conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Tripp:

I would submit to you that the picture of the religious left being left out of political discourse is a chimera. The religious left dominates political discourse: welfare, abortion, foreign policy, sexuality and marriage debates, etc.

The problem is the religious left has co-opted (been co-opted by?) the secularist left, so they end up saying the same thing. The sign of this is exactly the general absence of scriptural arguments (and arguments from Church tradition) from their discourse.

You are right and the same thing happens on bothe sides. There is a lot of "Yeah. We say that too! But we refer to Happidocians 17:6 when we say pretzels should be crooked."

Conservative secularisits who think that homosexuality is messed up or that marriage is sacred all because they simply think so or hold the constitution as sacred are as common as secular liberals who are agains the death penalty.

It is all the same. Christianity is a voice among many in the world. It always has been. It is a special interest group with a messiah complex built in.

Tripp:

Oh, I don't doubt, nor do I want to be taken as asserting otherwise, that the religious right can be as secularized as the religious left. But your question was about the purported absence of the religious left from public discourse. I am arguing that the religious left is far from absent; many of the themes the religious left are espousing are being taken up by politicians and others in the media, and I listed several general instances where this is the case.

On the contrary, I think the ones being shut out of public discourse--or, well, shut out isn't perhaps accurate, but definitely not having any real shaping influence--are the religious right. The religious right is against gay marriage, against abortion, against the welfare state, and so on. Yet the policies and positions being implemented are clearly not those of the religious right but those of the religious left.

Sure the polls indicate conservative leanings among the majority of those sampled on many of these social issues, but for whatever reason, laws limiting abortion are routinely struck down, the courts are routinely now ruling in favor of gay marriage, and so on.

Having gone back and re-read the Post article--a most definitely left-leaning paper if there is one--the note of paranoia struck throughout is really striking:

* "a quixotic task: restoring the voice of the religious left in the nation's political debate."
* "Progressive religious voices . . . seem to have been washed out of the public dialogue in recent years"
* "They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's . . ."
* "there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it"
* "People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1."
* "the more religious, the more conservative"
* "religious liberals are a small minority today"
* "Conference attendees also blamed the media"
* "'We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right'"

But the clincher is how the article ends:
* "' "Then you wake up one day in 1984 and the Christian right is dominant, and you wonder why' . . ."

Wow. I'm speechless. The religious right and the Bush administration/nasty ol' Republicans are deep in bed with one another, and because of that, "in recent years" (but presumably not during the Clinton administration?), the religious left has been pushed out.

Paranoia will destroy ya.

See, this is so interesting to me. I hear the voices of the so-called religious right as paranoid. Sometimes they have even used the same phrases. Don't you remember the 80's with Robertson saying things like "Take back this country from the liberals and remind it of its Christian roots"?

Paranoia is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

But is the "paranoia" of the religious right actually a more realistic assessment than paranoia? Is the "paranoia" of the religious left actually a more realistic assessment than paranoia?

In other words, is it paranoia if, indeed, the fears and concerns are matched by reality?

How realistic is it for the religious left to claim to be shut out of public debate? What are the themes of the religious left? Affirming the right of any adult person regardless of sex or sexual orientation to marry. Affirming the right of a mother to abort her fetus. Affirming that the best family model is not one of father, mother and children, but of freely consensual bonds of love and respect. Affirming legislation that supports the role of the government in more and more arenas of life from health care to welfare assistance, the control and limitation of business, and so on. (Please note I've tried to state these concerns in language that the religious left would find appropriate.)

Now, let's take a look at the religious right. What are their themes? Affirming that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Affirming that unborn children have the right to be protected from being killed. Affirming the necessity of the government to adopt legislation and policies that are supportive and protective of the family. Affirming that a family is best modelled on that of a father and mother with their children. And so on.

Now take a look at our society and government. Whose themes are being accomplished?

Almost every study done to gauge the attitudes of the media has consistently affirm that the media is left of the majority of the public. So, in terms of media, the religious left has a powerful tool. Similar studies have been done of universities, confirming that academia is much more left-leaning than the majority of the public. Think of the seminaries and mainline churches: how many of them are left-leaning.

