TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.12.2008
Religious Development of the Year, 2008

On December 3, 2008, a theologically conservative faction of the Episcopal Church announced that it was founding a rival denomination to be called the Anglican Church in North America. Why should anyone besides an Episcopalian care about this event? After all, American Protestants are famous for their entrepreneurial instincts, which often lead them to treat disputes as opportunities to set out in new directions. And then there's the declining importance of the Episcopal Church to the broader culture. Where it once formed the core of the Protestant "mainline," serving as an incubator for the nation's political and cultural elite, today its roughly 2.3 million members are increasingly marginal to the country as a whole.

And yet the schism in the Episcopal Church should matter -- as a sign of ongoing, and perhaps increasing, political and cultural polarization in America's churches. As sociologist Robert Wuthnow has noted, historical animosities between Catholics and Protestants began to give way in the latter half of the twentieth century to a new division separating politically liberal and politically conservative believers of every faith. Whereas differences in ethnic background and religious practice and doctrine once determined the religious identity of Americans, it is now far more common for this identity to be determined by one's position on issues tied up with the culture war: abortion, euthanasia, the breakdown of order and authority in the family, the banning of school prayer other public expressions of piety, the rise of a popular culture saturated with sex and violence, and the push for homosexual rights. To oppose these trends automatically places oneself in the traditionalist bloc within a given church, while reacting to them with resignation, indifference, or enthusiasm aligns oneself with modernist elements in the same church.

The Catholic Church in the United States has been riven by these disputes since the end of Vatican II over four decades ago. But so far, it has avoided outright schism. Protestant denominations haven't been so lucky. There is now a conservative branch of Lutheranism and a liberal branch of Lutheranism, a conservative branch of Presbyterianism and a liberal branch of Presbyterianism, a conservative branch of Methodism and a liberal branch of Methodism, and so forth. Until the last few years, it looked like the Episcopal Church might avoid this fate, in part because provinces in the church are normally defined by geography, not by theology. The church held together through controversies in recent decades about the ordination of women as priests and bishops. But the more recent decisions of several dioceses to bless gay unions and of the province's leadership in 2003 to ordain the openly gay Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire finally crossed the line in the minds of conservatives. 

With 100,000 members, the schismatic Anglican denomination is so far quite small, though it may well grow if conservative dioceses around the country decide to take the option now presented to them and bolt from the Episcopal Church. But regardless of the numbers involved, the rupture in the church is historically significant and culturally troubling. The Protestant mainline that once ruled and to some extent united the nation continues its decline, split into squabbling factions facing each other across a cultural chasm. Arrayed on one side are liberals of every theological stripe; on the other are defenders of orthodoxy and tradition. The first views the second as ignorant bigots; the second sees the first as moral degenerates. Barack Obama may have managed to win 53 percent of the popular vote last month, but that doesn't mean the country's division into "red" and "blue" spheres of cultural influence has come to an end. Indeed, the split in the Episcopal Church indicates that it persists and may even be deepening.  

Posted: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:00 PM with 29 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

sdemuth said:

I should think it a cause for some celebration that church members are distinguishing themselves by disagreeing about real policy issues that affect living people, rather than being mired in theological schisms of scant relevance to the way we actually live.  Isn't the foundation of protestantism, after all, making belief relevant to one's own life?

And isn't one of the bedrocks of Christianity generally, the call to be "your brother's keeper," and does that not demand that we engage on these "cultural" issues?

December 29, 2008 8:38 AM

timteeter said:

Speaking as someone who has been intermittently involved in these disputes for many years now, and who has known personally or at one remove some of the key players, let me on the one hand congratulate Damon Linker for summarizing the story as accurately as could be in so short a space, but on the other hand insist that the situation is far more complicated, both nationally and internationally, than such a brief summary might lead one to believe.

Thus, while the divisions within Anglicanism generally, and North American Anglicans in particular, do indeed reflect the culture wars, they are driven as much or more by fundamentally theological concerns which the ongoing Western kulturkampf has only thrown into high relief.

And while it is probably fair to say that many conservatives do regard their counterparts as "moral degenerates," most of them (in my experience) see their opponents as primarily adrift theologically and spiritually.  Forget gays and women priests--how about "open communion" (come and receive, regardless of whether or not you are baptized), or "experimental liturgies" that bear little or no resemblance to historic Christianity, etc.?

