prisonchaplain

Concept of Loyal Opposition Dying

Recommended Posts

A Harvard professors says Christian conservatives have lost the culture war, so now it is time to treat them like history has always treated losers (such as Nazis).  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/harvard-professor-start-treating-christians-nazis/

Was the call for tolerance and not shoving morals down opponents' throats a liberal lie all along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this professor was the definitive voice and judge on who has or hasn't won anything, let alone the "culture wars'. Self appointed voice of the people??

In a different newspaper, Christian conservatives say a Harvard professor is not qualified to give them advice on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Needle...oh come, let us reason together. Sure, there are plenty of liberal-thinking, liberal voting folk who are pleasant, open to conversation, and not-at-all-interested in the the type of bullying exemplified by the Harvard professor. Then again, this is a Harvard professor, not some wingnut on late night MSNBC. I could post another article I stumbled upon, in which a liberal-minded psychology professor posted on his FB that perhaps there should be some diversity of thought in the academy? (i.e. at least a few conservatives). The response? Well sure, let's just be done with it and hire a few idiots, so we get a representative pool!

No, all is not lost. However, I doubt we can underestimate the pervasiveness of the hostile, anti-conservative-social-mores consensus that dominates much of the academe.

Fortunately, there are a few moderates, conservatives, and yes, even some liberals, who are willing to question this.  http://heterodoxacademy.org/

Oh, by the way, Paul Krugman, a liberal NYT columnist, found out about the site, and without a visit, declared it the domicile of angry, sour grapes conservatives.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Was the call for tolerance and not shoving morals down opponents' throats a liberal lie all along?

So, this is a question?

"The call for tolerance and not shoving morals down opponents' throats was a liberal lie all along."

Fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, like all wars, we must seek out the moderates among our ideological opponents (non-hostile liberals, in other words) and form loose associations. Call it "friendship evangelism": in the ideological sphere. 

...that pc can be a sneaky fellow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, just because one liberal person says something doesn't mean you can say all liberals think that. The exact same thing would apply if one conservative said something outrageous - obviously, he/she isn't speaking for all conservatives.

Arguing about ideology is pointless, when it comes to politics. When has that ever convinced anyone? What matters is finding practical solutions.

Personally, I think liberals and conservatives each get everything about half right. That's why we need them to talk and work together - to get a good whole solution :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

A Harvard professors says Christian conservatives have lost the culture war, so now it is time to treat them like history has always treated losers (such as Nazis).  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/harvard-professor-start-treating-christians-nazis/

Yeah, when I see Godwin's law happening in an actual thread title, I will usually want to go to the source, rather than the news reporting of the source.  And while the original author doesn't use the word Nazi, he does indeed compare conservative Christians to the losing side of bloody wars (civil war, WWII Japan, WWII Germany).   (Underlining mine)

 

Quote

2      The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars (see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term.) And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own. (No conservatives demonstrated any interest in trading off recognition of LGBT rights for “religious liberty” protections. Only now that they’ve lost the battle over LGBT rights, have they made those protections central – seeing them, I suppose, as a new front in the culture wars. But, again, they’ve already lost the war.). For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all.  Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)  I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

His point #6 is especially crude.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tesuji said:

Arguing about ideology is pointless, when it comes to politics. When has that ever convinced anyone? What matters is finding practical solutions.

Personally, I think liberals and conservatives each get everything about half right. That's why we need them to talk and work together - to get a good whole solution :) 

 

If "arguing" is understood as warfare, meant to humiliate and destroy the opponent, then you are spot-on. My understand of argument is as impassioned debate. Conservatives and liberals must talk...and engage in impassioned debate. Working together means trust must be rebuilt. That is the meaning of the OP title--"Loyal Opposition" is the belief that whether one is pro-life/choice, Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal, Hawk/Dove, etc. s/he is my fellow American, deserving of respect.  To use a church analogy, during the business meeting competing sides/ideas may fight like cats and dogs, but once the decision is made all parties come out the door as brothers/sisters united in the cause of the gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If "arguing" is understood as warfare, meant to humiliate and destroy the opponent, then you are spot-on. My understand of argument is as impassioned debate. Conservatives and liberals must talk...and engage in impassioned debate. Working together means trust must be rebuilt. That is the meaning of the OP title--"Loyal Opposition" is the belief that whether one is pro-life/choice, Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal, Hawk/Dove, etc. s/he is my fellow American, deserving of respect.  To use a church analogy, during the business meeting competing sides/ideas may fight like cats and dogs, but once the decision is made all parties come out the door as brothers/sisters united in the cause of the gospel.

I agree with what I think you're saying. But I think there are both productive debates and unproductive debates.

When it comes to politics, I think most people only want to assert their opinions, but are not interested in actually listening or learning from the other side, or in analyzing their opinions. Debating/arguing with these people is a waste of effort. It's the unproductive type of debate. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's how it seems to me that most people are about politics. Perhaps not on this site, I don't know, although I've seen at least some of it.

It is very hard to analyze your views. Of necessity, we can't go around continually re-evaluating our mental picture of the world. We couldn't function in daily life. But I think when it comes to politics in a democracy, it is important to be at least generally informed, and to keep an open mind.

Also, since this is an LDS site, when you say "loyal opposition," I think of the latest general conference where Elder Oaks(?) said there is no such thing as loyal opposition in the church, which I agree with, at least in the way most of the "Mormon loyal opposition" seems to see themselves. Follow the prophet is what the church teaches (I'm not saying follow blindly). But a prophet is a prophet.

But you are talking only politics, not religion, it appears.

Edited by tesuji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In church (whether LDS or not) "loyal opposition" would take place before a decision is made. During the discussion phase (when such is appropriate) there may be two sides, or even multiple ones. That's when mutual respect is needed. Once the decision is made (especially when done/approved by a spiritual leader, such as a prophet) then the opposition should be over.

In politics opposition never ends. SCOTUS says marriage is now a human right, that it is not defined in the way people of faith have done so for millennia. Have we changed our minds? Are we not "opposed?" Likewise with abortion, and even issues like taxes. So we discuss, debate, get riled up, but hopefully, eventually, we can return to the kind of society that encourages ideological opponents to trust each other. I have used the example of President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'neill here many times. They fought like crazy during the day, and would often break bread together in the evenings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

SCOTUS says marriage is now a human right, that it is not defined in the way people of faith have done so for millennia.

Not merely "people of faith"

People who care at all about the future have always considered marriage as a contract or bond between men and women because of the children. Such a contract between two men or between two women would be idiotic because it serves no useful purpose: there are no children.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 hours ago, tesuji said:

When it comes to politics, I think most people only want to assert their opinions, but are not interested in actually listening or learning from the other side, or in analyzing their opinions. Debating/arguing with these people is a waste of effort.

I love to discuss politics and I absolutely agree with you. Very passionate people often times need an outlet for their views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
18 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

SCOTUS says marriage is now a human right, that it is not defined in the way people of faith have done so for millennia.

This could be taken to the extreme and say that baptism is a human right.  Membership in a faith, even if we don't believe in the dogma, is a human right.

Don't just shrug this comment off.  Marriage was historically a religious rite.  Now it's a matter for government to decide.  How will any other religious rite be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now