Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Please Stop Celebrating the Naked Public Square
Fifteen years ago, as a college undergraduate, I had the opportunity to visit Yad Vashem, Israel’s official memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. It’s an interesting place, and some parts are quite moving. Nearly everyone comes away haunted by the Children’s Memorial, commemorating the 1.5 million Jewish children killed in the Holocaust. For me though, another very memorable bit was the main museum, which told the story of the Holocaust from an angle I hadn’t seen before.
Of course, I had studied the Holocaust in school and seen the classic movies. I had heard the pious cliche (laughable when you think about it) that “this is disturbing but we study it anyway so that this can never happen again.” But when American schoolteachers cover the Holocaust, the impression they give is that the extermination of Jews just resulted from a random outpouring of wild-eyed hatred, which could as easily have fallen on short people or green-eyed people or anybody else who happened to be a little different. Yad Vashem’s narrative was much more attentive to the fact that it was not short people or green-eyed people who were hated and killed; it was Jews. And that really wasn’t a point of random happenstance.
In the end, that museum basically amounts to a kind of apologia for the State of Israel. (This also explains another slightly eerie thing about Yad Vashem, which is that it is usually packed with armed and uniform-clad IDF soldiers. I gathered a visit to the museum was a normal part of their training.) It certainly gave my 20-year-old self a lot to consider. That was the first time I understood the really interesting (and tragic) thing about the Holy Land, which is that everybody there has a victim complex and, as inconvenient as that is politically, everybody there has some justification for having a victim complex. Their “victim narratives” ring true, at least to a considerable extent.
I thought it might be nice to set the stage with that story because it’s always good to remember that other people in the world have bigger problems than us. But I still found myself reflecting on this last week, which was a tough week for me news-wise. Somehow I can’t stop reading the coverage on Indiana’s RFRA law and related events, and most of it leaves me feeling beaten down and disgusted. But here’s the thing: it’s not the liberal (mainstream) media that I find so demoralizing. Those people are just doing what they do; I expect it from them. What discourages me is the coverage I read from our side.
Over and over again, I read how shocking and unexpected it is that the left has turned out to be so intolerant. They’re betraying their principles! Who knew the left actually wanted more than just to help gays and lesbians find love and happiness? What will it take to call them back to their once-professed commitment to tolerance and respect for diversity? We should probably write a lot more articles about freedom and small government.
This sort of talk is maddening to people who share my way of thinking. See, the thing is, we figured out years ago that same-sex marriage was about much more than just letting homosexuals be happy. But everybody (frequently including fellow conservatives) told us we were paranoid and closed-minded for thinking this. We’ve known for a long time that liberal progressivism can’t be trusted to protect our fundamental rights, and most especially not our right to religious freedom. But our dour assessments mostly got us written off as pessimists or extremists, and we were told that a harmonious society requires reasonable compromises.
This writing has been on the wall for decades. As commentators like William F. Buckley and Richard John Nauhaus were explaining in the early 80s, secularism undermines the foundations that are necessary for a truly tolerant, pluralistic society. Eventually it becomes a ruthless enforcer of morally relativistic secular norms. But its primary target isn’t, you know, whatever random people happened to choose the wrong color of shirt today. It’s traditional religion. Most especially, it is religiously orthodox Jews and Christians.
We are the target. Not “freedom” or “limited government.” That’s not to say, obviously, that those concepts have no relevance here, but if you’re unwilling to look beyond such formalistic categories, you can’t really understand what’s going on in America today. It’s not random happenstance that Christians (not Muslims or Sikhs or libertarian atheists) have been in the sights of liberal progressives, and if this turn of events has taken you by surprise, you should maybe consider whether there are other things about your view of the American social and political landscape that should be revised. Because, see, some of us weren’t surprised at all.
To be clear, my purpose here is not to gloat about the prescience of particular religious conservatives I admire. That’s obviously pointless, and, hey, reading social and political trends is always extremely difficult. The better question is: what do we do now? And my first suggestion is: stop celebrating the naked public square.
The answer to our problems isn’t a doubling down on a value-neutral, “tolerant” civil society with very limited government. My objection to that solution starts right here: it isn’t possible. Enshrining moral relativism as the norm for public life was what got us to this sticky spot. For the record, Falwellesque Moral Majorityism isn’t the answer either, and if you see that as the only alternative you need to broaden your horizons a little. I recommend looking at authors like Buckley and Neuhaus, but also Kirk, Burke, and other people in that vein. I want limited government, and I care about tolerance too — but we need to think more deeply about what sort of philosophical and social foundation could actually put those goods within reach.
