Ted Rall thinks we should just put up with them and not give them any respect. It is pretty obvious that one of the reasons we lost is that the south (mainly the Christ-right) thought that we did not respect them enough. Interestingly enough this is what Bill O’rielly thinks as well. Bill says we should respect the Christian-right.
I don’t think so. Out of the people that can earn my respect, stupid people are not among them. This is not a difference of opinion, it is a difference of facts. I believe in facts, they do not. I have tolerated them before Nov. 2, but now they are clearly a problem. If I start respecting views which I conclude are done with little reason or rational, what good will that do for society?
I don’t know what to do about them, but I won’t respect them.
And the christian-center? They are lumped in there as well, ehe? Or exactly how do you distinguish the two groups in your own mind? If I were a Republican I’d be grinning from ear to ear every time I hear someone spout this kind of thing. The road to Republican dominance is paved with folks who look down upon, sneer at and jeer at people with religious inclinations.
I think we have to respect their rights to practice their faith as they choose, or to have a faith at all.
Not having even a hint of faith in my own view of the world, I find it very difficult to be “respectful” of people who want to replace or “augment” science teaching on evolutionary biology with so-called “creation science”, for instance. It’s very, very hard to for me to regard such corruptions with anything but a sense of creeping horror, and I doubt very much any person subscribing to “creation science” would find my astonishment and dismay “respectful”. So, using creationism in science curricula as one of many examples, I’d say one reaches a point when “respect” is no longer warranted. One needs to state clearly, when things get sufficiently dire, that while it’s all well-and-good to teach about the Christian cosmogony as part of a course related to religious studies, Genesis is woefully out of context in a course on biology.
That it’s even a matter of dispute, after all these years, and all that has been discovered, rather flies in the face of sentiments like “respect”, because the creationists are so woefully disrespectful of things like facts, evidence, science, perhaps even education itself. Is it wrong to try to oppose such woeful societal trends, as in the cases of attempts to mix science and theology in state-sanctioned-and-funded educational curricula? Is one obliged to be “respectful” when confronted with such a travesty as theocracy masquerading as “conservative values”?
Man, you eat some nasty sounding candy bars. I prefer nougat or mormon centers.
I think the religious right deserves respect, but I also think that they should be excised from politics or have their tax free status revoked. They’ve become too politically active for my tastes
Having recently upbraided conservatives for not holding their own demagogues to task, I would be remiss if I didn’t say the following: Ted Rall, when you get right down to it, is a very angry man who should probably be sedated for his own good. Better yet, lock him in a room with Michael Savage and let them settle it amongst themselves.
Saying “Christian=irrational=stupid” is just wrong. While I consider myself agnostic and don’t agree with moral lesson of the bible, I don’t hold Christianity to be an irrational belief. To do so would require me to hold that (for example) the scientific method is the only path to truth, which is just as dogmatic and unprovable as the assertion that the bible is the only path to truth. (This is not to detract from Loopydude’s excellent post. Recognizing that science isn’t everything doesn’t mean I can’t recognize the difference between science and theology and the proper place of each.)
So I do respect Christians and Christian beliefs. I reserve, however, the right to disrespect Christians that seem willfully ignorant of certain important aspects of Christ’s message. (Frank Pastore, who recently wrote a stunningly nasty and vindictive editorial for the L.A. Times and had the chutzpah to quote from the Sermon on the Mount while doing it, leaps to mind.)
If there’s a seed of truth in your post and in Ted Rall’s column, it is this: the perception of liberals by red state America is deeply flawed, and we need to correct this. There is nothing immoral about liberalism, and an enormous amount to be proud of. Trumpeting this, along with learning to couch our issues in moral terms, will go a lot farther than closing our eyes and hoping the red states go away.
I am willing to give them the same measure of respect that they are willing to give others. That means, I won’t demonize them if they stop demonizing everyone else. I will support their right to believe whatever they want, as long as they recognize everyone else’s right to do the same. I don’t see it happening.
I’m hoping I don’t get my head bitten off here, but is there a shortage of respect that we have to ration it? Can’t we find something respectful even in a belief system that we’re violently opposed to? We could respect, despite those who feel it is 100 wrong-headed, that it is their faith. We could respect that, for the most part, they’re trying to do right just as everyone else is. We could, if for no other reason, respect them because we want them to respect us and not demean how we think.
If we can start with basic respect, then maybe dialogue is possible. And from there, opinions can be malleable and good will extended. No one learns anything if all parties involved feel they are superior to those who think differently.
This extends to all races, religions, sexes and orientations. IMHO, of course.
(~faithfool, who used to be what is now considered a strident fundamentalist – and who would’ve never gotten to where she is now if many hadn’t been patient with her and chose to teach rather than alienate)
The sticks. I guess it sounds nicer than the fly-over country reference a paragraph down. Do rural writers refer to urbanites as slum dwellers?
If red white and blue is a metaphor for patriotic, I guess that would depend on which criteria one uses top define it. If we’re gonna color euphimisms, is the Texas panhandle as pink purple and magenta as the Castro district?
Generalize much?
Can someone show this man the 2000 census report.
