Conservatives, especially one's with really bad taste, seem permanently in a snit. There are things worth being conservative about, the best that humanity has to offer. But conservatives like Ralph Benko, in today's Washington Examiner, try a special tack of explaining why people insist the President must be a different faith than he claims. but they do that from a worldview of such lousy decorum that it is hard to credit them. Mr. Benko's worldview apparently includes such previous wonderful insights as Rock n. Roll having saved America from Communism. I thought the old quirky view that Abstract Expressionism was a special anti-Communist tactic sounded hard to swallow. But people like Mr. Benko think that "The Beatles and the Who" are what reversed massive economic trends and dogmas. It is a small jump from that reasoning to his other views. So we should not be surprised that the likes of Benko feels that not merely happening to agree with him on the wording of the idea of freedom of religion is IN ITSELF a sort of proof that Obama's Christianity should be questioned. His article says just this. I won't even try to parse his semantic problems with certain words, I just want to bear down on the fact that, by his reasoning, not agreeing with him on mere words is enough to justify questioning another's religious assertions. What an unfair and revolting presupposition.

A secondary point is one that one can make to such people, forever and a day, and they will continue their intellectual la-la-la-la-la-ing to block out simple thought. What people questioning their right to, is not to hold their views, or even fight for them, but -- and please try to get one eensy weensy point! -- to make their goal, not the preservation of their liberty, but the imposition of their views on others. It is so simple, but they will not stop chanting like schoolgirls. Believe what you want, nobody cares. Or more specifically, only your particular co-religionists care. But do not make your GOAL the imposition of your view on others. If you cannot accept that. Move to Afghanistan. You don't belong here.

Peter - I'm not familiar with Mr. Benko, but I decided to read the article you mentioned. Respectfully I have to disagree with some of what you say. To be honest some of what he says is correct. You yourself do exactly what he commented on to a degree. Instead of debating what he said you spend quite a bit of time attacking him. Most who oppose gay marriage find themselves called bigots. I've been called it myself and I don't oppose it as long as my right to adhere to my own faith's position isn't taken away.

You make the comment that "Benko feels that not merely happening to agree with him on the wording of the idea of freedom of religion is IN ITSELF a sort of proof that Obama's Christianity should be questioned'

Yet the article. assuming I am reading the correct one, states "What kind of world is it where a the Supreme Court holds that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” yet stigmatizes traditionalists for their answers? One legitimately can debate morality. One cannot stigmatize the religious without fatally undermining liberal democracy"

I do tend to agree with you that there are too many who are interested in the imposition of their views on others. However, that door swings both ways. We should all try and see it from the other person’s point of view rather than simply attacking them for what they believe. Something that we all need to keep in mind when discussing and debating controversial topics. Anyway that’s my view.

Ravensfan,

I think there is some creative reading going on here. Here is the first part of the article to make the point:

"President Obama’s recent formulation, “Freedom of Worship” has the religiously serious aghast. It telegraphs a subversion of faith — by defending a right not in question, the right to conduct religious feasts and fasts and ceremonies, and downgrading religion’s heart, values.

The First Amendment interdicts the making of laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The president now replaces a strong and constitutional word, “Religion,” with a weak and chic one, “Worship,” which is religion defined by esthetics, not ethics. Implication: the Constitution protects our steeples and liturgy, not religious values.

No wonder the nonpartisan Pew Research Center finds that only one third of Americans believe our president to be a Christian."

Here's the unavoidable analysis. In paragraphs 1 and 2 he pooh-poohs Obama's choice of words for Freedom of Religion. He then uses this semantic dispute to display his own view. That is his right, and so far not in bad faith. But then, in the next paragraph he jumps in making the connection between this semantic dispute and a poll of some percentage of the populace that Obama is supposedly not a Christian. This is prima facie in bad faith. And petty and silly too. What other conclusion can one draw when he says "no wonder" that he thinks a semantic dispute is a potential field of judgement for one's inmost belief. What a small- minded person. A blinkered world-view. I really can't stand rude people like this who think they are holy. I only highlight it because he is representative of the true rudeness which constitute the collapse of our culture, These people always think others are the reason for the decay of culture. No, it's just their viewpoint pretentious lowbrow baloney that is the true cause.

Finally, let me say as an aside, that I do not think Obama's choice of words is the best one.

Peter,

I wouldn't disagree how I perceive the article is different from the way you do. We probably both do a little creative reading in regards to it. I also don't mean to sound as if I completely agree with Mr. Benko either. I think there is some truth in parts of what he said, just as there is truth in some of what you have said. I would agree that the Presidents choice of words wasn't the best. I also agree with you about him using a semantic dispute as a potential field of judgment for one's inmost belief. However some of what Mr Benko said is also true. The rudeness door swings both ways sadly. What gets lost in the process is not only logic and reason but compassion and concern. Pretentious lowbrow view points don’t just come from one direction. The only real difference is how they are rationalized as being ok. Again that just my own view.

