Should we respect the Christian-right?

Great Debates
21

It’s OK Loop, many of us were nit “designed” to multitask. I’ll make a deal with you.

I solemnly promise to not call them a bunch of ignorant, superstitious, stupid, gullible, intolerant, hypocritical, book burning, Elvis record burning, witch hunting, lunatic fringe, GodNazi, Pharisee, freedom hating, neurotic, psychotic, psychopathic,sociopathic, heretic, repressive, backward, self righteous, holier than thou, bigoted, self loathing, hateful fascist bastards,

If they stop calling the rest of us Commie, America hating, freedom hating, pinko, traitor, fag, peacenik, heretic, unChristian, hell bound, terror supporting bastards.

I will also recognize their right to live as they choose, as soon as they are willing to return the courtesy.

I will not call for their extermination, as long as they do not call for mine.

It goes both ways. I’m plenty reasonable, but there are limits. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. He never said anything about what to do after the second side is slapped. Kind of like a 3-strike rule maybe?

Silent Majority - strike one, cheek one
Moral Majority - strike two, cheek two
Morals and Values - strike three

Hmmmm looks like maybe it’s the “other guy’s” turn.
Respect has to be earned. It is not necessarily a “right”.

22

I don’t lose respect for a person because they’re religious, but I do when they feel they must make laws (or constitutional amendments) to force everybody to follow the tenets of their religion.

When they learn the difference between “I’m against it for whatever reason, religious or not” and “Nobody should do it” (for issues that don’t affect those who choose to not take part), then they deserve the respect of normal person.

23

It would appear that the far Left 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 Leftists regard mere opposition to the entirety of their brand of moralism, as misgivings about their beliefs intruding on matters of public policy “inhuman”. How can one respect others if they can’t respect myself? And how can I respect myself if I let the far Left erode the separation of My Wallet and State Coffers For Social Engineering without voicing disapproval?

It’s a slight stretch, but it pretty much goes for any faction outside of the mainstream if tweaked a little.

24

Sorry y’all. I realize that a lot of times there is no respect shown in return. IMHO, I still will offer it, needless of whether I’ve gotten it or not. The reason for that is to reach those who will be moved by having the respect in and of itself (like I was when I was in a similar position) and will then consider another view point. Again, it’s those people I’d like to have a conversation with. The ones who simply dismiss us/it, well, they probably don’t care one way or another anyhow. Right? So, although I’m certainly not suggesting we become doormats, I feel like I show respect because it’s a good thing all the way 'round. For me, for those who’d like to learn and know more and for those who don’t regardless. Because that may be all they ever have.

However, it’s incredibly painful to try not to be let down by that kind of behavior. Especially when you’re willing to go the extra step that they are not. But, to my way of thinking, we’re never going to step up to a higher plane if someone doesn’t continue to try to do it. And the only way that happens is if the high road is taken by someone repeatedly.

[Side note: Steve, we gotta quit meeting like this. Always showing up in the same threads. People’ll are gonna talk, ya know. :wink: :D]

25

I do think that religion is irrational, I also think irrational is ok as long as you do not do anything with it. You can convince yourself to do the right thing anyway you want, I can respect that. What good is it when someone uses something as irrational as their faith to base their vote on it? Irrational actions that affect people in a negative way are stupid.

26

Any belief system deserves respect, and in the USA, we believe that anyone has a freedom to practice what they like if they don’t cause harm. Logically following, this must mean that the government and its citizens must hold every such belief system on an even footing. This implies respect.

IMO it is not wrong to criticize hypocrisy. The narrower and more fundamentalist your belief system, the harder it becomes to live by its laws. Ralph Reed is being investigated for receiving quasi-legal contributions from Indian gaming. It abounds, not only in the religious, but the religious seem to have a harder time not getting tripped up in the manifold laws that they hold immutable.

IMO it is also not wrong to speak up when your rights are limited because of belief systems that you don’t share. I’m only too willing to take a hands-off approach to the biblical-literalist belief system until they start changing the country to make their belief system law. This is another reason the religious right becomes an easy target. They have interwoven their beliefs into the planks of a major political party. Their leaders are also the ones influencing and setting policy. So when new laws are passed restricting X, and the only reason given is to “promote decency” or some crap, it is strictly in-bounds to criticize those treading on my rights.

27

Eh, I think it’s more than a stretch.

Consider this example.

We have Christian pharmacists who find contraception morally abhorrent on the one hand, and on the other, you’ve got women who have no problem with the pill, and need to get their prescriptions filled so they don’t miss a day.

The pharmacists have an option: Pass the prescription on to someone else. But it would appear for some, that’s not sufficient. So, does the pharmacist deserve to be protected from being forced to commit a “sin”?

I guess some folks think they should. So, say you’re a woman in a small town with only one pharmacy. Your pharmacist won’t fill your prescription for the pill. Maybe he or she decides you’re a sinner and won’t fill out any of your prescriptions. Is a pharmacist ethically bound to carry out his or her profession task of filling prescriptions, perfectly legal ones, according to the instructions of a doctor? Should the person needing a prescription have any recourse?

I think I know what a fundamentalist’s response would be.

28

Not necessarily true. I for one am all for a “meeting in the middle”, a concensus of “both sides can live with it” agreement.

