For as long as I’ve been blogging, longer even, for as long as I’ve been open about being a gay Republican, I’ve had left-wingers lecture me on how the GOP is controlled by religious zealots eager to do away with our freedom and create what some might call a “Christianist” state. When I tell such folk that I’ve been involved not just in the GOP as an openly gay man, but have also participated in various conservative organizations, they seem little interested in my experiences, as if they just didn’t happen or are aberrations.
More often than not, these self-assured individuals so convinced about the real nature of the Republican Party and American conservatism have never met more than a handful of Republicans nor even attended a meeting of a Republican committee or auxiliary. Such individuals are thus not qualified to talk about the GOP, much less address whether or not there is a place for gay people in the party.
With a prejudiced view of the GOP just like that of those individuals, Andrew Sullivan demonstrated his competence to serve on the Cato Institute panel addressing that very topic. According to my friend Rick Sincere who attended the panel, the Obama-enamored blogger lambastedd the GOP:
Sullivan went on to criticize the Republican party for accelerating its “campaign of fear” against gay people and said the GOP “is no longer a political party; it is a religious party [whose members] owe absolute obedience to the President.” The Republican Party’s “soul has been corrupted,” Sullivan said solemnly.
Maybe he needs to say this to secure his place on the left, but this description has little resemblance to the party with which I’m familiar and in which I’ve participated (not to mention countless other openly gay men and lesbians). Someone should have asked him where he derived his information. Had he walked precincts with Republican volunteers, participated in GOP committee meetings, spoken to gatherings of Republican clubs? Or had he read about it on left-wing blogs?
Andrew Sullivan was talking about a Republican Party which exists entirely in his imagination.
And while Andrew talked the conservative talk, opposing hate crimes laws, calling himself a Thatcherite, he refused to address his support for Obama’s program. When moderator David Boaz asked him:
“Can you be either a conservative or a classical liberal and still support President Obama’s vast expansion of government?”
Miffed, Sullivan said “I refuse to answer that question as irrelevant to this topic… It’s preposterous.”
Actually, Andrew, it’s more preposterous that you mouth off about a GOP with which you have little familiarity. If Andrew were true to the conservative principles to which he paid lip service, he would been leading the charge against Obama’s vast expansion of government and cheering, rather than denigrating, the Tea Party protests.
Anyway, Rick offers good coverage of the event, and I highly recommend his post, so just read the whole thing.
You and I are thinking along the same wavelength.
After Sullivan’s talk Wednesday at the Cato Institute, while some of us attendees were enjoying the always-delightful lunch provided there, I pointed out that Andrew’s views did not jibe with my experience as someone who has worked within the Republican party at the local, congressional district, and state levels.
I have encountered very little (I won’t say none) animosity from other Republican volunteers and activists. I have been appointed by two succeeding GOP unit chairmen to my post on the City of Charlottesville’s Electoral Board — making me the only Republican public official in the whole city. GOP leaders seek my advice on issues and strategy.
Everyone in local and state politics in Virginia knows I am gay, and besides one idiosyncratically rude man in Charlottesville who snubs me (his wife, whose views are identical with his on matters of morality and policy, is civil if not warm to me), I have been treated with respect by my fellow Republicans. On certain issues, we agree to disagree, and sometimes have animated and heated discussions about them, but that doesn’t divert us from working together toward shared goals.
I get the impression from Andrew Sullivan that he lacks a scintilla of experience at the precinct level. His views are informed almost entirely by an ivory tower distance from the rough-and-tumble of local politics, where there’s a lot more good to be found than bad.
As I said in another thread:
Most conseratives are pro-life.
Most conservatives don’t believe in evolution, preferring theistic evolution, intelligent design, or creationism.
Most conservatives think Jesus is alive and real and they have a relationship with Him.
Apparently, some people think these are bad or funny things, but for me, they are central tenets of how I understand reality. If, like Andrew Sullivan, you can’t deal with people like me who believe these things, then it will be difficult to move in conservative circles.
