The appalling thing about Conservative Republicans in the “old time values” vein is that they can make up all kinds of excuses for the Southern Strategy or DOMA but it still boils down to good old fashion bigotry. Why not just own up to it?
Here’s one from Matt Frassica at the New York Observer on Ross Douhthat and some of the ‘promising’ young hate mongers up next in the so-called intellectual wing of the ‘conservative’ movement. These are the ones that still consider promoting theocracy to be an American value and distort history to do so.
The question came from Christopher Glazek, a fact-checker at The New Yorker, who wanted to know whether Mr. Douthat and Mr. Salam believed that former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who has apologized on behalf of his party for the Southern Strategy, should also apologize for the Republican party’s gay politics.
At first Mr. Douthat seemed unable to get a sentence out without interrupting himself and starting over. Then he explained: “I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public.”
Mr. Douthat indicated that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, but that he does not like debating the issue in those terms. At one point he said that, sometimes, he feels like he should either change his mind, or simply resolve never to address the question in public.
He added that the conservative opposition to gay marriage is “a losing argument,” and asked rhetorically if committed homosexual relationships ought to be denied the legal recognition accorded without hesitation to the fleeting enthusiasms of Britney Spears and Newt Gingrich.
After the panel, Mr. Douthat told the Observer: “If I were putting money on the future of gay marriage, I would bet on it.”
He added: “The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren’t just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don’t find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,’ you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.’ Who wins that debate? You win that debate.”
Okay, riddle me this. WTF is institutional support for reproduction and why on earth is it necessary unless you’re trying to control women? Is this basically a movement to keep women barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen and attached legally to a man? Institutional support for planned pregnancies? Nope, no support there. Institutional support for abused women and children? Not on the same level as institutional support for dropping bombs on other countries. But, we need an agenda for institutional support for reproduction? What is this? Government via Papal edict or perhaps we’re supposed to watch the hyper-reproductive Dugan Family and get with the Quiverfull movement? It’s bad enough we provide tax deductions for families that basically litter the country with children they can’t take care of, now we have to stop gay people from marrying to encourage it further?
What on earth kind of frame is that for a modern nation to adapt? Why not just be honest and say we get votes by pandering to misogynists, homophobes, theocrats, and racists and just be done with it? Why the need for stupid terms?
digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: Religion in government, sexism and misogyny | Tagged: conservative republicans, Quiverfull, values voters
Conservative Bigots can’t call themselves Bigots for the same reason Liberal Misogynists can’t call themselves Liberal Misogynists, and that is because it doesn’t fit their self righteous self image.
good point … they have to make up fancy terms to confuse the issue
for the same reason that elitist anti-religion bigots can’t call themselves that.
you can’t control your sexuality or your sex, those are physical attributes you collect by dna, you can,however, control your level of ignorance and the manner by which you force it on others …
bigots hate people based on race and other physical traits that people can’t change and are really issues with book covers …
It’s not bigoted to open the book, look inside, and recognize and point to ignorance where you see it … religion falls into the contents section, not the cover of the book … and sometimes the contents of the book are really really really bad and based on ignorance
Are you saying that hatred of a person or persons based on their religion is not bigotry?
If it’s not bigotry, what is it?
i think it’s easier to distinguish between some one who is a bigot about a personal attribute than some one who is intolerant of a view point. Yes, I think one can be intolerant of a view point to the point of hatred and that can be bigoted. I think it’s more than just criticizing the viewpoint, however, based on disagreement.
You can disagree with a viewpoint. You can’t disagree with a physical trait. So, what concerns me with a label like “elitist anti-religion bigots” is that there’s an irrational hatred of something you know nothing about but you just hate at face value and then there’s, this is nuts and this religion is nuts based on actually looking at the ideology or the myth and deconstructing it. I think it’s easy to call critics of very bad ideas bigoted, when it’s not bigotry, just simple disagreement.
There is a big difference between disagreeing with a religious belief and hating the person who believes it.
thank you, Myiq2xu, that was a much more succinct way of putting it than I did
os,
People can have just cause to be against the views and practises of others.
Good old Oxford has this to say about the term ‘bigot’
a. a hypocrite
b. a superstitious person
c. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a creed, opinion, or ritual.
Given the definition, it is possible to be unequivocally against a social insitution and its practitioners without being a bigot, provided one has good reasons for being against them and one is open to modifiying this opinion in the face of evidence that runs counter to one’s reasons. In this case, opposition is not bigotry, it is just cause to be intolerant.
s
It’s bigotry pure and simple. It’s just liberal bigotry so you get a different defense.
Pushy atheists are just as big a pain in the ass as pushy evangelicals. They both could do the world a favor and keep their opinions to themselves. They would also look less foolish.
RB,
The dictionary meaning of ‘bigot’ is clear. It is possible to oppose or even hate individuals or groups without being a bigot. The key is whether ot not the opposition is based on just cause.
What term should be used for those who oppose bigots?
s
“Good reason” according to whom, Steven? Every bigot has what s/he deems a good reason for hating the people s/he hates.
myiq, people who simply disagree with a viewpoint don’t build concentration camps to exterminate those who hold it. They don’t engage in century-long civil wars. What dakinikat seems to be saying is that opposition to religious belief is always rational and impersonal and therefore cannot be bigoted. I disagree.
If you’re talking about the holocaust, didn’t Hitler classify Jews as a race? Wasn’t it more about a form of over the top racism?
