Politics & religion

[packsaddle]

Eagledad,

 

I'm with you on the name calling thing. Applying terms is a poor substitute for honest understanding. The term, 'religious right' is as worthless as the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal'. The 'conservative' 'religious right' would like to kill us...if we located the persons to which those terms are applied in other countries. Interesting concept though, the idea of different factions of the conservative religious right hating each other...couldn't happen if the terms meant the same thing everywhere.

 

The same problem exists for 'liberal' or 'religious left' which I have never heard used in any kind of popular sense. But the fact that it isn't heard on the street is hardly a source of intellectual evidence for anything.

 

However, it seems that Dan must have touched a nerve. And I'm trying to follow this but I need to clarify....Jesus's second commandment - that would be the one mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40, right? You know, the part about loving thy neighbor as thyself?

Anyway, at some time didn't Jesus also say something about turning the other cheek or something to that effect?

 

I think you are correct. This country is dominated by the Christian religion. The Christian right is in the political drivers seat. So why the thin skin? You're in control. You must know that by now. Try to see things through the eyes of the rest of us. Sort of like that golden rule thing. Ahem, there is also that pesky aspect of responsibility, you're responsible when you're in control.

 

Just an additional note: phobia also relates to things that repel (as in hydrophobic), or to hate. I think the term 'homophobia' means many things in addition to fear. It also includes hate and revulsion. That second law could be invoked here as well.

[DanKroh]

Well, hi to you, too, Barry. Let me try to cut through the hostility here a little and address some of your points.

 

"I didnt ask if you were religious, I asked if you have ever heard of the religious left. The term religious right which is not used to suggest a good person unintentionally doesnt give any option either. Youre either religious and a republican, or you are not religious."

 

Yes, I have heard of the religious left. However, in my experience, they are often not acknowledged as being religious by those on the right exactly because many on the right seem to believe the last sentence in your statement above.

 

"It is interesting that its OK to be intolerant or inclusive if it is on a liberals terms, but is that really intolerant? Lets look homosexuality, have you ever personally told someone they were homophobic? Fear of gays, what is that? Lets be truthful here, that word was invented to intimidate people from admitting that homosexuality is a moral sin. The word was intended to censor an opinion. If we cant change their mind, we will at least shut them up, right?"

 

Yes, I have personally told a few people that I thought they were homophobic. And "fear of gays" is a very literal definition of the term, usually brought out by those who are desperate to prove that they are not, in fact, homophobic. Interesting that you think the word was "invented to intimidate" and "censor". Can't say I'm interested in "shutting them up", although I am interested in preventing them from telling homosexuals that they should just shut up and take their seat in the back of the bus.

 

"You dont wear what on your sleeve? I read a lot of your post and you wear a lot of your sleeve. You are also intolerant of those who differ with your ideals, so what? ... Hey, remember when the Boy Scouts were booed at the Democrat National Convention? That made the Democrat look warm and welcoming. Lets admit it, democrats and liberals wear a lot on their sleeves."

 

Most people who know me, with the exception of close friends, do not know my specific religious affiliations. They probably assume that I am some stripe of Christian, since I try to live my life by Wiccan ideals that are similar to those that most Christians value. As far as "wearing a lot on my sleeve" here, this is a discussion board. Sorry if my expressing my opinions distresses you so. As far as me being "intolerant of those who differ" from my ideals, I try to be tolerant of the opinions of others. However, my tolerance does tend to end when those opinions are being used to restrict the rights of a minority, or to promote hatred and violence towards anyone. As far as Scouts being booed at the Democratic National Convention, I wasn't there, nor am I a Democrat. I am not responsible for their actions, even though I am a liberal. Are you responsible for those conservative Republicans who say things like "God hates fags"? Saying and doing nasty and stupid things is not a trait confined to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

 

"My point through all this is that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner with religious folks. You may say that religious people are welcome, but the words and actions of non Republicans that we hear and see TV or in the news papers is not inviting."

 

And Republicans are warm and inviting to anyone who isn't the "right kind" of Christian? Sorry, but they haven't exactly made me feel warm and invited.

 

"At best your terms are its OK to be religious so long as you keep it to yourself. Well it doesnt work that way around here. Religion is a way of life for many folks and one way or another a discussion of what happen at church, or Sunday school, or some kind of church sponsored social event comes up."

 

Ah, so because I don't go around telling everyone about my religion, or trying to convert them to it means that it is not important in my life?

 

"Right or wrong, religion around here is a way living life bound in morality and accountability. Its not talked about a lot because it is just part of life. I think that is what you call wearing it on your sleeve."

 

No, what I call wearing it on your sleeve is insisting that your way of believing is the ONLY way of believing. Such as your assumption above that only those who are religious can be moral and accountable.

 

"It seems liberals way of answering to moral accountability is to stand up and shout your wrong, follow with a little name calling. But it is a way of life and as long as the Democratic Party wraps its arms around those who spout anger against that way of life, the party will suffer."

 

Interesting. In my experience, that is what I see a lot of the more vocal neoconservative Republicans doing. Claiming that liberals cannot be morally accountable because they are obviously "goddless". The name calling happens on both sides of the political spectrum. You think the Republican Party doesn't "spout anger"? Haven't heard much of Ann Coulter, have you?

