Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Rachel Maddow Identifies the Religious Right

    I was watching Rachel Maddow last night and she commented on the “rejection of religious right” candidates during the last election and gave examples: Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee.

    Now there are a couple of problems with this, some of which could be identified by right wing opponents of Mike Huckabee who don’t think he’s far enough right. This ignores great differences in temperament, considering that Alan Keyes has been involved in trying to challenge President Obama’s eligibility for the office, while Huckabee, well, hasn’t. That’s a substantial difference in my book.

    Now I’m sure my right wing friends are right with me thus far, though they may think I should skip watching Rachel Maddow. They’ll generally agree that the left tends to group quite a variety of people under the term “religious right” until the term tends to become meaningless. For example, many people from left of center regard George W. Bush as part of the religious right. Just down the road from me is Crossroads Baptist Church, home of Chuck Baldwin, who thinks Bush is left wing.

    But this is not really a problem of left, right, or any other specific position. It’s a problem of distinction that we all tend to have when someone’s positions are far from our own. It’s easier in this day and age of sound bites and short messages to group people quite broadly.

    But it happens in the other direction as well. I’d particularly like to look at the words “socialist” and “socialism.” As used in the campaign, they got pretty amusing. John McCain and Barack Obama were proposing tax plans that were only marginally different, and that were both redistributive in nature. Our tax system is thoroughly tied up with redistribution and even when we do tax cuts they often end up like spending because of the way we do them. Now “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need” is certainly an element of socialism. But the difference between Obama and McCain on taxation was not between socialism and capitalism; it was between different mixes of the two.

    So why not call all socialists, well, socialists? In my view, because it devalues the term. If “religious right” applies to everyone who is both religious and right of center, then I’m probably a member of the religious right, even if only by a small margin. Yet there’s a large amount of real estate between my position and Huckabee’s, and in turn between Huckabee’s and Keyes’. Similarly, you will note attacks on President Obama’s policies from both left and right. That’s because there’s a substantial difference between his positions and many of those held by various liberal and progressive groups.

    When a politician wants to make a point, he or she will try to generalize a label and place someone in as unfavorable a light as quickly as possible. If I were running in an election against an opponent to my left, I might well be labeled part of the “religious right.” In that way my opponent could reap the votes of those who are frightened by Alan Keyes. It would be politically expedient under current circumstances, but not accurate. (Of course, there are many reasons, much better ones, not to vote me into office, and you won’t see me as a candidate, not even if hell freezes over.)

    The only solution I see is for us to demand better as citizens and take the time, at a minimum, to look at a list of issues and see with some precision where a candidate stands. And while I am reconciled to the fact that politicians will try to oversimplify an opponent’s position in order to gain advantage, I’m less pleased with commentators who do so. I’m not a fan of media neutrality; I am a fan of media depth.

    On those rare occasions when I can find it, that is.

  • John Hobbins Leaves Complegalitarian

    Please don’t take the title here as some sort of rejoicing from either side. John gives his reasons here in a very thoughtful post.

    There are two reasons I want to respond with a full post. First, his reasons are worth reading and considering, even though ultimately I will continue to fall afoul of some of his guidelines and suggestions. Second, I think there’s a good point here about conversation in the blogosphere.

    I was never involved with Complegalitarian, and I was only an occasional reader, even though I count some of the authors as friends. The reason is simple: I don’t have the slightest pretense of being neutral on this issue, nor is there even a whiff of the irenic in my expression. If you found some it was either an accident or perhaps I had a cold that day.

    If you’re wondering how I can claim to be a moderate (remember also passionate!) in this case I would simply point out that I have never claimed to be centrist, but rather that I consider all variations. Occasionally, as in this case, I come out fairly far to an extreme. Note, however, that if your view of the egalitarian extreme is that women and men are somehow not different from one another, then that is not my view. I merely believe that each should be permitted and encouraged to do what he or she is gifted to do, whatever that is, whether it’s pastor, fighter pilot, homemaker, nurturer, or gardener. I do not believe that there will be parity between men and women in each of those groups–I simply won’t prejudice the possibilities.

    But that is not my topic. My concern is the idea of the neutral forum. I think it is a potentially dangerous idea. News outlets, for example, are all prejudiced. This would be fine if we could identify the prejudice and account for it. It becomes dangerous when we try to pretend there is no prejudice.

    My suggestion for the best way in which to conduct such a discussion would be via a multi-blog conversation. One could even set up a tag in Google Reader or some other such service that would aggregate all the blogs that wanted to be part of the conversation. Then everyone could express themselves as they saw fit on their own blogs, but be linked in as part of a conversation. In many ways the comment system on blogs tends to keep us in the past, treating our blogs as one of the old internet forums.

    In the good old days–and I’ve been at this since 1985 when I operated the Wind Dragon Inn bulletin board in Bellevue, NE–you joined a particular board or forum and all conversation went on there. Since my first bulletin board cost me around $2,000 to set up, it was unlikely that most of my readers/commenters were going to set up their own in competition. So they all had to call my number and follow my rules.

    Now anyone can create a blog for free, and the software permits all of the wonders of a forum to develop around it. Thus we can all comment as we desire, which is one of the reasons I generally post on my own blogs.

    Comment moderation, as necessary as it is, is very hard to do in a balanced fashion. I tend to let just about anything by, but those who are sensitive to attacks might feel that this is not a safe place to discuss. They’re right. It isn’t. If you’re even slightly inclined to get offended, you’ll probably find that I allow a comment that offends you.

