and supporting war, supporting the death penalty.
And for those who feel that this case is suffering massive judicial mistakes, do you feel the same outrage for the defendant who is being defended by a underpaid, overworked public defender who has neither the time, the money, or occasionally the inclination to properly defend his client?
Joe Schmoe
John, I just don’t see where you are coming from on this.
From what I can see, the religious right is only motivated by one thing: the desire to save a helpless woman’s life.
They’re not trying to convert everyone to Christianity or force them to conform to Christian beliefs.
They’re not trying to destroy fedralism. They may be choosing to get the federal government to intervene in this case, and that may arguably set a bad precedent (I think this case is a one-off and don’t really worry about the slippery slope), but there is no sweeping power game going on here.
They aren’t trying to censor anyone.
They aren’t trying to get the federal government to tithe 10% of its tax revenue or anything like that.
They’re just trying to save a woman’s life. They are heartsick at the sight of her parents begging for her to be saved and want to help her. Period.
So what are you afraid of? Why are you accusing these people of having a bigger agenda, or darker motives, when clearly, they don’t?
You might think that Ms. Schiavo can’t be saved. That is a fair point. I think you are probably right. But the fact that the religious right doesn’t accept that fact just means that they disagree with you. It doesn’t mean that they are trying to create a Taliban like state. Also, I suspect that if you were to get to know more familes of disabled people (many of whom are deeply religious, BTW), your perspective might change a little bit. But even if it doesn’t, it just means you disagree about Ms. Schaivo’s state of consciousness and her prospects for improvement. There is nothing larger at stake.
Also, and I hate to say this but I do think it is true, libertrarians just aren’t numerous enough to be that influential. The possibility of a “schisim” between the religious right and libertarians doesn’t bother me in the least.
For a schsim to occur there must be a credible alternative that the libertarians can turn to. Who are they going to vote for? John Kerry? Howard Dean? Hillary?
Second, in absolute terms, I just don’t think there are that many libertarians. It’s an upper-middle-class white male geek thing. There are a lot more evangelical Christians than P.J. O’Rourkes. A whole lot more. If the two groups should ever clash, there will be a clear winne.
John Cole
John, I just don’t see where you are coming from on this.
From what I can see, the religious right is only motivated by one thing: the desire to save a helpless woman’s life.
They’re not trying to convert everyone to Christianity or force them to conform to Christian beliefs.
They are trying to save her life, against her wishes, aginst her husband’s wiushes, in defiance of the rule of law, and when that finally sank in, they tried to change the law, villified the husband, tried to deny Mrs. Schiavo ever felt the way she did, denied medical science, attacked the judiciary and all the judges, attempted to subvert democracy by bullying through special legislation, and now, when all that has failed, they are waging outright threats that Gov. Bush has to break into the hospice and ‘rescue’ her or there will be, and I quote, “hell to pay.”
Yeah. All is right in Jesusville. No one is trying to impose their views or way of life on anyone.
CaseyL
Why didn’t all of you who are so vociferous about Terri Schiavo utter a single word about Sun Hudson?
Why haven’t all of you who are so vociferous about changing the law and defying the courts in order to “save” Terri Schiavo being equally vocal about overturning the law in Texas that allows hospitals to withdraw treatment from patients just like Terri Schiavo, and which allows them to do so no matter what their relatives want?
Steve Malynn
And when you agree with both Maureen and Rich, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/arts/27Rich.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1111683616-QSNaCzLhfvSNaRr8Av/GWQ, you really should do some soul searching.
Did he crib your notes John?
checkingouttheotherside
Joe Schmoe: Yes, we ARE being tithed. My tax dollars are being spent on “faith-based initiatives”, and I have no voice in the matter. That is absolutely forced tithing.
Ken C.
“They’re just trying to save a woman’s life. They are heartsick at the sight of her parents begging for her to be saved and want to help her. Period.
So what are you afraid of? Why are you accusing these people of having a bigger agenda, or darker motives, when clearly, they don’t?”
-Joe Schmoe
“Our goal is a Christian nation. … We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism. … Theocracy means God rules.”
-Randall Terry