For far too long, conservatives have made political hay with the notion that they are the party of ideas and the party of values—even as they’ve held a far too timid opposition at bay for having neither.
Enough, already.
The free ride is over: conservatives have not had a new idea since The Gipper left office, and it’s about time we saw their “values” for what they really are—anti-American.
For the right, “values” have been nothing less than a free ride for decades, at least since “family values” became the mantra of a Nixonian majority. For years, the ethical high ground that began with battling abortion was all but unassailable, as conservatives decried a world where they felt personal freedoms like homosexuality—and entitlements to government largesse—had run amuck compared to the normalcy embraced by their backward-looking movement. In defense of the traditional American family, the values peddlers found all manner of evil in sex, drugs, and rock and roll, not to mention the more nuanced world of liberal thought.
Whatever merit in their arguments—and real merit was not entirely MIA, particularly in the abortion debate—by the 21st Century conservatives posited a worldview that rejected science, evolution, homosexuality, environmentalism, and now even sexual equality. In so doing, conservatism has become a movement that is all about slavish conformity—and the active repression of the way real people live in the real world—with values so warped the Founding Fathers would find them unrecognizable.
Let’s start with sexual equality. Just moments ago, some 42 Republican Senators—including Republican Presidential nominee John McCain—chose to block a law that would have advanced equal pay for equal work for women. That’s right: the Republicans banded together to stop the so-called Lily Ledbetter Law cold because they would rather keep wages low than protect women in the workforce.
Or how about science? Conservatives who tried “creationism” (and failed), and tried “intelligent design” (and failed), are now back with the nefarious Orwellian formulation of “academic freedom.” Rather than fight evolution, they now say we should of course teach the teachings of Darwin in the company of competing theories, like the one in the Bible that says the earth is only five or six thousand years old, rather than the eons scientists insist upon. This is no joke: five different state legislatures—Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, and Missouri—now have “academic freedom” statutes under consideration.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Laws that discriminate against homosexuals are another example. Though some conservatives might eventually endorse civil union as a reasonable alternative for gays, they would never ever back gay marriage—and with good reason. Conservatives, you see, want to create a separate category for homosexuals—separate but equal. If they could, they might even suggest water fountains and washrooms for those men who seek the love of men, and women who love women. For those who find the notion abhorrent, they can point backwards to the simpler times of segregation and the bucolic rhythms of the Old South.
And when talk turns to the environment, conservatives ironically want nothing to do with conservation. Though the basic tenets of their creed would imply a reverence for the past and preservation of America’s natural beauty, conservatives—delighted to let foxes watch henhouses—give way to business interests every time. If there’s a buck to be made or a national park to be plundered, conservatives will take the money and run like there’s no tomorrow.
Most of the American people have wised up to the anti-American acidity of conservative values, and that might explain why polls put the approval of Republican methods at 27 percent or so. Even so, Republican Presidential candidate McCain, determined to embrace a newfound conservatism, polls 20 points higher because Americans believe the Senator’s values match their own, according Wall Street Journal/NBC pollster Peter Hart.
So the free ride on “values” continues for the right with no accountability.
If you reject evolution and caring for the environment, if you want to consign gays to second-class citizenship, or if you believe women should make a fraction of what men make at work, then by all means vote for John McCain and every conservative candidate you can find.
But if you believe the American values of liberty and justice for all trump all—if you believe in the very things that make our experiment in democracy transcendent and unprecedented—then it might be time to consider the true American values that carry a value beyond all measurement.
Michael,
The fact that you consistently confuse Christian conservatism with political conservatism considerably weakens your arguments. Lumping America’s political conservatives (of which I am one) into a “values based,” anti Rock-n-roll, anti-science, pro-Bible conglomerate, is not only erroneous, it is “incredibly offensive” to the majority of us who believe in the true conservative values of personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, and anti-governmental interference in our personal lives and choices.
Yes, conservatism has been hijacked by the Christian coalition. Yes the Republican party has been hijacked by the Neocons. But for Liberals to brand the entire conservative constituency with the actually converse ideas of these radical fringe groups, proves that they are no better at identifying and defining the real issues than those they condemn.
Your insistence in demonizing the perceived enemy of liberty and justice for all, only proves your ignorance of the fact that liberty and justice for all was the original conservative value.
I have to agree with “G” on this. I turned off the radio on Monday after listening to the Con Man say that we wouldn’t have rock and roll if it were up to conservatives. That is so much bullshit it wasn’t worth calling in to debate. Somewhere the Conman’s bias against Christianity and the political realm of things has gone badly astray.
I consider myself an ultra conservative with regards to governmental polices, individual rights and the constitution. I also have listened to rock and roll my whole life, believe in stem cell research and am furious that more is not being done in this area, and a host of other things that would place me in an area that most would consider the middle or norm with the American people value wise while still maintaining a strongly conservative stance with regards to political leaning.
The current Republican party majority is not reflective of what I believe nor most of the Republicans that I know. My beliefs are not based on religion, it is based on rights, small government, fiscal responsibly, individual responsibility, and enforcement of laws that reflect the will of the people that serve societies needs as a whole.
The thing is why do liberals hate conservatives so much? Are they afraid? I don’t get these venom attacks. I don’t hate liberals…I even like most that I have come across even if we differ in our political views. Besides…I have found that even the most staunch liberal will come to their senses given a few hours of water boarding.
LOL, Alpha…
In the Wall Street Journal the other day, there was a book review of Arthur C. Brooks’ Gross National Happiness. A passage from the first paragraph amused me:
WSJ columnist Dave Shiflett also quotes Brooks’ contention, “political conservatives take the happiness prize hands down.” The Con Man reads WSJ regularly. I’m quite sure he blew coffee all over his copy when he read that…
Cheers,
After today’s CON GAMES I am really starting to become alarmed at the level of hypocrisy the show has reached and can sympathize with Wharf Rat’s decision to give up listening for that very reason.
Newsflash! Just because the Christian Right believes abortion and gay marriage are wrong doesn’t make those Conservative values. Christian Conservatism may be the loudest voice, but it isn’t the only voice and certainly doesn’t speak for all Conservatives.
