Can a book about Jerry Falwell bring people together?

My friend, the writer Kevin Roose, just started a project where he's trying to build a bunch of little brid ges across the red-blue/atheism-religion culture gap. Not a grand Roebling-style bridge. Just a few small foot bridges. But it's a start.

To back up, I met Kevin when I was writing a book about following all the hundreds of rules in the Old Testament. During my project, I was looking for a way to address the thorny issue of biblical slavery, because certain parts of the Scriptures seem to condone the practice. The closest thing to a legal slave in the Tri-State area? An intern. It fulfills the "unpaid labor" part of the definition, at least. So I hired Kevin - then an 18-year-old freshman at Brown University - as my intern/slave for a summer. He did research. He sold my possessions on eBay for me. He baked me a delicious loaf of Ezekiel bread.

Kevin also came with me on a research trip to Jerry Falwell's church in Lynchburg, Virginia. When we got back to New York, Kevin had an idea: What if he transferred from ultra-lefty Brown University to ultra-righty Jerry Falwell's Liberty University for a semester, and wrote about the experience?

The book came out last year and it's called The Unlikely Disciple. Kevin didn't take the easy road, which would be to mock those across the cultural divide. Instead, he went into this venture with curiosity and compassion and an open mind.

Kevin doesn't agree with a lot -- well, almost all -- of the late Falwell's theology and politics. Kevin enjoys the occasional R-rated movie and vodka cocktail. He doesn't let Falwell's church off easy for its views on homosexuality. But at the same time, Kevin treats the Liberty folks fairly and seriously. And he even finds life-changing wisdom in certain aspects of the Liberty worldview.

This month, as a clever way to promote the release of his paperback, Kevin started what he calls The Jonah Project. He's offering 500 free copies of "The Unlikely Disciple" to pairs of readers. But not just any readers - they have to be ideological opponents. You can only get a copy of the book if you agree to discuss it with someone whose views you hate. If you're an MSNBC watcher, you need to pair up with a FoxNews fan. And then, you're encouraged to post a video or text entry about your spirited conversation. As Kevin says, "The theory is that we need to break out of our echo chambers to become smarter and better citizens. And that this is a way to self-improve without having to pack up and move to Lynchburg, VA."

Amen.

Can a book about Jerry Falwell bring people together?

• [novalis]

  Evangelical atheist seeks religious believer to get a free book and debate. Iron sharpens iron: let’s get smarter together.

  Email me — my username @ my username .org

• [Notary Sojac]

  As an atheist and a conservative, I get more than enough chances to debate, thanks. I’ve been disemvowelled on BB and suspended on Free Republic and I don’t doubt that both will happen again.

  • [Raj77]

    From what I remember from the George Rekers thread, you don’t so much debate as rapidly construct and abandon straw men until a moderator gets bored.

  • [Beelzebuddy]

    This, I think.

    I actively make a habit of breaking out of my usual communications from time to time, and I would encourage everyone to do the same. There’s nothing more boring to me than a hugbox community where everyone agrees with everyone else on everything (or, rather, split hairs instead of arguing about anything substantive). You’ll never know how solid your ideas aren’t until you’ve tried them in the fire of opposing Internet Warriors.

    The problem I encounter is not a lack of people willing to engage me in interesting debate, but overzealous mods/admins/etc who tend to act to silence controversy via thread locking, banning, etc. It takes a good bit of maturity to realize that a quiet community is not necessarily a happy nor healthy one, and outright forbidding disagreement or heated argumentation helps none of those goals.

    Another observation along these lines: most internet trolls really aren’t. They’re just people in the wrong echo chamber. Instead of shouting them down or answering their talking points with ones of your own, try talking to them reasonably and working toward the real root of the issue. Here’s a good general question: “Would you mine explaining why you think that [wrong bit]?” You’ll oftentimes be surprised at how rational their answer is.

• [crackgold]

  If you are interested in this topic, you all should check out my friend Gina Welch’s book about her time as an atheist in Jerry Falwell’s Church, In the Land of Believers.

  Here’s her website and more information about the book.

  http://www.ginawelch.com/itlob.html

• [Raj77]

  Sorry, I meant *no* evidence.

