American Taliban? Let me react to that

• Related Posts
• Bookmark
• Tags

49 Responses to “American Taliban? Let me react to that”

1. Alan K. Henderson says:

   6 July 2005 at 1:12 am

   Schools:
   Liberals – force politically correct dogma down kids’ throats: Western culture is demonized, fake “tolerance” (accept Left-approved lifestyles as normal) as opposed to the real thing (get along with people without having to suck up to their lifestyles), insulate kids from challenge in the name of self-esteem, one-size-fits-all curriculum
2. Alan K. Henderson says:

   6 July 2005 at 1:17 am

   Can anyone guess where the hyperbole is in the above comment? Hint: all I have to do to get rid of it is to add the word “many” in a certain spot.
3. Phil says:

   6 July 2005 at 1:25 am

   You’re right: The comparisons are ridiculous and intellectually lazy. As ridiculous, and intellectually lazy as the typical claim by certain conservative contemporaries of kos who claim that liberals who oppose administration policy sympathize with the muslim fundamentalists.
   Which, I think, kos was trying to illustrate, since he began the post with the sentence “Funny how the wingers try to claim American liberals are in league with crazy fundamentalist Muslims.”
   If you take the post as serious, it does seem absurd. As satire of the “liberals hate America” perspective, however, it works well, in my opinion.
4. philosopher says:

   6 July 2005 at 9:10 am

   I think Phil is on the right track here, in particular in reminding Jonathan et al. that you absolutely have to see the intent of Kos’s commentary as being a response to those who would accuse the left of somehow being in league with or at least sympathetic to radical islamist terrorism. But I think Phil frames it just a little off when he labels the post as satire.
   Rather, it’s important to see that Kos is trying to attack an actually radical political wing of the religious right, and not simply the entirety of religious Christians on the right side of the political spectrum. For example, yes, there are religious conservatives who respect church/state separation — but there are many who don’t, who indeed seek to tear it down, and not just in the sense of erecting a monument here and there but rather who insist that, say, one could have a religious test for office in this country. (I have heard Alan Keyes has suggested so on several occasions.) It is the latter group, not the former, that Kos is attacking. One could run down his list and generally do what I just did: separate off the reasonable Christian conservative version from the extreme-nutso version. But Kos’s point is that the extreme-nutso version is out there, and it looks a lot more like the mainstream conservative stuff than it looks like anything on the left. The analogy he explicitly draws is between communism and the mainstream left: “This is a key point– it was easier for the Right to tie the American Left with our previous boogeyman, the communists, since we technically were nearer to the extreme left than where [sic] conservatives.” I don’t think Kos endorses the smearing of all liberals as communists, so there’s little reason to think he supports smearing all conservatives as ‘American Taliban’. (This is sufficient to address Alan’s point as well, I think.)
   The place to argue with Kos, I would think, would be his claim that the ‘American Taliban’ is in control of the GOP these days. It’s clearly something that folks on the left and right disagree about, even when they agree that the uber-far-right religious conservatives are nutters. (See, e.g., today’s http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006654.php) It seems like a reasonable topic to debate, to what extent various actions by the current GOP reflect the mainstream of religious conservatism, and to what extent it reflects the unholy power of the “Dobson/Falwell/Bauer faction” (as Drum terms it). Certainly the Schiavo affair made it look like the latter, but we’ll see.
   But, anyhow, the point is that the blanket condemnation of Kos’s post that Jonathan offers can only make sense if you take Kos’s post to have a much broader target than it actually has.
5. Jonathan Bunch says:

   6 July 2005 at 9:18 am

   It seems to me that Kos painted a pretty broad target on himself when he said “On the other hand, the Dobson’s of the Republican Party — you know, the people running the show — have far more in common with the enemy than they’d ever like to admit.”
   Assuming he didn’t, the idea that Alan Keyes is anything like Al Qaida is ridiculous. The worse thing Alan Keyes is going to do is tell you that you are going to hell. If you were lucky Al Qaida would take your life before torturing you.
6. Joshua Claybourn says:

   6 July 2005 at 9:20 am

   PASWO: Point At Something With Outrage
7. Nash says:

   6 July 2005 at 10:57 am

   The Kos implication that conservative religious Christians are physically or psychologically forcing women to abandon education and become chattel is reckless.
   Kos doesn’t need to imply anything, Jonathan. All he needs to do is quote from Santorum’s work as an example of the Christian rights’ insistence that women give up their educations and their careers. According to Santorum, in order to avoid their tendency towards greediness, the American middle class should quit with this two-career family thing, having one of the parents stay home. And the offending parent? The woman, of course, just read the Bible and that’s what it tells you, right?
   To anyone but you, that’s a insistence on women as chattel.
   Spin that.
8. Finlay says:

   6 July 2005 at 11:01 am

   Nice oversimplification Nash. Youve gone from A to E with out the benefit of BCD.
9. Scott says:

   6 July 2005 at 11:08 am

   In none of the quoted comments from Kos does he equate opposition to gay marriage with being a member of the American Taliban. Jonathan Bunch’s attempt at conflating them is either due to ideological blinkering, or is itself a result of the intellectual laziness of which he accuses Kos.
10. Jonathan Bunch says:

    6 July 2005 at 11:24 am

    Nash if my wife were willing to let me stay at home and take care of the kids, cook, and read the Bible, in exchange for her working full-time outside of the home, I’d do it in a heartbeat. (Assuming we could afford to do that.)
    I won’t spin Santorum’s statements, I have not read them. But I will say that there are a-lot of women who are not part of the religious right who believe that staying at home with young children is preferable to working full-time while sending them to day-care. I don’t see why it is offensive to acknowledge the fact that, on average, it would be better for children to be with their parents than with the day-care worker, and that it’s more cost-effective for the average American family of four with two parents to have the father work rather than the mother.
    I have known families, even amongst radical righties, who prefer, for economic reasons, that the female work rather than the male. I have a relative who stays at home with his children while his wife–who makes far more than he could dream of making–works professionally. Even still, there are folks who are not part of the religious right who would, and do, argue that the children would be better off with mom than dad simply for biological reasons (nursing) and the perceived superior nurturing ability of mothers.
    I have not studied psychology enough to know if the ability of women to nurture is actually superior, or if it is a sociological phenomenon. But in every culture that I’ve encountered, in the US and overseas, mothers are preferred as the nurturing parent. Whether that is the result of biology or not should not, in my view, lead to the conclusion that believing that women are inherently superior nurturers is de facto sexist. And if it is sexist, I don’t believe it is fair to lay the responsibility for the phenomenon on conservative Christians when the reality of the fact is that the source of the sexism may be related to religious people, but quite independent of the religion.
11. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 11:50 am

    Not only that, but there’s a wide, yawning chasm of logic between promoting the value of full-time moms, and banning women from being educated or obtaining jobs outside the home.
12. Ed Brayton says:

    6 July 2005 at 12:27 pm

    While I think that Kos’ post contains many oversimplifications, I would submit that this response to it does as well. For instance:

    Kos ignores, among other things, the fact that a large number of churches within the “radical religious right” prefer a very high wall of separation between the church and the state. (Unless of course he believes that their opposition to abortion and gay-marriage is acceptable so long as they are strict separationists.) Had it not been for the predecessors of some of these churches it’s possible that there would not be any separation at all. Kos also ignores the fact that modern evangelicals are the denominational heirs of a group of people who lobbied not only for the rights of women, but for racial equality as well.

