[quote="Marc S. Lamb]

Anyway, you've got your eyes on a bunch of Marxist leftist protestors, Ms. Levin. As usual, with their ridiculous show otherwise intelligent people are distracted from reality and into fantasy. Sheesh, this stuff gets so old.

I disagree, Mr. Lamb. I know quite a number of people who are not at all Marxist nor are they on the left and yet they oppose this war. Many of these people are members of the military and so were not on the streets last Saturday. They are the ones who will be putting their lives on the line, Mr. Lamb, as they volunteered to do, and they are opposed to this war for reasons that have nothing to do with Karl Marx. There were also numerous organizations that sponsored the protest and they were not all leftist and/or Marxist.

Mr. Lamb, as you commonly do, you have provided a lot of adjectives but no substantial arguments to support your claims that the protests are a "ridiculous show" or that they "distract" people into "fanstasy." You may indeed be right but unless you provide arguments and evidence for your claims, I will not be persuaded.

Your so-called "role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers" is quite silly, if I don't mind saying so. And it is sooo very, very... Boy we really do overestimate the "power of the young." And S&H really do perpetuate this silly myth.

Again, Mr. Lamb, you make the claim that my question for discussion is "silly" but you did not provide an argument. I do not accept name-calling as an acceptable replacement for a good, well thought out argument. If you were one of my students I would write "glittering generalities" in the margin and ask you to support your assertion.
As it stands, I can tell that my question created emotion in you and that you responded by name-calling but that is all I can glean from your diatribe. I am guessing that you do not like the protests and/or the protesters.

If anybody is "slowing down the righteous Boomers," Ms. Levin, its Silents like Colin Powell...

At last, a good topic sentence. Now, support that with discussion and at last we can communicate!

First of all, Ms. Levin, if you were my teacher, you a) would not know of political leanings, and b) would not hear of me remarking of what you thought as being "silly."

Having said that, on the "Marxist leftist protestors," here is a partial list of groups that organized these protests:

Socialist Party USA
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
Move On - a pro-Clinton website
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Green Party USA
Progressive Common Dreams
Free Palestine Alliance
Workers World Party
Partnership for Civil Justice
Nicaragua Network
Muslim Student Association of the U.S. and Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
American Muslims for Global Peace
Muslims Against Racism and War
International Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal - a convicted cop killer in Philadelphia.

That you happen to know "quite a number of people who are not at all Marxist nor are they on the left and yet they oppose this war," I would encourage you to read my latest response to Justin'77, in the iraq war thread.

Finally, as far as my argument goes, let me restate it's profound simplicity:

Because of, but not exclusively the reason for, our preoccupation with a myth -- a myth S&H helps to perpetuate here at T4T, a myth renewed in the mythical sixities -- that the young hold great power over the old in our society, we might overplay the "role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers," when it is the elders of said boomers that are really holding that power.

I failed to mention that other factors, such as our republican form of "checks and balances" on executive power, wisdom, knowledge, parental upbringing, respect for American power, historical lessons and a love of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- which is what America (Bush included) wish for all people all over this little globe, probably has something to do with "slowing down the righteous Boomers," as well! :wink:

First of all, Ms. Levin, if you were my teacher, you a) would not know of political leanings, and b) would not hear of me remarking of what you thought as being "silly."

Having said that, on the "Marxist leftist protestors," here is a partial list of groups that organized these protests:

Socialist Party USA
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
Move On - a pro-Clinton website
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Green Party USA
Progressive Common Dreams
Free Palestine Alliance
Workers World Party
Partnership for Civil Justice
Nicaragua Network
Muslim Student Association of the U.S. and Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
American Muslims for Global Peace
Muslims Against Racism and War
International Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal - a convicted cop killer in Philadelphia.

That you happen to know "quite a number of people who are not at all Marxist nor are they on the left and yet they oppose this war," I would encourage you to read my latest response to Justin'77, in the iraq war thread.

Finally, as far as my argument goes, let me restate it's profound simplicity:

Because of, but not exclusively the reason for, our preoccupation with a myth -- a myth S&H helps to perpetuate here at T4T, a myth renewed in the mythical sixities -- that the young hold great power over the old in our society, we might overplay the "role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers," when it is the elders of said boomers that are really holding that power.