• [Raj77]

  To some of the upthread comments- interesting. Fiscal conservatism aside, why should I go out of my way to be friends with someone who’d, for instance, rather live in a theocracy, or who actively opposes gay marriage, or who is a big fan of the War on Terror, or who is actively racist? Why is it a sign of moral weakness on my part that I don’t like associating with people whose politics are deliberately geared towards marginalising people like me?

  What would we have to say to each other? I don’t claim that I don’t have socially right-wing acquaintances, but I don’t have in-depth political conversations with them because they almost inevitably say something bigoted. Then, if I don’t call them on it, I feel complicit in whichever form of prejudice they’ve wheeled out. Seriously- what would the point be? I like to trust my friends. If they are, to use a little dramatic license, on the side of the oppressor, how can I do that?

  • [Anonymous]

    why should I go out of my way to be friends with someone who’d, for instance, rather live in a theocracy, or who actively opposes gay marriage, or who is a big fan of the War on Terror, or who is actively racist? Why is it a sign of moral weakness on my part that I don’t like associating with people whose politics are deliberately geared towards marginalising people like me?

    Because if you don’t interact with them they will never change. They will only interact with people who reinforce their beliefs, either by agreeing with them or by attacking them.

    I have converted several racists, personally. I am very proud of this, and it wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t treated them with more care and respect than they actually deserved. But now, they DO deserve the care and respect I gave them before their opinions changed…

  • [mati]

    Here’s the thing. 35% of the US population self identifies as being Democrats, 27% as Republicans (from a Pew research poll prior to the last election). The other third of the country? That’s apathy. I know these numbers don’t exactly correlate to this debate, but I think they’re relevant. By refusing to talk to anyone who both disagrees with you and cares about the issues at hand, you’re in effect saying you are content with your ideological tribe’s minority status. The only way to enact any sort of positive change is to engage with the world you actually live in. The irony of the whole “What would I stand to gain from talking to an idiot/racist/conservative?” argument is that the only way to answer it would be to talk to an idiot/racist/conservative and find out.

    And, come on, Neo-Nazism? My grandparents may be fundies, but so far as I know they have not yet supported the systematic extermination of 10 million people.

    • [chgoliz]

      Here’s the thing. 35% of the US population self identifies as being Democrats, 27% as Republicans (from a Pew research poll prior to the last election). The other third of the country? That’s apathy.

      Apathy? How about independent? No, not Independent, only voting for people who run under the auspices of the Independent party, but independent, as in not being a registered Democrat or Republican but still actively involved in performing one’s civic duty despite the socio-political disadvantage of not swearing a blood oath to one of the two rival gangs?

      A lot of us can’t even vote in primaries because we’re only allowed to vote for the candidates in “our” registered party. Yeah, our legal right and responsibility to vote is denied us thanks to the enforced D/R dichotomy in this country.

      Apathy? You’ve given me apoplexy!

• [grimc]

  “Because the general media skews left”

  Citation needed. And not the old Stanford survey of journalists–that didn’t include the self-identification of editors and management, who are in control of content. I’ll concede that a “liberal bias” may have existed once upon a time, but certainly not for the past twenty or so years.

• [hassenpfeffer]

  Frak that opposite-sides-of-the-aisle noise. I had my copy on preorder from Amazon since before Xmas. I worked in a psych clinic for seven years and had my fill of crazy; I now prefer to read about it second-hand, not experience more of it personally. :-)

• [Antinous / Moderator]

  Why stop at conservatives? We could rub elbows with neo-Nazis, too. We certainly wouldn’t want to be perceived as closed-minded by the people who systematically try to deny us civil and human rights. That would be “intolerant” of us.

  • [Brainspore]

    This may be the first time I’ve seen a moderator fulfill Godwin’s law.

    • [Antinous / Moderator]

      You’re not paying much attention then. I’ve even quoted from Mein Kampf to illustrate a point.

      • [Brainspore]

        Classy.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          If you had a job that involved routinely turning away comments that link to sites that sell Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you’d understand why I see neo-Nazism as a growing trend in mainstream politics.

