Why is the ‘religious right’ so defensive about their religion?
Why do they feel it’s necessary for the government to become involved with their religion?
Why do they see the recent Pledge brouhaha as, well, as a brouhaha?
I mean, they live in a culture that largely reflects their paradigm—at least, as compared to the paradigms of other religions—and in a country that is very friendly—even prejudicial—toward them and their religion.
Why is this not good enough? I mean, culturally, they’ve won the war: why continue to fight every little insignificant battle tooth and nail?
Why can’t they call it a victory and leave me and my non-belief alone?
Eep. This discussion could get heated fast. Suffice it to say that they think that they are right. One of my favorite political sayings is: The religious right is neither.
lissener:
“Why is the ‘religious right’ so defensive about their religion?”
I would say it’s because most of them think they have a sacred duty to ram it down our throats. Also, many on the religious right are convinced their religion is under attack by society, and the swine are circling the wagons.
“Why do they feel it’s necessary for the government to become involved with their religion?”
They want a theocracy. Frankly, I think this proves how stupid the bastards are because getting the government involved with a church is the best way to kill religious belief – read some European history. According to newspapers I’ve read in the past, the ubiquitious polls show the United States has the most religious populace of the Western World. I think that has been due to our wisdom in keeping church and state separated. Abolish that wall and within a few decades, the American populace will be as unbelieving as European countries. (To the Europeans on the SDMB: I am not trying to be insulting, but I think those same polls show that fewer Europeans believe in Jesus, Yog-Sothoth, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn than Americans).
“Why do they see the recent Pledge brouhaha as, well, as a brouhaha?”
Have not been keeping on the news lately, but I would imagine it’s because they object to removal of the phrase “under God” from Pledges of Allegiance in the schools.
“I mean, they live in a culture that largely reflects their paradigm—at least, as compared to the paradigms of other religions—and in a country that is very friendly—even prejudicial—toward them and their religion.”
That’s your take on it. From the standpoint of the Holy Rollers, they have lost many cultural battles: students can no longer be forced to pray in school, there is greater acceptance of homosexuality, abortion is legal, evolution is taught in school, minorities have more rights (this, at least, is offensive to those who hold Bob Jones University in high esteem), etc.
“Why is this not good enough? I mean, culturally, they’ve won the war: why continue to fight every little insignificant battle tooth and nail?”
Obviousily these battles are not insignificant to them.
"Why can’t they call it a victory and leave me and my non-belief alone? I am seriously asking “WHY?”
Because they want to save a godless heathen like you from Hell, even if they have to fry your atheist ass to do it!
Perhaps they feel that even if you accpeted the Lord in your life, without their *guidance[/] you might fail to understand that God is a Conservative Republican. That would be an even greater loss than the possibity that you migh not accept the Lord, to those who value politics abover their own faith.
I’d guess that some of them see it the other way and wonder why all the atheists are trying to repress their belief in God, and right (presumably Godgiven to express it.)
It doesn’t help reasonable people any that there are so many active fruitcakes on both sides of the argument. I mean you got the people that want a theocracy and think they can vote intelligent design into a fact on one side.
On the other side you got these guys who remind me nothing so much as 8th graders running around telling the kindergarten there’s no such thing as Santa Claus while righteously campaigning for the removal of gender sensitive pronouns.
They deserve its each other.
Let us join together and pray for their enlightenment, shall we?
—I’d guess that some of them see it the other way and wonder why all the atheists are trying to repress their belief in God, and right (presumably Godgiven to express it.)—
But this is simply dishonest spin; it cannot be their actual motivation.
Note: While I am both Christian and Republican, I do not identify myself with the “religious right” I assume you’re speaking of, which I take to mean the Pat Robertson-type fundamentalists and not moderate Christians who also happen to be fiscally conservative.
Because they view secularism as an attack upon it and they feel obliged to not only defend it, but in some cases (depending on the sect or beliefs) to actively spread it. They believe that a lack of faith (agnosticism or, worse, atheism) is antithetical to their beliefs. They believe that to be “godless” is immoral.