I failed to mention that other factors, such as our republican form of "checks and balances" on executive power, wisdom, knowledge, parental upbringing, respect for American power, historical lessons and a love of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- which is what America (Bush included) wish for all people all over this little globe, probably has something to do with "slowing down the righteous Boomers," as well! :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Having said that, on the "Marxist leftist protestors," here is a partial list of groups that organized these protests:
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

From the frontpage of USA Today:

Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black Numbers refute long-held belief

By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War.

In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces.

Hmmm, racism rears it's ugly head in the ugly military? What are the folks at Act Now to Stop War and End Racism gonna say about this? I wonder, after the fightings over, are they gonna check the color on the body count? How about when the medals are distributed, will the right percentage of silver stars go to blacks? Will we need racial preferences on medal distribution and ounces of blood spilt over this war for a barrel of oil?

I know, let's beat our guns into butter, get rid of the military all together, and then we won't have this silly race and war problem, huh?

Man, this stuff is funny.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Having said that, on the "Marxist leftist protestors," here is a partial list of groups that organized these protests:
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

From the frontpage of USA Today:

Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black Numbers refute long-held belief

By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War.

In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces.

Hmmm, racism rears it's ugly head in the ugly military? What are the folks at Act Now to Stop War and End Racism gonna say about this? I wonder, after the fightings over, are they gonna check the color on the body count? How about when the medals are distributed, will the right percentage of silver stars go to blacks? Will we need racial preferences on medal distribution and ounces of blood spilt over this war for a barrel of oil?

I know, let's beat our guns into butter, get rid of the military all together, and then we won't have this silly race and war problem, huh?

Man, this stuff is funny.

This passage written by Dalton Trumbo in 1939 caused his shocking novel ?Johnny Got His Gun? to be banned in America until World War II was over.

?And then suddenly he saw. He had a vision of himself as a new kind of Christ as a man who carries within himself all the seeds of a new order of things. He was the new messiah of the battlefields saying to people as I am so shall you be. For he had seen the future he had tasted it and now he was living it. He had seen the airplanes flying in the sky he had seen the skies of the future filled with them black with them and now he saw the horror beneath. He saw a world of lovers forever parted of dreams never consummated of plans that never turned into reality. He saw a world of dead fathers and crippled brothers and crazy screaming sons. He saw a world of armless mothers clasping headless babies to their breasts trying to scream out their grief from throats that were cancerous with gas. He saw starved cities black and cold and motionless and the only things in this whole dead terrible world that made a move or a sound were the airplanes that blackened the sky and far off against the horizon the thunder of the big guns and the puffs that rose from barren tortured earth when their shells exploded.?

Strange how it plays right into today?s theatre of madness. Strange how he writes a bit like an older Millie, himself an early Hero (b. 1905). I think ?Johnny Got His Gun? should be required reading for our troops as they head off to prove once again that life copies art.

--Croaker

This passage written by Dalton Trumbo in 1939 caused his shocking novel ?Johnny Got His Gun? to be banned in America until World War II was over.

?And then suddenly he saw. He had a vision of himself as a new kind of Christ as a man who carries within himself all the seeds of a new order of things. He was the new messiah of the battlefields saying to people as I am so shall you be. For he had seen the future he had tasted it and now he was living it. He had seen the airplanes flying in the sky he had seen the skies of the future filled with them black with them and now he saw the horror beneath. He saw a world of lovers forever parted of dreams never consummated of plans that never turned into reality. He saw a world of dead fathers and crippled brothers and crazy screaming sons. He saw a world of armless mothers clasping headless babies to their breasts trying to scream out their grief from throats that were cancerous with gas. He saw starved cities black and cold and motionless and the only things in this whole dead terrible world that made a move or a sound were the airplanes that blackened the sky and far off against the horizon the thunder of the big guns and the puffs that rose from barren tortured earth when their shells exploded.?

Strange how it plays right into today?s theatre of madness. Strange how he writes a bit like an older Millie, himself an early Hero (b. 1905). I think ?Johnny Got His Gun? should be required reading for our troops as they head off to prove once again that life copies art.

