By the way, I don’t claim to be immune from this myself - there are plenty of times, particularly here on the SDMB, that I adamantly feel someone else’s point of view is just flat-out wrong, and I’m going to do my damndest to set them straight (to coin a phrase). And don’t think it’s restricted to gay issues as we’re using for an example here - go look at the Creationist v. Evolutionist debates to get a look at some good examples of self-righteousness on both sides.
And I’ll add that self-righteousness isn’t always necessarily a bad thing, but it can be dangerous.
Hey, I live in the DC suburbs – do you want me to prove I can say being a Republican is bad without sounding self-righteous?
Here goes:
It is important that many opinions be represented in order to support the robust public discourse so necessary to the functioning of a democracy and therefore, although they are misguided, Republicans are… UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! Run Away!
Sorry, I tried.
Ooh, I love your magazine. My favorite section is `How to increase your word power’. That thing is really, really… really… good. – Homer, ``Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington’’
Generally speaking, I avoid references to any but the most basic of moral beliefs: the intrinsic value of sentient life, the persistence of our species, the proscription to “do no harm.”
Rather, I try to stick to descriptive statements, and hope that the description resonates with the moral beliefs of the listener. For instance, if I call you a liar, you will see it as a condemnation according to your own morality. If I call a con-man a liar, he will see it as a professional compliment.
Before Stonewall, to call a person a homosexual was to usually condemn him by the moral code he himself professed. Such a condemnation was not self-righteous. They obvious hypocrisy of verbally accepting a religion and moral code which repudiated behavior which he engaged in was surely justified; no one has a moral obligation to risk his life and livelihood; homosexuality was (and continues to be) violently persecuted. I admire homosexuals today for risking that persecution and often suffering discrimination and violence, sometimes even death, for the sake of their brethren.
Homosexual people can counter that extrinsic righteousness only by accepting the description of “homosexual” as accurate, and explicitly repudiating the tenet which holds that homosexuality is morally wrong. If the moralist continues to say, “you’re a homosexual,” you can reply, “yes, of course, I just said so.”
If he takes the next step and claims that homosexuality is wrong, he invites the accurate description of self-righteous, since he is applying a moral principle you obviously don’t hold in common. You have moved the moral basis of his criticism from a basis you hold in common (extrinsic) to one that he asserts only because he believes it himself (intrinsic).
Since most Christians (and the majority of moral judgements against homosexuality seem to come from Christians) and my understanding of Christianity shows that self-righteousness is morally wrong, the moralist has done nothing but shown himself to be morally wrong.
Note that self-righteousness is descriptive and not judgemental. If I hold myself to be a prophet of universal Truth, then I cannot help but to be self-righteous. To call me so would be an accurate description, not a judgement, and I would not find it morally wrong.
In short, each person must construct their own moral basis for their own actions. To merely describe someone’s action which is wrong by his own morality allows him to judge himself.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Well, I think homosexuality is sinful. I happen to think shopping is sinful, too. You can add smoking, and owning a lot of shoes, and looking down on other people for not being as righteous as you are. Long breaks at work, ignoring your kids, missing out on an opportunity to be kind to another, wasting things, wasting your talents, making hurtful comments to anyone, being selfish, holding a grudge, harboring prejudices, and about half the innocuous things we all do every day are sinful. Big surprise, I am a sinner. Bitching about other people’s sins is a sin, too. Pointing out to you a way to bring your spirit before the Lord is not sinful, but using that excuse to carp about what I don’t like about you is.
What does it matter whether I am pleased by, or supportive of your life? Do you feel I am a judge of your sins? I do not. I believe that Jesus is the judge of your spirit, and He has advised me not to judge you. I love Him, so I try to follow that advice. I fail. Do you want my opinions about homosexuality, in the context of spirituality? Pretty much not of any importance, but I think sexual expression is a worldly thing, of the earth, and therefore part of the vain and petty world which we shall leave behind, anon, as we move on to the greater portion of our being, beyond this world. Of course, that is only my opinion. And my opinion matters not at all, except to me, and to Him. I don’t think he will consult me, regarding you.
Tris
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.
I would argue that of course, I think my beliefs are true. If I didn’t, I’d believe differently. However, I recognize that other people consider their beliefs as true as I consider my own, so I don’t stand against them unless the matter directly affects myself (or I’m in a contrary mood.)
This is a very good point - in essence, words are only as powerful as you allow them to be. Still, calling someone “homosexual” is a little less harsh than calling someone “sinner,” “sodomite” or worse. The power of these words is to condemn, not just identify, especially since I fully understand the intent of the usage of those words.
OK, so words aside, moving from the extrinsic to the intrinsic is what makes one self-righteous. So the belief system itself is not necessarily inherently self-righteous, but rather the followers’ interpretation of it may be? Is that another way to say it?
I would certainly not be one to argue the hypocrisy of Christianity as a belief system.