Besides, with your definition all you have to do is disagree with some one’s religion and you’re a bigot. Isn’t that a bit extreme? Doesn’t the hatred come based on some more primal physical difference or sense of other? Would you call the U.S. hatred of Communism a clash of ideas or bigotry?
os,
If by “good reason according to whom” you mean to say that there are no standards by which to judge any conduct as better or worse than any other, then you deny the basis of ethics.
If you merely mean that many bigots believe they have good reasons for their beliefs, then you are making a basic empirical comment that I think is likely to be the case.
If you have carefully read my comment, then you’ll recognize that I’ve implied that good reasons are reasons that are open to evidence, which is an acknowledgement of humanity’s lack of a God’s eye perspective, which means that we can be wrong, which means that we ought to be open to modifying our views, if we find that they are inconsistent with our experiences. Necessarily, and following Charles Sanders Peirce, this means that we need to be particularly wary of doctrines, insofar as they suffer all of the foibles of their all too human interpreters.
s
The legal profession has figured out how to define “reasonable” and “unreasonable.”
dakinikat–No, I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with someone else’s religious belief is a bigot. I’m saying that someone who considers another person to be the scum of the earth, hardly if at all human, a blight on society, is a bigot if s/he bases that hatred on the other’s religious belief. What I had in mind, specifically, is the kind of frothing hatred of any and all Muslims that you see on certain blogs, such as Pamela Geller’s and her followers’. I think that goes well beyond any kind of intellectual or reasonable disagreement with the tenets of Islam.
myiq, while the legal profession does indeed have standards of what it considers ‘reasonable” and “unreasonable,” I’ve spent too much time in court rooms to believe it has much, if any (ahem!) reasonable effect on jurors.
Steven, I’ve never met a bigot who didn’t believe s/he had good reason to hate what- or whomever s/he hated. I would argue that hatred (and its specialized form, bigotry) is by nature irrational or at least arational. It requires a tremendous investment of energy on the part of the hater, generally with no benefit to him/her–or anyone else–as a result.
dakinikat-Sorry, I left your last question out of the previous post. I would consider opposition to communism on rational grounds–cost v. profit, relative coercion v. relative freedom, weakness v. strengh of economies–to be a clash of ideas.
I would not consider anyone who subscribed to the notion of “Better dead than Red” to be engaged in clash of ideas, if for no onther reason that “Red” is a reversible condition, and “dead” is not. Joe McCarthy wasn’t engaged in a clash of ideas, either, nor do I believe that Glenn Beck, his current disciple, is anything but a bigot. When you use the word “Communist” to label someone against whom you are inciting hatred, you’re at least attempting to arouse bigotry in others, whether or not you share it yourself.
os,
Hate burns a lot of energy.
I know people who describe themselves as bigots that ackonwledge they have prejudices that have no rational merit. They say it’s just the way they feel and that’s all there is to it and all there needs to be to it. I appreciate their honesty, even though I disagree with their prejudices.
Shalom,
Steven
I think lived concepts are necessarily emotionally-imbued, which means that
so it is okay to be bigoted against something you do not agree with because people chose it? So anyone who thinks differently than you do is necessarily ignorant and bigoted but you are not?
It seems to me that you look only at the cover of the book when looking at religious people, and not the insides at all. I could give you 100 examples of people who do not fit your stereotype of religious people. For instance one of my friends in Miami is a very liberal lesbian baptist minister.
Like I said somewhere else, the Duggars seem like very nice people with very nice children and while you mock them, I would sure as hell rather live next door to them than the jackass liberal agnostics in Hollywood who think raping a 13 year old girl is okay.
I’m not making a blanket statement against all religious people or even all one members of one particular sect. I’m perfectly capable of looking at the actions and words and discerning what is reasonable behavior and what is not reasonable behavior. I consider the Quiverfull movement to be a cult. You obviously believe you have better powers of discernment than me because some people hyped on a tv program “seem nice”.
Frankly, I wouldn’t want to live next either cult. So, what about bigots and atheism? Does that fit into your paradigm?
TiP,
People can be against a social institution, person, group, or point of view without being bigots. For example, if it was the case that you hated the jackass liberal agnostics you mention above, and it was the case you worked to marginalize them, the fact of your hate or your actions would not mean you were bigotted against them. If your hating them and working against them was based on reasoned, consistently applied principles, then, by definition, you would not be a bigot.
s
Wow, what a great point. It’s also another great example of equality, whether for gay people or women is deeply interconnected.
yup, this means people could get married for love instead of strictly reproduction! That means women would be more than just sperm vessels and incubators!!! Horrors!!! If gay men win the right to marry each other for love, what does this do for the humanization of women?
women’s rights and civil rights and gay rights are all human rights
it’s all interconnected because it’s about struggling against one group’s asserting power over another for its own benefits, religion, laws, lack of economic opportunity or school are all used against various people’s who struggle against the class in power
AMEN !!!!!!
Exactly! It’s so simple.
Why do so many just not get it?
This is the kind of stuff DEMOCRATS are up to, while Axelrahm moons Fox News……
http://minnesotaindependent.com/47850/franken-anti-rape-provision-may-be-stripped-by-a-democrat
“WTF is institutional support for reproduction and why on earth is it necessary unless you’re trying to control women?”
Well, Aid for Families with Dependent Children amounts to institutional support for reproduction. Is it an effort to “control” women? In Europe, companies are obligated to give women rather extensive pregnancy leave. That too is institutional support for reproduction. Should women cast off those shackles?
I agree with your general point, but I would counsel you to choose more careful wording. Right-wingers can twist any left-wing invocation of freedom into an argument in favor of libertarianism. That’s one of their oldest tricks.
