Appeasers and Activists

Yesterday was a big news day with two unrelated events occurring that will each have an impact on this fall's elections. While on the surface the two may seem unrelated both spell trouble for Democrats.

President Bush, speaking at The Knesset in Israel, used the opportunity to launch an unmerited attack against Senator Barack Obama. At least, that's what Senator Obama, aided and abetted by the left-leaning media, would like voters to believe. Here's the paragraph that got Democrats' collective undies in a bunch from the transcript of the speech:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? The reason there was such wailing and gnashing of teeth among Democrats yesterday is because President Bush made it clear that he thinks they are appeasers of terrorists, which of course, they are. Senator Obama didn't help himself by making such a big stink about it, either. Trying to refute the charge that he's an appeaser merely reinforces the idea in the mind of the voters.

The second event was the decision yesterday by the activist judges of the California Supreme Court to overturn the ban on gay marriage that was enacted by voters back in 2000. A move is already afoot to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in California in November and supporters shouldn't have any problem getting the required signatures.

While most Democrats no doubt applaud the court's decision they surely must hate the timing. This will put traditional values back in play as an issue in the election and the decision will no doubt motivate Republicans and other values-voters to turn out in huge numbers both in California and elsewhere.

All of this, combined with the continuing bloodbath that is the Democratic nomination process, means that November is looking better for Republicans every day.

Comments

[Cineaste]

"...they are appeasers of terrorists, which of course, they are."

There is a difference between appeasers and diplomacy. This Republican made the same mistake and got crushed by Chris Mathews for it. I hope Republicans don't make fools of themselves Like Kevin James did. [sarcasm]

"Senator Obama didn't help himself by making such a big stink about it"

Um... you don't know politics. This is exactly what Senator Obama wanted. A way to frame the discussion on Bush and foreign policy. Now that Bush is involved, he can tie him to McCain since McCain sided with Bush on this. Thank you for the gift and putting the focus back on substantial issues and away from the distractions.

[Cineaste]

Ed Gillespie, gaggling to reporters today in Saudi Arabia, said that the White House really meant to Get Carter, not Obama:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it." - from Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic

ROFL!!! Too late Bush, you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again. Please feel free to attack Senator Obama some more.

[Cineaste]

RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Okay, so Senator McCain is willing to "deal with" Hamas yet he blasts Senator Obama for wanting diplomacy with Iran? What a hypocrite!

[Louis]

Hey, Cin, let's give Bush a great big thank you kiss for handing Obama a gift. With his usual eagerness to use fear to sway the voters, Bush has stuck his big, stinky foot in his mouth (and in his heir's as well). Maybe Bush should resign based on his talking to our enemy and terrorist-supporter, North Korea. Of course, when dealing with Bush, we shouldn't expect reason or consistency.

[Louis]

All of this, combined with the continuing bloodbath that is the Democratic nomination process, means that November is looking better for Republicans every day.

Ah, wishful thinking, thy name is DaddyPundit. "Continuing bloodbath"? LOL! Things are rapidly coming to an end, with the party coming together behind Obama. And, the poor Republicans are headed for their own bloodbath based on their record on Iraq and the economy.

As to his jibe about "activist judges": this is just nonsense and reveals DP's ignorance of what's been happening in California...

*Six of the seven were appointed by Republican governors and all seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters. Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5% Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4% Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1% Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6% Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5% George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5% Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%

Hardly out of touch with the voters.

*Gay marriage was twice approved by the state legislature who, obviously, represents the voters of the state. These were vetoed by Schwarzenegger (who has said he will abide by the Supreme Court's decision and will oppose any anti-gay initiative). Thus, this decision did not occur in some kind of vacuum and without any kind of precedent in the state.

*Polls now show the CA electorate about evenly divided (with a slight edge in favor) on gay marriage. Clearly the trend is in favor of equality under the law as evidenced by the increasing support revealing in the history of polling on the question.

*As to this activist accusation, this type of ruling has precedent. To quote Andrew Sullivan:

The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion.

*We don't live in a direct, unmediated, democracy. Rather, we live in a democratic republic where the demos is subject to various institutions whose authority derives from the peoples' assent. Thus, we have a legislature and a presiding officer and a court system who are charged with governing based on the Constitution. We have the rule of law, not the mob. It is clear that a minority's rights cannot be trampled by the prejudice of the majority, and the courts exist, in part, to protect, under the Constitution, the minority. This, we have now seen in Mass and CA. As the CA Supreme Court stated:

"An individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

[Silver Hallide]

On this particular issue, I find myself agreeing with Louis. The decision is going to stand...without a stay and any legislation short of a constitutional amendment will be found to be unconstitutional in the courts.