    I think this conflates many different things and oversimplifies a great deal. First, on the question of church/state separation, Jonathan is making two arguments – that there are many churches within the “religious right” who support separation, and that historically some churches were very influential in supporting separation. I don’t think either argument defeats Kos’ argument at all. The first thing that should be noted is that when he (or I for that matter) refers to the “religious right”, that doesn’t mean every person who is religious and who identifies themselves as conservatives. The reference here is to a political movement as a whole, and it is comprised of a collection of groups such as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, the Council for National Policy, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the Free Congress Foundation, and dozens more like it. These groups are of course not entirely unanimous in their views on every single issue, and one can always point to minor disagreements among them, but still there is a clear set of shared positions among them that can be identified and reasonably discussed.

    As far as separation of church and state goes, I don’t think anyone could seriously question the claim that the religious right on the whole is opposed, to some extent, to the separation of church and state. Of course there are degrees of opposition within that movement, from a more vigorous accomodationism (a position I consider reasonable, even while opposing it) among the more moderate groups to the explicily theocratic views of the Christian reconstructionists among the most radical groups. One doesn’t have to look very far to find literally dozens of statements by leading religious right figures to the effect that the separation of church and state is a “liberal myth” that is “not found in the constitution”, or even that it is a communist idea found in the Soviet constitution or a “lie of the Devil”. There may well be theologically conservative churches that are more or less supportive of separation, but I don’t think that makes the statement entirely inaccurate. Oversimplified, yes, but so is the response here.

    On the historical question of the “predecessors” of today’s evangelicals being supportive of church/state separation, women’s rights and civil rights, that’s a much more complex issue than is presented here. Certainly it’s true that in teh founding era, Baptist ministers like Isaac Backus and John Leland urged strict separation of church and state and that the Baptists of that day in particular were staunch supporters of separation because they often found themselves on the losing end of religious establishments. But it’s also true that the Southern Baptist Convention, in particular, has long ago gone in the opposite direction on that question. And while it is certainly true that there were a great many Christians involved in the abolitionist movement and in the women’s suffrage and civil rights struggles, it is equally true that the most vigorous opposition to those groups came from other Christians, particularly theologically conservative churches. Both sides here, I think, tend to paint with too broad a brush.

    As for their treatment of homosexuals, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that members of the modern religious right are friendly to the idea of gay-marriage–but neither is a substantial majority of the nation. Moreover, the religious right did not just recently develop a pejorative view of the homosexual lifestyle, yet I don’t remember any homosexual “eradications” during my lifetime; nor do there seem to be any organized eradications going on now. Acknowledging the level of public uneasiness with gay marriage is quite different from saying that the public, or the Christian right, wants to eradicate fellow citizens. Our justice system has a term for people who eradicate other people: defendants.

    Just as I think Kos is overstating the general hostility among the religious toward homosexuals (I don’t believe that the majority of conservative Christians really want to eradicate gays from society), I think Jonathan is understating it by focusing solely on the question of gay marriage. There are prominent voices within the religious right that go far beyond opposition to gay marriage to supporting, for example, harsh anti-gay “therapy” to “convert” gays, something that is often very destructive. You had a sizable portion of people who were upset with the Lawrence decision not merely because of federalism concerns because they really do think that homosexuality should be criminalized. I can dig out lots of quotes from religious right leaders who cheered the judge’s decision in the Sharon Bottoms case in Virginia to take custody away from a mother solely because she’s a lesbian. I can show you the ruling written by none other than Roy Moore, the current hero/martyr of the really hardcore religious rightists, in another custody case involving a lesbian mother where he actually says that the state should use the power of execution to stop “practicing homosexuals”. I can show you the writings of many prominent and politically well connected reconstructionists (RJ Rushdoony, Andrew Sandlin, Gary North) who explicitly call for the establishment of a “biblical republic” with the Mosaic law as the civil and criminal law of the land, including stoning for homosexuals as called for in Leviticus.

    I think it is common on the left to overstate the influence of such groups and individuals. Kathrine Yurica, for example, seriously inflates their importance. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real, aren’t well connected, and aren’t influential. We shouldn’t try and tar all religious conservatives with such people, of course. I know many religious conservatives who are as appalled by Roy Moore and RJ Rushdoony as they are by those they oppose on the left. But let’s not pretend that they don’t exist and that they aren’t a fairly sizable portion of the religious right. The “Christian nation” crowd, led by David Barton, is influential. Barton himself is the vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party and was contracted to do church outreach by the Bush campaign in 2004. Roy Moore is the toast of the far (and I mean far) right and likely the next governor of Alabama. And these people are not just accomodationists on teh question of church and state, they are genuine theocrats. And they’re not just opposed to gay marriage like so many in the mainstream, they are virulently anti-gay and they seek nothing less than the use of state power to destroy the lives of gay people. They hold powerful positions within that list of religious right groups, in many cases, and are influential in political circles. It’s perfectly reasonable, and correct, to argue that their radical views are not the only view within the religious right; but it’s not reasonable to pretend that they don’t exist or that they don’t matter.
13. Nash says:

    6 July 2005 at 1:07 pm

    Those are good swinging at strawmen responses.
    Let’s take Eric first:
    Not only that, but there’s a wide, yawning chasm of logic between promoting the value of full-time moms, and banning women from being educated or obtaining jobs outside the home.
    More to the point, Eric, there’s very little chasm between what Santorum ACTUALLY says (only one parent outside the home, that parent should be the dad, women can be educated all they want, but should be the ones to stay home to raise the children) and what Kos is being specifically paraphrased as saying: Christian conservatives treat women like chattel.
    Which brings me to Jonathan’s strawman, a veritable bale of hay. As usual, your whole point needs to stand on a denial that, in this case, a Santorum is not (1) a major player in spite of commanding daily attention, (2) a major speaker for conservative Christians in spite of commanding daily attribution by other conservative Christians, (3) influential or representative in spite of publishing a book making the exact statements noted above. You think it’s acceptable to return to the conditions, educated but staying at home, facing Miss Elizabeth in the time of Mr. Darcy. I do not. If you want women to stay home and raise the children, be proud to say so, but don’t also try to claim it’s not a conservative Christian value you are promoting. Christians like myself, those not as conservative as a Santorum, definitely call this treating women as chattel.
14. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 1:30 pm

