I'm sorry. I stopped reading when you started talking about "religious fascism" and people who are pro-life.

You have a legal right to express it, but I have a legal right to stop reading when I see the cheap name-calling.

I tried. I really tried.

BTW, I'm curious how Olberman equated the mass supreme court case with Dred Scott, since the mass supreme court dismantled a law against homosexual marriage, whereas dred scott upheld the idea that slaves were not citizens.

Maybe he's got the scott case confused with brown v. board of education.

Yeah Bryan, I had the same thought but I think KO was commenting on how the case helped gavlanize the abolishist movement... That's what got my attention.

Please... Take a breath and read on!

Mike,

Several of the ideas that you expressed (specifically, the idea that legal marriage and religious marriage are different) have been expressed here several times in the past (this is part of the basis for mine a Zombyboy's support of SSM). I wish you luck better luck in changing opinions than we already have.

On another note, you will probably enjoy my post later this week about being a pro-choice Catholic. I will address the church/state issue with respect to the church's believe that we are "Catholic first and Americans second." I think that you will find my approach to be fairly in line with your world view.

Thanks, SJ... I look forward to reading it.

I hope Bryan will come back and finish reading... I hope no one else is offended by what I wrote. I really want to spur a serious discussion, that's all!

Bryan: I read your comment before reading the post and was a little concerned with the "religious fascist" comment. After reading the post, I think that you may be overeacting. The comment reads: "These Republicans are not conservatives; they are religious Fascists." Meriam-Webster defines 'fascist' (definition #2) as "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." The point that Mike is making is that the elements of the "religious right" who seek to make SSM illegal are doing so in violation of the Constitution. I understand that this point is debatable. If you accept for the sake of argument that it is true the the label of 'fascist' in this context is a valid description. Hence, I think that the use of the term is perfectly acceptable in the context in which it is used, especially since he sets it off in italics to stress the contextual importance.

Remember, "facism" is not synonymous with "Nazism" and so its use is not automatically an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, SJ, nice try, but not acceptable.

Some words are automatically tarred with certain prejorative connotations. Nazism is a good one. So is fascist in my book.

But what is worse is that your definition is not the preferrred, or more recognized, definition. To wit, the first definition is:
1. often Fascism a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Or: n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

The name became known through Mussolini's political movement, so it hardly exists in a vaccuum.

So no etymological dancing is going to change the fact that "religious fascists" is basic ad hominem name-calling.

Further, I guess I could call all who would force acceptance of same-sex marriage (and abortion rights, for that matter) as homosexual fascists, or abortion-rights fascists. Both groups want the government to condone their activity just as much as religious folks.

But I digress, and I tire. I am not reading on. Sorry.

Bryan (in the off-chance that you do continue reading): I never said that Mike expressed himself clearly or eloquently (in fact, I think that he could have been much clearer and could have made the same point without using the word "fascism"), I simply stated that the word "fascist" is valid in certain contexts and that the one that I felt he was trying to express was a valid one. In the same manner it would be possible for you to use the word "fascist" with regards to proponents of legalized same-sex marriage and/or abortion and it would be equally valid in the right context. In such a case I would also defend your usage. The fact that the word "fascism" is "automatically tarred with certain prejorative connotations" to you is not a fault of the word or the English language, it is a matter of your predisposition.

Just because you infer something doesn't mean that someone else implied it.

For the record: I didn't like the term fascist in this instance, although it was less for the term than for the link between Middle Eastern terrorists and those opposed to abortion and same sex marriage. I think that it's a case of overstating a point in a pretty big way.

I also note that I am pro life not because of my religious beliefs, but because I think science tells us something else about the beginning of life than Mike does. I'm opposed to abortion because I believe it equates to the killing of a person. When life begins is a debatable point--and Mike's dismissal of any debate on the subject rubs me the wrong way, in honesty.

My biggest problem, though, is that Mike defines "true conservatives" as people who see the issues in the exact same light that he does. I happen to think that there's a lot more room for dissent and debate under the label "conservative" and that dismissing the debate is counter-productive.

One of the things that I've liked about ResurrectionSong is that it has been a place for debate and disagreement in a non-judgmental way. Intelligent thoughts and respect are always welcome, and I try to keep the vitriol and name calling to a minimum.

When a position is stated in terms of "true conservatives" verses the "religious wrong", I think that makes it a little harder to have a reasonable conversation. As soon as you do that, you've already minimized the other guy's point of view without even giving him an opportunity to explain himself.

That said, when I read Bryan's comment from Friday's post, I felt a pretty similar sense of minimizing someone's opinion without having the opportunity to first read their rationale. Frankly, I'm not entirely comfortable with either that comment nor with certain aspects of this post.

