Washington Post conservative commentator George Will raises a complaint I share about the use of the term "values voters" by social conservatives and the media. "This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics," Will wrote. "It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots."
Will also pondered what qualifies as values. "Freedom and happiness are valuable," he wrote. "Arguably, governmental actions that did much to increase freedom and happiness in the past half-century were state laws liberalizing divorce. These made important contributions to the emancipation of men and especially women from mistaken marriages. Perhaps the most important of these laws — it was among the most liberal and was in the most populous state — was signed by a divorced governor, Ronald Reagan. What do socially conservative values voters make of that?"
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
68 Comments
I prefer the values that promote helping those who incapable of helping themselves.That wouldn’t include permanent tax cuts for the wealthy Republican ‘base’.
Don’t you understand Phil? Onle Fred Phelps and Terry Fox can tell us what the CORRECT values are!
“was signed by a divorced governor, Ronald Reagan. What do socially conservative values voters make of that?”Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Roommates.
I read this same editorial this morning. And while I think Will has a technical point, there is a group of religious conservatives who have also been called, Christian Nationalists, that are so labeled.
This group is on the troubling side in terms of their willingness to impose their moral values on others – hence, I am assuming, the “values voter” designation.
This link is to a Michelle Goldberg article on her upcoming book on this group:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/05/12/goldberg/index_np.html
Here is a link to Slate article discussing this same group’s efforts to stack the federal court system:
http://www.slate.com/id/2141857/
Fascinating and troubling stuff…
DD, a week ago today Terry Gross interviewed Ms. Goldberg on her “Fresh Air” program. I hate to admit that I got “stuck” in the SuperTarget parking lot out east, unwilling to get out of my car and basically riveted to my seat by the talk of Christian dominion, other religions “knowing their place” in American civic life (including government), and the Texas Republican Party (where most of this seems to come from).
In fact, the TRP was the most disturbing part, imo. Lots of these Christian Fundamentalist stories are little more than fearmongering, but not this one: in Texas, this stuff is going on now.
And people here wonder why kfg is sometimes so hostile to what she calls Christian talibanism, probably not knowing that where she comes from, Texas, such ideas are alive and thriving.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=11-May-06
flike,Thanks. Goldberg indicates that the Christian Nationalists use hatred of gays as a unifying force amongst them (black evangelicals, catholics, etc.). This may not have been a planned strategy, but this in-group hatred of the gay-agenda has worked as a unifying force.
I heard that same NPR program and it was quite good. I tried to find the book at the bookstore on Monday or Tuesday. The book doesn’t come out until 06-19-06. I am advance ordering a copy.
Values… hell yes! I value my American right to pack and carry my American made colt revolver right next to my pocket bible. The economy ain’t important. Having jobs ain’t important. Crime, people stealing for drugs and food may be caused bu bad economies, but my colt revolver lets them “Make my Day”! It’s ok to ship all of our good jobs over to China, India, and Russia, just don’t take my colt revolver. If you try you will have to pry my cold fingers off the empty cold steel of my colt revolver and I will go down holdin on to my giddeons bible. While some think they know better ways and how to live the “good life” I know some things have a value worth dying for: my bible and my colt revolver!
Uncle Sam
You are right Uncle Sam! In China they may have all the work on Boeing 747 airplanes and they may have all the food they want now, but they don’t have good leaders like here in America. Lets see: Terry Fox, Pat Roberts, Fred Phelps, Todd Tiahart, Sam Brownback, and the PREZ GW Bush. I am still so proud to be American. So what is Wal-Mart is the largest employer right now? So what if the accounting rules wore changed to count burger flipers as manufacturing jobs – This is still America! I’m damn proud too! America is so great we have a million Mexicans climb the fence or dig a tunnel to get over to America not China. Stand up for our great leaders cause this is still called America the beautiful!
