I haven’t really had a chance to read the news this morning, opting instead to play with my kids (we took a walk around the neighborhood – Cole on his bike and Harper in the backpack). But, I had a couple of thoughts as I scanned some of the blogs this morning.
First, Thomas over at Blue Indiana has a post that mentions the fact that Gov. Daniels has never had to work anything out with Democrats during his term. It occurs to me that the next couple of weeks will really be the best indicator of how effective he is as a Governor of Indiana. The first two years weren’t really a test because his party controlled everything. Next year probably won’t be a good indicator because both parties will be more obstinate than usual with a big election coming up. Right now is crunch time for the Governor’s legislative proposals. He controls his own office. The Senate is packed with Republicans. And the House has only a slim majority of Democrats. Seemingly, it would not be too much to ask for him to manage enough bipartisan negotiating skill to get his proposals past a relatively low hurdle. Bayh and O’Bannon did a reasonably good job with the much tougher task of getting past Sen. Garton and a Senate dominated by the opposition. So, we’ll see how Gov. Daniels fares under these more favorable conditions.
Left in Aboite has a post about an effort called Blog Against Theocracy. This effort makes me a little uneasy for reasons that I cannot yet fully articulate. I have been pretty clear in my opposition to Dominionist political efforts and influence. But this effort feels broader somehow. Maybe I’m wrong, but the tone of Blog against Theocracy doesn’t seem to make nice distinctions between people of faith who hold certain moral and world views but are content to live and let live while doing their best to improve the world and those people who don’t do much to improve the world but, instead, spend their energy seeking to make government a vector for their views. I’m o.k. with the former, very opposed to the latter. Just to be clear, however, that’s just the initial “vibe” I get from Blog against Theocracy, not the result of any kind of thorough examination.
The gut reaction on the left is often the complete rejection of religion as a personal philosophy, which as you point out ignores a lot, (and I would argue the majority?), of religious people in this country who view their spirituality as something independent from their politics. That isn’t to say that the two often don’t run parallel, but I have often referenced the Al Sharpton distinction between the “Christian Right and the right Christians” because I think it really highlights the often ignored separation between the noise we see in the media and the reality of religion in America. I think such an aversion to religion by some is an unfortunate reaction to the extremism that the most vocal elements of the fringe religious right like to push on the public.
Don’t get me wrong, I have my own personal issues with a lot of things that I think organized religion has lent itself to recently, but when I get really frustrated, I just head over to Pastor Dan’s site, Street Prophets, and remind myself that there are a good number of people in this country who share a lot in common with my political vision and yet still are able to live a life of spirituality.
Just my two cents…
I have to cop to some extremist feelings in this area, particularly over the last six years. . .
The Blog Against Theocracy project swings the other way on this issue.We wish to embrace people of faith who live and let live and respect other’s beliefs (or lack of) regardless of their personal views. I respect these people; there are alot of people out there who are unworthy of my respect. Many of these so-called people of faith have been busy attempting to impose their will on the world in recent years.
I hope that helps explain the project a little, but I would encourage you to visit Blue Gal’s blog and read more of the story.
http://bgalrstate.blogspot.com/
Doug,
Reading just the post you linked to regarding “blogs against theocracy”, I don’t see a basis for your concern.
Quoting it:
All of these are public policy objectives. None of them are an assault on religious belief per se, or the merits of revelation or epiphany as a means of orienting one’s own moral compass.
I will quibble with the phrase “a rock is as old as it is”. This reminds me of a horse Kenn Gividen was beating here recently, which illustrates how uninformative this type of statement is, given that it can be enlisted in service of both revelatory and scientific means of knowledge acquisition.
Better would be:
Academic integrity: facts are taught grounded on peer-reviewed, verifiable studies, not revealed knowledge from religious texts.
All of the areas listed are ones in which we feel the regulatory hand of the State. Our Constitution is clear about how religious doctrines must be kept at arm’s length from policy dictates, while still accepting possible religious motivations for various policy objectives on the part of an individual officer of the State. People often seem to forget about Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution.
You can be as devout as you like, but you’re going to have to conduct yourself in an arena where religion has no place. “Because my holy book said so” is not a valid argument in the public sphere.
Our society is strengthened, not weakened, if our legislators, executive officials, judiciary, and citizens have to crack a book other than the Bible from time to time. I realize this assertion is deeply offensive to some — but their values are fundamentally at odds with those underlying our constitutional republic. As such, they are in so sense “conservative”, but radical revolutionaries.
Hi. I’m one of the organizer’s of blog against theocracy, and I’m deeply grateful to you for promoting the blogswarm and posting so thoughtfully your concerns. It concerns me too that this not be a ‘blog against religion’ swarm. I’m a church-going theology school graduate. I also believe strongly in the Constitution and keeping church and state separate.
Having personal goals for a blogswarm is a little like herding cats, but what I hope comes out of this is two-fold:
1. I hope atheist and believer blogs alike, as well as those in between, start a recognition that there are indeed “people of faith who hold certain moral and world views but are content to live and let live while doing their best to improve the world” and that atheist bloggers are doing exactly the same. Atheist bloggers, in my observation, are often the best writers on religion in the blogosphere.
2. I hope to encourage the blogosphere to visit and promote First Freedom First, an organization (many of whose supporters are indeed believers) which is on the frontlines in the battle over separation of church and state.
I hope that information helps; feel free to write me or visit the swarm’s blog if you need further information:
http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com
As I posted in Left in Aboite:
I really could not disagree more. Sure, there are many examples of things that are NOT theocracy, but the blogsward is not in response to those. Instead, it is in response to a Justice Department being managed at the level immediately below the Attorney General by grossly inexperienced and unqualified attorneys whose only “qualificiation” is attending a fourth (out of four) tier lawschool with a religious basis. It is an Administration that thinks “faith-based” means “Christian-based,” and pumps federal funds into evangelical causes. It means a Civil Rights division that stopped performing the task for which it was created, protecting the rights of racial and ethnic minorities to vote, and started actively pursuing the cause of religion in our schools and public institutions.
Sorry, but the fact that there are some religious people who are not theocrats does not mean theocracy is not a threat.