« Prop 71 | Main | Specter-al »
November 08, 2004
Cultural Divide
But leading liberals rarely try to reason with us on these and other issues. You rarely speak to our moral concerns, instead satisfying yourselves with practicing the politics of moral indignation. You call us bigots, idiots, rubes and fundamentalists, and congratulate yourselves on being on the side of the angels.
In the eyes of many of you, we cultural conservatives are not just wrong, but evil. We oppose abortion, which makes us woman-haters. We believe in traditional marriage, which qualifies us as gay-bashers. We believe religious values have a role to play in informing public debate, and we're no better than Osama bin Laden.
Liberals constantly make emotional political appeals based on race, gender, class and sexual preference, yet accuse conservatives of being socially divisive. We see that as hypocrisy.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83471971269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cultural Divide:
Comments
Great Editorial.
"But leading liberals rarely try to reason with us on these and other issues. You rarely speak to our moral concerns, instead satisfying yourselves with practicing the politics of moral indignation. You call us bigots, idiots, rubes and fundamentalists, and congratulate yourselves on being on the side of the angels. "
Saw MoDo on the talks this weekend and she fit the above description exactly. She even suggested that the rapture was coming (isn't she supposed to be Catholic?) and that she and Chris Matthews were going to be raptured while the rest of us ignorant people who voted for Bush would be left behind.
Gosh, what a nice lady!! NOT!
Posted by: Kathleen at Nov 8, 2004 8:43:22 AM
Excellent comments.
It is instructive to think back to what was common knowlege 30 or 40 years ago, and compare it to what is taken for granted today, especially by teenagers. Having discussed gay marriage with a teenaged family friend last week ( a weekly Mass going, altar-serving, Catholic private school educated teenage girl) I can see how the media, Hollywood, and liberal teachers have done a number on our basic mindsets. She can parrot the reasons in favor of gay marriage, but knows no arguments against it. Yet, it was taken for granted that homosexual behavior was simply not normal until very recently.
To take another example, I often reflect on the "given" 40 years ago that teenagers would engage in sexual intercourse. Obviously, some did but they were truly few in number. Now, it is a given in society at large that they will, and there's nothing you can do about it other than to provide them with condoms.
I think the election was a temporary holding maneuver by social conservatives against the onslaught of the Hollywood/People magazine/Paris Hilton worshipping masses. I doubt that the tide can truly be turned, although with God all things are possible.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 8, 2004 8:51:16 AM
I continue to be utterly flabbergasted at the Left's equation of libertarianism with morality. To the Left, the only qualifying characteristic of a moral decision is that it is chosen. Nothing is immoral as long as it is the free choice of a human being.
To the Left, opposition to abortion is immoral. To the Left, opposition to gay marriage and homosexual behavior is immoral. The Left has convinced themselves that evil is not only not wrong, but entirely virtuous. It is tempting to believe that the Left is fooled or deluded in their confusion. However, I now believe that the Left is deliberately cloaking evil in the guise of virtue in an effort to justify or rationalize their contemptible actions.
Laboring to communicate with individuals who willfully distort and even annihilate the basic meaning of the word "moral" is akin to debating with folks who question what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Morality is truly a severe limitation on our actions. The moral life constrains choices and options, not expand them. For anyone who has reached adulthood, the moral demands of life are just that - demands, requirements - not a license to do just whatever the hell we want to. As long as the Left continues to view any freely chosen action, no matter what it might be, as moral, then not only will they fail to understand their continuing slide from political preeminence in the US, but they will fail to meet face-to-face the God who created them as fully capable moral agents.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Nov 8, 2004 9:14:50 AM
Mark- you are right. And, of course, the paradox is that by accepting those moral limitations on our actions, we become truly free, rather than slaves to our appetites.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 8, 2004 9:23:16 AM
Though I'm not a regular Sean Hannity listener, I tuned him in last Thursday afternoon to listen to what he had to say about the election.
