There seems to be a growing deferment of common sense and civil discourse among American conservatives. There exists in the GOP a group of supporters who, in virtually every instance when they feel discomfort or infringement will sweep away criticism by accusing their opponents of being politically correct. And the tendency is to mention political correctness as a way of dismissing criticism seems to be growing. This isn’t a new phenomenon in our culture. In fact, it seems to be residue left over from the “culture wars” of the latter half of the 20th century—when being PC was a way of using language to shape the national debate over identity politics.
Fast-forward 20-something years, and we haven’t made it too far in the direction of civility. Political correctness or sensitivity to others seems to be the scapegoat for everything from the ethnicity of Santa Claus to women’s rights. What bothers me about the usage of the PC is that it seems like a cop-out when it comes to making a cogent argument. Instead of bemoaning that there may be other ways of looking at the world, it might be a good idea to step outside of the old, outdated model of looking at American culture and form a pragmatic approach to the relevant issues of our time.
To use a recent example to illustrate this point, the national reaction to the Duck Dynasty article in GQ Magazine was telling. What was most interesting to me was the outrage of conservatives over the network suspending Phil Roberts over his remarks: strident conservatives claimed that not being PC is now a national crime and infringes on their religious values.
But is political correctness really the culprit here? I mean, to what are these claims backed by facts, or by anxiety over losing the privilege of being a historically dominant polity in an ever-growing pluralist society? What legal right, specifically, has anyone lost to inspire such a reaction? Why is it acceptable for people to use religion as an excuse to harbor resentment, hatred of others? In an effort to discuss this topic in a meaningful way, it is important to present the best possible case conservatives make about political correctness. Phil Robertson was suspended by the network not because of his quasi-religious views, but because he violated the contract he signed with the network.
Being sensitive to others cultural narratives does not limit your own freedoms. If anything it strengthens them. If you’re raking in $400 million from royalties and merchandising from having a reality TV show, thus being employed by the network, then they have a say in what you say in public. If he had said disparaging remarks about another ethnicity, would there have been the same reaction? Does anyone remember Paula Deen? Michael Richards? Mel Gibson?
This is the conversation that I think this country needs to be more open in having. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.’ Maybe conservatives and liberals could reorient the conversation to something more relevant. That might bring the country together, rather than declaring proverbial war on culture—a culture that happens to be shared by many many other narratives and stories. And if anyone should be invoking religion, shouldn’t we be bringing people together rather than dividing them? Recently radio personality and pundit Glenn Beck admitted that the partisan fear-mongering his show produced may have done damage to the country. The GOP leadership seems to be weighing heavily on this idea of carnage creation already.
I think we have enough on our plates already without having to rehash prefabricated, outdated paradigms that get us nowhere. Let’s put aside these excuses and get down to the real work: building a better community. All of us. Together.
“If he had said disparaging remarks about another ethnicity, would there have been the same reaction?” Show me a city in the bible that God rained fire and brimstone down onto because it was of the wrong ethnicity.
Show me a verse in the Bible that says “Thou shalt hate thy neighbor.” Focusing on Old Testament law over New Testament grace is bad theology. Furthermore, there are a great many other places in the Old Testament that condemn injustice in society, ignoring the poor, or neglecting to be kind to the outsiders of society etc. but we don’t seem to get outraged about that nearly so much because heck, it’s much easier to point fingers and fight about emotional and controversial issues. The culture wars are a political tool used to manipulate people’s religious convictions and personal values for political ends. This article was fantastic. Thank you.
Not so quick. What “conversation” is it exactly we need “to be more open in having”? And since when has invoking strict religious views in a free society been about “bringing people together”? Since we have not yet compared notes, Skyler, you cannot be sure if I’m playing devil’s advocate, preparing to pounce, or crafting a foundation for constructive dialogue as you so oddly advocate. (I considered an emoticon here to put you at ease and decided nah.)
Please clarify, if you will, what exactly does “making a cogent argument” have to do with promoting scriptural doctrine or dogmatic belief as rules by which to live? (Which btw and definition are not based on “facts.”) Your words read as if you write off holy scripture as “prefabricated, outdated paradigms.” (This is not productive conversation starter in my book.)
Sometimes people do not investigate their own beliefs and speak out for beliefs they were peer pressured into believing. Sometimes people fear not speaking up because they lack the skill to accurately say what they feel or believe. To TRULY believe something, however, and not speak due to fear of being condemned unpopular is to bow to the PC of political correctness.
