Andrew Sullivan, one of the most prolific and widely read bloggers, has not been exactly slow off the mark to attack the US administration of George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and certain conservative bloggers and writers, of encouraging what he calls “Christianism”. He has a certain point: there is no doubt that the influence of Christianity, at least in its more evangelical forms, has increased in parts of the Right. The US, despite what some historians like Paul Johnson might claim, is not just a product of Christianity but is also a child of the Enlightenment, with all the scepticism about religion that implies, and long may it remain so. Sullivan is right to call for a clear separation of church and state to be preserved. Ironically, that separation is one of the reasons why religion flourishes Stateside, while is often tepid over here.
But I have to say, given the appalling treatment of gay people by fundamentalist Islam, that Andrew, a gay man recently married to his other half, has been remarkably silent about the remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury on allowing sharia law to become the law of this country, at least for certain folks benighted enough to fall under its ambit. Sullivan has certainly been ferocious about the Islamic treatment of gays, and women, before, so it is a bit odd that he has not written about this issue now. However infuriating Sullivan can be with his volatile punditry – one minute hailing George W. Bush as a potential Truman, the next damning him to eternity – he is one of the great voices of the Anglosphere. Go on Sully: fire a broadside at Lambeth Palace.
Careful, JP, remember the last time you quoted Sullivan on the front page?
Seriously, though, I think what you’re seeing is the idiot extreme of identity politics. Christians sometimes persecute gays. Therefore, all Christians persecute all gays. Therefore, no gay should ever say anything nice about any Christian. Other religions also are in conflict with Christians. Therefore, these other religions must obviously be friends of gays.
Leaving aside the fact that there are Christians and then there are Christians, and that in their ability to just leave non-participants alone not all religions are created equal.
I think it’s the same chopped logic that flooded in last week when Sullivan said that Hillary Clinton was probably not going to lead women into the Promised Land.
the term “Christianist” has no meaning whatsoever – beyond an extreme fringe who want to impose the Old Testament upon society.
Even conservative Christians believe in democracy, freedom of conscience and so on, which the REAL religious threat to freedom – Islam – does not.
“Christianist” is an entirely political term dreamed up by those who want to distract attention from the real threat, which is fascist Islam. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Sullivan has thrown his lot with this motley crew. As you people say, pity.
Andrew went nuts over gay marriage and is ir-retrievably lost.
Rowell Williams I think has done you all a great service by opening up the debate on Islam in a way that the politically correct cannot now silence-this may be the tipping point. Sometimes a real schmuck does a lot of good in spite of himself.
No “Christianists”… So what exactly is Mike “Don’t believe in Kangaroos” Huckabee? Why is it still news that the leader of the Lib-Dems (for what that’s worth) is an atheist? He even felt the need to leaven his statement by pointing out his wife is a Catholic.
Sorry folks, the Christian Right is a threat and probably the primary reason why agnostic Nick M is right-wing but not conservative.
I know the likes of Fred Phelps are a lunatic fringe but I’ve spent enough time in GA* to appreciate quite how nucking futz the US “Religious Right” can be at times.
Hell, my then gf had to tell her baptist friend it was OK for her to give her long-term bf (now married) a blow job. Jeez Louise!
I guess Ian B’s gay hobbit porn might be a bridge to far.
And I’ve got SKY and If I watch the religious channels they’re effing bonkers. Seriously deranged and totally hat-stand.
I’m not gunning against Christianity per se. I mean, some of my best friends and all that. Hell, I’ve even dated Christians but…
*Which also voted for Huckabee.
Sullivan is the epitome of a 9/11 conservative republican. He was never a republican or conservative. And once the gay-marriage issue became a national drama he abandoned any support for Bush or republicans immediately.
Heaven help those who are counting on a hypocrite like Sullivan to champion their cause. As soon as the going gets tough, you can count on him to curl up in to the fetal position and insult those who disagree with him.
“
As well-versed as you must be, surely you accept that it was the “Scottish” and “English” Enlightenments that had prevailing influence in the “infancy” of the U.S., rather than the Continental variety.
In both of those, the primary factor establishing the commonality of recognition and acceptance of obligations, the sense of what was right and what was wrong (oughtness) in human interactions was the common bond of some form of Protestant Christianity, not scepticism of it.