Moreover, there remain divisions among conservatives (primarily over the role of women) as well as among those still in the Episcopal Church.  Previous schisms among North American Anglicans have not had a happy history--it remains to be seen whether this one will be more successful.  Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church is approaching a financial cliff, with shrinking congregations that are not replacing themselves (the average Episcopalian is about 60).  That 2.3 million figure that is constantly cited is an illusion, and the parent Church of England is not doing any better.

December 29, 2008 9:36 AM

randyandy said:

These religious schisms are akin to the divisions of schoolyard children into "skins" and "shirts," just prior to beginning a game of dodge ball.  The sanctimonious gather on one side and the free spirits who don't take IT too seriously on the other.  Who wins?  The ones who accumulate the most membership with the most money, thereby ensuring their continued existence.  God doesn't give a damn, but the congregations feel better as they huddle around the warmth generated by their mutual hatreds and neuroses.  The rest of us just hope that they don't get their Shia vs. Sunni on.  With the possible exception of the Mormon experience in America, this nation has been spared the sight of christianists killing each other in the name of God.  But comparatively speaking, we are a young nation; there's still time . . . .

December 29, 2008 10:30 AM

gregorybutn said:

Thanks to Damon Linker for a fair assessment of the current situation in a short space.  It is more complex theologically than the social issues that are ususally at the forefront of coverage.  

Much of the schism's roots can be found in the divergent teachings at the [more Orthodox] Seminary, Nashotah House, versus the more liberal theological teachings of Biblical interpretation at many seminaries in the US.

The more Orthodox seminaries and parishes keep strictly to doctirne and consider their liturgical background as being of the Anglo-Catholic philosophy, in Communion with the Eastern Rites.

The more liberal parishes and seminaries are more liberal in Biblical interpetaion and are even mixing in some Buddist and Hindu teachings into their Litergy and worship.

This is a divergent path that is rarely covered.

Thanks damon for covering this difficult subject.

December 29, 2008 11:41 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I'm leaving this one to the many learned, articulate Episcopalians among us to contribute. I read every word and revel in the learning.  Thanks to Damon Linker, timteeter and the rest for the great work (I have another question about Leviticus tim, when you get a chance).

Let me just add that Reverend Gene Robinson has brought me closer to God - and the real meaning of Jesus Christ - than anyone else in my lifetime (even my poor Mom, who has tried fruitfully for years) and I am not alone.  I'm still a Deist, but he challenges this in a humbling, enlightening way.

He is my biggest hero and certainly not just for something as irrelevant as his sexual orientation, but for his speaking truth to power with incredible love and his ability to teach difficult biblical concepts to laymen (and his humungous heart).

December 29, 2008 12:03 PM

whit said:

People began to leave the Episcopal Church in numbers starting in at least 1979.   The new prayer book and hymnal were the root cause for new "continuing Anglican" sects to spring up in the United States.  I think most Episcopalians stayed with the old demonination due to the so-called "edifice complex"  -- who wants to give up on handsome old buildings for the sake of preserving the old liturgy?  The most recent wave of defections has addressed that problem.  Now whole dioceses are bailing out and taking the buildings with them.

December 29, 2008 12:24 PM

SATCHMOJAZZ said:

I remember back in the '60s when the first changes that I remember occurred.  It was the beginning of the 'new prayer book era' and many revisions were taking place . . . including those allowed to take Communion.  The "reason" for the changes was supposedly to appeal to the youths of the day.  Every Sunday after Church about eight of us including our children would gather at our host's house for political discussion and Bloody Marys.  When discussion arose concerning the Episcopal Church's forthcoming changes however, the high-school aged young people VEHEMENTLY voiced their opinion:  They didn't want the changes any more than the rest of us.  That was the beginning of the weakening of the Episcopal Church.

December 29, 2008 1:16 PM

timteeter said:

Well, Wandreycer1, we obviously disagree about Gene Robinson, but I'll let that pass (how much Anglican inside baseball does TNR need?).  As for Leviticus, you can try to find me on Facebook (I prefer not to give out my e-mail address in a forum like this).  Meantime, take a look at Article VII.

And merry Christmas!