In fact what I find so ironic here is that from a strict constitutional perspective, the law and the constitution is silent on just precisely who shall be able to marry.

In instances where the law does expressly forbid this is all thanks to activist religious conservatives.

I don't know what I think is worse...the level of hypocracy being thrown around here against a court that is merely interpreting the constitution and the law (not legislating) by those that just don't like it or find it morally wrong OR the fact that conservatives who are supposed to be in favor of the law being silent on many issues and smaller government want to get governments involved in preventing citizens from enjoying the economic benefits of unions regardless of sex.

Regardless, I see both a real paradox here as well as another racist and biggot based argument about to arise here (just like last year).

- S

[Louis]

You put your finger on the real issue, Silver: religious conservatives. They have little regard for the Constitution or the law or smaller government (traditional conservative issues); rather, they are crypto-theocrats intent on legislating their narrow religious values on the larger society. Take a look at Iran or Saudi Arabia for what we'd get should they have their way.

Have you noticed the silence from our two or three theocons? Revealing, I'd say.

[Benjamin9]

"In fact what I find so ironic here is that from a strict constitutional perspective, the law and the constitution is silent on just precisely who shall be able to marry." -->

Or how many, or what we may marry(?)Does the Cali state constitution at least speak out on that? If not, it could be a wild and wooly ride.

[Benjamin9]

"You put your finger on the real issue, Silver: religious conservatives. They have little regard for the Constitution or the law or smaller government (traditional conservative issues); rather, they are crypto-theocrats intent on legislating their narrow religious values on the larger society." -->

I think you visit way too many conspiracy sites. :)

[Aaron]

Cin, are you going to retract that comment about the interview with Rubin? Or let the "dirty tactic" stand with no clarification?

Take a look at Iran or Saudi Arabia for what we'd get should they have their way.
Absurd and not worth responding to. Can I get a "whatever."

Honestly, Louis you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evangelicals, except you think they all hate you, so you hate them. Therefore, you find it perfectly acceptable to accuse them (us) of any manner of imaginable and unimaginable evils.

If the left spent more time worried about our actual enemies (Islamic terrorist) and less time worried about "Christianist" bogeymen, we'd be so much better off. But it's much easier to attack evangelical Christians in the American left than to attack Muslim extremists.

[Louis]

Okay, then, I guess I'm wrong, Aaron: you do approve of the legalization of gay marriage.

[seeker]

you do approve of the legalization of gay marriage.

As long as I maintain my right to condemn it without being sued or jailed, I could accept 'gay' marriage, even group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, and incestuous marriage, as long as they aren't 'hurting anyone.'

Oh wait, there are the children's developmental needs to consider. Never mind.

[Aaron]

So the logic is:

opposition to nationwide change in the definition of marriage = terrorist murder?

That's what you are going with?

[Aaron]

BTW, I hope Cin is just busy with his actual life and not dodging my request for a retraction. I will assume the best of him because he normally is not one to dodge.

[Louis]

"terrorist murder"

There it is, the usual scare tactic used by the right to vilify and attack anyone who dares criticize them ("negotiating with our enemies is appeasing terrorists!).

I don't know where you got that, Aaron, but try as I might, I can't find myself discussing "terrorist murder" anywhere. I simply agreed with Silver when he pointed out how anti-gay amendments, popping up like toadstools, are "all thanks to religious conservatives." Theocons are on a jihad against gay people, and their main tactic is to seek legislation to impose their religious values on all of us (and now it's initiatives which actually alter constitutions to include homophobia). When I summoned the images of Iran or Saudi Arabia it was as religious fundamentalist theocracies, not Muslim fundamentalist democracies. To me, any theocracy is an unmitigated evil. I merely looked to the examples of the two most notorious. For Christian examples I could have looked to the past, but the West, under the blessed influence of the Enlightenment and secularism, has rid itself of theocracy (at least for now).

For the record, I see the efforts of the religious right against gay people as a form of terrorism. And, as long as you guys in the evangelical movement continue your political efforts to deny me my civil rights, I will see you as the equivalent of Islamic fundamentalists. As we reside in the U.S., I don't see the result of your jihad as being as murderous as what is occurring in countries benighted by Islam, but that's only because of the aforementioned Enlightenment and the secular state we enjoy. There is plenty of evidence to show how bad things actually were - just as bad as in Iran or Saudi Arabia - for gays in Christian countries in the past. So, in a way, yes, I do suggest a connection between your anti-gay stance and terrorist murder (I think of the persecution, imprisonment, torture and execution we were subjected to under xian cultures of the past as terrorism).

Check out the movie "The Mist" for a good example of what religious extremism can do to frightened people.

[seeker]

For Christian examples I could have looked to the past, but the West, under the blessed influence of the Enlightenment and secularism, has rid itself of theocracy (at least for now).