Even the scepticism of Hume, clear as it was, did not penetrate the formation of public convictions in the “child” U.S.
This reminder from one who would not be regarded today as religious.
Interestingly, separation of church & state has its roots in Christianity (especially the later days of the Reformation), and many American denominations embraced it in the early days of the republic.
For thousands of years, it was customary for a government to have a declared “state religion,” and people who had differences with that religion were not only considered heretics against, but dissidents against the government. These double ‘threats’ were dealt with swiftly.
It is ironic, therefore, that a segment of American Christianity wants to revoke this separation, although fortunately, the majority of Christian leaders still recognize that the separation benefits both church and government.
Indeed, as you point out, Christianity flourishes in this atmosphere where it is not mandatory. (For the same reasons that a volunteer army is superior to a drafted army.)
The only more favorable atmosphere (paradoxically) is one where being Christian is punishable by death, since it tends to weed out the nominal believers.
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”
– Tertullian
It’s not too surprising Andrew Sullivan focuses more of his energy on Christian Statism more than Islamic Fundamentalism.
Islamic Fundamentalism is not a civilization threatening force in America. Muslims, fanatical or otherwise, hold almost no sway in American politics or in our daily lives. Islamic fundies threaten the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. I certainly appreciate that the Brits fear Westminster Abbey could be Westminster Mosque in the next 50 years, but that just isn’t an issue on this side of the pond.
People “doin’ it fer Je-sus” are, statistically, a much greater threat to liberty here at home. Who was it that stood so firmly in between Sullivan and his pursuit of happiness (in this instance marrying another man)?
Was it:
(a) Muslims
(b) Buddhists
(c) Christians
Another fun one. Who spearheaded the Prohibition movement that brought us the double wammy legacy of vastly increased crime and a militarized police force that uses the Constitution as toilet paper?
Was it:
(a) Muslims
(b) Pastafarians
(c) Christians
I could go on, but my point isn’t to bash Christians, it is to point out that they present a much greater threat to Americans than Mohammed’s ilk does. Part of the reason is that, just like Muslims, a good majority of those who identify themselves as “Christians” have never actually read their faith’s holy scriptures, and who are more loyal to their preacher or church than to Christ. Christ would never advocate using the state to force people to bend to his will. The Pat Robertsons of the world, however, do not hold those same scruples.
In conclusion, I do not, repeat not, mean that Muslim fundies are kinder and more gentle than Christian fundies. I do know and acknowledge that life under Sharia would be the worst thing that could ever happen to any human being. That, however, does not mean that Christian fundies should get a free pass when they advocate banning alcohol sales on Sunday just because Abdul is chopping off heads.
Sullivan, and many others, concentrate on where the immediate threat lies. Abdul’s blade will never touch my neck. I will, however, have to wait until 12:01pm to buy beer on Sunday.
Huckabee is just an incredibly talented political opportunist with a smattering of Baptist bible college; I wound not label him a “Christanist” according to Sully’s definition. His voting base was conspicously religious and he in turn became so in public. Clinton another suspicious mud Arkie behaved in much the same manner during his presidency. Every Sunday after a new financial discrepancy or distasteful peccadilo came to light, the family bibles came out and the Clinton family en masse made their contrite pilgrimage to the local African Methodist Church in DC.
The religious right is very individualistic and highly distrustful of the federal government’s meddling as well. Considering that post Reagan Republican has floundered, the religious right is truly the only powerful and politically reliable voting block that consistently demands individual accountability and limited government.
The Economist did a survey of the South a year ago which is fairly accurate for a foreigner: http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8729871.
This is complete and utter rubbish. There is no precedent for what Islamists have ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED on US soil in terms of a threat. And this is the whole problem with Quenton and by proxy Sullivans arguments.
Yes, “christianists” are a nuisance in the US. But if you would remove your head from the Economist or TNR for a few minutes you would see that this is all they are: a nuisance.
It’s easy to debunk an idiot creationist by asking him if he wants a flu shot or not. It’s a little harder to debunk an Islamic suicide bomber, mainly because they aren’t even interested in debating the point to begin with.
It still boggles me as an American living in the buckle of bible belt (Nashville, TN.) that people think there is some christianist jihadi movement. I simply for the life of me don’t see it.
