"It makes me think of something I recently read from Martin Marty. He calls it Marty's Law, and it's simple: No one ever wins culture wars."

Maybe no one ever wins culture wars, but time does, and culture wars come to an end.

Remember when it was illegal to buy contraceptives in Connecticut and other states? That was less than fifty years ago.

Try getting an American legislature to reimpose that ban. Time won and that war's over.

Why must we, the people of the United States, frame everything in "war" words and deeds?
Is everything about a war? I would hope that a peaceful and equitable solution could be found to all of the issues that separate us as a nation.
Yet, I despair, because of the strident and sometimes obsequious nature of those on either end of the spectrum, who take positions that are not amenable to listening and learning.
Surely there must be a way that we can all get along, if not, then I truly fear for the future of our country. We cannot long stand the continuous rhetoric of a few who, frame everything
in terms of battle and defeat, war and victory.
Our nation was not made out of continuous rebellion, but a nation, which when called to, makes a difference in the lives of those who are in the minority. We as a nation, have too long now, fought over idle and meaningless words that only cause hurt and division. We, the people, must take back the reins of power from those who, are the strident among us, and let loose feelings of empowerment for those in the minority, who feel put upon and used in ways that are not conducive to agreement.
If, something happens as I hope it will, then we as a nation, will learn to get along with each other and to support those in the minority, the minority which, when not listened to, causes disruption in all of our lives and the common good.
Our nation was founded on the principle of hearing and taking into account the minority viewpoint. We cannot stand too much more of this "fight" to win at all cost mentality that has pervaded the extreme Far Right Wing Nuts and the Far Left Granola people. You know the type, the fruits, flakes and nuts of the world.
We must once again reach towards amity and the center of each issue. We must listen to both sides of an idea and make the best judgment that can be made and then have a "heart" for those who are among the ones that are on either side of an issue that will not stand for any other way.
Peace is the answer, but not if we do not listen to those on either side of an issue.

As for the two most-aggressive forms of Abrahamic monotheism not getting along, frankly, it's no wonder. You cry for the blood of ...and kill, the very people capable of *mediating.*

That'd be yer shamans and bards and, well, 'interesting' types.

Those that don't fit into the 'omniscience' of book definitions. Those who will not be ruled. Not as you wish, anyway. Those who can see outside and between.

You wonder why you can't get along, you monotheists.

You both kill all your ambassadors.

Eos 1n? Lovely. But. If you can shoot film, especially on one of those computerized things, you can find the spacebar, Artist. Maybe a shift key, once in a while. :)

What are you saying? :)

hi eboo i hope all is well and you are having a nice holiday season. i contiue to do free speech performace art in tallahssee at lake ella and actually go applause to day i'm getting a little more confident when i play my guitar and take photographs of tallhasse people who tell the son of a man who was a capt. in the strategic air comand and i was actually born at macdill AFB in tampa florida peopeo who knew this base in the cold war and now know this isn't some rinky dink place. weel i do fre pech performance art in tallhasse because i'm an artist and people tell me i have to shut up and move out of thier park. i have photos of an unfortunate new 27 tv crew on christmas eve doing thier fluff story instead of actually reporting real new in tallhasse and what they look like when they tll a man in a shirt with stuff spilled on it he picked out so maybe people would treat him like a homeless man. when i tfine people noticed i actually own a n eos 1n cammera with a very nice lens they realized just what they were saying in america in a public park it it just started to dawn upon them this might not look good for them. but they did not take thetime to actually appologize to me. i will insist on a writen one from their station owner who rents the publicly owned airwaves to broadcast on. he mnay think he owns it..not in america.. back to rick warren and othe i guess well meaning people who some how someway have got themselves in a position in life that just dooest to most christians or any one else look chistian like if they don't want ot appologize and beg for frogiveness which i s what the new testament actually says to people like rick warren. i think the american people should boo him very very loudly befor e and after his prayre so he gets a little reality check if needed. my feeling he night be surprise what a small minority he actually speeks for on some issues. although some of his other might be quite right you woundnt want to cheer someone who need a boo in america that is who we are. christian , jewish muslim or what ever if you are an american yo can speak and boo is a word

We as a nation are comprised of every tribe and family of humans. As such, we need to find a way as a nation to learn to respect others, whether of different ethnic heritage and religious beliefs. Perhaps we need to bring back civics as a distinct subject for study. It might start with the definition that an American is anyone who is part of this society, who has allegience to this people, no matter their religion, language or color. All citizens are equal before the law.