December 29, 2008 1:17 PM

PHILDTM2 said:

As a secular humanist (aka atheist) I will put my cards on the table right away - I agree with Thomas Alva Edison (the inventor of the light bulb, usually associated with "bright" ideas) - "religion is baloney".  That said, I do watch developments in the religious world with some interest because of the extent of their impact socially and politically.  There are two reasons I support the late schism in the Episcopal Church: (1) The more fragmentation and division in the world of religion the less likelihood that any one faction can assert significant authority in the realm of politics and culture, which lessens their opportunity to impose (via their legislative, executive, and judicial cronies) one or another egregious policy on the rest of us; and (2) I actually admire those Anglican conservatives who really take their religion seriously enough to depart from clearly heretical practices - seems to me there is no possible biblical argument to be made for many of the things the religious liberals support (ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, etc.) so the integrity of those conservative Anglicans is commendable, even if I disagree (as an atheist) with what they believe.  Many atheists find practitioners of "liberal" Christianity thoroughly hypocritical.  To us the only honest stand is either to repudiate organized religion altogether or affirm the traditional.  Since the latter course is unacceptable, the path is clear for us.

December 29, 2008 1:30 PM

jwl2672 said:

Honestly, I don't know why you people bother; If I didn't believe in Christ and his redemption of our sins, I wouldn't be ANYTHING.  I'd just be a dude living in NY going about his daily routine.  No more than a dog going about his business on the hydrant.  I wouldn't be militantly anti-Christian or militantly atheist or even bother to care.  Except for muslims who blow up our buildings and planes, I wouldn't even care about any form of religion.

December 29, 2008 3:31 PM

tpowers3 said:

I think the discussion here misses a key distinction: what some see as political  issues are not just matters of style or viewpoint; they are a matter of faith: How and under what circumstances shall we worship God? For all our faults, what do we condemn as wrong and sinful; what to we praise as right and virtuous?

December 29, 2008 3:42 PM

jhildner said:

To witness arguments in 2008 about what God wants is certainly a ludicrous spectacle, as, literally, nobody knows what they're talking about.  Replace "God wants" with "is good," and plausible debates emerge, although without the benefit of patently unfounded factual certainty about cosmic commands and what happens when you die and the like.  Removing that fraudulent factual certainty from the discussion would probably be, on the whole, a good thing.  Although preachers could not legitimately scare anyone with the prospect of eternal damnation, neither could they inspire evil acts (or more banal injurious acts) with the promise of eternal reward.  Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, it would be honest, a quality most of us claim to value in its own right.  But I suppose it's unlikely that our ugly temples will be torn down or that our beautiful temples will become vessels for such honest and universal moral instruction and debate or that our various religious traditions and rituals and symbols will be repurposed toward praising and expounding upon the better angels of our nature anytime soon.

I sense from Linker disappointment and regret that our distasteful culture wars are fought on a religious battlefield, although he could hardly be surprised.  More to the point, I'm not sure what he would have anyone do about this situation.  This dispute seems like small potatoes next to the embrace of Southern Baptist evangelical fundamentalism.  I suppose that he would like to see a nice, relatively liberal religious tradition nurtured, free from such squabbling, from the inside, careful not to offend too many sensibilities, such that it may become a foundation for broad-based consensus and community.  I fear that this may not be possible, and, anyway, may cede too much ground to the forces of exclusion and petty distrust.  I suppose what we really need is a better class of preacher.

December 29, 2008 4:09 PM

jhildner said:

jwl:  Not all people find meaning in life precisely as you do, and, if you're honest with yourself, you will accept that you have no real way of knowing whether your way is objectively right and other people's are not.  You only know how you feel.  But your feelings are incapable of saying anything about the universe outside your head, much less that I, who find your belief system to be rather, well, let's say unpersuasive as a guiding force in life, am no better than a dog pissing on a hydrant.  Your attitude, which basically denies the humanity of those who do not profess faith as vehemently as you do or profess any faith at all, is one of the reasons folks like me think religion can be an insidious force of division and hatred rather than a force for Christ-like universal love.

December 29, 2008 4:22 PM

hrlngrv said:

If you want a church that's concerned with liturgy rather than politics, join the Orthodox church. All other denominations (even - especially? - Roman Catholic) were born out of politics to some extent, and the founding rationale for the Anglican church was pure politics.

