An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Inside The Religious Right
Reposted by Good Will Hinton and still a must-read.
23 Responses to “Inside The Religious Right”
Great piece. I’m going to sleep at night better because of this. It’s nice to see that “the religious right” idea can often be a bit of a strawman when looked at on an individual level
Hinton’s blog is intresting and thought provoking.
It reminded me, again, that everything that is said, rightly and wrongly, about the Religious Right and other exuberant adherents of a religion can be said about ardent believers in any ideology, political or otherwise. There is some truth in the assertion that atheism is just another religion.
Problems start when there is a cross-over from believing to trying to impose that belief on others by coercive or intrusive means.
What has been lost is respect for others’ privacy, their space.
It was apparently advocacy day on a city street I visited recently; there were tables set up for a dozen different causes. The one that crossed the line, in my eyes, was the group that grabbed passers by the arms to draw them to their display. Way too intrusive.
Good points in the column and the comments here. I think what most people who fear the RR don’t get is that there are far more people who are simply sympathetic to their goals rather than actually approving of their means. It’s hard to get up in arms and criticize someone who is promoting a goal that you agree with, unless or until they become very radicalized. For example, some people might consider PETA to be rather nutty but still sympathize with some of their goals because they care about animals and don’t want them to be abused. That reduces the motivation to speak out against the more radical ideas and practices of that group, and it makes it easy to feel that critics of the group don’t share your ideals or goals.
My response to this posting is encapsulated in a bumper sticker I recently observed: “GOT RELIGION? KEEP IT AT HOME.” if everyone, irrespective of the real or expressed sincerity of their beliefs could follow that precept, we would all be much better off.
As for “atheism as religion,” I don’t think so. OK, I’ll accept that the non-belief in deities and supernatural forces is, in some sense, “a belief system,” but atheism has no dogma, no “received wisdom” passed down in arcane books interpreted by men (usually) wearing funny hats, no rules and regulations (“thou shalt or shalt not…”), no hierarchies, no meeting houses, etc… I could go on but you get the point.
One other point concerning the religion:atheism conundrum is that ALL religious people are in a sense atheists because they reject a whole panoply of alternative deities. I do not expect that there are too many strong believers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. who recognize the divinity of Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Baal, or a host of other deities. At least atheists are consistent.
So your not a big fan of that “freedom of expression” BS, huh? Yeah, it’s highly overrated…
“GOT RELIGION? KEEP IT AT HOME.�
CS Displaying the bumper sticker is free speech. I guess you don’t like the message. The leadership of the RR mirrors the Republicans in hubris and corruption. Go see the movie Pelosi’s daughter made about grass root RR. She actually liked the people she featured. D’Souza and Donohue attack Liberals as godless and al-Qaeda sympathisers, the leaders need to read the playbook before their next Fox appearance.
Of course it is, Rudi. As is my response poking fun at what it said, because telling someone that you are perfectly OK with them having beliefs so long as it’s understood that you shouldn’t have to hear them is a funny way of handling free speech issues in my book.
Always fun to read your stream of consciousness rants, even when I have no clue of their relevance, Rudi.
CS I guess we all have our ‘own personal jesus’ ,some share and some crusade. Just keep it at home, if it is truly good others will see without you shouting from a corner.
GOT RELIGION? KEEP IT AT HOME.�
CS:
I don’t know what the coiner of the phrase meant, nor the people who embrace the phrase.
Here is how I see it. We need to debate and make decisions about common issues, say, where to place a new traffic light. We have to debate the merits of one street corner orver another based on traffic conditions. When someone claims to have the right solution because God wants it that way, it attempts to stack the deck against dissenters, because they are now placed in opposition to God. It makes it much more difficult to come to a decision about the traffic light.
All our decisions are informed by our beliefs, childhood experiences, and all sorts of personal matters. But when we are trying to resolve something specific, the debate should be limited to specific pros and cons without asking God to choose sides.
If someone wants to announce that his decision is in accordance with his belief system, that’s fine (free speech). But the choice of street corner has to be based on factual evidence, not God’s will.
