Friendly advice for conservative Evangelicals (& LDS) from an gay rabbi?

[prisonchaplain]

The author knows he's addressing an audience that is unlikely to head his advice.  Yet, he tries.  I do not agree with all, or most, of his commentary.  Yet, I found interesting the idea that we may invest too much of our efforts at being "salt and light" in society towards politics, and not enough towards culture outlets.  Further, there is no question but that many younger people perceive the "religious right" (I consider myself part and parcel of that movement) to be...well... mean. 

 

Reactions?  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/30/dear-evangelicals-you-re-being-had.html

[The Folk Prophet]

A liberal complaining about solving cultural problems with political solutions....

 

Hmmm...

[Vort]

My reaction is that the author is either a liar or a fool.

[Guest]

Did he just say that he is a rabbi guy living with another guy?  Uhmm...

 

But I digress.  This guy is not very learned.

Edited December 2, 2014 by anatess

[Windseeker]

"I am referring here to establishment Republicans, which for 150 years have consistently been the party of the rich and ungenerous."

 

Two clickable lies...go ahead...click...I know you want too

 

Republicans give to charity twice as much as Democrats and Forbes Magazine found that 60 percent of the Ultra-Wealthy affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Windseeker

[prisonchaplain]

I am assuming the author is from the Reform tradition of Judaism (the most liberal).  Also, as I read the article, I did catch that he was wrong about the charitable giving of conservatives.  We're more apt to give to private and religious charities because we do not believe government does the work very well.  Liberals, on the other hand, think that government should be the primary means of assistance, and so tend to give much less to non-profits.

 

Again, though... many young people do perceive that social conservatives are judgmental, and even many "movement conservatives" have all but given up on using politicial mechanisms to "redeem the culture."  So I wonder still if this fellow with whom we mostly don't agree has something to offer us--even if to improve our approaches, or our "optics."

[PolarVortex]

Yawn.  I stopped reading half-way through when I realized that this author, like many other social critics in our culture, seriously believes that massively large groups of people in our country all think and move with a single consciousness.  That idea deserves an F even in a high school essay, and yet I see it all the time in the writings of our elite thinkers.

 

Sensitivity to shades of gray, openness to the strong points in your opponents' thinking, and a willingness to hold opposing ideas in uncomfortable tension... these are the hallmarks of great thinking.  But what do you expect from a publication with "Beast" in its name?  They're publishing this silliness for one reason only: to attract eyeballs to their site so they can charge higher rates to online advertisers.

[Guest]

He sounds like my niece who, after a couple of years in college, thinks she knows everything about solving all the world's problems. 

[Just_A_Guy]

The notion of redirecting our efforts into cultural outreach sounds nice, but overlooks three facts:

1) Judicial fiat did far more to normalize gay marriage than Ellen or Will & Grace did;

2) the mass communications channels necessary for cultural outreach on the scale of what gay rights groups have done, are largely controlled by gatekeepers (in entertainment, news-gathering, and academia) who are devoted to squelching alternative viewpoints; and

3) libertines always--always--view people with self-discipline as "mean"; and no amount of PR is going to change that.

Methinks the good rabbi is trying to lure us into a sucker's game, the end of which is that we quit fighting in any arena and accept the political and cultural dhimmitude liberals have in store for us.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Windseeker]

The notion of redirecting our efforts into cultural outreach sounds nice, but overlooks two facts:

1) Judicial fiat did far more to normalize gay marriage than Ellen or Will & Grace did; and

2) the mass communications channels necessary for cultural outreach on the scale of what gay rights groups have done, are largely controlled by gatekeepers (in entertainment, news-gathering, and academia) who are devoted to squelching alternative viewpoints.

Methinks the good rabbi is trying to lure us into a sucker's game, the end of which is that we quit fighting in any arena and accept the political and cultural dhimmitude liberals have in store for us.

 

I looked up dhimmitude

 

...was not disappointed

[Guest]

I am assuming the author is from the Reform tradition of Judaism (the most liberal).  Also, as I read the article, I did catch that he was wrong about the charitable giving of conservatives.  We're more apt to give to private and religious charities because we do not believe government does the work very well.  Liberals, on the other hand, think that government should be the primary means of assistance, and so tend to give much less to non-profits.

 

Again, though... many young people do perceive that social conservatives are judgmental, and even many "movement conservatives" have all but given up on using politicial mechanisms to "redeem the culture."  So I wonder still if this fellow with whom we mostly don't agree has something to offer us--even if to improve our approaches, or our "optics."

 

 

PC, I'm confused.  I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to say.

 

Conservatism - by virtue of being Conservative - is the mores/traditions of society trump the individual.  Of course, as Conservatives, your paradigm is to use the arm of government (in America, that applies to the States, not the Feds) to maintain the cultural norm. 

 

If this is not your chosen method of government, then you're not Conservative.

 

So the writer of this horrid article is basically telling all the Conservatives to... not be conservative... which doesn't make sense.

