One of the things that bothered me most about David Brooks’ ridiculous assertions about “neocon” being a code word for “Jew” is that it makes it harder to point out true code words. And if you don’t believe they exist, read this passage from a recent National Review article.
For years, the far Left has had its own rhetoric, in which certain words carry special meanings to those “in the know.” Now, conservatives have their own way of conveying messages that have unique significance for them. In the State of the Union address, Christians heard special messages that were conveyed with skillfully placed words. For believers, the “sanctity” of marriage is rooted in those biblical principles that sustain marriage; defining marriage through its “moral tradition” carries specific ramifications in terms of Judeo-Christian values and beliefs.
Two comments:
1. Of course, pretending that code words used to be the sole province of the far Left-with-a-capital-L is absurd. “States rights” and “our Southern way of life” are the two examples that immediately come to my mind.*
2. “Judeo-Christian values and beliefs”, huh? I appreciate it that Judaism has made it to the in-club of religions. But considering that most of the Boston-area Jewish community recently “voted overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex marriage,” and that
Reform Judaism (the largest Jewish denomination in the U.S.) “determined in 2000 that gay unions were ‘worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual.'”….I wish that Ms. Crouse and her pals would leave “Judeo” out of it.
(And while we’re on this topic, isn’t Concerned Women for America itself due for a name change?)
*Yes, I know most segregationists in the 1950s and early 1960s were Democrats. But they were sure as hell not the far left.
What bugs me is the phrase “Christians heard…”, when she really means “fundamentalist Christians heard…” The media has an unfortunate habit of implying that the fundamentalists are representative of all American Christians.
“And while we’re on this topic, isn’t Concerned Women for America itself due for a name change?)”
Ha. Ha. Ha.
The “ladies against women” link was stolen from Kieran Healy, I should note.
And kenB, I realized that plenty of Christians heard no such thing either. But I’d guess that a decent sized majority of Christians in the U.S. oppose gay marriage (how big depends a lot on whether you assume that the Catholic church speaks for its members), and I don’t think that’s true of Jews.
Katherine, you may well be right, I don’t know what the numbers are. In my church (Presbyterian) the main factors are age and region — younger Christians, and those in the Northeast and west coast, tend to be much more accepting than the rest of the country. These demographics show a solid majority in favor of ordination of gays&lesbians, and to my mind G/L marriage should be easier to accept than G/L ordination.
Gay marriage + “states rights”=exploding conservative heads.
“Gay marriage + “states rights”=exploding conservative heads.”
Hmm. A post that takes issue with people making blanket statements about a subgroup of people sparks a comment that makes a blanket statement about a subgroup of people.
And they say irony is dead.
Moe “Unexploded Head Conservative” Lane
I was once a member of the Conservatives community on livejournal. (They used to be run by a libertarian who did not object to lefties joining in the discussions or even posting, so long as we stuck to the rule of “topics of interest to conservatives.)
I posted a query out of genuine interest: Why do conservatives tend to oppose same-sex marriage and the repeal of anti-sodomy laws?
I found the responses fell sharply into two big camps and one little one: 1. libertarians who agreed that there was no reason for a state to have anti-sodomy laws, and that such laws violated a person’s private life in an unacceptable manner – 2. right-wing “Christians” who said “Sodomy is Wrong! There should be laws against it!” – 3. a small subset of people who said they didn’t care if sodomy was wrong, but states had a perfect right to pass laws and the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to interfere.
Camp 2 was also opposed to same-sex marriage: camp 3 mostly believed individual states had a right to declare civil unions but that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to interfere: and camp 1 was generally opposed on the grounds that “goverment should get out of the marriage business” (first, presumably, repealing the 1000+ federal benefits that married couples get).
What I also found interesting was that even though at least two of the three camps were notably in opposition to each other, none of them criticized each other… but it was patently no monolithic block.
I am pro-gay marriage, but I think we should avoid getting into a judicial fiat situation. I think that without Roe v. Wade we would have most of the same abortion laws with much less rancor. You can thank the 1973 Supreme Court for the rise of the political Christian Right. Far better to wait 4 or 5 years for a good political settlement.
I think that without Roe v. Wade we would have most of the same abortion laws with much less rancor.
I’ve heard this said, and regard it with as much skepticism as I regard claims by pro-Confederates that without the Civil War black slaves would have been freed “with much less rancor”.