Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

brand x

Yes, debate and disagreement, precisely such as this one, is exactly the evidence that watchfulness is in progress.

This is a tricky issue, no question. One could read complaints and claims about the 'religious right' as being akin to previous witch hunts, as in McCarthy's project. So we have to do these things with care, and mess around a lot to weigh whether the claims have validity.

In this case, I hold there is valid reason for concern. If Moore was throwing up something from the Bhagavad Ghita, it would be less problematical. Though the same constitutional principle would be in violation, the inertia of group agreement would be minimal. Let all religious voices have a say, but let's not have one (one small version of one) move towards real influence on each branch of the government institutions - that's raising the alert level to something critical.

blatham<

From where I sit, the alert level already is critical.

Blatham,

What has happened with Judge Moore is a perfect example that the system works. This judge tried to violate the seperation of church and state. He was blocked by the supreme court.

Now there is a public discussion. There is a very vocal minority who are exercising their right to free speech. The monument will almost certainly remain out of public display.

This story makes me feel very good about the strength of our democracy.

Perhaps a more relevant example are the controversial moral and political issues that the US is grappling with today.

A good example (and the only one raised in this thread) is the debate over stem cell research.This is an issue that is not addressed by the Constitution. The arguments of both sides are moral arguments.

How should we resolve such moral issues?

Well this issue should be and will be resolved democratically. Americans will make up their minds over which President and which Legislators they will support. Issues such as these that the public find important will play a role in the elections.

The the Legislators will make laws that the President will sign into law. If these laws are determined to be unconstitutional, they will be overturned by the Supreme Court. This system ensures that the public will is reflected and that no one ideology can monoplize our government.

Do you still think there is a problem with this system? How would you change it?

ebrown

It does me too, as an isolated incident. Now begin stacking up more of them, diversely located and oriented...school boards in Arkansas, hospital boards in Oregon, Republican party slates in North Carolina, radio station monopolies across the south, etc etc....and tie the folks involved together electronically.

I live in Vancouver. We have an outlying school district where a five year legal battle has been ongoing regarding two school library texts where same-sex parents are portrayed. It has cost millions to a school district during a period of decreasing availability of funds. The thing of it is, when you listen to the representatives of this school board (a very highly organized get out the vote and PR campaign brought them in and keeps them in) you could lay the words on top of a school board member's speech from Alabama and only the adjectives would change.

One could argue that this is merely free speech, merely freedom of association. But as I suggested on another thread, imagine that this sort of organization and influence was in the hands of Scientologists or Sun Yeung Moon. Suddenly, we are less comfortable.

There is an important distinction between religious worship and religious activism in political matters. One is a personal matter - my relationship with god. The other is a social matter - proscriptions regarding my relationship with my genitals, for example (see Scalia on masturbation)

blatham,

The mood tendencies of this nation are quirky, and damn fascinating to watch, at times we're ready to rip one anothers throat out per the 2000 election, and then pull together with like we're all family per 9/11, then we'll be torn back down over reasons we went to Iraq.

Sometimes things that sicken us will make us respond so quick that changes are made pronto ie. an overspending governor getting ousted, other cases responses lag until the results fester for a while or too long.

At any rate, the general consensus usually comes around to vote for change when needed, it's not always as timely correction as we'd like, but with millions of people involved in the balance it is to be expected.

California's got one of the most hands-on democracies around, and it's a tribute to the strength of its economic base that it keeps plugging along in spite of all the aburdities people there have voted for over the years. (And Washington state appears to be following suit...)

But I'm at a loss to suggest a better system -- at least not one that will survive after I'm no longer around to implement it.



yeah, imagine that!

brand x

I know. One of the reasons I'm so intrigued by the american polity is the potential and actual pluses to the system. It is, much of it is, open and loud, thus transparent and a great study for anyone interested in politcal matters.

But there is a compelling argument made by (among many others) Joan Didion in "Political Fictions" that democracy, in the way you and I think of that term, is in some danger. The impeachment of Clinton, the recall in California, the redistricting in Texas, the Florida voting shmozzle...all suggest a political entity which is being driven to an extent which verges on pathological. That too is reflected in the rhetoric of people like Coulter and Limbaugh...win at any cost debate. These aren't fringe people. They are constantly in public view, and they have huge followings. But their political commentary is replete with falsehoods and innuendo.

One could argue, I do, that these two and the others like them are a different crowd or force than the Ralph Reed crowd, but they are symbiotic.

Your post is at odds with Democracy.

You can not have democracy without free speech and the freedom of association. This means that Scientologists and Sun Yeung Moon must have as much as a voice as anyone in a democratic society. I am not at all uncomfortable with this.

There are a number of Americans who support Scientology and a number support Rev. Moon. So what?

Do you want to decide which groups are good and which are bad. I assume from you post that Scientology and the Moonies would be on your bad list. But, who get's to make the list? The UN and the NAACP would appear on the list of "baddies" for many Americans.

I am not afraid of giving the rights of free speech and freedom of association to Scientologists or the Moonies or anyone else.

Rather I am far more afraid of denying these rights to any voice in America. Doing so would attack the heart of our democracy.