The fact is, Mike made some pretty bold (and, in some cases, maybe overly bold) statements. I put this up because I think he can be debated on the merits of his thoughts, though.

Well said, Z. Well said.

In the same manner it would be possible for you to use the word "fascist" with regards to proponents of legalized same-sex marriage and/or abortion and it would be equally valid in the right context.

Actually, I think it may be valid in the strictly definitional sense, and yet totally wrong to use in the rhetoric. I'm not the only person who cringes at the use of the term "fascist." Unfortunately for those who like to throw the word around, it brings with it certain imagery that I mentioned above. Nazism is the same, only more so.

And the appellation of such a word to a group of people engaged in social-political debate in the U.S. has been used so often for such obviously non-fascist groups (Reagan was a fascist, Edwin Meese was a fascist, George W. Bush is a fascist {when he's not being Hitler}, John Ashcroft is a fascist, Jerry Falwell is a fascist) that it ceases to have any sort of nuance to distinguish your preferred reading from the rhetorically overheated connotation that gets bandied about - mainly among democrats.

I gave up commenting on politics because of precisely the sort of red-flag words that so often get used in discussions like this.

I'm sorry. I really am. Especially because I look like a jackass for refusing to read the rest of the piece. But I believe what I'm saying.

In case you wonder what I'm talking about, this:

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/fascism.htm

is the kind of environment in which you throw the term "fascist" these days.

So basically, Bryan, you agree with me that the word is perfectly valid when used with adherence to the meaning in the dictionary, but you don't like it because other people use it incorrectly and because you don't like it I shouldn't use it. In short, I should not use a word correctly because others use it incorrectly and you don't like it.

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to that...

I am still chewing and may ruminate on this awhile. I have learned some things on this site that have definitely challenged my own beliefs, but I have yet to come to a solid conclusion.

I must say that when I read the Fascist comment, my hair raised just a bit. It lowered when I read SJ's explanation, but I think that being told that because we allow our religious convictions to dictate our politcal philosophies, we are wrong or controlling is a big piece of unchewed meat to attempt to swallow. I am trying to get it down though...

Still, thought provoking, Mike.

After my personal experiences, I am most definitely pro-life (You could say I am pro-choice, too, though, because I do believe a woman is always in the position to choose life or death for her children; and what about fathers rights? In utereo-no choice; post-partum-Pay up! Why does the woman get all the power? Because it's her body? What about the body of the child, the right of the father to care for and rear his progeny; is he denied that simply because he has no womb? But quite obviously a bank account?). When I was pregnant with Rob's child, I felt that he had a right to know and participate in decision making. I think there is this thought that dominates our post-feminist culture that the woman somehow bears the heavier responsiblity for the child. I watched my mother never accept a dime from my father or the government and manage (as a "minority" and a single, uneducated mother)to educate herself, work hard, and exemplify responsibility for oneself. Rob and I did the same. It wasn't easy, but then taking the harder road rarely is the most comfortable route. I am thankful her example laid a strong foundation for me as a woman and a mother. No, my life wasn't perfect, in fact, it was horrific. I don't wish that my mother aborted me, neither does she. I don't wish that I had aborted E, and she is grateful I didn't. You rarely meet a woman who chose life who will say she should have aborted-she will admit to it being greatly diffcult; however. Studies released by Post-Abortion counseling services reveal that a majority of the women regret aborting and if given the opportunity again, would have gone through with the pregnancy and opted for adopting (not easy emotionally either) or raising the child and sacrificing whatever they achieved instead. I don't believe that a woman should have to choose between her education and her child's life. The women who are getting abortions aren't working professionals or impoverished uneducated, they are 18-24 white girls in the midst of their education. There is extreme pressure on college campuses to not take responsibility for pregnancy. I think it may start in the home with attitudes of thinking it easier to raise males ("no fear of getting pregnant", as if that was the worse thing that could happen to a young woman. I can think of far worse and damaging things that that) than females and with subtly teaching our daughters that a more significant contribution to society is made in seeking a "careeer" than in rearing children or that they can successfully do both withour one suffering.

These are questions I would really enjoy hearing a pro-abortion proponent address. I think a civil conversation would greatly aid in my understanding of the conclusions drawn by that side of the fence.

Hi everyone... Frankly I debated whether or not to use the word, but I decided to do so and immediately apologize (in the piece) if it seemed too harsh... I looked it up before using the word and found the 2nd definition pretty correct for this usage.

Maybe using the word distracts everyone from my real point... Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and many more of the founders/framers were extremely distrustful, to say the least, of all religious leaders... Im convinced that prohibiting SSM puts serious cracks in Jefferson's "wall between church and state."

The debate is lively and that's good!