Again, not necessarily true. While I for one lean a bit toward social liberal and a fiscal conservative, I also tend toward the idea that less government interference is better. I believe in the “old days” that would have made me a conservative. It is government’s job to do certain things. It is not government’s job to redesign or dictate people’s day to day lives or moral structure. It is not government’s job to dictate what beliefs are allowed (separation of church and state at its most fundamental). That is exactly what the “God Squad” wants to do. They want to Social Engineer everyone within their own narrow boundraies and definitions. The more extreme among them apparently want to imprison or execute anyone who does not obey (taken from various venomous editorials by supposed “men of God etc”).

29

You are correct that religious institutions don’t vote, but lately they have been toeing that fine line on influencing the vote. There was a thread in this forum (I believe) about the NAACP losing their tax exempt status for trying to influence the election for a certain candidate.

IMHO, there are religious groups that have been nosing that way as well. Politics is pay to play. If they want to get involved, they can make checks payable to the Internal Revenue Service.

30

Has anyone decided what a definition of “respect” is in this context? It’s wrong and politically stupid to ridicule fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, it’s wrong and intellectually dishonest for me to react with, “well, they’ve got a point,” because they usually don’t.

To whoever said that Christians don’t get tax-exempt status, and that churches don’t vote - many churches (including the Catholic Church I used to attend) pray that abortion will be illegal every Sunday, and provide pre-written letters to political leaders condemning the practice (in the one church’s case, right in the chapel). If a church is doing that, they shouldn’t get freedom from taxes.

31

Why should respecting Christianity imply that we have to say creationism is as valid as evolution? Why can’t I respect Christianity but at the same time say that creationism isn’t science and has no place in a science class? Evolution makes no claims as to what, if anything, caused the origin of the universe. Evolution makes no claims as to what constitutes proper action and what constitutes improper action. So why can’t I respect Christianity in those areas where it has something to say, and respect evolutionary science in its sphere of relevance?

Of course, there will always be a vocal intransigent minority of Christians who refuse to accept such a compromise. That drifts into the realm of irrationality, and at that point my respect begins to wane. But there’s definitely room for both science and faith in the modern world.

It would be wonderful to be absolutely right about such ponderous questions as the nature of good and evil and the origin of creation. But it’s only rational to acknowledge that as human beings we are quite fallible when it comes to such questions. Not only is it good science to recognize that we don’t know everything, but it demonstrates humility, a profoundly moral quality. Conversely, insisting on dogma is both irrational and a sign of hubris.

See above re: hubris. At the same, being tolerant of different faiths is a moral virtue for another reason: it shows respect for the moral character of others, whereas insisting that you have the only path to truth would be just as condescending as insisting that all faiths are wrong. From a practical/rational standpoint, ecumenalism is also a good: why waste energy insisting that people hold particular beliefs regarding questions that most likely never will be proven one way or another?

32

The Straight Dope is dedicated to the fight against ignorance. To the extent that the Christian right (or Christian anything) is ignorant, we dopers should therefore fight them. Since a frighteningly large percentage (around 40%, IIRC) of Christians in the U.S. believe in things like the Universe being created in 7 literal days, then we must fight a large percentage of Christians.

33

Respect can be as simple as “Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone”.
Any church or religious group or church or religious leader/preacher/evangelist that wants to campaign, electioneer, or influence votes should have its/his tax exempt status immediately and irrevocably cancelled. You wanna play, you gotta pay.

34

The problem with fighting ignorance is whoever is doing so is 100% correct and all disagree-ers are ignorant.
This is untrue.
I’d like to see you prove the earth wasn’t recreated in 6 (not 7) literal days.

Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder,sometimes.

35

The two are fundamentally different in that the former is a testable proposition (unless you’re going to introduce the Omphalos notion of a universe created complete with evidence of a past that never happened) and the latter is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

36

That pretty well describes my position – once you cross the line into advocating that the government enforce your sectarian preferences (as opposed to the government protecting your right to live by them yourself), you have no moral standing to complain if some other faction gets hold of the levers of power and forces you to live by their preferences (which is the basis for all of the legitimate complaints by those elements of the Christian Right who would be willing to mind their own business if the guvmint would just leave them alone).

37

And I’ll happily condemn this steaming bullshit alongside you. It doesn’t make the Far Left boogeyman any better though. The only real difference between the two is that this one is far more widespread in the US today.

I didn’t label you as a member of the Far Left, especially if you are somewhat fiscally conservative. :wink:

38

Deluded in what sense? It’s true their beliefs lead them to reject certain scientific doctrines like the theory of evolution, and yeah, I think that’s kind of foolish. But it’s also not a belief that has serious consequences…I mean, there aren’t many times where believing in evolution or not makes a serious difference to your life.

They also tend to be socially conservative, pro-life, and anti-gay rights, but those are questions of differing values rather than differing levels of intelligence.

39

Nope, it’s up to you to prove that a 6 day creation is legit or that there’s evidence for it. You’ve been here long enough to know that, vanilla.

40

This sounds hopeful! May I take this to mean that you don’t think that you are necessarily 100% correct and I am 100% wrong about the teachings of the Bible that we have discussed in another thread? Can we just agree to disagree?

I am definitely not a fundamentalist, but I think that the pharmacist is bound not to fill the prescription if she or he feels that the act of doing so is immoral. (Of course, I also think the pharmacist should get out of Dodge too.) Why should anyone do that which she finds immoral?

Paladud, you can voice disapproval and still be respectful. Avoid distortion, namecalling, passing on unfounded rumors. Be tactful and keep a sense of humor. Listen to what the other person is saying. Don’t imply that the other person is the devil. Keep a dialogue going.

From my own point of view, I think the Christian Left in the South needs to organize. (Our numbers are small but we are fun-loving and loud-mouthed!)