Ooo, how warped is this? But it makes sense. Maybe this is why the Jeezers piss me off so - they see self-righteousness as a virtue.
It matters only when not-as-nice Christians as you make it their business to not only inform me of their displeasure, but to prompt a change in me as well. Obviously you are not of this ilk, and I thank you for it.
Civil unions apply only to those benefits and responsibilities on a state level and not the federal. Also, they will only be good in Vermont and are not transferrable to other states. So they are less than the ideal. However, I very rarely hear any gay complaining about it. To have an all or nothing attitude is self-defeating. Most reactions I have seen were very enthusiastic and considered it a postive start.
Actually, civil marriage and religious marriage are in essense two different things.
For instance I can have a religious ceremony in which I marry another woman, but it will not be recognized as a civil marriage. Likewise, someone from a certain religion can go before a Justice of the Peace and be married, but his church won’t see it as a sanctified union. So while the two get blurred together, they are not the same thing.
A strictly religious marriage is a way of allowing a couple to have sexual relations and bear children without sin. A civil marriage, in the eyes of the government, is much more property and legally based. There is no concept of sin within a civil marriage.
That is where the government made a mistake and made things more complicated that it should have been. If they had called this civil contract anything either than marriage, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
That’s a common misconception. By giving gays the rights to marry will, in no way, require churches to perform ceremonies. That clearly falls into the realm of freedom of religion. For example, look at the clergy of most churches. Most require that you be a member of that religion and a male before you can become a clergy member. That is both discrimination based on gender and religion, but you don’t see the government stepping into enforce anti-discrimination laws do you? No. You may see pressure within the church, but very rarely outside of it.
However, a Justice of the Peace is supposed to represent any religion over another, so legally, if gay marriages were legal, he would have to marry a gay couple despite his religious beliefs.
No disagreement here. It is a good bill. It gives varous couples security that they did not have before. Of course, it doesn’t impact me in anyway since I don’t live in Vermont, but I still support the legislation.
I can’t answer for Esprix, but for myself, my sexual orientation only becomes paramount when I am in a politically charged atmosphere such as this. So I will tend to start and respond to gay orient threads. However, in real life it doesn’t ever enter into casual conversation unless I happen to mention going on a date or discussing the recent Willow storylines on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Ok, now I’ll respond to the OP. Do I think all believers are self-righteous? No. Attending a conservative Christian college allowed me to see that there is a vast array of religious. Some are too busy actively searching out answers to their own questions about life to be bothered with condemning others.
Personally, I find many types of people as self-righteous. Intellectuals have the potential to be self-righteous because they feel they have a grasp of knowledge that others don’t. People within a political group can be self-righteous because they feel they have the cure of societal ills and others are only doomed to failure.
All you need for self-righteousness is an over inflated sense of self and a need to lord it over others. That trait can be found anywhere.
“self-righteous” is an interesting word with two distinct definitions. Webster lists both: (1) convinced of one’s own righteousness esp. in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others; (2) narrow-mindedly moralistic.
With those defs. in mind, it is easy (as in cheap shot) to ascribe (2) to anyone’s morals that do not encompass yours, and feel self-righteous (I couldn’t resist using the term here) yourself about the assignment.
In the case of Christians, it goes against fundamental understanding to carry on as self-righteous. Jesus told us that “no-one was righteous, no not one.” IF nobody qualifies as righteous (and that is a given by the definition of righteous- "free from guilt or sin, acting in accord with moral or divine law), it is difficult to be self-righteous about it.
Can’t you accuse anyone of being self-righteous by default if they are willing to stand up and say they believe something? You fill in the blanks and you are self-righteous. I think that <blank> is okay and worthy of my support rather than any of the alternatives to <blank>. <blank> could include: any political or ideological persuasion (or lack thereof), lifestyle, etc. You will sound self-righteous to any who don’t fill in the <blank> the same way. Fill it in anyway. Its part of a life well lived. Just don’t assume that only Christians and Jews fill in the blank. By golly, I will stand for that. Make’s me irate just to think about …. Sorry, got caught up the self-righteousness of the whole idea. ; )
In order to discuss whether or not self-righteousness is intrinsic to all belief systems, we must first define what that is.
Also, it is apparent that there are people of faith who, as a whole, are not self-righteous. So, if their beliefs are inherently self-righteous, does that make these particular people self-righteous by default?
Self-righteousness is an attitude, a certain carriage and expression that a person of passionate opinions can often give off while interacting with others. That’s how I, personally, have always perceived it. I think it’s very possible to be passionate about your beliefs, or feel strong convictions, without being, or at least coming off as, self-righteous.
“I can never give a ‘yes’ of a ‘no.’ I don’t believe everything in life can be settled by a monosyllable” Betty Smith
ENFP Prayer: Dear God, please help me keep my mind on one - oh look a bird! - thing at a time
But it makes sense. Maybe this is why the Jeezers piss me off so - they see self-righteousness as a virtue.