Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church

[sunstoned]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course not.  It’s been decades in the making, imo.  Still needs to be addressed now imo.  I don’t know if we are even close to the point of no return (I very much hope not), but the numbers of people suffering unnecessarily has, imo, risen drastically and the sooner the trend gets reversed, the better.

I hope and pray you are right about the point of no return.  I do feel our nation is in a bad place right now.  Separation of powers is being challenged, and once that is gone, our president becomes a king.

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

So in the spirit of this thread and what Rauch is trying to persuade us to do, how do we, given my hard line in the sand that I just mentioned, and likely your disagreement with my position, discuss or views, opinions, concerns and fears to better understand and perhaps draw closer together? 

As to political issues?  On this board?  We don't.  Instead, we should have such discussions privately, or in a forum where political discussion is allowed.

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

I honestly believe and fear that we are watching the destruction of our constitutional republic. How can you and I dialogue in a way that Rauch would appreciate?

In private.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2025 at 2:46 AM, The Nehor said:

Abortion is a relatively small number. The big reason for falling birth rates is access to reasonably reliable birth control. That wasn’t a thing 60 years ago.

The money-centered mindsets have more to do with survival in a high cost of living environment than it has to do with self-indulgence or greed. I know many couples choosing not to have children because they can’t afford them even with both parents working. They want them but it is not a realistic option. Those are the people you should be subsidizing if you want more children. Either that or take measures to make it so that working a full-time job means you can afford to live and support a child.

This is a valid point and thank you for pointing it out. I am sure we all know of some couples or others who decide not to have children due to perhaps self indulgence or greed. But yea, many are declining  to have children or reducing numbers of children due to economic pressures. I would hate to be starting a family today given the sky rocketing prices of homes, utility bill burdens, food, taxes, higher education and so on. Heck even LDS family sizes are shrinking. I know about the prices of housing in Salt Lake and Utah Counties and I am not sure how a young couple can afford a home let alone rent an multi bedroom apartment. Housing where I lives has increased substantially since 2020 in ways I have never seen since I settled here 43 years ago.  But even our prices are rising even though comparably we are much more affordable than many places. But we have a huge shortage of affordable housing here and more so in the rural areas.  There are lots of things we could do to help with this but most of those are opposed by those who currently hold the political power.

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2025 at 4:40 AM, Calm said:

Health care is outrageous, my daughter has 2 drugs over $500 and another over $1000 a month. I have one over 600$.  And it’s been around 25 years and used to cost half that much. There is no reason for it to actually cost that much. I don’t see having much large families until those costs come down way down.  Especially if you see a need to build savings for retirement.  I have had one nephew and one niece out of a total of 9 having to have their newborn in ICU for months. One happened to be in the military and thankfully most was covered. But he was young and just graduating college and his wife did hair, so if he hadn’t already been in the military program, that could have been big trouble for them.  The other was a more established family, upper income, but had drained their savings with fertility treatments.  I don’t know how they managed. I am thinking a very compassionate rich relative stepped in (he is always offering to help, has established a school or two in Africa as well as other charitable programs) as he’s rescued quite a few in the family.

Yes I missed the cost of healthcare. My second daughter is currently the sole income earner in her home and has been since August of 2023 ( and that is another issue).  She is an accountant and a controller for a mid size company in our area.  Her health insurance is a high deductible of $16k per family. I am not sure what she pays for the insurance but I know it is not nominal. My guess that her share of it is $12k per year. She makes about $130k per year. Her husband when working was making around $150k and had much better and less expensive insurance. The home they bought when they moved back to you area was around $575k. It is pretty large and in a rural area but a tract of houses with half acre lots. They have 3 children. He is from Brazil and his family is very poor. They send his family, as do we, $$ quite often, to help out.  Given the lack of employment of her husband the house is probably to much for them but they have had a decent emergency saving fund from the profits on their home sale in Atlanta.  They used a large portion of that for a down payment on the current home but set some aside to have for improvements and other emergencies. I am sure they have used a large portion of that for monthly mortgage payments. When they need healthcare there can be hesitation given the costs. They do take care of their kids health needs but the pressure is high on that cost.