That’s a good question. I think it’s a fine line between encouraging the birth of children people can’t possibly can’t take of and encouraging them not to plan for children and parenthood, and then stepping in to stop the damage to children after it’s a done deal, but point well taken.
we shouldn’t be supporting reproductive institutions we should be supporting children
It’s bad enough we provide tax deductions for families that basically litter the country with children they can’t take care of,
This is rather rude.
to me, it’s better to provide children with direct support (free preschool or childcare or creches for infants or free school lunches) than to give money to people that have children that they aren’t prepared to parent. That way the money goes directly to support the kids and it can’t be funneled to other things.
Actually, this would be ideal because public preschool and childcare would also allow women’s take home wages to not be further erroded by trying to pay for childcare. Nobody ever considers that the 70 cents on the dollar that women make are even further erroded by paying for childcare, food and clothes (and healthcare if they work for a corporation).
I believe that is why we will never see public childcare beyond ECAP (used to be headstart). Single mothers are hobbled by the enormous costs of caring for children, but many in our society think they deserve it for being divorced or daring to have children out of wedlock.
It would be nice if these people could support the institution of children rather than conventions of what relationships that produce them would be acceptable.
but true.
and haven’t you seen examples of people being turned into human detritus because of toxic family situations?
This guy is saying he wants to provide ‘reproductive support’ to an institution that isn’t really a guarantee of a healthy environment for children is fine. He just wants it because it fits his religious paradigm and some bigoted notion that single women, gay couples, or other family situations can’t be just as fine for children and in many individual circumstances much much better. It’s taking away our notion that we should support children and giving it to supporting a strict and narrow definition of an institution. It’s taking away our notion of fair treatment to restrict it to a strict and narrow definition. AND it’s a strict and narrow definition set up only by religious intolerance and bigotry.
Great post, Dakinikat!
I don’t know if you are familiar with the right wing panic over “population control.” Some wingnuts think that the powers that be want to wipe out a big percentage of the human race. Other think that white people need to have more kids to keep America white (speaking of bigotry).
no, haven’t read that, I’ll have to check for something
That line is even frequently discussed on cable TV by people like Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck. Recent Buchanan column:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/22/buchanan/index.html
Population control talk:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjU1OGIxN2JjMmRiNzM1YzMxMWNjZDM5NDBkMDQ2NzY=
Do you really consider children litter?
Though the Duggars have different religious beliefs and political too, I assume, they seem like very nice non judgmental people with very nice well behaved and helpful children.
That many children are like having a litter of puppies. There’s no way you can meet the financial and emotional needs of that many children. The Duggars now have enough money from their reality TV show to feed their kids … as far as emotional development, etc. it’s a little early to tell how many of those kids will turn out to be well adjusted human beings. Maybe I should’ve used the Gosselins instead because their family life has already exploded in front of the world
or just read the psychology literature as well as the damage done by encouraging something other than population control, that many children is damaging to the environment, to the future economic growth of the economy and to the children themselves … what business does the government have encourage that much social welfare damage in the name of some religious tenet of being fruitful and multiplying which is a value basically shared by a minority of religions these days?
The Gosselins didn’t set out to have that many kids. They wanted one more, but were infertile and the fertility treatment backfired. I certainly wouldn’t set out to have 18 kids (or any at all), but there are millions of parents out there who aren’t equipped to meet the financial and emotional needs of even one kid.
exactly, which is why, to me, there’s a difference between just recklessly encouraging people to have children without thought and supporting them after they’ve made an informed decision or after the fact … to me, any way, there’s shoving people into it, or telling them they wont’ be complete human beings unless the reproduce or just not supporting them to make choices or saying society will only support you in the institution we call the institution to ‘ support reproduction’ vs. saying this is part of our larger decision to support or citizens who are living and breathing and require certain things to become functional in the society
How many is too many in your mind and who gets to determine that?
no, the government doesn’t get to decide that, but then we don’t have to provide tax credits for it either, again, supporting children is the purpose, not encouraging reproduction
I think that is a matter of personal opinion. Obviously no one can mandate a limit on the number of children. But we do have tax incentives for having more children, and single people pay more taxes than married people.
exactly bb
i’d rather push tax credits for birth control and direct support to early childhood education providers and childcare facilities and also nutrition and health programs for children. That way you actually help children.
Frankly, I think it is incredibly irresponsible for people to have multiple births because they used fertility treatments. I know I’ll be attacked for this, but It have real problems with a lot of these measures used to help people have children, and I have serious moral problems with the idea of going forward with these multiple births.
Dakinikat is correct that in families with large numbers of children–even if there is plenty of money–children don’t get the same attention that they would get in a smaller family, and that has consequences for cognitive development and how children do later on in school and careers.
“single people pay more taxes than married people.”
Not usually. If both partners in a relationship have full time jobs, generally they will pay less taxes by NOT getting married.
Religious views about “reproductive support” are the fires in front of the caves I wrote about many moons ago. Children used to be a form of wealth since more children could produce more food through farming/animal husbandry. Since it was written into religious texts it became a religious tenet. However, we’re not out tending the fields any more but the religious ideal is “go forth and multiply.”
Perhaps. But the medical community needs to get an ethical grip on the whole egg implantation issue. Bearing children is not some right that gives “infertile” couples the option to breed in litters, yes litters, and then pimp their family out on TV for all the world to watch your bitter, adulterous break up. I can’t imagine that’s “good” for the kids that you wanted so very much.