    Nash, exactly what legislation has Santorum proposed that would force married mothers to stay home with their children? None. He is only expressing his preference–what he believes is best for families. That is what makes all the difference between traditional Christians and Islamic fundamentalists.
    Go ask 100 full-time mothers if they feel like “chattel.” You won’t find any. In fact, the vast majority will tell you they feel more fulfilled in their vocation than they ever did while working in the marketplace.
15. Nash says:

    6 July 2005 at 1:54 pm

    Eric,
    I’m going to continue to resist wrestling with your strawman. It is in no way connected to my point whether Santorum “proproses” legislation to force married mothers to stay home with their children.
    I’m not going to repeat my 3 point connection from above, but that is the crux here for many of us. He is in a position of authority and even more one of influence. He has worked to equate himself with Christian conservatives. You cannot suddenly and ethically disconnect him from that connection that he has worked so hard to make. Therefore, it is totally logical for people to say that there is a rightwing Christian influence seeking to treat women like chattel. He is an example of the attitude, not the only example. You can disagree all you want, but calling anyone else wrong for making those connections is tantamount to asking everyone to ignore modern discourse.
    I repeat, let’s burn this strawman. No where did I say, no where do I see Kos saying, conservative Christians are trying to write laws, amend the Constitution, etc., to make women chattel. But their *discourse* would have that effect. Quit defending against something I’m not arguing.
16. Jonathan Bunch says:

    6 July 2005 at 2:22 pm

    Ed,
    There is no doubt that I oversimplified the distinctions between different religious groups frequently associated with the “religious right.” I picked a few issues and positions that are representative of the very conservative evangelical groups I’ve been affiliated with, simply because all of those groups safely fit under Kos’s “radical” banner. (They oppose abortion rights, stem-cell research, and gay-rights, and support public displays of TC, school prayer, intelligent design, the war on terror etc.)
    I’ve never met a single radical rightist (that wasn’t otherwise crazy) who legitimately wanted to kill a gay person for being gay, or who wanted to use execution to stop practicing homosexuals, or who thought “white is right.” Those views have very little traction with most reasonable people, including the overwhelming majority of intensely conservative Christians who align themselves with Roy Moore or James Dobson. The views of “the enemy” don’t control the Republican Party and they don’t represent a “sizable portion” of the religious right.” Perhaps a sizable portion of the commenators who are getting their quotes in the news.
    I do believe that Kos intends to paint with a brush that covers more than the “Roy Moore/execute gays” crazies. It would take two Sundays in the local evangelical church of his choosing for him to realize the ignorance in believing that even a substantial number of those in his “Christian right” want to execute gays. Even the overwhelming majority of folks who associate themselves with “Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, the Council for National Policy, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America”–all of which my mother would claim–are nothing like a terrorist organization.
    Is agreeing that homosexuality should be criminalaized, and criticizing a Supreme Court opinion that decriminalizes it, analogous to being a member of the Taliban? Is opposition to abortion to the point of supporting Republican politicians who will appoint conservative judges, and enact laws that restrict it, terrorism like Al Qaida perpetrates on a regular basis? Is lobbying legislators in support of school prayer terrorism? Is it terrorist to believe that gays or lesbians should be unable to adopt?–or to lobby for legislation in that direction? If all of these moves are terrorism, as I argued earlier, the label of “terrorist” needs to extend to a tremendous number of people who don’t consider themselves part of the Christian church at all.
    The vast majority of people Kos generally refers to as “radical rightists” are far from being Al Qaida, or the Taliban. He may consider them misguided troglodytes, stupid, or even completely nuts, but to argue that they are terrorists is offensive and demonstrative of the lack of interaction he’s had with the rank and file among those he considers “radical rightists.” To oversimplify the doctrinal or political/ideological differences of modern conservative Christians is, in my view, different from analogizing them, as a collective, to a terrorist organization.
    The root of the problem is that writers or commentators who criticize the figure heads are paying very little attention to what people who support James Dobson really think, say, or do. They choose instead to rely on a few media blips, or quotes from here and there. Do you really believe that James Dobson’s most loyal followers, or those who listen to his radio broadcasts and subscribe to his magazines, want to eradicate homosexuals? Or that they would like to prevent women from working or being educated? Or that they would prefer that segregation be reinstituted? Do you think that even 10% of evangelical Christians believe that? If you do, then I recommend visiting a very conservative evangelical church and getting to know some people who support James Dobson. If you don’t, then it seems silly to be having discussions over such an obviously tiny and powerless group of people.
    I was raised in an intensely conservative religious home by parents who still believe many things that you would likely consider troglodytish–they are even friends with James Dobson!! (The ordinary liberal would probably find their political views easily ranking them among the “radical rightists.”) But neither they nor any of their friends want to execute anyone for being gay. Nor do they want to forcibly tie women to their homes, or in any way terrorize America. In fact, every one of their political objectives is pursued through democratic channels, which, coincidentally, don’t involve any swords or explosives. I think you’ll find that the same is true of the overwhelming majority of those who align themselves with James Dobson et al.
17. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 2:42 pm

    I repeat, let’s burn this strawman. No where did I say, no where do I see Kos saying, conservative Christians are trying to write laws, amend the Constitution, etc., to make women chattel.
    It’s not a strawman, Nash. Kos is comparing the “Christian right” to the Taliban. In uncovering the lunacy of such a comparison, it’s entirely germane to point out that the Taliban forcibly prohibited all women from being educated or working outside the home. Santorum has merely used his position of influence to state his opinion that children are better off with a full-time parent than in day care, and that it’s usually better for the mother to fill this role than the father. Couples remain entirely free to disregard his parenting advice. The difference is like the difference between a .50 caliber machine gun and a squirt gun.
    Now, if you’d like to drop the ridiculous Taliban comparison, you can argue that a preference for mothers devoting themselves full-time to their children is inherently sexist. However, I think that position is obviously wrong, as practically all the people who hold that preference have no objection to childless women–or women with grown children–being in the workforce. Furthermore, I think your assertion that this turns women into “chattel” is patently offensive toward women who have gladly embraced the role of full-time mom and find it much more fulfilling than working in the marketplace.
18. Nash says:

    6 July 2005 at 2:54 pm

    It is a strawman, Eric. I spoke to exactly ONE claim being made, not to the overall Taliban comparison. So, unless you want to address my specific comment, then drop the pretense. I am not defending Kos overall, I specifically addressed ONE point. I am confident you can read back and confirm that. You want to keep missing my point, just don’t keep wasting my time.
    As an unrelated aside, why are you so sensitive about that over-the-top rhetoric? Surely Kos has zero power to offend. Why make such a deal of it?
19. Ed Brayton says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:16 pm

    Jonathan-

    I hope I made clear that I was rejecting any claim that the religious right are akin to terrorists. I consider that every bit as stupid as the claim from some on the right that the ACLU are tantamount to terrorists (and I can show you many who have made that comparison as well). And I have no idea what actual percentage of the religious right wants to execute homosexuals, but I suspect it is a pretty small percentage. But throw them in jail? I could see that easily being 1/3 or more. All those sodomy laws didn’t get passed because no one supported them. Taking children away from gay parents? I bet that’s a pretty high percentage too. Like you, I was raised in this environment so I do have the same experiences to go on. But I also recognize that I’m not presenting a rigorous study to support these contentions.