I would also suggest that one way to deal with the issue of marriage is to separate legal and religious concepts of marriage. Before the law, marriage would be composed of two partners who have full standing to represent each other, inherit, adoption/the raising of children, etc., and all the other legal rights which currently come from marriage. Then let religious groups determine for themselves whose relationships they will "bless" and for what purposes and in what manner. If a community decides that they will not bless gay and lesbian couples that would be their rights, and those religious communities which would do so can freely do so. People can freely choose which communities, if any, they would choose to affiliate with.

This is not an ideal situation, but it would erase a fundamental issue in the current culture war: That one group defines for another what that "other" may do/believe. Gays and lesbians would be equal under the law, and those groups which do not accept a religious definition of marriage that would include such relationships may hold that among themselves, but they may not legislate against others. As for groups like the Boy Scouts, let them charter individual troops from either religious communities, or such groups as schools, and let their national charters have a zone of privacy, where definitions of sexuality be defined for their own troops.

As I said, this is not ideal, but I don't know what else to suggest. It is a case of live and let live. The criterion is that if it doesn't hurt me, it is none of my business. We currently presume this in regard to, say, next door neighbors who may be of another heritage or practices...unless my neighbor's actions harm me, I have to live with it.

Why the posts of extreme antipathy and battelines drawn so sharply?
Not all faithful have hearts forged in judgement and fear, and not all gay and lesbians are kind and victimized either.

They're both just people, good and bad mixed together.

To allow two adult persons to formalise their sexual partnership according to law - what could be more civilised?

To privilege the sexual taboos of a particular religious sect as the standard for all legislation - simply unjust.

It's quite simple, really.

Eboo

You have floated an idea which probably is raw,
you said:
So people who are against gay marriage are against equality. Cretins!

And people who are for gay marriage are against civilization. Ogres!

That's what I call writing the storyline of a culture war.

I think Civilization is a whole and equality a sub-set of it. It is not the other way as you suggested civilizatio vs equality.
Not war but a cultural "shuffle" always goes on between two civilizations, where the two repel each other they even overlap eachother too.

At present we have civilizations like: chinese,
Islamic, Judo-christian, European etc.
There is no such thing as American civilization in my opinion or yet it is in its infancy.
So the issues are not as perceived by you and hence no win/win solution to it.

I agree Halozel1

DMZ,

I post to you on Bronfman's thread regarding the Rockefellers (with link) and other concerns you had. Also, see Onofrio's subsequent post.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/12/why_hanukkah_still_matters/allcomments.html

Regards,
Farnaz

Dear Dr Patel

Happy holidays and a Happy New Year 2009!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Morton Smith is another con man just not as infamous as Joe Smith. See Wikipedia and answers.com.

Erik108:

I could quibble or argue, but I'm not going to do that. Tomorrow is the 1 year anniversary of my wife's death after 37 years of marriage. All I can do is wish you well. I have no energy for anything else.

BTW, I seek no healing or reconciliation in my family. They chose to be bigots decades ago, and nothing has changed. I have no empathy or sympathy for them at all. I remain an equal rights activist. One either believes in equality or one doesn't. Everything else is just BS

AVP 65

Male genital cutting(circumcısion) is not commanded by the Quran as well and predates islam.

DMZ1:

Oh dear, I am at a loss as to how and where you think I called you a communist. You had challenged me to imagine where left-wing atheists and evangelical fundamentalists might find common ground, and I gave you a concrete historical example referencing communism. Your terms did not limit the discussion to the United States, so Russia and Cuba are in bounds, by the way. You yourself go on to talk about China.