Well, I don’t think they’d put it that way. Rather, they believe that religion has a place in society (their religion only, and their version of it only, naturally) and they think that the avowal of opr even prostlyzation of that religion should be allowed in every facet of society, regardless of whether the government is involved or not. It is not that they want the government to be involved in their religion – which they don’t, no government meddling thankyewverymuch – but that they want their religion involved in the government.
Because the see nothing wrong with having the words “under God” in the pledge; indeed, they see it as a very positive thing. In their minds, this country is, or ought to be, a country in which religion (again, their religion) is acknowledged and the power of God is similarly acknowledged, and His blessings are asked for. To attempt to take the words out after 50-some years appears to them to be an attack on the premise underlying them – that this should literally be a country “under God.” Which, of course, it is. They do not generally stick at separation of church and state; they are happy to import the church into the state, though, as I’ve said before, their not such big fans of the state monkeying with the church.
They don’t see that. They see a world that is hostile to their religion, and they see decisions such as the recent POA one as proof of that.
They do not practice their faith only in churches on Sunday; they carry it with them and believe others should as well – even those who make up the government. They view attempts to keep religion out of government as attempts to prevent them from putting religion where they think it ought to be – and, again, they’re right. It is.
Why would they think they’ve won the war when they lost the POA? They don’t think that’s any more of an insignificant battle than the nonfaithful do – and if you think the nonfaithful don’t care about it, just count up the threads discussing it – and that’s a battle the unreligious have won, so far.
There is a bit of a siege mentality present in many fundamentalist Christian sects, just as there is in fundamentalist religions of every stripe: “We have the one true way. We know the will of God. We must impose the will of God. The unbelievers are out to destroy us because they do not want God to triumph. We must adhere to the one true way and repulse every attack.”
Because they think you’re going to hell. Seriously. You’re a non-believer, so you are bound for the fiery pit – and if you triumph in your secular agenda, you’ll take a lot of other people with you. They will attempt to prevent that. If they cannot convert you, they will at the least attempt to prevent you from infecting those around you.
And despite what others may have said here, these beliefs are not “dishonest;” they are legitimately held. The attack these people perceive is perceived honestly, regardless of whether or not it is illusory. To a hardcore fundamentalist, Satan is everywhere in society, from Roe v. Wade to The Terminator to pants on women to 'NSYNC. And he must be fought in every arena, just as God must be exhalted in every area, and if that steps on the toes of some of you nonbelievers – well, that’s just too bad.
The thing I don’t understand about the (stereotypical) religious fundie is why – in his gung-ho zeal to inject more religion into every aspect of government – they never stop to consider the feelings of followers of other religions?
I mean, okay, I can understand dismissing the feelings of atheists because they’re godless heathen scum :rolleyes:, but you’d think that someone would pause on the route of building the Theological States of America and say, “y’know, if we keep this up, we’re going to have to piss off the Jews/Buddhists/Catholics/Baptists/eetc. as well, since they don’t believe in the same god I do.” Are these fundies really that insensitive to their fellow man?
Sure it’s insensitivity, but it’s the insensitivity born of the complete conviction that you are right and they are wrong.
Jews worship the same God as Christians (most fundamentalists will at least admit that), but they are not saved through Christ – the only way to be redeemed – so they are damned.
Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians (historical record and religious mythos notwithstanding), so they worship a false god, are not saved, and are damned.
Buddhists are not saved and so are damned – and many fundamentalists, having no good idea of Buddhism and often confusing it with Hinduism (which they in turn confuse with Islam) would tell you Buddhists worship multiple false gods (as Hindus do) and are damned.
Hardcore fundamentalist are dead serious that everyone except then is going in the Eternal Fry Pan – and that includes moderate Christians, who, some would argue, are especially damned because they have seen the true path of true Christianity and have willfully turned from it.
These people believe people other than them are in serious Error – big time, eternal damnation error, and the best thing to do is to persuade them of the error of their ways. That is why, for the true fundie with a good heart, there is no choice but to prostletyze, because you cannot simply leave your fellow men to go to Hell.