    You may not have met a single person who wants to execute homosexuals, but I named several who do and those aren’t obscure people on the fringe. They don’t represent the majority, I fully agree, but they do exist and they hold high positions in the religious right heirarchy. They are at least taken seriously enough by the Dobsons of the world that they don’t distance themselves from them.

    Dobson served on the board of the Council for National Policy, perhaps the least well known but most important religious right steering committee, with many Christian Reconstructionists who do indeed want to put gay people to death (along with witches, adulterers, fornicators, etc). That same board has included the likes of RJ Rushdoony, Gary North and many others who are explicit in their goal of creating a theocracy in the US. These reconstructionists are not on the fringe, they are welcomed as allies and often even lauded as brave warriors in the fight for God by the likes of Howard Phillips, Ralph Reed, Rick Scarborough, Reed Irvine and many others.

    Now, are men like Rushdoony comparable to the Taliban? I’d argue that they are. They share almost identical ideological goals, they just aren’t currently using violence to achieve them. But put them in power and their agenda would be indistinguishable. Their own writings tell you so. The fact that such men are not only tolerated but welcomed into the fold is certainly a cause for concern. The fact that a lunatic like Roy Moore can be taken seriously within the religious right and hailed as a martyr, a hero and a potential presidential candidate should give any sane person pause. Things may not be as bad as some on the left make it out to be, but they aren’t nearly as innocent as I think you want to make it out to be.
20. philosopher says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:21 pm

    Really, Ed nailed this one completely. All that’s left is cleaning up the persistent misinterpretations that always clutter things up when certain folks on the right work up their high moral dudgeon about something somebody on the left has said.
    “It’s not a strawman, Nash. Kos is comparing the “Christian right” to the Taliban.”
    Except that that is, quite simply, not what he’s doing, as I argued above. What he’s doing is comparing the far-out radical wing of the Christian right to the Taliban. And even then, it is only meant as a rough comparison, not as an exact equivalence.
    Which brings us to another complete straw-man, this time from Jonathan: “In fact, every one of their political objectives is pursued through democratic channels, which, coincidentally, don’t involve any swords or explosives.” That’s right. And if the question at hand were one of methods, then there’d really be no comparison at all between even the fringe of the religious right & Al Qaeda. But, you’ll notice that the question at hand isn’t one of methods, but of goals. It would indeed be silly to say that the far-out parts of the religious right are terrorists — so it’s a good thing that Kos wasn’t saying anything of the sort whatsoever.
    Look, if you want to take issue with what someone says, then it is really incumbent upon you to try to figure out the best possible interpretation of what they have in fact said. The rule is in general to prefer the interpretation that comes off least insane or offensive; but repeatedly on this site (cf. the silly screed recently about Durbin), y’all have opted for a course of jumping immediately to the most insane or offensive interpretation available. That’s simply not the way to go around interpreting other people’s assertions, if what you’re interested in is meaningful & substantive discourse. (It is, however, an easy course to pursue if all you’re interested in is point-scoring.)
21. philosopher says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:24 pm

    (I was actually referring to Ed’s earlier post, when I said he nailed it. But it seems to me that he’s now nailed it again. Excellent intellectual carpentry, Ed!)
22. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:24 pm

    I am not defending Kos overall, I specifically addressed ONE point.
    And I have been addressing that ONE point as well.
    Nash, here is what you posted:
    [Jonathan (from the post)]: The Kos implication that conservative religious Christians are physically or psychologically forcing women to abandon education and become chattel is reckless.
    [Nash]: Kos doesn’t need to imply anything, Jonathan. All he needs to do is quote from Santorum’s work as an example of the Christian rights’ insistence that women give up their educations and their careers.
    So are you, or are you not, supporting the comparison of the “Christian right” to the Taliban on the subject of women’s equality? If you are, it’s simply ridiculous for the reasons I’ve stated. If you’re trying to offer a more reasonable critique of conservative Christians’ view of working mothers, you should have chosen your words much more carefully. It is completely untrue that any but the most radically conservative Christians (who are a miniscule minority, even in the “Christian right”) insist that women “give up their educations and their careers.”
23. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:37 pm

    What he’s doing is comparing the far-out radical wing of the Christian right to the Taliban.
    As Jonathan pointed out earlier, that interpretation is at odds with the fact that Kos states he’s addressing “the Dobson’s of the Republican Party — you know, the people running the show.” I think it’s obvious to anyone with two unbiased brain cells to rub together that the “far-out radical wing” of the Christian right is not “running the show.”
    Also, why would Kos even bother addressing a segment of the body politic that is no more significant than that segment on the left that truly yearns for communism in America? It seems to me that Kos is just as serious, and just as intellectually careless, as right-wingers who compare Democrats to communists.
24. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:41 pm

    As an aside, I’m completely clueless as to why Dr. James Dobson has suddenly become the #1 Boogeyman of the American Left. Perhaps a subject for a future post…
25. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 3:48 pm

    Dobson served on the board of the Council for National Policy… That same board has included the likes of RJ Rushdoony, Gary North and many others who are explicit in their goal of creating a theocracy in the US.
    Ed, you’re using “guilt by association” here. I’m sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a prominent liberal advocate who has served on a board that has included some very radical leftists. Should that taint the entire liberal agenda with the ideas of its most radical adherents? Let’s stick to debating policies that have actually been seriously put forward.
26. Nash says:

    6 July 2005 at 4:10 pm

    *I* should have chosen my words more carefully? What a hoot, Eric. I chose my words precisely and narrowly, very carefully avoiding the word “Taliban.” You went off on a Taliban strawman jag, not me.
    It is completely untrue that any but the most radically conservative Christians (who are a miniscule minority, even in the “Christian right”) insist that women “give up their educations and their careers.”
    That would seem to be the debate, wouldn’t it? We can disagree all you want about the significance of my word choice for “insistence” but my larger contention is that there’s way more sway behind that attitude towards women (including *by* women in many cases, so quoting 100 happy stay-at-homes is not a useful anecdote to convince me) than you are prepared to recognize. It connects to what Ed is saying above, btw. You don’t have to be President, or the political party in power, to have an inordinate (to some) amount of say in contemporary debate.
    You can focus on your own word choice and I will focus on mine–let’s leave off telling others which words they must use.
27. Ed Brayton says:

    6 July 2005 at 4:44 pm

    Eric wrote:

    Ed, you’re using “guilt by association” here. I’m sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a prominent liberal advocate who has served on a board that has included some very radical leftists. Should that taint the entire liberal agenda with the ideas of its most radical adherents? Let’s stick to debating policies that have actually been seriously put forward.