SJ,

Mike said:
Maybe using the word distracts everyone from my real point... Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and many more of the founders/framers were extremely distrustful, to say the least, of all religious leaders... Im convinced that prohibiting SSM puts serious cracks in Jefferson's "wall between church and state."

What I'm getting at in a way. Use of the term "fascist" carries that connotation across a broad swath of American life (especially people who might have lived through the second world war, although I came across it as a liberal-anarchist in the 1980s). It's highly offensive to me, you are right. But to use your second definition is to require a mountain of explanation. To wit:

"These people are religious fascists. Now, by fascism, I don't mean people who subscribe to a political theory that sees everything as part of the state, or who follow the teachings of Bennito Mussolini, but rather, this third, less-well-known definition that I had to look up to make sure was right. That's what I mean by fascism!"

See what I mean? It gets in the way of clear communication. If you want to communicate, remove the words with the most obvious baggage. Don't say "Repugnican" or "Democrap" or "Bush lied, people died," or "Religious fascists."

As for the actual meaning you suggest, I'd say it is a strained definition, because, as we both agree, it could be thrown at any party in the homosexual marriage or abortion debates.

So my distaste for the word grows greater still.

I disagree with your reading of the "wall of separation," but that's to be expected. I'm probably a religious fascist myself. ;-)

Bryan, from the tone of your comments you're obviously a gentleman... I think it impossible to be a fascist and a gentleman.

Lastly, I will be the first to admit to anyone that I could be wrong. What bothers me most about religous leaders, especially the ones teaching me during 12 years of Roman Catholic schooling, is they refused to admit that they could be wrong. I've yet to hear any major religious leader admit that they might be wrong, about anything. I think Jefferson and Franklin found this disturbing too!

Well, Bryan, you are welcome to dislike the word 'fascist' all you want, the fact still remains that the usage was grammatically correct. A little excessive, to be sure, but still falling within the proper use of the English langueage. I'm glad that we can, at least, agree on than.

I'm not sure whether you were referring to Mike or me when you said that you "disagree with your reading of the 'wall of separation'" but I haven't expressed my thoughts on that. You will have to read my post later this week before you can disagree with me.

SJ,

Sorry, I conflated two discussions. I can only say that I probably disagree with the "wall of separation," as mentioned by Mike, because of the context in which it is usually used.

I personally don't find it impossible to be "pro-choice" (scare quotes intended) and Catholic, but then, I'm Southern Baptist and anti-abortion anyway. We Baptists have always had a problem with heirarchical pronouncements anyway. :-D

As for religious leaders admitting they are wrong, that's a tough one. I know of at least one instance: Jimmy Swaggart.

Well, Bryan, you are welcome to dislike the word 'fascist' all you want, the fact still remains that the usage was grammatically correct. A little excessive, to be sure, but still falling within the proper use of the English langueage.

I don't believe I ever said it was not grammatically correct. I said I thought it was ad hominem name-calling, even though its meaning could be used that way.

I maintained that it was a "red-flag" word. You don't have to agree with me.

Thank you Bryan... Jimmy Swaggert... I'd forgotten about his "aligator tears."

Bryan: You did, actually, say that you agree with me. Your exact phrase was "I'd say it is a strained definition." According to Merriam-Webster, 'strained' means "to draw tight : cause to fit firmly." In short, you said that the definition that I used "fits firmly." The definition that I chose for 'strained' is 1a. I thought for a minute that you might have been using definition 5 of 'strained': "to stretch beyond a proper limit " but you made such an issue earlier with me using definition 2 of 'fascist' - stating that definition 2 "is not the preferrred, or more recognized, definition" - that I realized that this couldn't be what you meant. Hence, you agree with me.

Unless, of course, you agree that any definition from the dictionary constitutes proper usage in which case you could use definition 5 for starined, in which case I use definition 2 of 'fascist' in which case you agree with me.

Then again, maybe you simply don't like the word 'fascist' and are overreacting.

Hey gang, as my youngest daughter would say "chill!" I'm a former broadcast journalist that once worked for a prominent talk radio station (I was the news director... expected to "punch" stories that would get people calling... (FYI, by now many if not most of you have learned that my spelling leave a great deal to be desired... Sorry, when I wrote I was the only one reading the copy so spelling never became a strong suit... I do endeavor to improve though!)

Yo, everyone... I adminittedly tossed a "grenade" into the room. I could have "dipped my toe" into the water but I chose to let my feelings "rip."

I admire the intellect of everyone contributing comments thus far. Is there anyone out there who hasn't commented because they feel intimidated by the exchange or the original topic? Bryan, SJ... do you know of anyone else that maybe hasn't yet read my piece and might like to comment? If so please get them here to read and enter the discussion.