    On the other hand, stricter comment policies often tie people down from expressing what they think is simply the truth. Complementarians that I know in real life really do believe I’ve taken leave of my senses and started ignoring scripture because I’m an egalitarian. These are people with whom I remain friends. I’ve always been amazed at what will anger people online, because I’ve generally heard worse in person. I think we tend not to attach a real live person with whom we already have a relationship to the comments, and thus only the hurtful part remains, unimpeded by any human considerations.

    In summary, I don’t think it’s possible to create a single blog or single forum as a truly neutral solution. When we trim people’s expression in order to produce dialogue, we often lose the expression of the very issues under discussion. The blogosphere gives us an opportunity to break that logjam.

    One final note–I really don’t like extended conversations in comments. I prefer exchanges of blog posts. I’ll do extended discussions when they’re interesting, but I always think that more than a couple of paragraphs at a time would be better served in separate posts.

  • When in Doubt, Check it Out

    You know when you get those feelings, like boot camps will reduce juvenile crime, drug raids reduce drug use, or the comments are slowing down on your blog? Do as David Ker did, and find out if you’re right! (Note to David: I absolutely couldn’t resist posting this. I tried. Really!)

  • Free Speech Means Freedom NOT to Speak

    There’s been a great deal of discussion amongst conservatives about the potential revival of the fairness doctrine, and some action on the left in hope of actually reviving it.

    I regard the fairness doctrine as a thoroughly reprehensible idea. I did not support it while it was still in existence and I hope it doesn’t make a comeback.

    At the same time, and for the same reasons, I think that radio stations should be free not to air this program, which many find offensive. Now the AFA is complaining about how they’re being suppressed. But freedom to speak doesn’t mean that others have to support your particular speech. That was the error of the fairness doctrine–that freedom to speak means somebody else must pay to disseminate your speech.

    In this case, TV stations are rejecting the program because it annoys their customers. Whether you agree with their decision on this particular decision or not, if you believe in freedom of speech, I think you should agree that it is their choice.

    If I write a book and somebody else doesn’t want to publish it, that’s their choice. I don’t have a “right” to a publisher. As a publisher myself, I don’t have a duty to publish things I regard as inappropriate, no matter how wrongheaded my definition of “inappropriate” might be.

    Of course this can go on and on. Indeed the AFA does have the right to complain about those who don’t show their program, as I have the right to complain about their complaint. That’s freedom, folks!

  • A: Because obviously what Jesus would do is shoot them

    Q: Why did the Arkansas house pass this bill?

  • Christian Carnival CCLXIII Posted

    … at The Evangelical Ecologist.

  • I Wanted to Post Something about the Search for the Ark

    … but the Internet Monk already did it and did it better. That’s Noah’s ark, by the way, not the Ark of the Covenant.

  • Commending Chuck Grassley

    … for his response to Larry Flynt.

  • How to Keep Religion in the Public Square

    Every so often there’s another outburst of complaints about how religion is being suppressed in this country, and how it no longer has its place in the public square. And there are the occasional really silly incidents that actually support such a claim. I note, for example, that our local public library here in Pensacola, Florida refuses to permit religious groups to conduct meetings, which is simply a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    On the other hand, many, and I suspect most, of the complaints arise more from inconvenience, and the legitimate requirements that people use some kind of etiquette in the way in which they use the public square. The complaint of suppression is frequently actually a complaint that one is not getting the proper strokes, or that the government is not funding one’s favorite religious cause.

    WorldNetDaily has an article complaining that a clause forbidding the use of stimulus money to build buildings whose main use is religious. For example, you can’t build a seminary with the money. (HT: Dispatches.) They do this with the ridiculous headline, Stimulus to ban religious worship. Yeah, right. Either from the church or the state side, I very much do not want the government constructing buildings for religious purposes.

    But if we Christians do not have what we think is our proper place in the public square, why is that? Is it because of suppression? Christianity is, after all, the majority religion. I do note, however, that when this is limited to True ChristiansTM, no matter who gets to make the definition, the number drops substantially.

    But it seems to me that we’re so busy complaining about the opportunities we don’t have (and I’m not prejudicing the issue of what privileges we should have) that we aren’t really taking advantage of the privileges and opportunities we do have.

    If you are a parent who complains that children can’t pray at school, let me ask a couple of questions. Did you take the time to pray with your children before you sent them out to the bus stop? Will you pray with them when they get home? Will you take time out of your schedule today to pray for your children during their time at school? And even more, have you investigated just where and when at school your children can pray? Have you taught them how to pray for themselves?

    If you are complaining that our young people aren’t getting enough Biblical education, again let me ask you a few questions. Have you read your Bible today? Have you chosen a passage and really studied it, so that if someone referenced it in literature you’d “get” it? Have you or will you take time with your children to study the Bible or something about your faith? Do you encourage your children to read the Bible? Do you see to it that they know something about their church community?

    And more importantly, have you let that life of prayer and Bible study impact the way you act in the public square? When you ask “what would Jesus do?” does it come out to something other than your own inclinations? Do people who meet you know you’re a Christian? If they find out you’re a Christian will their opinion of Christians improve?

    If you don’t relate to many of the things I’m suggesting, I think you should reconsider complaints about being restricted in your religious activities. You aren’t taking advantage of the many opportunities that are available.

    If you or your children aren’t praying enough or studying the Bible enough, is it the fault of the much maligned ACLU? Or is it a result of your desire to have somebody else take care of your children’s religious education because you don’t actually care enough to take the time to do it yourself?

  • Do Scientists Promote Darwinism?

    Not according to Steve Matheson of Quintessence of Dust, who did some empirical research on the matter!