--Croaker

Here ya go, Croak! May it ease thy troubled mind. :wink:

Here ya go, Croak! May it ease thy troubled mind. :wink:

Here's some stuff for Ms. Levin to munch on...

Marching With Stalinists

By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, January 22, 2003; Page A15

The left in America has for a long time now resembled not so much a political movement as a contest to see how many schismatics could dance on the head of a pin, a conversation that has gone from being national to factional to simply eccentric. At some point, progressive politics reached a state where freeing Mumia was considered critical and electing a Democratic president was considered optional.

Then came Sept. 11, and the left found itself plunged into a debate on a subject of fundamental importance. And this was a debate in which to be of the left was to be, by definition, involved: In al Qaeda and in the Taliban and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, liberal civilization faced an enemy that represented nearly every evil that liberalism has ever stood against.

What was the left going to do? A pretty straightforward call, you might say. America has its flaws. But war involves choosing sides, and the American side -- which was, after all, the side of liberalism, of progressivism, of democracy, of freedom, of not chucking gays off rooftops and not stoning adulterers and not whipping women in the town square, and not gassing minority populations and not torturing advocates of free speech -- was surely preferable to the side of the "Islamofascists," to borrow a word from the essayist and former man of the left, Christopher Hitchens.

Which is the point: Hitchens is a former man of the left. In the left's debate, Hitchens insisted that progressives must not in their disdain for America allow themselves to effectively support the perpetuation of despotism, must not betray the left's own values. Others -- notably the political philosopher Michael Walzer, the independent essayist Andrew Sullivan, New Republic writer Jonathan Chait and New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum -- also made this argument with great force and clarity.

The debate is over. The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants. Those who could not stomach this have left the left -- a few publicly, as did Hitchens and Rosenbaum, and many more, I am sure, in the privacy of their consciences.

Last weekend, the left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."

There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.

This is whom the left now marches with. The left marches with the Stalinists. The left marches with those who would maintain in power the leading oppressors of humanity in the world. It marches with, stands with and cheers on people like the speaker at the Washington rally who declared that "the real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America." It marches with people like the former Black Panther Charles Baron, who said in Washington, "if you're looking for an axis of evil then look in the belly of this beast."

The Times' "mainstream" Americans marched last weekend with people who held signs comparing the president and vice president of their country to Hitler, and declaring, "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected," and this one: "I want you to die for Israel. Israel sings Onward Christian Soldiers."

March on.


? 2003 The Washington Post Company. Posted for discussion purposes only. (emphasis mine)

Here's some stuff for Ms. Levin to munch on...

Marching With Stalinists

By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, January 22, 2003; Page A15

The left in America has for a long time now resembled not so much a political movement as a contest to see how many schismatics could dance on the head of a pin, a conversation that has gone from being national to factional to simply eccentric. At some point, progressive politics reached a state where freeing Mumia was considered critical and electing a Democratic president was considered optional.

Then came Sept. 11, and the left found itself plunged into a debate on a subject of fundamental importance. And this was a debate in which to be of the left was to be, by definition, involved: In al Qaeda and in the Taliban and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, liberal civilization faced an enemy that represented nearly every evil that liberalism has ever stood against.

What was the left going to do? A pretty straightforward call, you might say. America has its flaws. But war involves choosing sides, and the American side -- which was, after all, the side of liberalism, of progressivism, of democracy, of freedom, of not chucking gays off rooftops and not stoning adulterers and not whipping women in the town square, and not gassing minority populations and not torturing advocates of free speech -- was surely preferable to the side of the "Islamofascists," to borrow a word from the essayist and former man of the left, Christopher Hitchens.

Which is the point: Hitchens is a former man of the left. In the left's debate, Hitchens insisted that progressives must not in their disdain for America allow themselves to effectively support the perpetuation of despotism, must not betray the left's own values. Others -- notably the political philosopher Michael Walzer, the independent essayist Andrew Sullivan, New Republic writer Jonathan Chait and New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum -- also made this argument with great force and clarity.

The debate is over. The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants. Those who could not stomach this have left the left -- a few publicly, as did Hitchens and Rosenbaum, and many more, I am sure, in the privacy of their consciences.

Last weekend, the left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."

There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.

