Since the subject blog post (like most now at that blog) does not allow comments and posting at Twitter (I'm taking off four days for the holiday weekend anyways; I started taking off weekends) would be hard to full address the point, I provided a long email. The reply basically covers the bases so here it is:
I saw your "An Olive Branch Spurned" post at Balkinization and as a regular reader of that blog, Twitter participant and "fellow leftist" who is concerned with religious liberty, feel obligated to respond.
A basic concern for me is that that so-called olive branch was at best one with thorns. The claim that their concerns were met with "silence" is bogus. A basic problem is the framing is suspect. A reply in the thread (and it isn't the only one) is on point by a woman whose profile says she is a Mennonite and a mother:
In your post, you note Hillary Clinton lost evangelical voters and that in general the gay rights/religion issue was a disaster for Democrats. It is hard to know how much of a "disaster" it has been really, especially after the Democrats won the House back in 2018. Obama, before 2012, strongly supported gay rights and still won the 2012 elections. Did Mitt Romney make that much of an issue in 2012? [How much did Obama do to reach out to evangelicals? I don't recall much myself.]
I really don't want to re-litigate yet again Clinton's loss, though I question that really decided it, but putting her aside, how much has Democrats as a whole loss on this issue? It's perfectly fine to say Democrats should reach out to all voters, including evangelicals (who include a liberal minority), but that thread doesn't tell me much about that. They have repeatedly respected all believers. It's okay to point out some cases where they can do more. But, a "put up or shut up" type challenge that belittled GLBT rights led to many negative responses says little to that. A lot of fault perhaps goes to the challenger.
Anyway, I'm fine with respecting religious liberty and have all my life. A request is made for some sort of "deal." The deal repeatedly appears to be stacked. For years, see U.S. v. Lee, there was a basic rule that once you enter the commercial field you had to serve all comers and personal religious belief could not interfere.
Now, that no longer is quite supposed to be the rule. The "real" concern -- as cited in that very thread -- is supposed to be forcing nuns to distribute contraceptives. My "deal" is that they need not but if they hire a cleaning woman, yes, that cleaning woman has a basic set of benefits including health care, which in part is used to carry out her religious liberty. The problems with the other side is repeatedly referenced by trading sexual orientation with race. This was brought up in the thread too.
If LGBT rights are not called a "thing" etc., there is not "silence" that there are some hard cases here, but ultimately on the level of Trump, yes, that is a trivial thing to support Trump over, especially since (again no "silence") he threatens religious liberty himself. Yes, part of this is that there is a bit of a strawman on the claims of religious liberty. To the degree there is some burden, yes -- once upon a time mixing the races for a significant minority was held out as a large burden too. It is admitted that some held this minority in some disdain though even today they still have religious liberty.
Finally, I think your argument that Trump's support among conservative Christians is "inherently fragile" a bit naive. Push comes to shove, the concern for many is not "religious liberty." I'm not telling you something that you don't know that religious liberty very well leads to results they strongly oppose. Abortion for some is an inherently moral choice that their religious deems proper in certain cases. A limited number of conservative Christians accept that but even they are still likely to vote for conservatives though Trump is so extremely bad that might help marginally.
===
There is a certain "concern trolling" going on here. The tweet thread simply is not a good way to judge the situation. I disagree with the author on certain details on lines to be drawn regarding religious accommodations etc., but here talk about the specific post. There is some concern to be made on this issue, partially because people talk past each other. To the degree that is so, we should pick our spots and do so carefully.
I just received a reply that agrees the terms of the deal matters but (citing one group) some suggest it is awful to even talk to "these dishonest bigots." But, that doesn't even work since repeatedly people "talk" at least to the degree of rejecting the premises. The tweet was dishonest. And, the final remark that there is a lot to be covered is true as just noted. Using that tweet and tweet thread, however, is a dubious approach there. And, the reply agrees only a small segment of Trump voters will change their mind but they matter. That's fine too. The question is how to go about that and responses (some substantive) to false premise tweets etc. tell me little there. Anyway, the reply is appreciated.
I saw your "An Olive Branch Spurned" post at Balkinization and as a regular reader of that blog, Twitter participant and "fellow leftist" who is concerned with religious liberty, feel obligated to respond.
