The most outrageous cases are those in which supposedly tolerant liberals impose limitations on other people's freedom for no sufficient reason, just to express their values and identity. Much of gun control fits this model.
As a libertarian, I support the sentiment, but it is just wrong for Kleiman to fail to point out that all the major Democratic presidential candidates supported the Second Amendment, which is well worthy of note given how many libs feel about the thing. The fact that Sen. Kerry supported the banning of certain "assault weapons" might have turned some conservatives off, but a basic belief in the Second Amendment as still a viable part of the Constitution is a rather big step to take.
Libs also don't like hunting, even if it often reflects a form of environmentalism, but Sen. Kerry is a hunter. Since Dems seem to live near bodies of waters (look at the locale of Blue States), I guess they are more of a fishing sort of people, but many do hunt as well (though prime hunting grounds in NY probably leans Republican). Anyway, if you are going to point to the anti-gun nature of the liberals, you really should remind people that their recent standard bearer did not quite fit the stereotype.
The NRA wouldn't be for that program, but a liberal politician who said that as if he meant it wouldn't have much of a problem with gun owners. The problem, with gun ownership as with abortion, is that the presence of a group of people committed to ending the practice entirely makes those committed to defending the right to engage in it justly suspicious of small steps in the wrong direction.
Exactly! And, the current leadership clearly do not want to end the practice entirely. Not that you'd know it from his comments.
But that stuff will cost us fewer votes if liberals manage to figure out a way to convince the rest of the country that we're not trying to push our weird religious beliefs and practices down their throats. Having a candidate who looks like one of "them" rather than one of "us" is part of that: of this year's choices, Gephardt or Graham or Edwards or Clark all felt and sounded more red-state-compatible than Kerry.
True enough, though his comments on the problem were not as true.
And the fact that the liberal leadership is profoundly secular in its orientation makes it easy to interpret this as hostility to religion, or to religiosity, generally. We claim that we are merely carrying out the Enlightenment program of getting the heavy hand of the state off religion, but that's not really a very convincing claim given our own actual beliefs and practices, and given the sheer hatred and contempt the usual liberal commentator can pack into the word "fundamentalist." Where, one might reasonably ask, is liberal tolerance when the chips are down? (I'm reliably told that academics who are committed evangelical Christians are mostly in the closet about it at work.)
Since both Clinton and Kerry are not "profoundly secular" in various respects, I find this "easy to" stereotype. What is going here is sadly ironic -- a hostility to a form of religion, perhaps dominant in this country that is sometimes said to have established "cultural deism," that is low key and strongly private. After all, where are all these atheists is politics? Though it is true that many libs are not too tolerant of fundamentalists, this intolerance is often in answer to intolerance.
It also must be said that the point can be overblown. Concern for minorities, including religious minorities, is a particularly liberal theme. The whole point of separation of church and state is to protect religion as well as the state. And, I'm sure in many areas outside of those Mark Kleiman is likely to frequent that atheists are likely to be mostly in the closet at work.
But try imagining it from the believer's viewpoint. If you've taught your kids that what's in the Bible is true, and that the moral teachings in the Bible are the Word of God, and an authority figure comes along and says that what's in the Bible is false, where does that leave you, and your child?
First off, it should be pointed out that among the things that Democrats have to worry about, creationism (or intelligent design) is pretty far down on the list. Second, putting aside other faiths whose religious documents call into question things taught in school, the Bible has a lot in it that can be read to conflict with what Johnny and Susie's teachers tell them. Why stop at creation science? If we are going to give a literal reading to Genesis (pick your creation story), should we also use the Bible as a history book? Promoting equality for men and women also runs into problems, the Pauline Epistles and all that.
Yes, we have to respect the concerns of those who believe otherwise, but the core opposition to creation science comes from the fact that it is bad science. Surely, part of the issue is that many feel it is not science at all because the presence of a creator is assumed to exist, so is not truly considered falsifiable. Other similarly weak theories are not taught for one basic reason: they are not useful in promoting religious doctrine, which is a clear First Amendment issue. But, so it goes. Hippie parents might be upset that schools have anti-drug programs, but school policy cannot solely be about making minority believers feel good.
Moreover, the psychological links between Darwinism and Social Darwinism aren't hard to spot. ... Is it utterly unreasonable to think that teaching children that human beings are naked apes is less conducive to a certain kind of morality than teaching them that human beings are created in the image of God? ... No, I'm not suggesting that we compromise on teach evolution in the schools. I am suggesting that we ought to try to discuss these issues without insulting the deeply-held beliefs of others.
Actually, it is rather "unreasonable," even putting aside those who argue that current proponents of creation science are actually the true social darwinists. It is one thing to argue that the existence of God is not purely a religious fact, though the failure of science to "prove" such existence (makeweight attempts to do so notwithstanding) makes it rightly not something taught in science class. It is quite another thing to confuse science with the morality that arguably grows from such facts.
This is where the line between science class and philosophy/social science/comparative religion classes comes into play. After all, proponents of creation science itself probably will often try to argue that it has no moral weight per se, though it clearly can be used as such. OTOH, I must say the assumption that evolution necessarily promotes a cruel worldview is ironic given the policies of the bunch now in office. Animals outside the human race quite often leads one to question the meaning of the word "humane" vis-a-vis how we act.
So, surely, we can respect the beliefs of others. We should not do this, however, by going the other way and stereotyping liberals. And, finding a common ground does not require poor argument. Though these days, it sometimes seems that way.