I’m kinda shocked myself
Hold onto your hats, folks, because Kathleen “oogedy boogedy” Parker just said something I actually agree with:
If Jim and Tammy Faye put you in mind of oogedy-boogedy, you’re getting warm.
Otherwise, the term may best be illuminated by two connoisseurs of the linguistic arts: Fats Waller and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.
The latter, unable to define pornography, famously said, “I know it when I see it.” Waller, responding to a request to explain “swing,” said, “If you got to ask, you ain’t got it.”
The list of commentators who ain’t got oogedy-boogedy is long, though Ponnuru is the most recent to out himself. While dismissing assertions — mine and others’ — that the Republican party has a religion problem, Ponnuru acknowledges that social conservatives “could present themselves more attractively,” and “pick their spokesmen more wisely.”
That’s a start, but let’s take it another step. How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.
Makes perfect sense to me. And as offensive as some of Parker’s comments on the issue have been to Christians, I can say for certain — surrounded as I am almost all the time by diehard progressivists (I eke out my meager living as a musician and a writer, which ought to explain that quite adequately) — that the tendency on the part of some so-cons to use their religious beliefs as a political bludgeon is at the core of these folks’ fear and mistrust of conservatives and conservative thought. Theirs might not be an entirely fair assessment, but it’s the way they see it, right or wrong.
I don’t think conservatarians ought to be trimming their ideology to suit people hostile to it for the wrong reasons. But neither do I think that religion ought to be paraded around in the public square and politicized. It’s supposed to be a deeply personal and private thing, or so I believe. And seems to me that using religious faith as the primary basis for government policy can only cheapen and degrade it, in the same way that using music or art to make political statements turns something that ought to be ennobling, enlightening, or at the very least entertaining into a tawdry counterfeit.
But hey, I could be wrong. It’s happened before, y’know.
- Entries
our nation was founded upon judeo/christian ethics. now don't dismiss that as a popular meme. look further than the instant statement.
all of the Founders felt it necessary to point out that the form of government they were inventing (the one we still have) was based upon the assumption that the 'people' followed judeo/christian rules and ethics and without those life guidelines this form self-governance would not be viable.
and so we see they were right. the more secularism that is injected into the public arena - even so far nowadays as to dismiss the notion of 'shame' - the more the overall health of this society degenerates.
it IS necessary to push christian/judeo religion upon one another and to hold each other to those very standards if only for the fact that therein lie the ethics necessary for a self-governing society to flourish.
Cue the "all ethics/morals descend from religious beliefs" argument again.
A pack of wolves exhibits many of the traits required to coexist in a functioning society and I daresay they didn't get them from the Bible. It's fine for those who think their good behavior will get them box seats in the afterlife to act accordingly as a result, but it's not the ONLY reason why one should or would be expected to act in a moral and ethical fashion.
Don't murder, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't bone your neighbor's wife, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you...these were good ideas long before they were codified in a religion, and they remain so. They can be taught by religion as means to achieve spiritual enlightenment; but they can and should also be taught as values in and of themselves, and let those of a religious bent attach whatever extra significance they wish to them.
As for apotheosis, your arguments are sophistry of the Left. You quote the oldest set of rules known to man then deny their origin in the same breath?
Lazy bugger.
Remarkable.
Robohobo, I'm not one of those "get religion out of the government" people, ok? I have no problem with Christians, with "In God We Trust" on the money or a Nativity scene on every street corner. What I assert is that certain rules which we consider "morals" need not depend on religion to be valid. If you choose to believe they're ultimately backed up by the power of God that's fine, but they're still sensible even if you don't.
As for the "oldest set of rules known to man," I think you'll find the Code of Hammurabi instructive.
apotheosis--
I think you will find the first section of Mere Christianity , by C.S>Lewis, to be very instructive.
I have Handel's The Messiah on disc. It is beautiful, as are the works of J.S. Bach.
