Cobb

I already had my P2P connection with Jesus hooked up...

lol...great piece, cobb. in my time (and especially as a teen) i've had a number of crashes installing a plethora of different religions/philosophies in my noodle. i've come out the other side a devout agnostic (tho i lean toward the higher-power tip).

i think in the best interests of trying to create a smooth-running, multi-faith (including non-faith) society, religion and politics ought to be like oil and water. unfortunately, we constantly run into trouble because religion-based morality too often creeps in to drive the political decision-making process.

Great questions, Cobb. Politics ought not to be about righteousness, but politicians like George Bush and Alan Keyes make it so. Recalling how you allowed your thoughts about religion to evolve to the point of your being able to accept the Episcopalian faith as the right fit for you, doesn't it make you squeamish to hear Keyes and Bush imposing their religious views on life, morals, etc. on others, and implying that if we don't embrace their beliefs, we are somehow un-American or wrong-thinking? I think most of us recognize that, no matter how strong our faith or our system of beliefs, THE MERE FACT that there are SOOOO many other faiths and belief systems that have sustained (even blessed!) generations and civilizations, HOW DARE WE entertain the thought, even for a moment, that one of us or even one group has a monopoly on the Truth? That's the foundation of religious tolerance--that scintilla of doubt that reminds us to respect the views of others. Too bad it all too rarely applies to politics.

GW appeals more to the evangelical rabble than I would have the leader of the GOP do, and althought it's been a long time since I've heard Keyes pontificate, but I don't doubt you're right.

Still I'm not so sure that Republicans are so wrong in pushing a moral agenda against abortion rights. There are two reasons for this.

The first is that I think that the right to an abortion is a different matter than the right to vote. It's not one I think anyone would want to grant without restriction. Which is to say while I think it makes sense that people ought to have *license* to free speech always and over and over, I would not grant that same kind of license to women seeking abortions. There are moral reasons for that.

The second reason is that I think that if Republicans could articulate a reason to restrict abortion rights on the basis of something Jefferson or Derrida said (fzample), then they would, but they choose not to. That may be a question of ignorance or practicality. But whether it's religion or philosophy, there are legitimate moral reasons to restrict. We may not like that their logic is alien and religious because it's not our religion or our logic, but you can't fault them for it. It's not as if they are suggesting anyone convert.

Cobb, baby, your conservative nature is overwhelming you! Abortion rights are not only different from voting rights and free speech rights; they're different from a lot of things. Reproductive rights are very unique, indeed, and whatever moral reasons to restrict them must be weighed against the rights of the woman involved. Why should her morality be less important or relevant than that of the governing majority? By imposing one's views about when life begins on another, we are FORCING HER conversion, under penalty of law (and death!). Again, my point is that moral certainties make very poor fodder for politics, except in a homogeneous, totalitarian society. If you really believe that abortion is murder and against God's laws, don't you also believe God will exact the penalty? [And don't compare abortion with murder of living BORN persons; there are plenty of Constitutional issues as well as social compact issues which provide ample reason for "restricting" and criminalizing murder.]

I believe that every adult can make life and death decisions but regardless of where one arbitrarily says a fetus is a 'human', the choice to abort is a very heavy and serious decison.

Just as I you don't have to accept my reasoning for why 'x' is important, by the effort we invest in protecting it you must acknowledge its importance. It has nothing to do with forcing you to accept my definitions.

The morality of the governing majority is important because it is that majority which provides the basis for the protection of minorities. Rights are the gift of the strong.

Mary said: "Politics ought not to be about righteousness"

What, then, should politics be about?

I'd rather Politics be about something, than nothing. All laws are about rightieousness, one way or the other.

And laws against abortion aren't forcing anybody to convert to anything. They are regulating behavior, which every single society this planet has spawned has done in one way or another.

Politics should be the business of allocating tax dollars towards the maintenance of the commons. And I think that the Republicans have the right idea that the power of the state should be limited because when you tax the most affluent society in the world, you feed this creature, the state, which has enormous power.

Try to keep in mind that a billion dollars is but a drop in the bucket to our federal government. That should be a scary thing to contemplate.

--
But back to the idea I originally tried to convey, is that we should be a little less harsh on each other. I'm looking for a little political tolerance in the same way I expect religious tolerance.

"Rights are the gift of the strong"???? Awww, c'mon, man. If it's a "right," then, by definition, it EXISTS universally, independent of the laws of man, and is there for EVERYONE, regardless of whether the majority choses to bestow it. Even Bush concedes that rights are not created by man, but by God. Majority rule usually runs into problems right about the time when the majority attempts to usurp or restrict individual rights; the result is a deterioration of that consensus that allows us to function as a nation.

It's always seemed ironic to me that the Republican Party swears by limiting the power of the state, but does not hesitate to invade that most personal of relationships, that of a person, her God, and her unborn fetus. The Supreme Court recognized the state has no compelling interest to interfere in that relationship--at least in its earlier stages, which I think is the only decision that respects the delicate balance between the power of government and individual rights.

I'm down with more than just political and religious tolerance, but political and religious acceptance, which I think is qualitatively different.

Then Bush doesn't understand rights any better than you. Rights are what are written down on paper and defended (or not) based upon a consensus of the people and the effectiveness of the defending apperatus.
(taken separately)

And why exactly are the 'commons' being maintained?

I'll hazard that it is for the benefit of everyone, and if that isn't righteous, what is?

Why are commons maintained? That's self-interest. I would suggest that if people were to understand the value of the commons in objective terms, then they would contribute to its maintenance in their own self-interest. Further I believe that this can be done but is not because certain individuals and groups have an interest in attaching the significance of their own moral posture on the status of the commons, whether or not causality or even association can be proven.

The righteousness is found (going back to a big axiom of mine) in the 'viability of the exchange'. That is to say that it is the sacred agreement to fund the commons and loyalty to that agreement that makes it righteous and this ultimately supercedes the righteousness of having the commons in the first place. I am giving weight to an open process.

In this light I am saying that, for example, Jefferson wasn't such a genius. He was just smarter than the average bear and was able, through a variety of circumstances not in his immediate control, to gather a consensus around some relatively good ideas. It was the fact that people decided to adhere to those good ideas in a robust fashion that enhances their value.

What's righteous is that which survives the millions who might change it.

In the context of this discussion, it remains ironic that a certain amount of righteousness is accorded to the religiously faithful despite the fact that they cannot change that which they are faitful to. Whereas politicians are considered untrustworthy simply because they bend to the will of the people.

It cannot be wise for a conservative to simply rubber stamp something because it has stood the test of time, rather something that has stood the test of time that is open and interpretable and changeable by many. The proper conservative champions the status quo where it is proven robust and stands skeptical of the novel regardless of its apparent righteousness.

I just realized that the above post contradicts itself. I have to sort that out.

Mary: "Reproductive rights are very unique, indeed"

But what is involved in abortion, really, are non-reproductive "rights". If the federal government were mandating contraception (or abortion), such as in China, I would be marching with you. The cover of "reproductive rights" is too often waved about while simultaneously ignoring that women (and men) already have all the rights and choices concerning reproduction available to them at the most important time (i.e. during the reproductive act). In the vast majority of cases, elective abortion is more a matter of not being happy with the results of those choices.