I'm going to offer my own personal "post mortem" on what i've written for this site thus far... ZombyBoy, you now know the next topic for my upcomeing piece. I want all of you to understand some things about the way our news media functions and drives our thought processes one way or another. Much of this is done deliberately to increase ratings and sell newspapers. Know this... At no time was I dishonest or disingenious (did I spell that right?) with you in my original piece or comments... I always write honestly from my gut. What interests me now, almost as much as the original topic is whay you reacted and why many other shose not to react!

For 21 years I spoke on the air with no clue as to what the audience may have been thinking. For the first time I'm getting some reaction and it's wonderful!

Please encourage more people to enter this discussion if poosible.

For the record, I was not offended, but I couldn't read more than about a 10th of the way through the piece, either.
I didn't really even note the use of "fascists", either. It's just from the overall word choice and general line of reasoning, it became very obvious very quickly that there was absolutely no common point for discussion.
If someone looks at a car that looks blue to me and says "that's a very nice red car", I'm not going to wait around to discuss the merits of the engine. The viewpoint is just too different to make it worth my time.

SJ,

grammatical fascist. That's what you are.

Just for the record, I was actually using definition 6a of "strained":
To pass (gravy, for example) through a filtering agent such as a strainer.

Perhaps if you read it again with that in mind, you'll get a full sense of my meaning:
I'd say it is a definition that has passed through a filtering agent such as a strainer..

On second thought, I might have meant that it was a definition I might hear on a certain acoustic-emo-metal-rap band's album, and mistakenly typed strained when I meant "Staind."

I'd say it is a staind definition.

Yes, that's more like it.

I think I'm a metal music fascist. Only Zomby-approved metal should make the airwaves...

Thanks for the laugh, Z.

And SJ, no comment on my questions or is it possibel that you will address such thoughts in your upcoming post?

I waded through a couple more paragraphs (more than one, fewer than five) before getting to this statement:
If SCOTUS upholds Massachusetts then there can’t be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining “civil unions” or anything else that smacks of separate but unequal.

Um, that would be wrong. The Supreme Court is bound to uphold and interpret the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. IF the constitution WERE amended, the Supreme Court would be bound to judge how the amendment fit in with the rest of the document. Just because the Court rules something doesn't mean you can't amend around it.

After all, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision, and then there were three amendments passed after the Civil War that basically overturned that decision.

Additionally, Supreme Courts change their minds far more than we think they do. I'm in the middle of reading Rehnquist's history of the court, and despite all the "rules" about stare decisis and the power of precedent, they go back on themselves with alarming frequency. See the history of commercial speech decisions for an example.

I'll try to read more later.

Rae: Unfortunately, I probably won't be answering any of your questions. I have no intention of writing about why I am pro-choice. The issue that I will be discussing is how I justify being pro-choice while still considering myself a faithful Catholic. The reasons have to do with my view of the first ammendment and the responsibolities that a religious person has toward both their country and their faith. This issue is very important to me right now because of the moves that the Catholic church is making with regard to abortion and the Eucharist. I have sent a rough-rough-rough draft to Z for some feedback and his initial reaction was that everything that I said made sense and that it caused him to think about things in a different way. Hopefully, others will have the same reaction when I post it. Again, however, it isn't going to be a piece about abortion.

I'm late to the discussion. I was as disappointed as Bryan was with the fascist thing, and kind of scanned the entry from there. Suffice to say, I disagreed on the definition of marriage, assumptions about the connection between law and culture, and a boatload of other assumptions.

Part of the reason people get so mixed up is people get too complicated about the issue: Look up marriage in the dictionary. It involves a man and a woman. Once you take either the bride and groom away, you're left with something else, and whatever the new thing is, it's not marriage.

Right now our culture is formally attempting to reconcile the needs of homosexuals with the traditional definition of marriage. Can't be done, since the idea of marriage involves men and women. No matter, people figure, if it doesn't fit, force it -- and that results in what we see now, the breaking open the definition of marriage and removing the gender element of it. Of course, that doesn't make it a marriage, it just means marriage is now a word that means whatever we want it to mean, like Humpty Dumpty.

I know many people feel history will show those on the side of SSM will be viewed like the abolitionists and anti-segregationists -- bold challengers of the status quo who eliminated an insidious and pervasive discrimination. I suspect history will view it in time as farce, the pathetic effort of a pampered and self-absorbed generation desperately trying to paint themselves in heroic terms by showing themselves to be even more enlightened than the generations who fought slavery and segregation.

Harsh words, I know. I wouldn't have used them if the word "fascist" hadn't been thrown around :)

Hmm, SJ, O.K., I will be waiting, but I must say that I am curious as to how this will challenge me to think of how my priorities are aligned when it comes to which I am first: a Christian or an American....

link