Then there is Michael’s total avoidance of mentioning Neocons, which is a bastardized subset of Conservatism that actually started off in the Liberal camp. Torture and wiretapping are not Conservative practices; they belong squarely on the Neoconservatives’ shoulders.
But Michael continues to speak about Conservatives as if they are one homogenous group, utterly eschewing the qualifiers needed to differentiate various philosophies within Conservatism.
“Conservatives don’t believe in evolution.”
“Conservatives don’t want equal pay for women.”
“Conservatives are against rights for gay people.”
“Conservatives hate Rock-n-Roll.”
How is that any different than;
“Liberals want to tax and spend.”
“Liberals want open borders.”
“Liberals want to destroy the sanctity of marriage.”
“Liberals are all tree-hugging Leftist looneys.”
In one breath Michael chastised Conservatives for lumping all Liberals together under the Moveon.org banner, then in the next breath he lumps all Conservatives together under the Christian values banner. What’s up with that? If it’s bad for Conservatives to generalize Liberal ideology, then isn’t it just as bad for Liberals to generalize Conservative ideology? Last time I checked, two wrongs still don’t make a right.
With his insistence on promoting the idea that Liberals are great and Conservatives suck, Con Man is not alleviating the political tension in America, he is contributing to it. Maybe he needs to stop listening to Rush and Beck and find out what True Conservatives believe. He can start by listening to us bloggers and then maybe do a little independent research. He might be surprised to learn that he may be closer to being a Conservative than he thinks.
Michael wants all Conservatives to personally take the blame for every decision the Bush administration has made. I’ll agree to that if he agrees to personally take the blame for every decision made by the Carter and Clinton administrations, or when Hell freezes over, whichever comes first.
If you call me a “hypocrite,” them’s fighting words that assume an inner knowledge of me that you could not possibly have.
I have meticulously and repeatedly described the fault line in the conservative movement–talked about it for years, including today–in a way that makes it clear that is is an “unholy alliance” (quote from today) between the social Christian conservatives and the libertarian types. To act as if I don’t get the distinction is willful ignorance.
(The neocons, in my view, are a breed apart who focus almost all their energies on foreign policy and the Middle East. I yield to no man or woman in my willingness to slam them over the years.)
As for rock ‘n’ roll don’t forget it was a highly controversial music that bespoke illicit sex and danger going back to blacks and the blues. Rock rocked the boat and conservatives were literally appalled by the prospects. That’s a fact, brothers and sisters. If it were up to conservatives there would be no rock ‘n’ roll. We’re talking 1950s here, not the 21st Century, which seems to have confused all you rock-loving conservatives nowadays. Back in the day conservatives wanted to have it banned.
You want a better example? How about segregation. Had it been up to the conservatives in the 1950s and 1960s we would still be a segregated nation because they in general could have cared less. Don’t believe me? Here’s a direct analogy: gay rights in the 21st Century. Were it up to conservatives today, there would be no civil union, no gay marriage, no granting of rights to homosexuals. I defy anyone out there to prove me wrong on this one.
Here’s the good news for all of us: the two parties are nominating candidates all but devoid of hard-core conservatism because voters want nothing to do with it. That, too, is a fact.
Final question: where were all of you (boo-hoo) who decry this criticism of conservatism during the 20 years when liberals were punching bags for conservative media bias?
Probably listening to “Sympathy For The Devil.”
Best, Con Man!
Michael,
[We're talking 1950s here, not the 21st Century, which seems to have confused all you rock-loving conservatives nowadays. Back in the day conservatives wanted to have it banned.]
If you’re talking about the 1950s, I suppose you’re dialed in on historical information for which I have no life experience. Even though I was very young, I’ll stipulate that the rock of the 1960s gave many pause. That said, to yoke this around the neck of conservatism is myopic. Surely you remember the more contemporaneous actions of everyone’s favorite conservationist and former Vice President Al Gore’s wife, Tipper, who gave us the Parents Resource Music Center.
I don’t decry your criticism of conservatism. It’s too rich a source of amusement.
Cheers,
I agree completely with reckless G, Mitch Mulhall and alpha6 on this one. Michael, your protestations look less factual and more biased every time you open up the subject. Really, your show on Monday was disturbing to listen to – but I do like the ability to listen on-line whenever I can fit it in.
It is times like these that I like to pull out my trusty quote from Winston Churchill (though many claim he never said it). It goes something like this: When you’re young and impressionable, if you’re not a liberal, you have no heart. When you’re old and learned, if you’re not a conservative, you have no brain.
Michael is just a slow learner and taking longer to come around than most of the rest of us!!
PETE
I’m genuinely tickled that I’ve hit the conservative funny bone. Funny how nobody really addresses the substance of what I said about segregation and homophobia. Instead, the conservative vowel movement is happy with the deeply held intellectual argument: “But I’m not like that. No, really, I’m not. I actually LOVE rock ‘n’ roll.”
Best, Con Man!
Michael,
I’m not calling you a hypocrite, but when you as a Liberal talk show host engage in the very namecalling and generalizing that you claim to oppose in Conservative talk show hosts, well what am I supposed to say; it’s ok, it’s different when you do it? One of the things I’ve admired most about you is your fairmindedness when dealing with callers of all political stripes, and your willingness to listen to and engage in debate with people who don’t think like you. You have also set a high standard for us here at Aspen Post; “Don’t get personal.” Well lately, you’ve been getting personal, albeit against a political group rather than an individual, but in my opinion the same standards should apply.
Lately, you seem to have gone over to the dark side. I sense a seething anger over the criticism Liberals have been receiving from Conservatives and a desire to give them a taste of their own medicine. But in so doing, you have let them push you over the edge into intolerance and bigotry. You have become them.
My frustration with you is that I believe you are better than that. I WANT you to be better than that. This is funny because I have spent hours defending you to a friend, a former listener, who became disenchanted with your show because you weren’t living up to his expectations. I’ve told him he should give you a break, you’re doing the best you can, and a damn good job in my opinion, and your inability to meet his expectations is not your problem, it’s his. Now I’m telling you that I have a problem with your inability to meet my expectations. Still, the problem is mine, not yours.
