I posted a form of the Julia Sweeney entry on the Slate fray leading (not surprisingly) to a couple conservative religious replies while one other said more nicely that she was wrong, but hey, she has the right to be wrong. I'm all for such a response -- as with someone I know who is against abortion but unwilling to force her views on women making the choice, this is all we really can ask for under the laws of this country. [A fourth reply was more sympathetic to her stance.] As to the former response, somewhat tedious.
Yet again, one has to explain how separation of church and state helps both, so thought Baptists when the First Amendment was ratified. Likewise, even if one is an atheist (horrors), this does not mean you are immoral. That is, unless that term only means believing in God and/or following a specific moral path that does not include just being good and so forth. Thus, like Star Parker, White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay [on Book TV this weekend), such individuals have a shallow view of morality. Parker, for instance, sneered at liberal claiming to have moral values. Jimmy Carter (Our Endangered Values) therefore is an empty headed amoral sort of person.
Well, no. Once the scroll told me that the "Family" Research Council sponsored her event, the usual alarm bells were set off. The scare quotes are by design -- the council is for a certain view of family. Just as "value" voters as so defined tend to be for certain values. It is a blatant lie to suggest that most Kerry votes do not care for values ... unless you so define that term to mean conservative values. The "value" of re-electing Bush, for instance, seems unclear to me. Threatening the well-being of our nation by having illegitimate incompetent (and inane) leaders does not really seem too shall we say moral. But, of course, if you think dividing the country over things like homosexuality is compelled by God, maybe it is.
Values, therefore, are important to me. Carter lists "God's standards" to include "truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love." Those are moral values Ms. Parker, and they are quite liberal minded. And, many of them should be reflected in governmental practice. So, if we take values seriously, we would not have the current leadership in power. But, on some level, we do not. For "we" the people elected this people -- sorry, even if you think the 2004 Presidential Election was stolen, it is a bit harder to say the congressional elections giving the Republicans the majority were as well ... plus conservative Democrats that join with them on key matters.
The theme can be carried throughout -- if these people were serious, their cant might not be that bad. Bush v. Gore. Yes, equal protection including equal and nonarbitrary vote counting. Thus, as quoted by a circuit court ruling, election law expert Rick Hasen noted: "if the case were taken seriously, Bush v. Gore should have great precedential value in changing a host of voting procedures and mechanisms, particularly when those procedures and mechanisms are challenged prospectively." And, Stewart v. Blackwell did take it seriously*:
At issue were punch-card or optical scanning systems that do not give voters a chance to find mistakes they made on their ballot, and correct them before casting their vote.) As a result of that technology, perhaps 55,000 presidential votes were lost in 2000, the Circuit Court found, citing what it called a conservative estimate. That, the Circuit Court said in a 2-1 ruling, violated the equal protection rights of voters in the disfavored counties.
Truly being loyal to bad law is a messy business, to be sure, but Bush v. Gore was intended to be quite narrow ... and enough of the ruling itself was as well that to do otherwise is a bit bad pool. So is trying to use Justice Souter's partial dissent to broaden its reach -- the plurality was not as reasonable, and it is stupid to suggest as much. But, precedent other than Bush v. Gore can be used to back this up -- voting includes having your votes counted in some equitable fashion. The sin of B v. G is that this rule was not seriously followed. The rule itself on some level (election procedures are going to be uneven to some degree) is not the problem.
The same applies to some aspects of the neocon foreign policy. Though I do not have the stomach for it myself, there needs to be some sort of "bad cop" aspect to our foreign policy. So, some saber rattling is probably necessary though the extent it is currently being taken is surely dubious. But, as Joe Conason notes: "What good are U.S. threats against Iran when the whole world has lost its trust in our government?" Likewise, treatment of enemy detainees and others in the current times will surely be somewhat messy with some need for flexibility. But, this requires some trust and evidence of good will. Where is it?
And, so it goes. The generals are upset at Rumsfeld. Why? Because his policies threaten the sanctity of the military, including respect and trust in its motives and practices, necessary not only for the success of its missions but future increase of thepersonnell needed, especially given the drain of the current policy. It is a sadly predictable feedback loop of sorts. The generals obviously are not anti-military. A true respect for the military -- allegedly where Republicans more than Democrats in some fashion lean -- would be to take the critics here seriously.
But, I use the word "allegedly" advisedly here, of course. On values, precedent, sound foreign policy, sanctity of the military and so forth the problem is not that the current bunch lean a certain ideological direction. Well, not the immediate problem. Ms. Parker does not trust governmental programs. I can be sympathetic to that. What I cannot be is to the claim "liberals" (often used as an epithet) do not really have moral values. The ultimate problem is that these people are bullshit artists.
The liar still cares about the truth. The bullshitter is unburdened by such concerns. Bullshit-related phrases like bull session or talking shit also suggest a casual, careless attitude toward veracity -- a sense that the truth is totally besides the point. Bullshit distracts with exaggeration, omission, obfuscation, stock phrases, pretentious jargon, faux-folksiness, feigned ignorance, and sloganeering homilies. When Dubya speaks of freedom and liberation, and claims to be praying for peace as the army disgorges load after load of bombs, he is not lying. He is bullshitting. A lie would be easier to disprove. Bullshit is a committee-drafted simpleton's sermon about evildoers and terra and freedom being God's gift to all men.
-- Laura Penny, Your Call Is Important To Us
When simple ideological differences are all we have to worry about, a grand step will have be taken in the right direction.
---
* "Murky, transparent, illegitimate, right, wrong, big, tall, short or small; regardless of the adjective one might use to describe the decision, the proper noun that precedes it 'Supreme Court' carries more weight with us. Whatever else Bush v. Gore may be, it is first and foremost a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and we are bound to adhere."
btw the whole matter might be moot, if the state follows the voluntary reform plan in place.