Conservative Correctness

The recent blog wars concerning religion have reminded me of a recent post by Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis.  The post entitled Conservative Correctness.  This post was about how conservatives have been using the charges of religious bigotry to bash political opposition.

Michelle is by no means alone in promoting a "Conservative Correctness" (see the War on Christmas, the Dixie Chicks, Dick Durbin's torture speech) where if you say something impolitic about the president, the war, interpretation of scripture, etc. an attempt is made to shame the speaker, pressure associates and stifle debate.

The kind of thing conservatives used to complain about. (Actually, still complain about.)

I understand why most conservatives play this game. Because to them it is a game.

Because they're hypocrites and bullies. Their interest in conjuring up a phony narrative of the nature of liberals, and the joy they derive in getting under the skin of liberals, supercedes any interest in intellectual consistency.

If you've ever read David Brock's Blinded by the Right (highly recommended, BTW) you know that one of the things that pushed David and others of his generation into conservatism was the so-called prevalence of P.C. "political correctness" on college campuses.

Now the conservatives are trying to create a whole new type of protected speech, political-religious speech.  Republicans stand on soapboxes and talk about how Democrats are hostile to religion and Mitt Romney went so far to say that the president must be a "person of faith."

Look at how even venturing to criticize the domestic and foreign policy of a country, Israel, opens one up to charges of anti-semitism.  (See Jimmy Carter's recent controversy)  I think most people realize that Israel is a country and not a religion.  Criticism of a country is not the same as criticizing the religion of the majority of people in that country.

If people are going to insist that their religion is the basis for their political views, then those relgious beliefs are now affecting public policy.  Anything that is a part of public policy should be a part of the debate, IMO.  People's private religious beliefs don't affect me personally, but if they're being used to write legislation they should be open for debate.  This is the reason the separation of church and state.  People's religious beliefs are incredibly varied, even among mainline Protestant religions.  If we're going to govern based on religion - which one are we going to pick?

We should not make discussion off-limits.  We should be respectful, but also keep in mind that the decisions that are being made are affecting us all.

•  Spread the meme

  The separation of church and state is in the Constitution for a reason.

  by Unstable Isotope on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:41:49 PM PDT

•  Interesting Question

  If we're going to govern based on religion - which one are we going to pick?

  Well in polls an aethiest cannot come near to 50%. So I'd pick a deist, as they did pretty well getting the country started and keeping the fundies of the period at bay. If none of them could be turned up, I suppose Baha'i with their mellowness and not-to-presumptuously-phrased Utopian goals are not too bad although they do trend too Teletubby aesthetically. I'd be tempted to say Asatru but think that we need to lay off the shock and awe for a spell. A Wiccan president would be too damn confusing in the holiday department and the ones that make it to 35 as such are so rare I've never seen one.  Reform Judaism has a lot going for it in the easygoing category. An Amish President would be great especially if he or she spent most of the day tilling the White House lawn contentedly. A Rastafarian would legalize cannabis (which I could care less about) but from there I'm not sure, although the only politically involved Rastafarian of note is in the Green Party of New Zealand. I will rule out Juche. Jainism would pose some practical problems. Damn.

  I'm gonna have to go with a not-too-serious Buddhist. Let's say Richard Gere.

  by NewDirection on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:20:50 PM PDT

  •  Why not the Quakers

    Weren't they the first abolitionists?

    by Unstable Isotope on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:30:19 PM PDT

    •  My Theory

      Is that it's not who you'd rather have a beer with, but who is the sexiest, who wins. On a primal level of wanting a fertile-looking alpha leader, not a personal "I'd hit that" level. More than athleticism or "good genes" though, an "I'm primedanytime" demeanor does the trick. Sound like any stuffed flightsuit you know?

      If you go down the list of Presidential contests, however haphazardly this has factored into who ran, I think you may agree. In fact I think it's undeniable. And looking at the polyamorous and twinkly-eyed guys running in the other party, confident enough to dress in drag or transparently feign prudishness, I'll admit concern.

      by NewDirection on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:40:52 PM PDT

    •  Oh, I Forgot To Conclude....

      ...If there are sexy Quakers I've never to my knowledge met any.

      by NewDirection on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:41:44 PM PDT

•  Augh, the framing!

  Don't call conservatism correct! Not being allowed to say stuff because it offends people's politics is plain old "political correctness".

  Being forced to do or say stuff against your will is more along the lines of facism than political correctness, but it's not politically correct to use that term.

  by Cecrops Tangaroa on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:28:49 PM PDT