Rightly or wrongly, there are many good people in the world who believe in the devil and have no interest in “building a better community” if it means condoning what they believe to be his ways.
For many in OUR culture, their is NOTHING “more relevant” than adherence to scripture.
Would it not be more productive to ASK WHY these folks sincerely believe as they do?
Is it that “conservatives” need to be “sensitive,” or that liberals need to grow thicker skin?
Riff – You have missed the point of the conversation entirely – but nice try. I hate labels – why not drop the labels and name calling and just have a real conversation?
In fact I am a walking enigma. Those who know me well – know well what I am saying (and they are few). Ego is that which prevents us from admitting to ourselves that we don’t have all the answers. Ego keeps us ignorant – no, wants us kept ignorant. Why?
For Fear – fear that if that which I think I am – that which I think defines me may fall apart upon honest examination. And that would be unsettling – because then I would have to really ask myself – then who am I?
Take me out of the city, away from my church, my family, my friends – away from Cable and commentary – away from blogging and facebook, away from any and all books – sit me down in a cave or on a mountain in the wilderness – with no one but myself, my breath, and nature….and what will I find?
Oh – and no cell phone, just me, just nature, and just….silence.
Then have only one prayer. “Lead me from untruth to Truth, from darkness to Light, from death to Life eternal.
With no expectations – no preconditions, saying honestly in your Heart of Hearts – “Open my eyes that I may see, open my ears that I may hear.”
Then breathe deep and slow – and, wait, wait in silence desiring only Truth. Desire with it all your Heart. Without judgement – accepting whatever comes.
Courage, Honesty, Patience, Persistence,,,,Be still.
In Perfect Peace there is no need for “thick skin” –
” Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
Yisrael, every post on this site is potential conversation STARTER. If you wish to participate in this particular conversation, I welcome your input. However, Skyler did not send his post from inside a cave without his cell phone. Mark and Heidi’s comments refer mostly to the specific example of Phil Robertson. My comment is addressing the very broad brush with which Skyler paints. (I have no idea what Skyler means by “culture.”) I find very little in your words that responds to my comment, unless you are somehow indirectly suggesting Skyler was mistaken to post in the first place? To this I would most definitely disagree. Skyler illuminates some very good ideas which I believe point to the epicenter of what is missing today in our broken national conversation. What I am questioning is how Skyler goes about raising his points. A different ANGLE on the subjects is what I am suggesting as possibly more productive conversation starter for EVERYONE. The very fact that the “conservative” (Skyler’s label, not mine) minds who watch this site are NOT biting on SKYLER’S lure is evidence to me that his angle is a broken record that gets US nowhere in furthering our shared UNDERSTANDING. Skyler and Heidi’s posts seem to suggest that we should simply set all religious convictions aside and get on to more important matters. This seems unrealistic. Thanks!
Heidi, I DEFINITELY agree, “Focusing on Old Testament law over New Testament grace is bad theology.”
“Focusing on Old Testament law over New Testament grace is bad theology.” – This doesn’t hold true if you are a Jew, of course. What I was alluding to was the thought that perhaps God is above “Religion”.
And who said grace is not mentioned or illustrated in the “older” scriptures sacred to western civilization? Have you not read the Psalms? The stories of David?
Eijah was raising people from the dead. And he himself was taken up into Heaven – his body not to be found. Hmmmm – seems like Jesus was not alone in this – and why should he be – He was a Jew.
And the ancient Sanskrit scriptures discuss the “Grace” of God. Christians do not hold a monopoly on the “Grace” of God and the “New Tsetament is not the only book that illustrates it either.
I like that Skyler is opening a cultural discussion based on current events. I love a good discussion – God knows – but i deplore hidden agendas or bigotry disguised as Christianity – or any religious belief for that matter.
I applaud Skyler – he’s trying to raise the level of intelligence in our discussions. Riff – I don’t know who you are and you are right – I am unsure of your intentions – here’s your comment:
“And since when has invoking strict religious views in a free society been about “bringing people together”?
Why not be up front – what is your point here. I can see that what you say on one level may be quite true – in that People who do this – invioking strict religious views in a free society – only want to convince others that they are “Right” – and so their intention is to divide, to seperate out – and not to bring together. Is that what you mean?
Let me clarify – I was not suggesting anything about Skyler’s approach – ” He that hath an ear to hear – let him hear.”