It’s your show and you can conduct yourself in whatever manner you choose. It’s your prerogative to insist that Conservatives are intolerant, backwards, Bible-thumpers who are ruining America. And it’s my prerogative to turn off the radio. Instead, I choose to take you to task here on the blog. I do so because I think there is something very important going on here. This division between Americans, categorized as Liberal vs. Conservative is a dangerous and destructive trend. The only way to solve our problems is to come together and find common goals and ideals that we can all agree on. Defining the “other” as wrong, ignorant, intolerant, will only create more division and less cooperation.
It’s true that for years Liberals have been harshly and unjustly accused by Conservatives of being bad for America. The ironic thing is that lately Liberals, who describe themselves as the more tolerant of the two camps, have become just as intolerant in their conversation about Conservatives. Instead of taking the high road, Liberals have decided to wallow in the mud with those they despise. This is what I’m hearing on CON GAMES. And I have to confess I don’t like it. The same as I don’t like it when people call President Bush derogatory names. Even though I disagree with his policies, the man still deserves to be treated with respect, the same as anyone we disagree with.
Finally Michael, in discussing the reaction to your criticism of Conservatives on CON GAMES, you seem to be under the impression that we are reacting to the fact that we are being criticized for our views, but in reality what we are reacting to is your unfair assessment of Conservatives in general. We are reacting against the idea you have promoted and perpetuated, that Conservatives hate Liberals, hate people of color, hate gays, are against civil liberties and personal choice and peace. We are reacting to your confusion of politically conservative ideals with Christian Right values and Neocon practices. It’s exactly the way Liberals react when they are unfairly accused by Conservative talk show hosts. They’re not reacting to being criticized, they’re reacting to the biased descriptions that have little basis in reality.
If you were to specify that the Christian Right are against gay marriage and don’t believe in evolution, or that the Neocons are torturing, wiretapping and got us into this war (no it wasn’t the Republicans, or the Conservatives, because Liberal Democrats in Congress voted for it too), then I wouldn’t have any problem. I just don’t like political conservatism being characterized by the attitudes of the religious right. Just like you don’t like liberalism being characterized by the attitudes of the looney left.
There are many types of Liberals and there are many types of Conservatives. The sooner we acknowledge that and learn to tolerate each other’s views with openminded benevolence, the sooner America can heal its wounds and we can build a better future for us all.
Peace,
and I mean that!
Sue
i wanna know why the conman is “stuck” on gays
Hey Pete,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I’ve heard the quote you paraphrased attributed to Churchill, and the many arguments that he never said it. I’m not sure the attribution is important. Anyone who has applied his mind to the history of the English speaking peoples, beginning with Caesar’s invasion of the British Isles shortly after the birth of Christ until the first world war, would probably regard that quote as a giveaway.
Cheers,
Michael,
[....what I said about segregation and homophobia...]
I’ve made my views quite clear on both segregation and homosexuality. It was you, Michael, who declared today your resolute rejection of any further discussion how Reverend Wright’s views may be a seminal influence on Senator Obama. Your stated discrimination about what you will allow to be said on your show on this subject suggests to me that you define Liberalism the same way Limbaugh and Hannity do: pure politics. It is not about the better idea. It is about which side wins.
That, my good friend, is not Liberalism as I understand it.
Cheers,
I have two more bones to pick, then I’ll shut up for now.
1. “Just moments ago, some 42 Republican Senators—including Republican Presidential nominee John McCain—chose to block a law that would have advanced equal pay for equal work for women. That’s right: the Republicans banded together to stop the so-called Lily Ledbetter Law cold because they would rather keep wages low than protect women in the workforce.”
Here Conniff is using a typical tactic of the Conservatives he loves to hate; framing the issue in a biased and not entirely truthful manner. The law that was blocked was one allowing people to sue their employers for more pay. Voting against permissive litigation is not quite the same as voting against equal pay for women. This is a classic case of oversimplification and associative dissonance, along the lines of; “If you are against the war, you don’t support the troops…are unpatriotic…hate America.”
2. “Segregation and homophobia”
Both issues that have absolutely nothing to do with political conservatism. These are attitudes of the Religious Right that admittedly have entered the Republican Party as politicians solicit the support of evangelical Christians. Now here’s the rub; both of these attitudes originated in the South during the time when most Southerners and Christians were DEMOCRATS!!!
Explain that, my Liberal friends.
Sue:
(1) You’re against the Lily Ledbetter Law? I’m amazed by that!
(2) You’re right that segregation has nothing to do with conservatism, because Conservatives had nothing to do with the fight against segregation; and, for that matter, nothing to do with the fight for equal rights for homosexuals.
Are you sure you’re a conservative?
Best, Michael!
1. Who said I was against the Lily Ledbetter Law? That’s an awful big assumption on your part, given that all I was doing was defining the issue in its true terms. The law did not give women equal pay, it gave them the right to sue for more pay. That is a big difference. To infer that Republicans voted against equal pay for women is dishonest.
2. So you are saying that there was not one political conservative in the civil rights movement? Another huge assumption that I don’t believe you can back up.
Am I sure I’m a conservative? More so every day. Your problem is that you still have no idea what that term means. To you it means homophobic, misogynistic, closed-minded.
Grasshopper; when you discover the true meaning of conservatism, all will be made clear.
the shows not even over today and Mike has mentioned gays 6 times.
I think he needs to go back to a co-host or guests.
Here’s an email I sent Michael the other night that provides my further perspective on some of his rants:
Subject: You’re Getting Scary !!
So I listened to today’s show to see what new crazy things you had to say.
I’m not sure if I should be upset or not that you posted my private email on Aspen Post, and read part of it on the air.
You seem to be confusing all conservatives with the religious right. Comments like “conservatives didn’t support rock ‘n roll” make me think you had some bad experiences with priests when you were a teenager. My parents were true “Vermont conservatives”, but when their children became young teenagers, they helped us throw Beatle parties. We were 13 or 14 years old, wearing Beatle wigs and acting stupid. Now does that sound like conservatives trying to squash the new music of the times? But to be clear, while my parents were both religious, they did not let religion rule their lives. I think you watched the movie “Footloose” one too many times. You’ve got to do better than that.