I sort of liked your response, so I want to seize an opportunity to say something I have long been thinking about in these debates. If conservative social- issue types would change their tactics and actually argue about what is good about their position from a non-impositional perspective I think they actually might make some real headway. I don't want to give them any ideas, so I will say this all rather generically. If you start with the assumption that it is not right to legislate your moral view for another, then you are more free to really argue from recognizable social benefits or demerits. Look, I have lived in the "gay community" for a long time now, and there are plenty of things that I myself would count as unfortunate about my community. There are ways that one could enunciate respectfully where heterosexuals might be better parents or partners than gay people. Some of those reasons might be based on misinformation, but ironically some of those might be based on information as well. I am not talking about the scurrilous horseshit that some right-wingers slop around, but the very human, all too human weak side of a certain kind of person. But the concomitant part of that is that you could then be freed up to do the same for heterosexual relationships as well. Right now that sort of things is handled by way of cartoons, a la the Simpsons and Family Guy. But if we undertook really to understand some of the weak points of male-female interactions the human race might improve a tiny bit. But, alas, this is not what most rabid right-wingers like Mr. Benko want. Behind all their talk about religion and words is this. They want to run things, and have their worldview be the regnant one. Plain and simple. Honesty is not a part of how they think they will get there. They don't feel they have to be honest, or even authentically should be, because they believe their view is foreordained. And this is what is behind their hyper-sensitivity to everything Obama says ( Ironically, I am not even sure Obama is all that comfortable with gay people, but I think he clearly has that principled non-impositional view as a a basic strategy)

Thus when you say, the rudeness door swings both ways, of course you are right in some generic way, but not really. On the one hand I call Benko's ilk "prententious lowbrow", and on his side he and his friends work to deprive my husband and me of health insurance, marital rights, hospital visitation, and many other crucial factors. We are not talking about equal levels of rudeness. My personal instincts are mostly gentlemanly. But I have no doubt about one thing. If someone is fighting against your basic rights, you need more than a few scoffing words to make them yield.

The good news is that things have changed so much that now they have lost the basic societal game of musical chairs
. So many people have friends and relatives who are gay, that they themselves take it as an offense and disrespect when gays and lesbians are slighted out of their rights. So people like
Benko are in a permanent high dudgeon.
And you can tell that because they have a great need to let you know explicitly how with-it and hip and relaxed they are. How sad, and see-through. So Mr Benko has his cool theories about Rock n' Roll, like wow man, and Thomas Peters has his gnarly surfing nuns, and Robert George has his banjo, nerdy cool bro'. The offices of their reactionary coven must be a laugh -a-minute.

Peter - Despite being on the conservative side myself I have a great deal of dislike for the tactics of the far right wingers and their need to force their own beliefs and values on everyone. I kind of like to think I’m just to the right of center but it’s hard to be truly objective of ones self. What’s always been troubling for me are people who call themselves Christians yet feel they can cast judgment on others. Maybe I’m fooling myself, but I’d like to think there are many more like me who are growing tired of the self-righteous howling from the far right religious conservatives crying about the decay of civilization just because a groups that has been denied rights is fighting to get them.

Well said, Ravensfan!

Oh, woe is me! How will I convince the world that the Robert Georgeous view of Natural Law is the ultimate, bedrock view on which society is to be based, if mere sociologists of religion want to get into the act. That new book described by Steve Schiffrin at the Mirror of Justice site,called Amazing Grace, claims that people are attracted to religious positions based on their political views. I must find a way of convincing people that even though only unbending conservatives embrace my crusade against gays and anyone else who opposes me, that somehow my view, and dear Maggie's, is for everyone. Even for the gay people who pay taxes to put our children public schools. I am working on it. But first I have to get Steve Schiffrin to quoting mere sociologists, and keep with the glories of Catholic legal theory. Especially since he has sort of proclaimed himself outside of the Church. Here is what Steve said:

"I am at the Political Science conference. I attended a panel on a forthcoming book on the sociology of religion by Robert Putnam and Robert Campbell called American Grace. Suffice it to say it will be a must read for us all: a long book packed with findings and insight about religion in America. One of the disturbing findings (at least to me) is that politics determines one’s religious beliefs, not the other way around. "

I think he should have added that even though politics determines religion in today's America, you have a Natural Law right to declare yourself fair and balanced in your views even though the whole point is only to be the opposite. Even if your views would be construed as amongst the most reactionary in society and aligned with the most extreme Republican views, you have the right to call yourself an Independent. Just like my buddy Glenn Beck. It is just like how you can say that Gold is a good investment even though you will often not recoup your costs in buying Gold Coins. This is because of the Natural Law of Gold, which has nothing to do with politics. It is based on more than sociology too, it is based on metaphysical priorities.

When the Robert Georgeous view of life is regnant, and our American Principled Project has worked its magic, it will usher in a new Siglo de Oro! (And I will buy Thom that solid gold Hello Kitty he always talks about loving.)