Tman:
That is very true. An orchestrated Christanist movement does not exist, excepting the Aryan Church possibly–and that is more a Michigan militia type organization isn’t it?
This view of the Bible belt’s ‘holy rollers’ as latent Christan insurgents is strangely persistent and one of the lazier stereotypes of the United States.
Hell, we have already reached the nadir of: I spent some time in Georgia; I talked to some crazy Baptists; it’s all true; besides, I saw it on the TV.
Elisabeth,
Not only is this a lazy stereotype, it’s also (unfortunately) a convenient scapegoat for the cowards on the left that are essentially afraid of confronting radical Islam. They can sit there and accuse “christianists” of dumbing down America without fear of any repercussion, and then pat themselves on the back for “fighting the man”.
A few years ago the residents of Hamtramck Michigan were introduced to the Islamic call to prayer being brodcast from loudspeakers five times a day. I’m not sure what the current status of that whole fiasco is, but it is an indication that the muslim assimilation isn’t going as smoothly as one would have hoped.
“I know the likes of Fred Phelps are a lunatic fringe”
Of the Democratic Party:
Phelps has frequently run for public office — for governor in 1990, ’94, and ’98, for the Senate in ’92 — always losing the primaries by a landslide. Because of their years as loyal Democrats, the Phelpses have even been invited to — and attended — both of Clinton’s inaugurations. They protested at the second one. But Phelps’ campaign against homosexuality actually began in earnest just before the 1992 campaign, when politicians, especially Democrats, began to openly court gay voters.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html
Where have I, or anyone on this thread, or any articles it discusses, claimed that Christians were engaged in any sort of organized “Jihad”? You thew out a straw man and then started acting like it was the God’s Honest Truth.
No, as I made perfectly clear in my previous post Christians (well, specifically those that use that name but don’t actually follow Christ’s teachings, which is most of them) are not using violence and terror to get their way. They are using Socialism, and it’s working. Really well.
Socialism and Authoritarianism in America have caused the deaths of millions of my fellow Americans. Muslim nutjobs have killed about 6,000. It’s simple math.
Care to elborate on that statement? Because your previous rant about the “christianization” of America seemed particularly concerned about the creeping tide of, well, not being able to get beer on Sundays. I’m not sure how you went from that to the deaths of “millions of my fellow americans”.
I’m not sure how you went from that to the deaths of “millions of my fellow americans”.
Withdrawal?
Quenton,
There aren’t, and have never been, nearly enough people in the US who oppose alcohol on religious grounds to pass a constitutional amendment banning its sale and consumption. Prohibition was yet more of the twentieth century’s most destructive philosophy – utopianism.
Slavery, backed by the government and justified by “good Christian men” as necessary for those poor savages since they wouldn’t be much good on their own donchaknow?
There’s also the many needless wars almost always championed as God’s Plan (also called Manifest Destiny). Specifically, War of 1812, various Indian wars, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI. Wars against the heathen.
And my personal favorite, Prohibition/War on [insert vice].
I didn’t bring these up initially (except Prohibition) because they don’t have as much bearing on current events. Blue Laws, however are a good example of current issues involving religiously justified socialism. I guess I should be thankful that invoking God’s name is only useful for causing “minor” infringements on civil liberties and not launching wars these days.
Huckabee was only able to pull a small fraction of voters using that Old Right platform of appealing to religious folks in order to justify moronic and immoral policies. On the downside, that minority still holds considerable power, and still causes trouble in the areas of warfare and social laws. I also have no doubts that they wouldn’t hesitate to do things “the old way” if ever given the opportunity.
I am not sure a group of folk so keen on state interference in so many issues such as sex, etc, is what I would call “individualistic”.
Yes I know of Rev Phelps antics with the Dems. He was apparently quite matey with Al Gore.
Your point?
The Republican candidate for President of the United States of America is going to be John McCain – someone who does not make a big thing of his Christian faith.
As a matter of fact McCain is a Christian – and a pro life one at that.
But one would not know this if one just listened to talk radio and read certain American blogs.
There was a time when Republicans left it to Democrats to boast about their relationship with Jesus – emotional displays of religion were not the Republican way.
It was similar to the old British reserve thing.
