I don't see how you can say that the term religious right is not used because of one's religious nature. The very term seems to contradict that. If all the deriders cared about was the politics, they would say "far right" or some non-sectarian term. By terming it religious right they are actively attacking the religion.
Consider: if I called a position an "atheist leftist" position would you say that I was not using the term of someone because of their atheism but because of their politics?
I personally think that, for example, having a creche on public property is not tyranny of the majority but recognition of a cultural heritage. Every symbol has the potential of offending someone if they choose to be offended. OTOH, a symbol can't offend you unless you choose to be offended. In our town, for example, for about thirty years the Lions had put a lighted NOEL sign on the ferry terminal roof. It was a long standing tradition. Last winter somebody objected that it was promoting religion on public property, and rather than defend the rights of the citizens to have their tradition followed, the ferry system, a state agency, ordered that it be taken down.
That was an excellent way to generate resentment against atheists, I can assure you. And I think rightly so, personally. |