Talk about “drinking the Kool-Aid”, you criticize all conservatives because 42 Senators refused to go along with some obviously politically motivated legislation created by the liberals for so called “equal pay for equal work.” I guess what you are saying is that all Senators should fall in line, no matter how crappy the legislation, if the title on the legislation is provocative – like this one is. Need I remind you that a number of Republican Senators are women – I guess they abandoned support for their gender out of blind loyalty to their party. Come on Michael, how many times do we see Washington politicians creating so called “legislation” that they know won’t pass, just to embarrass their opponents? Can you tell me that you’ve read the legislation and you believe deep down that this was a serious piece of work designed to truly create equality of pay in jobs, and not create a set of new problems? How was the Kool-Aid???
Your rant about the insurance company you dealt with for prostate cancer again misses an enormous point. Yes, it is likely that insurance companies are impersonal. I feel your pain. But the GOVERNMENT!!!! Are you kidding me? The best image you should get in your head is the Post Office or the DMV running the health care system in America. Are you nuts??? Did you see that the Postal Service lost $5 Billion last year and is on track to lose another $1 Billion this year? Have you ever heard of FedEx or UPS, two very profitable public companies essentially in the same business? If you think your private insurance company is impersonal – god help you when you have to stand in line at the “health care office” so that you can get an operation to correct a potentially fatal problem. “Yes sir, Mr. Con Man, we’ll put you on the list. You can expect to hear from us in about 10 months.” You don’t think the government will have a phone call-in service, do you? No my friend, you’ll have to go down to the health care office, dragging your insulin bottle, and stand in line. Turning health care over to the DMV or the Post Office – are you really thinking clearly???
************************************************
You know the old adage that Democracy is a terrible form of government – but the best that has been invented so far? Well sometimes I think that concept applies to alot of issues in America. It’s like saying, capitalism is a truly imperfect form of commerce, with lots of inequities and challenges, but it is the best form of commerce yet created. I spent ten years of my life building an international presence for Clorox in places like Latin America. When I started going there in 1990, places like Argentina, Chile, Brazil Peru, Venezuela, etc. were coming off of two decades of movement towards socialism (and sometimes nearly communism). I can’t tell you what a mess those countries were in. It taught me in real terms that the promise of socialism never pays off – not even close. So while capitalism isn’t perfect, socialism is worse. Are you worried about the little guy? Well something tells me the “little guy” in America is alot happier shopping at Wal-Mart with his small paycheck than he would be sitting on the street corner with his hand out. Until you see it, all your liberal babble sounds so right and so defensible. But trust me, it doesn’t work.
**********************************************
Finally, back to conservatives. I agree wholeheartedly with the post by “reckless G” to your post on “The Real American Values”. Rather than repeat what she (?) says, let me just add my own point. I don’t know any conservatives who fit the description that you are trying to portray. And, as a conservative, I certainly don’t know who you are talking about. And to suggest that it is “my party” and how can I support it if the things you are saying are, in fact, the true conservative positions on issues – well, I guess you just don’t understand us Neanderthals!!
Best,
PETE
Infowars,
[the shows not even over today and Mike has mentioned gays 6 times.]
How apropos to address homosexuality–the question of gay marriage in particular–on a day when the Reverend James Manning has declared that Senator Obama, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Oprah are homosexuals. You can’t make this stuff up:
Smells like Clinton fear to me. Manning is a Clinton devotee…
I hold a definition of marriage based on my study of the Bible. I do not support gay marriage. I believe the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not the same as the union between a man and a woman, and no law of man should mandate that this be so. Why not pass a law to expand the definition of the word heterosexual to also mean homosexual? We do not do this because it not only broadens the term, it renders it meaningless.
So which Biblical passage defines my view of marriage? The Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians (kindly note I leave my knowledge of the original Greek on the curb, where it belongs):
There are two ingredients in this definition of marriage: one man and one woman. More importantly, marriage is principally an act, by a man, that has three steps: 1) leaving parents, 2) joining a wife, and 3) becoming one flesh. The first two steps are obvious and need no elaboration. It’s the third step that gives people pause due mainly to how the meaning of “becoming one flesh” is commonly taught.
I have heard it taught that the step of “becoming one flesh” refers to sexual intercourse, to the consummation of the marriage. I find this extremely short-sighted, and I would go further to suggest that intercourse does not even factor in the writer’s intent. The way I interpret this passage, a relationship like a marriage is not only possible for same-sex couples, it’s just as likely.
The way I see it, becoming one flesh means living life together. Marriage is earth-bound, in a very Percy Bysshe Shelley way. The verse does not say “they two shall become one soul.” The soul, Christianity contends, survives death. When a member of a marriage dies, the marriage ends. Becoming one flesh means facing life’s challenges, sharing its rewards, making common interests and goals, sharing this mortality… easily as achievable by a same sex couple as married one.
To me, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. At worst, this is a semantical distinction, at best, an important one. Make no mistake, I honor the love of same sex couples, but the union of a same sex couple does not constitute marriage.
Cheers,
Wow! This post has taken an interesting turn. But it was originally about values, so it still fits within the author’s parameters.
I sure never would have attributed such conservative values to you Mitch, a Democrat! I usually stay out of arguments made on Biblical grounds. There just doesn’t seem to be much point in arguing with someone who bases their beliefs on a mythical interpretation of reality, but I think I’ll make an exception this time. This is just too juicy to leave on the table.
So Paul is your guide, a man who was never married, and in fact never knew Jesus. A Jewish stickler for rules who, before his conversion persecuted Christians because they didn’t follow The Law. Out of all of the writers in the New Testament, Paul is the most intolerant, the most authoritarian, and the most condemning of human behavior that didn’t fit his interpretation of the “right” way to be a Christian. What a perfect role model for today’s homophobes.