During the last thirty minutes or so, he allowed disappointed Democrats to rant and rave about conservatives and President Bush.
Most declined to say anything personal about Bush, but to a man they all referenced their intellectual superiority.
"I'm smart enough not be fooled ..."
"Anybody with half a brain could see through Bush's scare tactics ..."
You get the gist. It's in keeping with Kerry's supposed Jon-Lovitz-as-Michael-Dukakis election night moment: "I can't believe I lost to this idiot."
The Right isn't perfect, but cultural smugness has rum amuck on the Left.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 8, 2004 9:44:19 AM
Great column by Rod.
Posted by: Cornelius AMDG at Nov 8, 2004 9:54:29 AM
Here is an excerpt of a comment posted at The Revealer:
"During the second debate between Kerry an Bush, a woman wanted Kerry to ensure that her tax dollars would not fund someone else's abortion. It was an obvious ploy to expose Kerry's position that abortion should be legal. Kerry went out of his way to try and sooth his questioner and say he was personally against abortion but could not impose his faith against someone who did not believe as he did. It was an OK answer, but not from a presidential candidate. Kerry should have said to prevent someone from having an abortion using the coercive power of the state is more immoral than abortion itself and that the woman should be ashamed. Kerry and the Democratic Party should have seized the opportunity to proclaim homosexual rights are a moral stand, much more moral than any argument against them. It is because of our progressive leaders' inability to articulate a higher moral argument against the authoritarian one that they lose the argument about policy and elections. Kerry should have declared the anti-homosexual as homophobia and beneath the moral dignity of American culture."
This is what the Left has come to: "to prevent someone from having an abortion using the coercive power of the state is more immoral than abortion itself." Stopping abortion by law is more immoral than abortion itself.
Incredible! How is it that large, large sections of the electorate have come to believe that the choice of abortion and gay marriage is a moral one?
Note the invoking of "a higher moral argument." This stinks to high heaven of gnosticism. What "higher level" is being referred to? Are there higher or lower levels of morality? What revelation could this individual possibly be referring to?
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Nov 8, 2004 10:17:32 AM
Andrew Sullivan's post titled 'Radio Silence' of 10/9/2003 commented: "Some on the social right do not make any real distinctions between Biblical law and civil law." This is a very similar to the point made in his post 'Conservatives for Marriage' of 6/24/2003, quote "They see zero distinction between religion and politics. Zero....[A]ssertions of religious authority as indistinguishable from civil law."
While social conservatives may confuse religious law with civil law, the libertarian left proposes nothing more than a mirror image of this position. The Left's positions see zero distinction between politics and religion or morality. Zero. They have been reduced to assertions of civil rights as indistinguishable from morality. Viewing the US Bill of Rights as divine Scripture and striving to amend that divine Scripture with additional civil rights (e.g., abortion, homosexual sex) as the very font of morality. The continuing hostility to Catholic teaching on sexual morality makes no sense if the true goal is to have citizens recognize the distinction between Biblical law and civil law. Doesn't the distinction go both ways? Arguing that Catholic teaching on any topic should have no place in US law is one thing, but ranting that US social mores should result in changes in Catholic moral law is quite another. A should not influence B, but B should influence A. It is mistaking civil law, a set of rules artificially established by man, as having directive authority over religious law.
After the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the gay agenda is in ascendancy. The hand-wringing over the recent state bans on gay marriage is hardly the defeat that the Left is currently fretting about. It has been one victory after another, and the continual ratcheting of demands for societal approval finally hit a brief glitch. Thirty five years of continuous victory and now moans over a bump in the road?