You have no clue about my politics nor my view of communism, neither of which are particularly relevant to this exchange. What is relevant is the relationship of communism to atheism.
Contrary to your understanding, the first entails the second. You say everything was done in the name of Leninism. Well, here is a Lenin quote: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Communism." Stalin, to whom you repeatedly refer, also made atheism a cornerstone of his thinking. Check out his opus magnum, "Dialectical and Historical Materialism."

By the way, I am quite sympathetic to atheism,and a fan of Karl Marx. And of course atheism long antedates communism and will long survive it, and most atheists were not communists and some communists were not atheists. But none of that changes the fact that atheism is philosophically foundational to communism.

You say that the Soviets et al and religious fundamentalists are alike in that they both believe they possess the truth. Yes, but of what truths are the respective parties in possession? Martin Luther King and Gandhi were just as convinced of the truth of their beliefs as Lenin and Stalin, but oh how those beliefs differed.

You call me dishonest and claim that I cannot read. I could reply that you are a fuzzy thinker and an ignoramus, but where does that get us? Your last post makes clear that your strong feelings about this matter are rooted in a painful family situation. May I respectfully suggest that the real issue here might be the healing and reconciliation I think you want for your family, not whether religious fundamentalists are neo-Stalinists at heart, or Eboo is hopelessly naive or I am dishonest.

Like you and many others, I have experienced the hurt of family divisions that seemed immutable and irreparable. Healing, however, is possible. I wish you and your family the best at this holiday season.

Eboo,

Oh, expert on "civilizational clashes," human rights (!), and interfaith dialogue (!!!)
Now, what?

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

dmz1- That's the problem will all fundamentalists. that do or die mentality. I don't know that when people are that rigid in their beliefs, anything convinces them to compromise. there is no reason that any religion should be able to tell the government you cannot allow gays to marry in civil ceremonies. Any government that allows them to od so has failed the people.

The we're martyrs because giving gays equal rights infringes on my religion argument is a poor attempt to give them some sort of constitutional grounds for complaint. I don't see that they have one- but when or if it goes to the Supreme court i hope the right wingers there will opt for objectivity, and not to pandering to the religious right.

Eboo,

Some of us remember what human rights are, and we'll be reminding you a lot.

Female Genital Mutilation. A topic whose time has come.

Gavriel and Rivka say hello.
Funny thing. They thought they had rights too, the right to be Jews. Just like all those mutilated girls thing they have the right to be girls.

And...Oh my. Gay citizens believe they're entitled to civil rights. My my my.

All these clashes of civilizations.

Erik108:

Gee, could you possibly be more dishonest? We're talking about same sex marriage in the United States, and you switch to the Soviet Union and Cuba. WTF? I'm not a communist. Trying to tar me with that brush is typical right wing nonsense. Alsdo, atheism is NOT a foundational component of communism. Not a single act or event in the Soviet Union or Maoist China or wherever was ever undertaken in the name of atheism. Everything was done in the name of Leninism which was just the communist replacement for religion. Anti-religion is a foundational component, but atheism is not. The Soviets et al were no different than fundamentalist Christians - they both believe that they have THE truth and have the right to impose it on everyone else. That is why I call them neo-Stalinist.

On my mother's side, the vast majority of my family are young earth fundamentalists. In spite of their warped views, they are my family, and I love them. We talk about same sex marriage regularly - it's a hot button issue for them and it's important to me. I'm not gay, but my brother is, and he's one of the finest men that I know. The discussion in my family is mostly civil - we're family - but there is NO common ground. Absolutely none. There is no win-win situation possible. If there is same sex marriage or absolutely equal rights without calling it marriage for anyone, then the super Christians will still see it as a loss. They don't believe in equal rights. If there isn't equality under the law, then those on my side of the fence must see it as a loss. Where is the common ground?

So, first you demonstrate that you can't reead by accusing me of something that I did not say. Then, you do the right wing bait and switch by talking about something completely irrelevant like the Soviet Union. You never really addressed the point of my posts except for your ridiculous business of talling evangelicals that not having equal rights might impinge on their religion. Their pat answer is for everyone to believe like them, whether they want to or not, and, to them, that solves the problem. If people refuse to accept their beliefs, then impose them.

