Defcon's latest ad: the religious right and gambling
The latest advertisement from the Campaign to Defend to America attacks gambling and the connections with leading figures of the religious right.
Check it out:
http://www.defconamerica2.org/abramoff/printad.pdf
- Stephen Rockwell's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
DEFCON Ad
Even if you are substantially correct in your analysis, I maintain that those sorts of ads mainly serve the purpose of exciting the base. If the ad is from the left or right.
Exciting the base can be very important. So they are not without merit for the "cause", so to speak.
I think if you are trying to change minds, you must take some sort of more reasonable approach.
I don't think you will change many minds with a message like "most of those guys on your side are a bunch of evil, malicious jerks. So HEY!!! Come join us". :)
Eric
Defcon Ad
I'm as elliptical and indirect as the next guy, and I absolutely couldn't make heads or tails of the Defcon ad. I also live near an Indian tribe with gaming, so I know the issues, and the angles.
I also followed the Abramoff scandal (with way too much glee for a Xian).
Are they saying:
1) Some gaming tribes contributed money to anti-gambling groups to stop competition; or,
2) Some gaming corporations contributed money to the Reed or Dobson kinds of guys who have access, in order to get a little extra access; or,
3) none of the above, and I am, as I have already confessed, clueless?
Reply To Rockadayjohnny and Eric On Defcon Ad
What Defcon is saying is very siimple: these supposedly religious "leaders" who like to impose their subjective morality on other people are hypocrites.
Reed, Dobson and others hold themselves out as being uncorrupted by greed--something they clearly are not. Good people of faith trust these charaltans: it is for them that their true political agenda of unrestrained self-interest most be exposed.
From what little I know this is only the very first step in a long overdue process of taking back the good word of the Lord. A first ad cannot be expected to expose phoniness and lay out our position at the very same time. The Left must lay out our message one step at a time. We have no choice since we have let this cancer fester unattended to for far too long.
Reply To Rockadayjohnny and Eric On Defcon Ad
"What Defcon is saying is very siimple: these supposedly religious "leaders" who like to impose their subjective morality on other people are hypocrites."
In regard to this statement, neither side gets a pass on this just by claiming that the other side wants to impose it's subjective morality. BOTH sides obviously want to impose their subjective morality. They just have different subjective moralities. Of course you can claim that only your morality is "objective", but I think that is a big stretch for both sides. Neither side can know if they are truly "on God's side". Read Lincoln's 2nd innaugaral address on that issue.
So you must actually address the issues involved to really contribute to the discussion. Not just claim those other guys want to impose their views, while I really don't want to impose anything. How can you change anything in a society without imposing your views? That's what politics is all about, for both sides. I want to impose lower taxes, you want to impose higher taxes. I want to impose more military spending on the people, you want to impose less militay spending. And on and on ...
Having said that, I fully support the indictment and prosecution for any wrongdoing, whether committed by secular humanists, atheists, or christians.
Eric
Still Don't Get It
Okay, here's one quote from the Defcon ad: "This is the same James Dobson whose voice you could have
heard on radio commercials paid for by Jack Abramoff’s
Indian casino clients. These casinos gave millions to Jack
Abramoff to limit competition. Lou Sheldon, or “Lucky
Louie
Then Do Something About It!
It seems that you have more of a problem with the content then the strategy. If that is the case, then contact Defcon with your criticisms which I can understand. But that Defcon is trying to do is clearly something that needed to be done a long, long time ago. I'll give them a pass for a good first attempt since they at least had the courage to actually do something.
One Other Thing...
I am extremely familar with Lincoln's Second Inaugural address and I believe it completely supports my position. We on the Left would let God tell us on whose side He is on; they on the other hand take it upon themselves to speak for the Almighty.
Theocracy?
While there may be some on the very fringe extreme of the right that want a theocracy, I see no evidence that the mainstream right wants a theocracy. If the right takes steps to establish a theocracy, I'll be the first to join with you to stop that.
Have you seen any legislation introdiced in congress to make a particular religion the "official" religion? I have not seen such legislation. Have you seen government decrees ordering citizens to dress a certain way, or wear their hair a certain way, or to in any way force the populace to conform to a particular religion? I have not seen such measures.
And you really dodge my point about the fact that BOTH sides seek to impose their beliefs into law. Not just one side. The left, just as much as the right, wants to enact legislation that supports their world view. And this is as it should be. I have no problem with the left trying to enact strong environmental standards, or improve healthcare, just as I have no problem with the right trying to strengthen national defense, or reform social security.
