Tags: church and state., conservative, Edwina Rogers, liberal, politics, religion, secular coalition for America
I have been a fan of the past executive directors of the SCA. Lori Lipman Brown and Sean Faircloth are both smart, friendly, fun-loving people who I enjoyed getting to know. When Sean left the position to be with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, there was the hanging question of who would be chosen to succeed him.
And today we have an answer from Hemant Mehta’s blog. The choice is a former Republican lobbyist named Edwina Rogers. I have never heard of her until today, but let me tell you, based on what I read from Hemant’s interview, why I think that the choice is a good one.
First, her answers to Hemant’s questions are encouraging. She’s a nontheist (her preferred term), secularist, and she seems to be aware of the issues which the SCA is designed to confront. In short, she’s one of us.
Second, the fact that she is a she is a plus in the sense that we do have some issues with gender inequality in the larger community of reason. Not that hiring a man would have been a mistake, but this is an added bonus from an equality point of view.
Third, she has inroads to Republicans. This, I think, is the most important part. For some time there has been an idea that there is a divide in our “culture wars” which divide along the lines of Democrat/liberal/secularist versus Republican/conservative/theocrat. This divide is way too simplistic, and as Edwina Rogers states, its not true in the majority of cases.
Secularism is not a uniquely liberal value or cause. Yes, there are many conservative voices who declare their opposition to the liberal and secularist agendas, but even those conservatives have much to gain, and maintain, in a secular government. With Edwina speaking for us, perhaps some of those voices will be forced to allow their connected ears to get some exercise. Seculaism has much to offer conservatives, especially the religious ones.
Yes, I have stark political and philosophical differences with conservative people (some who are family members) who view me as some crazed, brainwashed, confused elitist who has been fed the liberal lie of separation of church and state. Perhaps Edwina’s voice can carry a little more weight with such people (perhaps not, in many), ot at least be able to frame them in ways those people will understand.
And there may in fact be a majority of conservative contituents who hold similar views about us elitist progressive secularists, but there are paths towards developing political alliances with secular conservatives who hold, or at least are near, levers of power and authority.
I would prefer to see America become more progressive as a whole. I would like to see the Democratic party become truly progressive, fully secular, and deal with real social inequalities such as those brought up by the Occupy movement. I would like to see the Republican party return to leaders such as Barry Goldwater, rather than the theocracy-downed idiocy that so often sways Republican constituents and legislation.
I would like to see real, substantive, argument about policy between people who intelligently disagree, rather than be distracted by Biblical proclamations and religiously-based anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-science ideologies which end up doing damage to the nation we all live in. There is much to love about America, but sometimes those attributes become smudged with too much mud from religious contamination.
Theocratic tendencies in politics harm us all in ways which we often don’t even realize, unless we are paying close attention. Having someone familiar with conservative lobbying circles assisting in our efforts to support secularism in America will be a boon for us all–liberal, conservative, etc–long-term.
I think that the SCA made a smart move in choosing Edwina Rogers. Let’s see if I’m right. In the mean time, let’s all welcome Edwina to her new position.
Past liberal, future conservative. April 24, 2012Posted by shaunphilly in Skepticism and atheism.
Tags: conservative, liberal, relationships, sex
add a comment
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about what it means to be sexually liberated. The 1960s began a new cultural revolution for sexuality in the west, and it has allowed the once radical idea of sexual freedom for adults to become mainstream. And, as I see it, what was once radical traversed through liberal/progressive to mainstream, and its trajectory is pushing it towards conservativism for future generations.
Currently many people, who would have been thought of as radical to 1950′s repressive standards, are now trying to defend our cultural accomplishment of liberated sexuality against the remaining religiously-motivated reactionaries who are trying to maintain a pseudo-traditional view of strict abstinence towards life-long monogamous marriage.
