Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Blatham,

I agree the devil is in the remedies themselves. Bad or unduly restrictive remedies can (and do) as often come from religious and secularly motivated advocates equally.

In making his judgements about what ought to become part of our civil law, whether prohibiting something or supporting/requiring it, any advocate (Taliban or N.O.W. or ACLU) must make rational judgements about the degree to which their individual preferences ought to become the norm for everyone. No one is entitled to the full expression of his or her preferred belief system in our political life. However, everyone has a right to the same presumption of good behavior, and to equal participation in the dialogue & process. No one, not Pat Robertson or the head of NAMBLA is excluded from the party merely by virtue of his beliefs.

I believe that abortion is morally wrong. However I don't advocate that it be made illegal for everyone at all times. I see no need for the government to be made to enforce my concepts of morality. Further, the practical facts of our civil society require a balanced approach to this issue.

The variety of human beliefs makes the process of finding the right compromise in these areas quite difficult. An abstract attention to every conceivable belief, regardless of the real facts of the matter, will not lead to a sufficient level of justice and effectiveness. The rules of the society must be grounded in the facts of it. The essential virtue of the so far very successful Anglo Saxon approach to civil democracy has been a very pragmatic approach to the resolution of such matters, and one based on a degree of civility and mutual respect. I believe that is indeed the best approach if it can be maintained. The Lolas, Robertsons, and ACLU types worry me because they threaten that civility. (The abstract, theoretical approach can be left to the wogs and the frogs.)

0 Replies

george

Had you grown up near my community, and had we seen you carrying your skates and stick as you came trudging across some farmer's field towards the frozen pond, we would have pegged you right away as a natural goal tender..."there's someone who AIN'T gonna let a puck past if it KILLS him"

You insist on 'equal' in your second sentence. That's a mental formula you use, it isn't anything empirical. It allows for detail, but not for difference. And difference is the point.

The ACLU and Robertson are not the same. But I don't think you wish to travel into that differentiation anywhere further than your formula that they are equal.

You stand, pretty consistently, in defence of the presence, perhaps the dominance, of Christian notions within our societies. You place, also consistently, secularism in opposition to Christian notions. You argue, again consistently, that both are equally matters of faith or dogma and there is no means of establishing any greater quality of truthfullness to either.

So long as you hold to this formula, we can't really get anywhere. We'll have to duel. Noon. Potato guns on main street, or vying interpretations of the part of Figaro as sung by Liberace...your choice.

0 Replies

and...if we can take nimh to task for 'duh', then we can jump on you for 'wogs and frogs'

0 Replies

Blatham,

I threw out the 'wogs and frogs' bit because it amused me and to piss you off. (but you knew that!)

I did play lots of hockey on frozen ponds on the farm in Michigan. However, I liked the checking and the stick work more than being a target at the goal. Besides my ankles got tired. It was a great metaphor though.

Did you mean third sentence, second paragraph? Do you believe that religiously motivated people have a less than equal right to participation in our political process? If so I would find that truly remarkable (and scary). Of course the ACLU and Robertson are not the same. However both have equal political rights of expression and advocacy. Further, I believe that to preserve our civil society and liberty, both must accept limits on the degree to which their beliefs can or should be represented in our civil law. Please note that, self-assumed names notwithstanding, both represent private associations of people with a certain point of view. Nothing more.

I don't "place " secularism anywhere, particularly "in opposition to Christian notions". I have merely used these words to describe disagreements that have actually occurred and which continue. I do not suggest that "there is no means of establishing any greater quality of truthfulness...". I merely note the absence of agreement on significant issues, and the greater absence of agreement on a means by which ALL of the necessary elements of truthfulness can be established. If you believe that such accepted standards exist, I would be glad to hear about them. (Please don't give me science. That is good for physics, but no more, as most physicists readily acknowledge.)

Noon OK. Potato guns OK too. However I prefer Nessum Dorma sung by Pavarotti. Vincera!

0 Replies

Blatham - But Lola didn't single out Pat Robertson, she singled out FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS.

Look, you are welcome to justify it any way you choose, but if it isn't anti-Christian bigotry, it is its first cousin.

Let me ask you this: Should the fact that a person is a Christian automatically preclude that person from having the right to free speech in this country?

0 Replies

No, but it could be adduced as a cautionary signal with regard to the exercise of our civil liberties.

0 Replies

Being of the Right wing Conservative Christian type and also VERY active in politics through my local Republican party, I think it is important to hear out EVERYONE and to give EVERYONE a voice because thats what we are supposed to stand for.

We have several members of my Countys Republican party that are obnoxious, foam at the mouth, loud p.i.t.a's. , but I feel that they are important to hear from time to time to help keep us open to everyone's ideas.

My feeling is, if a larger segment of our population is allowed to silence even the smallest and most offensive groups in this country, that just opens the door for them to someday stifle YOUR right to speak just because the 'majority' doesn't agree with your views.

This is not just a slippery slope, its a greased cliff leading to censorship and loss of our basic rights under the Constitution.