The same with the Duggars. If you have to pimp your kiddies out on TV in order to afford them then there’s something really wrong with this picture.
Enough already. I’m not impressed. You can copulate, you can breed, and you don’t have the sense to know when to stop. Yay Duggars. Yay Gosselins. Now, please just go away.
really, some doctor should’ve just said no to the Gosselins after the twins…
we haven’t even started in on Octomom yet … but think of all those poor people in countries where their religious leaders tell them not to use birth control or marry their girls off at 12 so every one can die in childbirth or hungry or whatever. Notice those religions do much better in places where people are like chattel?
I’m gonna have to disagree with you. The children seem to be fairly happy and well adjusted. I see no reason to malign the Duggars.
Additionally, I have to wonder what number is too many? I have had 5 children(Four are still living). Am I irresponsible because I will not be able to provide Harvard educations for my brood or that there is the expectation they must help in our household? Or is it enough that I meet my childrens basic financial needs and their spiritual ones.
While I am all for “planning” I found your argument a little offensive because life tends to get in the way of planning from time to time and I don’t think you can just plug people into an equation to determine how many is too many kids. There are cases where one is too many and plenty of multiple child homes that raise wonderful children that grow up to be productive members of society.
While I think individuals can make their own choices over how many children are appropriate for them, including when they can sterlize themselves so that accidents don’t happen, I think some realization needs to occur that overpopulation is a serious problem and that having too many children depletes the world’s resources and the future for every one’s children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
Having too many children creates problems for every one else.
“A vagina is not a clown car”
I googled that phrase and got 60,400 hits.
One of the first ones was a reference to the Duggars.
This stuff is of the essence of my doctoral research. Population is an aspect of IPAT/STIRPAT. What follows below is from the STIRPAT home site.
IPAT
One of the first empirical and quantitative efforts to address these questions was the accounting equation:
Impact= Population x Affluence x Technology, or I=PAT
This mathematical identity, referred to by the acronym IPAT, was developed within the framework of traditional ecology. That development was launched by a debate between Barry Commoner and his colleagues on one side and Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren on the other in the early 1970s. Over the following decades, the I=PAT equation was occasionally used to estimate the effects of human population, level of affluence and choice of technology on environmental impacts or to project future environmental change based on changes in the three driving forces. Recently IPAT was renamed the Kaya equation by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Kaya equation has been very influential in analyses of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For further information on IPAT see the bibliography.
STIRPAT
Dietz and Rosa wished to capitalize on the analytic potential of IPAT in order to address the questions posed above. They recognized, however, that human systems, while organized by the same causal processes governing natural systems, were fraught with random influences and noise. Human activity seldom follows precisely mathematical functions that characterize non-human systems. Hence, In 1994 Dietz and Rosa proposed that the I=PAT accounting equation would be more useful if recast into a stochastic form that would allow random errors in the estimation of parameters and permit systematic hypothesis testing. They proposed the following reformulation of IPAT:
I=aPbAcTde
where I is a measure of environmental impact, P is population, A is affluence and T is technology. Then a, b, c, d and e are parameters to be estimated. Estimation is accomplished by using standard statistical methods, such as regression analysis. The regression estimation procedure requires the key variables—I, P, A, and T—be converted to logarithmic form. The resulting estimates of the parameters b, c, and d can then be interpreted as the elasticities of population, affluence and technology, respectively. The elasticities tell us the percent change in impacts from a one percent change in any of these driving variables. The “a” term is a parameter that scales the model. The “e” term captures the affects of all things that effect I but are uncorrelated with P, A and T.
Dietz and Rosa named the reformulated version of IPAT as STIRPAT, an acronym for STochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence, and Technology. The acronym STIRPAT was chosen on the basis of several considerations. First, we needed a label that distinguished the stochastic version of IPAT from the accounting version of IPAT. At the same time we wished to recognize and give proper credit to the origins of the basic idea that impacts are a function of population, affluence, and technology. We chose STIRPAT because we had “stirred” the original idea, had retained the original terms I,P,A,and T in deference to the founders of the original formulation, and because the word “STIRP” means a line of descent from a common ancestor (The Random House Dictionary, 1987).
STIRPAT is a research program in structural ecology. It focuses on macro drivers and macro impacts, such as CO2 loads and other greenhouse gases and loss of biodiversity with the nation state as the unit of analysis, Richard York joined the research team in 2000 by developing a line of research that focuses on the ecological footprint (the most comprehensive measure of impacts currently available) and that systematically tests a variety of economic and sociological theories predicting the trends in impacts.
Using that logic people shouldn’t be allowed to have pets either after all they use resources too and are a drain on an overstrained planet.
Frankly the children using up valuable resources are also the ones who have or will come up with solutions and are tomorrows, doctors, research scientists, mothers, fathers, and I woulod never in a millionb years presume to tell anyone they had too many children.
For the record, at one time my family felt THREE children was our limi(my husband actually underwent a vasectomy)t. God or fate(whichever makes people more comfortable) threw a wrench in that plan. He took our son and my husband wanted another child.I prayed on it because I knew the child I had woulod not replace the one I lost. He went on to have the vasectomy reversed and I went on to have two more children. I can’t imagine having a life without my last two boys. My son Christopher is such a good soul people literally remark about how kind and sweet natured he is. My son Jacob would give you the shirt off his back. I like to believe the world is a nicer place for having them in it.
Quite frankly, I find the idea of wagging fingers at people who do believe that children are a blessing from God as productive just as I disagree with the notion that someone who is homosexual should not be judged for their relationship choices. I also am a strong advocate of providing the resources to women who don’t want children to avail themselves of that option.