Angel
Here’s a link to Terry Gross’s interview with Michelle Goldberg. I haven’t heard it, so thanks for the heads up.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604
Correct, Mr. Sam VALUES ARE IMPORTANT. To me the most important value is votes not guns. When we all celebrate amnesty there will be 29,000,000 (million)new votes. We wil own everything very soon, because we have votes – not guns! With 29, million votes we can have your gun too. Yes values are important, but be careful on what you value, it could own you someday!
Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism is available online at Amazon (B&N too, I’m sure).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393060942/qid=1147997036/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-7971697-6485619?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
RD:Thanks for the link. I was told at Barnes and Noble on Monday or Tuesday that the book was not in their warehouses yet.
DD, that could be. May I suggest calling Borders? Not that I have anything against B&N. I shop there myself, often.
Yes there is a religious right but the majority of Christians I have met are Democrats. I am not sure how they rationalize what the leading Democrats preach – pro-abortion, reelecting convicted felons, drinking and driving, mob money, etc. Of course the Republicans have similar problems but rarely get reelected when exposed.
“The fact is that the Jews were known only as destroyers in ancient history, not creators. They have developed no science, have produced no art, have built no great cities, and alone have no talent for the finer things of civilized life. The Jews claim to be the torchbearers of civilization, but thorough their parasitic habits have deteriorated or destroyed every nation in which they have existed in large numbers.” (Charles A. Weisman)
RD,I ordered it from the Amazon site. They indicate that the book came out this week. So, it may be that B&N won’t have it until June, but it is available now.
Thanks again.
Glad to help, DD. Let me know what you think of the book.
Shouldn’t that which we value most be life? If so, sending our young men and women to give up what we should value most for personal profit proves Republicans have backwards values. Or maybe none at all. ;)
I don’t know anything about Christian Nationalism, but I do know something about Christian Fundamentalism, having let myself be convinced by it for a time, while working for a well-known organization located in a state next-door to Kansas that built a nearly-700-foot-tall faux-gold (anodized aluminum) clad tower, whose leader who was amazingly technologically adept, as he did nationally television broadcasts in the ’50’s and employed satellte-transmission technology in the ’70’s, weveral years before Ted Turner, of CNN, Turner Classic Movie fame
This Fundamentalist tele-evangelist also used state of the art mainframe computers, with several hundred terminals that were manned by workers who read letters sent in by millions of people (tens of thousands per day). The reader/terminal operators typed in number codes for specific problems revealed by readers, such as “My husband has abandoned me,” “I have cancer,” “I lost my job and can’t find work,” “My unmarried 14 year old daughter is pregnant,” et al. and the computer produced pre-recorded responses in automated-printed letters. Then blue pen-signature machines (new at the time) bearing the tele-evangelist’s name convinced hundreds of thousands of Americans that the tele-evangelist personally read the letters addressed to him, and personally responded to them.
The individual writers were not sophisticated. It never occurred to them that the tele-evangelist would have to read 20,000 letters a day, and write 20,000 letters a day, in order for his reponses to be what they appeared to be, which would be a miracle of the first order, ranking with the day the sun stopped over Jericho.
There are serious problems with Fundamentalism, which have roots in ancient civilizations in which autocrats, aided by colluding ministers, claimed divine annointing, or even rulers’ personal descent from various gods, through acts of god-human miscegination, that authorized them to rule over everyone who was not so annointed or misceginated, which applied to 99.99% of the ruled populations.
A variant of this can be seen in fundamentalist leadership today: I have a personal relationship with God–we have daily conversations– and if you agree with me, you have a personal relationship with God too, but if you disagree with me, you’re a slave of the Devil.
Of course I am tempted by the Devil too, and sometimes succomb to temptation, but not as often as you. I atone for my sins, particularly when somebody I used to trust leaks info to the press that I’ve been consorting with prostitutes (Jimmy Swaggert), or bilking my “prayer partners” out of their resort-condo timeshares because I sold 100,000 two-week timeshares in a resort that had only 1000 condos , although that wasn’t a deliberate sin, it was just an accounting mistake (Jim and Tammy Bakker).————————–
If any of you have had severe myopia, and go to a healing service, and come to work no longer wearing glasses, it is absolutely appropriate to claim a miracle, and you don’t have to mention that you also got a radial keratotomy.
