I'd just as soon have a civil union. The term marriage has been kind of overdone and gone through the ringer. I'd say, let anyone that still wants one have it. If you can get the same thing under a different name, sign me up. Look at the marriage rates in Quebec. If people are given options, it's not a sure thing that marriage would be the choice.
There are segments in the religious right that very much need everyone else to subscribe to their truth, as they see it from the Amen Pew.
I don't have a problem with separating civil unions and marriage. I just require that straights can choose civil unions with all rights and protections. Save marriage for the religious. It would be better if the gov got out altogether but as long as there were options, I wouldn't bet on marriage outside the bible belt.
I'm in favor of protectionism. I think that a healthy economy is one that does more than maximize it's best product. Engineering is benefited by having actual factories nearby. It's beneficial to the society as a whole to have white collar, blue collar and everything in between.
The fact that agricultural protectionism is having an adverse relationship to Africa means nothing to me with all the food and safety issues coming out of China. I would hate to have a necessary component of my local economy dependent on the regulation (or incompetence) of another country.
Call me naive. I'd much prefer to lead by example. When all federally mandated programs are fully funded, when trade is balanced and debts have been paid, I'd be willing to re-look at intervention on an extremely limited level.
The best compromise win/win situation would be to deal with illegal immigration. If there's unlimited supply, it will be very difficult for labor to leverage much at all. Tighter borders would restrict the supply, driving US wages (and thus the cost of labor) up. This would result in better wages for the blue collar and increased demand for automation and hence engineering and other white collar jobs. Canada does this very smartly.
Does anyone really believe that an atheist is going to win over a theist? I certainly don't. One may grow tired of the logical gymnastics required to maintain a traditional American theism and start the slide but it's not going to happen because of an atheist.
What is effective is to make sure that there is a political social price for introducing debate founded on an exclusive/exceptionalist view of ones own religion. Western tradition has a long history of regligious wars and abuse. Society has an interest in keeping religion outside of the primary political debate. If one is foolish enough to drag one's faith into a political debate, don't blame others when the object of your devotion is politicised and trashed.
The best answer is for the religious to self-police and make sure that any religious argument in the public sphere maintains a level of civility that you would like shown to your beliefs. A bit of the golden rule. When folk like Pat Robertson are allowed to be public leaders of religion then there can be no reasonable complaint when the same level of discourse is redirected toward religion itself.
Sorry Chris, I completely missed your first answer to my question. Thanks for the info. I've never been to one and am usually looking for interesting things to do in Van on the weekends.
"Huckabee and Palin both fell victim to the fallacy that hicks can only ever appeal to other hicks. I’m an Ivy League punk, yet I reject neither of them out of hand. "
I don't think anyone argues that spending four years sleeping in the Ivy, or even having a great intellect, are silver bullets for anything. Husserl was a pretty smart lad.
I'm having a hard time seeing past my pet positions. Larison might be right. Instead of defanging the culture war, it might present a new map analogous to slave and non slave states that would only fuel more acrimony. This may or may not be beneficial to my pet positions but interesting none the less.
From a practical stand point it might be better to keep all the social arguments tied together so that those like matoko can continue to beat the Bush/Palin contingency about the ears with. If that element is already in its death throws it might be best to not interfere.
matoko: I'm a card carrying Republican. I used to be a precinct captain. I guarantee you that I have not thrown my lot in with what you characterize. It is true that at the moment the only public Republican figures are Southern but that will not, can not continue. I consider myself a Cascadian conservative, very different from your conception. Take a look at Tom McCall, a past Republican Oregon Governor. Are you advocating a one party State? I can tell you, living in the NW, it doesn't work very well.
Gentlemen: What language can I do quotes and what not with here? HTML?
I agree with most of Linker's piece, though that will carry little weight here. I agree that the problem is Constitutional and that Roe was wrongly decided. But, then again, I think the Fourteenth amendment which it rests on is highly problematic.