Obviously you have read the text as it was written in its original language, so I should trust your implication that the word translated as “wife” in Paul’s sentence, is gender specific, and cannot be interpreted as “partner, companion, or spouse.” And I assume you know that in the context of his letter to the Ephesians, the sentence you have referred to was not meant by Paul to be an admonition against homosexuality, rather an admonition against the temptations of lust, coveting, whoremongering, and fornication (any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage). In the same chapter he also tells us that filthiness, foolish talking, jesting, and drunkenness are injurious to our immortal souls (which is why Paul was never invited to any good parties). But no mention of homosexuality. And surprisingly, no mention of marriage. But since the phrase “joined to his wife” is commonly associated with what we today understand as legal marriage, we’ll go with that premise.
One more assumption on my part; that you understand the Bible was a collection of musings by various men, collected into one volume by other men whose motive was to control the message, thus controlling the minds of those under their dominion. That it was translated and mistranslated, added to and deleted from as the scribes and church fathers saw fit to best accomplish their purposes of uniting former idol-worshipping polygamists under one set of rules that could be manipulated by the church as the need arose.
It never ceases to amaze me that intelligent educated people will put such stock in the musings of some primitive ancestors, which were written thousands of years ago, before the demise of superstition and the advent of science. Move over Zeus and Jehovah, there’s a new god in town; Jesus. And a few dozen years after Jesus death, through the magic of divine revelation, he gave to Paul the exact words describing how god wants us to conduct ourselves here on earth in order to secure our place in heaven.
But there’s a catch, if god never intended for men to lay with men, and women with women, why did he mess with their DNA in such a way as to produce the anomaly found in most mammal species; homosexuality? This anomaly can now be detected in the womb, certain indicators producing a nearly accurate prediction of a person’s gender identity, regardless of which sexual organs they possess. We now know that homosexuality is not a choice, but a genetic proclivity.
I think god must be confused. He produces homosexuality, but hates homosexuals. Or maybe he doesn’t hate them, he just doesn’t want them getting married. That’s why he induced Paul to write the gender specific word “wife” in Ephesians Chapter 5, verse 31; so there would be no mistake about to whom we may legally pledge our troth.
Alright, now let’s see where we’re at in 2008. Regarding legal marriage, we have laws that give rights to spouses covering hospital visitation, club membership, tax filing, insurance, and inheritance; all things I’m sure god took into consideration when he gave Paul the inspiration for his letter to the Ephesians.
So god, like you Mitch, may be ok with a homosexual union, but he’s not ok with them having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. How else can we interpret that, other than it was god’s intention to make homosexuals suffer for his genomic mistake.
And who are we to argue with that? After all, it’s god’s world, we just live in it.
Ahh, G, written like a true secularist. Religion is not only guilty of it’s own crimes, it’s also guilty of all the problems faced by the a-religious. Anyone who finds value in religious teachings is dismiss-able based on the inherent craziness necessary to embrace “a mythical interpretation of reality.” And here I thought I was pushing the envelope of topicality when I posted my last comment.
In your eagerness to attack my view because it’s Biblically-based, you missed my message, so I’ll iterate it for you again: I am not opposed to same-sex unions; same sex unions are not marriage. Let there be no confusion, despite your contention, I would not exclude legal rights from same-sex couples. The converse is not at all what I wrote.
Cheers,
[Anyone who finds value in religious teachings is dismiss-able based on the inherent craziness necessary to embrace "a mythical interpretation of reality."]
And that is not at all what I said. I said I usually stay out of arguments made on Biblical grounds. There are two reasons for that. 1. Using empirical scientific evidence, logic and practicality to argue against pure faith is like a bird arguing with a fish about the best mode of transportation; flying or swimming. 2. I don’t like to discount the value of having faith in god, as it seems to bring comfort to many and probably keeps some people on a straighter moral track than they might otherwise follow. It has lifted many out of addiction and despair. And as I expressed on one of my earlier posts, I’m envious of those who are able to convince themselves that in the afterlife they will be reunited with their departed loved ones. Also it should be noted that I practice what Jesus preached, because I believe his message was the true way to achieve peace and harmony, both in our personal lives and in greater human society.
Embracing a mythical interpretation of reality is a long held human tradition that I would never dare to suggest is the “wrong” way to think. And it certainly doesn’t mean one is inherently crazy, just prone to superstition, as we all are in one way or another.
You characterize my answer as an eagerness to attack your view because it’s Biblically based. Not true. I am just fascinated by your convoluted logic. You claim not to be against same sex unions and that you wouldn’t deny them their rights, but that their unions can’t be classified as marriage. Sorry, but when you deny the legality of marriage to homosexuals, you are denying them the legal rights that heterosexuals couples enjoy. That is the crux of the argument over same sex marriage in America. If you want to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but call it a civil union instead of marriage, well that is just semantics, and as such is simply meaningless.
[...it should be noted that I practice what Jesus preached...]
And all this time I thought you were a taoist.
[well that is just semantics]
And I wrote, “At worst, this is a semantical distinction, at best, an important one.”
I have offered my view on this subject. You have declared my logic convoluted. You may take great solace in knowing you have performed a valued service to the community.
Cheers,
Taoism is a philosophy not a religion, and is perfectly compatible with Jesus’ teachings. In fact I believe Jesus himself was a Taoist, if not in name, certainly in practice.
Your sarcasm belies your annoyance with me. If you believe I am gleaning an errant interpretation from your words, perhaps you can clarify your position.
I took the “at worst” view that this is a semantical distinction. You argue the “at best” view that it’s an important one. Why is it important not to call a union of homosexuals; marriage? The word marriage, simply means joining two things together. I understand why polygamy might not be legitimately called marriage as it involves more than two things, but why can’t homosexuals be married?
In modern day America, marriage is defined as “a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.” It is a definition that provides married partners with certain rights under the law. If you are arguing the position that marriage is not so much a civil union, but a spiritual one based upon the laws of god, then show me where god’s law that states marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
I’m pretty sure the practice of joining two people together in a bonding ceremony predates the notion of a single omnipotent god, so at some point marriage went from being a humanly conceived social contract to a divinely sanctified sacred contract. Either way, unless god himself wrote the rules for marriage on a stone tablet, it is still an institution wholly created by man. In other words, we wrote the rules. Which means we can change them. Under our current laws, if we want to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals, they must be legally married. Otherwise we need to change the wording of our laws to include civil unions under the legal umbrella. So where do you stand on that?
