11.04.2004
stuff to think about
I just read Thomas Friedman's op-ed column in the today's NYTimes. It's exactly what I wish I could articulate myself. I disagree fundamentally with the Republican idea that religion has a place in American politics. I disagree with the so-called 'moral majority' who think that you can change the morality of a nation by electing a Christian leader. For the record, I am an evangelical Christian. I am a church-going evangelical Christian. I sing in four church services per week and I attend one more on Sundays in which I am a worshipper. I believe that the Bible is the word of God.
I am also a liberal. And I am from Massachusetts, and spent seven years living in New Jersey, right up close to New York City. And I disagree with much of what each of my respective demographic groups has to say about each other.
In an article published today in the Times entitled A Blue City (Disconsolate, Even) Bewildered by a Red America, liberal New Yorkers expressed their outrage and disappointment with "the rest of the nation." Dr. Zito Joseph, a psyychiatrist, analyzes it thusly: "I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland. This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hop mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country." The people who voted for President Bush are not rednecks: they're not shortsighted and they're not stupid. Liberals on each coast have written to me to express their displeasure over these 'Bible-thumping morons' who voted with Jesus-shaped blinders on. I fundamentally disagree.
But I am also disappointed with the conservatives evangelicals who feel that the the country is headed to a Babylon-styled apocalypse because we allow women to have abortions or two men to get married. In an article published today in the Boston Globe entitled Religion-based voters provvided critical edge, Prof. Dennis Goldford of Drake University in Des Moines, IA, that to conservative Christians, "a Massachusetts Democrat is an elitist, someone who looks down on people of faith." I am a Massachusetts Democrat. I am also a person of faith. So how do I justify my dislike of President Bush?
Firstly, I should clarify this: I do not dislike President Bush. I would probably find him relatively agreeable in a bar or social event. I disagree with President Bush. This is a key distinction: many of my British colleagues say that 'likeability' or 'personality' have no place in British politics: generally speaking, he or she who can do the best job is the one elected. It doesn't matter if you dislike the candidate as a person: effectiveness is the criterion. Bush's faith is admirable. I like that. But I don't think that it allows him to cherry-pick scriptural points. The right has co-opted abortion, homosexual marriage, and stem-cell research as their causes. They have not taken up socio-economic parity, environmental concerns, and the preferability of peace to war, even though these too have moral components. Republicans wish to protect the sanctity of life by outlawing abortion, yet many of them also support capital punishment, which takes away God's own right to punish those who do wrong. They cry out over stem-cell research as being fundamentally reprehensible, but I say that improper stewardship of the planet is just as bad if not worse. We are to clothe and feed the poor and hungry, yet we reward those who take companies off-shore in order to avoid taxation.
What makes me really sad is not that this election came down to 'morality', but that we felt that we as Americans on both sides of the aisle had the gall to attempt to determine what 'morality' is. My Republican friends begrudge liberals for their moral relativism: that you're OK, I'm OK nonsense that just allows you to rationalize anything. My Democrat friends begrudge conservatives for their Bible-based moral clarity which imposes an interpretation of the will of God onto everyone: including those who don't believe in that God, or those who don't agree with that interpretation. It's a debate that should take place everywhere across the country. Instead, what we're getting is an article in Harpers about how to flee the country and renounce your citizenship, and Republicans who are taking charge and aggressively pushing through what some are already calling a "revolution".
Let's sit down over coffee and talk about it in words that we can all respect. Not with the words "redneck" or "smug liberal", but with words that show that we respect the opposing point of view, even if we don't agree.
I am also a liberal. And I am from Massachusetts, and spent seven years living in New Jersey, right up close to New York City. And I disagree with much of what each of my respective demographic groups has to say about each other.
In an article published today in the Times entitled A Blue City (Disconsolate, Even) Bewildered by a Red America, liberal New Yorkers expressed their outrage and disappointment with "the rest of the nation." Dr. Zito Joseph, a psyychiatrist, analyzes it thusly: "I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland. This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hop mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country." The people who voted for President Bush are not rednecks: they're not shortsighted and they're not stupid. Liberals on each coast have written to me to express their displeasure over these 'Bible-thumping morons' who voted with Jesus-shaped blinders on. I fundamentally disagree.
But I am also disappointed with the conservatives evangelicals who feel that the the country is headed to a Babylon-styled apocalypse because we allow women to have abortions or two men to get married. In an article published today in the Boston Globe entitled Religion-based voters provvided critical edge, Prof. Dennis Goldford of Drake University in Des Moines, IA, that to conservative Christians, "a Massachusetts Democrat is an elitist, someone who looks down on people of faith." I am a Massachusetts Democrat. I am also a person of faith. So how do I justify my dislike of President Bush?
Firstly, I should clarify this: I do not dislike President Bush. I would probably find him relatively agreeable in a bar or social event. I disagree with President Bush. This is a key distinction: many of my British colleagues say that 'likeability' or 'personality' have no place in British politics: generally speaking, he or she who can do the best job is the one elected. It doesn't matter if you dislike the candidate as a person: effectiveness is the criterion. Bush's faith is admirable. I like that. But I don't think that it allows him to cherry-pick scriptural points. The right has co-opted abortion, homosexual marriage, and stem-cell research as their causes. They have not taken up socio-economic parity, environmental concerns, and the preferability of peace to war, even though these too have moral components. Republicans wish to protect the sanctity of life by outlawing abortion, yet many of them also support capital punishment, which takes away God's own right to punish those who do wrong. They cry out over stem-cell research as being fundamentally reprehensible, but I say that improper stewardship of the planet is just as bad if not worse. We are to clothe and feed the poor and hungry, yet we reward those who take companies off-shore in order to avoid taxation.
What makes me really sad is not that this election came down to 'morality', but that we felt that we as Americans on both sides of the aisle had the gall to attempt to determine what 'morality' is. My Republican friends begrudge liberals for their moral relativism: that you're OK, I'm OK nonsense that just allows you to rationalize anything. My Democrat friends begrudge conservatives for their Bible-based moral clarity which imposes an interpretation of the will of God onto everyone: including those who don't believe in that God, or those who don't agree with that interpretation. It's a debate that should take place everywhere across the country. Instead, what we're getting is an article in Harpers about how to flee the country and renounce your citizenship, and Republicans who are taking charge and aggressively pushing through what some are already calling a "revolution".
Let's sit down over coffee and talk about it in words that we can all respect. Not with the words "redneck" or "smug liberal", but with words that show that we respect the opposing point of view, even if we don't agree.
