Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries

4 comments ↓

#1 Jaime M. Prater on 01.20.08 at 1:08 pm

This is probably one of the best conversations I’ve seen on the topic of presidential candidates. I definitely belong in the more progressive camp but I’m completely willing to listen to and be in dialogue with more conservative people and hear discuss our differences. This is actually one of the most healthy things I’ve watched so far.

Of course, my issues in this tend to be more with Joel and his own view points. I’d like to ask him why the Republican party is a party so married to faith? And where does the perception come from that Democrats aren’t interested in family. I have quite a few conservative beliefs, but I am also gay, single, no children, but VERY interested in preserving the family.

Does Joel think we’re electing a pastor or a president? Should the conservatives be interested in promoting the rights for all people, gays & lesbians too? I’m trying to desperately understand the self-righteous elitism portrayed that, in essence says, if you’re not a right wing, straight evangelical conservative, you’re just not a good person.

Can you address some of those questions and issues in your next segment?

J.M. Prater

#2 Joel on 01.21.08 at 3:27 pm

Jaime, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Sorry to respond so late; I didn’t see it until last night. I will partially address some of your questions here and hopefully continue this and similar dialogues in our future podcasts.

Regarding the Republican party being so “married to faith”. It’s no secret that the Republican party attracts a large percentage of the Christian conservative movement in this country. This voter block makes up a considerable portion of the Republican constituency. I have not seen any hard fast numbers, but I’d venture to guess that 30-40% of all Republican constituents are conservative Christian. The number is perhaps higher depending on how you define Christian. That’s a tremendous percentage. So, in short, the party is a product of it’s members. And I do not believe this is a bad thing as many “progressives” or “moderates” may. Rather, as a Christian, I believe that Christian ethics and morals are very important in maintaining a just society. So, perhaps it is with those members that you would take issue with and not necessarily the party exhibiting certain traits of it’s constituents? I can appreciate that frame of reference as I have issues with many constituents on the Democratic side.

For the record, I know many Democrat friends who believe in family. I also know some Democrats who shun the traditional idea of a family in favor of more “progressive” definitions. The prevailing attitude in these friends is, “who are they to tell me that I should marry and have children.” Well, no one can tell you that. But, this attitude enables people to enter relationships with little or no commitment. When one tires of a relationship, they can just leave. Unfortunately, this is not too different from how many view marriage today. Perhaps the reason there are generalizations like you mentioned is because of a difference in philosophy. From the Republican perspective-and this is key to understand-many Democratic policies do not openly condone the family unit but rather remain silent, or worse, promote alternative options. The abortion debate is a prime example on this front, as is the focus on birth control versus abstinence in our schools. The emphasis of having children inside the bounds of a marriage is something that I believe is sorely lacking and should be emphasized by our government-in public!! In general, Republicans tend to be more vocal on this issue than many Democrats. Furthermore, I believe that an entitlement mentality, resulting from many liberal agendas, contributes to an attitude of selfishness which then enters into homes and causes husbands to leave their wives and wives to leave their husbands. I believe that the institution of the family unit is more influenced from our Judea Christian heritage and culture than from any other source. With this assumption, drifting away from those Judea Christian ethics means that the family suffers. I would argue that this drifting away from the family unit has already happened, and to great magnitude. One need only look at the divorce rates to see the effect of many morally “progressive” movements from the 50’s and 60’s. And by the way, I DO NOT include civil rights and women’s rights in those movements. Rather, I view the humanistic and hedonistic teachings of the hippy and socialist movements as very damaging to our families.

Regarding whether we’re electing a pastor or president. First, the idea of a separation between Church and State is Biblical. In the books of Kings and Chronicles, God gets mad at kings who think they have the duty or responsibility to be national religious leaders. God makes it clear that religious leaders should come from outside the political world. Therefore, I would argue that a theocracy is not Biblical and I would be suspicious of any leader who tried to mandate a state religion. However, this is in no way what we get if we happen to elect a president who also is a pastor. After all, the office is called the presidency and not the pastor-in-chief. In the case of Huckabee, he’s made it very clear that he is separating his role as a pastor from his duties and responsibilities as president. I do believe, however, that it is unreasonable and unconstitutional to expect a national leader to not lead from his conscience, wherever his conscience stems from. The kings mentioned in Kings and Chronicles for the most part believed in God and followed his Law but were still not allowed to be religious leaders or national priests.

Regarding promoting the rights of all people, gays and lesbians too. The rights of all people stem from our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I believe that people have the right to choose their own way of life and that they should pursue happiness in their unique ways, obviously within limits. I believe that this is possible for all of our citizens today, regardless of perceived judgments or discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. I’m not ignorant enough to think that discrimination doesn’t happen. Rather, it’s not realistic for it to ever fully disappear. It seems that the entire rights of gays and lesbians have been rolled up into one issue: gay marriage. This is not an accurate representation of the rights already enjoyed by gays and lesbians, nor is it an accurate picture of the issue in debate. The objection to gay marriage from conservatives is not a judgment or condemnation on a certain way of life. It is an objection to the changing of an historical and deeply religious definition of marriage. Why is it fair for a small percentage of the population to bully this change in definition into our civil institutions. Why is it not fair to call it something different, like civil unions? Going back to an earlier point, many conservatives believe that by changing the definition of one of the oldest living institutions, you would further do damage to the idea of the traditional family unit: husband, wife, and children. Again, this is not a judgment or condemnation on a way of life. It’s a belief that the best institution for our society is slowly and continuously eroding.