Tammy Bakker told her followers in 1985 that she had a hysterectomy that LEFT NO ABDOMINAL SCAR. There was no need for her to get into technical details on her TV show, such as the fact the surgery was a VAGINALhysterectomy, which generally doesn’t leave an abdominal scar, unless the surgeon is totally incompetent. The procedure was invented specifically to not leave an abdominal scar.
Josh McDowell wrote a very influential book in the 1970’s called “Evidence That Demands A Verdict”. He concluded that there were only three possibilities regarding the historical person of Jesus. A. Jesus was the Son of God, as He claimed to be. B. Jesus was insane. C. Jesus was a deliberate fraud perpetrator.
Hmmm. A careful consideration of the Four Gospels, Book of Acts, Paul’s letters and Revelation does not lead to this conclusion. Jesus didn’t write any of these these. Paul’s letters are the earliest of the New Testament writings, and he never met Jesus. There is no evidence he was aware of Jesus until after Jesus’s death. The other books of the New Testament were written down long after Jesus’s death.
So McDowell was really required, as a matter of intellectual honesty and reason, to say that there were three possibilities: A. Jesus was the Son of God as the New Testament WRITERS claimed, B. Human leaders of a new cult religion were delusional, C. Human leaders of a new cult religion consciously fabricated a new mythology for purposes of their own personal empowerment.
It’s not a matter of JESUS being A., B., or C., it’s a matter of ordinary human beings who were not historians, who were not eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life, and who wrote down oral tradition that was prone to change over time before it was committed to writing, either accurately portrayed events, or not. Given the numerous discrepancies in the Four Gospels, not to mention Church councils selecting these four out of many competing gospels in order to arbitrarily create a cannon, we may reasonably conclude that the New Testament represents HUMAN prejudices and agendas.
This doesn’t mean there is no God, it doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t sit at the right hand of God the Father. But even if this is true, it does not translate into people who say they have personal daily conversations with God having the right to set rules-of-living for people who admit that they don’t have personal daily conversations with God.
When the Religious Right made such a promenaded appearance in the Political arena and Pastor Fox and Right started on their crusade to outlaw Gay marriage. I said that these groups were of more danger to the Christian faith then the Devil or non-believers. But forcing those that did not believe to adhere to Bible doctrine, they were damaging the faith. But trying to put creation in the same area as Evolution thus putting the existence of God to a scientific test. They could very well cause man to turn from God and the miracle of Faith. Since a believe in God is purely a matter of faith and not of fact, to put faith to the test of fact, faith will lose.
By picking and choosing passages from the Bible to back up their own view of God’s will they are damning the entire Bible. I have said it on the message board, “Only Christians can end Christianity, no outside force can do that.”. The Bible is the owner’s manual for the Christian, not a mandate to force Christianity on others. When the end of Christianity comes it shall not be the Devil, the Liberals, the world that shall end it. It will be the Religious Right, the Christian nationals that will be scorned and pointed to as the blame.
HE WHO WOULD BE FIRSTWILL BE LAST
I am curious writerdog as to hwo you think they are “picking and choosing passages from the Bible to back up their own view of God’s will?”
I don’t see it as forcing anything on anyone.
Right now there is not gay marriage. They are trying to force us to accept it.
I don’t accept it, I won’t accept it, and I won’t be voting for someone who does.
It goes against what I believe to be decent, true, and God’s word.
I don’t view it as voting to force anything on anyone. I view it as voting to not accept something I see as blatantly wrong.
Oh by the way, I don’t like the argument that stopping gay marriage will protect the sanctity of marriage. I have never used that argument.
The only thing that argument does is give more validity to having gay marriage.
Nathan – because marriage is a legal entity you are forcing your interpretations of God’s word to become law. By doing that you are preventing gay couples from enjoying equal treatment under the law as heterosexual couples.