Where's the win-win - anywhere?

"Win or lose, you have to go to work with people who believe (perhaps passionately) differently than you."

the question is, how do you work with those who don't want to work with you? rick warren seems to e one of those people with a great deal of power and money, who also believe they ae born to lead the rest of us. what I object to is not only his stands on many issues, but the feeling that doing the invocation merely feeds into his egomania. What else is he expecting from the new administration?

that said, I think Obama will be a focused, pragmatic, centrist- which is what the country needs. I understand his position on reaching across the aisle, and the unspoken message that "I'm trying to work with you, but you'll also have to work with me." I just wonder how many of those on the other side of the aisle see that, or if they think Obama is reaching out to placate them?

Eboo,

Some of us remember what human rights are, and we'll be reminding you a lot.

Female Genital Mutilation. A topic whose time has come.

And speaking of Eid, Gavriel and Rivka say hello.
Funny thing. They thought they had rights too, the right to be Jews. Just like all those mutilated girls thing they have the right to be girls.

And...Oh my. Gay citizens believe they're entitled to civil rights. My my my.

Next time you want to hijack clashes of civilization for your selective compromises, Eboo, wait five minutes, take a deep breath, and think again.

Exactly right, paganplace. they didn't call it the "tyranny of the majority" for nothing.

"For Rick Warren, the dream of being chosen to give the invocation at a presidential inauguration quickly turned into a nightmare of being fired at by the left and the right. Many on the left are furious because of Warren's opposition to gay rights, some on the right are angry because Warren accepted the invitation of a man who supports gay rights."

Frankly, I think conservative monotheists and their idea of what they *think* 'gay life' is about should get a room.

That done, we can focus on the business of government.

"The heat on such issues has been turned up since a majority of Californians voted No on gay marriage on Nov 4."

Well, no. A good lot of the majority that 'voted no on gay marriage' were very disinformed about what gay marriage meant.

They voted for scare tactics, or making the government a referendum on religious authority, the most of them. That's different.

"On one level, this is an either/or issue - that's certainly what it looks like at the ballot box. Either you vote for gay marriage or you vote against it. But there is another way to look at this - which is how the two sides are choosing to frame the issue, and what that means for a diverse society."

I seem to have to point this out constantly. But there are three branches of government here in America.

*Popular* will is that same-sex couples should have civil unions equivalent to heterosexual ones in every way but name. Anti-gay religious blocs monkey the system to frustrate *that* majority will all the time: then when the *judiciary* has to rule according to American law and precedent that 'separate but equal' or worse is *not* equal, Constitutional, or acceptable, then then start attacking the idea of the judiciary at all, and put forward these referenda supposedly about the 'definition of marriage' but which in fact are taking away the very rights people want to see for us.

Legal definitions and cultural ones are different. If my dear one and I are married before the Gods, we're gonna say *married* whether some people try to use the government to hurt us for it or not.

The fact is, the *culture* has already changed for many, whether or not people who base their religion and disastrous policies on homophobia like it or not.

This is about *justice,* not a certain segment of the population's religious tabooes, or use of them to claim power by the worst motives in society.

The United States government does not need to validate religious justifications for ...schoolyard bullying. Every time someone talks about 'a majority against queer people' all I can think of is in fact the little mobs who 'take a vote' and claim it's therefore OK to pound on those who are different.

It's a twisted version of America, that, and it holds no more water when it comes in a motorcade.

Interesting how trying to keep on topic and not attacking the author is now a compromise on justice. Incorrect, but whatever.

yep. hijacked. Good topic and author trashed.

Hey Arminius- you're so right.