That being said, I don’t want ot live in China where I could only have one child and my children would be considered a drain rather than the blessing that I consider them.
Who is to judge anyway? I don’t drive AT ALL. My 6 person household lives in roughly 1200 square feet of space. I plant plants. I buy local when I can. I do more than enough for sustainability without being told that my children are inconvenient for the planet. It’s as offensive as it would be if I were to tell you that you didn’t deserve to live here because you are a drain on the planet.
cwaltz,
One of the important untold stories of the slaughter iin Rwanda is that of the massacres that occurred in areas where the residents were all members of the same tribe. In these areas neighbors killed neighbors, sons killed fathers, and brothers killed brothers.
The slaughter occurred because Rwanda is 93 agrarian, but has the population density of Holland. The slaughter occurred because it was impossible for the people to grow enough food to provide for a reasonable lifestyle for all the members of the families and communities.
Accordingly, when people say it is improper to comment on the choices of others to have children, I think of how thoughts like that lead to family members killing each other and their neighbors.
s
No one is damning any one for an individual choice. It’s just that we need to make sure people really know what they’re doing when they make that choice and that it is, when possible a choice.
An institution that promotes exponential fecundity this day and age with what we know is promoting an evil outcome for the planet and for all beings on it and it is only doing so to promote its control over people.
Whatever you do, you’re screwed. You’re A freeloading a b—– (and let’s not pretend it’s not a gender issue, because it is) if you can’t support your kids and ask for assistance. You’re an uncaring b—– if you work to make money for the kids and hire a babysitter. You’re a b—- if you sign up for a show that allows you to stay home and spend time with your kids. There’s nothing you can do to be okay, except not have the kids and it’s a little too late now. (And childless women are the coldest b—— of them all, come to think of it).
There are many ways to reduce or increase humanity’s environmental footprint. Population control is important in both the south and the north because Northern-based peoples tend to consume and degrade vastly more environment space than Southern-based people. This is why the north is called upon to drastically reduce our consumption and degradation rates per capita and implement population control while the south is asked to emancipate women so as to improve population control, which takes resources. This means the people in the south will require more resources per capita, because emancipatory systems require greater amounts of resources per person.
More people now means more consumption and degradation now which means less for future generations. Is it more immoral to regulate population growth than it is to steal the means of subsistence from future generations?
Notwithstanding, because consumption is a necessary aspect of human life, there is a point at which human numbers cross the threshold point of carrying capacity and humans suffer mass die off.
cwaltz, I am with you on everything you’ve said in this post. There is a huge amount of prejudice out there for large families. Everyone seems to justifly it because of environmental issues, yet as you say, no one is biased against pet owners, or commuters, or other people who are environmentally unfriendly. I think people just have this preconceived notion of kids in large families being neglected troublemakers, and while in some families this may be the case in many it isn’t. As TinP says, people are painting entire groups with a broad brush (and I agree with her that Christians have many different beliefs and actions and that many, many good charitable institutions in this country and others are Christian based,)
There is pretty good evidence that children from large families have more cognitive issues and problems in school than children from small families. So, there’s not only the issues surrounding overpopulation, but there’s usually the issues that society has to bear from the children being generally less able to handle school and later, careers. This is a cost to society. Again, it is a matter of personal choice, but to ask society to bear costs because of that personal choice means that society has a right to question the value of that personal choice and also doesn’t have to encourage it. So, parents who choose to have large families do so by removing resources to people with smaller families. It takes more resources to correct the issues they create. That’s hardly bigoted since it’s based on substantive research.
Thanks for all of your comments on this thread cwaltz, I totally agree.
My last son was a late life “surprise” (I guess we should have been more careful, so shoot me) and has some cognitive and speech problems.
I did agonize (and pray) over what to do when I found out I was pregnant but decided to give the “clown car” one last spin.
He’s wonderful and beautiful and one hell of a challenge. We do need some social services provided through the school district for his therapies (again, shoot me.. insurance doesn’t cover) and plan on taking full advantage of my tax credits. (Seeing as how my hub and I both are lucky to still have jobs I don’t really feel too guilty about that one.)
Not one of the decisions regarding him have been
simple but I don’t regret any of them. One of the decisions was not to have an amnio that might have tipped me off to problems and I suppose that can be viewed as a mistake as well.
I am not sure if three kids is too many but that is my final output. I don’t look at my 5yr old son as a “cost to society” and will forever shield him from those who think he is as best as I can.
We will try not to suck up too many resources.
I went back and read Mr. Douthat again and I am not sure what your problem with him is…
He has an opinion based on religion and yet doesn’t think the argument should be made on a religious basis. In other words he doesn’t think it is right to use his personal religious views to make an argument about the law.
But yet, that’s what he continually falls back on … that’s his only reason other than something else. So do we enshrine bigotry into law via the name of religion?
And yet there is no real “religious” argument against gay marriage unless your focus is on marriage only being about reproduction (as is the case with the Catholic Church). I think it’s interesting that Douthat recognizes that his argument if bogus–so much so that he’s embarrassed to make the argument in public! And yet he still sticks to it.
I don’t read him making the argument you state. I read him saying, ” I have these religious beliefs that are against gay marriage. But I see that is a no win political position.” I think that is a conflict that some honest social conservatives have. And for them to admit that is a step in resolving their conflict—religion and politics do not mix. Our constitution and Bill of Rights are profoundly secular for a reason—men of the 1700s and 1800s knew all too painfully that without a wall of separation between government and politics there was nothing between the individual and religious bigotry.