I think the problem that you are noting is the ephemeral nature of politics. Art, great art, transcends our narrow time. Politics does not do so. Religion that is politics does not do so.
What were the politics of the Gilded Age? Of the cuff - I can't say, but give me some time and I could come up with a synopsis.
This, however, does not need research.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Undine_Rising_from_the_Waters,_front.JPG
(I saw that in the Ringling Museum in Sarasota, part of a Smithsonian travelling exhibit. It was backlit and you could see the light shining through the drapery.)
oh PULEEZ. can you not discuss historical fact without the hysterical and (apparently) obligatory sniveling cracks at the Christian religion?
Not a single soul with a shred of intellectual honesty can say that ethics, morals and standards that allow a society to flourish are not/have not been distilled into some 'religion' - be it the worship of God or a worship of ancestors or of trees.
Like it or not, the fact is that our government was invented UPON the assumption that the people followed Judeo/Christian values. The anthropological origins of said particular set of values is immaterial.
And yes, without religious connection said values as described in the 10 commandments are worthy and ought to be part of every individual's moral code, but sadly, since secularism has taken hold, the concept of shame has all but disappeared and the near total effort to wipe out consequence & personal responsibility have met the same fate...
DON'T tell me or others who still value and practice those very ethics that there is no advantage in them being taught through religion.
If it's a choice between corrupt governments directing me or a belief in an incorruptable and perfect God as an example for how to strive to live a blameless life - I'll take the worship of God over a few thousand corrupt individuals any day.
Secularism is merely hubris; the refusal to recognize human failings and weaknesses - and in the entire history of the Earth NEVER a recipe for a successful society.
Socialism only works for ants.
Thus you demonstrate your ignorance.
Please read Mere Christianity. You will learn something--if you are capable of it.
Please point out that part which you considered either "sniveling" or "hysterical."
I'll wait.
But you didn't specify "some" religion, you said (and I quote):
It's good that you're willing to acknowledge that other faiths might have some meager claim on morality, but it's certainly not what you appeared to be saying initially. If that was not your intent, then I withdraw the objection.
Let me reiterate: I don't resent Christians or Christianity. I was brought up in a Methodist household, and while I wandered away from the faith some time ago, it's a personal issue, not an issue with the Church or its adherents.
What I do resent is the implication that one cannot live a moral and ethical life without religion. Yes, there are a great many people who do look at their absence of faith as a license to do whatever they want without regard to any ethical constraints, or lash out at the religious as being somehow "inferior" because they rely on their faith.
But by the same token, there are also complete dirtbags who find their way to a pew every Sunday morning, and who reflexively assume that anyone who lacks faith is some kind of amoral hippie poseur.
Some of us just don't believe. That doesn't mean we don't strive to be good people anyway.
Don't make me rattle a bag of chicken bones at you, woman. Bad juju.
Wikipedia says Hammurabi was, like, way older than C.S. Lewis by at least a dozen years, unless it was more. Doesn't seniority mean anything?
okay. here. your entire response - an immediate reflex blanket dismissal of the historical fact/importance of/advantages of a Judeo/Christian religous society. the refusal to acknowledge a recent broad societal failure by presenting the same tired anti-organized-religion argument instead of discussing the facts presented.
Yes, in the context of THIS nation's founders and the religion THIS government was based upon.
I then went on to address your view that a secular society can have the same moral tenets as a religion preaching same. (it can, but is unlikely to)
re:
And you think growing up in a Methodist (Christian) household had nothing to do with forming your moral compass? If you haven't rejected the ethics taught by the Ten Commandments then it was your RELIGIOUS training that had a hand in you being a good person today, even if you now reject organized religion.
Also important is to recognize that not every religion is suited for our society. For instance, Muslims strive to be good Muslims, but their views are anaethema to Christians. What makes a 'good' Muslim makes a terrible Christian. Mormons, while certainly having strange views according to traditional Christians, live a virtuous life according to basic Christian tenets and therefore pose no threat to society.