Female genital cutting predates Islam.[44]In Saudi Arabia, in the area known as the Hijaz, where Islam originated, FGC was already being practiced during the lifetime of Muhammad. To call a man a "circumciser of women" was an insult among the pagan Arabs at the time. Female genital cutting is not commanded by the Qur'an[45] and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims.[44] In Egypt, mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa stated: "The traditional form of excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds." [46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In countries not submitting reports to the UN, the practice was condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan, and has been reported in Iraq and Iran
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

Civilizations clashed about a lot of things. Civil rights for blacks and women, for example.

Read Martin Luther King, Eboo, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." If you want to suck up, at least suck UP.

Interesting how some people are willing to compromise on other people's rights. Hijack that whole justice discussion as it were. "Heaven's sake" doesn't enter into this, not at all.

oh for heaven's sake. Another thread hijacked from the topic at hand.

Mr. patel- thanks for a thoughtful take on a very controversial issue. You're right about reframing it- until we are all talking equality vs equality or civilization vs civilization we won't get anywhere. We must not only find a common ground on which to stand, but we have to agree we need to find it. Therein is the big problem. And as long as the religious right demands tradition (more accurate I think) and the pro-gay crowd demand equality, they can't figure out a way to agree.

But there is a further problem- the religious right has somehow appointed itself the guardians at the gates of morality and civilization. It isn't that they want to speak for all of us in any meaningful, inclusive way- its that they want to define what all of us speak about.

And that implicitly clashes with what the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of rights is ultimately all about. Those documents lay out the common ground for Americans of all faiths, creeds, colors, etc. the religious right refuses to acknowledge that basic common ground. Instead of understanding how this protects the rights of all of us, the religious right has decided to market themselves as martyrs for religious "freedom." They want to redefine the very basis of what this country is built on.

Even more dismaying is that they don't see that by denying the equality of anyone will eventually find someone denying them their rights as well. There eventually won't be freedom of religion without equality for everyone.

You would like a compromise, would you, Eboo. Suppose instead of gay marriage the issue was Muslim marriage. Would you speak in the same terms?

Or would the civil and human rights dimensions of the question hit home in ways they generally do not with you?

DMZ1:

You ask whether I can "imagine a left-wing atheist finding common ground with an evangelical fundamentalist on the issue of same sex marriage? If you can, that's just deluded, Dude." DMZ1, that is such an easy one to answer: communist regimes -- for whom atheism was philosophically foundational -- routinely criminalized homosexuality. Cuba has been notoriously hard on gay people, and Russia did not decriminalize homosexuality until 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

There you go, bro. So who is deluded, dude?

By the way, I can imagine finding a more positive common ground between liberal atheists and evangelical fundamentalists on this issue. One might propose to the latter that a government that feels entitled to exercise its powers over personal moral matters such as marriage is very likely to likewise impinge upon religious freedom, which evangelicals hold dear. Of course, this sort of discourse constitutes a variety of cultural negotiation, to which you seem allergic.

Erik108:

I didn't equate Eboo with anything. I asked him where he stood. If he believes in equality under the law for ALL Americans, excellent, then there's nothing further to say. If he opposes equality under the law for some subset of American citizens, then he would be neo-Stalinist filth. Understand the point of posing the question? I didn't equate anything except that bigots are neo-Stalinist filth.

Actually, I like Eboo. I think he is montrously naiive, but he does make an effort. Most don't.

But, back to the point of my post. How can anything regarding same sex marriage in the U.S. at this time be fashioned into a win-win for everyone? How can you say that the article is good without acknowledging the absolute absurdity of the whole idea? Can you actually imagine a left-wing atheist finding common ground with an evangelical fundamentalist on the issue of same sex marriage? If you can, that's just deluded, Dude.

Some things are non-negotiable.

Some things are non-negotiable.

Finally, I have the right to ask Mr. Patel any question that I choose. He has the right to blast me, agree with me or make no comment at all as he chooses.

Honor killing?

Thousands of Iraqi girl and boy refugee prostitutes in Damascus to which Muslims from all over the middle east come to have sex?

Now, is that nice? Any words, Eboo?

Female child slavery in Nepal?

Then there's that old Female Genital Mutilation problem.

Feel free to post whenever you get the urge. I'll be checking in after January fifth.

