>I must admit that I don't like religion (of any flavor), especially fundamentalist theocrats who wish to impose their belief structure, de jure, on the entire populace.<
The position is trendy and feigns sophistication, but I think it entirely misses the description of the social conservative view. Many conservatives see themselves on the defensive, having to defend their points-of-view. Consider, for example, Clinton's attempts to codify military acceptance of open homosexuals. In this instance a president and a segment of the populace attempted to impose its belief structure on another segment of the populace, a segment the majority of which on moral, religious and pragmatic grounds rejected this belief structure. Where religious conservatives were concerned, their lobbying against the imposition caused many people to claim they were imposing their belief structure on the society. It simply was not true. Consider also what is widely reported amongst religious conservatives to be Janet Reno's description of a cultist. She allegedly claimed essentially that a cultist was someone who home-schooled, had a distrust of the government and who had deeply held religious beliefs. This is a description that easily includes myself. Consider a Washington Post article that essentially claimed religious conservatives generally uneducated, poor and easily controlled. Consider a Post comic likening religious conservatives to rats. Consider an NPR commentator who stated essentially that having all Christians zapped away from the earth would be a good thing. Reno, NPR and the Washington Post may call me names if they like, but this will not exactly help me trust the government or a society that would so easily allow such things to occur without serious consequences. Indeed, it simply makes me want to fight harder to defend my point-of-view. And this is the point. It is perhaps the case that what you claim is “fundamentalist theocrats who wish to impose their belief structure, de jure, on the entire populace”, is in fact fundamentalists who merely use the tools available to them to fight within a culture that increasingly threatens to run roughshod over their points-of-view.
The general assault against religious conservatives is too pervasive and has occurred too frequently to allow such conservatives much hope that anyone other than themselves understands their point-of-view. Their talk shows are one-sided because they perceive major media outlets to be one-sided. I personally cannot remember ever seeing a major media source present a solid representation of the religious/social conservative point-of-view on anything. Nevertheless these same outlets have often presented views antagonistic to the social conservative view with impressive, even if subtle force.
A while ago I attended a Promise Keepers rally to see what sorts of things went on there. Fundamentally I saw thousands of men listening intently to speakers of all colors and sundry nationalities, men who earnestly encouraged one another to lay aside their racial prejudices to claim a singular identity in Christ. I left there perplexed, because about all I had heard of Promise Keepers in the secular press was of some cave men who Elanor Smeal essentially claimed wanted to club their wives back to the fifties. The Washington Post almost always misrepresented the gathering and the beliefs of the speakers. Yet that publication unblushingly called a topless lesbian who, during a homosexual parade gyrated her hips upon a statue as if having sex with it, ‘a triumph'.
I think now many social conservatives are in a defensive posture so that the media, the government and even Teletubbies (sp?) are suspect. I do not think I have ever seen a Teletubbie. Nevertheless I can assure you I am not at all laughing here with everyone else about the Falwell statement regarding them. I am no follower of Jerry Falwell, and never have been. Nevertheless I do believe there is an increasing reckless disregard for the moral sensibilities of social conservatives in this country such that those conservatives can reasonably be cautious of nearly all trends embraced herein. If Falwell suggested to his people that they be cautious of allowing their children to be influenced by Teletubbies, then I believe they should review the argument, with sober minds choosing to accept or reject the characters. It is indeed possible that the developer of those characters are making a homosexual statement, even if inadvertently. Those who reject homosexuality as a viable lifestyle can with reason reject characters that suggest effeminateness. Falwell apparently sees Tinky Winky (sp?) as an effeminate character, and believed it necessary that he alert his people concerning him/her/it. Some people prefer their children to become enamoured with characters that are not androgynous or effeminate. Perhaps influenced by what they perceive as assaults by the larger culture upon their values, they become very suspicious when that same antagonistic culture presents to them characters that are androgynous and effeminate. This is entirely reasonable.
Now perhaps in your implication that “fundamentalist theocrats [have wished] to impose their belief structure, de jure, on the entire populace” you meant something entirely different than what I have described above. Help me understand you. Give me a few instances where fundamentalist theocrats have attempted to force their belief structure on the entire populace of this country. Perhaps you think here of the social conservatives' boycotts of companies? If so, which boycott? Spell it out for me. I want to see as precisely as I can what it is that drives this opinion of yours. |
