Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

I admit.
First off:



A real pleasant surprise. It seems that this may be a rare stand among Conservatives. Yet, perhaps not. We have 5 or 6 Conservatives here that I know of. It is hard to gage who is Conservative or Libertarian at times. The differences are much more difficult to discern.

I am trying to understand Lola's POV. I do understand that in America that groups do have the right to forward their agendas.
We could just as well mention the Aryian Nation's agenda, as well as hundred of other groups that want our society to to be modeled around their concepts. So, it would be helpful if the topic was spelled out in simple terms.

The last time, it seems that the discussion ended up with one concept: Control.

scrat

Perhaps we ought to think of Pat Robertson in the way we thought about Stokey Carmichael or Malcolm X.

To have criticized and spoken against such individuals and their ideas of social and government policy, which were intimately connected to racial/cultural identification, wasn't to be racist, even if that charge was predictably leveled.

What if it had happened that those people and the movements they represented had gained the sort of power within the democratic party which Robertson's crowd has gained within the Republican party? To have argued against them - indeed, to have singled them out through the identifying characteristic of their ideas (which were, again, intimately connected with race) would surely have been labeled racist.

In the realm of political discourse, where a religious group acts as a political agent, they lose any SPECIAL status or protection they might have as a religion, for in that instance, they have themselves redefined who they are within the community.

Lola (and I) will not be bother a nonce by anything Pat Robertson may do as regards worship, belief, or practice of faith. Two separate things here.

The true allegiance of Robertson and those like him seems to be to power, not some nebulous deity.

hobit

I'm not sure I'd word it that way. I admit I am dubious that anyone in the modern age might have the zeal and theistic certainty of Savonarola, but some humans are really nuts, so it's possible.

But that is the fellow, and the mission, which I think one might profitably compare Robertson to. The quest for power is necessary in such a mission, but not necessarily the prime target (though Lola, an analyst, would likely disagree with my distinction)

Blatham,

Excesses of zeal and moral certainty (theistic or otherwise) have done a great deal of harm in past ages and in the modern age as well. The "elimination of the irreconcilables" (as Lenin put it) consumed the lives of tens of millions in both the Soviet Union and China, Castro too did his bit in the months after after the revolution that brought him to power. It would be very difficult to make the case, based on historical events, that the theistic version of moral certainty has done more harm than atheistic or secular versions.

Likewise intolerance is intolerance and the enemy of liberty and freedom, whether or not the particular version of intolerance that afflicts one is based on religion or anti religion, or even something else.

I believe these are ideas that Lola would do well to contemplate for more than a moment.

Stoning
Why didn't the Jews and the Taliban stone men for commiting adultry?

I stand with Fedral and I'm a Clinton Democrat.
I'm not pro-choice in the sense that I believe that women have the choice to abort their unborn. But I'm pro-choice in the sense that I cannot impose my beliefs on others.

On the subject of tolerance. One can be tolerant yet still stand firm on one's own moral beliefs. It seems that just like the right hijacked the word "patriotism" the left has hijacked the word "tolerance." Tolerance is not acceptance of the absurd.

Tolerance is, however, acceptance of another's absurdity so long as it is not, in Holme's words, a clear and present danger. And patriotism can consist in pointing out that the powers that be, or the "moral majority," if ever there were one, are absurd.

george

Certainty is always a bit presumptuous, I agree. By the way, I'm still not sure if you ever got my point from an earlier conversation regarding the invisible green elf on my head.

I don't think you can find a case where I've argued that religion is responsible for wars, etc. I usually argue against this commonplace claim. You also won't find instances where I've argued that religious behavior is meritless, as I don't hold that to be so.

You will find cases where I argue that many specifics of traditional Christian theology are downright foolish, and instances where I argue that faith groups lose any special dispensation when they move into social and political advocacy.

Above, I made allusion to the black power movement as an instance where a segment of a social group advanced political notions which were inextricable from race identification, yet which I think clearly merited criticism. Is this an example of 'intolerance'. I really would not have liked Malcolm X to gain much political clout, because I think the consequences would likely have been negative for liberty.

It is in the same sense which I criticize the influence of the evangelical right. Is that intolerance?

"Is that intolerance?" Hard to know in the abstract. I do believe that, based on statements in this and the previous thread on this subject, that Lola has crossed that line.

My key point , however,was to shift your emphasis from "theocratic certainty" to "moral certainty". Beating people on the heads is wrong, whether one does it for religious or other motives is beside the point.

"Social and political issues" are not the private preserve of any moral or ethical school, religious or irreligious, or otherwise. They are the stuff of human interactions, regardless of whether the motives or outlook of the humans in question are theistic, religious, the opposite, or something entirely different.

Even if it isn't a clear and present danger I don't need to accept something like alien abductions to be tolerant.

george

I won't speak for Lola here.

I don't claim what your first sentence might suggest I am claiming. I did say I refuse to continue any prior dispensation granted a religious individual or group once they become active in the polity. So, for example, if the High Dervish starts attempting to influence laws and standards regarding pollution or abortion, he becomes available for criticism and satire precisely at that point he enters the political arena. And that his followers may be offended is no longer a valid constraint.

Has he a role in political discussion? Sure, no reason why not. Do I want him in a position where he might act to constrain others. No, I don't.

And here's where you go off the rails. You insist that there is no difference between Pat Robertson and myself. Both have ideas and values. Neither are distinguishable in any way other than the shallow coloration of bias.