A quick quote from the Archbishop:
“It would be a pity if … a person was defined primarily as the possessor of a set of abstract liberties and the law’s function was accordingly seen as nothing but the securing of those liberties irrespective of the custom and conscience of those groups which concretely compose a plural modern society.” (Link)
Let’s not forget that “all men are created equal under god” was also a big reason for abolishing slavery.We should call that example a wash.
So you blame all of the deaths from these wars on Christianity? Really?
Actually, most of them happened over a hundred years ago. They have NOTHING to do with current events.
And you should probably avoid making statements like “my point isn’t to bash Christians, it is to point out that they present a much greater threat to Americans than Mohammed’s ilk does”, because that is complete and utter garbage. Christians aren’t a greater threat to peace and liberty than Islamic fundamentalists are.
Can you name any specific fundamental civil right that is currently being threatened due to “christianists” besides having to wait until noon to purchase beer from a store?
What trouble? And more specifically, what trouble do they cause that is more of a threat to my life and liberty than Islamic terrorists trying to kill people?
Mr. Pearce:
The Southern religious right has historically only attempted to regulate social matters on a county or State wide basis and has never attempted to legislate national prohibitions. The temperance movement was a puritian/lutheran midwest movement. The south usually allows localities to decide these issues on a county-by-county basis. As for the criminalization of sexual activities between consenting adults in private, even the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick admitted that sodemy laws were almost never enforced, but the SC upheld the right for states to regulate and proscribe personal private conduct between consenting adults. Bowers was decided in 1986 when Reed’s Christian Coalition was in full flower and the SC was more liberal that it is currently. The current SC with Roberts and Alito upheld Griswold’s ‘zone of privacy’ jurisprudence and declared all sodemy laws unconstitutional. The mores of the nation changes and the effect of religious views count for very little, despite their conspicuousness.
I would not dream of appearing sympathetic to the religious right, but an objective evaluation of their geographically limited political aims and manner in attempting to achieve those goals does make them preferrable to the far left with their penchant for national judicial legislation or federal legislation based on the 13th or 14th Amendment.
Elizabeth, I am not sure why locally sourced repression is preferable to repression by a more remote tier of the state, particularly as local repression tends to be more strongly enforced.
One–is the local policeman from the corner usually the one who reports the lock-in at your local watering hole or is the stranger with no roots or personal ties in the community? The foreigner carries a loyalty to his employer, the federal gov, and his pension plan.
Two- repressive county regulations and legislation can be easily avoided by voting with your feet or alternatively abolishing or amending the laws at the county or state level, where it does not take millions for lobbyists or influence-peddlers.
Elizabeth
What few on here seem to realise is that the US Religious Right only has such power as may be given to it by the MSM and their ilk … as a Bogey Man to scare voters …
As a Scot who lives in the US, I would compare the power of the US Religious Right in US legislative areas to be akin to the power of the Wee Frees in Westminster …
Elizabeth is far more articulate in explaining this than I am. And for that I am most grateful.
Perry,
Federalism is a powerful concept in the states. One of the more contentious issues for US state governments right now is the flight of individuals from states that have income taxes to states that don’t. Some states are literally taxing away their constituents to lower taxed states, and in the process eviscerating their state budgets.
When applied to a legislative format the same reaction occurs, which is why abortion will never be outlawed in all of the states, and also why several states have made it a law that they absolutely WILL NOT comply with the federal National ID Act-“REAL ID”.
If you don’t like it, and not enough people agree with you, you can always move next door.
Sure and in the end you can always leave the country too. As it happens I knew a couple people who have shredded their US passports and moved elsewhere for tax reasons. Ireland is full of US tax exiles with vaguely Irish sounding names.
But my point is that supporting local tyranny over national tyranny is really not a great approach to politics. The problem is the accepted scope of politics rather than were he gets applied. Until you start to fight that battle, all you are doing is negotiating over what kind of bread gets put on your shit sandwich, whereas you should be demanding a change of menu.
I agree, but the point of my rebuttals to Quenton and others is that the supposed “christianists” or whatever people want to call the Christian right in the US are not anywhere near approaching Tyranny.
Now this shouldn’t be confused with support for their positions either. I have nothing but contempt for creationists and bible thumpers, but they don’t interfere in my life in any sort of tyrannical manner. If anything, I get a good laugh out of them from time to time. I’m quite proud of the fact that if one googles “creationist stupidity” in the US a blog post of mine is the first link showing.