        • [Brainspore]

          I’m not saying you shouldn’t attack neo-nazis. I’m saying that there is an important distinction to be made between the people who merely believe you’re going to hell and the ones who would be happy to send you there personally.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          And I’m just saying that one turns into the other in the blink of an eye. Yugoslavia? Rwanda? The Kurds? Etc? WWII Germany wasn’t the last country to engage in widespread genocidal violence. Do you believe for one second that Ann Coulter wouldn’t herd ‘undesirables’ into concentration camps?

        • [Brainspore]

          All the more reason to engage those who we disagree with in conversation before they become so radicalized that they abandon the political process and resort to violence. It’s much more difficult to dehumanize an entire group of people if you don’t know any of them personally.

          Do you believe for one second that Ann Coulter wouldn’t herd ‘undesirables’ into concentration camps?

          Do you believe for one second that Ann Coulter has made any meaningful effort to engage the people she disagrees with in polite conversation? Exactly. Don’t be like Ann Coulter.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          The predator cozens the prey.

        • [Anonymous]

          Oddly enough, there has been little distinction between the people that think I’m going to hell and the people that would send me there.

          After I talk to them long enough, a good percentage of the former have turned into the latter…

          Questioning a person’s world view can have predictably bad results.

          I still do it, of course.

          (expletive deleted)

• [Anonymous]

  I read this book last year, picking it up at the book store on a whim. I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it.

• [chgoliz]

  Hey, #4 and #7, just like hassenpfeffer said, I’m not the liberal you think I am. However, I spend a significant amount of time around these fake “conservatives.” I’ve heard the exact same memorized lies over and over again. That’s reality, and I’m just reporting it as I’ve experienced it.

  It’s obvious from your retorts that you don’t like hearing the truth. It’s also obvious you’re spitting out an insult when you malign people by calling them liberals (as if it were a 4-letter word).

  What burns me up is that some of these people in my life used to be thinking conservative people. There are so few left in the US now.

  Thanks for proving our point, BTW.

• [chgoliz]

  I agree with hassenphfeffer. Between family and work obligations, I spend quite enough time being talked at by people who refuse to use their brains to think before engaging in a “discussion.” Thanks for the info on the book. I will look for it and read it. But, I already know what most of the people in my life would say anyway. Those canned Fox talking points are so useful in any situation. /sarcasm

  • [Anonymous]

    I think the biggest misconception that the right wing has spread is that they are the “Christian” party. God is neither liberal nor conservative, and when working under anything but the banner of Christ…. well, you aren’t serving Christ.

    I am considered very liberal by many, but am a proud Christian. It’s because I base my views of life off of Christ and not bigoted hate mongers and what they spew.

    i approach all people with love, compassion and an eagerness to spread that for the glory of God. Unfortunately, by the time I get to a lot of people they’ve heard nothing but fear, rules and judgment. LIfe in Christ/ with Christ is not about rules, it’s not about being perfect and it’s not about being sin free. It’s about a relationship. One that is filled with grace and mercy, not because of who you are or what you’ve done… but, because of love. If everyone would approach life this way……………. well, the world would be a different place. Reaching across the aisle and having a discussion wouldn’t be something one fears or would rather undergo torture than do.. it’d be inviting.

• [TheMadLibrarian]

  My problem (and I believe a problem for many people who might like to participate) is that 1. I have very few friends sufficiently far across the ideological divide to make a proper test sample 2. Getting them to read the book, and 3. Getting them to convey their opinions on it to me in a way that won’t make me want to terminate the acquaintance.

• [jjasper]

  I’m as offended by Falwell as the next bisexual anti racist feminist progressive, but I don’t think that what offends me is all there is to life for conservatives.

  It’s lazy in the extreme, and close mindedly insular to say that there’s nothing more to life in Liberty U than right wing FOX news talking points.

  And if we can’t get past the offensive noise to find any signal in what they have to say, they certainly shouldn’t be bothered to do us the same courtesy. I’m not saying the offensive noise isn’t worth being outraged over. It is. But at the same time, outrage on both sides and nothing but outrage is counterproductive. It presents us with a binary equation where wither we win, they loose, or we loose and they win.