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2025 at 12:25 PM, smac97 said:

I am condemning elective abortion.  I am not imputing motives onto you.  Do you see the difference?

If I find X morally problematic for reasons A, B and C, none of which is "bigotry," then some online person calling me a bigot is inappropriate.

On the other hand, if that some other person finds X morally acceptable, then have I publicly indicted their character by holding - and expressing - a contrary view?  Well, let's see.

A few days ago I had a discussion with a friend who has previously characterized people who do not support same-sex marriage as "bigots."  He has since retracted that characterization, as he acknowledged that people of good will and decency can have reason- and principle-based grounds for their non-support that do not include "hatred" or "fear" of homosexuals.  Nevertheless, he still believes - and states - that not supporting same-sex marriage is a "great moral wrong."  That's about as far as he can go.  In other words, he allows for a reasonable and principled - but still ultimately morally incorrect - position on same-sex marriage.

Is there a "reasonable and principled" position to be found for supporting elective abortion?  IMO, yes.  Can I evaluate that position and still find it to be ultimately morally incorrect?  IMO, yes.  Should any of this involve me imputing terrible motives onto online strangers I have never met and do not know personally?  No.  Is publicly comparing characterizing elective abortion as being "{o}n par with the dehumanizing and misanthropic effects found in chattel slavery, eugenics, and other amoral concepts and practices" akin to imputing terrible motives onto strangers?  In retrospect, it probably is, or can come across that way.  So I retract the published statement to that effect and apologize for it.

This seems very reasonable to me and I find myself liking it and agreeing. Thanks!

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As to political issues?  On this board?  We don't.  Instead, we should have such discussions privately, or in a forum where political discussion is allowed.

In private.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will consider it. It is tax season and I am pretty busy but if we do this just be patient if it takes me some time to respond.  I well let you know.

[BlueDreams]

On 2/20/2025 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

The Guttmacher Institute lays out the states' disparate approaches to abortion.  In my view, some states take an "absolutist" approach (12 have total bans on abortion whereas 9 states + D.C. have no restrictions at all).  The rest of the states have legislated approaches that involve some measure of compromise and accommodation.  If you don't see that, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what "compromise" means in this context.

Not sure, I follow your point on this one. So what I'm about to say could be off base.

I agree with points of nuance that are being mentioned here, particularly the insights Dr. Steuss brought in. Even the pro-life more absolutist states tend to have some marginal "exceptions," which could also indicate a form of minimal compromise with a preeminent value. (usually these exceptions are around abortion pre heartbeat, IVF treatment, or extreme circumstances. Only the most ardent pro-lifers want to absolutely no exceptions)

But I was largely thinking about the dialogue around this. 

I fit in line with most americans in policy for what I want to see happen, at least according to most polls I've seen. I want access for abortions of any reason with a cut off near the beginning of the 2nd trimester (I vacillate and can be convinced for anywhere between 12-14 weeks). Post this, there would need to be more medical (physical and severe mental health issues) or extreme circumstances  (rape, for example)...the later in pregnancy the more extreme it would need to be. But I would want this less regulated by legislatures and more so by doctors. I would not want it criminalized. And I would want to close laws that would effectively cut off access to treatment to women despite technical legality. There's other forms of both preventative measures and post pregnancy maternal support that I would also like to see go into effect to reduce the disproportionate burden this can cause on mothers as much as possible (this part may not be a popular, depending the policy I'm rooting for). When I bring this up with those who are more solidly pro-life or pro-choice, this may be picked apart and criticized as too "fill in the blank." For political orientations like, say idaho's current position, I would be pro-abortion, champion of murder, and okay with killing babies. For those more alligned with DC I might be too restrictive and repressive of women's rights over their bodies. 

That's generally what I mean by absolutist. Less about actual policy (though those are growing) moreso about how we dialogue about this issue. It's why we can't have a solid national law. Because those most politically pro-active about this sell any form of compromise as a threat to women's rights or baby's lives. When what's more true is that the current status quo is a threat to both.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2025 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I will consider it. It is tax season and I am pretty busy but if we do this just be patient if it takes me some time to respond.  I well let you know.

