>You talk of religious fundamentalists being "assaulted". Ridiculed, perhaps, but for the most part, not persecuted. Strength of conviction should be a sufficient shield against derisive comments.<
You must understand, however, that the issue concerns your implied perception that fundamentalists are trying to impose their views upon others. When I use the term “assault” I mean not that the religious conservatives are physically persecuted, but that their values are being encroached upon such that those who have managed to topple the moral system have arrogated to themselves the right to force the religious conservatives and everyone else to support their worldview. Religious conservatives are those being imposed upon. In return, they use the tools available to them in the democracy to fight back. So then when you speak of them imposing their views upon others, you err, completely overlooking what is being done to them. To my way of thinking it would be more reasonable to claim acceptance of the status quo, yet expressing understanding regarding the social conservative predicament. Claiming religious are trying to impose their views on the entire populace quite misses the mark, and betrays acceptance of propaganda.
>Why the hell should you care what Janet Reno, NPR, or the Washington Post have to say about your beliefs?<
Please try to understand and maintain the point. What if Janet Reno were to publicly claim kykes are those who accept the Jewish religion? What if the Washington Post were to publicly claim Blacks are generally dumb, poor and slave-like? What if NPR were to claim it a good thing were all latinos to be zapped off the face of the earth? What if these sorts of messages were pervasive in the culture? On the part of the affected groups the result likely would be a strong distrust and reaction against both the government and the society that would allow such insults to continue unpunished. When religious conservatives experience these sorts of subtle and overt insults, they sense their own existences being threatened. Therefore, they attempt to use the system and its laws to better insure their existence. This is the point. They are not imposing their values, du jour, upon others. They are reacting against the value du jour of society being imposed upon them. Remember that there was a time when religious conservatives were not forced to support abortion in any way. Now they are.
>Using the power of government to mandate prayer in public school is equally offensive to me (first instance of theocratic imposition).<
Now please try and think more deeply upon this belief of yours. Consider there was a time when prayer in schools was the societal norm. You must understand that to arrive where we are currently on this issue, someone had to impose their view upon the entire populace. That someone was not a religious conservative. Religious conservatives are merely using the democracy to try and do what has already been done to them. Actually it is quite a bit less than this. Religious conservatives generally understand the pluralistic nature of society, and so are loathe to force prayer. You see, they understand someone could use the law to force them to pray to a god they reject. What they generally support are moments of silence, allocated for students to use as they see fit. The imposition has already occurred, and it was against the religious conservatives.
>You would probably agree with me that more choices, private schools, vouchers, etc., is the direction in which education should be moving. The current system keeps gobbling up more money and cranking out more functional illiterates.<
Definitely.
>Attempting to recriminalize abortion is another instance of theocratic imposition that I resent.<
It took an imposition to decriminalize abortion. You may reject the pro-life position. But you cannot reject the logic. If you must complain against religious conservatives because they lobby to change public sentiment and laws to support their agenda, you must apply the logic to your side of the ledger. Fair is fair. Hopefully you now see the comprehensive lack of sophistication in the statement that fundamentalists are trying to impose their belief du jour upon the entire populace. I tell you that this is our system. The alternative is something akin to using bombs or guns against one another. In fact some anti-abortion activists feel this is their only recourse because they perceive the public has all but removed from them the right to participate in the debate. Currently it seems one merely need claim “moralists are trying to impose their beliefs, etc.…” and the debate is won. There is no sophistication here at all—no logic, no civility. Indeed it is quite barbaric, but it plays well, and so some people resort to barbarism to counter it-- they purchase 30.06's and very nice scopes.
>Along with my pro-choice position, I do also believe that those with a contrary belief should not be forced to fund the procedures with their tax dollars. Fair is fair.<
My friend, the fact is regardless of your beliefs here religious conservatives ARE being “forced to fund the procedures with their tax dollars.” Believing as you do, you must logically agree that the system is manifestly unfair. Therefore your complaints against religious conservatives are misplaced. You should complain against your side of the ledger. It will take extraordinary integrity to do this, but it would be the right thing to do. This does not mean you must accept the pro-life position, but that you must understand that when religious conservatives lobby our government, try to shape popular opinion and press for laws to support their positions, they merely participate in the American system.
>I also suspect that many fundamentalists would love to reinstate and rigorously enforce some of the antiquated statutes, still on the books in many states, that criminalize some forms of consensual sexual practices, both homo and hetero. More theocratic imposition.<
Logically, the imposition exists here when those who know the law, claim it antiquated and thus breakable. Our system does not allow individuals this sort of freedom. It demands they lobby the government, shape popular opinion and change the law rather than break them. Religious conservatives are imposing nothing here. The imposition occurs when illogic and lawbreaking is substituted for a constitutional system. Even so, should anyone lobby the government, try and shape popular opinion and change the law, you must complain they are imposing their views upon the entire populace, just as the fundamentalists.
>I concede your right to abhor homosexuality, and indeed, to any and all of your prejudices.<
There is no prejudice involved here at all. I have not prejudged homosexuality. I have thought over and studied it at length, and reasoned that I must reject it.
>I disagree with "special" rights for homosexuals. Individual rights are the only ones I care about. And that includes the rights for homosexuals, or anyone else, to live free from legal persecution and criminalization of their consensual adult lifestyle choices. Again, fair is fair.<
Agreed, and most religious conservatives I know will perhaps agree. Many simply do not want homosexuality imposed upon them as has been the case with abortion and other things they consider reprehensible. They do not want the law to force them to allow homosexuals to teach their children, lead their scout troops, rent their homes, work in their businesses, etc. They do not want to be forced to support the “mates” of homosexuals via insurance, taxes, etc. They recognize others are free to do as they choose, but they do not want government might forcing them to do what they consider repulsive.
>Regarding boycotts of companies, free choice and absolutely no problem with me.<
Very good.
>Falwell and his followers may boycott Teletubbies but I'll bet you 10 bucks that the ratings for that show on PBS will double or triple. Poor little Tinky Winky, anyway... LOL <
You are probably right (grin).
|