This is why I mentioned Lincoln's 2nd innaugaural. Just as he eloquently talks about how neither side can really know that God is on their side, only God can know this. Both sides will pursue what they think is right, now, just as during Lincoln's time. But nothing has changed about the fact that neither side can know that God favors their opinions.
Now this doesn't mean that our current issues are unimportant. Both sides should still pursue what they think is right, obviously.
My concern with your views as expressed here, is that while you feel that the people on the right are wrong to try in enact laws that represent t heir views, you think it is quite allright to enact laws that express your views.
Now, this doesn't include illegal activities. People on the right, and the left, should be prosecuted for criminal activity, and any breaking of the law.
NYGaribaldi, you say that "we on the left would let God tell us on whose side he is on, they on the other hand take it upon themselves to speak for the Almighty". If someone on the right says that homosexuality is scripturally forbidden, how is that different than someone on the left saying it is not forbidden by scripture? Both sides really think that their viewpoint is morally correct don't they? Both sides are taking a moral stand in their opinion. Both, in a way, are saying "God is on their side".
Sure, you could say that the right wants to make laws that forbid homosexual unions, but left wants to make laws that allow such unions. Both want to make law. Both want to have the state enforce their view don't they?
Both the left and the right agree that thou shalt not kill, so we can agree on passing laws that allow the government to enforce this commandment. Other disagreements are not so clear and easy. Even that one has some issues here and there :).
But surely you see my big point. Everyone in the political arena is trying to get legilation passed that reflects their world view and their morality. No one gets a free pass on that one. No one can claim, "Hey, it's only ME that has no dog in this hunt. I am completely without blame. I am spotless and clean. It's only those other evil guys that want to enact legilation that supports their views. MY views are the perfectly right ones. Therefore I can point fingers at everyone else".
I think that is really what you are saying, and what the same types on the right say.
This, by no means, means I condemn the left. I just think this "those guys are the only ones trying to impose anything" argument is wrong on it's face. It's self-evident that it is wrong.
Being against something, is the same as advocating an alternative view, isn't it? If I'm for gun ownership, and you say you are against it, you are "for" not allowing gun ownership. Both sides seek to impose something.
Just because you're opposing something, doesn't mean you are not proposing something.
Look how Abraham Lincoln talked about God in his speeches. Has something changed since then? Are his speeches now "out of date", and "quaint"? He referred much more to God and scripture in his speeches than George Bush ever has. He even invoked broader executive powers than Bush has. He suspended Habeas Corpus even.
Just because Lincoln often invoked God and scripture, doesn't mean he was trying to establish a theocracy any more than Bush is.
Nor was John Kennedy beginning to lobby for a theocracy when he said these things in his innaugaral address:
"For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago."
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
I don't think Kennedy wanted a theocracy any more than Bush does.
Eric
Yes, Theocracy.
Eric, I guess you haven't heard about the proposed legislation introduced in the Misssouri legislature, HRC 13? It only recognizes Christianity above other religions, edging a rather large state closer to officially embracing a particular creed.
Have you bothered reading Leo Strauss, Irving or Bill Kristol or Willmoore Kendall--some of the most influential philosophers on the current conservative movement? They have plenty to say about adopting religious orthodoxies as state policies. Worse yet, they have many powerful followers in high places of power, especially on the US Supreme Court and in the current administration.
And as someone with muscular dystrophy I am a victim of of this administration's theocratic overtones. It is because of Mr. Bush's alliance with Opus Dei Catholics and IRD protestants that embryonic stem cell research is now being hamstrung. People suffer for their beliefs.
What you are doing is playing a semantic game. Of course both sides try to enact legislation that reflects their respective position. But until recently centrist conservatives as well as centrist liberals both governed within certain parameters pursuant to a Lockean Social Contract theory. Our problem is not with mainstrean conservatives but with an increasingly powerful New Right which is an alliance of neoconservatives and religious hardliners that is well-funded by the likes of the Scaife, Koch and Bradley foundations. They have no faith in the Social Contract, but desire a more Athenian style democracy, replete with rule by philosopher-kings and limitations on our contemporary concepts of equality.
And as for gay marriage, birth control or choice most liberals as well as centrist liberterian conservatives would rather leave the juding to God, not to stand in God's place as they are wont to do. And as for the arrogance of equating a faith with God's will, go read your Reinhold Niebuhr.
So yes, I do fear a theocracy from these folks because I have already felt its effects on a very personal level.
Right on
Frank, Thank you for this.