Instead of this long response, I suppose I could have just advised you I commented on this subject in an anthropolical sense and am not interested in the merits of a particular individual's beliefs.
Disagreeing that your way is the only path to a moral society is not the same as denying that your way has a history, importance, or advantages. It is - and remains - simply an observation that morality is not dependent on your God, or any other.
Example: as you observe, Muslims and Christians have some differences of opinion.
God says Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder. Allah, while maybe not coming right out and saying it, seems to be okay with the idea of murder; or at the very least, he turns a blind eye to the hijinks of his more enthusiastic followers.
Fine, you say, but this is America, and it was was founded on Judeo-Christian values and those are the values we adhere to. Great. But is that meant to suggest that murder is suddenly no longer immoral in a country founded on and adhering to Islamic values?
Of course it's still immoral. Because whether God says so or Allah says so, or YHWH or Buddha or Krishna, human beings are social creatures who ultimately need a code of conduct to govern our interactions if we're to maintain a stable society.
Making adherents to such simple rules as not murdering, thieving, philandering or cheating beholden to one religious belief or another is needlessly complicating what should be a very simple and very emphatic lesson: you don't do those things because they are wrong. They are wrong because they cause needless pain and suffering, inspire rage and revenge, or (even worse) invite emulation by others. They screw up the fabric of a productive and happy life. We can't exist as a nation, a civilization, or (ultimately) a species, if anarchy is the order of the day.
Again, you mischaracterize what I'm saying, but I can't really hold that against you. Christians are under assault from evangelical atheists and you're probably used to hearing that sort of thing from them.
So once more: it's not organized religion I'm against. It's the assumption that organized religion has a monopoly on morality that grates. By implication, anyone outside that container you define as "moral" is amoral, and I resent that.
Touché. I can't deny it outright, but I can say I didn't pay much attention while I was there.
If anything, religion probably figured into the development of my moral compass through lessons passed on by my parents than those that came by way of the church directly. Honor thy mother and father, and all that.
And I don't "reject" organized religion, I just choose not to go through the motions of belief if I don't really have faith. Repeatedly saying I do won't make it so. If someday I come back around to it, so be it.
Postscript: reading back, I did come off as kind of a dick in that first post. It was unnecessary and I apologize.
That said, I can think of several recent cases where articles 3 and 5 should be applied. Nifong should be very familiar with those sections; likewise Mayors Daley and Bloomberg re the Second Amendment.
Meant to include this.
Nor are they particularly reassured by the "protections" of the First Amendment. The language is crystal clear; unfortunately, we are a government of men, not laws, and they realize perfectly well that 5 unaccountable men in black robes can remove any protections they please. They might be slowed down by a Constitutional Amendment with specific definitions AND language specifically removing a particular issue from the court's jurisdiction; that's where the push for an Amendment to define marriage comes from.
On the other hand, as we've seen several times in the War against Islamic Conquest, just because Congress inserts specific language in the law removing the issue from the court's jurisdiction, as the Constitution provides, that hasn't stopped them either.
and your evidence that your parents' code of morality/ethics (which they passed on to you) came not from their own reciept of Christian training but from some sense of morals (that coincidentally matched Christianity's) they developed in a vacuum...? Or "never mind, I didn't listen much" - what??
Your attempts to show that Christian/Judeo based codes of morality and ethics beliefs spring somehow from the untutored ignorant conscience, separate and apart from that very society we live in, are actually succeeding in helping me prove my point.
Come now. Admit that our particular Christianity-based government was invented on the premise that this was a Christian nation and the assumption that it would remain so.
Moreover, it is the reason the Constitution enumerates what the government is NOT allowed rather than what the citizens are allowed - based upon the assumption that Judeo/Christian code of morals and ethics were shared by the great majority of the population, there was no need to describe a specific code of conduct for the general populace. - and miscreants would be dealt with by strong disapproval (formal or otherwide) provided by their fellow citizens.
