Frank Rich: The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off

New York Times:

SOMEDAY we'll learn the whole story of why George W. Bush brushed off that intelligence briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." But surely a big distraction was the major speech he was readying for delivery on Aug. 9, his first prime-time address to the nation. The subject -- which Bush hyped as "one of the most profound of our time" -- was stem cells. For a presidency in thrall to a thriving religious right (and a presidency incapable of multi-tasking), nothing, not even terrorism, could be more urgent.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[NewArtz]

Religious freedom was established to give us freedom from another person's religious viewpoint in order for us, as individuals, to practice the dictates of our own conscious. The religious right do not believe in religious freedom, but rather religious absolutism, whereby they are the only true religion and everyone else is apostate and must be governmentally forced to practice their standards. They oppose freedom, like the Church of England and the Catholic Churches which used temporal power to enforce, with capital punishment if they felt like it, their will on all those under the jurisdiction of the temporal powers. We declared ourselves free, and we are free. The truth sets us free, but being subjected to another's religion only binds us to rote obedience enforced by laws which defy the constitution. Equality is hated by those who believe they are the only ones.

[AndThenOneDay]

Update: the Catholic church doctrinally opposes capital punishment.

[LWkcma]

This country was founded on religious freedom and on the ideal that no minority should live in fear of a fickle majority. Religion has no business in politics....personal morality does. We do not want to become a country under "Christian' dogmatic law similar to the Taliban under islamic law. If one reads the Bible correctly, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, and, to free us from the law. The biggest problem with the "Religious Right" is that their dogma is old testament, and not a clear, true understanding of that....More wars and more injustice has been done by those who pervert the spirit of religious teachings for their own agenda and the pursuit of power and riches, falsely claiming that God is on their side......

[NewArtz]

The teachings of Christ have abundant wisdom on social consciousness and financial solutions. However, the religious right chose to ignore wisdom and to stone "whores", thus producing from their "leaven of the Pharisees" a loaf of hypocrisy & vindictiveness, while putting on the backs of others burdens which they themselves won't bear.

The religious right, should obey these commands of Christ before they start trying to get the speck out of everybody else's eyes:

"No one can be my disciple who does not give up all their own possessions"

"Go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor"

[Soundofthunder]

What the present trend proves is that intrusive moralizing is most difficult to sell when people are broke. It's a matter of priority. When the economy bounces back, I expect the moral tide to rise once again. Christ's soldiers may have strong backs, but they have terribly short memories, for some things, except, most notably, Christ himself.

SOT

[MANK]

From Frank's lips to God's ears!

[ignoranceequalsfear]

Would anyone be surprized if tony perkins was the next ted haggard??

He totally fits the stereotype. When are these so-called followers of Christ going to realize that they are the pharisees he threw out of the temple???

Or better yet that most of us don't give a flying f.ck what their Book of Myths has to say about how we are supposed to live?? I mean Leviticus says not to eat pork or shelfish! How many evangelicals avoid shrimp and bacon???

[NewArtz]

They glory in their freedom from the law to eat "unclean meat", but use Levitical law to mandate behavior from others who aren't even in their religion. Pharisees, i.e. religious leaders used the Roman government to kill Christ, and now the religious right seeks to use the government to kill our freedom. They are the blind guides of those enslaved to them, but Americans will be blessed to be rid of them so we can govern ourselves in equality.

[Mikeeee]

If those two creatures pictured were ceo's of dollar companies, they'd be facing jail time for their fraudulent stance on so many issues. I don't see why it can't be applied to them, but it won't.

[SethBLiNK]

The Republicans did a masterful job for 30+ years to make these issues the most important in the ongoing struggle for power between the parties. They persueded middle and working class people whose best interests were not reflected by their party to vote with them based on their scoldings and fear-mongerings.

When was the last time we had a supreme court nominee whose most talked about stance wasn't abortion?

It was the great distraction and it worked like a charm. It took an attack on American soil followed by a questionable war to make some realize that perhaps their vote shouldn't have been swayed by the sexual habits of the previous president.

And it took the continued failure of that questionable war plus an economic meltdown to make voters realize that abortion and gay marriage aren't the most important issues on the ballot.

[wingnutgator]

I am a conservative, but lean libertarian on personal and moral issues. In the long run, I think the republican party will benefit from getting off these type issues and focusing on the economy, natl. defense etc. The gay issue will not matter at all in 10-15 years as most people under 40 really don't think it matters and frankly this 53 year old doesn't either.