Ashhpenaz:
No doubt this is true of most of the conservatives you know, but it is not true of most of the conservatives I know.
Every person’s view of reality is a scrapbook of personal snapshots of life events which translate into the “filter” through which they discern reality. If you hang with the conservatives you describe, it is because you choose them and they reinforce your life view. But do not claim to know the universe of conservatives based on the “reality” of the pack you run with.
Sullivan froths:
Just think about this for a moment. What better political advantage could the Democrats have than to showcase such a dumb, mean, Neanderthal “campaign.”
This form of ad hominem hysteria is clear evidence that the man has no facts.
To call Republicans “a religious party” is very revealing. Sullivan apparently does not tolerate religious faith very well, and so if a party tends toward religious faith, then it becomes the generic “religious” party. I guess that makes the Democrats the party of atheism and coffee-hour church goes who just put in an appearance. Of course, some Democrats do the Temple thing, now and then, which is OK so long as they eschew Zionism.
I once read Sullivan, but like Charles Johnson, he has become the idol of his own cult worship. If you play his game, you “owe absolute obedience to” Andrew Sullivan. You can not climb to the top of your own pedestal and spout your world view and have your feet planted on solid ground at the same time.
He is an empty vessel with no openings through which fresh air can enter. I am not aware that he has any utility except as an oddity in a junk-as-art sculpture garden.
“Every person’s view of reality is a scrapbook of personal snapshots of life events which translate into the “filter” through which they discern reality.”
That is a very liberal point of view. A conservative would say there is a universe created by God with absolute truths.
???
I am confused. Are you folks actually saying that the religious right does not play a huge role in the republican party?
Or are you merely lambasting people like Sullivan and Johnson who point out this obvious fact and disagree with the aims of the religious right?
Whenever I see Sully’s name my eyes just glaze over and I tune out. I could care less what he has to say. Whatever one may think of Sarah Palin or her qualifications for any political office, to go after he infant child the way this piece of filth did all for political gain is simply unconscionable. He has nothing to say that interests me whether I agree with a point he might make or not. I have no respect for the man so the words coming from his mouth are meaningless drivel to me.
gillie,
I seriously doubt you have any concept of “the religious right.”
Conservatives are on the “right” of center in the current structure of 2010 politics in the USA.
Many people on the “left” and many people on the “right” consider themselves “religious.” I believe the beloved polling puts about 80% of the population in the “religious” category.
For you, “the religious right” is code for knuckle-dragging, drooling, fundamentalist, Bible thumping, creationist bigots bent on burning sinners.
no, gillie, I did not say that. Sullivan called the GOP a religious part. Do hope you know the difference between influence and control
“Most conservatives don’t believe in evolution, preferring theistic evolution, intelligent design, or creationism.”
Ashpenaz, you’re doing your fellow Christians who believe in evolution a disservice by making it sound as if theistic evolution is opposed to ordinary evolution and belongs in the same category as intelligent design and creationism. But theistic evolution is acceptance of ordinary evolutionary theory; only, it also gives the evolutionary process a metaphysical meaning. At least that it my understanding of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Evolutionary theory doesn’t say anything one way or the other about whether there is a Creator. Some atheist idiots take this to mean that evolution means there is no Creator, and I fear that for many Christians in this country, their problem with plain-vanilla evolutionary theory is that they’ve bought into the atheist idiot interpretation of evolution themselves, and so see it as a theory to reject because of its Godlessness. But evolutionary theory itself isn’t Godless. Nor is it Godful. It’s just a compelling and well-documented scientific theory, the key to understanding biology.
I feel a little like a jerk for having one of my first posts ever here seem to be landing into you, Ashpenaz, and on such a subtle point, too. But I think that getting the terminology and categories right can go a long way towards easing the hostility between Christians and the “pro-evolution” camp. Usually, they’re not disagreeing as much as they think they are.
What year is Sullivan living in? Does Sullivan know who is President? (Questions they ask coma patients)
I wasn’t going to say anything when you said this before Ash, but since you seem to be wanting to make a campaign of it now, here it is: That is the single most non-sensical sentence I have read on GP since we stopped hearing from Tano. “THEISTIC EVOLUTION” IS EVOLUTION. READ YOUR OWN SENTENCE.
