Arguing about the Impact

I had an argument today with someone who shall we say is on the far right and works where I work.

Here is roughly what I said about Ms. Schiavo. In response this person called me, and I quote, "A Godless atheist communist." Ah, the religious right... never the name callers...

This case was clearly an attempt to manipulate public moral sentiments. However, it seems to have failed to do this and perhaps discredited both Republicans and Democrats for their rather crude manipulation of both the law and human suffering.

It served to legitimate the state and federal judiciaries in the minds of many clear thinking people. Hopefully now the law can now be seen as the voice of reason rather than the call of religious zealots. The major result is that the political system is still thought of as legitimate even if the politicians are seen to be the fools they are and the fools that they constantly confirm through their pandering to people who use religion and so-called moral values as litmus tests.

I don't think this case does much to alter the relationship between church and state other than to give religious leaders more air time than they would otherwise get on the national media. Clearly the Cristian fundamentalists lost and the secular rule of law won this time, at least for the most part. I think that the federal judges knew that if they had caved in to the politicians the judiciary would itself have suffered a loss of validity in the mind of the
public. It is important to keep up the pretence that we live by the rule of law, even if we do not.

I found this to be pretty good considering it was off the top of me head.

For those who may be addressing matters brought up by recent events such as the right to die and the role of religion in U.S. political affairs – one accessible source is Public Agenda.

Public Agenda was founded in 1975 by Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of state under Carter Cyrus Vance provides empirical evidence on some social conditions, research on public opinion on topical subjects as well as some limited frameworks for public policy discussion. The self-proclaimed purpose of Public Agenda is to:

1. Aid “American leaders better understand the public’s point of view” and

2. Provide citizens information “about critical policy issues so they can make thoughtful, informed decisions.

The site addresses methodological questions with respect to opinion polling.

The link to the right to die resources is here.

On the religion and politics item, there is a report, “Religion and Public Life, 2000-2004: Survey Shows Religious Americans Less Likely to Support Compromise” which is a follow up a Public Agenda study, For Goodness sake: Why So Many Want Religion to Play a Greater Role in American Life.

It is a follow-up on a report prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts, “For Goodness Sake: Why So Many Want Religion to Play a Greater Role in American Life” (first published in January 2001) and accessible here.