If marriage is a sacrament of the church then it should be removed from the legal civil domain.
comrade thinker,
Of course you are forgetting that the Jewish religion spawned the Christian empire, and that the Abrahamic laws of the first covenant is used as the foundational cornerstone of modern American law. But then again, I wouldn’t expect an anti-Semitic ignorant redneck like yourself to be aware of the “finer things of society.”
Mosaic laws…
lol
Choosing to be homosexual provides you no equal protection under the law which you speak of.
In other words nathan; you advocate denial of equal protection under the law to those who are born homosexual. Thus you force your beliefs upon them.
Ben,
I have yet to see anything which shows people are born homosexual.
Ben,
I believe that an “adult” having sex with a 12 year old is sick and disgusting and should not be done. The law fortunately reflects that.
There are cultures which think it is just fine to have sex with 12 year olds.
There are people here who think it is ok too.
Why are we shoving our beliefs down their throats?
In a civilized society, the argument can be made that many things are being shoven down peoples throats…
nathan – there is a bit of a difference between protecting children and interfering with an adult couple.
As for being born that way numerous studies have been published showing that – even in the animal kingdom.
Are there any Paul Wellstones out there anymore? People without business agendas? People that put the average American before business interests? People who see half the nation without health insurance and really want to do something about it? Come on person, where are you?
According to the other two Abrahaimic religions eating pork is an abomination. According to at least one of them (Judaism) cheeseburgers are as well. Therefore, in order to respect the writings of their Scriptures we should outlaw them. Also, according to many marriage after divorce should be prohibited. Maybe we need another constitutional amendment.
Nathan, the Bible said it is an abomination to God for man to lay with man, also that women shall not lay down with animals. There are many personal rules and guidance’s in the Bible for the believer. But that is what it is a “personal guidance” for the believer. Too often Jesus at the temple is used as a justification for taking action against a perceived wrong Poor Jesus, the one time he had a truly human moment, lost his temper and struck out. And his own people will not let him forget it!
if you find homosexually an offense then do not be homosexual, if you find gambling a sin then do not gamble. It is true that many laws have their basis in the ten commandments, or some other religious laws.Common sense is common sense no matter where it comes from, Thou shall not kill is not only one of the commandments it is also common sense. If you do not kill then no one has a right to seek your death.
As was pointed out, sex with someone that can not truly understand the possible results is different from two adults who understand the possible outcomes. I think the difference is that most laws are based on the harm factor. Killing harms someone, stealing harms someone, etc….
Why would some one choose to be gay? They will face social distain, the union can not bear offspring.Homosexually was used in the ancient time as a form of birth control, the girls were for having babies with and the boys were for having fun with. That is not true today, so then why would one choose it? Of course there is that one blaring question: if homosexually is a mistake and God does not make mistakes how can you justify the two statements? The only conclusion that can be reached then is that God made them that way! Free choice you say! Yes man has free choice, as such it falls back to the prior question why with all the down sides would anyone choose to be gay?
So if homosexually is a choice then so is Hero sexually, Perhaps it was the social pressure that made me choose to be straight. It would have been easier to have sex if I had been gay when I was young! After all if I had asked my parents if little Mary down the street could sleep over in my room, even if they agreed I doubt Mary’s parents will have been so willing. But if I had asked if little Johnny down the street could, no problem and Johnny’s parents might have used the peace and quiet to make me little Mary for later on to marry.
There are a lot of things I do not think are right or I am offended by, but as my dad said “Your rights end and everyone else’s begin at the tip of your nose.”. To drag God into it only service to give yet another reason for a nonbeliever to not believe. And gives credence to the point they make about Christians act “holier then thou” and are judgmental. A Christian is a human that believes in God and has excepted Jesus as their personal savior….But they are still just a human none the less.
Nathan, one more item….KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN!!!!!
Well said Writerdog.
Glad you said it. I do not address the poster you did any longer. But someone has to clean up his mess.