What is wrong in this society NOW is that Liberals are trying to flip that on it's head and make the government the source of ethics and morals and make government the entity that tells us what WE are allowed. There is no reason for this other than to remove the specter of wrongdoing; to reinvent morals to suit anti-social proclivities; to avoid punishment, shunning or disapproval in any degree of severity or formality.
I will resist comparisons to Soddom & Gemorah and instead will note that this unfortunate trend reminds me of Roman Vomitoriums.
Not a suggestion at all. Rather, a statement of fact. The entire history of Islam bespeaks a code of conduct completely in opposition to Christianity's. Murder IS allowed - nay, encouraged - and not within the bounds of war, either, but within daily life.
Proof that the Islamic code of conduct is death to a society is that Islamic societies merely exist (usually through brute force) or devolve (when brute force is no longer an option), and do not flourish.
sorry you resent that. it is, however, the truth to longevity of a healthy society. An example are the Jews: without nation, they took their religion with them and the Jewish society has not measurably devolved.
whether you consider religion to be the final, ritualized distillation of conduct codes by which a society maintains or flourishes (let's face it - man wants to name and categorize things) or the suddenly available rules offered by God - it is still the single most successful & efficient vehicle for inculcating society with behavior that allows a society to flourish.
Well I don't know, did you read the thread? It must be up there somewhere, have a look.
Oh wait, that was just a rhetorical question? My bad.
SA, go back and read again, please. The sentence you quote specifically notes that the lessons from my parents were likely influenced by religion.
It does. Really. Right there at the beginning part. I totally said it.
I'm really trying not to be a jerk about this, but does the concept of "humor" elude you completely?
I mean yes, I know, VERY serious subject. Serious serious business. But come on man.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzU5MGM3OTM0MWY5MDYyNjM2NGUzMDZhYjk5MmE1MzI=
You have been right about exactly one thing. This is a very, VERY serious subject.
Attempting to mask the inherent deficiencies of your side of this argument with a belated and flimsy claim to humor is unpleasing, but I'm quite used to this tendency on the part of those who would try to dismiss history, and mankind. Neither your argument, nor your humor, have adequate substance. You've done better than most - not having outright called me {insert favorite republican/conservative/religous insult here}.
However, do not expect any kudos from me on your heroic restraint of your dick-ness (apparently against great temptation). That restraint, sir (according to you, anyway), is something that should/is be a part of a human's uninfluenced personal ethical code of behavior, correct? You get no points for being able to maintain civility. This is not 7th Grade in the failed Liberal Education system.
thanks for the link. as usual, The Pope outspeaks me the way Andretti outdrives me.
My mistake was in assuming that such a concept was generally recognized. Correction noted. Enjoy your weekend.
Spurious name-calling = lack of substantive argument supporting one's position.
IMHO, your insulting pairing of Christians with the Taliban shows the depth of your intellectual dishonesty, not to mention your inability to discuss a touchy subject without the name-calling. Tsk, tsk.
For someone with such a profound cultural memory, you certainly seem to be painfully oblivious to your headlong rush toward dhimmitude.
Which makes it different from your lazy Eurocentric "Bible-thumping Americans" scare story trope...how, exactly? You think the majority (or even a significant minority) of Americans are as...let's say adamant as Asrai up there?
Trying to use the obvious and undisputed numerical inferiority of your Muslim population to dodge questions about their activism might make you feel better, but you'll forgive the rest of us for being less sanguine about it. And that's just the UK. That "numerical minority" seems pretty effective in the Netherlands, Paris, etc.
Of course, those are just "youths of undetermined ethnic origin." Sure.
Knob Head: your statement...
...illustrates my contention that an America without the social stability and deep influence of the religion upon which it was literally designed, is indeed headed for the rocks. As the crecendo of nay-sayers reaches new heights, new depths of behavior degredation are plumbed.
It is not the embracing but the rejection of Christianity that has accompanied the last score years of our national disgraces.
I blame Hollywood.