Thursday, February 15, 2007

Where's the Argument?

Kleiman says I'm wrong, but Kleimain-like, doesn't actually explain why I'm wrong, and compares me to Bill Donohue. Argument by assertion is not an argument.

Atrios is right: Bill Donohue has a nasty trick of misinterpreting other people's words in order to be able to take offense at them. But Donohue only does it to his political enemies. Why does Atrios want to do it to allies instead?

I'd love it if fervently religious folks decided to try to be "the soul and conscience of the Democratic Party," for example by insisting that the party stand foursquare against torture, or, as Mara Vanderslice suggests, that we need to be fervent rather than lukewarm in insisting on economic justice. And of course if you want to appeal to fervently religious folks, casting them in a role they'd like to occupy is a good way to do it.

I see no reason religious people are uniquely qualified to be against torture, or to convince those in the Democratic party to stand against it. It's, again, assuming that religious people have strong sense of morality that magically matches Kleiman's, and/or that they have a higher level of moral authority to persuade others.

I'd love it if religious people all over the country suddenly embraced my policy agenda and persuaded others to do so. But it's absurd and patronizing to assume they will, and it's insulting to both them and me to suggest that they'll arrive there through some deeper sense of morality.

Torture was on the agenda in 2004. Religious voters sided with the Torturer-in-Chief.

Happy for religious voters to vote for Democrats. No idea why their presence in the party enhances its moral stature, or helps to ensure they do the right thing.