JR,
Are you ignoring me now too?
Writerdog,
I don’t support sin. I support homosexual marriage. I don’t care if it is just my religion or not. It is what I believe and I am not going to support it.
It has nothing to do with me shoving my faith down their throat.
So far this country has been just fine without homosexual marriage. Now all of a sudden my not supporting it is my shoving my faith down their throats?
I see it as they are trying to force me to accept them.
Either way, faith or not, there is not any reason to give special privledge to those who choose to be gay.
Homosexuals deserve no more special privledge for their sexual choice than do poligamists.
Insert *dont before the homosexual in the second sentence…
Nathan,
You’re shoving your values down someone elses’ throats by not supporting their rights, or at least by denying them their rights. And your values are based on what? Your faith.
You, as a heterosexual, have the “special priveledge” of marriage. You have judged another as not worthy. I thought judgement was left to God.
How do homosexuals harm you? If you believe their sexual persuasion is a sin, it is their sin, not yours. Therefore, isn’t it you who are forcing your values on others by denying them the equality of marriage, not them forcing theirs on you? Nobody said you had to like it, but as long as YOU aren’t being harmed, personally, what difference does it make what two adults do in privacy?
I’m still trying to figure out how you link pedophilia with homosexuality, as they are two very separate and completely different things.
Keep posting your profound feelings on the subject nathan. We always say we should send thank you notes to fred because he is our biggest fund raiser.
Keep it up here nathan, and you could have the new title of “champion homosexual support recruiter”.
In your words, we hear the real christian agenda for those who disagree with terry joe and fred.
Nice to know.
RD,
You assume homosexuals have the “right” to marriage.
I don’t.
I have not judged anyone of not being worty of marriage.
Second, you obviously don’t understand what the Bible says about judgement anyhow…
I never said homosexuals harm me.
KFG can go do whatever she wants to with whomever she wants to.
Don’t bother me a bit.
When you ask me as a voter to support state recognition of homosexual marriage, then I will not.
I am not linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
What I am saying is that if you want to think that the choice to be homosexual deserves state recognition in marriage then what about poligamy too?
The definition of marriage in the Christian community is one man one woman. This isn’t a Christian but a Hebrew custom. Now it is understood commonly that anything outside of the definition of one man one woman marriage is not a marriage, and is an aberration of the intent of God who obviously intended that men and women are complementary to each other physically, psychologically, which helped to define gender roles which is a necessary for any society to survive.
Notice that when God made a companion for Adam he made Eve, so it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!Cheers
Also in reply to writerdog, just because the Greeks and the Romans became increasingly decadent, perverse and morally reprehensible what with their raping boys doesn’t mean that such a way of life is acceptable and/or natural for all of humanity. It is interesting to note that such empires which condoned such behavior socially are as of today, non-existent.
KFG,
It is no secret. Homosexuality is a sin. Has been since the beginning.
Nathan, if the sin of homosexuality is so big, why isn’t it mentioned in the 10 Commandments? All the biggies are.
And as a Marine Reservist, I’m sure you’ve worked on the Sabbath. Seems to me that IS one of the Commandments.
Hey, CruX, what about Lilith?
“I am not linking homosexuality to pedophilia.”
Only covertly, Nathan, but the inference is there by mentioning it.
We love ya, Nathan. We just don’t happen to agree with you.
RD,
I love you too, I just don’t agree with you either.
Lilith!?
CruX, you don’t know about Lilith? Hmmmm…
Tell ya what. Tomorrow, after my daughter’s wedding tonight, I’ll tell you and post a link.
Hint: Even wasn’t Adam’s first. :0
RD, it’s been years since I heard anybody speak the name of Lilith. I did a search to refresh my memory. The discription of her supposed relationship with Adam makes her sound like my ex-wife. (Bossy overbearing demon harpie)
I havent the slightest idea of what the hell you’re talking about RD, but please I’m all ears!
XXX, ha ha ha! Lilith was definitely an assertive woman.