[BlueStateMan]

It's a pleasure to see a TRUE conservative here...

[TLV]

I agree. Very few Republicans that I know are true conservatives. But most of the Democrats are.

[nicole473]

TRUE conservatives are what is needed to be the loyal opposition. The wingnuts are not true conservatives. Nice to see a real conservative here.

[ChristianEcon.com]

"I think the republican party will benefit from getting off these type issues and focusing on the economy, natl. defense"

The only problem with that is those two elements represent the most historically colossal failures of your ideology.

[Davwbaird]

TRUE

[Freesia2]

Very good post winutgator. I'm an Independent who's sometimes voted Republican. But I don't recognize a conversative in the Republican party any more. They don't exist really, at least not in their leadership and in their spokespeople.

I've tried to figure out when they went extinct. I think it was around the time the party marched into people's bedrooms and into their churches. It worked for awhile, it created a new base. But that base is so unattractive and disturbing to most people. Even church going, passionate people. It means to be a Republican, or vote that way, they must abandon reason, scientific discovery, privacy, and essential freedoms all while listening to the Republican leadership shout out "freedom!".

They should listen to people like you. I think they won't. But frankly? The Republican party as it exists today is no more convervative at its core than a liberal.

[AndThenOneDay]

The evangelicals will always be with you... They have no place else to go but to the republican party. The party has become marginalized enough without jettisoning their support.

The problem is they make the party very distasteful to independents/moderates. The denial approach to evolution is being replaced by the ostrich approach to climate change in the tribe that seems to need to wear its anti-intellectualism on its sleeve.

It's not hard to foresee a 3rd party with a more libertarian outlook making serious (Perot-like) inroads in 2012. And this will magnify the republican electoral college loss.

I would say this party has only just entered the desert. They will be there a very long time.

[SJBrown]

The NYTimes and Huffington Post are I guess what are called "left-leaning" or progressive?

I don't get the anti-religious sentiment that is represented here. The civil rights movement was lead by a Baptist evangelical preacher, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He came from a strong Christian family and community. The church was the foundation for the movement, with a strong partnership with the Jewish community, to end discrimination and fight for racial justice.

The Quakers were strong abolitionists. They risk/lost their lives for freedom.The Catholic church is a such a strong contributor to communities especially in education and charity. Religion has benefited society.

In my everyday world, marriage is between a man and a woman. Same gender relationships are accepted; some support civil unions as a different from marriage. Stem cell research isn't on the radar. Most still go to church, at least on once a year. Folks are focused on their lives and communities and don't necessarily relate to or care about what goes on in the rest of the country.

Abortion is still very much an issue more than any other issue out there for public debate. It is the issue that keeps many folks from supporting President Obama.

Perhaps its the lack of a credible spokesperson for issues like abortion, the role of religion in public policy/discourse, and traditional marriage is what's missing.

[nicole473]

No, you don't need a credible spokesperson. What you (the religious right)need is to realize that you can not dictate the laws of our country, such as Roe V. Wade, based on your religious beliefs.

Believe as you like, stop trying to shove those beliefs down our throats.

We are so done with tolerating it.

[SJBrown]

Did you actually read my post? I am not a part of any religious right. I'm not looking for a spokesperson. I'm not trying to shove anything down your throat. You don't need to tolerate me and never have. You are reactionary and emotion doesn't win.

[BlueStateMan]

Sorry... but the old canard that "it's not the product but the salesman" couldn't be further from the truth.

Nobody (that has even a modicum of honesty) is belittling the fact that a great many social & cultural advances were undertaken by people of faith. Some of the greatest art & music in history was inspired by such people.... but that's not the point here.

The POINT is that, like many things that have relied on it's "brand name" & little else to "sell" itself... the PRODUCT became faulty & substandard.... cheapened by cynicism & hypocrisy.

Horrendous scandals... running the gamut from financial corruption to serial child abuse is NOT about the "messenger".. it's about what organized religion has become... frankly what it has ALWAYS BEEN.... only now, finally brought to light.

You can claim that the "church" (or whatever) involves itself in community contributions & education all you want... but it is ALWAYS with a caveat... it ALWAYS has strings attached.. which is an anathema to the entire CONCEPT of "charity".