Also: “Preferring” certain beliefs? WTF is that? Beliefs should be arrived at through a rational process of cognition. If you live mentally in a world where people select their beliefs as mere preferences, like choosing a scarf, or rationalizing whatever one wants to rationalize – well, then I would feel sorry for you.
More generally: Who appointed you to speak for “most conservatives”? Did conservatives get together and take a vote on it? If not, you would appear to need to get out more.
Finally, Ash, have you noticed that although I do not speak for “most conservatives”, the following are probably a bit more likely to be true?
I mean, if you are going to play that game, there are a lot more points you should be listing or looking at. And many of them, you won’t like.
(excuse me: “… you won’t -prefer-.”
Ashpenaz, you’re doing your fellow Christians who believe in evolution a disservice by making it sound as if theistic evolution is opposed to ordinary evolution and belongs in the same category as intelligent design and creationism. But theistic evolution is acceptance of ordinary evolutionary theory; only, it also gives the evolutionary process a metaphysical meaning. At least that it my understanding of it.
Theistic evolution is a total cop-out, a way for more intelligent religious people to have their cake and eat it, too. They still want to believe in god, but can’t bring themselves to deny the completeness of evolutionary theory. There is no room for a creator in evolutionary theory – it doesn’t involve anything but random genetic change over time and natural selection. The idea that evolution is guided is antithetical. Abiogenesis, the theory of the how life originated, might have room for a creator, although this is unlikely, and the theory of how the universe originated may have room for a creator although that is also unlikely, but evolution is more or less a complete theory that has no room for some supernatural intelligence directing things in certain ways.
(continuing my thought from above while I did the dishes) – Or:
Etc. This could go on.
And with Levi’s arrival, the thread gets even more foolish. Should I drop out?
Ashpenaz #5:
Whew! You missed my meaning entirely.
You, Ashpenaz, see reality. I, Heliotrope, see reality. We probably differ in some ways in terms of “reality.” Our experiences help form our views. Had you never experienced Christianity, your reality would be quite different.
Now, you come here and you give your reality about what most conservatives think and believe. You can support your reality by your associations. But, it is also probable that you could find yourself knee-deep in conservatives who are not tied to any religion, depending on location and circumstance.
Ashpenaz, you need to learn that the world you see is not the same world the person who is nodding in agreement sees. One of the great challenges in establishing relationships is accepting differing points of view. “Points of view” are differences in how one perceives “reality.”
heliotrope, have you heard of the subjective / intrinsic / objective trichotomy?
Subjectivism – Says reality is whatever the person feels it is, or whatever people get together and (more or less) vote on it being.
Intrinsicism – Says reality is what it is, and truth is revealed to our puny minds by God, by intrinsic essences, etc. Of course, who puts the words in the mouth of God? Which interpretation should win out? So this philosophy, while pretending to be absolute, always amounts to subjectivism-in-practice.
Objectivism (leave off the capital ‘o’ if you want) – Says reality is what it is, and we see the part of it that we see. We see the same object from different angles. Our knowledge / perspective may therefore be incomplete. But that does not change the object. It only means we have a responsibility to understand the cognitive process and actively participate in making our own cognition better (trying to gain more perspective).
It sounds like you would go with the objective philosophy there. As would I.
Or anybody with an Altered Mental Status.
I’m really curious as to what this “campaign of fear” Kristallnacht is supposed to be.
ILC,
You are correct about by objectivist philosophy. I have worked my way through all the “reality” philosophy and ended up on the side of practicality. When I am working with an individual who is fixed on destructive ways of seeing reality, I can not possibly see his realities. But I sure know how hard the brick wall is that he is intent on charging into. So, rather than deal with his “reality” I try to persuade him to consider the brick wall.