This is exactly why CrossLeft exists:
Of course both sides try to enact legislation that reflects their respective position. But until recently centrist conservatives as well as centrist liberals both governed within certain parameters pursuant to a Lockean Social Contract theory. Our problem is not with mainstrean conservatives but with an increasingly powerful New Right which is an alliance of neoconservatives and religious hardliners that is well-funded by the likes of the Scaife, Koch and Bradley foundations. They have no faith in the Social Contract, but desire a more Athenian style democracy, replete with rule by philosopher-kings and limitations on our contemporary concepts of equality.
Theocracy
In regard to the Missouri proposed law, which I feel is unnecessary, even that doesn't estabish any kind of theocracy. It's obviously aimed at just allowing religion a place in the public square. So there won't have to be a supreme court case everytime some group of kids wants to pray at a football game.
I sympathize with your stem cell research situation, but I hardly think that qualifies as creating a theocracy.
And I don't think what I said is about each side wanting to impose it's views is just semantics. When the atheists want to impose no "under God" in the pledge of alligiance on the rest of us, are they establishing a "theocracy of atheism" on the rest of us? In your way of thinking, I think they are.
I don't think ones views are automatically forbidden just because they happen to coincide with western christian values. Our system of law has it's roots in these christian values. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.. Just because those are 2 of the commandments doesn't mean we are on our way to having a theorcary.
I think the key is the constitutional establishment clause. The second that a president or congress proposes establishing a religion, and forcing all American citizens to adopt that religion, I'll stand with you to defeat them.
But just because the elected representatives of our country, acting according to their constitutionally given powers, pass legislation that the supreme court rules is constitutional, doesn't mean we are becoming a theocracy. I think even the most extreme conservative supreme court would never allow the establishment of a religion in this country. In fact, they might be more inclined to stop it than a liberal court, depending on the religion that was trying to be established.
Islamic fundamentalists are the biggest threat to establish theocracies in the world today. If you want to see a theocracy, try living in some of those countries. Those are truly theocracies, and I think it's pretty easy to see the differences between our system and theirs. It's not exactly a close judgement call.
The "leave the judging to God" argument doesn't hold water either. Obviously, the true final judgement is God's, but we have to make judgements here on earth to function as a society. Contract disputes have to be settled by courts, murderers have to be tried and sentenced, businessmen who perpetrate fraud have to be judged by juries and judges, etc.. All of these individuals will face God's final judgement, as will all of us, but in the meantime, sociey must make judgements to be able to function in a "rule of law" environment. Jesus recognized that governments have a role in society, with his famouse "render unto Caesar" statment.
Many think that it's Islam's failure to recognize such a role for secular governments, but instead making their religion the government, that has led to Islam's problems today. There is little or no tradition in Islam to allow for a separate, secular government. They are the true theocracy seekers.
God bless you with your MS. My niece was disgnosed last year, and it's been a real struggle for her.
Eric
One Huge Difference Eric...
Dobson, Reed and others want a theocracy; we on the Religious Left desire no such regime. That in and of itself is a huge difference between the two sides.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The issue is very simple:
those who are hypocritical about their own moral behavior have no credibility to tell others what is moral; simple as that. Beyond that, they are using faith as a tool for some extremely unChristian ideas such as American hegemony, the stifling of dissent and the chloroforming of distributive justice capitalism.
Dobson and Reed and theocracy
We just disagree that Dobson and Reed want to establish a theocracy.
Obviously, we all can agree on hypocrisy. And to the degree that anyone is hypocritical, I am with you 100%.
And we disagree that the religious left disires no such regime, any more than the right does. I'm repeating myself here, but the religious left has it's political agenda every bit as much as the religious right. They are just different agendas. Religious scholars have disagreed for centuries on exactly what religion means. And this is still the case today.
Our form of government allows for the constitutionally elected representatives of the people, to enact constitutional legislation, with the safeguard of the supreme court to determine constitutionality. When congress acts within these constituional limits, there is no theocracy.
It's the left's contention that anything they do is perfectly acceptable, and they are not trying to impose anything on the people, it's only the right that wants to impose things, is just obviously wrong. The left wants to impose their "theocracy", by you way of thinking.
The left must work through our constitutional system to elect more people that agree with them to get their agenda passed. If that happens, I won't be complaining that the left if trying to impose a theocracy on us.
Eric
A Further Reply To Eric On Dobson And Reed.