I don’t have statistics available to me right now, but I would bet that evidence exists to support the claim that the majority of people in countries like the US, Western Europe, etc agree that non-married adults who choose to maintain sexual relationships with other non-married adults should be permitted to do so at their whim. That is, our freedom to have relationships of our choosing, as adults, is mostly uncontroversial.
This, in our culture, has not always been the case in the last couple of centuries. There were many social stigmas as well as other cultural control mechanisms which made such things rather difficult for adults, especially woman, even if it did happen (our desires are too strong to eliminate completely!).
So, having gone through a couple of generations since the sexual revolution of the 60s, most people accept a worldview of sexually active adults. Many people still may have reservations about gay marriage, the alternative sex world, or non-monogamy but do not object to the extistence of relationships which include homosexual, kinky, or non-monogamous behavior if that is what people want.
When we talk about “conservatives,” then, we are talking about people who oppose homosexuality, non-procreative sex, and “adultery,” right? I mean, people who oppose such things certainly are conservative, but are they the extreme conservatives or merely the standard conservatives?
For me, to be conservative is to attempt to maintain some “normal” or mainstream behavior in order to preserve cultural practices which are beneficial either because they are valuable in themselves or because they work to maintain some other aspect of culture which is valuable.
As an example, take the rhetoric about traditional v. Gay marriage. Gay marriage, it is claimed, seeks to destroy “traditional marriage”, even though the “tradition” of marriage has already changed from a property arrangement to an agreement between two individuals to remain committed to each other and share responsibility for resources, children, etc.
That is, the former tradition of a property arrangement, a tradition once defended by conservatives of an era past, has been transformed by progressives (“liberals”) of the same era, and has become traditional. And now that new tradition is being defended again by people who share the opinion of those once-radical progressives, but we call them conservatives today.
We at least call them not-liberal (as my own father’s political status is on facebook). The point is that history is currently moving towards liberalization, progressive values, etc. Even if it is moving slower than I would like. Also, it could possibly start moving in the other direction just as easily, so we need to keep up the effort.
My hypothesis is this; within the next generation or so, or at least within my lifetime, what we now see as the mainstream view of relationships will begin to look more conservative—what is now centrist, mainstream, or traditional will shift as progressive people recognize the legitimacy of views which are seen as radical now; things like polyamory, for example.
Liberals of today are maintaining pretty tame views about sexual liberation. Even my own generation, people I went to highschool, college, etc (as well as those 10 years younger, in many cases) hold views about relationships which look to me, from my “radical” point of view, as conservative by comparison.
These are people who self-identify as liberals. They support Barack Obama, gay marriage, science, and are almost exclusively pro-choice. But they see much of BDSM, swinging, polyamory, etc as radical. They think it is damaging, impractical, or at best experimental. They tend to question whether my engagement and relationships can really be legitimately serious, important, and be a function of mature, responsible, true love.
Ladies, gentlemen, and genderqueerfolk, I present to you tomorrow’s tradition-defending, centrist (but leaning conservative), pragmatic culture. They will take what they have learned, in response to yesterday’s conservatism, and create a newer conservatism of their own.
And when they are retired, grandparents, and defending the tradition they were raised with, our grandchildren will be pushing the possibilities of relationships, sexuality, etc in directions that us weird folk can only imagine and dream about now.
And we will be proud while those whining conservatives we grew up with will be grumbling about traditional one-at-a-time spouses, how they had to fumble around with their first sex partners to learn, rather than having excellent comprehensive sex education which makes young adults unashamed to enjoy sex, etc. Just like conservatives do.
And these future generations will be the newer liberals, progressing in ways hard for us to imagine. Our generation will be the conservative generation, with some of us weird folks sticking around to appreciate what legacy we worked for, were ostracized for, and for which we were labeled as freaks all our lives.
Well, let’s get on with it then, freaks! Let’s pave an easier road for the next couple of generations, and see what unrepressed, unshamed, and radical people can do with the possibilities of love, sex, and (hopefully) skepticism.