Secular enlightenment can claim such beaties as the bloody French Revolution, but the character of our nation is predominantly christian, not secular.

However, I do think that the secular impulse keeps religion in check - but I think that both can rightly claim partial responsibility for the succcess of the west. But I would say that xianity, with it's amazing principles of juris-prudence and virtue are what largely made the west great.

The great 'secular' Greece was filled with debauchery, slavery, and other evils that secularism has always failed to address.

[Aaron]

As we reside in the U.S., I don't see the result of your jihad as being as murderous as what is occurring in countries benighted by Islam, but that's only because of the aforementioned Enlightenment and the secular state we enjoy.
Yep, because if it wasn't for the enlightenment, I would be out rounding up and killing gay people as I type.

It's funny how alternately our nation is a Christian one and a secular one. When it suits you to go after America, you claim that everyone in power is a Christian. When it suits you to argue that Christians are being restrained by America, you claim we are a "secular state."

It can't be both. We cannot be both ruled by Christians doing whatever they want and secularists holding back the crazy religionists. It could be neither (as I believe), but it can't be both and it surely cannot be one and then the other depending on the point you are trying to make.

[Louis]

Ah, yes, seeker - that paragon of historical blindness. Just blatantly ignore the myriad abuses charged to xianity and provide misinformation about Greece (for instance). Why misinformation?

1. Athens specifically, and Hellas generally, was not secular as you allege. They had a well-documented state religion which greatly influenced their culture and politics (Athens, for example, was named for its patron goddess, Athena). Secularism arose as a result of Renaissance cultural changes and the Enlightenment social/political revolutions, and was greatly influenced by reaction to the abuses of organized state religion.

2. Yes, like every culture that ever existed ancient Greece (or, as they called themselves, Hellas) was afflicted with many ills, including slavery. However, it is a mistake to judge them based on present-day mores. Remember, there is an approximately 2500 year gap between us. At the time, slavery was considered quite valid and even sanctioned by the gods. It is also a fact that xian cultures imposed slavery on fellow human beings, often invoking the Bible to legitimize their crime.

3. Hellas' achievement, given the time, was extraordinary, and we owe them a great deal. Condemning them based on xian values is cheap and ahistorical (of course, I realize christianist theocons and theocrats would despise them, given that they represent all you abhor). Of course, given orthodox christianism's historical hatred of hx, I'm not at all surprised.

***
Aaron wrote:
Yep, because if it wasn't for the enlightenment, I would be out rounding up and killing gay people as I type.

Maybe, I don't know what an alternate America would look like without a Renaissance/Enlightenment period. Given what I know about you, you could be a Cotton Mather or Savonarola type, inveighing against sin and abomination, and lighting fires around the stake. My opinion is that, without the application of reason and skepticism, humans are capable of anything. I don't see how you can escape the fact that your religion has a history of persecution against gay people. I simply see your present-day opposition to full gay equality as demanded by the Constitution as a continuation of past injustice.

What is it about religion that blinds its adherents, hardens their hearts, and encourages their brutality? No wonder so many people like myself and Cineaste are repulsed by it. The simple beauty of the gentleness, love, compassion, and mercy of Jesus is crushed under the dead weight of the man-made religion inflicted on His memory. In the name of their religion, xians want to impose the dead, cold hand of past prejudice and ignorance on all of us today. It's a cruel historical irony that Jesus, the man of inclusion and reconciliation, should be represented by such a rigid and unjust organization.

[seeker]

Athens specifically, and Hellas generally, was not secular as you allege. They had a well-documented state religion which greatly influenced their culture and politics (Athens, for example, was named for its patron goddess, Athena).

I stand corrected, I thought I remembered that you claimed that our great government came from the ideas of the Greeks. Correct? So I guess the enlightenment added the secular wisdom of which you speak?

Though I am mistaken in this one point, I will continue to assert that

(1) xianity is the largest liberator of mankind, not the persecutor, despite the abuses of historical political and catholic heretics,

(2) Secularism, while providing as a nice hedge against religious abuses, in and of itself can not lead to liberation of mankind, but rather, to the liberation of his wickedness, which, when enabled by the removal of moral absolutes through subjectivism and atheism, leads to unimaginable cruelty.

(3) Humanism, focused on human flourishing, is now being replaced by biocentrism, which denies that man is a special being, but just like the rest of nature, which is leading to an environmentalism at the expense of humanity.

But that's another item.

[Louis]

Assertions.

Stalemate.

[Aaron]

It's a cruel historical irony that Jesus, the man of inclusion and reconciliation, should be represented by such a rigid and unjust organization.
You paint only half the picture of Christ and only half the picture of the Church. Yes, Jesus was inclusive to people and was the ultimate reconciliation between God and man, however he was not inclusive to sin and told his disciples that he came to bring the sword and divide households.

