Comments on Left Bank Blog: Vacation's Over

Joe, I was relieved to learn that this Debra Magga...

2006-04-25T21:04:00.000-05:00

Joe,
I was relieved to learn that this Debra Maggart isn't running unopposed for re-election. There's a normal-looking, sane-sounding veteran and family guy running against her. His name is Patrick Gardner, and his web site is at
http://www.patrickgardner.org/

He's not as far to the left as I'd wish for in a candidate running in a blue state, but he's probably a good match for his district, and he seems to have a firm grip on the difference between the Bible and the Constitution. I think I'm gonna send him a few bucks. I get so tired of reading stories like the one you profiled, and getting angry, but having nothing practical that I can do in response. Maybe if I actually *do* something this time, my blood pressure will go down.

Thanks, by the way, for your rundown on local politics in your adoptive state. Romney appears to be such a weasle, but those of us out of state haven't followed his twists and turns like you have. Appreciate the insights, bro.

Well I think you're wrong, and I bet you knew I wo...

2006-03-30T15:50:00.000-05:00

Well I think you're wrong, and I bet you knew I would.

The Church is a theological institution, not a political entity. Their theology crosses politics, but not for political reasons. The Church is not motivated by political concepts such as "bigotry" or "homophobia," but rather by a theological script upon which the very idea of the Church is based. It's a pretty simple read on this issue. Man + Woman = procreation, procreation = marriage. Not my position, but the Church's, and not one they can deviate from if they wish to remain a CHURCH.

Ms. Maggart arrives at her conclusions through the political course, and even follows a different religion - and while her conclusion happens to be the same, she is succeptible to the labels previously listed, but the Church is clearly not.

As I told you earlier, I knew this would probably ...

2006-03-29T23:50:00.000-05:00

As I told you earlier, I knew this would probably provoke you. So let me attempt to explain myself.

I did not point out the "nuance" you mentioned because I thought it a mere a pretext for the larger issue.

Rep. Maggart's argument on why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt is, of course, different from the Church's. Unsurprisingly, the Church does not want to make this argument.

What I meant to do was connect the two stories as a way of showing both the absurdity of her argument and that of those opposing gay adoptions in general. Because at the end of the day, both Maggart and the Church oppose gay adoption for the same reason: pure, unadulterated homophobia.

Maggart is simply blunt and upfront about her homophobia. The Church instead will spout less impolitic talking points about kids needing both a mother and a father. But that's how the politics of civil rights issues often work: Some will be open about their bigotry, but most bigots will attempt to mask it. For every George Wallace there was talking about "segregation today, segregation tomorrow...," there were numerous Barry Goldwaters who used code phrases like "states' rights" to avoid sounding openly bigoted while still gunning for the support of bigots.

Today, not many Republicans or conservative Christians will say they oppose gay rights because they simply hate and fear gay people. Instead, they'll talk about marriage and family values. So while the Church may not make the same argument as Maggart, they are in lock-step with her politically for the same reason -- bigotry.

Atheists are not liked by the public because many,...

2006-03-29T02:42:00.000-05:00

Atheists are not liked by the public because many, like yourself, seem to radiate an utter disdain for organized religion as a whole.

Unfortunately for you, most Americans practice some form of organized religion. So even though you are really the ones under attack, I agree, you're too small a group to play the "whine" card like the Christian-right does when you attack them.

They are able to get away with this because you do not discriminate on which organized religions you dislike- you don't like any. So even those religions that do not belong to the Christian-right feel some solidarity with them in their reciprocal dislike of atheism.

I'll give you an example: me. While I, as a Catholic, have nothing inherently against atheists, and indeed, share your complaints about the Christian-right, and your goal of a secular state, when I see my atheist friends allow this to go unnoticed in an overflow of overall contempt for organized religion in general, I start to resent it.

You lumped all of us non-atheists together right in this post- using a mis-leading configuration to imply that Ms. Maggart's reasoning for her opposition to gay adoption in Tennessee is the same reason for the Catholic Church's opposition to gay adoption in Boston.-(As you put it "On a related note")

Ms. Maggart is more than likely a Protestant evangelical, not a Catholic.

But this nuance didn't matter to you, because you proceeded to announce that "this is a debate I'd like to have," presumably with the Catholic Church, about whether gays are more likely to "subject [children] to a life of molestation and sexual abuse"- the position of Ms. Maggart.

Besides, the Catholic Church holds no obligation to provide adoption services- they ought to, but they're obviously not obligated to, even though it has come to be expected by most people,including those who don't like Catholicism.

Maybe the one good thing that comes out of this will be that liberals who fail to properly acknowledge all the good the Church does in the world will realize it now when it's gone. And perhaps they'll begin to recognize all the other areas in which the Catholic Church helps society- food, clothing, shelter- more than any other organization in the world.

The point is, for the sake of our common liberal ideals, please don't allow your views on religion to alienate people like me, many of us who are on your side....if only you'll let us be.

Welcome Back!

2006-03-28T20:33:00.000-05:00

Welcome Back!