A basic concern for me is that that so-called olive branch was at best one with thorns. The claim that their concerns were met with "silence" is bogus. A basic problem is the framing is suspect. A reply in the thread (and it isn't the only one) is on point by a woman whose profile says she is a Mennonite and a mother:
This is disingenuous. Religious liberty is defined differently even among Christians. As a progressive Christian, I want religious liberty, but find Trump’s ideology to be anathema to any understanding of religion OR liberty.As to the fear he is demanding harm to gay people, well, when he responds like this:
"Fine, LGBT rights are your thing; but don't act like we're worried about nothing."Some olive branch. It's "a thing" and the basic implication (fair inference at least) is that somehow this "thing" conflicts with "religious liberty." And, no, we are not saying you are worried about "nothing." We are saying your framing is off and ultimately what you are worried about is what you have no right to remove. This is repeatedly noted.
In your post, you note Hillary Clinton lost evangelical voters and that in general the gay rights/religion issue was a disaster for Democrats. It is hard to know how much of a "disaster" it has been really, especially after the Democrats won the House back in 2018. Obama, before 2012, strongly supported gay rights and still won the 2012 elections. Did Mitt Romney make that much of an issue in 2012? [How much did Obama do to reach out to evangelicals? I don't recall much myself.]
I really don't want to re-litigate yet again Clinton's loss, though I question that really decided it, but putting her aside, how much has Democrats as a whole loss on this issue? It's perfectly fine to say Democrats should reach out to all voters, including evangelicals (who include a liberal minority), but that thread doesn't tell me much about that. They have repeatedly respected all believers. It's okay to point out some cases where they can do more. But, a "put up or shut up" type challenge that belittled GLBT rights led to many negative responses says little to that. A lot of fault perhaps goes to the challenger.
Anyway, I'm fine with respecting religious liberty and have all my life. A request is made for some sort of "deal." The deal repeatedly appears to be stacked. For years, see U.S. v. Lee, there was a basic rule that once you enter the commercial field you had to serve all comers and personal religious belief could not interfere.
Now, that no longer is quite supposed to be the rule. The "real" concern -- as cited in that very thread -- is supposed to be forcing nuns to distribute contraceptives. My "deal" is that they need not but if they hire a cleaning woman, yes, that cleaning woman has a basic set of benefits including health care, which in part is used to carry out her religious liberty. The problems with the other side is repeatedly referenced by trading sexual orientation with race. This was brought up in the thread too.
If LGBT rights are not called a "thing" etc., there is not "silence" that there are some hard cases here, but ultimately on the level of Trump, yes, that is a trivial thing to support Trump over, especially since (again no "silence") he threatens religious liberty himself. Yes, part of this is that there is a bit of a strawman on the claims of religious liberty. To the degree there is some burden, yes -- once upon a time mixing the races for a significant minority was held out as a large burden too. It is admitted that some held this minority in some disdain though even today they still have religious liberty.
Finally, I think your argument that Trump's support among conservative Christians is "inherently fragile" a bit naive. Push comes to shove, the concern for many is not "religious liberty." I'm not telling you something that you don't know that religious liberty very well leads to results they strongly oppose. Abortion for some is an inherently moral choice that their religious deems proper in certain cases. A limited number of conservative Christians accept that but even they are still likely to vote for conservatives though Trump is so extremely bad that might help marginally.
===
There is a certain "concern trolling" going on here. The tweet thread simply is not a good way to judge the situation. I disagree with the author on certain details on lines to be drawn regarding religious accommodations etc., but here talk about the specific post. There is some concern to be made on this issue, partially because people talk past each other. To the degree that is so, we should pick our spots and do so carefully.
I just received a reply that agrees the terms of the deal matters but (citing one group) some suggest it is awful to even talk to "these dishonest bigots." But, that doesn't even work since repeatedly people "talk" at least to the degree of rejecting the premises. The tweet was dishonest. And, the final remark that there is a lot to be covered is true as just noted. Using that tweet and tweet thread, however, is a dubious approach there. And, the reply agrees only a small segment of Trump voters will change their mind but they matter. That's fine too. The question is how to go about that and responses (some substantive) to false premise tweets etc. tell me little there. Anyway, the reply is appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!