This is whom the left now marches with. The left marches with the Stalinists. The left marches with those who would maintain in power the leading oppressors of humanity in the world. It marches with, stands with and cheers on people like the speaker at the Washington rally who declared that "the real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America." It marches with people like the former Black Panther Charles Baron, who said in Washington, "if you're looking for an axis of evil then look in the belly of this beast."

The Times' "mainstream" Americans marched last weekend with people who held signs comparing the president and vice president of their country to Hitler, and declaring, "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected," and this one: "I want you to die for Israel. Israel sings Onward Christian Soldiers."

March on.


? 2003 The Washington Post Company. Posted for discussion purposes only. (emphasis mine)

Nice summary above. Part of the left-wing's problems is its embrace of moral relativism, at least in many cases. If moral system X (e.g. Stalin's or Castro's or Saddam's) works for country X, who are we to interfere, who are we to say that our system is better? In fact, insisting that one's moral system is better becomes evidence that it is inferior, because it must therefore ipso facto be intolerant.

If female circumcision were done by Southern Baptists, you would hear all kinds of screaming from the left-wing about intolerance and superstition. With the relativists you hear hardly anything because the female circumcision is taking place in Africa, which by definition is superior to Western Civilization, or at least not inferior to it, and therefore beyond criticism.

This is part of the reasoning behind the anti-war, hands-off Saddam people. Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Khadaffi, etc. have systems and beliefs that are not any worse than other system or belief, so do not interfere.

Nice summary above. Part of the left-wing's problems is its embrace of moral relativism, at least in many cases. If moral system X (e.g. Stalin's or Castro's or Saddam's) works for country X, who are we to interfere, who are we to say that our system is better? In fact, insisting that one's moral system is better becomes evidence that it is inferior, because it must therefore ipso facto be intolerant.

If female circumcision were done by Southern Baptists, you would hear all kinds of screaming from the left-wing about intolerance and superstition. With the relativists you hear hardly anything because the female circumcision is taking place in Africa, which by definition is superior to Western Civilization, or at least not inferior to it, and therefore beyond criticism.

This is part of the reasoning behind the anti-war, hands-off Saddam people. Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Khadaffi, etc. have systems and beliefs that are not any worse than other system or belief, so do not interfere.

Originally Posted by SJ

This is part of the reasoning behind the anti-war, hands-off Saddam people. Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Khadaffi, etc. have systems and beliefs that are not any worse than other system or belief, so do not interfere.

For some on the left, perhaps. Be careful, though, not to assume that all who are against the war agree with that sentiment.

Originally Posted by SJ

This is part of the reasoning behind the anti-war, hands-off Saddam people. Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Khadaffi, etc. have systems and beliefs that are not any worse than other system or belief, so do not interfere.

For some on the left, perhaps. Be careful, though, not to assume that all who are against the war agree with that sentiment.

Originally Posted by SJ

Nice summary above. Part of the left-wing's problems is its embrace of moral relativism, at least in many cases...

If female circumcision were done by Southern Baptists, you would hear all kinds of screaming from the left-wing...

Here's an interesting piece (complete with empirical evidence) on how we got here (Note: The Silent generation took the U.S. House in the early seventies)...

The origins of the culture wars

The "culture wars" is the controversial metaphor used to describe the restructuring of religious and cultural conflict in the United States since the 1960s. The thesis is most closely associated with sociologist James Davison Hunter, whose 1991 book The Culture Wars posited that "the dominant impulse at the present time is toward the polarization of a religiously informed public culture into distinct moral and religious camps." Hunter called these camps "orthodox" and "progressivist." On the orthodox side are persons who locate moral authority in a transcendent source, such as God or the Bible. Orthodox morality, according to Hunter, adheres to an absolute standard of right and wrong and is based on universalistic principles. Progressivists, in contrast, embrace a humanistic ethic drawn from reason, science, and personal experience. Progressivist moral rules are "loose-bounded," pluralistic, and relative to circumstance. This new cleavage cuts across the major American faith traditions and most denominations.

The two groups in the front lines of the culture wars are evangelical Christians, including fundamentalists, characterized by their high levels of religiosity and conservative attitudes on cultural issues, and secularists, who reject traditional religious values and tend to espouse liberal views on cultural and church-state issues. Much has been written in the popular media about the traditionalist side and its alignment with the Republican party since the 1980s. Although considerable attention has been devoted to religious and cultural conflict in American political life, few in the mainstream media have acknowledged the true origins of this conflict - namely, the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic party, and the party's resulting antagonism toward traditional values.