I am a Christian. When people start ramming scripture at me, I soon enough learn that they have their own immutable understanding of exactly what that scripture means and how it applies. I have witnessed many a scripture rattlesnake bite-off where tempers flared and true believers came to near blows. It is a most unChristian-like event. The reason many congregations ebb and flow is because the congregants keep reorganizing along doctrinal lines.
I have never been comfortable with being around someone who has a direct line with God. I am enough of a preening egoist to think I should at least be a part of a conference call.
Hello Mr. Strawman! Good to see you again.
Sullivan did not say that “the religious right” plays “a huge role in the Republican Party.” Learn to read.
Lefties always say the GOP is a religious party – and once you actually meet real GOPers, in real life, you realize that is SO not true. The Dems are the religious ones, with their worship of taxation and Gaia.
ROVE on CPAC, the Republican party and tea party groups. .
If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, “birthers” who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.
Rove continues:
The GOP is also better off if it foregoes any attempt to merge with the tea party movement. The GOP cannot possibly hope to control the dynamics of the highly decentralized galaxy of groups that make up the tea party movement. There will be troubling excesses and these will hurt Republicans if the party is formally associated with tea party groups.
and then Rove ends with:
The Republican Party and the tea party movement have many common interests right now. But they are, and should remain, distinct from one another. This is one instance when, if they merged, the sum would be less than the parts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071291097797862.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
Conservatives believe that God is the source of our rights, and it is the job of government to protect and defend those God-given rights. Please read Huckabee, Palin, Beck, Thomas, Coulter, et. al. for a fuller development of that understanding. That’s why most conservatives don’t believe in a godless evolution as a stable foundation for government.
lil’ math geek
no.. evolution doesnm’t necessiatate there is no God, but then the more you learn the more you have to keep telling yourself, yes there is a God, who loves us so much he made a world with all this evidence that everything is accidental. instead of filling that world with proof of his existance. After awhile that starts to sound silly, and that God, rather than loving, is pretty evil if he did those things.
I don’t have any clue where Ashpenaz is even coming from anymore. I never met two conservatives that agree on much, let alone two different churchs. After having a music ministry where I would travel and meet other christians and was exposed to all their different ideas, there sure as hell is not the consensus he seems to think there is. Not even in ethics let alone anything else.
All these heartwarming stories of acceptance in committees and canvassing expeditions. How nice of your fellow party members to smile at you and work together, just as though it didn’t matter that they take away your rights.
Warms the cockles…
BobN, please identify the “rights” they are taking away. Thanks.
If God is truly God of All, then probability is His creation, and even randomness itself is His handmaiden. Therefore, there’s no way to prove or disprove whether God guides evolution. The question is meaningless, scientifically speaking.
Atheist are of course right when they point out that studying the role of accident in evolution leaves many people with the emotional impression that life is accidental, purposeless… This feeling is not proof, though, and other people (like me) get the opposite feeling from studying evolution or other probabilistic processes.
I love probability. What a wonderful world we universe we have, where sheer accident can give rise to so much spontaneous order! My heart says, how clever of the Creator to put randomness to work in creating such beauty!
Even if I tell myself there is no God, even when I remind myself that if the universe didn’t have such marvelous properties, I wouldn’t be here to marvel at them, I’ve got to be honest with myself: my heart still gives thanks to God for this wonder. Why my heart does this, when there’s so much cruelty, unhappiness, and sheer bad luck around us every day, I don’t rightly know, but I’d be lying to myself if I didn’t admit that this is what my heart does. I guess I just don’t have any talent for atheism.
Maybe this is a cop-out, but it’s an honest cop-out.
Wow! Who would think a post on Andrew Sullivan would lead to such an interesting discussion?
Andrew Sullivan lost it when G.W. Bush, whom he supported, came out in favor of a traditional marriage amendment to the Federal Constitution. He hasn’t been quite the same since.
But then his problem has always been that he’s overly emotional.
Ashpenaz at #2:
These statements may very well be true of the majority of American conservatives. But they aren’t statements about political principles.
If conservatives were basing their political actions on such beliefs Sullivan would have good reasons for his objections. I think, however, that Sullivan’s only objection is to religious views that oppose same-sex marriage. (Same-sex marriage being very dear to his heart.)