If you define marriage, as you do, as the “joining of two things together,” this is not an issue. I do not define marriage in this way, and I have explained why.
Based on what you have written, any view that maintains a distinction between the relationship of a man and a woman and that of a same-sex couple is wholly inadequate, even if in doing so the legal rights of married couples are extended and made identical to those of same-sex couples. But, I can hear you argue now, “that’s separate but equal, you shamelessly homophobic moron!” No, it’s not. It puts a chair at the table for both traditional and modern views of marriage, unless of course, that’s really not what you’re after.
As I type this, the California Supreme Court has overturned state law that prohibits same-sex marriage.
Cheers,
I have no problem with the concept of seperate but equal. As long as equal still means equal, who cares about seperate?
I guess where we’re at is sort of like the distinction between political conservative and Christian conservative. The only thing they have in common is the word; conservative.
For you, marriage is a word sanctified by god to mean a union between a man and a woman. For me, marriage is a word that means a union between two people, which guarantees their legal rights, regardless of gender.
Now we’re right back to…semantics!
G,
Semantics? I think not…
If you are at all curious, you will seek the question Hitchens evades at the end of segment 7.
Cheers,
Gods law and governments law are 2 different things, are they not?
Jesus hated all “religons.” His church was where the sick, weak, hungry, meek and those that seeked repentance and truth were at…..not at the feet of the government or those who were ego-driven.
[Gods law and governments law are 2 different things, are they not?]
Agreed. I would add that whenever people blur the two, the results are disastrous. Take, for example, when Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. That’s every bit as nutty as Reverend Manning calling Senator Obama a homosexual.
Cheers,
Mitch, is the question you’re referring to the one about cannibalism? If so, Hitchens answer, rather than being evasive, seems only to be cut off in the middle, before he gets a chance to make his full point.
[Hitchens answer, rather than being evasive, seems only to be cut off in the middle, before he gets a chance to make his full point.]
Hardly. If that’s what you call getting cut-off, I must wonder what you regard as polite debate, or argumentative decorum. No, D’Souza doesn’t begin speaking until Hitchens offers up a pregnant pause. Hitchens was more than happy to let D’Souza speak. I’ve seen Hitchens debate enough to know that he doesn’t let an opponent speak unless it works to his advantage. He waffles on his answer, begins pulling talking points out of the air he thinks might be tangentially applicable, and when he recognizes people are seeing through this rouse, he pauses. He knew he did not answer the man’s question. Notice how the man shakes his head in disgust when he realizes no answer is forthcoming.
Cheers,
OK sorry, I didn’t get that the question Hitchens was answering actually continued on section 8.
So you’re question for me to “seek” is why if Christianity is so bad, (or doesn’t work, or is false) did its introduction into Tonga and Fiji, end the practice of cannibalism? Is that it?
The video I linked to was segment 8. It begins mid-response to a question posed at the end of segment 7.
One of the ideas debated in this series is whether Christianity, or religion generally, has contributed anything positive to the modern social fabric.
I think it has and still does, though not without noteworthy exceptions. I also think many are too quick to relegate religious teachings to the back bench of personal influence. To be sure, religion has no place in politics, but I also see plenty of evidence that demonstrates it is possible to be unnecessarily ham-handed in maintaining the separation of church and state.
Cheers,
Well then the answer for me is that I absolutely agree that religion has contributed many positive things to the modern social fabric. If you’ll remember, my trip to Iraq was with Christian Peacemaker Teams, an organization that has brought attention to many of the world’s social ills and a positive influence to areas of conflict in significant ways.
Regarding the cannibalism issue. My take on it comes from insight I received while watching a Travel Channel series called Living with the Mek, about a primitive tribe in West Papua. While the Mek still retained their ancient tribal beliefs, including a fear of witchcraft for which the suspected practitioner is cruelly put to death, a neighboring tribe had come under the influence of Christianity. They had given up their primitive superstitions (or traded them for Christian superstitions) and no longer killed fellow tribal members or those of other tribes. When asked why they converted to Christianity and gave up their old violent ways, they replied that they recognized the destructiveness and futility of their old traditions and were looking for a more peaceful existence. In other words, they were looking for a way out. I believe this applies to the cannibals of Tonga and Fiji also. Sometimes humans outgrow their own belief systems and their traditions no longer make any sense to them. So when a new belief system enters their lives, offering a way to make peace among themselves and their enemies, they gladly accept it. Almost every religion has sprung from a desire to escape the current state of suffering. Embracing a message of hope, love and peace is not really a stretch for those mired in suffering and oppression.
As for the separation of church and state, it’s a sticky predicament. The laws of our nation are based in Christian morality, no doubt about that. But it’s difficult to determine where the state’s authority ends on that topic. Does the law against murder apply to abortion? Does the legal definition of marriage apply to homosexuals? These are debates that truly have no answers, because as I said before, arguing from a place of faith with someone who has none is like the debate between a bird and a fish. Each comes up with a totally different answer based upon their own perspective.
From my perspective, legislation comes down to the question of whether or not there is a victim. I don’t support laws against homosexual marriage, prostitution, or drug use, because there is no victim in any case. I am personally against abortion, but I don’t think a law against it would be effective and would only create more victims. So I really don’t have an answer for the abortion issue.
No doubt that much of the basis for my moral beliefs come from my Christian background. I was raised Catholic and became a born again Christian at 18. For me, religion didn’t provide the solace and certitude it does for others, so I gave it up for a philosophy that did. In my quest for truth I’ve studied many religions and never found any satisfactory answers, but I don’t disdain anyone who believes that their religion does provide them with answers. There are many paths, which I believe all lead to the same place. How we conduct ourselves along the way is what’s important.
Following the current theme;
http://www.templeton.org/belief/
G,
Sometimes I judge what I read by how much I covet having written it.
Thanks, much, for comment #33. Beatifically written. I don’t agree with all your premises, but I do appreciate your honesty.