And I won't be alone, Eboo. Some of your old friends will be with me. Always said to myself if it smells like one, walks like one, etc., it probably is...one.

Try as I might, I see nothing in your posts about the racist torture/murder of Rabbi Gavriel, his eight-month pregnant wife Rivka in front of their two year old son in Mumbai.

They along with six other Jews tortured to death by Muslims.

Must have missed it along with your post on Sudan.

Speaking of either/or, human rights, etc., why is it that I cannot recall your last essay on Sudan?

That would be Sudan of the genociding Sudan.

You would like a compromise, would you, Eboo. Suppose instead of gay marriage the issue was Muslim marriage. Would you speak in the same terms?

Or would the civil and human rights dimensions of the question hit home in ways they generally do not with you?

Marty's images of culture war are chilling - dust and defeat, blood and battle, and a never-ending cycle of all of it.

This, in fact, is one reason for the establishment clause, and the separation of church and state.

As Justice Harry Blackmun said, sectarian conflicts tend to be particularly bloody affairs.

Just F'ing delightful when hot air balloons float skyward and leave the rest of us in peace. Always hard to know when that will happen, but one checks the threads from time to time, in hopes that a great flight has occurred.

Eboo,

It occurs to me that notwithstanding the posts of some divisive bigots, there are many who either are gay or consider gay rights a matter not to be compromised, who have had an abortion or are committed to choice, and who thought the Saddleback Fiasco with McCain getting the questions in advance troublesome, There are those who believe that Jews are human beings and should be treated as such. They are troubled when Jews and Judaism is slandered. I've even seen them among the Christians on this blog. Onofrio is one.

Of course, unlike you, they're not selective suckups.

In other words, there are those who have a clear notion of what morality is. They are among those paying for this fiasco. Shouldn't they have a say in who speaks at it?

Wonderful, just f***ing delightful. Eboo, a man of peace if there ever was one, asks for rational discourse. And, with the exception of erik108, all we get is the usual 'culture war' spewing of hatred. Not to mention CCNL's customary idiocy. Of the many people posting on On Faith, I don't think I could fill up the fingers of one hand with posters worthy of a nice reply.

Yeah, well if you're gay and/or had an abortion, if you thought the Saddleback Fiasco with McCain getting the questions in advance troublesome, if you have any notion of what morality is, you might have a problem with Warren.

Some of the nausea could be mitigated by full disclosure of his personal finances and those of his church, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Sucking up to the Christians always gets you in trouble Eboo. It's happened before. Remember?

BO even with RW saying a "Palin-type" freedom from voodoo prayer over him will still be the leader of the Immoral Majority gaining said presidency on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies and the 70+ million votes of their "mothers and fathers".

Good column, Eboo, with a fresh and much-needed perspective. The first comment, from DMZ1, substantiates your claim about the dangers of polarization to a pluralist society. Rhetoric like "neo-Stalinist filth": what more need I say. Can DMZ1 really not distinguish between a middle-of-the-road emergent evangelical and the author of the gulag? The second comment, from SCHTU, is more measured and reasonable, but it misses Eboo's point. A ballot proposition is indeed a yes or no question, but how to work constructively within a culture is not. I support full rights for gay people, including the right to marry, but I recognize that many intelligent and good-hearted people disagree. Rather than demonize them or try to exclude them from the public square, we need to engage, listen, and work to persuade them towards our view.

Sorry Eboo, there is no way to turn egregious bigotry into a win-win for anyone. You either believe in equal rights or you don't. It is that simple. Rick Warren is a disgusting bigot - it defines him.

Oh, yeah, until she died one year ago Monday, I was married to the same woman for 37 years. The aspirations of those in the GLBT community for equal rights had no negative affect on my marriage.

The question is which side are you on? Equality or neo-Stalinist filth. Let us know.

It is an either / or issue. Either I can have civil rights that were guaranteed under the California State Constitution restored or I can't. No amount of intellectual dithering over culture wars can change this. Frame away anyway you want to, it is no going to change that fact that this is a yes or no question.