I also agree with you that we do need to change the menu instead of deciding between what type of shit to put on the sandwich. Unfortunately, the only way that enough people in the US will eventually come to realize this is if we have another Jimmy Carter.
Obama fits the Carter mold just fine, and I am just hoping that we can survive another four year economic and foreign relations nightmare before we get better choices. Thompson was my choice but he didn’t run a campaign that can compete with the Hollywood style elections in the US. I bet that after 4 years of the cult of Barack people will be begging for a Fred-like character.
Unfortunately.
PdH:
In abstract of course, you are correct. But how much time is spent on this blog regurgitating the ancient privileges and rights of a British citizen, when after the ratification of the Lisbon treaty the European Charter for Fundamental Rights is the relevant and definitive source of human rights for the UK?
As for your tax exiles, good for them. I hope they enjoy the sweet smell of freedom in their smokeless pubs.
“Until you start to fight that battle, all you are doing is negotiating over what kind of bread gets put on your shit sandwich, whereas you should be demanding a change of menu.”
-We did fight the battles and eat shit sandwiches for 80 years. Didnt work out too well.
Perry said,
If I may expand on this…
The Federals, prior to 9-11, had about eighty thousand people on the payroll with police powers. That’s to enforce every single Federal criminal law on the books. That number includes Border Patrol agents, the mall ninjas and lobby heroes in Federal office buildings, national park rangers, and department Inspectors General whose entire scope is waste, fraud, and abuse within their own departments. That’s not a lot.
Sure, that number has expanded. The expansion has been mostly Border Patrol agents and mall ninjas. None of them go out investigating crimes committed by US citizens or really even inside the US. Meaning that Federal law is often toothless.
And local cops (the other ~90% of the cops in the US) have essentially zero power to enforce Federal law. None. Okay, there are a dozen state troopers who are allowed to detain illegal aliens. Wow. One tenth of one percent in this state.
There aren’t any “foreigners” without “ties to the community” running around arresting people. There just is no there, there. If any laws get enforced in the vast, vast majority of instances, it’s by locals.
Easy example: It’s a crime under Federal law to possess even a small quantity of marijuana. However, I can’t think of the last time a DEA agent actually did anything with that. In general, the only time they get involved in simple possession is where the possession is in a state with a medical exemption, which makes the administration look bad.
Nevertheless, local police take enforcement action on marijuana under local laws every day. Which is why the behavior of the Federals is not all that relevant. Just like it’s not a Federal agency that usually prevents you from enjoying your own land, but instead it’s your county zoning board. (Vote with my feet? Okay, how do I take my forty acres with me?)
And again, Perry said:
It’s quite true that, on any local level, the authorities with immediate jurisdiction will have far more presence and power than the distant (and thinly spread) Feds.
However, it’s a mistake to accordingly prefer the edict of force to be issued from the latter; for one thing, it entails relying far too much on the present state of affairs (loose enforcement and lack of cooperation between Feds and locals) as a basis for enduring policy. Periodic enforcement over time is all that’s needed to provide a public mandate (via familiarity) for broader enforcement in the future, so that a sea change of Federal priorities and a crackdown on these “crimes” at some point in the future isn’t popularly viewed as unwarranted or unjust.
And anecdotally, yes, if you live *within* the draconian locality in question, you would be better off — in the present and without consideration of changing your circumstances — if the law were Federal and “distant.” But the task is to look at things not anecdotally, but systemically; and by disallowing sweeping legislation at the Federal level, we’ve systemically created a nationwide marketplace of townships, each with their own laws, and each incentivized by inflows and outflows of businesses and citizens in reaction to their local laws.
You *could* move to another country, using the same fundamental logic, but are we realistically considering the marketplace of free countries in the world to be as competitive as the marketplace of free localities within each of those free countries?
It’s also far easier, as Elizabeth rightly notes, to correct errors of law at the local level, by citizens in assemblies, than it is to do so at the national level. (This is not to mention the lower likelihood overall that a majority-approved local law will be drastically out of step with local opinions than it is that a Federal law will be drastically out of step with *many* of the communities falling under its boot.)
And finally, there’s simply the notion that government action should by and large be slow and difficult, and that by that rubric a single national chokepoint is far more onerous than thousands of individual ones strewn across the country.