Secularists first appeared as a political force within a major party at the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Prior to then, neither party contained many secularists nor showed many signs of moral or cultural progressivism. Moreover, prior to the late 1960s, there was something of a tacit commitment among elites in both parties to the traditional Judeo-Christian teachings regarding authority, sexual mores, and the family. This consensus was shattered in 1972 when the Democratic party was captured by a faction whose cultural reform agenda was perceived by many (both inside and outside the convention) as antagonistic to traditional religious values. The political scientist Geoffrey Layman has defined this block, the largest in the party, as "secularists," - that is, self-identified agnostics, atheists, and persons who never or seldom attend religious services. Over a third of white delegates fit this description, a remarkable figure considering that, according to James Davison Hunter, only about 5 percent of the population in 1972 could be described as secularists.

Layman's research was based on the 1972-92 Convention Delegate Survey (CDS), the most comprehensive study to date of the political attitudes and religious orientations of national party convention delegates. Analyses of the 1972 CDS dataset by Jeane Kirkpatrick, and more recently by Layman, show that degree of religious commitment was among the most important characteristics distinguishing supporters from opponents of the progressivist planks in the platform relating to women's rights, abortion, alternative life styles, and the traditional family. Secularists strongly favored the progressivist positions; religiously traditional Democratic delegates opposed them. The differences over policies and candidates between traditionalist and secularist Democrats had less to do with disagreement over the future course of New Deal liberalism than with the divergent moral outlooks animating their competing worldviews.

The religious and cultural cleavages that roiled the Democrats in 1972 were nonexistent at the Republican convention, where mainline Protestants still dominated. The GOP platform that year merely reiterated cultural positions the party had endorsed in past platforms, for example, support for school prayer and the Equal Rights Amendment. The Republicans, by default more than by overt action, became the traditionalist party. "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972," writes Layman in his book The Great Divide, "were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern." --Our Secularist Democratic Party By Louis Bolce & Gerald De Maio

Read more here...



Article posted for discussion purposes only (emphasis mine).

Originally Posted by SJ

Nice summary above. Part of the left-wing's problems is its embrace of moral relativism, at least in many cases...

If female circumcision were done by Southern Baptists, you would hear all kinds of screaming from the left-wing...

Here's an interesting piece (complete with empirical evidence) on how we got here (Note: The Silent generation took the U.S. House in the early seventies)...

The origins of the culture wars

The "culture wars" is the controversial metaphor used to describe the restructuring of religious and cultural conflict in the United States since the 1960s. The thesis is most closely associated with sociologist James Davison Hunter, whose 1991 book The Culture Wars posited that "the dominant impulse at the present time is toward the polarization of a religiously informed public culture into distinct moral and religious camps." Hunter called these camps "orthodox" and "progressivist." On the orthodox side are persons who locate moral authority in a transcendent source, such as God or the Bible. Orthodox morality, according to Hunter, adheres to an absolute standard of right and wrong and is based on universalistic principles. Progressivists, in contrast, embrace a humanistic ethic drawn from reason, science, and personal experience. Progressivist moral rules are "loose-bounded," pluralistic, and relative to circumstance. This new cleavage cuts across the major American faith traditions and most denominations.

The two groups in the front lines of the culture wars are evangelical Christians, including fundamentalists, characterized by their high levels of religiosity and conservative attitudes on cultural issues, and secularists, who reject traditional religious values and tend to espouse liberal views on cultural and church-state issues. Much has been written in the popular media about the traditionalist side and its alignment with the Republican party since the 1980s. Although considerable attention has been devoted to religious and cultural conflict in American political life, few in the mainstream media have acknowledged the true origins of this conflict - namely, the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic party, and the party's resulting antagonism toward traditional values.