On a somewhat more practical level, the way to rebuff the left’s advances is not to reiterate again and again our love of formal goods like “freedom.” We need the public to appreciate who and what is really being lost here. We need to awaken their desire to see Christians (not just, you know, whoever might happen to be religious in some way) living lives of integrity. The left is so good at this, and we’re generally not, but exciting sympathy is the way to persuade the public to oppose the extremism of the progressive left.
That’s uncomfortable for many conservatives. I understand that completely. I could probably write a book on all the reasons why. But at some point we have to ask ourselves: are we fighting the war that’s happening or just the one inside our heads?
Published in General
People know exactly why discrimination is wrong & anyone could tell you: Because you should live & let live. Because who are you to tell me that you’re better, that you know how I should live! Because we’re all free to do as we please & you’re not my moral authority!
You can, sort of.
I ask them if a person should be allowed to decide whom they want to have sex with? Their answer is, of course, yes.
Then ask them whether, when they have a birthday party, they have to invite everyone they know? Of course not.
But why not? Aren’t you discriminating, being mean to whomever is not invited/having intercourse with you?
How about further out: are you free to buy your clothes from some brands or vendors instead of others?
From there, it all lines up. If you are free to choose both intimate and arms-length transactions, then people should be free on both sides of the transaction.
What do you think?
So do you think you’ve changed anyone’s mind this way?
I have definitely made people much less sure of themselves.
I highly recommend this report by Rod Dreher about a talk he had with a Christian law professor at a major school who is in complete agreement with what Rachel writes here.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-post-indiana-future-christian-religious-liberty-gay-rights/
iWe (or anyone else with Jewish identity), I have a related question: what is your gut reaction to the Indiana conflict? I’ve been perceiving a growing Christian-hatred-vibe for some years now. That which was never spoken was eventually whispered in private. And that which was whispered in private is now spoken openly. Obviously, in this country, Christians are not suffering anything near what Jews have suffered in modern times. But there’s a troubling trend line. Do you see any parallels to antisemitism? Or would that analogy be overwrought?
Doesn’t matter. It only takes a small cadre of committed Leftists in government, the legal profession, and activists to prosecute people for their beliefs. The majority will keep quiet and claim they didn’t know what was happening.
Obviously I stand for freedom.
We live in a world with plenty of bad people who want us dead. There is no good in pretending otherwise. And so I want my anti-semitism out in the open, where we can combat it.
Heck, I want anti-gay sentiment out in the open, too. Let’s express our opinions, and test them.
Clearly the analogy is not overwrought in Nigeria or Kenya or Sudan or Iraq or all the other countries where Christians are being attacked and murdered.
Here in the US, the fight is upon us, and it is a battle about the most powerful weapons of all: ideas.
I changed someone’s mind on whether homosexuality was morally right or morally wrong, once. That is the only time I’ve ever changed someone’s mind, as far as I know. And I think I only changed it for like 5 minutes, then it changed back.
People here have changed my mind, and have also forced me to see holes in my arguments and positions.
In my home state of New York, there has been a dramatic and shocking number of Catholic hospitals forced to close. Catholic hospitals were forced to “consolidate” services with secular hospitals until they were bled dry, and then forced by the state to sell their property to the new, for-profit hospitals they formed on their carcasses. The Cardinal Archbishop of New York was complicit in the murder, telling local Catholics and activists to shut up, basically.
The only reason the state went after Catholic hospitals is because they are Catholic and would not perform abortions. It is not acceptable to be Catholic in the public square of health care, even though these institutions were founded to care for the poor and vulnerable, and do not require ability to pay before performing services.
Some Catholic bishops are telling us to be naked in the public square.
They are unable to see the knife at their own throats, because they have accepted the $$$$$ from the government and are unwilling to give it up.
We are in deep trouble.
Ezra Levant, a journalist/activist/troublemaker in Canada, has a new organization he calls Rebel Media. Today he posted a video in which he explains that he, a Jew, wants to live in the Christian nation of Canada, because only in such a country will people be truly able to live their own creeds.
Thanks for that, Mama Toad. This is an idea I think we should talk about more. Christians can be tolerant! Obviously our record here isn’t perfect, but it’s much better than secularists would have you believe and *much* better than they’re going to do. And there’s a reason for that. We appreciate human dignity in a more complete way.
Part of it is that we have in a very real sense lost our respect for the compulsion of conscience. Once upon a time, we had heroes who refused to do certain things simply because they believed they were wrong, at great cost. We still honor physical bravery and sacrificial love, but there is less admiration for the simple moral courage to stand on your own convictions at any cost.