Just remember:
People have the right to speak and make as big an ass of themselves as they want. Just as it's your right to stand up and walk away if you don't like what they are saying.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, but it could be adduced as a cautionary signal with regard to the exercise of our civil liberties.

So you are comfortable minimizing someone's opinion based on their religion?

Good to know.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

This is not just a slippery slope, its a greased cliff leading to censorship and loss of our basic rights under the Constitution.

Glad to see we can agree on something with so much passion, Fedral.

Quote:

Just remember: People have the right to speak and make as big an ass of themselves as they want. Just as it's your right to stand up and walk away if you don't like what they are saying.

Actually, I take a different tack. I prefer to encourage them to keep on talking. Often they do a better job of making my case than I can.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

So you are comfortable minimizing someone's opinion based on their religion?

Good to know.

What a jerk. As usually is your technique, you take what someone writes, and twist it into something which you can then despise. My remark was simply that the religiosly fanatic are to be watched, as they would curtail the civil liberties of others, given the opportunity. I don't minimize anyone's opinion, nor do i minimize the potential threat of the fanatic successfully implementing an authoritarian agenda.

Pull your playground forensic tricks on somebody else, Scrat.

0 Replies

Frank,
Thanks for your kind comments on this and in your earlier post.

I am glad that people whos political philosophies can be very far apart can maintain an aura of civility and maturity.

I have quit other posting boards when they disintegrated into a mass of hate and rhetoric where no one was listening, they were just ranting.

My thanks to everyone who posts and maintains a civil attitude even when totally disagreeing with the other person.

0 Replies

The heart of the matter?

Quote:

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.

I feel that the Right Wing Christians wish to dominate America and zealously feel that their concepts should be followed by everyone. That is the nub of my resistance. They have media control in newspapers, radio and TV. That makes their "voice" just a bit more dominant than other groups. When Rev. Falwell "speaks" his statements can cause deaths. Is he directly responsible for those deaths? No. Is he indirectly responsible? Yes. I have personally heard him say that Muslims should accept Jesus as their savior. Obliquely implying that if they don't they are doomed to spend eternity in Hell.

These sorts of statements are insane in my view but yeah he has a right to espouse them. Does he have a right to cause riots and deaths with his various statements? Seems that he does. Isn't this what the topic of this thread is essentially about?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Scrat wrote:
So you are comfortable minimizing someone's opinion based on their religion?

Good to know.

What a jerk. As usually is your technique, you take what someone writes, and twist it into something which you can then despise. My remark was simply that the religiously fanatic are to be watched, as they would curtail the civil liberties of others, given the opportunity. I don't minimize anyone's opinion, nor do i minimize the potential threat of the fanatic successfully implementing an authoritarian agenda.

Pull your playground forensic tricks on somebody else, Scrat.

Geez, lighten up, you're wearing a Santa hat, for chrissake! Very Happy

Sorry if I can't get past the notion that singling out an opinion as problematic because of the religion of the person expressing it (in whole or in part) is bigotry. (I don't think you mean it to be bigotry, I just assume that if you actually think that way you simply haven't thought it through.) If you don't like the opinion, attack the opinion. If you don't like the religion, attack that. But try to keep the two separate. That's one of the things that religious freedom is supposed to guarantee us in this country. The right to be wrong because God tells us to be wrong, and have it be our fault, and not God's. :wink:

Now, if that's "playground" of me, I guess I'll go hit the swings for a bit. I love those things! Cool

0 Replies

Re: The heart of the matter?

pistoff wrote:

I feel that the Right Wing Christians ... have media control in newspapers, radio and TV.

Yeah, I heard that Fallwell and Robertson worked together on the pilot for Will and Grace before putting up the capital for Ellen's new talk show. Then Robertson ponied up the cash for an executive producer credit on Queer As Folk while Fallwell went on sabbatical to brainstorm storylines for the next season of Temptation Island. Oh, and I heard Fallwell is considering doing an episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Right Wing Christian Guy where they're going redo his bedroom in this whole Shroud of Turin theme and teach him how to coordinate his wardrobe with each Bible he owns.

0 Replies

I'll never catch up here. It's Christmas, and Lola has to shop...............I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.........

But I would like to say Scrat, in addition to the fine remarks already made by others...........that I don't "minimize anyone's opinion based on their religion." If I weren't so busy celebrating the birth of Jesus by the irresponsible use of rampant materialism, I would have been here sooner to say so.

I think you've misread or misunderstood my intention.........and perhaps I could have stated it more precisely. But I judge the opinions of others based on my best attempt to understand the rationality or lack of rationality of that opinion. This group of people, who I tried to identify by saying "fundamentalist Christians" is a specific sub-culture with which I am very familiar. I've yet to find a good designation with which to identify them.

They are an organized group of people bent on denying the civil rights of those with whom they do not agree. And they aren't concerned with the problem of one group's rights violating or interfering with the rights of others. They do it because the exercise of certain rights violates their obsessively held, fanatical defenses. They don't feel safe unless they can control others. They do this based on their belief that the ends justify the means.

