perception wrote:
Quote:When you destroy a persons values and belief systems confusion is created and the end result could be disastrous----as a psychoanalyst would you not agree with this?
In answer to this question, perc, .........yes and no. Religion serves a very important integrative function for many people, I agree. (This is not a comment on the truth or untruth of any particular religion.) Whether it's true or not, it does serve an important function for many and when it's questioned, it does cause internal disequilibrium......anxiety and the treat of depression. I've never advocated denying anyone their religious beliefs. Nor do I think it productive to expect sudden change. I personally am better off without religion. For me religion is too confining and I believe I function better with the recognition that it is me I'm depending on, whether I call it God or not. This is my view. And my idea is as important to me as anyone's religion. It serves an integrative function for me as well. I take comfort in the idea. So I want to make it clear that I am only upset with fundamentalist evangelical right-wing politics because I think it's an attempt on their part to take from me what they believe I want to take from them. They are free to believe as they do. As I am...........and I would like to protect that freedom. Believe me, perc, this group has no good intentions about freedom of religion. They intend to impose on us what they themselves fear.
I know from my personal experience with them that they need, and intend to get, a confirmation of their beliefs in the form of forcing others to believe as they do. They have no understanding of the concept of individual perceptions and function. They believe there is one true way and they fear any demonstration of the falseness of this claim. It is this belief of theirs, which is intrinsic and fundamental in their system, that concerns me. They are not able to allow, and do not intend to allow for individual differences. Their method is one of coercion and control. Influence for them is not enough.
So in answer to your question above. As I said, yes and no. Yes it's destructive to try to force others to give up their internal system of integration, of meaning, but no, it's not unreasonable to expect a respect for the beliefs of others and to leave room for those beliefs to be expressed. I think also it's reasonable to expect rational thought and debate on issues such as abortion, gay rights, environmental concerns, over population, human rights in primitive cultures (such as the subrogation of women and minorities.)
I know their objection to homosexual marriage and abortion, etc. is based on their belief that these are evils that threaten the fabric of our society and they are a crime against humanity. But my problem with that is that they do not take a rational approach to the question. They close their eyes to a massive injustice (over population and the violation against the rights of women in third world countries, for instance) in favor of some absolute rule, appealing to authority (interpreted according to them). This primitive form of religion is destructive, IMO and I will work to counteract it. How to solve this problem, I don't know. Public debate and an appeal to reason is all I know how to do........that and the democratic process. And when I fear that even the democratic process is threatened, then I get upset. (And to be specific, the threat to the democratic process in this case is because they are not being honest with their agenda, so voters do not know what they are voting for.)
Whatever a person's religious beliefs, there has to be provision for us all to believe as we do, not as we are forced to believe. Respect for individuality is the over riding principle for me. Take the whole issue of "family values." Or of "pro-life." I value the family and life. I am pro both of these. But listen to the insistence on their parts that I do not, simply because my family values and idea of enhancing life is different then theirs. If the debate were framed as a difference in family values or a difference in a belief system about what constitutes life, then I would be happy as a pig at the troth. If they were content to let those who need an abortion and have no ethical qualms about it get the abortion they need, letting each person struggle within themselves to answer this question and to not have an abortion if they believe it's wrong, then I would be fine. If they don't want to be homosexual or marry someone of the same sex, that is fine with me. But to tell others they cannot because they think it's "wrong" is not fair IMO. I'm willing to give them their freedom, but they are not willing to give me or others who disagree with them ours. That's my beef.