Wonderful to see this insight! This is a CRITICAL project for today’s conservatism — and, sad to say but we must admit, it is at odds with a now-dominant libertarianism in the Republican party. Liberals and libertarians have succeeded in portraying Christianity as needlessly constrictive if not discriminatory. They join in every opportunity to “privatize” Christianity, as if it were something that can be confined within the walls of one’s local church. Even when libertarians come to the aid of Christians, they wield a legalism (the “formalism” you reference, Rachel) that is a flimsy response to a broader culture that rejects religion entirely or does not comprehend the substance of the laws (as we’ve seen in Indiana). “Freedom” can mean freedom from religion — which, in our society, trumps the freedom to exercise it.
One problem: When so-called Christian conservatives speak about Christianity, they preach to a political focus group of decidedly “God-Blessed-the-USA” voters — to the rest of the country, they come across as sanctimonious and, frankly, tend to overemphasize the “Christian” elements of the Founding, thus losing credibility.
But I tend to put most of the blame on our failed churches. Catholics and Protestants have adopted a secular, cloying sentimentality and an “open-mindedness” that has left their churches indeed open — and empty. Evangelicals, to their credit, have loudly proclaimed what they are about, but at the cost of alienating the rest of a consumerist, secular nation that has many other options for how to spend their leisure time. So this is the biggest problem . . . if the people don’t know Christ in their hearts, they’re not going to bring Christianity (or Christian virtues) to the public square.
This.
I don’t want to sound like I am speaking for Rachel, but no, the battle should not be against SSM. The battle should be against the Left, period.
This is what I find fascinating. Homosexuals who have a libertarian, or even conservative streak, are blatantly being used by homosexuals who also happen to be Leftists. Rush Limbaugh has a pretty concise yet accurate way to describe this when asked why do certain people not see the Left for who they are. Why do Jews in the US vote Democrat? Or why does “so-and-so” vote Democrat? The identifier of the group being asked about is never what should be looked at. Jews in the US vote Democrat because they are LEFTISTS first. Homosexuals who also seek to terrorize small pizza joints that no one has ever heard of out of business do so because they are Leftists first. And yet, smart and articulate people who have a genuine interest in equality before the law end up arguing their position from the same standpoint as the Leftists who also happen to be whatever identity group is seeking equality. So if you are homosexual but not a Leftist, your opponents still become bigots. If you are black but not a Leftist, you opponents still become racist. If you are a woman but not a Leftist, you opponents still become sexist.
They get away with this because Conservatives have surrendered the battle field completely to the Left in this country. There is no real push back from the Right, and frankly there never has been, not in any sustained fashion. Now we have gone from the Right having a somewhat dominant hand in the Social Wars to being told that the social issues are killing us electorally to the Democrats now making every election about homosexual rights and abortion–all other serious issues be damned. And, surprise, it’s working. How did Romney win Indiana in 2012 yet the GOP lose that Senate seat? It wasn’t economic policy or foreign policy or general ideas about the role of government. It was “legitimate rape.” (Or at least that is the narrative.)
The battle ground has been left to the Radicals to occupy and they have found, as willing accomplices, people who ideologically have nothing in common with them. I once thought that the biggest threat to the country was the Left, but now I am not so sure. Now the biggest threat to the country is the group of people within the one segment of society trying to fight the Left telling us NOT to fight the Left. Are these people dupes? Sadly, yes. When you can see in numerous examples events where homosexuals–just to pick a group–could easily find a baker or photographer to work their “wedding” and yet choose a Christian-owned shop, be denied service, and then sue for discrimination and not think that was targeted, you are duped. You are willingly, whether you know it or not, serving the purposes of the Left because to them it is not about homosexuals having a Christian made cake. It’s about control. It’s about stamping out anything that is “other.” It’s about, as Jonah Goldberg has told us all, Fascism.
Perhaps you are over-generalizing, and no doubt there are many libertarians who feel this way, but I hope you understand this is in no way universal.
It’s true that many libertarians disagree with Christians on whom they would choose to work with in certain circumstances, but that’s different than having “disdain.”
You say we’re only going to the barricades so many times for “crazy.” Well, perhaps the same could be said for Christians because we both exit in the same world of persecution and it can become imprudent for anyone to fight, even for one’s deeply held beliefs. Eventually it makes sense to hunker down and wait for things to blow over. Doesn’t it follow that someone who doesn’t hold your deep philosophical beliefs are going to pull their punches first? That’s not equivalent to disdain; that’s just working with limited resources. What more do you expect?