There is a DIFFERENCE between SPIRITUALISM & RELIGION... & this is the greatest of them.

[nicole473]

Good post.

[MrWampler]

But the messenger is a large part of it. The messenger is the initial point of contact for "religion," however you want to define that. American clerics aren't exactly poster children for a peaceful religion.

When Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez... when the pope sweeps child molestation under the rug... when Ted Haggard comes out as a drug-using, prostitute-using 'mo... when "religion" has become about nothing more than abortion and gays... no wonder people are getting turned off. They see the conflict and don't know who to believe.

[SJBrown]

My point is that most people that go to church are going under the religious right label. My church experience was a part of community and was a positive and empowering experience. You can rightously hate the church and religion. You definitely have a different experience and perspective than I do, and that's fine. But I'm not accepting your views as the ground truth.

[SJBrown]

Correction: Not going to church under the religious right label.

[nicole473]

SJBrown See Profile I'm a Fan of SJBrown I'm a fan of this user permalink

I don't get the anti-religious sentiment that is represented here. The civil rights movement was lead by a Baptist evangelical preacher, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He came from a strong Christian family and community. The church was the foundation for the movement, with a strong partnership with the Jewish community, to end discrimination and fight for racial justice.

The Quakers were strong abolitionists. They risk/lost their lives for freedom.The Catholic church is a such a strong contributor to communities especially in education and charity. Religion has benefited society.
-------------------------------------------------
1. MLK did what he did because he understood that "all men are created equal"; that is a part of our constitution. Most of those in the civil rights movement were progressives. Most were not religious or evangelical.

2. The Catholic church has also done much to harm the communities in which they thrive. Child molestations come to mind.

3. Religion has always harmed society more than it has helped it. Some examples of this would be the Inquisition (Catholic church), the holocaust (Germany was largely Catholic), . There are many more examples, but I don't have the time right now to research them. Those I mentioned were the most obvious.

My advice to you would be to believe as you like, but do not attempt to force it on others, which is precisely what the religious right has done since the 70's.

[SJBrown]

We could go one for one but that would mean you'd have to accept some truths that are outside of your world. Just because you say so is a weak-A argurment. My advice to you is not to put bank on your three points.

[LadyAurora]

I agree with all of your post except for one fact you have wrong. You are correct that the holocaust was started by and in Germany, but their reason for going after the Jews was not because of religious differences. The Jews were considered inferior as a culture not as a religion. The Nazi party didn't have a central religious system. Hitler picked and chose from many religious, i.e. Christanity, Hindu (the swastika is a hindu symbol), and Pagan (Norse and Germanic). The believed and practiced various occult acts.

[SethBLiNK]

Devout Christians are welcome in American Politics. They are welcome to take their religious convictions, for example an aversion to abortion and to use that as the basis of their political choices. But, when they tell us as Americans, that abortion is evil because the bible says it is, and that since this is a majority-christian nation we should abide by the bible, they have stepped over the line that separates church and state.

That, more or less, is the argument that has held sway for the last 30 years, and the right, whose economic message should appeal only to the extreme-haves, have been happy to lead with their religious argument to attract the have-nots who share their views on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Should abortion and gay marriage be an issue? Sure, though it would seem to me to be an issue primarily to the gay and the pregnant. The right has managed to make these lifestyle questions the biggest issues out there and that's just wrong. It seems that the small-government party should feel more than anyone that the government doesn't belong in our bedrooms.

I'm glad that these issues are not going away, but finally receding to the lower level of importance they deserve as part of the national argument.

[BlueStateMan]

Excellent post.

[SJBrown]

I'm glad that these issues are not going away, but finally receding to the lower level of importance they deserve as part of the national argument.

I can advocate whatever I want, including that the Bibile says so. How is that a violation of your rights or an intrusion?

Marriage is between a man and a woman (husband/wife, bride/groom). Does that mean there are no other relationships or committed unions? NO.

If we want to underpin other relationships with legal contracts, recognition, and/or benefits, then we better be sure what we're agreeing to. Have you actually read the relationship laws in other countries that are touted as progressive. Some require couples to be together for specified lengths of time, restrict individuals to one divorce, and have generic civil marriage laws while reserving the right to "solemnize" marriages to churches.