And the Anglican church as split more often than any other denomination (the original split between established churches in England, Scotland and Wales, Congregationalism, United Church of Christ, Unitarianism, Methodism, AME). Compare it to the Lutheran church.

The vacuity of the Anglican communion and the US Episcopal church under the guise of tolerance and acceptance of different approaches to liturgy and administration among the member churches of the communion hasn't worked. The conservatives are insisting on core principles. Since there are more individual congregants in the more conservative African, Asian and Caribbean churches (yes, I know the Caribbean churches are a province of the US church, but on average they're more like Nigerian than New England churches), democratic approaches to setting common principles would make the communion more conservative. The mainline US Episcopal church may be on the liberal side, but liberal ends require nondemocratic (antidemocratic?) means at the worldwide level.

The prospective schism can be simplistically summed up as whether or not the church should at least have a keel if not a rudder, and if it should have either, who should decide and by what means? The old joke is that everything's optional in Anglicanism, even belief in Christ.

December 29, 2008 4:26 PM

hrlngrv said:

In re traditions within the Christian church, the original church had men and women priests, married priests and bishops, and liturgies that bear little similarity to what's common now. Even Orthodox liturgies have changed over the centuries (though a lot less so than those of all other denominations).

The big question is to what extent religion should affect secular institutions and policies.

What would Jesus have said about, say, what's marriage? Back in the day, I suspect he would have said let the king decide. These days, he'd probably say let the voters decide. I doubt he'd say let either a court or a synod of bishops decide. Thus one of my own religious precepts: one person at most might be infallible, otherwise a majority of as many people as possible always seems preferable to small bodies of individuals no matter how enlightened.

December 29, 2008 4:45 PM

drdannyu said:

Wandrey, as a devout Episcopalian with a vested interest in the ordination of gay clergy and their potential elevation to the episcopate (our fancy word for "being a bishop") I would gladly hold forth on this topic.  But I am loath to discuss something so deeply personal on the pages of Talkback.

Suffice it to say that, since I am not a member of the clergy and thus don't have to be particularly nice about my beliefs, I have no real trouble with the so-called schism within the church.  As this post makes clear, the Episcopal church is very small, and the portion of schismatics is even smaller.  I am willing to abide their presence, but they are unwilling to abide mine, so I shed no tears at their departure.  If they can't tolerate women in the clergy, then really they have so little in common with my beliefs in the first place that I can't really pretend to mourn their loss.  May God bless and keep them.

A few thoughts -- PHIL, there is nothing in scripture to support a great deal of what either liberals or conservatives in the church do.  There is nothing in the scripture to support observance of Lent.  There is nothing in the scripture that supports the consecration of bishops, male, female, straight, gay.  (I invite you to provide me with citations, if you disagree,)  To insist upon the "traditional" is to buy the fallacy that tradition supersedes reason; the Episcopal church values the latter as much as the former.

And hrlngrv, the Episcopal Church does not seek to impose its decisions on the whole of the Anglican communion.  It is hilarious that you would call its actions "antidemocratic," as it is one of the very few provinces of the Anglican communion in which bishops are selected by the polity, and opposed to appointed.  There is no attempt to do ANYTHING at the "worldwide level" by the Episcopal Church, and to assert otherwise is incorrect.  Gene Robinson was elected by his diocese, and that election was affirmed (by a vote) in both houses of the General Convention.  It is the worldwide communion that seeks to override the democratic process of the American church, not the other way around.

December 29, 2008 5:01 PM

jhildner said:

hrlngrv:  We have the concept of human rights enforceable by courts because sometimes majorities are oppressive.  The trick is to determine when they're being oppressive.  But don't assume that the voters' decision is always legal or just, merely because it is a majority view.  If the founders had bought that assumption -- which was put forward, but rejected -- we would have no Bill of Rights and no effective mechanism to counteract popular tyranny.  The rights to equality before the law or freedom of expression, for example, are not properly up for a vote in our system, and, if they were, they would prove illusory because many violations of those rights have proved highly popular over the years.  I don't believe that Jesus had much to say about government or what constitutes a just government.  Perhaps this is because liberal democracy as we understand it both pre-dates and post-dates Jesus's time by significant spans.  Regardless, it's important to understand that liberal democracy entails more than mere democracy.  It's also liberal, in that it protects liberty -- the rights of the individual against the power of government, as well as the will of the majority when it seeks to express itself through that power.  If that sounds like the view of an "enlightened" elitist, well, perhaps it is, but it was the view of the very elite founding fathers and constitutes a bedrock principle of how a government ought to treat its citizens.  The question of how to treat gays, including whether we may legally or ethically deny them civil marriage, is not resolved by your posture of deferring to the voters.  You merely beg the question, which is whether popular preference in this case is justified and consistent with our best understanding of what it means to treat people fairly and equally under the law.