  This gets everyone nowhere fast.

• [jemather]

  If there’s no one you interact with who’s views are sufficiently different from yours that you can have discussions on some of these issues and remain friends with, then either you need to step back from your polemics or expand your circle of friends dramatically.

• [Anonymous]

  Awesome!

  I would love to see/hear science enthusiasts engage the ET/UFO issue outside of their echo chambers with the some of the non-crazy, educated folks familiar with the subject.

• [Mark Hurst]

  You might also watch Kevin’s outstanding talk at my recent Gel conference: http://gelconference.com/videos/2010/kevin_roose/

• [das memsen]

  Thanks, Commenters #1- #3, for proving that liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives, thinking with their emotions rather than, you know, their brains.

  • [TheMadLibrarian]

    Hey, DasMemsen, I’ll gladly play the ‘liberal’ if you want to be the ‘conservative’. Then we can both read the book and post on BB about it!

    We might both end up surprised about the other’s viewpoints. In fact, I hope so.

• [mgfarrelly]

  There are deeply religious, avowedly conservative people who are wonderful and kind. There are secular progressive folks who I’d cross the street to avoid.

  The saddest part of the deepening of the political divide in the US (something I blame, at least in part, on the 24/7 media cycle’s need to create a narrative) is how it blinds us to common ground.

• [Anonymous]

  I hope there’s not too much to gain by talking to someone who’s actively racist. Because if it’s a great opportunity, it’s one a lot of people are probably going to be denied based on their looks.

• [Pipenta]

  So a young white ivy-league male managed to spend a term at Liberty and find some common ground. Bully for him. Had he been female, or of color, or queer, or a zoology student attempting to actually get an education in biology, it might not have been so productive for him.

  So often, folks in a position of privilege don’t quite grok the real deal for people who don’t fit the profile. I used to wonder, reading Paul Theroux’s travel books, what kind of travel experiences he would have had if he had been a woman. And if he wondered what life for, say, women was like in the places he visited because he sure as fuck never wrote a bit about it in any of his books.

  The noblesse oblige comes ever so much easier if the “other” with whom you are trying to find common ground with has not targeted the group to which you belong…

  Ever so much easier…

• [JamesPadraicR]

  My father and his brother grew up in the Lynchburg area, my uncle lived the rest his life there and we visited his family occasionally when I was a kid. My uncle once told how one Sunday he and his wife went to services at Falwell’s church. Everything was OK, until it came time to pass the plate around. They decided it was time to go, but found that the doors were locked–from the outside, and they wouldn’t be let out until they gave a ‘free-will offering’. They went back to there seats and waited till the end.

  If you can, read Rudy Rucker’s essay “Jerry’s Friends” in his non-fic collection “Seek”, it tell’s about his experience at Falwell’s place.

  I now live in Colorado Springs, home to Ted Haggard’s New Life Church, and Focus on the Family and many other similar groups. Just makes me more thankful that I’m a Jew (mother’s side).

  • [JamesPadraicR]

    oops, that should’ve been “Jerry’s Neighbors”.

• [Raj77]

  Well, I’m not American, and I’m a socialist Quaker. I’m also from Northern Ireland, where people who are actively racist are generally affiliated with a neo-Nazi group, usually Combat 18. They’re generally also Loyalist paramilitaries.

  I’ve said at least three times that I’m not talking about ‘conservatives’- I’m perfectly happy to have a civilised debate. What I am talking about are a) actual racists and b) religious fundamentalists, which my locale also has a huge proportion of, who generally just end up shouting at me that I’m going to Hell with all my pervert friends. Even when I try to restrict the discussion to theology.

• [Brainspore]

  Shoot, that last comment should have read “It’s much more difficult to dehumanize an entire group of people if you know any of them personally.”

  At any rate, I’m glad that we had a chance to discuss this topic on which we disagree. ;)

• [Bucket]

  The space in the middle of “bridges” is driving me nuts. Unless “brid ges” is one of those phrases borrowed from another language, like “qu’est-ce que c’est” or “Whatchutalkingaboutwillis?”