This is not just the blind side of social conservative Republicans BTW.
ah, okay, got it, hopefully it is a moment of thoughtful lucidity and he’ll realize having the government enforce a religious tenet is a bad idea especially if that’s the only real justification you have for your disapproval
That’s the way I read it, too.
Your comment suggests that you accept that his “religious beliefs” are a completely valid position and can not or should not be questioned.
Is that correct?
I don’t know what Teresa meant, but I think it’s perfectly valid to have a position based on ones religious beliefs. Neither my beliefs nor yours are invalid bases upon which to have a political position, whether we personally find those beliefs objectionable or not.
It’s fine to have positions based on religious beliefs, but when you start trying to force those beliefs on others through the law, there are problems, IMHO.
When I said there is no “real” religious argument against gay marriage other than the objection to sex without the possibility of reproduction, I meant that the biblical arguments that are often used by fundamentalists are bogus. I stand by that opinion.
The bible is not a work of nonfiction. It is a collection of myths and allegories mixed with poetry. There is nothing wrong with that, but in our country biblical myths passed down from ancient times cannot be the basis of law. No one should interfer with another person’s religion. But IMO, no one should have to live according to someone else’s religious beliefs either.
If your religion forbids something then don’t do it, but leave other people alone to make their own choices.
Which is why it is so offensive to call someone’s vagina a “clown car”. Making choices ought to include allowing women and men that derive joy out of a large household to procreate as they wish.
You can’t take the moral high ground when basically you are calling people like the Duggars bad for the choices they made. It seems hypocritical to suggest that Christians are bigots for not allowing homosexuals their right to make choices for themselves based on their belief system and then basically make fun of them because you disagree with their belief that children are a blessing from God.
they are however, not a legitimate basis for laws that cover all types of people in a society and government set up not to favor one set of religious beliefs …
I don’t mind your religious beliefs or how you personally act on them until they cross that line of impacting other people and especially my daughters and me.
What disturbs me the most about the Duggars is that they dress their girls in Little House on the Prairie schmatas.
Mrs. Duggar is one Big Boy flippy boufant away from that Mormon cult in Texas.
Rule #1 of Alpha Male Social Dominance: Men are the conquerers and controllers of women;
Rule #2 of Alpha Male Social Dominance: Women are the possession of men.
Therefore, anything that contradicts those rules — i.e., gay men or women, — must be eliminated or stopped (unless of course those gay women perform for the sexual pleasure of men, thus being controlled by them).
That’s why women’s and gay rights are interdependent. They are both victims of gender dominance. We are natural allies.
I agree.
OT:Reid says Public option back from the dead (the dirty secret is that it is a zombie “opt out” “negotiated rates” option, which means it’s even weaker than the House’s not-actually-an-option-for-most-Americans version of the public option)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/public-option-its-back.html
fingers crossed
I think it’s Reid, Pelosi, et al. who’s fingers are crossed behind their backs when they call this stuff “public option,” … we shall see.
Did anyone see this…Nicole Kidman: Hollywood contributes to violence against women
Nicole Kidman has said that Hollywood probably contributed to violence against women by portraying them as weak sex objects
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6402311/Nicole-Kidman-Hollywood-contributes-to-violence-against-women.html
Movies also show plenty of violence against women–often very graphic violence.
Just watching in the gym music videos you wonder what role models girls have these days. Nothing against Beyonce, but basically in most vidoes women look like bimbos in skimpy outfits.
I posted a link from the Guardian in the morning thread, it had video of Nicole saying it. Actually the media is sensationalizing it a bit by not giving Kidman’s full quote. She gave a great response and was diplomatic too, she said Hollywood was probably part of the problem but also part of the solution or at least some try to be.
much better than rape-rape!
Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment May Be Stripped By Senior Dem, Sources Say
I posted this upthread …this is the kind of stuff the Democrats are doing while Axelrahm throws mashed potatoes as Fox News.
Not quite fitting with the topic…but Britain get its own Fox moment.
The BBC invited to its political show Question Time the leader of the right-wing BNP (British National Party). A storm of protest from some politicians/actors/etc broke out that he should not be allowed on the show. Note: BNP recently won some seats in the (democratic) European elections. As much as I disagree with their program, it is disturbing that politicians asked for them to get no air-time. Seems protesters just breached security at the BBC center! What better way to safeguard democracy then to smash up the place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6399903/BBC-in-turmoil-over-BNP-Question-Time-invite.html
I suspect that at least part of what he means by “institutional support for reproduction” is a mechanism for holding a sperm donor financially and legally responsible for his children. (Fathers, as opposed to sperm donors, hold themselves responsible.) If so, it seems to me a way to control men rather than women.
That isn’t a common right wing position as far as I know. They tend to support things that empower men and fight against things that empower women, e.g., birth control, abortion rights, maternity leave, public funding of child care, welfare for single moms, and food programs to help poor kids.
They oppose the killing of unborn children but support the death penalty and are pro-war even when innocent people die.
I never figured out how folk’s brains don’t explode over that but I guess that’s just part of the things in the bible that basically contradict each other
conservatives talk about “promoting a culture of life” ….
I’m not for the death penalty or war, I’m for a woman’s right to choose and for universal healthcare. it’s about promoting a culture of human rights.
it’s a culture of control not life
The Senate and the House have now passed the extended Hate Crimes bill to include hate crimes against GLBT!! It will be signed by President Obama later this month!
Excellent! Now we need the ERA.
I think the House would pass it but I doubt it would even get out of the Senate.