To our social libertarian citizens. You are winning, and I suspect you will be victorious here on earth. However, you don't need to lie. You don't need to deliberately confuse legality with morality. You shouldn't falsely claim that homosexuality is right, good and moral. Our country's civil life, so damaged by the culture wars over abortion and homosexuality, could be improved if the those committed to homosexual civil rights would respect the same boundaries they demand of those committed to religion. Are you able to commit yourself to avoiding talk of morality, goodness and truth, and stick with rights, law, and legality? If you are not willing to disavow mixing civil law with religion, how can you criticize religious conservatives who mix religion with civil law?
I look forward to the day when our pro-abortion and homosexual citizens will stand up and candidly state: "I have these legal rights, given to me by Roe and Lawrence. I know that these actions are morally wrong and evil, but they are legal. I have no need for moral or religious justification of my civil rights. By law, you can't stop me. Therefore, I'm going to do just as I please." Brazen? Yes. But a hell of a lot more truthful than the despicable and transparent attempts of cloaking evil with the vocabulary of God.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Nov 8, 2004 10:32:26 AM
Mark,
Perhaps there is something in the human heart that casuse most people to yearn to be right, not just powerful.
Posted by: john hearn at Nov 8, 2004 11:32:39 AM
Excellent writing and thought from Rod. Here's a quotation worth repeating:
"But leading liberals rarely try to reason with us on these and other issues. You rarely speak to our moral concerns, instead satisfying yourselves with practicing the politics of moral indignation. You call us bigots, idiots, rubes and fundamentalists, and congratulate yourselves on being on the side of the angels."
Woefully true. A genuinely dear friend of mine posted the following commentary on the day after the election: "Unchecked power and the very real possibility of increasingly isolationist actions have most of the rest of the world watching and praying. And the devil laughs and dances ..." I don't think she realizes how amazingly offensive that is. What on earth has happened to rigorous thought? And courtesy? Not to say love among friends and family.
God help us all.
Posted by: Roz at Nov 8, 2004 11:48:20 AM
As part of the fractured Left, I reserve the right to disavow particulars of the statements of my supposed leaders and gurus. I certainly reserve the right to reject the Right's lensing of the Left's positions. If we can't get into a fair and open debate, then it's just gossip and hearsay when we talk about the Other.
I think a common tactic of a human debater of either side is to minimize the opponent's intelligence/morality/good sense and/or maximize one's own. We see it online all the time.
While I don't disagree Rod's editorial is accurate, and perhaps functional on a wider spread than he lets on, there are numerous examples where liberals and conservatives have reached out across the divide to get something concrete accomplished. Far more effective than joining in the blame and namecalling game, I think.
A Christian is well aware of Jesus' teaching regarding those who have grudges against us. The onus is placed on the aggrieved to approach the persecutor: something which goes against the grain of self-defense, but there in the gospels, nonetheless. Practicing Christianity is more than just taking a stand on a set of issues and shouting across the divide to somebody else on their stack.
I can't speak for my disavowed gurus, but if anyone wants to sit and pout for the next two to four years, I'd say let 'em sit. Personally, I believe all the drivel I spout about improving society, the church, my neighborhood, etc.. If Rod or anyone else wants to get beyond the division and hypocrisy, I'd suggest you just make me an offer I can't refuse.
Posted by: Todd at Nov 8, 2004 11:57:21 AM
I look forward to the day when our pro-abortion and homosexual citizens will stand up and candidly state: "I have these legal rights, given to me by Roe and Lawrence. I know that these actions are morally wrong and evil, but they are legal. I have no need for moral or religious justification of my civil rights.
But here's the thing: pro-abortion and homosexual citizens do not believe supporting abortion and full legal acceptance of gay and lesbian rights are evil. Not at all, quite the contrary. Mark has made many good points in a thoughtful post but no one can make much progress (if you're interested in converting a nation) by misapprehending the beliefs of your opponents.
Rod's editorial is superb. On another topic, I am enjoying the spectacle of reading columns by the Maureen Dowds of the world. I mean, I knew that's what you thought of us, but it's riveting to hear you say it out loud.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Nov 8, 2004 12:20:41 PM
Todd,
It was only on Oct. 28th that several posters, including myself, offered you an olive branch the size of a redwood.