And while george is right about one thing, everyone does this...........that's not at all the point. This particular group, maintains beliefs that will severely restrict the rights of other groups. And it's for each of us to judge whether we think their ideas are fair. They are, in my judgement, fanatics, whether we consider their religion or not. They use their religion as an excuse to impose their beliefs, unfairly onto others. That's the danger.

Does this clear any thing up for you? Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Now back to the disgusting materialism of the season.

Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

Scrat,

Really, what is the obsession these guys have about gays and lesbians? Why can't they just live and let? I really don't get it unless we can understand it as a threat to their own sense of safety. In that case, it's a problem they have and should not be imposed on others.

But as to the media control.........have you heard of Rupert Murdock, Tom Hicks and Clear Channel?

0 Replies

It is a playground tactic, Scrat, because of your inevitable "In other words" style of responding to my post, or any other post with which you wish to disagree. You seems to always either attempt to set up a straw man (as in this case, by characterizing what i wrote in an inappropirate manner), or attempt reductio ad absurdum, restating someone's post so as to make it look ridiculous. Try responding to exactly what i've written, as opposed to a more facile statement on your part that you feel comfortable knocking down or ridiculing.

I haven't devalued the opinion of the religious, simply identified it as dangerous. This is not different than acknowledging the right of, say, the white supremacists to hold and express an opinion, which i nevertheless identify as potentially dangerous. Your quibble about a difference between the religion and the opinion is meaningless, the religion is the opinion to which i object, and my objection is simply that those with millenarian style religious beliefs bear watching because of a likelihood that such believers would control the lives of others given the opportunity.

0 Replies

The pond-hockey thug from Michigan wrote

Quote:

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.

george
Let's try to pick up a few loose ends...in this sentence above, two things stand out for me. First, it doesn't discriminate between versions of religious belief, and some are clearly more dangerous to liberty than are others. We must be able to engage this question and not disallow any criticism of a faith group simply because of the faith element.

I agree that the presence or absence of theism or religion is not an aceptable discriminator for participation in discourse (or in governance). Except as it relates to what I've just said. For example, I'd be quite unalarmed to see Malcolm Muggeridge or the Dalai Lama or Joseph Campbell or Desmund Tutu arriving in the presidency or onto the Supreme Court. But Billy Grapham's son is a different kettle of fish. What makes the one case different from the others is the nature of the belief system held, and the consequences of that for liberty.

The second thing that stands out for me there is how the converse of what you worry about is perhaps more real. I believe there is absolutely no chance at all that a self-admitted atheist could achieve the Presidency.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

This group of people, who I tried to identify by saying "fundamentalist Christians" is a specific sub-culture with which I am very familiar. I've yet to find a good designation with which to identify them.

They are an organized group of people bent on denying the civil rights of those with whom they do not agree.

Okay, I get that, and I can see that the idea that you are trying to get across, but do me a favor... substitute "JEWS" for "fundamentalist Christians" and see how it sounds to you.

Here's what you wrote in your opening salvo:

Quote:

...it's not about the helpful or harmless forms of religion. It's about religion of over simplified polarities, religion that devalues science and aims to control through guilt and deceit.

This is what I meant when I wrote this:

Quote:

What bigotry to stand up and say, "I'm now going to help you identify which religions are okay and which ones are not."

What's the opposite of "helpful" and "harmless"? "Destructive" and "dangerous", perhaps? (That's what it implies to me.) It looks to me like you began this discussion by stating that fundamentalist Christianity (the religion) is neither helpful nor harmless (which implies that it is destructive and dangerous). You wrote this ABOUT THE RELIGION.

Again, as I wrote to Setanta, I don't think you are trying to be bigoted, I can only tell you that what I read you writing read like bigoted statements to me. I am convinced that you would not make similar statements about blacks or Jews or women, which alone should show you that I have a point. You would not write that this is not about one of the "helpful or harmless" races. I suspect that the reality is that you disagree with these people AND you do not see them as a protected group (or a group worthy of protection) and so perhaps in your mind it is somehow not possible to be bigoted towards them. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to write that you don't see them as being deserving of the civility and respect that you would show to others. Hey, isn't that a pretty good description of the attitudes many in this country used to have towards blacks?

0 Replies

You are making assumptions, Scrat, at least in my case. Given both contemporary reports, as well as the historical record, were the subject misogyny or anitsemitism, and the object black males, i would likely opine that black males bear watching because of a history of misogyny and antisemitism. Were the subject mysogyny or racial prejudice against blacks, and the object were Jewish males, i'd take the same attitude for the same reaons.

Charismatic and millenarian christian sects have a long history of advocating control of society in order to avert God's wrath for what those sects identify as a sinful society. In my mind, that means they bear watching. For whatever Lola may have meant, that is what i meant.

By the way, bigotry means the belief that one is the member of a superior group. The bigot does not practice bigotry against another group, bigotry leads, very likely, to prejudice against outsiders. Take, for example, fundamentalist christians who believe that they have a righteous view of sexuality, and therefore condemn homosexuals.

0 Replies

Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know