"This is why we have such different visions for the Catholic Church between John Paul and Benedict, two men with obvious differences in their approach to dogma."
That should give you enough right there. Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and a number of other dictionary sources agree that it's basically a tenet forwarded as true that has little evidence backing it up.
I personally, like Larison's take on it, but as you have stated yourself, this is hardly a universal understanding of the term. I think what Larison misses is that you allowed for religious folk to be, in your terms, cultural conservatives. Larrison's piece puts himself well in this camp. He's religious but he's not without an understanding of broader contexts and history. He can only say that dogma, under one reading, can be included in this camp. That's fine and interesting but doesn't really detract from your initial post/point.
I very much enjoyed Larison's piece. However, I'm not sure that everyone, including the Catholic hierarchy, conceive of them as such easily interpreted/malleable sign posts. Do a bit more reading before you capitulate. I've got to get going now. I'll try to provide you with some citations later tonight.
This kind of sounds like our ability to mash up disparate strands of the culture is leading to higher competition and greater rewards. What's the problem with that? Perhaps, mashing your serial polygamy with the Obama's decision to introduce a third adult into the family will facilitate yet further wealth and meaning generating opportunities. Some children have a problem with mixing the foods on their plate. Perhaps, as a society we're getting beyond this phobia.
On “A Gay Marriage Solution Whose Time May Soon Be Upon Us”
I'd just as soon have a civil union. The term marriage has been kind of overdone and gone through the ringer. I'd say, let anyone that still wants one have it. If you can get the same thing under a different name, sign me up. Look at the marriage rates in Quebec. If people are given options, it's not a sure thing that marriage would be the choice.
There are segments in the religious right that very much need everyone else to subscribe to their truth, as they see it from the Amen Pew.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
I don't have a problem with separating civil unions and marriage. I just require that straights can choose civil unions with all rights and protections. Save marriage for the religious. It would be better if the gov got out altogether but as long as there were options, I wouldn't bet on marriage outside the bible belt.
On “Economic Interventionism”
I'm in favor of protectionism. I think that a healthy economy is one that does more than maximize it's best product. Engineering is benefited by having actual factories nearby. It's beneficial to the society as a whole to have white collar, blue collar and everything in between.
The fact that agricultural protectionism is having an adverse relationship to Africa means nothing to me with all the food and safety issues coming out of China. I would hate to have a necessary component of my local economy dependent on the regulation (or incompetence) of another country.
On “The Humanitarian Empire”
Call me naive. I'd much prefer to lead by example. When all federally mandated programs are fully funded, when trade is balanced and debts have been paid, I'd be willing to re-look at intervention on an extremely limited level.
On “the inevitability dodge”
It's an oldy but a goody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPGEl-uqvwg
On “A Quick Note on A Rigged Game”
The best compromise win/win situation would be to deal with illegal immigration. If there's unlimited supply, it will be very difficult for labor to leverage much at all. Tighter borders would restrict the supply, driving US wages (and thus the cost of labor) up. This would result in better wages for the blue collar and increased demand for automation and hence engineering and other white collar jobs. Canada does this very smartly.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Does anyone really believe that an atheist is going to win over a theist? I certainly don't. One may grow tired of the logical gymnastics required to maintain a traditional American theism and start the slide but it's not going to happen because of an atheist.
What is effective is to make sure that there is a political social price for introducing debate founded on an exclusive/exceptionalist view of ones own religion. Western tradition has a long history of regligious wars and abuse. Society has an interest in keeping religion outside of the primary political debate. If one is foolish enough to drag one's faith into a political debate, don't blame others when the object of your devotion is politicised and trashed.
The best answer is for the religious to self-police and make sure that any religious argument in the public sphere maintains a level of civility that you would like shown to your beliefs. A bit of the golden rule. When folk like Pat Robertson are allowed to be public leaders of religion then there can be no reasonable complaint when the same level of discourse is redirected toward religion itself.
