So which is it?
You have the President talking about a Third Great Awakening, and now you have the Family Research Council (and friends) saying religion is under attack. Which is it? Facing imminent demise, or flowering in a manner unseen since the Age of Jacksonian Democracy?
It must be frightening to live in a country where your only protection from persecution is having a majority of the House, Senate, and the entire Executive Branch (not to mention an ever-growing portion of the Judicial Branch) in your hip pocket. Must be like Europe in the early '40s for these guys. Maybe they should organize...
posted by Pete @ 9/14/2006 02:54:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Simple ignorance, of course.
One particular anecdote struck me as the "catch all sentiment" that enables folks like me (i.e. an atheist who couldn't give a rat's ass about gay marriage at all) to criticize Perkins and the FRC defense of their gay marriage position: "Perkins specifically cited the decision by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June to fire his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as "persons of sexual deviancy.""
Um, yeah . . . a civil servant referring to a minority sect of the population as "sexually deviant" presents an open grounds argument for biases and harassment within the public system. Even Bush has the sense not to demonize the homosexuals in his criticisms of gay marriage, instead focusing on the issues of home environment for children and such. In a world where radical Muslims continually defend their actions and sentiments through the tenets of The Koran, I would think the Religious Right would be more cognizant of how their preaching, especially when they filter into the public arena, are not that dissimilar in tone from those of our Muslim enemies.
Quoth Gantoris222:
Yeah, their tone is so similar - because the Religious Right is chopping off the heads of innocent *non-Christians* and blowing up large crowds of innocent people to just to further their cause? Preposterous...
But is it really so preposterous? Think of "Right to Life" extremists murdering doctors and blowing up abortion clinics. Think of mass suicides by various Christian cults.
Anyway, the comparison between radical Islam and radical Christianity is a valid one to me because the rhetorical and theoretical underpinnings of both groups show stark similarity.
The words we need to be focusing on here are radical and fundamentalist. To me, it does not matter what word comes after that, i.e. radical Muslim == radical Christian == radical atheist == radical animal rights activist.
If one deems a persons personal belief based in their understanding of Christian principals as biased and harrasing, and that it should exclude them from public office or being a civil servant - then one has now said anyone who holds standard Christian belief's are not fit to serve in that role. I find that most folks who make that argument don't see how contradictory it is...yes?”
I don’t think that this was what Todd was saying. I believe his point was, and correct me, Todd, if I’m wrong, is that as a public official you cannot use your position to deride segments of the population/pass moral judgments on those whose lifestyles, beliefs are different from yours.
There are plenty of public officials, elected and appointed, with strong moral convictions (based on religious principles or personal codes of ethics) who do not use their positions to pass value judgments on individuals or specific segments of the population. I don’t think Todd was saying that a person with strong Christian beliefs should be excluded from public office because those beliefs are automatically construed as biased and harassing. The point is that one’s faith is a private matter. It may inform the decisions you make, how you approach certain situations, etc., but if you wish people to respect your own beliefs and values, then you must also respect those of people with whom you disagree. So, a public official passing judgment on gays and labeling them as “deviants” should not be able to hide behind his faith. Being a Christian (or Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc.) does not excuse you from the societal imperative of tolerance.
Gantoris,
As for the first part of your statement (post-name calling, pre-Ehrlich example), the point I was trying to make was that the point of the Perkins/FRC comments was fundraising. In an era where the Christian Right reigns supreme (they don't control the Republican party, they control the part of the Republican party that is governing the country right now - see prior post of article from GOP satirist, for example; could Bush - or any other Republican for national office - win without them in 2000 and 2004?), I found it laughable to make a bunker-mentality fundraising pitch. Sure, some people oppose them, but they're at the zenith of their power, not struggling to keep the candle of Christianity alive against a Roman-esque persecution. But Perkins et al know more about fundraising amongst the Christian Right than I do, so....
Todd (and other after) have it exactly right about the Ehrlich situation. He fired a guy who insulted part of his constituency. Not criminals, not political opponents, just constituents. The fact that this guy's insulting comments were, he claims, based on the bigotry of his chosen faith does not save him. If a Jewish or Muslim public official got his jollies by making derogatory comments about Christians, the Christian Right would be calling for their head. And that person would be fired, the same as if he ran around making anti-Semitic comments from a position of power.
And finally, the Christian Right feels "under attack" and the best attack they can find is Rosie O'Donnel bitching about them? Geez. Besides, as prior folks have pointed out, there are quite a few similarities in the patterns of thought between the Religious Right and Radical Islam. Nobody's right but them. There is no middle ground, just us versus them. All who stand against us are deviants, worthy of no political protection. As also pointed out, Christian extremism has lead to killings such as certain doctors.
Luckily, the vast majority of Christian Fundamentalists do not subscribe to mass killings. Yet. I would have more confidence in saying "they never would" if religious conflict and bigotry had not already proved itself dangerous enough to cause the deaths of millions. Inquisitions, pogroms, the Hundred Years War (might be screwing this one up), the Holocaust, the modern Middle East. Violence as a result of strong religious belief is not unheard of, Christian or otherwise.
Of course, one Christian leader called on the US Government to kill the President of Venezuela. What does political assasination have to do with Christian values anyway?
I believe Harris and Pete have correctly represented my sentiments, but after brooding over the issue throughout the weekend (yes, I in fact do brood from time to time), I've decided to create a thread that outlines why godless atheists like me have no stomach for the commingling of politics and religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home