As for conservative “elitism”. Elitism is not a trait reserved only for “the right wing”. Many on the “progressive” side exhibit an attitude of “elitism”, whether intentional or not. The Bible says, “do not judge, lest ye be judged.” I agree that one of the biggest turnoffs for the Christian faith is the perception that believers judge others based on their faith. This is a sad thing. The doctrine of love and grace transcends any mention of human judgment in the Bible. Therefore, if the perspective of elitism exists, it is due to the fallibility of man and not due to any doctrine of religion. This is one of the reasons that Justin and I decided to do this podcast. For indeed, there is entirely too much judgment and not enough respect that exists in today’s media debate clubs…from both sides!!

I think that perhaps the perceived elitism you mention comes more from the fact that conservatives and evangelicals are so grounded in there world-views of absolute truth. Most conservatives and evangelicals reject doctrines of relative truth and relative morality, as say is preached in the Unitarian or Humanist traditions. When you believe in an absolute truth, there are obviously certain outcomes which effect people’s interactions. Unfortunately, because people are sinful, sometimes the interaction is viewed as elitism rather than well-grounded faith. All this to say- the “right wing”, just as the “left wing”, believes very strongly in what is right for America and people on both sides can too often come across as elitist.

Well, enough for now. I welcome comments from anyone on these issues. Thanks again Jaime for your post. I respect your critical mind and your thoughtful analysis.

Joel

#3 Jaime M. Prater on 01.22.08 at 8:07 pm

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my post Joel. Truly, I am appreciative. What’s interesting is that you and I share quite a bit in terms of our faith. I am a follower of the works, life and teachings of Christ, and believe in his deity, and yet, I have yet to see him represented properly on this earth by any sort of church or Christian model. Why I tend to side more with the democrats is because I feel like, at least their open to more, yes, some of them are quite far left, but at the same time, they lead ‘some’ of the important causes, whether it’s for equal treatment for gay people or bringing poverty and the middle-class front and center. Even peripherally, looking at the parties, this is what I see. In terms of presidential candidates we have a group of white older men on the Republican Side, and on the Democratic side we have a woman, an African American, and at one point, an Latino American. To me, when I look at this, I see America. When I look at the Republican party, I see a copy of a copy of a copy, white men who believe they are the keys to the kingdom of morality.

Joel, your post is riddled with references to scripture, and as much as I undoubtedly understand many, many elements of your view, you still write with the sense that it’s the “Christ view or no view at all.” God’s worst problem is man’s interpretation of him. Period. It is in this interpretation that some of the most violent damage has been done through the history of religion and known civilization. We know what Christ said, but we don’t know how he thought or what he would have done in any given situation. Christ came into the world in the most scandalous way possible, through an unmarried 13-15 year old girl who didn’t know what was going on initially. What does this say about family? Christ has more in common with the children born out of wedlock then we think.

As far as The United States of America is concerned, our so-called founding Christian principles that many Republicans like to trumpet, these principles were used to effectively steal this land from it’s native and rightful owners. The meanwhile these new conquerors are quoting scripture, and backing up their claims of moral authority while the native Americans are beaten abused, and a near genocide of their life and culture occurs, all in the hope of global Christianity. These same foreigners then introduced the slave trade, and as any student of American history knows, it went on for decades before it was put to a stop, and again, the Christians of that time would use the Bible to back up their way of life, giving reason after reason and quoting scripture to back up the purchase of their negroes.

I write all of this to you Joel because, God is bigger then your perception of him, bigger then a Christian perception of him, larger then any translation of any Bible. Period. This same God created Clown fish, which are all born genetically female, and then the dominant female turns into a genetic male, and inseminates the rest of the females. This was another expression of God’s idea of family, at least, in my perception.

When I read line after line of people [not you specifically Joel, but definitely elements of what you have written] who infuse their morality with only a simplistic understanding of the idea of God or the perfect divine, then go on to declare an idea of absolute truth, and the ONLY way one should live one’s life pivoting around that perceived truth, well, to me, it’s suspect. We, as imperfect beings could not even begin to understand even .00000000000000000001 of the nature of such perfection. Never, ever.