If the question was phrased exactly that way, the number should have been 100% of all voters
It’s amazing how one can twist statistics to suit their own partisan purposes. The italicized sentence says nothing. The only way to gauge the educational achievements of voters is polling data, NOT % of college degrees per state (unless 100% of each states population voted exactly the same way). The more I read that quote the funnier it gets. I wonder if there’s a college-degree requirement for all subscriptions to The Dept. of State Bulletin.
IMHO: You should have tried using facts (as opposed an editorial written by a semi-talented cartoonist) as the opening to your OP
I think the error in logic may be in equated “irrational=stupid”. Irrational is just irrational, or illogical. But many smart (or at least not stupid) people act irrationally at time. Just look at the human condition. Many people use religion to gain control in their lives, often when all else, including rational thought, fails. Is this a bad thing?
I agree that I don’t want someone else’s religion intruding on my life or my government. But it doesn’t make someone bad or stupid to have faith in things that I might consider illogical. If I can find ways to excuse/accept other behaviours which are learned, why not religion? The problem comes when we try to rationalise and act of faith. By definition it can’t be done. But I’d still like a few more people on that side of the aisle to vote for candidates whom I frankly consider more “Christian”, even if they don’t wear their Christianity on their sleeve for public consumption.
Lumping people into a group like “the Christian Right” is such a gross oversimplification as to be meaningless. As it is being used here, it’s not a group that is self identified or even organized in any real way. One might reasonably talk about agreeing or disagreeing with a true organization that has a stated set of beliefs, but that’s not what we have with what is commonly called TCR.
Well, faithfool, as SteveG1 alluded to above, respect is a two-way street. I happen to think it’s plenty respectful enough, given the subject at hand, to tolerate the other’s existence and acknowledge the right to exist. I’ve never been in a mood to change a fundamentalist’s point of view, and would frankly consider such an endeavor to be a massive waste of my time. The Cristian right is welcome to believe whatever they choose.
I don’t feel they are welcome to alter the secular nature of our governing system such that it favors a particular theology. I see the separation of Church and State to be one of the main, if not THE main ingredient of the success of the United States. How many theocracies are thriving? Even Iran is underdeveloped, despite sitting on top of one of the world’s largest fossil fuel reserves. It would appear that the Christian right is not happy to have a pluralistic society based upon a consensus of core values that may be in accord with some, but not all, of their own. They want the government to reflect their own unique value system, because they regard others as morally lacking. This is not, in my estimation, sufficiently respectuful of other viewpoints, and I find it surprising to hear some Christians regard mere opposition to the entirety of their brand of moralism, as misgivings about their faith intruding on matters of public policy “disrespectful”. How can one respect others if they can’t respect myself? And how can I respect myself if I let the Christian right erode the separation of Church and State without voicing disapproval?
I can despise an adversary and his position, yet at the same time, except in more extreme cases (*) I can afford to give him a basic dignity as a contender and a fellow member of society and recognize he probably feels he has a good reason to believe what he does – just because I would like the same coming my way.
(*Fred Phelps, Bin Laden, Stalinism, Nazism… you get the picture)
What I will NOT do is be deferential, or yield the floor for fear of the other side taking offense. I will recognize the sincerity of their belief, congratulate them on their ascendancy, examine why MY argument was not strong enough to prevail, but I will not bow my head.
I can tell someone Young-Earth-Creationism has absolutely no place in a science curriculum and “Intelligent Design” does not have any equal standing with Darwinism, and that both models are just dead WRONG and he is totally misunderstanding science… yet at the same time tell him that I admire that he seeks to live a moral, upstanding life and to heed a strict value-set. I can tell someone that I understand that he feels that Male-Female marriage is an absolute value, yet at the same time demand that when it comes to civil law he should be able to point to how come letting someone else sin damages his family. Notice in the latter case I even concede that to him it will be sin even if legal; but I make my stand that his beliefs should rule his life, not mine.
One man’s extremist is another man’s moderate. Frankly, I don’t find a belief in a 7-day creation any more “stupid” than a belief in a soul. Both seem equally irrational, and neither belief has one shred of evidence to support it. So, unless you’re willing to say that ALL religious people are stupid, your statement simply doesn’t make sense.
The fundies surely are, or they’re intelligent people who are seriously deluded, which amounts to the same thing. Stupid is as stupid does. To a lesser extent this is also true of the Christian right generally. And I don’t really think the Christian right gives a shit if we respect them or not … certainly, in their viewpoints they have shown no respect for gays, atheists, and people on the left generally. So fuck 'em. I’m sure they feel the same about us, only more so, because their ideology makes them always hide it behind smarmy crap like “Turn the other cheek.”
Wouldn’t respecting the christian-right be an act of moral relativism? Why not let everyone “do their own thing”? If we say creationism is just as valid as evolution, what right do we have to decide what math answers are “correct”?
There is no room for wishy-washy, flip-flopping. Things are either right or wrong. You are with us or or you are against us.
Same thing with ecumenalism. It’s liberal BS to say that all religions are equally valid. They have contradicting beliefs, they can’t all be correct.