CruX, here’s a link for you.
http://gnosis.org/lilith.htm
Wow. I’ve never read such finer hooey than that.
Wildcats shall meet with hyenas,goat-demons shall call to each other;there too Lilith shall repose,and find a place to rest.There shall the owl nestand lay and hatch and brood in its shadow
Isaiah 34:14f
CruX,
I think the Lilith Myth clearly shows the Pagan origins of both Judaism and Christianity.
Looking deeper, to me it shows how the then new monotheistic religions wanted females to be believed as weaker, and if they were as strong as men, they were cast out.
Keep in mind that in polytheist religions, such as most Pagan religions, Goddesses are worshipped alongside the Gods. Human females of that time were held in high esteem for their reproductive ability (pregnancy & childbearing) and their healing abilities.
Very informative the Lilith post RD. Thank you. I’d been wanting to learn more about that.
Sigh……just another “scence” that didn’t make the editors cut. The director, if any, remains unheard from.
It has always been know that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Little wonder men stayed and restrained and “made unclean” that “hand” real early on!
JR, there’s quite a bit on the Net about Lilith. Just google “Lilith Myth.” A lot of differing opinions on the origin of it. Is it “true?” I have no idea, but I did get a laugh out of it the first time I read it. The part about Adam laying with animals conjured up some really funny mental images.
Oh, and I checked several Bible versions online (at Bible Gateway) of that Isaiah passage and didn’t see Lilith mentioned. Also did a search for the word Lilith and came up with nothing. Then again, I don’t know what that “f” after the book and verse means. Maybe Nathan does?
I am looking in my Bible and lilith is not in that verse.
I looked in many different translations and found no Lilith.
The “f” following the passage probably means fraud, fake, or forgery, since that passage does not exist in the entire book of Isaiah. The fact of female Goddesses is not lost on me especially the worship of the godesses Isis the Egyptian wife goddess of Osiris, Ishtar a.k.a Ashtaroth of the Babylonians. I suspect that the reason such worship of said goddesses were outlawed was because those worshippers held practices such as ritualistic prostitution (temple prostitutes) that went along with their fertility rites which were unfortunately enough for the ancient Israelites had taken to practice in the times of the corrupt king Manasseh. This was of course, contrary to the Mosaic law and later stopped by the reformations that followed.
RD
I will have to research Lilith further.
I could have SO much fun with that link you posted!
The stuff about how Adam “knew” the animals…..
That was before “the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” right?
So that would be God being ok with “innocent” bestiality I guess!
This is too easy to run with. I am mindful of the more even minded among the faithful so I’ll leave it be….for now.
What say you on the pious right? Is it a Christian “value” to diminish, dirty and devalue the feminine?
should be BEASTIALITY. But “bestiality” may be also appropriate.
Well, Nathan, the Gods were a bit, um, warped. :)
Since I, too, checked several Bible versions and didn’t see Lilith mentioned, I obviously won’t argue the point. As for that F, I’ll check it out if I have some spare time. I admit I should’ve checked the versions first before posting it.
Yeah, JR, I still get the chuckles over it. It’s become sort of a running joke in my family of all females (except for the 2-year-old grandson, poor kid.) We love springing it on people. Oh, we are wicked. ;)
JR,How does Judaism or Christianity “devalue” femininity? Are the feminists here mad that we don’t worship female godesses?
fiddlesticks!
JR, RD..You won’t find any of that junk in the Bible because it came from the “Gnostic” writings of the 2nd & 3rd centuries. The Gnostics believed the body was dirty and evil, so they pretty much “devalued” everybody!
I see, kansassam. So would John Ashcroft qualify? I mean, the man went so far as to cover offending statues with curtains. Sounds like someone who believes the body is dirty and evil, doesn’t it?
RD..I don’t know about John, but personally, I find some bodies alot more offensive than others…. lol!!!Actually… they believe that Jesus only existed in spirit because a human body would be too evil. Christians believe that the body is “the temple of the living God”.