I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I apprehend the tone of Robert George’s post as sardonic and dismissive, but if that’s not the way you read it, then I suppose that demonstrates that there are at least two possible ways to read the post. I see George as more concerned that we should be respectful of conservatism and conservative religious belief than that we should be respectful of all religious belief. In many ways, it seems to me that a liberal Episcopalian has more in common with a Catholic than a (politically) conservative Mormon or Muslim. But George, it seems to me, would have us speak much more delicately when dealing with Mormonism or Islam than when dealing with liberal Episcopalians.

I think Jonathan Haidt makes a lot of sense in seeing religious and political disagreements as matters that people have intuitive positions on that only subsequent to holding the position do they arrive at justifying by reason. (I don’t think this is a bad thing. I think it is a human thing.) So there is a limit to what may be possible in one side making a rational argument trying to change the mind of the other side.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of conscience, “”Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” The problem is that my “inner voice” may not be telling me the same thing as Robert George’s tells him. Of course, things are much, much more complicated than that, but it’s the best I can do in this little box.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet when it comes to Dr. George and therefore extend the least charitable reading possible. Fine. ‘Different strokes’ and all that. But the fact that he speaks quite accurately in describing both the political tenor of San Francisco and the theological tenor of the ECUSA (including the vast majority of her bishops) should offer ample evidence (and does) of his genuine intent for less suspicious minds.

But let me ask again — aside from your inference with respect to tone, where is ~any~ evidence of intolerance or hypocrisy in this post? As for your notion that Dr. George would be displeased if someone spoke similarly of Catholics (or others) isn’t his response to Bishop Andrus a direct contradiction to your supposition? Andrus (after all) does exactly what you claim is “intolerant” in George — he extends an invitation to disaffected Catholics….

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2012/10/05/california-bishop-andrus-denied-seating-at-rc-archbishops-installation/

It seems to me George is basically dismissive of the Episcopal Church itself and his tone throughout is sardonic. I certainly don’t think Bishop Marc Andrus—whom, oddly, George never mentions by name—is beyond criticism. But George says: “Well, it is San Francisco. And we are talking about an Episcopalian bishop.” The second sentence turns a criticism of one Episcopalian bishop into a criticism of all Episcopalian bishops. Why wouldn’t we expect the guy to be some kind of crackpot? He is an Episcopalian bishop, after all.

Then George’s last paragraph, to me, implies that the Episcopal Church has only trivialities to offer Catholics who choose to convert.

It really quite suspect that Robert George wouldn’t be pleased if someone spoke of the Catholic Church (or Mormons, or Muslims) using the same tone he employs here. I don’t know that it’s so much a matter of “tolerance” as respect or charity.

All of this asks a question. In this Year of Faith and with the New Evangelization what are our obligations to the souls of all the men, women, and children who live in that ceded territory?