Secularists first appeared as a political force within a major party at the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Prior to then, neither party contained many secularists nor showed many signs of moral or cultural progressivism. Moreover, prior to the late 1960s, there was something of a tacit commitment among elites in both parties to the traditional Judeo-Christian teachings regarding authority, sexual mores, and the family. This consensus was shattered in 1972 when the Democratic party was captured by a faction whose cultural reform agenda was perceived by many (both inside and outside the convention) as antagonistic to traditional religious values. The political scientist Geoffrey Layman has defined this block, the largest in the party, as "secularists," - that is, self-identified agnostics, atheists, and persons who never or seldom attend religious services. Over a third of white delegates fit this description, a remarkable figure considering that, according to James Davison Hunter, only about 5 percent of the population in 1972 could be described as secularists.

Layman's research was based on the 1972-92 Convention Delegate Survey (CDS), the most comprehensive study to date of the political attitudes and religious orientations of national party convention delegates. Analyses of the 1972 CDS dataset by Jeane Kirkpatrick, and more recently by Layman, show that degree of religious commitment was among the most important characteristics distinguishing supporters from opponents of the progressivist planks in the platform relating to women's rights, abortion, alternative life styles, and the traditional family. Secularists strongly favored the progressivist positions; religiously traditional Democratic delegates opposed them. The differences over policies and candidates between traditionalist and secularist Democrats had less to do with disagreement over the future course of New Deal liberalism than with the divergent moral outlooks animating their competing worldviews.

The religious and cultural cleavages that roiled the Democrats in 1972 were nonexistent at the Republican convention, where mainline Protestants still dominated. The GOP platform that year merely reiterated cultural positions the party had endorsed in past platforms, for example, support for school prayer and the Equal Rights Amendment. The Republicans, by default more than by overt action, became the traditionalist party. "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972," writes Layman in his book The Great Divide, "were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern." --Our Secularist Democratic Party By Louis Bolce & Gerald De Maio

Read more here...



Article posted for discussion purposes only (emphasis mine).

Do you want to stop public discussion? Aren't the protests a time- honored form of discussion in this country?

Do you want to stop public discussion? Aren't the protests a time- honored form of discussion in this country?

Originally Posted by cbailey

Do you want to stop public discussion? Aren't the protests a time- honored form of discussion in this country?

I think what's really going on here is that "time-honored" tradition of guilt by association

We've all just been suckered by the Stalinists and America-haters, CBailey. Get with the program already!!!

Originally Posted by cbailey

Do you want to stop public discussion? Aren't the protests a time- honored form of discussion in this country?

I think what's really going on here is that "time-honored" tradition of guilt by association

We've all just been suckered by the Stalinists and America-haters, CBailey. Get with the program already!!!

There was a peace walk in my community last Saturday. I knew the faces of all the participants. Not a Stalinist or American- hater among them.

Our mayor and the ministers who joined in would not qualify.

There was a peace walk in my community last Saturday. I knew the faces of all the participants. Not a Stalinist or American- hater among them.

Our mayor and the ministers who joined in would not qualify.

Originally Posted by cbailey

There was a peace walk in my community last Saturday. I knew the faces of all the participants. Not a Stalinist or American- hater among them.

Our mayor and the ministers who joined in would not qualify.

I walked in Portland and, unlike your experience, I did see a handful of Anti-American types, along with a dozen or so people under a flag with a picture of -- of all people -- Che Geuvara (?!?) on it (maybe they were lost and came to the crowd to get directions...). Regardless, in a crowd of 20,000 -- mainly middle-class soccer mom types and working stiffs -- it was pretty easy to ignore these few. Most participants appreciated the organizers work in setting things up, even if we disagreed with 95% of their platform. The remaining 5% is why we were all there.

Originally Posted by cbailey

There was a peace walk in my community last Saturday. I knew the faces of all the participants. Not a Stalinist or American- hater among them.

Our mayor and the ministers who joined in would not qualify.

I walked in Portland and, unlike your experience, I did see a handful of Anti-American types, along with a dozen or so people under a flag with a picture of -- of all people -- Che Geuvara (?!?) on it (maybe they were lost and came to the crowd to get directions...). Regardless, in a crowd of 20,000 -- mainly middle-class soccer mom types and working stiffs -- it was pretty easy to ignore these few. Most participants appreciated the organizers work in setting things up, even if we disagreed with 95% of their platform. The remaining 5% is why we were all there.