Yes, a very interesting and worthwhile article. As I commented there, much of the problem seems to be whether one regards "belief" as a personal judgment and opinion, or an absolute axiom and entry requirement to a Group. There's no doubt that Robin's dropping of capital letters on his beliefs and acknowledging of fallibility of his ideas puts him outside the bounds of what many of us have encoutered in our contacts with the CR.

Something I said elsewhere about religious conservatives, and will repeat here:

"I suspect there might be more debate around [the specific issue in question] than most people would think. Of course, part of the process of igniting that debate is having the ability to speak to social conservatives with arguments that come from their own values. And that, of course, requires a certain degree of understanding and empathy for the various strands of religious movements and their political roles.

The Democrats remain largely tone-deaf on those matters, much as the Republican Party remains largely tone-deaf when it comes to the black community. Robin's meta-point is that it would be a great loss if libertarian conservatives mimiced that tone deafness, and it's a good one.

Religious conservatives have good and justifiable reason to fear the state, and worry about arbitrary uses of its power. Libertarian-leaning conservatives who can step into the social conservatives' world won't always find agreement - but their efforts will be rewarded with an ability to find overlooked allies. Allies who may not have realized their own commonality of interest if not for a sympathetic interlocutor.

It's a process that's likely to change both wings of the right over time. Over the past 20 years, I've seen the libertarian right become more receptive to arguments about the importance of the values that underpin the endurance of their freedoms. I've also seen quite a few social conservative (here's one) become more conscous of the importance of the freedoms that underpin the endurance of their values.

Thus endureth the Big Tent, and the Governing Majority."

Some interesting points, Joe, but a bit peculiar in that many of these same social conservatives expect the state to enforce their own views on who gets married, who makes reproductive decisions, what curricula get taught.

Governing majorities are all very well, but not at the expense of individual liberty. (Once again, see Federalist No. 51 for the Framers' views on that subject). And what social conservatives seem to seek, at least from an outsider's view, is social control not over their lives but, through government, over others.

A trait that also matches many liberals and all leftists I know. All that changes is where they want the control exercised, and where those attempts freak them out.

By confronting the fact that their counterparts exist on the other side and that these folks would threaten what they hold dear with state power, increased government control suddenly has a down side as well as an up side.

Which isn't entirely a bad thing.

Meanwhile, there is a trend away from some of the "constitution is whatever judges decide it ought to be" school of thought, and this is likely to produce gradual changes in the U.S. legal environment. Those gored by the changes will complain as they find their previous hegemony slipping away, and that's politics.

Which is what the courts have largely become. This has consequences, and they will become far more acute before the situation improves.

My preferred universe is one where religious conservatives no longer believe (with no small justification) that the power of the state is being deployed to actively attack them and their families, in ways that go beyond the original intent with respect to church and state. Meanwhile, I would also wish to see the justices of the bench fully uphold civil rights as exist in the Constitution. Which may not be the same thing thing as "whatever they construe to be there," and so Bob and I can easily agree on principle and yet differ in individual cases.

Indeed, Joe, and that agreement on principle is fine as long as the individual case isn't a pivotal one, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court decided that criminalizing people on the basis of personal relationship wasn't in keeping with several different provisions of the U.S. Constitution, notably substantive due process and equal protection under the law.

It's interesting that the social-conservative discussion is itself somewhat pivotal. Here I am, someone who is a weekly churchgoer, a retired Army Reserve officer, who derives considerable household income off investment and real property, a supporter of Israel, someone who would like to marry, and someone who finds Arnold Scharzenegger somewhat preferable to his predecessor (the latter someone I've met) -- and yet repulsed utterly by the Republican party. (Note: my county used to be represented by moderate and liberal Republicans, whom I voted for, but they are gone: they sought the Havens long ago.)

You mention the Constitution being what judges might decide it to be: judicial fiat is not a "democratic" method of governing but it is what the Framers set up as a way of checkmating populist or parliamentary tyranny. Sometimes it works. I'm seeing some wisdom in states' rights over an overweening Federal government, and even some wisdom in Antonin Scalia's opinions (at least, when his spleen isn't flaring up) -- whenever it upholds individual liberty against institutional attack, and that goes for Congress, popular majorities, or ecclesiastical demands. Judicial review is what the Framers -- see Federalist No. 78 -- held out as the counterweight:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves ... "