Cheers,
Cheers,
In re #26 and #36:
I’m no Shakespeare scholar, but to my knowledge “God” is not mentioned in any of Shakespeare’s works. (I’m happy to stand corrected here with the play, the act, and the line(s)). Nor is “God” mentioned by name in the Constitution.
I think that’s genius at work. For either to use “God,” would be to limit the implications, the universlity of what they’re saying. And for your friend Dinesh (video above) to call on genius like Shakespeare and Bach to prove not just the existence but the efficacy of a deity is completely unconvincing to me.
Is not the greatness of Shakespeare et al inherently man-made? Or is it made in heaven?
The proof lies not in the stars but in ourselves.
Best, Michael!
PS to Mitch: I don’t think you should settle for throwing Dinesh D’Souza in our faces with the assumption that such a brilliant, witty man speaks the truth any more than Hitchens does.
Michael,
I link to D’Souza (#36) because I find he does a fantastic job of accurately characterizing the attitude of the a-religious toward religion, and, more broadly, toward the religious.
Just out of curiosity, is listening to what D’Souza says to make an assumption that he speaks truth? I think not. Hell, I listen to you almost every weekday.
Cheers,
The religious are always concerned with how the a-religious characterize their religion.
Are they equally curious when they look at things the other way around?
Methinks not. The religious don’t understand that the a-religious only care about religion when it reaches from the personal into the public square.
When contraception can’t be taught for religious reasons, the a-religious get apoplectic because we are being dicatated to by the religious.
In other words, for the likes of us, religion in the United States should be about the freedom of religion–not the impostion of another’s will on our life based on faith.
Best, Michael!
[I link to D'Souza (#36) because I find he does a fantastic job of accurately characterizing the attitude of the a-religious toward religion, and, more broadly, toward the religious.]
I would characterize Hitchens not as a-religious, but as decidedly anti-religious. While I agree with much of what Hitchens says, I disagree with his condescending and disrespectful attitude. Hitchens vendetta against religion stems from his belief that religion is only detrimental and has no positive aspects. This hurts his argument.
From a Taoist perspective, nothing exists in wholly one state or the other. Everything contains both good and bad, dark and light, etc. Therefore, I can’t take the attitude that religion is all bad, nor can I agree that atheism is all good. I must recognize the faults and benefits of both.
Where religion and government meet, there is also no black and white, but regarding legislation, there is a foolproof way to sort out the best course of action. It must be asked; are anyone’s rights being infringed upon? If the religious are infringing on the rights of the nonreligious, or vise versa, then the law must sort it out. And the law should always provide equal rights to everyone.
So it doesn’t matter what your personal definition of marriage is. You can define marriage as a union between a man and a woman if that makes you feel better. But when all is said and done, the only thing that really matters is the legal definition.
As evidenced by California’s ruling; we are fast approaching a time when the legal definition of marriage will have absolutley no gender specificity in any state, ever. Because no amount of protest by any special interest group is going to trump civil rights in this country.
I’m going to suggest 2 books that I think will enrich this debate immeasurably. the first which many of you may have read a while ago is Bill Moyers’ “The Power of Myth,” and the second is Stephen Mitchel’s “The gospel according to Jesus.”
Each book tends to tug at the other in fundamental ways, but their overall effect led me into an experience that I can only describe as one of infused grace. I had no earthly reason to be anything but unhappy during this time in my life. I had buried my mother after caring for her for the better part of a year. My friends were for the most part leaving me alone (as often happens when a loved one dies). I had no girlfriend; my apartment was a pre-renovated mess (my doing).
Oh, I forgot to mention I was also reading Stephen Mitchel’s translation of the Psalms — equally important in this triumvirate of books. I read the most beseeching Psalms to my mother in an attempt to comfort her in her pain.
Mom died in November 1998. And she was really the only parent we three kids had. My parents divorced when we kids were 8, 6 and 1.
Now I had her apartment to sell and her property to dipose of equally between my brother and sister. Did I mention I wasn’t working?
Grief I found comes in waves. One minute you’re fine and the next your face is turned away from the crowed on a NY street so as not to be seen weeping. Two blocks later and your resolved to plaster a wall.
Anyway, In tandem with all this I was attending a Presbyterian church whose pastor had fired my intellect with his unforgettable sermons. The last one I heard before my “experience” was the “Woman at the Well.”
I would handle Moms business in the morning and my renovation in the afternoon, always walking the 3-4 miles from her East Side apartment to mine on Riverside Drive through the beautifully renewed Central Park. And then one day with Pastor Keller’s words ringing in my mind as well as those of Campbell and Mitchel and the Psalmists, it happened.
I found myself sitting on a bench in Central Park, on an improbably warm day in January weeping. Just weeping. But this time there was a vast difference, and It took a moment or two to even realize it. My tears were of the most profound and indescribable joy I have ever felt. And all I could do was weep before it. No-one came by and I knew no-one would. In my mind’s eye, I was monitoring every second of the experience without any real cognitive knowledge of what was happening. It was like being struck dumb and genius all at once. Somehow I was able to witness (I can’t call it seeing) the space inside of me, and it was fathomless. It just went on and on. After five minutes or so, I walked away from the bench. I had no words or cognition of any kind about what had happened. They would come later.
The echoes of the joy I felt lasted for maybe two months. I can tell you that I was suffused with a happiness and joy that obviously defied my circumstances. A few weeks passed. No one who saw or interacted with me noticed anything different. I was thoroughly grounded. I kept a hand held tape recorder at a friends urging. She was well versed in matters spiritual and saved me from dispensing the experience to a few overactive neurons. Mostly what I kept repeating into the recorder was the phrase, “I’ve found a happiness based on ‘no thing.’
It came to me weeks later that the depths that I had glimpsed inside in the vernacular of the Bible were “the kingdom within,” of course that’s how you’d describe it, and the treasure I had found, “the pearl of great price,” a perfect fisherman’s analogy.
I consulted many books including Blake who wrote, An excess of sorrow laughs, an excess of joy weeps.”
I thought a great deal about entering the ministry, because now I knew what the search was for. And that If it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone who sought it. That, I believe to this day is “The Good News.” My dumb luck was that I had few distractions. The limos of my former existence were long gone along with the fat paychecks and expense accounts.