[The Folk Prophet]

1) Judicial fiat did far more to normalize gay marriage than Ellen or Will & Grace did;

 

Off topic...but I disagree.

[The Folk Prophet]

I looked up dhimmitude

 

...was not disappointed

 

Usage of words like these does more to hurt the conservative position than...

 

... :D

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe the best answer is, rather than taking the bait and choosing culture over politics, we simply do both.  It's like the classic college professor who says:

 

A or B?

 

And the brilliant freshman who correctly answers, "Yes."

 

Methinks the good rabbi is trying to lure us into a sucker's game, the end of which is that we quit fighting in any arena and accept the political and cultural dhimmitude liberals have in store for us.

[prisonchaplain]

And I agree with your disagreement.  Yes, the courts made gay marriage legal in many states.  However, the polling has changed dramatically.  The conflicted masses are being steered, quite successfully, by media.

 

Off topic...but I disagree.

[prisonchaplain]

My guess is that the rabbi is defining conservatives by their issue stances--i.e. Pro-life, Pro-traditional

marriage, anti-gambling, anti-pornography, etc., rather than by the classic conservative political philosophy of controlling social mores through the force of government authority.

 

PC, I'm confused.  I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to say.

 

Conservatism - by virtue of being Conservative - is the mores/traditions of society trump the individual.  Of course, as Conservatives, your paradigm is to use the arm of government (in America, that applies to the States, not the Feds) to maintain the cultural norm. 

 

If this is not your chosen method of government, then you're not Conservative.

 

So the writer of this horrid article is basically telling all the Conservatives to... not be conservative... which doesn't make sense.

 

Edited December 2, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

And I agree with your disagreement.  Yes, the courts made gay marriage legal in many states.  However, the polling has changed dramatically.  The conflicted masses are being steered, quite successfully, by media.

 

And I disagree with your disagreement. Legality or illegality of an action has a profound effect on the public perception of acceptability, as the abortion holocaust clearly demonstrates.

[prisonchaplain]

The courts may have instilled a sense of hopelessness in some, but I doubt that their declaring gay marriage legal turned very many committed traditionalists around.  It just made a fair number of people give up the fight.  When polls show that there's been a more than 10-point shift towards APPROVAL, I agree with Folk Prophet that Hollywood had a greater impact than our judges.

[Leah]

Having converted from Judaism, I can say that "Reform" Judaism is so far from the real thing as to be almost un recognizable as Judaism. While they may say some pretty words fro time to time claiming otherwise, it's very much a self-centered approach. Keeping Kosher has no personal meaning for you? No problem! We applaud you for being "your authentic self" by not keeping kosher! Oh....and the fact that you never, not once even attempted it? No problem! Just be "your authentic self!".

I'll probably just get really annoyed if I read this guy's words.

[Vort]

The courts may have instilled a sense of hopelessness in some, but I doubt that their declaring gay marriage legal turned very many committed traditionalists around.  It just made a fair number of people give up the fight.  When polls show that there's been a more than 10-point shift towards APPROVAL, I agree with Folk Prophet that Hollywood had a greater impact than our judges.

 

Committed traditionalists are not the issue. The 90% of casual observers are the issue.

[The Folk Prophet]

And I disagree with your disagreement. Legality or illegality of an action has a profound effect on the public perception of acceptability, as the abortion holocaust clearly demonstrates.

 

Agree with the profound effect comment. But overall public acceptance in sheer numbers is not necessarily the prime variable, imo, for judging profoundness of impact. Without the media's subtle teachings of normalcy, getting right at the core of Joe-sixpack's moral center, the legality/illegality would never have been an issue in the first place.

[The Folk Prophet]

Committed traditionalists are not the issue. The 90% of casual observers are the issue.

 

Also agree. And those 90% of casual observers were raised "innocently" on Will & Grace, nicely prepping them for Glee, Brokeback Mountain and the like.

 

The insidious nature of entertainment's abilities to sway morality is difficult to overstate.

 

And all the traditionalists now wonder what went wrong. Why is the younger generation like this? Didn't we raise them right?

 

No! Your television raised them!

 

Casual observance indeed.

[PolarVortex]

Legality or illegality of an action has a profound effect on the public perception of acceptability, as the abortion holocaust clearly demonstrates.

 

In most cases I think this is true, but there are some important exceptions.  I once saw a very clever bumper sticker that said something like, "Let's just make gun ownership illegal and people won't have guns, just like we made drugs illegal and nobody uses drugs."

[Vort]

In most cases I think this is true, but there are some important exceptions.  I once saw a very clever bumper sticker that said something like, "Let's just make gun ownership illegal and people won't have guns, just like we made drugs illegal and nobody uses drugs."

 

If you think laws restricting gun ownership have not decreased the ownership of guns, I am confident you are mistaken. The fact that many people today think guns are intrinsically evil is due in no small part to anti-firearm legislation and the debates (some would say "hysteria") surrounding them.

[lonetree]

'...and even more unlikely for you to read it.'

 

I concur,even without being an evangelical.

Edited December 3, 2014 by lonetree