Ashpenaz at #5, objection to heliotrope’s assertion that “every person’s view of reality is a scrapbook of personal snapshots of life events”:
No. You far too readily associate political views with religious ones. Being a political or philosophical conservative is not dependent on any particular religious belief.
You are also confusing heliotrope’s comment about differences in personal perceptions with a statement about the basic nature of the world. These are two entirely different topics.
Ashpenaz at #24:
Holding God (whatever one’s views on God) as the source of a person’s natural rights doesn’t imply any particular view on natural history.
And the bit about using evolution as a foundation for government really confuses me. I find it hard to imagine conservatives using theistic evolution, intelligent design, or special creation as bases for government either.
plutosdad @ 25:
Hmmm. An interesting statement that everything in a world governed by immutable laws is accidental. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Levi @ 14:
Perhaps. Human beings are good at holding contrary views at the same time.
However, evolutionary theory might not be as complete as you seem to assume. Or present-day evolutionary theory may be more pseudo-theory than real theory.
Antithetical to what? The assumption that biology can be reduced to physics. Perhaps that assumption isn’t true to reality. Scientists have no problem thinking that mechanical processes are guided by symmetry principles.
It is indeed strange for scientists to think that plants and animals, which are highly organized functional unities, and are composed of organs which are also functional unities, and are made up of cells which are yet again highly-organized functional unities, can be entirely explained as the result of random (uncorrelated) chemical events. But truth is often strange, isn’t it?
*sigh*
Ok, my two C-bills on the matter.
Evolution may be a bunch of random factors. It may be that random chance led to the creation of Homo Sapiens (or in my case Homo Sapien Superior).
Random chance might also allow me to put my car in drive and it will get itself to work w/o me touching the wheel. Personally I feel a lot better knowing the car has a driver and doesn’t rely on chance.
The Livewire.
Card Carrying Mutant.
Random chance might also allow me to put my car in drive and it will get itself to work w/o me touching the wheel. Personally I feel a lot better knowing the car has a driver and doesn’t rely on chance.
So would I, Livewire. The point is, if you put the car in drive and just go without touching the wheel, you will get somewhere.
My guess is that if something different happened with these random chances, there would be a different species that would feel as special as we do as a species. And perhaps would also think it was God given that they would emerge as well.
Pat,
That may well be. But I guess that’s why they call it faith isn’t it. 😉
“Hawkgirl: He was happy at the end. I still don’t understand why.
Aquaman: It’s faith, Hawkgirl. You’re not supposed to understand it. You just have it. “
Livewire, you’re right about faith. One thing we humans don’t like are gaps. It is unsatisfactory for humans to accept gaps of knowledge and we do our best to makeup a story to fill in the gaps, even for the simple mundane things. And when there is evidence to the contrary, it’s hard for humans to “un”believe the story they had made up, especially if it is long entrenched in our minds.
While I believe in God, I guess I don’t use God to help fill in the gaps, even if God is the one that had the hand in doing so. I’m more interested in how it happened. And while there are incredible things that have happened in the universe, I don’t think there has been an example of anything that happened that contradicted the physical laws, or at least proof of that. So when we have a gap from a fossil of species A to a fossil of species B later on, that are different, but yet species B has a lot of the characteristics of species A, there are at least two choices. That species A became extinct, and somehow species B emerged by some intelligent design that defied physical laws. Or that there was a gradual evolution of species A to species B. I fill in the gaps by believing the latter.
One of the most amazing things to me about mammals is that as diverse as we are (from humans to whales to bats), we have basically the same skeleton. Bats have relatively large hand bones that adapted to wings. Whales have small vestigial leg bones. And giraffes have the same number as neck vertebrae as humans. If all of us creatures were created through intelligent design, why did the designer make it look like we gradually emerged from the process of evolution? Was it to try to trick us and test our faith in the Intelligent Designer? No, my examples aren’t proof of evolution, but it does, in part, explain the reasoning that I have used in the gaps of evolution.