We have to be deliberate about our laws, because we have to live with the consequence. There is an on-going court case where a woman divorced a woman, decided she was no longer a lesbian, that the lesbian lifestyle was too sinful for her child to be exposed to in visitations with her ex. Now the court is in the middle of an argument that is contractual, religious, emotional, and "in the bedroom."

If we can't talk about it then we sure can't arbitrate it in the courts. And the "religious" will be on the jury, do vote (witness Prop 8), and help write the laws.

[Cinnamonape]

If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry one. And that's true if you oppose interracial marriage or cross-religious marriage. If your church opposes that type of marriage then don't sanctify it. We are referring to the rights and responsibilities conferred by the State.

Marriage is an economic contract between two consenting adults that merges their properties and places certain rights and responsibilities upon one another. It's not simply about having sex, having a relationship, etc. In fact, people who can't have sex, or have children are very often married.

But gays can't get tax privileges, joint insurance support, Social Security payments when their spouse dies, and a whole host of other things afforded to straights by the Federal Government or States they live in.

[SJBrown]

What point are you arguing? My point is related to the idea that the cultural wars are not over. I don't know anyone that would say that marriage is not a union between a man and woman and most would see it as a commitment between two people independent of the economic benefits. Everyone I know would agree that that there are legitimate relationships outside of marriage, and some would agree that those relationships should be recognized with benefits and contracts. A few would agree that those relationships are the same difference as marriage.

The "host of other things" you refer to are probably based on the GAO report that was used to support the Defense of Marriage Act. You do know those aren't inherent to marriage, they are laws and policies that can be changed. If I were fighting for benefits it would not be by fighting against traditional marriage or attaching my future on the future of benefits to married couples.

[Davwbaird]

TRUE

[twofish]

Religion (or spirituality or one of those terms) seems to be wired into our brains, but it's up to us, individually and collectively, to evaluate and control the expression of it in our various cults. It's probably all about the denial of death, the absolute refusal of our ego to entertain the notion that it will one day cease to exist. I think some of the Hindus worked it out a long time ago but no one is listening.

Anyway, I don't believe these po ops have the keys to the kingdom of heaven any more than the pope or the ayatollahs do. And we have to keep saying so, just as they keep trying to use their promises and threats to control people's behavior in this world -- oh, and to keep the dollars flowing in.

[Davwbaird]

TRUE TRUE TRUE

[AddyGmom]

Any religious rightie tighties out there willing to take responsibility for their part in the destruction?

[nicole473]

You must be joking. Such a confession is an anathema to the hypocrites.

[dennissinned]

I wonder how the GOP are praying for Obama's failure? Dear God, please let him fail. Huh? Talk about taking the Lord's name in vain.

[OldKnute]

Naaah.

Dobson is convinced that if we had only beaten our children more,, none of this would have happened.

Robertson is sending a tornado.

Falwell is seat-belted to a cloud, throwing lightening bolts to herd the masses toward the gates of hell.

Heggy is convinced Cancer will soon strike all Voters who could not see the TRUTH of Sarah Palin’s prophecies of God’s wrath heaped on American Business.

And,,,, Haggard is the new poster child for the next “Prayed Straight” movie costarring Larry Craig and Mark Foley.

Newt Gingrich is assured his sins of adultery are forgiven,, because HE did not lie to Congress about them.

“Forgive those who trespass against you.”
“The speck in another’s eye.”
“A kind word turneth away wrath.”
“Care for the widows and orphans.”
“Love your enemy.”
“Come let us reason together.”

Seems,,, reason,,,, was the FIRST to be thrown under the Bus about 12 years ago, when this,,,, “Moral Majority”,,,,, took root.

All the best

Knute

[TLV]

Well said!

[Nicon]

New Drug Czar and Huffpost has nada. Rachel Maddow link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOO9JC7J2RI

[nicole473]

Another great article from Mr. Rich. I especially liked this part (makes me feel hopeful that the religious right will fade in to obscurity for another 40 years)

"""""History is cyclical, and it would be foolhardy to assume that the culture wars will never return. But after the humiliations of the Scopes trial and the repeal of Prohibition, it did take a good four decades for the religious right to begin its comeback in the 1970s. In our tough times, when any happy news can be counted as a miracle, a 40-year exodus for these ayatollahs can pass for an answer to America’s prayers.""""""

[smit9187]

Spot on, Nicole, spot on!