I cannot, for the life of me, see how it is that the religious left can accurately say they've lost their place in public debate. This is either mendacity (knowingly stating something to be true which they know to be false), or, since it doesn't square with reality, it is properly called paranoia.

Sure, the religious right talks in similar sorts of ways. But what does the religious right have? Fox News, talk radio, Bob Jones University. I mean, sure, there are other right-leaning colleges , seminaries and newspapers. But ask yourself, How many? And compare that number to the left-leaning ones.

Now I'm sure you will point out to me: Ah, but there's Bush in the White House and Republicans control Congress. No doubt. But, how many Bush judicial appointees have been confirmed? How has that stopped the progress toward the legal affirmation of gay marriage? Has that overtunred Roe v. Wade? In other words, right-leaning folks have the controls of some institutions, but what impact, what effect are they really having? I would submit, very little. The Reagan Revolution, as it was called, didn't turn back Roe v. Wade, didn't halt the mainstreaming of gay marriage, didn't stop the Clinton tax hikes, and so forth.

So if there is paranoia to be ascribed to either the right or the left, here, I submit the evidence clearly shows it fairly applies to the left.

Really?

Have you been watching the Reagan coverage?
Do you see who the Presdient is?!
Aren't you the one who has quited statistics that state that the majority of people do not support same-sex marriage?

This is the thing, Cliff, you can stack it in any direction. You live in Andersonville...a liberal neighborhood in a liberal city. Love in Dallas for a year or six and you may feel differently. You went to school at SWTS and Loyola. If you lived in Richmond VA and went to school in VA (where they have not voted for a democratic presidential candidate in over 40 years), you might see it from the perspective of the paranoid left.

Paranoia is fear, uncontrolled fear. The people in the article are on the fringe of the left and they may very well feel under seige as you often express as a conservative surrounded by liberals.

I am not suggesting that it is all relative. I am saying that a little perspective would not hurt you. I worked at the AIDS Ride and the homosexual women and men who worked there or who received services from our beneficiaries felt under seige on many levels. This brings about paranoia.

You say that the left has the power? I am not so sure either the left or right has power. Reagan, Bush (12 years of conservative leadership), Clinton (Republican Congress) and now W with his liberal critics. It is just that way. People on the fringes are loud. They speak up when they feel like they are not represented. It has always been that way in this country.

Tripp:

Actually, yes, I've been watching the Reagan coverage, and some of the old saws of criticism given of him when he was president were repeatedly revived: his fabled naps, his extreme disengagement, his naivete/ignorance. Now, of course, the eulogies and the commentary by his friends are going to "idolize" the man. But Brokaw, Williams, et al on NBC (which was the coverage I watched) were always offering the counterpunch, presumably to keep things balanced. At no time was the viewer ever allowed (on NBC anyway) to have a full-on, uncritical appreciation of Reagan. (I assume that on the one right-leaning news channel--Fox--things were different.)

Yes, I see that George W. Bush is president. But I have also had it drilled into me for the last three years, that he is an "illegitimate" president, "elected by the Supreme Court." And Mr. Jennings never refers to him as President Bush; it's always Mr. Bush. And besides, did you not note my assertion that Bush's agenda is hardly being implemented? Do you have other evidence that his agenda is being implemented in full?

Yes, that's true that a majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. But it's being implemented anyway, isn't it? Isn't this what the religious left wants? Does it matter that they aren't a majority, when they are accomplishign their agenda?

I am fully aware that one's paranoia is deeply and directly influenced by the setting in which one lives. I know that from excruciating personal experience. So, yes, of course, one can always pull out the critique that one's paranoia is not in touch with reality--which is why it's paranoia--by pointing to counterexamples.

But counterexamples alone don't offer definitive proof of reality. Just because I throw one lit match on a gasoline-soaked pile of rags and one time it doesn't light, doesn't mean it is a definitive counterexample disproving my contention that when one throws a lit match on a pile of gasoline-soaked rags they will burst into flame.

Just because Dallas or Richmond, or Anywhere, USA are places the religious left wouldn't visit alone after dark, or, more to the point, just because oppression comes in a variety of flavors, doesn't negate the overall reality of sociocultural U. S. mores. This has been born out again and again, as I've noted, through scientific polling and anecdotal evidence.

I doubt all this will convince the religious left. That's the great thing about paranoia: it's self-confirming.