On the bright side the administration is now talking about ending income tax and are already starting to gut the IRS.

If you are due a refund I recommend getting it as early as possible. Who knows how far this will go?

[manol]

In view of Jonathan Rauch's unexpectedly Christ-centric message, I thought this one-minute-long video would not be out of place in this thread.  Written and produced by a non-LDS friend of a local bishop. You might have seen it during the Super Bowl:

Love Your Enemies - YouTube

 

Edited February 23, 2025 by manol

[ZealouslyStriving]

I watched the pro-Rauch and was a bit taken in by his reasoning- then I found a CWIC Media response which I found compelling. I encourage everyone to watch BOTH.

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

I watched the pro-Rauch and was a bit taken in by his reasoning- then I found a CWIC Media response which I found compelling. I encourage everyone to watch BOTH.

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I watched the pro-Rauch and was a bit taken in by his reasoning- then I found a CWIC Media response which I found compelling. I encourage everyone to watch BOTH.

 

 

Just watched some of the beginning as I am sleepy and it’s too long even sped up.

So far my restrained opinion is no one will ever condemn them for being too open minded.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Just watched some of the beginning as I am sleepy and it’s too long even sped up.

So far my restrained opinion is no one will ever condemn them for being too open minded.

Again, I encourage you to give a fair hearing to both.

It's not about condemnation, it's about consequences- sometimes unforeseen in the moment 

[Teancum]

On 2/20/2025 at 1:43 PM, smac97 said:

From the Guttmacher Institute: "9 states and the District of Columbia do not restrict abortion on the basis of gestational duration."

As the National Catholic Register puts it: "In nine states and Washington, D.C., abortion is legal for the entirety of pregnancy, until the moment of birth, for any reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

I highky dount that there are abortions of healthy babies late in the pregnancy where the baby can survive outside the womb.  I see anti abortionists toss this out ALL THE TIME but have yet to see one example where say a nine month pregnancy was terminated when the baby was viable.  If you have evidence of such I would like to see it because I would certainly oppose it.

[Teancum]

On 2/20/2025 at 12:30 PM, smac97 said:

You apparently have not read Pres. Oaks' 2021 address at the University of Virginia.  I encourage you to do so.  Even if you do not agree with what he says, you will at least have a better understanding of his perspective (which I largely share).

A few excerpts:

"We need to work for a better way — a way to resolve differences without compromising core values."

Yep.

So do I.

"My goal is to suggest a helpful and feasible path forward without excessively accommodating either the Left or the Right or the Religious or the Non-Religious."

That sounds promising.

"As a practical basis for co-existence, we should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires us to accept some laws we dislike, and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own."

This is, in my view, part of the "compromise."  We live with "laws we dislike," and with perspectives with which we do not agree, and we allow those most of those laws and perspectives to perpetuate even though we disagree with them.

Yep.  Although I have not accused others of "bigotry," I do need to improve myself on the overarching concept.

"{W}e should not seek total dominance for our own position; we should seek fairness for all."

That sure sounds like . . . compromise.  Accommodation.  Tolerance.  

• "Where there is genuine conflict, one constitutional right should not be invoked to try to cancel another constitutional right."
• "Both must be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds essential rights to the greatest extent possible."

The Church's stance on abortion is, in my view, an attempt at such a "balanced" effort.

"This is not easy when we differ so fundamentally on matters of such immense importance. But the effort is essential if we are to live together in peace in a pluralistic society."

I think he makes an important point here.

"We should also be wary of the idea that one set of rights automatically trumps another in all circumstances."

Broadly, the abortion involves two important rights: the bodily autonomy of the mother and the life of the child.  

The Church's position states a broad principle (that the child's right to life is extremely important) while acknowledging some rare circumstances may exist for intractable moral dilemmas (pregnancy imperiling the life/health of the mother) the deprivation of bodily autonomy (rape or incest), etc.  