And, if it did I don’t think as many states would ratify this time as did last time. Last time only 35 states passed it. I don’t even think Illinois passed it last time.
JFTR – I don’t believe it is still an active amendment. It timed out because of a court decision but some say it is still active. I wouldn’t want to lay odds that it is currently viable and needs only 3 more states to ratify.
Does this include gender too? It’s hard to tell from the news stories which are focusing on the LGBT aspect.
gender is included
It includes “gender identity.” That is for people who are women but look like men, men that dress as women, etc.–not women per se, as far as I know.
from the bill “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any
person”
OK, that’s good. Let’s see if any women can use it to sue for being beaten by their husbands or raped. My guess is no. But it would be nice if that could happen.
Whew! For a minute there I had visions of gender being disappeared for the final version.
I guess they couldn’t find a single woman who had been the victim of a hate crime to add her name to the bill title. I know that might seem ungracious to mention but it’s interesting how we always seem to get our rights on the tailcoats of men.
Now the only stumbling block will be getting LE to actually prosecute gender-based crimes as hate crimes. Let’s start with “honor” killings.
That’s my worry. That women’s claims will just be dismissed.
I’d like to see the bill. I don’t trust any of them and I need to read the fine print before I celebrate.
Eggs-actly
Apparently it was tacked onto the Defense Bill. If all they did was change the purview to include sexual orientation, gender identify, etc. that’s definitely a good thing. Pretty good move to tack it onto Defense spending.
But there were still 20+ repubs voting for it.
I’ve been looking for some details but can’t find that many … i guess most of the coverage happened when the House passed it
For those looking for the bill
PDF File…. Matthew Shepard Act starts on page 1471
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/111_hr2647cr_txt.pdf
Hi reg!
Hello, Seriously.
Hi Reg-nice to see you!
Lutheran churches in Sweden celebrate same-sex unions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321502.stm
wow! so that’s where the change is
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has approved blessing same sex unions and ordaining gay and lesbian clergy in committed relationships. Previously, the gay and lesbian clergy were OK but they were supposed to be celibate.
This is good news, however … go Ben!!!
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20091022a.htm
On your post Daki: I did not find what the guy says all that upsetting or bigoted or damning. He sounded like someone struggling with the reality that his religious beliefs made poor politics. His resolution and I hope one that other social conservatives find is to keep religion out of politics. It did not work in the 1500s and it does not work today.
Before Dems and liberals get too self-righteous about the Republicans and their southern strategy, they need to remember that they rode that pony to election victories with FDR, Harold Ickes, Truman and Johnson. It worked for them the same way it has worked for the neoconservatives. I don’t think we have any Dems out apologizing for that behavior that was egregious and cost lives. And lest we forget, Lincoln was a Republican, not a Democrat.
The Republican party has changed a lot since Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were president. The Southern Strategy basically was to pull the Dixiecrats out of the Democratic party by appealing to their racism. The Reagan movement continued this by appealing to those with beliefs rooted in misogyny and homophobia. Just as racism used to dress up in religion and bible quotes, these other movements do also.
These issues are all based on finding something ‘different’ about a human being because of some psychical trait that’s dictated by their DNA. Like SOD says, it’s all about the straight male power structure asserting it’s authority. You cannot argue a specific religious tenet in this country to support a law. It’s against the establishment clause.
But let us not forget or rationalize away the reality that the Democratic Party of the 50s and 60s was playing the same game with its own “southern strategy”. It was absolutely aimed at appealing to southern racial fears and racism. The religious bigotry was also a theme they played. There is a profound reason why that “wall of separation” is there, just like the 1st Amendment and free speech—yet both political parties have history on violating those principles.
My point is that while Republican Conservatives have their bigoted and ugly side, the Democrats do too. We saw it in bold in the last election; we still see it in this WH.
yes, I see that, there’s just an ugliness to politics that appears to be part of the process and each side will use it to their benefit.
You left out JFK.
And LBJ.
Department of No Shit?:
The election was less than a year ago. The real shock would be if he was already running behind someone else.
BTW – they didn’t ask to see how he polled against Hillary.
BO vs HRC 2012—-sure like to see how that cookie would crumble.
I want Hillary to write another book before she runs again. I’d really like to hear her thoughts on—you know—just about every god damn thing that’s happened since July of last year. That, and it would be fascinating to read about her experience foreign policy (in the future).
LOL….Of course they didn’t Myiq!
I’m curious to see how she polled, if in fact they even used her in a poll.
According to PPP, he’s polling 47-43 against Huckabee. I would say he’s losing in fact though he’s 4 ahead..
Huckleberry is the closest GOPer to Obama in the poll, but Sarah P. is the one that the Failbots freak out over.
The reason?
V-A-G-I-N-A
And they’re too dumb to realize they need her. Since Obama’s only qualification is in his pants, having a male opponent might, um, neutralize it. What kind of hysterical fear campaign can they use with another guy–”Romney was once INSIDE his mother’s unclean body, Obama is the product of immaculate conception”?
Yeah. Huckleberry is scary. He’s much more personable and charming than he ought to be.
heck, most mass murderers are personable and charming too if you ask their unsuspecting neighbors
DK great post
& im with you . these conservatives or anyone that try tp push there moral values on others.
who do they think they are i wonder who some of them would feel is sombody said well you cant get married becuse shes not from the same race as you are. or preety much any reason
Totally OT – Woman makes false 911 call to create a diversion and get EMS out of their building. Then she tried to enter the building but got caught under the garage door. Then she called 911 for help – just 6 minutes after the false emergency. She died before they could return and help her.
