Hot damn -- I think you've got something.

Or, as the Pope would say, A-fucking-men.

well said, well said.

Bacon isn't the temptation for me. It's that fucking pepperoni that torments my dreams.

i agree with you. one reason they sometimes argue for equivalency is that if one believes the act of abortion ends a life; letting someone else "commit murder" is what is at issue in their minds. this does not apply to all the restrictions they would like to force upon others, obviously.

Liberal laws do not allow conservatives the freedom to control the behavior of liberals.

I think your problem with the Pope's statement all stems from a simple misunderstanding. Obviously, what he meant to say was "secular tradition often prevents Americans from living my beliefs fully."

Change one little word and it all makes perfect sense. I mean, surely nobody could be expected to believe that the Pope is implying that individual Catholics get to decide on church doctrine for themselves? That's just crazy.

Points for @5. An important conservative value is the imposition of those values on everyone. It's an important Catholic value, too. If kids get to see liberals being liberals they might become liberals, too, and then conservatives will feel threatened and that their culture is dying. Not dissimilar to the way an immigrant feels when their children become Americanized. Torture and killings of apostates sometimes follow.

Just remember, not reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a Sin. As is excess waste and using too many resources. Just check the Pope's latest pronouncements.

Sinners, Repent!

Your analysis is interesting, if a tad eager. I think there is enormous SOCIAL pressure to conform; our society is soaked with sex, so much so that anyone wishing to hang onto the v-card is painted as a religious nut. Look at the anger towards conservatives on this site alone-I recall the infamous ECB calling every single pro-lifer a terrorist. Yes, there is the argument that liberals-hating-on-conservatives are limited to small pockets, but the same could be said of conservatives-hating-on-liberals.

I would love to see a study or some sort of study that demonstrates that not everyone who holds religious beliefs is nutso-crazy or ultra conservative. I think that while some conservatives made life hard for the liberals, wanting them to live THEIR way legally, society-wise the situation is reversed; I've seen Christians shouted down in my pol sci classes for being "blind motherf*ckers" just for stating their religious beliefs.

Or another example of societal pressure to conform to non-religious, secular, liberal beliefs: many commenters on the Slog saying all religions are ridiculous, stupid, pointless, and anyone who believes in them in stupid, backwards, etc.

I think you get into trouble when you call abortion, divorce, and cohabitation values. It's better if you call them rights. I don't think I "value" any of them. But I do hold the expression (bad word) of them to be a fundamental right.

@9 I will point out that your analysis is a tad eager as well. I think it is a stretch to say that "anyone wishing to hang onto the v-card is painted as a religious nut."

As far as Christian being shouted down in pol-sci class for being "blind mutherfuckers," that is perhaps extreme, but without you providing more context that might have been an appropriate response. Was this person using it as a leverage point in debate? Were they saying certain ethical judgments were preferred because they came from God? Professing to being a Christian doesn't give someone automatic higher moral status or insight into moral problems. It also doesn't make one more worthy or respect (at least not any more then an atheist/liberal/etc).

Liberal values allow conservatives to do as they please, to live out their religious beliefs. Conservatives do not return the favor. That’s the fundamental divide.

Good grief - a huge swath of "liberal values" consists of telling people exactly how to live. I won't bother listing examples, there's too many.

Excellent points.

#12, don't confuse "liberal values" with "Democratic party values"

#12, don't confuse "liberal values" with "Democratic party values"

Yes I agree somewhat - small-l liberal, big-L Liberal, classical liberal, little-d democrat... there are issues.

I think Chicago Fan is Dan's brother.

@9 - I think the rush to judgement as nutso crazy applies mostly to Christians and Muslims. Why is it that people are less likely to think a celebate Hindu monk who sleeps on a bed of nails is nusto crazy? Um, maybe 'cuz he's just doing his own thing and not bothering anybody else?

Chicago Fan is, indeed, my brother. Open not-so-secret. He posts very occasionally, and the "Chicago Fan" handle was created for him back when the Bears lost the Super Bowl or to the Seahawks. Or something, I don't remember. There were large men in ugly clothes slamming into each other—a bit like Thanksgiving dinner at the ol' family home.

I whole heartedly agree with you Chicago fan, the two situations are not mutually exclussive. As for Marty ... I have always felt that people who feel compelled to speak their religious beliefs deserve grief. Back in the Northeast (New England, New York), it's not that there aren't religious people. They just generally keep to themselves. Participation in religion has about as much importance in daily discourse as participation in rec basketball.

That said, it always has to be taken to the extreme. I personally applaud people like John McCain or later Gerald Ford who were religious but didn't feel compelled to SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE. Because when it comes down to it, religious people won't even agree amongst themselves. If you are prepared to prosletize, be prepared to defend your beliefs. It's who you are ... and if you feel compelled to change the world, make sure that you yourself are comfortable with you are, and most importanlty accept and come to terms with people that disagree.

And of course let people live according to their values ... which pro-lifers etc. etc. haven't exactly been doing a great job of.

Over at ScienceBlogs, Ed Brayton quoted theocon Gary North:

“…we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

That is what we're up against...

And if you manage to get to this point in a debate with, in my experience, any active proponent of the fundamentalist-backed laws on these topics, they will admit outright that it's about regulating the actions of people who don't share their beliefs. They're refreshingly honest about it. In particular, there's a sub-meme within the fundamentalist community as represented by fundamentalist media that if they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs in law, _their religious liberty is being suppressed_, since they aren't allowed to impose their religious will upon the unwilling.

It's essentially an attempt to redefine liberty as a zero-sum exchange game, so that any liberty other groups gain is automatically perceived as a direct threat to their rights, which keeps the rank-and-file motivated.