"But even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs and affiliations, that right is not absolute."

The right to bodily autonomy is extremely important, but it is not absolute.

The right for a child to live is extremely important, but it is not absolute.

"This principle {that public officials should acknowledge the validity of and to obey existing laws sustained by the highest available judicial authority in the Constitution} was violated following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision by a county clerk who invoked religious reasons to justify her office’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples."

Pres. Oaks, like the county clerk, disagrees - to some extent - with the concept of same-sex marriage.  And yet here he is, criticizing the county clerk for using her office to enact her personal perspective rather than the law of the land.  That, to me, bespeaks of Pres. Oaks' willingness to compromise, to accommodate, etc.

"Less rigid than a 'wall,' the boundary should be permeable enough to admit light and flexible enough to allow mutual support. That change has not happened."

That sure sounds like Pres. Oaks is advocating for compromise.  Accommodation.  Not absolutist, my-way-or-the-highway-ism.  Such things are, I think, necessary for our pluralistic society to persevere.

• "Though such rulings are immensely important, I caution against primary reliance on judicial rulings to ultimately resolve these conflicts."
• "Litigation should not be the first recourse in resolving our differences."
• "I find wisdom in the observation of Professor (later Dean) Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School ...: 'Accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.'"

Yep.

• "Successful negotiation requires that neither side be unduly influenced by the extreme voices."
• "Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace."
• "{L}earning to live with significant differences requires much more than tolerance."
• "Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation is a virtue."

Pres. Oaks is saying some really sensible things here.  I need to work on following his counsel better than I have and do.

"What I have described as necessary to going forward — namely seeking harmony by finding practical solutions to our differences, with love and respect for all people — does not require any compromise of core principles."

I think this makes a lot of sense in the abstract, but it becomes really hard to apply in the context of abortion, since both sides are operating pretty close to "core principles," and each side tends to think the other is out to undermine or take away those principles.

I think this is an important point in the abortion debate.  The Church has advanced a perspective as to its religious sentiments, while still honoring the law of the land.

"One participant told me that he recalls them as 'an effort in peacemaking, learning how to live together' with mutual respect, even love."

This outcome, involving people moving forward while "learning how to live together" over a long period of time, is someone different in the context of elective abortion, which contemplates the killing of millions of in utero babies, who are not given any opportunity to live at all.

I wonder what you think of is a workable "compromise" in the context of abortion.  The absolutist positions - absolute bans on abortions at one end and up-to-the-moment-of-birth elective abortion at the other - don't seem to work.  The Church's position reflects . . . a compromise.

"'We found solutions together. Neither side compromised our values...'"

I wonder how we can do this in the context of elective abortion.

Good point, this.

I wonder how this applies in the context of elective abortion.

Beautiful stuff.  Wise counsel.  Not sure how to fully deploy it in the context of elective abortion, so I'll think on that.

I think it is.

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.  Respectfully, I do not agree with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for sharing. I found President Oaks remarks fairly reasonable and sound.

[Teancum]

On 2/22/2025 at 12:42 AM, The Nehor said:

On the bright side the administration is now talking about ending income tax and are already starting to gut the IRS.

If you are due a refund I recommend getting it as early as possible. Who knows how far this will go?

I am all but certain that the income tax is not going away. As for the IRS, they are already understaffed. Audits take forever, trying to resolve erroneous tax notices take forever, penalty abatement appeals take forever and try calling IRS to speak to a service rep.  It can take hours on end of waiting.  All the cuts will do is gum up the works more.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I highky dount that there are abortions of healthy babies late in the pregnancy where the baby can survive outside the womb.  I see anti abortionists toss this out ALL THE TIME but have yet to see one example where say a nine month pregnancy was terminated when the baby was viable.  If you have evidence of such I would like to see it because I would certainly oppose it.

I second this, I didn't get an answer for the same question. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

nine month pregnancy was terminated when the baby was viable.

I think you mean ‘and the baby was intentionally killed as a result of the termination’.