December 29, 2008 5:04 PM

gregorybutn said:

hrlngrv,

Thanks for your post, but...

While we may not know exact words of Jesus on nature of marrage, we do have the teaching of Paul in his Letter to the Romans.  

The First Chapter of Romans is pretty explicit, as Paul lectures the Romans on sexual behavior.

December 29, 2008 5:23 PM

timteeter said:

"In re traditions within the Christian church, the original church had men and women priests, married priests and bishops, and liturgies that bear little similarity to what's common now."

Um, no.  Despite the best efforts of apologists to find them, there is zero convincing evidence of women priests in the "original" (early?) church, except among gnostic heretics.  (Trust me on this one, I've been following this for a long time.) Married clergy, yes, but our earliest evidence suggests that, while obviously liturgy develops, a pretty clear line can be drawn from the earliest liturgies to later liturgical forms.

"A few thoughts -- PHIL, there is nothing in scripture to support a great deal of what either liberals or conservatives in the church do.  There is nothing in the scripture to support observance of Lent.  There is nothing in the scripture that supports the consecration of bishops, male, female, straight, gay.  (I invite you to provide me with citations, if you disagree,)  To insist upon the "traditional" is to buy the fallacy that tradition supersedes reason; the Episcopal church values the latter as much as the former."

On Lent, I seem to recall a certain passage about fasting in the desert forty days, hmmm?  And a good deal in the Gospels in general about fasting.  The idea of a specifically Lenten observance is as old as, well, Easter.  You can look it up.

There is plenty in Scripture (though probably not in the parts you like) about maintaining an apostolic college, making bishops, their qualifications, etc.  Start with Acts 1: 15-26, Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3, etc.  That these texts, standing along, can be construed in a variety of ways is no contrary argument, but rather calls for an interpretative context--that's what we call Tradition, which, as you say, is on a par with reason in Anglicanism, and not inferior to it, the "appeal to antiquity" being as old as the English reformation.

But this is already getting a bit far afield for a TNR blog, even one by Damon Linker.  I'll gladly let someone else have the last word.

December 29, 2008 5:49 PM

drdannyu said:

Tim, it's a pretty big leap from the passages you cite about having leaders in the church to the office of bishop.  In the second passage in Acts, Paul is addressing a group of elders, which is more in keeping with evangelical tradition in which I was raised than the episcopacy.  1 Timothy 3 is all about deacons; nothing about bishops.  You may, of course, interpret them how you wish, but there is nothing to directly link them with bishops per se.

Likewise, with Lent, it may be as old as Easter, but pray tell me where in the Bible Easter as we understand it was celebrated.

I am content that you would appeal to antiquity.  But I make no apologies for preferring modernity.

December 29, 2008 6:11 PM

timteeter said:

Not to continue the argument, 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 is, in fact, all about bishops.

December 29, 2008 7:57 PM

drdannyu said:

Still a stretch, Tim.  My version says "overseers," which could mean any number of things.  You may read "bishop," but that's an interpretive choice.

December 29, 2008 8:13 PM

hrlngrv said:

Lent and Easter - Jesus's 40 days in the desert came after his baptism but BEFORE his wandering in around, preaching, collecting disciples, and way before the original Easter. Where's the connection? Also, at least in the Orthodox churches, Advent is also a season of fasting.

Imagine that - liturgical fasting seasons just happening to coincide with the periods during the year when people in the northern hemisphere would find it most necessary to eat as little as possible.

The current Anglican communion doesn't seek to impose any policies on any national church, but there are many national churches that DO want clear universal policies. I'm not saying that's a good idea, just that it's a very clear desire of some national churches within the communion. There's no mechanism currently to produce them.

As for elections, wasn't the bishop elected by South Carolina clergy and laity rejected at the general  convention last year? This may be in accord with the church's established procedures, but doesn't that appear like the US congress having the power to unseat state governors?