This will be my last comment on this topic. – Blessings to All.
I don’t think Skyler is being silent, I think he’s being thoughtful and contemplating his response is all.
Hi Riff! Thanks so much for posting, even if you didn’t use emoticons 🙂
I took yesterday and thought a lot about what you had written. You are right to question my broad brushstrokes here, because I’m not entirely sure how to go about talking about this issue without sounding too smug, academic or ethereal. Perhaps another vantage point from which we can examine this issue can be seen in these two articles:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/the-missing-voices-in-the-contraception-mandate-cases/283452/
http://jonathanmerritt.favs.news/2014/01/30/rick-warren-37-christians-joining-hobby-lobby-fight/
These articles, and what I was trying to get at in a (probably an ambiguous and misguided, roundabout) attempt above, show that on the American religio-political landscape is changing, to such an extent that the old ways of understanding what it means to be religious in America are threatening the social fabric of the country. The growing trend of groups becoming what can be described as decadent (In a Nietzschean sense) granfalloons (in a Vonnegut sense) are now seceding from American life, or no longer belong to society if they decide they’d rather not. This action is predicated on the assumption that government is immoral, and apparently illegitimate. Now it is legally possible for employers not provide your employees with healthcare because you may have personal feelings toward contraception. If this is the case, then this is not a conversation that should be kept between people of faith—it affects ALL Americans. All too often, having discussion about faith is seen more as group therapy or rehabilitation than actual catalyst for change. In order to have a functional republic, I fear more talk about or beliefs without community orientated action would only lead to mental masturbation rather than meaningful change.
What I’m advocating for is not for people to set aside their religious or political convictions, but their inherently defensive convictions, against anything labeled as “others” that they claim out of fear are their religious or political convictions. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard people ask if Obama is the antichrist. Is that thought really helpful in today’s society?
So how do we invite all people to the table to discuss the role of government—sinful or not—in our lives—religious or not? I’m not hearing a lot of talk about this on either side of the political spectrum.
I agree that my attempt to link these ideas to Duck Dynasty was a little kitschy, so to speak, but it was a readily accessible instance that many people could access. Perhaps discussing finance reform for religious nonprofits would be a better medium? Let’s have coffee and discuss it!
Heidi: Thank you so much for commenting. I felt that after your comment did all of my heavy lifting, haha 🙂
Yisrael: Thank you for reading and posting. I think that you’re on to something about silence and stillness. We often forget how valuable mindfulness is in our culture today… Maybe if more people were able to be mindful, we’d need not have to solve some of these problems… 🙂
Tracy: You know me too well! 🙂
Yisrael, people generally invoke strict religious views with intent to SAVE. (At least so they say.) And, to clarify, I said nothing about grace being exclusive to Christianity and, I believe Heidi’s comment was directed at Mark’s comment about the Christian bible, not the Torah. Again, thank you!
Tough rarely easy, I am definitely most interested in constructive dialogue that leads to productive action in our lives.
I think in any such discussion it is most important to clarify the difference between religion and the politics of religion. We are so very lucky to live in a country where such distinction is our right.
At the heart of what I think I am trying to get at is the desire we ALL seem to share of being heard.
When someone makes a statement of belief and they are immediately condemned or ridiculed by a party who views the belief as threatening, who is reacting irrationally from fear?
The problem I had with how Phil’s comment was handled is that his statement was not analyzed. He did not only say that to him homosexuality was a sin, he said that all other sins started with and morphed out of homosexuality (which is like a way of saying homosexuality is the root of all evil). That definitely required more explanation for either side of the fence.
Thank you, Skyler, for the carefully considered response. I do not take the investment lightly. Coffee would be great! And here I always thought “mental masturbation” was my line. 🙂
I found myself rethinking my participation in this thread and realized I may have, in fact, been guilty of a “hidden agenda” at the outset. Initially, I read Skyler’s post and found myself presuming all sorts of non-explicit implications in his words. (With this said, I most likely DO understand much of what I claimed ignorance to in Skyler’s words.) My intention was to — as directly as possible — DEMONSTRATE how I experienced reading Skyler’s language as exclusive versus inclusive. I did not and do not believe this was or is Skyler’s intention. As many readers of this site choose not to participate for various reasons (FAVS conversations risk becoming ‘preaching to the choir’ without a diversity of voices) I simply wanted to express my own frustration with how we risk becoming homologous in our discourse. (I will reconsider before venturing such approach in the future.)