  But I have no idea what a brid might be or why it would want to ges.

• [Anonymous]

  Engaging with people is usually much more productive and worthwhile than cutting ourselves off from anyone who might challenge or frustrate us.

  Usually, but it depends a lot on the specific person. Would Falwell for instance be one of them?

  • [Brainspore]

    Usually, but it depends a lot on the specific person. Would Falwell for instance be one of them?

    An excellent question. In the 60s and 70s Falwell actively campaigned to overturn laws that gave employment protections to gays and minorities, but in 2005 he went on MSNBC to say (in regards to gay rights) that “equal access to housing, civil marriage, and employment are basic rights, not special rights” and continued to proclaim that “Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value. It’s an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.”

    I have no great admiration for Falwell or his legacy but this at least implies that the man was able to change toward a more tolerant position over time. If civil discourse (and a healthy dose of political pressure) can get someone like Falwell to soften his views then it’s worth a shot with his followers.

    • [Raj77]

      True, Falwell suddenly developed a conscience towards the end. A pity that the movements he influenced didn’t.

      Incidentally, conservatives above? Like I keep saying, if you’re not a racist or a theocrat *this is not about you*. Having said that, what I would love to see is some condemnation from you guys of the sort of insanity that’s peddled by the social-conservative pedagogues, and of the endless parroting from the dominant faction in the American right of Dead Bad White Guys like both Bob Joneses, Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms and whoever the hell it was who operated Reagan’s remote control.

      Like it or not, those guys have defined American social conservatism. If you don’t agree with their hatred, maybe you’re not in the right boat on social issues?

      • [orwellian]

        To be honest, I think it’s a generational thing. Christian Conservatism/Moral Majority was primarily in the 1970s and 1980s. It went with the tele-evangelists and was rooted in both strong religion and the fact that the Soviet Union (remember them? vaguely?) were very anti-religion. The modern conservative movement, say 1992 on, doesn’t have much of a connection to that hardcore mid-century religious conservatism.

        Why? Partly because the left won the culture wars. Some of it is bad but much of it is good. The average tea partier (*) holds their faith, if any, as a personal thing. They are concerned with government power, taxes, debt, freedom and creeping socialism. Bob Jones, Falwell and the other religious nutjobs just aren’t on our radar, to tell the truth. It wasn’t ever a majority view in conservative circles, even with Reagan; most conservatives were pro-Reagan for lower government and stronger defense.

        Nationalreview.com lists 56 Falwell entries in over a decade, including talk about his death and several people pointing out that followers of him weren’t suicide bombers. The religious right wasn’t ever a majority view in conservative circles and it’s pretty much dead now. They still vote Republican, though, because who else will they vote for? Barney Frank?

        * Please don’t call them teabaggers. We all know what that means.

        • [Anonymous]

          Not everyone. Fox News started calling them teabagging parties while they were funding some of their rallies, and most people have copied the name from them.

• [hassenpfeffer]

  To those calling me a “close-minded liberal,” thanks for pigeonholing me on the basis of a single post. I’m not a “liberal” about many things, and my religious beliefs are, well, complicated. And as far as calling the Religious Right “crazy,” I *believe* (ahem) that I have every right to do so, inasmuch as their belief system revolves around things that (a) have been disproven (e.g., creationism) or (b) cannot be proven (“Jesus saves,” whereas Mohammed only writes to a /tmp file). What is insanity if not the denial of reality as determined by repeatable experiment and documentation?

  All in all, a LOT of sound and fury based on a simple comment that I’d rather read the book w/o the participation of a Palin Pal.

• [Anonymous]

  Who cares really? I think this is another sham of someone trying to make money off the situation.
  I have a solution to the problem. Lets vote on all major issues when the president is up for election.
  Gay marriage as an example. If the majority wants it. Then let it happen. If not they have to wait till the next 4 years. Lets put this stuff up on a vote. My 2 cents.

• [Cynical]

  “I…generally play with puppies until they’re tired.”

  You do know that kicking doesn’t count as playing, right? And that “unconscious” is quite a separate concept to “tired”..?