Anyway, schism is either good for Christianity if not for its various denominations, or we're so totally screwed by now another just won't matter. I believe the former, and it seems to me it's just a matter of time before there are two worldwide communions: a shrinking one led by the archbishop of Canterbury and a growing one led by a conservative southern hemisphere bishop, and the US conservatives may very likely affiliate with the latter.

Finally, it's possible to view the right to abortion as a net good for society but Roe v Wade as in the same class of judicial obtuseness as Dred Scott. Same for state supreme court decisions on gay marriage. End fine, means suck. Support the means at your peril.

December 29, 2008 8:53 PM

timteeter said:

Greek "episkopos" = overseer, aka "bishop" (its English corruption)--as in the Episcopal Church.

There's a story that the Holy Catholic Church of Japan, founded by Episcopal missionaries from the US, was going to be called the Protestant Episcopal Church of Japan, until they discovered that, when translated into Japanese, this came out as "The Church of the Quarreling Overseers."

Oh, and hringrv, Advent is *supposed* to be a season of fasting in Anglicanism too (egg nog is what you're supposed to have *after *Christmas, made from all the stuff--dairy, eggs, etc.--you could not have during the pre-Christmas fast).  Look at the liturgical colors and furnishings for the season (purple, black).  It's just that everyone's forgotten.  As for connections, it has always been the tradition to fast before any feast.  However, the Orthodox are about the only ones left who care.

No, the bishop of South Carolina was not rejected by the General Convention.  He failed to receive the necessary number of consents from all diocesan standing committees in the first round.  He got it, after protests, in the second.

Goodness, this is getting way too inside baseball.  I've got to stop this.

December 29, 2008 9:30 PM

Bulbman1066 said:

The worst thing about the mainline Episcopal Church is its adherence to the National Council of Churches, whose stands on political issues are hard left:  anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist  "liberal" not as in The New Republic but in the neo-Stalinist Nation magazine mode.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is a knave and a fool who has called for the Muslims in Great Britain to be allowed to practice Sharia law.

The Episcopal Church is America and Great Britain today is a joke, a plaything of the pansy left.

Meanwhile the pro-western churches continue to grow.  I ain't religious, but I say God bless 'em!

December 29, 2008 10:42 PM

drdannyu said:

Tim, I will defer to your knowledge of Greek, and concede the bishop point.  Fair enough.

Disagree on the "appeal to antiquity" point, but I agree that this thread has gotten a wee bit inside baseball.

December 30, 2008 9:04 AM

drdannyu said:

Bulbman, I agree that the Archbishop is a knave and a fool.  Glad the Episcopal Church doesn't have to defer to him on anything.  I find your assertions about it being neo-Stalinist hilarious and ridiculous.

Oh, and it's great fun calling people pansies using a keyboard and a screen name.  I wonder how happily you would use those words if you had to say them to people's faces.

December 30, 2008 9:06 AM

Bulbman1066 said:

drdannyu, my use of the term "neo-Stalinist" is a reference to the history of American liberalism.   It refers to the split in 1948 between the pro-western supporters of Harry Truman and the supporters of Henry Walllace, who split from Democratic Party and ran under the banner of the Progressive Party, a Communist Front.  To put the split in terms of publications, the Nation was pro-Soviet and the New Republic pro-western.

That split has continued in various forms to this day, long after the demise of the Soviet Union.  The pro-western liberals of the New Republic are opposed to the various Islamofascist terrorist movements.  The Nation Magazine, Move.on, Code Pink types tend to give the Islamofascists the benefit of the doubt.  They deplore "excesses", but consider the terrorists to be justified in their war on the United States and other western countries.  The same goes for their attitudes toward the likes of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.  The leftists give them "critical support", the moderate liberals don't.

As for the phrase "pansy left", it's a quote from George Orwell.  It's not a phrase I would use to refer to any person in particular, but it does capture a certain political trend all too well.   There is a militant, bigoted wing of the gay rights movement, which is just as deplorable as the extremists on the other side.  When a woman loses her job for supporting a state proposition opposing gay marriage in California something has gone terribly wrong.

December 30, 2008 2:50 PM

Damon Linker said:

The prospect of Congress passing and President Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has inspired

February 22, 2009 9:32 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.