The woman was a paramedic who lost her job because of drug use. They think she was breaking in to score some meds.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/878331/woman-dies-afte...
Do you think her family will bring a wrongful death action against the company that made the door? Or the city/county?
Bigotry for me is generalized hatred of people for what they represent in their physical makeup or the behaviors (legal) they may choose. It’s the generalizing and de-individualizing part that does it for me. I like the first amendment, the free speech part, the free exercise part, the separation part. I disagree (passionately) with many of the tenets of institutionalized religions. But I also refuse to generalize every Republican as racist, or condemn every Christian for their spiritual choice. I reject Douthat’s views on gay marriage, but it does not appear that he’s trying to impose those views on anyone. Yes and governments should not be dictating or enforcing reproductive choice, whether it’s promoting having children as in Japan or limiting having children in China.
Been thinking much about group behavior lately. Reminded of the slightly spooky handholding kumbaya Coca Cola TV commercials from the 70s. Going to teach the world to sing. It’s the real thing. Guess it was a time when people were trying to heal from Vietnam, Watergate, the bad economy. Ran into this today about Coke embarking on another mission to go around the world to try and “discover what makes people happy.” I don’t know, just got to me, the conceit, reminded me of all the cultish group think of the past year, especially among the young. I’m over reacting, but that’s kind of been the norm lately. Swinging between punchy laughter and grouchy anger. Slipping into mania.
http://www.psfk.com/2009/10/coca-cola-wants-to-know-what-makes-people-happy.html
“WTF is institutional support for reproduction?”
I think it’s just what it says: tribal pressure to ensure the survival of a species. I mentioned this a couple of days ago: Peter Gomes, a gay black Republican Harvard Divinity School minister and professor has written in “The Good Book” about the source of the term in Leviticus about “man shall not lie with man.” It’s tribal–people were literally worried about survival of the species, and lack of procreation threatened that. Just goes to show how unevolved some brains can be. But then again, they don’t believe in evolution either do they?
As I understand it, Leviticus is the catalogue of admonitions to priests. It is a specific code of conduct to that class only. It was not intended to be generalized then, much less to apply to humankind today. Just a little historical framing that is so convenient for conservative Christians to forget.
well, let’s face it, all that stuff was written in the iron age …when we lived short brutal lives of despair, no one knew anything about anything really …
Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6409721/Barack-Obama-sees-worst-poll-rating-drop-in-50-years.html#
From the article:
Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. .
The Dems have no one to blame but themselves. They threw away the support of half a party to install Obama. While I will be voting for Deeds, I haven’t canvassed and frankly with Deeds saying he’d opt out of a public plan I see no reason to do so.
What the hell. Obama is back on Letterman, AGAIN?? Is this a repeat. I don’t think so.
As a gay man, its honestly rather heartening to hear Republicans talk like this. Just a few years ago I couldn’t image a right winger even using the phrase “religious argument” with regards to gay marriage, let alone expressing reluctance to use it publicly. What’s next, full on separation of church and state? Dear lord, I might even be able to listen to a Republican talk someday without wanting to gag.
Oh Jeebus…Gibbs was just on MSNBC joking how “Yes we can” has morphed into “Maybe we can.”
Yeah…real funny
I guess they wanted to make that joke before someone else did.
If somone has a heart felt religious belief that homosexuality is a sin (most religions), abortion is a sin (most religions), it is difficult to argue that with them. Bottom line, they will never accept it. I believe that religion is the reason for a great deal of the division in our country; alas, in many other countries as well. Either I don’t feel my spirituality that deeply or I don’t invest my faith in God in an organized religion, because I do believe in the choice to love whomever and the choice to become a parent. But I don’t believe in calling any individual who believes otherwise a bigot…as far as they are concerned “the bible tells me so”. JMO
Norms change over time so there may come a day when the church allows people to embrace homosexuals rather than malign them as “sinners.” A good portion of the population may have a relationship with God but more than a few are willing to admit that they don’t see religious dogma in terms of black or white. For example, many oppose abortion but are willing to grant exceptions for rape or incest victims.
a lot of religious people believe in gay marriage, ordaining gay and lesbian people, choice and the ordination of women as Clergy. Various denominations and various non Christian religious believe in the same.
Religion is not still where the non religious thinks it is.
human nature is a great deal of the division in this country and world. Religion is just the tool that some use.
I am “religious” but I have always believed in gay marriage and I am as pro-choice as you can be. BTW so is Hillary Clinton and she is a fairly devout Methodist.
As far as organized religion being baaaaaaaaaaaad… there is a place called Haiti where there is not a single hospital or school that was not built and funded by some church in America. It takes organization to do that. Also there is a great deal of rebuilding still going on after Katrina and most of it is being done by various churches around the country. Churches were the first there and the last to leave when it came to bringing meals and water to the people left with neither because of the storm.. And yes, the dispised Southern Baptists were amoung the most devotd.
All I am saying is, do not think in broad terms about any group of people.
As my friend says………Organized religion is the root of all evil.
then, they need to NOT do what they feel is a sin, but to enshrine it in law when there is arguably no victim, is not constitutional or desirable for society at large. We’re a secular society not a theocratic republic like Iran
Honestly, I can’t figure out the “Christian right” because they seem to worry so much about removing individual choices and social safety nets. I can’t figure out why they don’t advocate for the poor and living children.
I am a religious Christian and I don’t believe it is a sin to be gay, be gay married or to end a pregnancy.
Do you have Poor Coverage?
That is a great commercial!