Read here: http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2004/10/amazing_gall.html
However, if your definition of making you "an offer I can't refuse" mandates my utter capitulation on matters of Catholic doctrine, then no olive branch of any size would be satisfactory to you. What you in essence are proposing is that we pull a Neville Chamberlain with Catholicism, that the only terms you would accept are unconditional surrender.
In the Amazing Gall thread, it is obvious that many posters feel that the true home of the Catholic voter is the Democratic party, a Democratic party of the first half of the 20th Century. We believe that Catholicism is the true Left, ready to challenge all anti-life policies and laws. It may be entertaining for you to cast those of us who now routinely vote for Republicans as greedy, war-mongering, corporate bastards, but that is so much easier than working the contemporary Left out of the thrall of the abortion and gay activists.
The olive branch is still out there, Todd. It makes me wonder whether you actually want to accomplish anything holy or just continue in your apologetics for the pro-choice, gay and libertarian agendas.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Nov 8, 2004 12:29:05 PM
Todd:
"I think a common tactic of a human debater of either side is to minimize the opponent's intelligence/morality/good sense and/or maximize one's own. We see it online all the time."
We do indeed! How do we get beyond it?
"(T)here are numerous examples where liberals and conservatives have reached out across the divide to get something concrete accomplished."
Say more, please. Right about now, I need to hear some examples of reaching across, especially within the American Catholic subculture. The collaboration and tolerance terrain looks pretty desolate to me.
The one hopeful sign I see in at least naming the problem is The Public Conversations Project. A sample of their work:
“Being aligned with one group offers benefits. It gives one a socially validated place to stand while speaking and it offers the unswerving support of like-minded people. It also exacts costs. It portrays opponents as a single-minded and malevolent gang. In the face of such frightening and unified adversaries, one’s own group must be unified, strong, and certain. To be loyal to that group, one must suppress many uncertainties, morally complicated personal experiences, inner value conflicts, and differences between oneself and one’s allies. Complexity and authenticity are sacrificed to the demands of presenting a unified front to the opponent. A dominant discourse of antagonism is self-perpetuating. Win-lose exchanges create losers who feel they must retaliate to regain lost respect, integrity, and security, and winners who fear to lose disputed territory won at great cost.”
...Carol Becker et al., "From Struck Debate to New Conversation on Controversial Issues: A Report from the Public Conversations Project."
Posted by: Mike McG.... at Nov 8, 2004 12:35:07 PM
Mark, you're going to have to do better than link a humongous thread and frame it with more off-target name-calling. I'm not looking for surrender or capitulation of any kind. And while I'm far more interested in building across divides in my own parish, I'm not at all against doing something in St Blog's and investing time and effort in it, especially if it becomes worthwhile. Mark, you should try using a real olive branch, so long as you're aware you've actually confessed to using a club. (Guess that's why I missed it.)
Mike, I like what you have to say. I think John McCain is a political example of a person who has reached across the Great Divide, and even to John Kerry, to get things accomplished. The comment from Becker says it much better than I could. And sadly, I can think of fewer instances (honestly, I struggle to think of even one) in which Catholics have reached across divides in any public way. The reality is we do it all the time for funerals, charity, and those kinds of things parishes do well when people are in need or in trouble. I've seen inspired instances when reaching across has happened with liturgy, normally a bitter battleground.
I think until we do, St Blog's will be more of a failed experiment in authentic Catholic community. I certainly include myself in that failure, but I'm not quite ready to give up yet.
Posted by: Todd at Nov 8, 2004 1:24:51 PM
A couple of quick points.
John McCain's reputation amongst Democrats and Republicans is that of a sactimonious, foul-mouthed (he's used twelve-letter words in the Senate cloak room) and friendless "maverick". His "reaching across the aisle" consists of collaborating with anyone who supports his effort to suppress political speech or zing Republicans over tax cuts.