But when the rubber hits the road, they don’t mind suppressing someone else’s beliefs to foster their own. Because they are Right. And you are Wrong.
Again, I would like to point out that this mindset is hardly unique to Christianity; it is, rather, a hallmark of religious fundamentalism and can as easily be identified in fundamentalist Jews and Muslims as in fundie Christians.
Erick Hoffer (Ithink that is the spelling) said in “The true beliver” The less a system works, the more they proselytize. They prove
themselves by convencing others.
It seems as though the religious right is always up in arms over something trivial; something that is all symbol and no substance. Right now it’s the “under God” that was (ackwardly, IMO) inserted into the pledge of allegence back in the 1950s. At other times, it’s been posting the ten commandments in schools and other govt buildings. And let’s not forget the school “prayer” issue, which was never about anything that could legitimately be called prayer. It was about, would all public school children be required to recite something sort of religious sounding every morning?
Why do they care so much about these things? IMO, it’s because things like this serve to send a message to all Americans, and that message is that Christianity (their brand of it) is the official, govt-backed religion of all right thinking Americans, and everyone had better get with the program if they know what’s good for them.
They are well aware that these things can make non-believers, non-Christians, and “wrong thinking” Christians uncomfortable. That’s exactly what they want. The eagerly want to find ways of making everyone who fails to toe their belief line as uncomfortable as possible. Better yet, they’d love it if the rest of us were scared; afraid of the consequences of being “outed” as a non-believer or wrong-believer.
They want a return to the days when most gays and lesbians were firmly closeted and terrified of being found out. They want a return to the days when unmarried adult women were desperate to be believed by their neighbors to be “good girls” (virgins). And they want all non-believers and wrong believers to feel that they have to pretend to believe the right stuff. If they can’t make everyone believe in their religion, they will settle for having us all paying frightened lip service to it.
Another aspect of this is their insistance that the rules of their religon (especially the rules regarding sexual behavior) be backed up by the force of law.
Part of the problem is that people say “Religon and politics shouldn’t mix.” Usually what is meant is “You should not advocate that position because I disagree with it, and I want to exclude you from the debate because I already got what I want”. See practically any discussion on abortion for examples.
The trouble is that all of my moral positions are based on my religious beliefs. I find it logically contradictory to say that there is no God, but that there are valid moral principles. Therefore, if I am excluded from the public debate on moral issues, because my moral positions are religiously based, I will not be allowed to voice an opinion on anything. A neat little trick, if you can get me to buy into it. It doesn’t work as well if you apply it to someone like William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King Jr., but for the rest of us fundie red neck gay bashing knuckle draggers, it might pay to have a go at it.
The religious right are no different from any other group in America. We think our positions are right. So does every other group in America, from the NAACP to PETA to the AFL/CIO to the CPUSA. We all advocate on behalf of our beliefs. Which are the ones trying to foist their morality off on others? All of us.
We all try to marginalize our opponents. Some of us are godless atheists working to take God out of the Declaration of Independence, some are Commie subversives working for a UN-led One World Government, some are homosexual seducers speaking on behalf of NAMBLA, some of us are deluded fundamentalists trying to drag this country back to the Dark Ages.
How true do you think any of these stereotypes are? Why only those?
Athiests AREN’T trying to foist their beliefs on others. It’s exactly the opposite. They are trying to ensure that nobody’s beliefs are shoved down the collective national throat. The non-believers are merely looking to the government to act in a manner that is in keeping with the constitution.
The only thing I have to say is, “Bravo, Jodi.” That is as clear and unbiased (allowing for the fact that you disagree) a description of their views as I’ve ever seen.
Some comments on the “Under God” Pledge controversy from a Religious Right perspective can be found over at the Pizza Parlor here, here, and here. A former moderator on that board, one of the founders did a letter to the editor on the subject which is discussed in this thread. (I piped up in the last-noted thread.)