My pregnancy was terminated two weeks early because my doctor knew we were waiting on the birth to move and he was going on vacation, I had enough Braxton Hicks to satisfy everyone that I was ready, so they induced.  Good thing they did because the cord was wrapped around her neck three times and she was under stress.  Two weeks later, me and healthy baby were in Utah (had been in Kansas) and two weeks after that Canada.

Edited February 24, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you mean ‘and the baby was intentionally killed as a result of the termination’.

My pregnancy was terminated two weeks early because my doctor knew we were waiting on the birth to move and he was going on vacation, I had enough Braxton Hicks to satisfy everyone that I was ready, so they induced.  Good thing they did because the cord was wrapped around her neck three times and she was under stress.

Oh my goodness, thankfully she was saved. 

[Tacenda]

I hope I haven't veered off the mark too much from the topic but I was shocked at this video about idolatry. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DF5s8opvAxn/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Calm]

Do we know for sure it’s real and not different things going on stuck together?  Music/sound easily could be pulled from something else.

Who is the artist?

Added:  She was asked to paint his picture at the inaugural ball.  She typically has dramatic Christian music playing while she paints, whether on stage or not, it seems to be part of her process. I would call her a performance artist.  Sometime live singing and dancing around her while she paints in grandiose movements.  Calls it Christian Worship Art, not my style though her sketch of Christ writing in the dirt I could appreciate.  It may be her color and contrast choices.  They are neither restful to me nor grabbing my attention in some way.

https://www.instagram.com/vanessahorabuena/reel/DEOj8p4RVZn/?hl=en

https://vanessahorabuena.com/?srsltid=AfmBOorC9FuIz9VT7zqaDFifw92SpZRZoy6zOmYah0D1PGqfHmy8ZyNP

I still don’t know whether someone combined two of her videos or not, not sure I want to put in the effort to find out.

She supports women’s shelters donating a portion of her proceeds.

She may have painted his picture on stage more than once though as the setting looks different, so I am not going to rule out it happening.  I would assume though she paints more than one painting at these events.  They didn’t show the crowd at the same time as they showed the picture of Trump, perhaps she also painted a picture of Christ and that is what caused the worshipful reactions.

Edited February 28, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Of course I had to find it, this is from her own FB page.  I didn’t watch the whole thing, but popped through it.  Music was not the same and it seems unlikely from the parts I saw the crowd would get into it that way.

https://fb.watch/y1hCxtXLFB/?

I watched parts of several of her videos. Music seems like it gets added later to some of them.  She uses country music as well, paints in all sorts of places including Trump Towers.  Seems like an occasional part of his entourage/PR team, as she is at some of his rallies at least.  But maybe she just follows him around because that is where the money is, her customers. Does she pay for the privilege, for the space so she can sell her paintings, I wonder.   I assume there are people selling merchandise, but never thought whether they were like those who go to fairs or if they worked for the campaign.  Or Trump has a side hustle selling memorabilia.  
 

The only performance that really bothered me was when she was painting the standard Prayers for Trump painting (I would be so sick of it if I were her, I hate using a recipe more than once even if I loved the meal) and there was a large white cross towering next to her like Trump was sharing the stage with Christ.

Edited February 28, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Okay, not impressed.  Looks like she does the same picture over and over.  That is a routine, not a creative act.  Like singing the same song, so not a bad thing…just not interesting for me.  Something like that I would want to see the revealing of something new, seeing it come alive.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Okay, not impressed.  Looks like she does the same picture over and over.  That is a routine, not a creative act.  Like singing the same song, so not a bad thing…just not interesting for me.  Something like that I would want to see the revealing of something new, seeing it come alive.

I do appreciate you finding these links Calm, but hope you're getting some sleep too!

[Doctor Steuss]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope I haven't veered off the mark too much from the topic but I was shocked at this video about idolatry. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DF5s8opvAxn/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Speaking of idolatry, it's fun that a certain leader of a country recently approvingly shared a video with a golden statue of himself built in Israel.  One might be tempted to draw Biblical parallels, like people wearing the mark of a certain individual on their foreheads.