And Todd, "community" requires agreeing to a common set of goals and rules. Here and elsewhere, you've disagreed with those rules, sniffing about "interference from Rome" and (just last week) dissenting over the Church's teaching on sexuality. To take such positions is to place oneself outside the Catholic community.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 8, 2004 2:35:19 PM
Rich, thanks for your quick points. You seem pretty angry today for someone whose "moral values" have won the day. Anything from the Republicans yet on abortion? For those who count letters, I guess McCain beats the Vice-President twelve to four. In my book, the meaning's about the same.
I reject your strict definition of community. All you need is a collective of people working together to achieve a common goal. Becker's observation, "to be loyal to that group, one must suppress many uncertainties, morally complicated personal experiences, inner value conflicts, and differences between oneself and one’s allies," seems to fit you to a tee. Willing to move beyond it for a good cause?
Posted by: Todd at Nov 8, 2004 2:44:13 PM
Todd,
You're all talk and no hat. Throwing down the gauntlet time and again, daring Catholics to be authentic while maintaining your allegiance to the libertarian left, isn't a particular convincing demonstration of alliance building.
I do characterize my approach to you as an olive branch. It is odd that you don't see any need to repudiate your abortion and gay advocacy in an effort to make common cause with fellow Catholics.
Your definition of an olive branch apparently includes genuflection at the altar of the contemporary Left. I for one admit that one cannot genuflect to either the Right or the Left. I never asked you to join the Republican party, just the Catholic faith. When your loyalty to the current-day libertarian Left has waned, come back to the Church. It will still be around.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Nov 8, 2004 3:09:28 PM
Mark, your approach seems quite confused. First, libertarianism and liberalism are hardly bosom bedfellows. Second, I have never advocated abortion, and lacking any evidence on that point, I must insist you, as a self-professed Catholic, withdraw your comment and publicly apologize. You are not morally bound as a Catholic to make any honest particular efforts to build community, but your violation of the 8th commandment is uncalled for.
Posted by: Todd at Nov 8, 2004 3:26:00 PM
You seem pretty angry today for someone whose "moral values" have won the day.
Accusing someone with whom you disagree of being "angry" is the rhetorical equivalent of a white flag.
I reject your strict definition of community ...
It's not my definition. Being in communion with the Church--the essence of Catholic community--means submitting to what she teaches. You're free to reject her.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 8, 2004 3:31:05 PM
I'm detecting a definite pattern with Todd today. He pushes and pushes until he gets the proper "reaction" from people who disagree with him and then obtains the satisfaction of calling them "angry" or "confused." And then calls for "public apologies."
I don't know -- but the folks I remember from RCIA definitely had a thing about wanting to be in full communion with the Church and were eager to learn about her teachings.
Posted by: Christine at Nov 8, 2004 3:42:27 PM
That she [MoDo] and Chris Matthews were going to be raptured while the rest of us ignorant people who voted for Bush would be left behind.
She may be right. But the issue is by whom would she and Chris be raptured?
Posted by: c matt at Nov 8, 2004 4:04:26 PM
I don't know that Todd (or George, or Esquire, for that matter) have ever advocated for abortion per se. I know that they have argued against criminalization of abortion. That may be a distinction without a difference from a Catholic perspective, but at least to be accurate, we should state that they advocate against criminalizing abortion, not that they advocate for abortion.
Posted by: c matt at Nov 8, 2004 4:07:39 PM
Which raises the issue (that I thought was pretty clear) that allowing abortion to continue, not only unpunished by the law, but celebrated as a right, is against Catholic teaching. But then again, I thought those who worked against Catholic teaching were not to be admitted to communion. I'm just a little ol' layman, so what do I know.
Posted by: c matt at Nov 8, 2004 4:11:46 PM
Rod:
Amen and Amen.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Nov 8, 2004 4:35:35 PM