• [Anonymous]

  I am a conservative I will be upfront about that. Now stop and think in your mind where did that pidgin hole me in your view. My bet is I fell immediately into these categories: Anti choice, Gay bashing, religious zealot among many others that depending on whether you are ultra conservative or ultra liberal may be good or bad in your opinion. Do I dislike abortion yes I think it is terrible do I believe in some instances it is not only necessary but the right thing to do absolutely, do I believe it should be used as a form of birth control absolutely not. Am I a homosexual? No but many of my best friends are It’s their choice and I fully support that. Do I pond the pavement every Sunday trying to convert you poor depraved sinners? No I personally think that the best I can do is live a good life and show you what I feel it is to be Christian and let you make up your own mind. Some of my best friends are agnostics and atheist’s do I discuss religion with them? Occasionally, but not to convert them but to openly share our thoughts on things sometimes it comes up. Am I am bigot, not against any race, creed, sexual persuasion, or political affiliation though I do at times have issues with stupid people. You know the kind that cut you off on the freeway without ever looking in the mirror while they text on their phone on the way home from a long night at the bar. Your probably wondering how this applies to this story. Well I attended Liberty and many others just like me. I did not then or now agree with everything Jerry Falwell said or did, don’t label everyone from liberty based on Falwell or everyone who is a Christian based on the people you see on TV.

• [Joe]

  “If you’re an MSNBC watcher, you need to pair up with a FoxNews fan.”

  People who write things like this imagine that MSNBC is a mirror image of Fox News, but this is incorrect. MSNBC has hours of right-wing television (“Morning Joe”) and a prominent centrist/establishment insider who loves Republican strongmen (Chris Matthews), and gives lots of air time to the ultra right-winger Pat Buchanan. True, they also have a couple of strong liberals in prime time (Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann); no one else has that.

  Fox, on the other hand, is hard right wing at all times of day, every day.

• [Anonymous]

  Sounds like a spirited project! I wish I could offer my services, but I no longer have a philosophically minded opposite anymore. We broke up as friends after she told me one too many times that she was praying for me, and she took off from her life to marry an idiot in Kentucky (he was an idiot, not the state of Kentucky!) who she had met only online up to that point. She “preached” peace and love, but hated snakes (because the devil made them), homosexuals (because the bible says to), Muslims (because THEIR god was the anti-christ), and humanists (because they did away with corporal punishment in schools). She despised anyone foreign on welfare (because they come here and take jobs away from citizens (not realizing that she was speaking of Puerto Ricans, who are NOT foreigners)), evolutionists (she was a fundie, but who also had a Masters ans should have known better), or anyone who “took the name of the lord in vain” (I swear a lot).

  Now, the closest friend who I argue with is probably as left as I am, but our daily arguments are about whether TV or film is the more important of the two, historically and socially.

• [mercator]

  I think I’d be interested in reading this book. I just finished Matt Taibbi’s Great Derangement, where he describes joining John Hagee’s church in Texas. Scary and funny at the same time, it is useful to see the inner workings of these cults from the perspective of an outsider.

• [airshowfan]

  That’s pretty awesome! Thanks for posting about it. As someone else who is writing a book to bridge these supposed divides, I 1) appreciate that more people are making an effort in this direction and spreading the word about it, and 2) just signed up to get my free book :]

  I regularly converse with a conservative Baptist (who is also writing a book about the needless divide) to try and get to the heart of why I prefer a naturalistic universe, why he prefers a theistic universe, and to what extent we can say that our observations are “evidence” for one worldview or another. I invite you all to follow along with (and contribute to!) this conversation at godvsnogod.blogspot.com

  Like many BoingBoing readers, I’m a mostly-liberal mostly-atheist. “Mostly liberal” because there are a couple of issues where I lean towards the typically-conservative position (e.g. immigration). “Mostly atheist” because while I hold a godless and naturalistic worldview, I can appreciate that for many people this is not satisfying: Some people teleologically hunger for the “reason” behind events in the same way that I naturalistically hunger for the mechanical causes behind phenomena. And I’m an accomodationist: You can ask the “Why?” questions and also ask the “How?” questions, i.e. you can be a scientist and also a theist. I wish more people would realize that.