    I don’t think you’d have to look very hard. In fact, I’ll do it for you – just look at the anti-war crowd on the left standing shoulder to shoulder with crazed groups like ANSWER. And I would say the same thing to the left that I’m saying to the right here – if you don’t want to be tainted by your association with these loonies, stop associating with them (and I don’t mean you specifically, I mean the various religious right groups).

    The fact is that there are some people on both sides whose views simply should be beyond the pale completely. Roy Moore is one of those people. He is a genuine theocrat who thinks that the bible is the law of the land in America and who thinks gays should have their children taken away from them, be put in jail and even executed. If James Dobson doesn’t want to be associated with someone with views this barbaric, why does he appear at rallies with him and use almost identical rhetoric about “retaking America”? If the mainstream religious right doesn’t want to be associated with totalitarians like Rushdoony and Gary North, or with Christian Nation advocates like David Barton, why do they continually invite them to speak at their conferences, promote their books, and join their organizations?

    And yes, I do say the same thing to the left. If anyone on the left chooses to associate themselves with the likes of Ted Rall, they are also giving tacit approval of his crazy views. It’s not as though those views aren’t well known or are hidden.
28. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 5:44 pm

    Roy Moore is one of those people. He is a genuine theocrat who thinks that the bible is the law of the land in America and who thinks gays should have their children taken away from them, be put in jail and even executed.
    I could ask you what you mean when you say that Moore thinks the Bible should be “the law of the land,” but I’d rather focus on your assertion that he thinks gays should be put in jail and even executed. I lost most of my respect for the man when he refused to follow the law regarding the 10 Commandments monument in the state supreme court building, but when did he advocate jailing and executing homosexuals simply for their sexual orientation (or behavior)?
    …I just scrolled up and read the part of your reply to Jonathan that referred to a ruling Moore wrote which you say had that in it. Yes, I would like to see that ruling.
29. Ed Brayton says:

    6 July 2005 at 6:25 pm

    Eric wrote:

    I lost most of my respect for the man when he refused to follow the law regarding the 10 Commandments monument in the state supreme court building, but when did he advocate jailing and executing homosexuals simply for their sexual orientation (or behavior)?

    In a 2002 case called Ex Parte H.H., where the issue in the case was whether the lower court had reweighed the evidence correctly in a custody dispute. The mother was now a lesbian, the father had custody of the children (not because of that) and the mother was now asking for a change in custody because of alleged abuse by the father. At issue in the case was the standard of review used by the appeals court and whether they should have let the findings of fact of the lower court stand or make their own. A highly technical case, for the most part, except that it happened to involve a lesbian mother – and that was enough to set Moore off on an incredibly vitriolic rant against homosexuality. Here’s the relevant portion:

    To disfavor practicing homosexuals in custody matters is not invidious discrimination, nor is it legislating personal morality. On the contrary, disfavoring practicing homosexuals in custody matters promotes the general welfare of the people of our State in accordance with our law, which is the duty of its public servants. Providing for the common good involves maintaining a public morality through both our criminal and civil codes, based upon the principles that right conscience demands, without encroaching on the jurisdiction of other institutions and the declared rights of individuals.

    The State may not interfere with the internal governing, structure, and maintenance of the family, but the protection of the family is a responsibility of the State. Custody disputes involve decision-making by the State, within the limits of its sphere of authority, in a way that preserves the fundamental family structure. The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

    It’s truly an astonishing rant to read and it reveals a deeply disturbed and hateful man.
30. Phil says:

    6 July 2005 at 7:29 pm

    Well if nothing else, maybe you guys will now be better aware of how maddening it is for someone to say to you with a straight face “you must support the terrorists if you believe that!”
    I’ve seen no outrage on this blog directed at the various conservative factions who consistently claim that anyone left of McCain must “hate America” and be “helping the terrorists win.”
    Feels pretty crappy to be on the receiving end of such accusations, even when you know the comparison is irrational, no?
31. Jonathan Bunch says:

    6 July 2005 at 8:08 pm

    Phil,
    My closest peers in law school were far to the left of McCain, my favorite professor referred to Earl Warren as the greatest Justice ever, one of my best friends prefers The American Prospect to Cato, and my wife works for programs entirely supported by Democratic policies. Of course it’s ridiculous to claim that everyone to the left of McCain hates America.
32. Jonathan Bunch says:

    6 July 2005 at 8:29 pm

    Ed,
    It’s not unusual for state court opinions to have language referring to the “power of the sword.” It’s a term of art used to express the inherent Constitutional power of states to regulate the health and welfare of citizens. Similar terms are frequently used in opinions to express the executive’s power of the “purse” and the “sword.”
    Here’s another way of reading his statement: “The citizens of Alabama, through a duly enacted law, have expressed their intention that the felony of trespass to chattel be considered harmful to the health and welfare of this State. And it is undisputed that among the powers given to the State is that of the sword–represented by the power to incarcerate or even execute–and that this power should be used to regulate conduct that has been deemed, by the people of Alabama, harmful to the health and welfare of its citizenry.” Does that mean that those who trespass on chattel should be executed or even incarcerated?
    Notice that Moore says “that” power–i.e. the “power of the sword,” which is represented by the ability to execute and confine–and not “those” powers–i.e. execution and confinement themselves–should be used in cases where citizens have, through their legislature, enacted certain laws.
    I’m sure you’ve made your mind up re the interpretation of Moore’s language, but after reading the opinion myself I would have to disagree that it’s a fair interpretation of his opinion to say that he wants to execute homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. I’m far more likely to believe that he was using terms of art to express the state’s power to regulate activity, even to the point of imposing criminal responsibility for action that the state–as a collective body–has decided is harmful to the health and welfare of its citizens.
    With that said, I think Roy Moore is a poor example for the legal community, and especially for Christians in the legal profession. He is, in my view, wrongheaded on many accounts. But in this case I don’t believe the charge leveled against him is a fair one.
33. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 8:57 pm

    I agree completely with Jonathan. Moore was speaking generally about government power, then mentioned that power includes the extreme measures of incarceration and even execution, then switched back to the general power in saying it should be used to prevent the “subversion of children.”
    I can understand someone reading Moore’s opinion and reacting in shock the way you did, Ed, but upon reflection, that is the least charitable interpretation of that passage. I hope that, out of fairness, you won’t continue to claim in the future that Moore wants to incarcerate or execute homosexuals who’ve committed no crime. It should be enough to say that Moore thinks homosexuals should be denied custody rights.
34. Ed Brayton says:

    6 July 2005 at 9:33 pm

    It’s not the phrase “power of the sword” that leads to my interpretation, it’s the fact that he explicitly mentions imprisonment and execution and then explicitly says that the state “must use that power” to protect children. If you read further in the context of that phrase, you see that he is declaring that the act of homosexuality itself is a criminal act for which one should be imprisoned and that the mere fact that a child is exposed to someone who is homosexual is justification for, at the very least, locking up the homosexual in prison. The most charitable possible interpretation is that he thinks that gays should be imprisoned just for being gay, and that is more than barbaric enough, is it not? The fact that he explicitly mentioned execution solely in regard to being homosexual, not with any mention of any other crime they may have committed, and especially coupled with the bizarre and vitriolic rant it is contained in, makes the less charitable interpretation more than justified.