But you have it wrong. Pat would like the Ten Commandments in every school, and would have 'Creation Science' taught (preferably without mention of Darwin's ideas)

I, on the other hand, would be happy to have the Ten Commandments posted in school - for one week, then for the next week, information on Buddhism, followed by a week on animism, etc. The ONLY thing I would seek to prevent is the forwarding of A SINGLE EXCLUSIVE religion.

If anyone could convince me that 'creation science' was anything but a rear-guard action to thwart the loss of biblical authority, then I could entertain it's inclusion alongside Darwinian notions, but again, it would have to be balanced by origin tales from the Maori and the Haida, etc.

The evangelical right does not value the quest for freedom of ideas, it seeks to proscribe ideas.

Blatham,

What you say may be true of some members of the religious right. However it is not a generally truthful proposition. Moreover there are, as well, avowedly secular advocates who, left to their devices, would restrict our freedom and the terms of our discorse and education every bit as much ('tho, perhaps in different ways) as those on the right that you excoriate. The two are equivalent. The religious characteristic is neither a reliable nor an accurate discriminator.

george

For goodness sakes....equivalence everywhere for you.

Those claims I made are NOT described most accurately as 'true of some members'. They are most accurately described as platform positions of Pat Robertson's group, and it is that group which consequently is not a positive force for liberty.

That they are a religious group just happens to be true, it isn't what makes them of concern, for goodness sakes. That's the relevance of the black power example. It wasn't their race or their ethnicity that deserved attention, but what policies they would/might have advanced when in power.

And please list for me what freedoms I might restrict.

Wow, y'all, this discussion is interesting and not at all along the usual party lines........I must apologize because I started the thread again because I had something to post and nowhere to post it, but I've been dreadfully busy all day. I'll join in tomorrow. Very interesting so far.

I think the real danger of teaching creationism in schools even as just a story is that even Christians can't agree among themselves how literally to interprete it.

We did read the book of Job in for my English class in a public high school. And we had an edited version of the 10 commandments up in my classroom in 3rd grade though that was a long time ago.

I think that most conservative Christians would be for teaching all religions in school. I learned about all the major world religions in school though it was only a basic overview. I really enjoyed my religious studies courses in college. I went to a very diverse state university and even on those few occassions during class when there would be disagreements on certain religious interpretations, it only sparked more interest and healthy discussion.

I have not written, nor is it implicit in what i wrote, that you have to "accept" alien abductions, or anything else which you consider nonsense. Tolerance consists in not attempting to proscribe the foolish for their foolishness. It does you not one ounce of harm that some self-deluded individual passionately propounds that alien abductions occur, and tolerance simply consists in not interferring with the harmless crackpot. If you think that is unacceptable, than you are intolerant.

Which makes me thing of the 'seeding' thesis (life placed here by an extra-terrestrial agency). It's another notion kicking about on the question of 'where did life come from?', and it could as reasonably be taught in schools as Creationism.

Blatham,

I don't think or suggest that you would knowingly restrict the freedom or liberty of anyone based solely on his or her beliefs. You are not, in my view, utterly without redeeming merit. Hell, even Lola has her moments.

I am, however, trying to point out that the presence or absence of theism or religion in one's belief system is neither a useful nor an acceptable (to me) discriminator for the presence or absence of tolerance on the part of that person (or group), or of the rights of that person for full participation in our social & political discourse, including seeking his desired remedies. Every human has the same rights in this area, regardless of his belief system, and regardless of his motives concerning the issue at hand. Religiously motivated people and anti religiously motivated people have the same political rights.

My experience of life suggests that intolerance can be found in every belief system, every social class and every walk of life. It is an individual choice, perhaps influenced by education, experience, and various psychological factors. I observe as much of it among some secular advocates of political correctitude as I do among some religious people.

I'm saying that Pat Robertson has as much right to comment on and seek his desired remedies concerning social/political matters as does Lola. Further both he and Lola demonstrate equivalent levels of intolerance - they are just directed at different things.

george

Fair enough, in most particulars. Just aside, Lola and I have had some extended conversations on the matter of religious belief and behavior, and we have our areas of agreement and other areas where we disagree.
Here's where you and I are at odds. It is precisely as regards the desired or proposed 'remedies'. By 'remedies', you of course mean social and political policies and laws.

Not all such remedies are equal. Clearly, from your passages above, you hold to the values of pluralism and to a Millian notion of the advantages that accrue from a free flow of opinions and ideas (indeed, the necessity for such a free flow of ideas in a vital democracy).

The Taliban doesn't share those two values. Nor, I am arguing, does Robertson and many other evangelical leaders (though obviously there is a difference in magnitude here). This puts them in a unique category, and one which must be differentiated from Lola's stance (on the issue of Robertson et al).

You and I would seek to counteract the rise to real power of the Taliban precisely because it would act against a whole range of pluralist and free thought principles - for example, shoving other religious notions out of sight, as they are 'false'.

Your and my 'intolerance' of such a 'remedy' would have to implicate religion, because the Taliban's desired remedy is inextricable from their religious beliefs. But your and my intolerance is ONLY directed at the consequences for liberty which would arise from the Taliban's intolerance. There's a category difference in play here.

If a political party started up, and moved somehow into a position of real power, and if it's platform was exclusionary of other political voices ("when we get voted in, we will subsequently derail or outlaw all future elections and parties"), then that 'remedy' shifts into a different category than all other platforms.

Do take a good look at these polling questions and answers of evangelical leaders. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/124/story_12447_1.html