• [twibbit]

  I’ve heard about this book and I’m really interested in reading it. Pretty much all of my extended family is hard-right religious, I wonder if they’d go in on this with me.

  I imagine my right-wing relatives would assume any book *I* recommend will be full of liberal bias, but to people who have read the book, is the tone conversative-friendly, or is it the sort of patronizing “As we all know, conservatives are crazy assholes” stuff that I so enjoy in blogs but couldn’t in good conscience share with my grandma?

• [Sea Daddy]

  Nope!

• [Raj77]

  In an interesting way though Antinous, you have to admit.

  So if the religious right is irrelevant to modern conservatism, why do they get to be the loudest voices? Anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay; it’s reasonable to describe mainstream Republicanism in those terms, isn’t it? Do they just shout loud enough that the economically right wing don’t feel they can attack them, or is it the stigma of criticising a fellow Republican; the whole RINO thing?

  The elected representatives, too. In the current generation, there’s Mitt Romney, Mick Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, the dreaded Palin, Michele Bachmann; all heavily religious-right. Where’s the guy, who you say the majority would support, who doesn’t believe in legislating his religion onto everyone else? Where’s the Goldwater candidate? I know they’re there, but I submit that no Republican candidate who believes in the separation of church and state will get anywhere in the party. There’s just to evidence to suggest that.

• [Raj77]

  I don’t buy it. How does hanging out with bigots (and I’m talking about bigots, not people-who-identify-as-conservative) make my life more interesting, or more fun? Concrete examples please! I don’t really get off on being told I’m going to Hell, y’see.

  Incidentally, I don’t think they’re evil. What is it they keep saying, “love the sinner, hate the sin?” If you’re going to wheel out that sort of hackneyed relativism, I’ll have my equivalent of Pascal’s wager; I’m sure enough that the oppression of minorities is immoral that I’ll take my chances, thanks.

  As far as calling out racists goes- I do it occasionally, but you don’t want to be That Guy.

• [orwellian]

  I think you’re right; people that disagree with us aren’t necessarily evil. All too often, we assume that and react to it, being the judge and jury without input from the defendant. Myself, I’ve gone from bleeding-heart liberal to conservative in ten years without a corresponding brain injury. When someone finds out my politics, they usually tell me (not ask but inform me) that I’m homophobic/racist/religious nutjob/puppy kicker. I’m for gay civil unions (that you can call marriage the as soon as the ink is dry), hate racism, don’t go to a church and generally play with puppies until they’re tired.

  It’s important to listen to different viewpoints, even if they make us grit our teeth. Those on the left, imho, are worse at this than the right. Because the general media skews left, those on the right hear opposing views constantly. Other than Fox News (you should be able to block the channel through your cable box, btw), it’s entirely possible for someone on the left to not hear an opposing view for days at a time.

• [Brainspore]

  OK, we’ll have to cancel the book pairing. We agree on too much to really count as “ideological opposites.”

• [Antinous / Moderator]

  orwellian,

  You’re wandering off-topic.

• [orwellian]

  I’d be down for that!

  You’re right, the ‘all’ was wrong. There is a leftward bias in the mainstream media, imho.

• [orwellian]

  I disapproved of Bush, probably more than you do, if for different reasons. He and his ‘compassionate conservatism’ was a disaster; it was the big spending and big government of liberalism with crony capitalism thrown in. Wouldn’t be surprised if it also raised America’s cholesterol and made us nearsighted. The War On Terrorism was a war on tactics, like a war on aviation. Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong country with no idea how to handle the peace. Four years into the War On Terrorism, he didn’t have anyone competent in FEMA or Homeland Security (see Katrina, Hurricane) and didn’t think that a city under sea level might need help someday.

  Take heart, though, because one thing that all Americans can agree on is that he was a disappointment.

• [Brainspore]

  Dude, you totally had me until that “all mainstream media has a liberal bias except for Fox” part.

  (But I’m still happy to chat if you want to partner on the book thing!)

• [Raj77]

  What brought about the journey to the right, if you don’t mind me asking? Surely not the sublime majesty of your last President?