Yes, as I have often stated here, the Church has done some horrible things in the name of Christ. But you overplay the negatives and ignore the positives. You make the assertion, as Hitchens and others do, that all of the benefits Christendom brought to civilization would have been just as good if not better if secularism had done them. The problem is what John Mark Reynolds calls "the lazy kid defense."

I want to explore that more in a separate post, but he says secularism is like a the lazy brother telling his parents that he could have done all the work if the other brother had not done it first. All the works are imaginary. They may have indeed been done and done better, but we do not know.

All we know is Western Civilization has been greatly advanced and enhanced by Christianity. The supposed benefits of secularism are left to our imagination, except when we are told to ignore the only truly atheistic regimes. Even secular Europe has been built on a foundation of Christendom, which lead to the peak they reached. We'll see what happens after secularism has established itself and been given a chance on its own.

But right now all secularists can point to is the future because everything else benefited from the foundations of Christendom at the very least.

[Louis]

I defend the secular state because I think its opposite, the theocratic state, constitutes a far greater evil. However, that being said, my definition of "secular state" doesn't mean that all religion is suppressed or forbidden. I think all religious expression should be protected and allowed to flourish as a vital part of freedom of thought and expression and essential to the "pursuit of happiness." To my mind, secularism means simply that the state should not be used to advance any particular religion or religious agenda, or that a state religion be established. Thus, I get uneasy when xian conservatives declare that this is a "Christian nation" or that the Founders meant to found a Christian nation. We may have a majority of nominal xians in the country, but that doesn't mean we are an officially Christian nation any more that we are an officially white nation because the majority is white.

Thus, while I admire Hitchens and the other "new" atheists as necessary contrarian voices and a much needed response to the conservative Christian movement, I don't go as far as some do in their condemnation of religion. And, while I violently oppose the current xian jihad against gay people, I also realize that not all Christians take part in it. In fact, there is a growing movement within xianity to include gay people as full members of the church and condemn the continuing put-downs and persecution by the faithful. Certainly, Christianity has contributed a great deal to Western civilization (expecially in the Middle Ages), but Christians must also realize that theirs isn't the only contribution, nor should they have a privileged position in our increasingly multi-cultural societies. Your version of Christianity isn't the only necessary one; other views of faith are entirely possible (as we see with Keith). The discriminatory and dogmatic rhetoric emanating from the religious right - and, in particular, the evangelical movement - only serves to alienate vast numbers of the moderate, the liberal, and the classical conservative citizenry around them.

Let's face it, Aaron, blaming the media for the bad image evangelicals currently endure is not some vast left-wing, secular conspiracy. You guys have contributed mightily to this perception yourselves as dogmatic, bigoted, and narrow-minded, and I have little sympathy for you. Why, indeed, should I when your religion just condemns my most intimate self as abomination and seeks to limit my full equality under the law? Frankly, I don't care what you guys think, but when you try to implement those views through political action, I am forced to take notice. What many of us think of when we think of xianity has become been formed by the loud-mouth and intolerant leaders you put up. Maybe a kinder, gentler version of things would help, a some humility as well.

[seeker]

That lazy kid defense is EXACTLY how i feel about secularists claiming the ability to do good and to create successful culture. I love this:

Secularism, without Christianity, has never produced an attractive and viable civilization (at least yet) and so like all the work the lazy kid would have done, its good deeds must remain legendary. It has been content to be parasitic on Christian wealth, Christian ideas, and Christian labor.

[seeker]

Let's face it, Aaron, blaming the media for the bad image evangelicals currently endure is not some vast left-wing, secular conspiracy. You guys have contributed mightily to this perception yourselves as dogmatic, bigoted, and narrow-minded, and I have little sympathy for you.

There is plenty of blame to go around. God- and Christ-hating liberals and seculars (who don't think they hate christ until they hear his less popular words like 'no one comes to the Father except through me') certainly are biased against the biblical truths, ignore the immense contribution of christ and the bible to western successes, and support such biased ideas in media, education, and government.

Christians have been immature, and are guilty of the things you claim.

But America's real problem is not the imperfect Christians, but the fact that so-called Christians have abandoned a biblical view, and have let our culture become post-christian, accepting sexual sin, abortion, greed, and gluttony consume our culture.

We are in a post-christian society due to our own church's hypocrisy, failure to live and preach Christianity, and the hardness of our hearts towards god who wants to heal our land with love AND truth.

[Louis]

Thanks for illustrating my point, Mr. Falwell...uh, Mr. Robertson...excuse me, Mr. Dobson...oh, forget it!