Poor God. He is asked to back both teams in football matches on top of looking out for both sides in all wars.
CS and all, my point is that there will always be tension between the “freedom OF religion” that so many espouse, and the freedom FROM religion” that I find so desirable. They are both equal parts of the First Amendment clause regarding religious expression. Everyone has their own “tipping point” regarding what is or is not offensive or downright coercive speech. I have seen numerous billboards, advertisements, blogs, letters to the editor, t-shirts, etc., etc. that carry messages that I personally find offensive. Would I be interested in the STATE stepping in and regulating such speech just to make me happy? Nothing could be further from the truth. I just really liked the sentiments on the bumper sticker in question and wish (in vain) that more people would abide by them.
domajot,
Wow, you got all that out of the one phrase? While I completely agree with you that political decisions shouldn’t have a theological basis, it seems to me that the bumper sticker phrase quoted doesn’t speak about keeping religion out of govt, but rather out of public discourse. That’s a horse of a different color. He’s not telling me that I shouldn’t ask for laws to be passed concerning religious morality, he’s asking me to keep my religious opinions private so he doesn’t have to hear them.
Jason,
There’s a heck of a lot of things that I don’t like to be subjected to either, but I’m willing to accept that I have to be subjected to them if I also want to be able to express myself. That seems only fair to me. I believe you when you say that you wouldn’t want the state to step in to censor, but you yourself are attempting to censor by labelling certain speech as only acceptable to you if it is done out of your earshot.
CS, just because I don’t like something does not mean I am under any misapprehension that I actually can do anything about it. I’m not censoring anyone anymore than someone who changes a TV station or chooses not to attend a lecture or a movie is engaged in “censorship.” We all engage in a myriad of daily choices about what we will see, read, listen to etc. and those choices are not censorship in any normally understood sense because they do not impinge on anyone else’s rights. I’m not sure why someone else’s right to publicly proclaim some religious truism is more important than my right not to be exposed to their “enlightenment.” I am neither so naive nor so interested in control that I do not recognize that such expressions will always be a part of public life. Just because I don’t like it does not mean I cannot or am not willing to deal with it. ALL I am saying is that I REALLY wish that more religious messages could be “kept at home” (or church or meeting house or whatever).
Jason,
The problem I see with the way your bumper sticker phrases the message is that you are putting responsibility on others to keep their message away from you. And yes, I understand that it is an expression of your “wish”, not what you think will actually happen. But you are still asking something which it is wrong to even ask, IMO (and no, I’m not saying you have no right to ask it: not that you shouldn’t be allowed to say this, but you shouldn’t say it- there’s a difference).
Just curious-why do you find it offensive for people to express religious messages in public? Do you think that other people might have the same reaction to, say, sexually explicit messages? That some of us might wish that that type of stuff should be privately expressed? But even if we wish this, would your opinion be that we ought to say, “Got sex? Keep it at home?” Would you see this the way I see your bumper sticker, as a person who feels that he/she should be able to choose what he/she is exposed to rather than allowing people to express their own thoughts and basically ignoring the crap that we don’t want to hear or see?
GOT RELIGION? KEEP IT
AT HOMETO YOUR SELFDonohue-Hounddog-Federal investigation-Laura Bush
“.. a person who feels that he/she should be able to choose what he/she is exposed to…
————
That’s me.
I just feel the public square is getting way too overcrowded and pushy.
I’m irritated, as well, by having to see commercial ads on every inch of ‘free’ space. That’s corporate America’s free speech, however.
In the end, everyone’s free speech is crowding my private space.
It can’t be helped, but the dream of a deserted island is becoming more and more appealing.
OK, we’ve hit the wall. I thought I was pretty clear but this is now one of those “agree-to-disagree” blog lines.