Minister Keller had said in the context of weaving his beautiful narrative of the Woman at the Well, that when God wants to get you, he often gets you alone. In my case he used unemployment, separation from the hurly-burly of life, loss, and a few good books. When the echoes of that joy ended, I was left once again with quotidian chores of life. Chop wood; carry water. And I might add, I still am.
How far away from this is the church as a whole. Pretty far from where I sit. If it is not telling us to be still, to seek, to meditate on the Psalms, it is failing to help each of us usher in what the largest cathedral is merely representing. The kingdom within.
…I left out “you” above [When God wants to get you, he often gets YOU alone.[fixed by Post Staff]]
Also, should you wish to visit and hear some of Tim Keller’s sermons go to: http://www.redeemer.com. The church is based in New York.
I left out one paradoxical item above. And I’ve been told and that paradox is one way among many of recognizing the truth i.e. that it often comes wrapped in paradox. In the midst of my experience on the bench I intuited that my life would be harder in some ways — that has proven at times since to be true.
The other thing is: When I was in the midst of it. I asked myself, did I find this? The definitive answer was no, it found me, but I had to be looking. I’ve often compared it to being like a ripe piece of fruit that just one day falls off its branch into the the arms of a waiting God.
Great comments Hugh. I really enjoyed the read…
I read The Power of Myth and a couple of titles by Campbell while I was studying, among other writers, William Blake during undergraduate school… I’ve not heard of this work by Mitchel but you’ve peaked my interest. Thanks…
Cheers,
Mitch,
The Mitchell books are well worth reading. The Gospel…is a recapitulation of an experiment originally conducted by Thomas Jefferson wherein — reading from the Greek and Latin texts — he culls only that which seems to emanate from a consciousness, which for lack of a better word, seems consistent to him. However, he’s doing it with the benefit of 200 additional years of biblical hermeneutics and scholarship.
The Jefferson book is in the Library of Congress, and is known as the Jefferson Bible.
His translation of the Psalms tends to purge some of the more xenophobic language rendering a more universal feeling.
Cheers Mate,
Hughbert:
Pretty amazing stuff. What am I going to tell our Agnostic friend. Would love to talk about this with you. Give me a ring.
Best, Mike!
The Con Man wrote:
[I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but to my knowledge "God" is not mentioned in any of Shakespeare's works. (I'm happy to stand corrected here with the play, the act, and the line(s)).]
I’m no Shakespeare scholar either, Michael, but over twenty years ago I read every play and most of his Sonnets under the guidance of Dr. Thelma Odle.
Like Aldous Huxley, no intellectual lightweight he, I disagree with you. See Huxley’s Shakespeare and Religion, 1963.
And don’t try to tell me Bill was foretelling global warming, Nostradamus. In Shakespeare’s time, they would have been happy for a cure for black death.
Cheers,
Michael, I’m at a loss. Who’s our agnostic friend?
“God” is not mentioned in Shakespeare? That is hardly difficult to disprove… And this a claim made by a Harvard grad…
Let us swing for the fences at one of Shakespeare’s more obscure plays, shall we? How about Hamlet?
Cheers,
O God,
For a look at the foundation of “American Values”, especially in relation to that spear shaker know as Shakespeare, one really needs to look at the life and times of Francis Bacon and his band of brothers.
The world is an illusion, but it is an illusion which we must take seriously, because it is real as far as it goes, and in those aspects of the reality which we are capable of apprehending. Our business is to wake up. We have to find ways in which to detect the whole of reality in the one illusory part which our self-centered consciousness permits us to see. We must not live thoughtlessly, taking our illusion for the complete reality, but at the same time we must not live too thoughtfully in the sense of trying to escape from the dream state. We must continually be on our watch for ways in which we may enlarge our consciousness. We must not attempt to live outside the world, which is given us, but we must somehow learn how to transform it and transfigure it. Too much “wisdom” is as bad as too little wisdom, and there must be no magic tricks. We must learn to come to reality without the enchanter’s wand and his book of the words. One must find a way of being in this world while not being of it. A way of living in time without being completely swallowed up in time. Aldous Huxley 1964
The crux, another damn conspiracy! Rats?
Star on=no rats
Bingo to you to Star.
Cheers,
Star,
Thanks for that beautiful reminder of what we’ve always known, but strive to forget so that we may continually re-experience the discovery. I am reminded daily that we inhabit a paradoxical world of our own making. Of particular amusement; the rules we make up for ourselves and then proceed to break and punish ourselves for.
If one studies history even to the slightest degree, one can see the constant-ever-changing nature of societies. When the rules no longer fit our idea of who we are, we set about changing the rules. But there is always an element of resistance and arguments ensue. Thus we are given an opportunity to discover ourselves over and over again.
All due respect to Huxley; one of my favorite authors, but our business is not just to wake up, it is also to fall asleep from time to time, so that we may reawaken. This is Off On, Zeros and Ones, the quantum physics equivalent of Yin Yang; the essence of existence.
To carry the knowledge that we are the creator, while simultaneously participating in the illusion that we are the created, is to know joy and peace. The challenge is never to remain too long in one state or the other.
So I wish you; Balance.
Sue
Sue,
One thing I have said for years now is that the biggest lesson I have gained with age is balance. The way I say it is that you, me, and everyone else must have the flexibility to fly with the angels or dance with the devil, as needed, and at a moments notice, but… with age I find that the center point of balance is quicker to return because, in essence, we are meant to live in balance.
Now do I pretend for a moment to be in balance on the issue of conspiracy. Not!
I am reminded of a bit of toilet graffiti I noticed the other day while using the facility. It said “perhaps it is good to whisper at times but.. today, it is best if you shout”. No doubt.
And, in reality Sue, as I fly with the Angels and dance with the devil on 9/11 and beyond, I am in balance.
The knowledge I have gained from this journey, if nothing else, tells me so Sue.
Secret: Wish=Command So Thank You!
As for you Michael and your choice of picture (of me?) for my little blurb. It does fit in with my reply, so yea, it flies! I love you too dude (but I am starting to see where infowars is getting his insights into your sexual focus).
Ha, the devil in me says… gotta go…