Well damn....I just wrote a wonderful post (angels were weeping) but it done disappeared because I screwed up.

ebrown

Imagine a political party whose platform explicitly states that democracy is untidy, ineffient, and is at odds with what is for the good of all. Further, they will, if elected, move to disallow all further elections within the country. They are doing this for betterment of the nation.

Would you allow such a party to, for example, get federal matching funds?

Preposterous example, you'll say. And of course it is. But there is one species of idea which is inimical to democracy...the idea that individuals in the community are incapable of establishing for themselves there own best options. Therefore, it is ok, even morally incumbent, to override their wishes. Unique possession of a 'higher truth' regarding human affairs is what grants this licence or this moral duty.

You get me here?

Blatham,

I would say yes.

Your hypothetical party has the right to exist and to get matching funds. If you discriminate against any party because of its ideology it means you no longer have a Democracy.

If there is a process to disallow matching funds - Someone needs to make the decision about who is "undemocratic" enough to be excluded. Don't you see how this undemocratic process might be exploited. That Americans never had a legal mechanism to stamp out the communist party in our worst days turned out to be a good thing.

So what is wrong with just allowing this party to exist under the same rules as any other party?

As long as the majority of Americans want to continue as a democracy, our system will ensure that this party will fail - democratically.

If the majority of Americans choose to live under a system other than democracy - well that is an interesting question isn't it? Is the government by the people an appropriate form of government if the people want another form of government?

There is a Constitutional provision to amend the Constitution. We could follow a legal process to become, let's say, a Monarchy again.

I don't think this is very likely in the United States.

But Blatham, are you suggesting that you coulld force democracy on a society where the majority of people don't want it? I don't think so ... and something tells me we may find this out all too soon.

Well, you have something of a conundrum there - if it is undemocratic to fund a political movement which doesn't believe in democracy. Are you sure you aren't just charmed by the elegance of an absolute?

No, I suspect democracy can't be forced on the Iraqis.

Blatham,

There is simply no conundrum.

It is not undemocratic to fund a political movement which doesn't believe in democracy. There is no reason why you shouldn't fund such a movement.

Democracy ensures that all movements have an equal voice. There is no problem with allowing a dissenting voice. Quite the contrary, dissent should not be stifled in a democracy.

The only conundrum is when you try to stifle such dissent.

brown
.


Stifling dissent did you say? I should remind you that much of the discussion of this thread was in response to what you called fear mongering That we were in effect hysterical and should refrain. In effect we should not voice our dissent.

One step closer with GWBush's signature on the anti-abortion bill today.

ebrown,

Somehow you've gotten the idea that I would like to stifle dissent. It simply isn't true. I'm concerned about the religious right's level of organization and the failure on the part of the progressives so far to counteract it. I'm just learning as I post, and making up my own mind about what and why I think certain things. I've never said dissent should be stifled. I've only talked about political strategy and voting. I've criticized the right wing for not being honest with the voters about their agenda.....hiding their agenda, in fact. But I've never said they should be silenced. And they have made their religion a subject for political discussion, not me. They have built a political machine through their churches. I do think that's a mistake and constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. But then, they think it's a "myth" anyway. It's up to the voters to help them understand that they are mistaken.

ebrown

Your certainty is noted. But au's last point is relevant (and au, being jewish, has some sensitivity to the issue).

If all speech is sacred, what is the problem with pointing to a religious group and shouting "Danger!"? Is an absolute not quite absolute in this case?

Should religious groups be dealt with more politely than political groups? If there were an US Communist Party which advocated significant changes in the Constitution, should it be dealt with more harshly than a group proclaiming god as its authority?

Blatham,

Of course speech is sacred and pointing to a religious group and shouting "Danger!" is certainly protected speech.

There are two separate issues here. One is what is legally permissable in a democracy. I think I have been clear here, and current law agrees with me. For example the Nazi party has as much right to matching funds as the Democrats if they meet the set legal guidelines.

The other is what is responsible in a Democracy.

As a voter and a citizen I just wish that people would cut out the fear mongering and name calling and discuss the issues. (Yes I accept that fear-mongering and name calling are both protected speech).

The debate over partial-birth abortion is a debate over what is moral. I can disagree strongly with the "religious right" over their stand.

They clearly acted within the democratic process. They got their bill passed and elected a president who is willing to sign it. You and I you and everyone else must accept the result of the political democratic process, (unless the Supreme Court decides to get involved.)

Democracy means that sometimes you will disagree with the result. That does not mean that we need to change our democratic system.

-----
As far as your reaction...

I expect and hope that you will bring up the issue of partial birth abortion in the election. I also expect that the war is an issue. I also expect public debate on taxes and oil drilling.

These are political issues and these are the things that matter in a representative democracy.

I don't care about whether Bush reads the Bible or prays in the Oval office. These are personal matters and are best left out of politics.

It seems that some 40% of this country (that's 20% on either side) spend all of their energy slinging insults and accusations at each other. Half of you are "crime-loving liberals" and the other half of you are "religious right" fanatics. You all seem to agree that collectively you are a threat to our very way of life.

To those of all in the middle it's all idiocy. I wish you would stop mud-slinging and fear-mongering and discuss the issues.

You may be right that religion impacts political issue. But that just one more reason that it is safe to just stick with the issues.

Many democratic countries including Japan, where I'm living, have a Communist Party. We still don't have a communist prime minister, because people aren't voting that way. Democracy in action.