Since you asked here is my beef (in brief). And really, it’s just mine and I don’t expect agreement or even sympathy. Beginning with Billy Graham during Nixon’s regime and continuing with Jimmy Carter’s “born again-isms”, through Reagan’s courting of more conservative, fundamentalist groups, and the current “faith-based everythingness” there has been a HUGE injection of religiosity into public life. It has become pervasive to the point where yes, I really do find that I am literally assaulted with religious messages on a daily basis. I don’t like it very much, but hey, that’s life in America. I accept my minority status as an atheist, I just get cranky every once in a while and this post gavem an opportunity to vent.
At the same time, the lines between church and state have become more and more blurred and indistinct as the current administration has funneled billions of dollars into religious organizations who may or may not be doing good works. Believe me, I am less offended by the Ten Commandments in the courthouse or the mention of “god” in the pledge of allegiance than I am by giving school supplies to parochial schools or outsourcing public social services to religious organizations. I really do not wish to offend anyone but I feel as if the balance has shifted in favor of “freedon of” as opposed to “freedom from” religion. Again, that’s the way it is in America and all I can do is write the odd, cranky letter and vote.
I don’t sermonize, proselytize or advertise and i just wish more people would do, likewise.
OK, just read the thread, and I think that everyone is ignoring the REAL message of that bumper sticker.
In a nutshell, it is saying, ‘GOT OPINIONS? KEEP THEM AT HOME!’
As soon as you single out any one line of thought as being inexpressible in public, whether religion, politics, sex, marriage, abortion, drugs, guns, whatever, then what protect ALL line of thoughts.
The First Amendment is easy to believe in when you agree with the viewpoints being expressed. The real test of one’s commitment to those principals is only tested when confronted with speech and thoughts you find objectionable or offensive.
Jason,
Thanks for explaining because it does help me see your perspective. I guess my complaint about the way you express this with the bumper sticker is in relation to this:
What you are asking for is for it to shift in the other direction rather than shifting to neutral. That tends to only provoke people on the other side to feel that they have to push further to counteract your push toward the side you prefer.
PS- I’d also quibble with you over the “freedom from” as the interpretation of the Establishment clause.
I think the sticker was a variant of DON’T TREAD ON ME, where proselytizing is seen as like TREADing.
Actually, GOT SEX, KEEP IT A HOME seems a perfectly reasonable bumper sticker.
I might not want to spend time with whoever would display GET RIGHT WITH JESUS or some such, but I wouldn’t be offended. A bumper sticker is just a bumper sticker.
Jason Shapiro hehehe, I’m reading the same book
Another great way of putting it is that all religious people are atheists of some gods, atheists just subtract one more than the others.
As for “leaving religion at home”, well, I know where you’re coming from, especially as being an outspoken atheist can expose you to endless amounts of crap, but I can’t agree. Just because a belief is founded upon religion it cannot be condemned to be private while other beliefs are allowed to roam free, so to speak. Unless you’re willing to shut down every Gay Pride parade, every discussion of the merits of democracy over other political systems or pretty much every expression of moral opinion, you can’t expect people to “leave their religion at home”. You CAN expect them to not harass you about it, asking you if “you’ve been saved” or trying to convince you that atheism will send you to hell.
But really religious people aren’t necessarily interventionist, however, religion touches every part of their lives, they simply cannot separate it from themselves. I think those who would aggressively impose religion on others aren’t the truly pious, they use religion as a weapon to control others, not because they really can’t sleep at night thinking you might not be saved.
Well said, Lynx. My only point of disagreement is with your last statement. I do believe that there are a large number of religious people who truly want to evangelize because they’re concerned about the souls of others. That’s not to say that there aren’t the other type that you mention, who are trying to control, but having known a number of evangelicals who were very earnest in their beliefs I really don’t think they represented a minority.
Of course we Catholics are perfectly comfortable with the “no proselytizing” rule, LOL. We definitely tend to be of the mind that we should “show” not “tell”.
OK, I had to do “my day job” so I’m just getting a chance to check the most recent posts. All I did was mention a bumper sticker I liked and golly, look what developed! I appreciate all the comments and have nothing else to add to this link and I thank you all.