Your initial premise is incorrect: there is no organized Liberal or other Left plan to take religion out of the public square (A football game seems to be an odd place for an organized prayer meeting. It would seem to contradict Jesus as quoted in Mark: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." [Matthew 6:5-6]. On this same issue, check out this link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508150001 for a more accurate take on this matter). What most of us on the Left prefer is a government that is religiously neutral—not to be hostile to faith, but so that all faiths of good will can be feely practiced in America.
Let’s get this straight: while there is a small group of individual folks on the Left who desire to push God out of the public square, there is no organized or desired plan for any such goal. The vast majority of liberals have no problem with the phrase “one nation, under God
Theocracy, Left and Right
There is a differnce between the Christian political policies supported by the Left and the Chjristian political policies supported by the Right.
The policies supported by the Christian Right almost always require that non-Christians accept Christian morals and adapt their life styles to reflect Christian morals. Asking non-believers to have to stand through a public prayer in school or see the Ten commandments posted in a court room, or obey Christian sexual mores is to ask them to sacrifice their non-Christian values for the sake of public Christian values.
On the other hand the policies supported by the Christian Left almost always require that Christians mold their behavior to the values they should be embracing even if there were no laws requiring them to. Asking believers to contribute from their wealth to the poor, asking believers to allow for soul freedom (the right for everyone to choose or reject the Gospel as truth),
asking believers to seek war only as a last resort, asking believers to sacrifice time, energy, and resources for the good of the sick, the imprisoned, the alien, and the oppressed --all of these things are sacrifices required of believers.
In short, the Right always asks others to sacrifice so their sensibilities and pocketbooks will not be offended.
The Left always asks that Christians be sensitive to other people's sensibilities and that they be willing to sacrifice financially for the good of those in need.
IN my opinion the Left is correct in asking that Christian be the greatest sacrificers, as is taught throughout all of scripture.
The Right comes across as being much more selfish and condemning, both attidudes that are un-becoming of a Disciple of Christ.
Trent
Reply to Trent
Trent, that was extremely insightful and well put. I'm glad you're on our side.
Defcon Ad
Sorry Eric, you're dead wrong.
The Defcon ad is long overdue. There is nothing in that piece that denigrates religion or goes too far. In fact, too many of us who oppose the Religious Right are needlessly worried about "getting our hands dirty." Well guess what? Just like the Allies who had to get tough to fight the evil of Hitler and Mussolini, we have to sometimes fight fire with fire. Being tough is not a sign of moral weakness. Bullies sometimes need a shove to back off. All Defcon is doing is setting the record straight, somethong that is long overdue from the Religious Left.
DEFCON ad
I condemn wrongdoing by any organization, wheter christian, or secular. And I support the effort to prosecute ciminal activity by any person or organization.
I think this DEFCON ad is guilty of a common mistake made by many extremeists groups, on the left, and the right.
They point out some valid issues, then extrapolate from that to form extreme conclusions. When this technique is used, they have no, zero, nada hope of gaining any new converts from the other side. All they are doing is whipping up the excitement of their true believers. If that is their purpose, they suceed. If they are hoping to change minds, this tactic won't work, for either the left or right.
To address the more general issue of left and right, I think the challenge the left faces is to be seen as loyal, true Americans who really have the love of this country in their hearts, and who criticize to hopeully improve our country, instead of being percieved by the red state people as just being against our country.
I quote from an article on the CBNnews web site.
"Religion has become one of the major determiners of how you vote. To put it simply, those who pray a lot tend to vote Republican. Those who don't tend to vote Democrat.
A new poll shows 63 percent of those who attend religious services more than once a week say they'll vote Republican. Sixty-two percent of those who rarely or never attend such services, say they’ll vote Democrat. "
And,
"It’s a change that began to show up in 1972. By the time the 1992 Democratic Convention rolled around, the largest religious bloc of delegates was not religious at all.
Social scientist Gerald De Maio said they were, "...Secularists, self-identified secularists, defined as atheists, agnostics and those with no religious preference."
And,
"According to De Maio, polls of journalists have shown that, "About a third saw evangelical Christians as a threat to democracy. More than half thought that they had too much political power. I think there is this feeling that ‘religion in the public square is toxic’."
And with 50 percent of journalists saying they have no religion, and some 80 percent rarely ever going to church, it is not surprising they see no problem with a secularist takeover of the Democrat Party, and certainly don't see it as any sort of a problem or a threat worthy of news coverage."
I know this is from a religious web site, however the poll data is objectively verifiable.
This is the challenge the left faces. They need to work on converting their own party members to christianity. And not continue to constantly villify their christian brothers on the right.
Eric