I certainly believe in an absolute truth, I do, but aside from my knowledge of a living God, and my struggle to find out what my own daily path is, I know no truth except the truth that is given to me, for me, by MY perception and understanding of God. This all relates back to politics and my original issues with the Republican party who ‘seem’ to believe, they and only they have the real truth, and if Jesus walked the earth, he would certainly vote Republican. I don’t believe this, the tree does not bear such fruit. I ultimately think Christ wouldn’t vote for or side with any party, but what I do believe is that he certainly wouldn’t be in league or identify AT ALL with the Republicans, he would find his family and his home amongst all of those people the Republicans expel and exile as apostates and liberals. If you remember, from the Bible, it was those who trumpeted the understanding of God the most that Christ had the most condemnation for. Christ was the essence of progressive, deity or not, his home was in those condemned by the moral majority and those who believed they had it and him, at least partially figured out.

Good stuff Joel, I’m enjoying this.

J.M. Prater

#4 Joel on 02.19.08 at 1:17 am

Jaime, again, many thanks for your comments! Sorry for the late reply. Better late than never. I agree that we share quite a bit in our faith- both of us believing in the divinity and sacrifice of Christ. I also agree with you that people often mess up the message and put too much of their own thing into the mix. Indeed, the one thing that most Christians have agreed on, because of human interference, is the authority of the Bible. I believe it’s important in any world-view to examine not just the actions of the body of believers but also truth claims of the doctrinal works. Where there are disparities, one can better gauge the validity of a truth claim. If there are no doctrinal works, or if the doctrinal works are not viewed as accurate, then relativity creeps its head back into the mix and people are left to their own individual definitions and interpretations of what truth is. Therefore, it sounds as though, by saying that you have not seen “him represented properly on this earth by any sort of church or Christian model”, you are walking the fine line of personal relativity by possibly rejecting the infallibility of the Bible. Is this accurate?

By the way, I would advocate analyzing a truth claim of other world-views in the same way – what does the world-view say about its written doctrine? How do the followers either abide by or differ from the established doctrine?

When looking at the parties, it’s important to take a wider picture of diversity than the present presidential race. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are among the first African Americans to serve in the cabinet of an administration…a Republican administration. The first African American selected to the Supreme Court was Clarence Thomas…by a Republican president. Many forget that Alan Keyes ran in the Republican race this year. All in all, the Republicans have a decent track record in terms of diversity…especially when it comes to acting on diversity and not just talking about it. I have yet to hear a legitimate claim that Republicans, en masse, mistreat gay people or poor people. I rely on my earlier point that gay rights and poor rights, as talking points on the Democratic side, are distortions of reality.

I believe Christ’s birth through a 13-15 year old virgin was to establish His dual nature of being both man and God. Seeing how He is the only one in history to be given this dual nature, I think it’s presumptive to make assumptions about this events’ implications on the morality of children being born outside of wedlock. The Christian’s view is to treat others with compassion regardless of their circumstances. The Democratic and liberal agenda is to extend this compassion into an obligation under which government acts as the “savior” of the people through social programs and political correctness. By what authority do they have this right? It has to be by the authority of man. In this way the government can ensure that all are taken care of and ensure no one is too offended. And in the end, the government becomes the end-all on the issues of morality. Out of a state of relative morality, some entity has to decide what is right and what is wrong. That entity, according to Democrats and Liberals, is government!

I completely disagree that “Christian” principles were used to steal this country from its rightful owners. I make this claim because of the Bible. Nowhere in the New Testament does it advocate spreading Christianity through conquest as other religious doctrines advocate. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it advocate forcing others to believe in God. These are prime examples in history, which goes back to an earlier point that you eloquently made, of when people corrupted the message and purpose of God and the Bible. Many groups throughout history have taken passages out of context and manipulated their meanings to accomplish a certain agenda. We agree on this. However, this should not be cause for condemnation of a world-view as much as an acknowledgment that people will inevitably fail in their understanding of the Bible and God’s purpose for their life. That comes with our sin-nature. This point highlights why the authority of the Bible is so important in a Christian’s faith. If the Bible is fallible, then there is nothing with which to distinguish what actions are consistent with the teachings of Christ and what actions are not consistent. Again, it becomes relative.

In response to the Republican party seeming to believe that they have the only real truth. So what? The moral confidence of Republicans and conservatives comes from a belief in an absolute truth. Part of what believing in an absolute truth means, is others will be uncomfortable with your truth claim. They could possibly be offended. Again so what? Would you prefer that Republicans were less confident and more sensitive to the whims of relativity? If they were, they’d be Democrats. Extending your argument to its purest form, it is not possible to be entirely inclusive unless you believe in relative truth and reject all absolute truth claims. Or put another way…believing in an absolute truth by definition makes you exclusive of other points of view by the very nature of being so confident in your truth claim. How dare you be so confident- and thus exclusive? And through these two statements we truly find what each side says about truth and morality. I would submit that the exclusivity felt by Liberals and Democrats from those pesky absolute-truth believing Republicans is self induced. Absolute truth is not inherently exclusive. Rather, as the Republican record on diversity, poverty and human rights will show, moral confidence can be entirely inclusive. In the end, one belief system is confident in the difference between right and wrong. The other is confident in the subtleties of sometimes right and sometimes wrong, all according to the whims of man.

Thanks again Jaime for your post. To be continued I’m sure. Take care and have a great week.

Joel

Leave a Comment