On “Thomas Aquinas Meets The Flying Spaghetti Monster”
Sorry Chris, I completely missed your first answer to my question. Thanks for the info. I've never been to one and am usually looking for interesting things to do in Van on the weekends.
"
Thanks. I didn't pick up anything on google.
On “eating my vegetables”
The rumblings of an imploding party.
E.D., you nailed it.
On “Thomas Aquinas Meets The Flying Spaghetti Monster”
Chris: What's going on in Vancouver on this subject? Vancouver,BC?
"
What is this? Do you have a link?
On “not everyone who says he’s your friend is your friend”
"Huckabee and Palin both fell victim to the fallacy that hicks can only ever appeal to other hicks. I’m an Ivy League punk, yet I reject neither of them out of hand. "
I don't think anyone argues that spending four years sleeping in the Ivy, or even having a great intellect, are silver bullets for anything. Husserl was a pretty smart lad.
"
Freddie you're being too kind once again. Why do you guys even respond to this overgrown troll?
On “Emerging From the Hedged Roe”
I'm having a hard time seeing past my pet positions. Larison might be right. Instead of defanging the culture war, it might present a new map analogous to slave and non slave states that would only fuel more acrimony. This may or may not be beneficial to my pet positions but interesting none the less.
From a practical stand point it might be better to keep all the social arguments tied together so that those like matoko can continue to beat the Bush/Palin contingency about the ears with. If that element is already in its death throws it might be best to not interfere.
On “Roe and the Culture War Morass”
Great post. Thanks.
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
E.D. Kain Thanks
"
matoko: I'm a card carrying Republican. I used to be a precinct captain. I guarantee you that I have not thrown my lot in with what you characterize. It is true that at the moment the only public Republican figures are Southern but that will not, can not continue. I consider myself a Cascadian conservative, very different from your conception. Take a look at Tom McCall, a past Republican Oregon Governor. Are you advocating a one party State? I can tell you, living in the NW, it doesn't work very well.
Gentlemen: What language can I do quotes and what not with here? HTML?
"
"14th Amendment problemmatic? Maybe another topic post. I’d be in this one for sure."
Sounds fun. Start one up.
"
I agree with most of Linker's piece, though that will carry little weight here. I agree that the problem is Constitutional and that Roe was wrongly decided. But, then again, I think the Fourteenth amendment which it rests on is highly problematic.
On “Authority, Empathy, and Power”
"This is why we have such different visions for the Catholic Church between John Paul and Benedict, two men with obvious differences in their approach to dogma."
That should give you enough right there. Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and a number of other dictionary sources agree that it's basically a tenet forwarded as true that has little evidence backing it up.
I personally, like Larison's take on it, but as you have stated yourself, this is hardly a universal understanding of the term. I think what Larison misses is that you allowed for religious folk to be, in your terms, cultural conservatives. Larrison's piece puts himself well in this camp. He's religious but he's not without an understanding of broader contexts and history. He can only say that dogma, under one reading, can be included in this camp. That's fine and interesting but doesn't really detract from your initial post/point.
Helen is a completely different kettle of fish.
"
I very much enjoyed Larison's piece. However, I'm not sure that everyone, including the Catholic hierarchy, conceive of them as such easily interpreted/malleable sign posts. Do a bit more reading before you capitulate. I've got to get going now. I'll try to provide you with some citations later tonight.
On “Stand Up Sociology”
This kind of sounds like our ability to mash up disparate strands of the culture is leading to higher competition and greater rewards. What's the problem with that? Perhaps, mashing your serial polygamy with the Obama's decision to introduce a third adult into the family will facilitate yet further wealth and meaning generating opportunities. Some children have a problem with mixing the foods on their plate. Perhaps, as a society we're getting beyond this phobia.
On “Painting in broad strikes”
In your original piece, you allowed for cultural conservatives to be religious. Helen self identifies with the other side. Let her.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.