The number is 8%, and given the percentages who believe that the moon landing is a hoax, I ‘m not surprised to learn that small percentages of people believe crazy things.
Frankly, I’ve always seen the progressive left as a direct heir of the moralistic yankee puritans. Convinced of their own cosmic righteousness to the point of separatism, prone to schism and harsh wars over small points of doctrine, very willing to explore seemingly fringe positions…
Perhaps my position is colored by my vaguely-Jewish agnosticism, but it always seemed to me that the problem wasn’t one of “religion” vs. “secularism” but rather of fanaticism. Fanatics – no matter their ideology – can’t “live and let live” because they’re convinced that they have exclusive access to truth and everyone who doesn’t agree is damned.
This is a good point, but it’s not *all* bad. There are non-trivial numbers of mainline Catholics and Protestants who are serious, orthodox, and trying to engage the culture fruitfully. All religious conservatives carry a significant stigma when they’re willing to “wear” their religious identity openly in the public square. But it’s especially discouraging when this disdain is reflected in fellow conservatives. If your way of “helping” is to push sincere religious believers into the shadows so as to highlight the formal principles… that’s not helping.
Libertarians differ greatly from one another, of course. But I do think that a great many are unaware of the extent to which they drink culturally from the same stream as their progressive enemies. As I’ve argued again and again, I believe that the freedom libertarians crave mostly isn’t possible without a thick social and political foundation (such as the Judeo-Christian tradition can supply). If that’s true then spurning religious believers (as some at least clearly do) while calling for freedom is just a fool’s errand. Of course nobody’s just going to take my word for it that this religion and freedom really are related in this way. But that’s partly why I’m asking skeptics to note that social and political developments that they’ve found *surprising* were in fact predicted quite a long time ago by the religious conservatives whose narrative they’ve mostly rejected. So maybe they understood a few things after all?
That’s interesting and I have a couple thoughts. When I read “Judeo-Christian tradition” I see “objective morality.” There’s this implication in what you say (and I see this even on Ricochet), that many people only believe in objective morality because they believe it’s backed up by the Christian God.
So, if that’s true; if most people haven’t realized that morality is objective, whether or not one believes in God, and belief in God is the only thing keeping them on the straight and narrow, then yes, you are probably correct that the Judeo-Christian social foundation is required in order to have a society which respects objective morality (i.e. – liberty).
Another interpretation is, maybe current Judeo-Christian beliefs are only something like 97% in line with objective morality (it being historically perhaps the best vessel for discovering and expanding the acceptance of correct morality), and the concern they have with gay marriage may be one of the few areas that it is overwrought.
Spirning (or less negatively put, disagreeing) with the religious doesn’t have to be synonymous with throwing out the liberty baby with the Judeo-Christian bath water.
Perhaps that’s true theoretically (though of course I don’t actually agree), but if you believe that, isn’t there something to be said for appreciating the struggle that’s actually going on? That is, Judeo-Christian religion (and associated sub-culture) might not be the only thing that could ever *in principle* stand in the path of an aggressive secular progressivism. But what if it’s the only really serious opponent on the field? Libertarian smirkers might then be in the position of obscure Middle Earth villagers who pledge to oppose the might of Mordor while spurning Gondor (“because I’ve never liked their livery, and that Denethor guy is a pompous jerk-wad”).
I’m not asking anyone to pretend to believe something they really don’t. But if you really hate the encroachment of liberal progressives, you should read the writing on the wall (which as I say, has been there for quite some time!) and sympathetically support the cause of Jews and Christians, who may still be the only *available* resource with enough philosophical and cultural depth (not to mention raw numbers) to mount a real counter-offensive.
The thing I’m still a little confused about is what exactly we’re supposed to do. It sounds a little like you’re holding libertarians responsible for what progressives are doing, as if, if simply our little group would more sternly do something(?), then the path we’re on would be reversed.
It might simply be hopeless (at least temporarily). I see this as a flame that needs to burn itself out. Expending energy in a futile act of signalling is a lot to ask of someone who feels as helpless as you do.
Well, but think about the kind of narrative we’re mostly getting from a large number of conservative publications. Liberals are intolerant. They’re hypocrites. They’re the enemies of freedom. And the friends of oppressive government. We over here are the true beacons of a neutral, value-free government and pluralistic tolerance!