    And of course, Roy Moore is only one example. RJ Rushdoony, Gary North and many other Christian reconstructionists have openly called for stoning homosexuals to death along with a long list of other “sinners”.
35. Eric Seymour says:

    6 July 2005 at 11:03 pm

    Ed, I strongly disagree. If Moore really believed that homosexuality should be punished by imprisonment or execution, surely you could find better proof of that than one sentence containing a pronoun with an ambiguous antecedent, buried in an opinion on a highly technical court case. To take this rhetorical flourish and shorthand it as saying “Roy Moore thinks gays should be executed” reminds me of another Moore–Michael Moore.
    While we’re on the subject, perhaps you could provide me links to where North and Rushdoony have called for stonings. Though I tend to think of myself as part of what most people call the “Christian right,” I’ve never heard of those guys before, so maybe they’re complete nutters. But seeing where you got your claim about Roy Moore, I’d like to see your evidence before I make a judgement about them.
36. raj says:

    7 July 2005 at 4:38 am

    Eric, Moore’s opinion was unnecessary to the decision in the case. It was a separate opinion. One might seriously wonder why he bothered to generate it. As far as I’m concerned, he generated it for one of two reasons (or perhaps both). Judges in Alabama are elected, and he generated it to play to “the rubes” because he was nothing more than a politician in black robes. Or, he really does hate gay people. The two are not mutually exclusive.
    As I said, the rant in his opinion was not necessary to the decision in the case. Query why he wrote it.
37. Eric Seymour says:

    7 July 2005 at 8:58 am

    Raj,
    I’m sure it’s not unheard of for judges to write commentary in their opinions that is not necessary to the decision. In fact, I commented here about a judge who went out of his way to castigate Bush and congressional Republicans in making a ruling.
    As for whether Moore “hates gay people,” that is a very serious charge that should not be thrown around lightly. He clearly does not condone their “lifestyle” (when he calls it “criminal,” he is referring to previous rulings and to the fact that homosexuality was illegal at the time of his ruling…this was apparently before the Lawrence decision), but that’s not the same thing as hating them. I strongly disapprove of thieves, but I don’t hate them.
38. Ed Brayton says:

    7 July 2005 at 10:03 am

    Eric wrote:

    Ed, I strongly disagree. If Moore really believed that homosexuality should be punished by imprisonment or execution, surely you could find better proof of that than one sentence containing a pronoun with an ambiguous antecedent, buried in an opinion on a highly technical court case. To take this rhetorical flourish and shorthand it as saying “Roy Moore thinks gays should be executed” reminds me of another Moore–Michael Moore.

    Frankly, I don’t think the antecedent is at all ambiguous. I think the statement is absolutely clear, and you and Jonathan are the first people I’ve seen who have tried to interpret it any other way than the obvious. And that includes many moderate social conservatives who are appalled by it. I think your portrayal of what he said here is mostly rhetorical flourish; Moore’s statement is quite clear to me.

    While we’re on the subject, perhaps you could provide me links to where North and Rushdoony have called for stonings. Though I tend to think of myself as part of what most people call the “Christian right,” I’ve never heard of those guys before, so maybe they’re complete nutters. But seeing where you got your claim about Roy Moore, I’d like to see your evidence before I make a judgement about them.

    You could start by reading Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law, which lays out the Reconstructionist plan for using the Mosaic law as the civil and criminal law of the land, including bringing back stoning for all of the “crimes” for which it is a punishment in the Old Testament. There is nothing controversial in what I’ve said about the Reconstructionist movement. It fills the Chalcedon Report and their other outlets. They claim precisely what I have said they claim and they do so quite boldly and publicly.
39. philosopher says:

    7 July 2005 at 11:02 am

    There’ve been several different claims floating around for consideration here, so let’s step back for a second an evaluate them.
    1. There is, in this country, a politically extreme element of theocrats, whose views on church-state relations, homosexuality, etc. deserve to be castigated.
    I take it that Ed has done a swell job of defending this claim.
    2. The element mentioned in 1. is better understood as advocating an extreme version of right-wing views than of left-wing views.
    Pretty hard to deny, I would think.
    3. There is a marked similarity — though not equivalence — between the goals & values of the theocratic right on the one hand, and the goals & values of extreme Islamists on the other.
    This is really the central point of contention in Kos’ post, and simply hasn’t been addressed in this thread. It hasn’t been addressed primarily because it has been confused with:
    4. The element mentioned in 1. perform actions that can legitimately be called terrorist.
    and
    5. 3. There is a marked similarity — though not equivalence — between the goals & values of the mainstream of religious conservatism on the one hand, and the goals & values of extreme Islamists on the other.
    4. is clearly false, and 5. is at best semi-plausible depending on how loosely one reads “similarity”, but I’m inclined to tag it as false as well (though see #8 & #9, below). But Kos claims neither of these things, and, importantly, neither is needed for Kos’ main point, which, as you’ll recall that Phil made clear way upstream, is
    6. If anyone is to be accused of similarity to and/or sympathy with extreme Islamists, it’s the far-out religious right, not the left.
    Now, even though 6. is his main point, Kos does make a further, independent claim, namely:
    7. The theocratic right is in control of the current GOP, and thereby the government.
    As Eric says, “I think it’s obvious to anyone with two unbiased brain cells to rub together that the “far-out radical wing” of the Christian right is not “running the show.” I don’t think they’re running the show, either, and wouldn’t try to defend this particular aspect of Kos’ claim, as he words it. And let me emphasize that this is exactly what I said, in my first comment, is the place that one should legitimately argue with Kos! The following two claims, however, are much more defensible:
    8. The theocratic right has some significant influence on the current GOP, and thereby the government.
    Ed has had some things to say about this, and the Schiavo circus in Washington provides pretty good evidence. Also, Ed has more recently in the thread been defending
    9. Leaders within the mainstream of the religious right have willingly & knowingly associated with, worked with, benefited from, etc., the far-out theocratic right.
    I’m actually a little nervous about this being guilt-by-association, too, though Ed is (as usual) pretty persuasive.
    So, Kos’ overall main point (#6 above) has still not been touched by critics here. His secondary point (#7) has been legitimately objected to, but there are somewhat watered-down versions of it that are much more defensible, and he doesn’t need anything as strong as #7 to make either the overall point or to make the case that the fact of #6 should be worrisome to the rest of us — #8 and #9 might be sufficient to make that case.
40. Eric Seymour says:

    7 July 2005 at 11:29 am

    For the record, I find nothing controversial with phil’s point #6–a “main point” that was not clearly given by Kos until a follow-up post which I found last night. On a traditional left-right spectrum, Islamic fundamentalists are (far) to the right of American conservatives, so obviously they are closer to us than to American liberals. Furthermore, it *is* ridiculous for anyone to say that liberals are “rooting for” the terrorists. I do think many liberals have a misplaced *sympathy* for them (saying things along the lines of “you can’t blame the terrorists for attacking America when you consider the things America has done), and misguided approaches to dealing with terror.
    My main objection is that Kos speaks far too loosely and recklessly about the “religious right” that he is attacking.
41. philosopher says:

    7 July 2005 at 11:54 am

    My main objection is that Kos speaks far too loosely and recklessly about the “religious right” that he is attacking.
    I think that’s a fair complaint. Indeed, I spent a chunk of time yesterday googling on “American Taliban” trying to find where, if anywhere, Kos (or anyone else) defines just who they mean by it. It has seemed to me that he means, well, what I’ve interpreted it to mean upthread, but I was hoping to find something definitive showing that to be the case. And I wasn’t able to turn anything up. So, yeah, there’s certainly some vagueness in there.
    Which is why, however, it’s important to apply the interpretive principle of charity I discussed above: if someone says something vague and/or ambiguous, then you should initially plump for the least bad possible interpretation of what they said — but also, of course, chastise them for their vagueness! If Jonathan’s initial post had been framed as, “look, Kos offered these comparisons without making sufficiently clear who his target is, and even though some handful of the far religious right is indeed appropriately caught by his remarks, there’s a whole lot more folks who just aren’t, and Kos really ought to be writing in a more responsible way that makes that distinction clear”, then I wouldn’t have been interested in offering much critique.
42. Patrick (Gryph_ says:

    7 July 2005 at 1:59 pm

    “Is agreeing that homosexuality should be criminalize, and criticizing a Supreme Court opinion that decriminalizes it, analogous to being a member of the Taliban?”
    In the sense that it seeks to enshrine Biblical law into secular, civil law, yes. These are laws that seek to regulate private behavior, rather than public actions. There is no possible justification for them other than “because the Bible said so”, that can be based on the “public good”. And the lack of recognition for any division between public and private areas subject to the dominion of law is a fundamental principle of Islamic Sharia.
    While I would much rather live under a Christian tyranny than an Islamic one, it’s still tyranny nonetheless and cannot be rationalized or explained away as anything but.
    You have argued that Christians do not want the eradication of gay and lesbian people, but you have not acknowledged that Christians do not respect gay and lesbian people AS people. The “Christian Agenda” toward gays and lesbians who live in this country is not brimming over with sweetness and light.
    At best you view us as mentally ill, at worst, as morally degenerate animals. Neither of which, in your eyes, are capable of forming a relationship equivalent in value to your own as a couple.
    You do not respect us, or our relationships. You deny that we exist by constantly portraying us as straight people engaging in homosexual behavior, rather than actually being homosexual. And you do not respect our families, in fact, you deny that we even have families or if they do exist, you want to destroy them.
    President Bush said the other day that he wants to amend the Constitution to defend the family, but that act would almost permanently enshrine in the highest law of the land the belief that gay and lesbian people do not have families in the first place. It permanently would place us on the outside of civil life in the US. And it will give legal foundation for whatever future restrictions you wish to place on gay and lesbian people. This is how the sodomy laws were really used. To provide justification for ripping our children out of our arms. To justify discrimination in the workplace or housing. To justify imprisonment or being sent to a mental institution for mandatory quack “cures”, including but not limited to hormone treatments, (check Alan Turing), lobotomizing, castration, etc.. The “protection of marriage” amendment is the most evil idea since Crow. And it will not protect a single marriage in this country. Not one!
    The Christian agenda IS the eradication of gay and lesbian people. Perhaps not literally, but be honest. Christians want gay and lesbian people to simply go away. They don’t want to hear about homosexuality, they don’t want to admit it even exists. Christians want us excised from public life and from obtaining public recognition or validity of any kind, whether in the law, in schools, or on TV or anywhere that there is evidence that we are here.
    That is why so many of the DOMA’s passed by States not only outlaw gay marriage, but deny recognition of civil unions. That is why so many Christian organizations have come out against anti-discrimination laws for the workplace or in housing.
    That is why, when Christians discover they have a gay or lesbian son or daughter, they so often kick them out never to be welcomed home again, or they send them out to Christian “Love won out”, reprogramming camps where they get treated as dogs or get medicated out of their minds. Not to mention the sometimes use of electro-shock therapy. This they do to their own children. A fine example of family values, don’t you think?
    All of these actions are not being taken by mass groups of atheists rampaging across the country. They are acts committed by Christians, who justify their barbarism with their religion.
    Christianity as a whole simply doesn’t respect us as legitimate human beings. And that perverse belief cannot truly be justified by a few lines of text in the Bible. It really comes from a much darker place, if they were but willing to be honest enough with themselves to see it.
    It’s an example of REAL moral degeneracy.
43. C M says:

    7 July 2005 at 4:56 pm

    “you might find that most of them are actually regular people who can even treat human beings like human beings.”
    and hopefully they’ll keep to themselves their beliefs that you’re damned for all of eternity while professing their love (coupled with extreme distaste) for you. or maybe they’ll tell you how much they love you while they enact legislation that keeps you from seeing your sick partner on their deathbed. or maybe they’ll show their love for you by publicly ridiculing your belief systems. all the while ignoring biblical refutations of money lending, divorce, and eating practices.
44. Patrick (Gryph_ says:

    7 July 2005 at 5:04 pm

    “That is absurd. You are a person with a lifestyle that a significant number of Christians believe to be, in religious terms, sinful–much in the same way that some believe fornication, adultery, and cheating on taxes is sinful. Get over it! Not everyone in the world approves of everyone else’s conduct.”
    You prove my point exactly with your comment about “lifestyle”. I have a life, not a “lifestyle”. You have absolutely not the slightest idea how I live my day-to-day life, yet you feel entitled to judge me evil.
    To you I am a behavior, not an identity. You see us as straight people acting bad, rather than simply being who we are.
    You of course, can go anywhere and claim you are straight with impunity. You insist however that we have to somehow prove that our identity is gay, rather than that we are are merely “acting” gay. And then when we give you that truth you refuse to accept it.
    The right to self-determination is a fundamental human right that you take for granted. You do not grant us the recognition of that human right, so therefore you don’t grant us the title of “Human”.
    Human beings also form families by getting married. You do not recognize that we are capable of this, or if we do, you want to outlaw them. So once again, you deny us the title of “Human”.
    Bigotry and prejudice are easy to spot when people are wearing white sheets over their heads. Its a lot harder when it’s so inter-woven within a culture of denial. Your kind of prejudice has been a part of the Christian religion for so long that you simply can’t see the forest for the trees.
    Christians have been sticking it to gay and lesbian people for thousands of years now. When Christians have a few thousand years of treating us fairly and decently under their belt, then they can criticize our “lifestyles”. Until then they should look to their own marriages and families before denigrating and spitting on ours.
45. Eric Seymour says:

    7 July 2005 at 5:17 pm

    You have absolutely not the slightest idea how I live my day-to-day life, yet you feel entitled to judge me evil.
    Hmm… Who’s perpetuating stereotypes, bigotry, and prejudice here? Jonathan, who has merely defended the right of people of the Judeo-Christian faith to believe that homosexuality is–among many other behaviors–sinful? Or Patrick, who’s making vast generalizations and accusations about what Christians supposedly think and do?
46. RiShawn Biddle says:

    7 July 2005 at 11:23 pm

    Eric:
    Patrick’s characterizations are so extreme that they’re not even worth much in the way of comment. One can be anti-gay marriage (or pro-sodomy laws) and not exactly be interested in shipping off homosexuals to a concentration camp. All that is a matter of whether one believes that gays are as entitled to the rights and privileges extended to all Americans or not. Next.
47. Patrick (Gryph) says:

    7 July 2005 at 11:27 pm

    “Or Patrick, who’s making vast generalizations and accusations about what Christians supposedly think and do?”

    “vast generalizations” ?
    Sorry Eric, but unlike the mysterious “Homosexual Agenda” that I hear so many ranting about, but that no one can ever actually produce for me, the anti-gay Christian agenda is quite clearly and specifically written down and widely publicized.
    If you walk into a gay & lesbian bookstore, you are not going to find many books on how to convert straights to gays, or how to outlaw Christianity or how to raise gay children or how straight people are destroying gay marriage in the Netherlands. You are not even going to see books that promote outlawing the straight-favored “missionary” sexual position from being practiced in the privacy of straight people’s own bedrooms. Nope, won’t see ‘em.
    However, If you walk into any Christian bookstore, sometimes you find a whole wall devoted to combating the “The Homosexual Menace”. The anti-gay Christian book and lecture circuit industry is really quite large. Probably larger than Planned Parenthoods abortion industry.
    Christians have also made sure to have their agenda incorporated into the written guidelines of whatever organizations they have joined or taken over, such as the GOP and it’s little hate-filled platform agenda passed at their last convention.
    You also can’t listen to any of Christian radio stations in the neighborhood for even half a day without hearing some kind of anti-gay diatribe blasted out at the faithful at some point.
    And of course, there are the huge Christian organizations and Church’s that devote so much of their time and money to the subject, such as the Arlington group, or the New Life Church, and of course the usual suspects, FOF, CWA, CTV, CBN, The Southern Baptist convention and and leadership, the Catholic Church etc. The scale and budgets of their operations vastly outnumber anything that gays and lesbians can come up with.
    So if you want to tell me how its all just a big misunderstanding and that you are really being victimized and that these people are not really “Christians” or that they are not really speaking for Christians, go right ahead, but unfortunately I won’t be able to hear you because you are completely drowned out by the non-stop invective that spews out from these other organizations.
    I suppose you could also tell me that when the Pope claims that I am “intrinsically evil” or that my getting married is an “ideology of evil” that he is just pulling my leg.
    And you may want to remind me about how Christians are so being victimized in this country. I always have trouble realizing that when I remember that Christians now largely control at least two out of the three branches of our government, as well as a large number of the state legislatures, and have successfully passed anti-gay amendments in whatever state they cared to try in. Christians have even gotten the Governor of Texas to suggest that gay veterans are not welcome in his state, no matter what personal sacrifices they may have made, you know, to protect your freedom to treat them like crap.
    So go ahead, tell me how Christians are so horribly subjected to discrimination in today’s world. Tell me how I’m inventing “vast generalizations” and conspiracies. And welcome to the Culture of Victimhood.
48. philosopher says:

    8 July 2005 at 12:46 am

    Patrick, I’ve got a modicum of sympathy for the line you’re trying to run here, but you still seem to be staging your arguments at a rather unsustainable level of generalization. E.g., “If you walk into any Christian bookstore, sometimes you find a whole wall devoted to combating the “The Homosexual Menace.” I have indeed seen things similar to this (though never with quite that title), but I’ve also seen a good number of Christian or Christian-inclined bookstores that had nowhere near such a large anti-homosexual presence (indeed, that had no such presence that I noted, but I wasn’t looking for it either). Is there no way to carry out your argument in a way that is more defensible, but still hits significant targets? Would it be enough, for example, to argue that there are a great many — but not necessarily all or even most — Christian organizations, enterprises, leaders, etc. that have such an explicit anti-gay agenda?
49. Patrick (Gryph_ says:

    8 July 2005 at 3:33 pm

    “Would it be enough, for example, to argue that there are a great many — but not necessarily all or even most — Christian organizations, enterprises, leaders, etc. that have such an explicit anti-gay agenda?”
    Those Christian organizations who choose not to at least endorse an explicit anti-gay agenda usually find themselves put outside the Christian mainstream quite quickly. The become known as Christians in name only. They are not considered “Real Christians” any more. For example, the Episcopal and UCC Churches. The censure and excomunication of Catholic priests who ministered to gay and lesbian groups of Catholics with out requiring that they “change” their sexual orientation. The priests, for the most part, didn’t even endorse homosexuality as valid, they just treated it as no worse or better than any other sin.
    My other point is that even when their are Christian organizations or groups that are not viruently anti-gay, they are not the voice of Christianity being heard in America. Like it or not, Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, and the whole slimy crew are what represent Christianity today. If you don’t like that, then get better people on the job.
    But don’t excuse them by saying they don’t represent “real” Christianity. Just the sheer size alone of some of these groups says that for the most part, they do, and they have real power. The Arlington group, for example, meets weekly with the White House to plan strategies.
    Read some of the articles at my blog below and then tell me how unreasonable I’m being.
    http://www.gryphmon.com/2005/06/trilogy_of_terr.html
    The original topic of this entry was whether Christianity is like the Taliban. Have you noticed that persecuting gay and lesbian people seems to be the only thing that Christendom, Islam, and Judaism seem to be in complete agreement on on?
    http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/063005Jerusalem.htm
    The Arlington Group, when it formed it’s anti-gay marriage coalition, even welcomed an Islamic group for a while that had ties to terrorism. They only withdrew after we started making noise about it.