Why don’t we use some of those energies instead to talk about the war on *Christianity*? To make clear what is actually being contributed by those who are smeared as bigots? I don’t even think it’s too much to ask that people who regard our view of marriage as *wrong* still help point out that it’s not remotely like racial bigotry; it’s part of a much larger philosophical view of the meaning of marriage and sex, and it has demanding moral implications for everyone and not just those who are erotically attracted to members of their own sex. These would be much more useful ways of employing our limited air time, rather than yammering on about freedom and tolerance and never putting much real flesh on those formalistic bones.
I guess it’s too much to ask to refrain from hyperbolizing insensitive jerks as a “war.”
You sound like you’re demeaning complex romantic relationships as merely erotic. You realize gays develop equivalently loving emotional relationships wholly separate from eroticism, correct?
There is the deep philosophical view of the people on Ricochet, and then there are most Christians who don’t seem to grasp why Christians are supposed to value traditional marriage. Which, I guess if they are correct it doesn’t matter if they can back it up, but the problem is the people in the trenches are not wholly sympathetic like you, Merina, and Jennifer. To have a libertarian stick up for someone who doesn’t even seem to understand why they believe what they believe is a tall order.
Look, it’s wrong. People are being wrong all over the place. I’m just a guy pecking at a keyboard. As with most of politics, we are 99.99% observers and (maybe) 0.01% effective participators. All I can really do is convey what’s right and then watch as people ignore me and do what’s wrong.
You think this is just a problem of some disparate individuals being “insensitive jerks”? Then obviously we have a very different view of what is happening here. If you don’t see any kind of deeper pattern to these recent incursions on religious freedom, then no, you’re obviously not “on my team” here, in any meaningful way. I’m not sure if that’s really what you meant.
On the other issue: a homosexual person is someone who is erotically attracted to members of his or her own sex. That is the fundamental criterion of *being* homosexual. Because we are humans (rational and loving beings), eros tends to provide for us material on which we build more complex relationships which, yes, involve much more than sex. Nevertheless, the fact that the relationship has an erotic component fundamentally distinguishes it as different sort of relationship from friendship or any other type of human relationship.
In the traditional Judeo-Christian view, it is important to have the erotic component properly ordered if we want the relationship as a whole to develop in a healthy way. That is indeed burdensome for those who are exclusively attracted to members of their own sex. And yes, erotic attraction is the thing here at issue, because that’s the thing that distinguishes this set of relationships as problematic, *and also* the thing that people who promote them are obviously unwilling to give up. No one has a problem with same-sex meal-sharing or curtain-picking or tomato-growing. It’s the sex part that’s at issue. The relationships may not be all about erotic attraction, but the controversy is, on both sides.
Looking to the larger picture: if the dimensions of this conflict are what I think they are, it’s not really that important whether this or that particular church-going individual can fully articulate a traditional understanding of sexual morality to your satisfaction. People participate in these social and cultural battles in various ways and on various levels, and not everyone is good at explaining what they believe in a clear and philosophically rigorous way. But you’re missing the forest for the trees. The left is (yep, I’ll repeat it) at war with traditional religion, and many/most ordinary Americans are fairly clueless as to what the conflict is really about. And the people who can explain it to them have much smaller microphones than the ones who want to deceive. So I use what little platform I do have to make an appeal to my fellow conservatives: could you try a little harder to fight for the people who are actually being steamrolled here? It’s not as comfortable for you as standing up for “liberty”, I realize. But it’s what would actually help.
No, I won’t fight for anything but “liberty” because frankly “live and let live” is what our society is founded on. There’s a reason all the tremendously weird, idiosyncratic, and utopian religious groups of the 18th and 19th centuries either emigrated to the U.S. en masse or were founded here – they knew that they could find some breathing room, some freedom from persecution. This country is the home of Quakers, Shakers, Puritans, Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims, Lubavitcher Hasidim, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Atheists, and snake-handling Pentecostals. The theological and lifestyle differences between those groups is eyewatering, and extend far beyond matters of sexual morality. This country is founded upon “the free expression of religion,” which means that you are free to practice and preach your particular religious faith, and Richard Dawkins is free to practice and preach his. That’s all. Once we graduate beyond “live and let live” into actual advocacy for a particular theological position, we’re no better than the fanatic progressives terrorizing Memories Pizza. Sorry.
That tolerance, Adam, was built on a pretty explicitly theological foundation. All of those groups could make a home here because we appreciated that their duties to God trumped their duties to civil society. Secularism has no such boundaries, and clearly does not respect the right of other subcultures to exist alongside it. So no, we cannot rely on that foundation to maintain a peace between Christians and liberal secularists. Defending the Judeo-Christian tradition (in the sense I recommend) *is* preserving that “live and let live” foundation.