 

"You may be thinking of Pat Robertson when you say religious right, but around here many think of themselves because there is no other option."

 

These days, more like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum, and on my more pessimistic days, the wonderful Fred Phelps.

 

"Im not sure what vision pops in your mind when Christian is mentioned, but you should think of my mother or mother in-law who are proud children of God and think of most of their friends that way. Calling them names is not going to make them your friend. Maybe you should set and example and try a different tact. Maybe try a little tolerance and understanding. Next time a gay discussion starts up, you initiate your part of the discussion with Jesus second commandment. It doesnt change debate, but it does set the moral tone of the discussion that should follow."

 

And what names did I call them, exactly? I know plenty of wonderful Christians, who I often discuss religion, politics, and philosophy with in a civil and thoughtful manner. I even go to church and worship next to some Christians, as well as Jews, Buddhists, Deists, Agnostics, and even atheists. As far as me initiating my part of the discussion "with Jesus second commandment", I'm afraid that you have me at a disadvantage, since I am not a Christian. However, I do try to follow the Wiccan Rede in such things, and it has usually held me in good stead, morally speaking. As far as setting an example, and trying a little tolerance and understanding, to quote another old adage, perhaps you should practice what you preach. Because the vitrole of your post is far from a good example of tolerance and understanding.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[acco40]

Whoa! Barry, I've got to take issue with some of your comments.

 

You're either religious and a Republican or you are not religious? Where did that come from?

 

There are nut cases on all sides of the fence as well as thoughtful and considerate folks.

 

Are some folks homophobic? Yes. They do fear gays for whatever reason. Unfortunately, some do use that term in a pejorative sense to try and intimidate or justify their beliefs. But the converse is true too. Some label those who do not feel homosexuality is a sin as immoral individuals.

 

I do not view homosexuality as inherently evil or sinful. That some religions or individuals do is okay with me to some extent. Similar to eating pork, circumcision, wearing hats, grooming peculiarities, etc. I have no problem with it until laws are passed or certain quasi-public institutions take sides on the issue. How would you feel if the BSA said that to be the best kind of citizen one should not eat pork? But I realize that if the government were to give same sex unions some sort of legal status, many who believe that homosexuality is immoral would have trouble with it. But hey, I can shave, go topless (no hat) and eat bacon. The deciding factor for me is how do other peoples actions directly effect me. Some practical reasoning goes into effect. Should it be illegal to drive while intoxicated or should it just be illegal to drive erratically? Does it make a difference why someone drives badly? Should it be illegal to drive in a prudent manner while intoxicated? Well, libertarians may disagree with me on this but yes, I feel that for practical reasons, driving while intoxicated should be illegal regardless of how well one is driving. The goal is to prevent accidents, not prosecute drunks.

 

So yes, I do have a problem if "religious people" try to force their belief system on others. However, the conundrum is that most religions, Christianity included, are fundamentally proselytizing by nature. Now, we should all strive to abide by the Scout Oath and Law and show respect and courtesy to others. For example, regardless of their beliefs, the first ladies, both Democrats and Republicans, covered their heads and wore conservative clothing when meeting the Pope. Was that hypocritical or just good manners?

 

Now I've heard some people argue that things like murder are religious beliefs so why have laws against murder. Well, I realize that many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values (some would say Judeo-Christian values are based on mans early reasoned laws) but I postulate that even Merlyn would agree that murder, rape, etc. should be outlawed for all.

 

Some issues like stem cell research, abortion, etc. are very emotional and not black and white and yes it is in our best interests for our government to take a stand, one way or the other on these issues. But what I think is a shame is that in the case of abortion, more energy seems to be spent on both sides arguing their positions than trying to decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. You'd think that common ground would be inviting for all.

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

"... to be the best kind of citizen one should not eat pork."

 

Where I come from, serving pork barbecue is a hanging offense ...

[Vicki]

Wait a minute Trev, just so I'm sure I understand - no baby back ribs? Oh my, you'll have to set me on my horse and put a rope around my neck...

 

Vicki

[Eagledad]

>>You're either religious and a Republican or you are not religious? Where did that come from?

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, W is welcome to plant his thin WASP lips on one of my cheeks any ole time.

For others I'll offer a different part of my anatomy.

But if 'even a liberal is a neighbor', then all I can say in return is...Thanks!

 

Edited part: Trev, I just realized that while all of us are here beating this dead horse...we may just be tenderizing your dinner? As for me, any ol' form of charred mammal flesh is good for barbecue, but it's hard to beat pork the way we do it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[acco40]

First, I agree that Democrats have an image problem. So do Republicans. It is politicians who have the image problem.

 

The media is much more polarized now than it used to be years ago. Each side has their catch phrases. I don't buy into it. For all of you that tend to use or categorize individuals as liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat please define your terms.

 

For example, from the 2004 Republican Party platform we have:

Families & Children

Families are the cornerstone of our culture.

Well, duh, who would argue that?

Immigration

Only legal immigrants, through tightly controlled borders.

I don't know of any party that supports illegal immigration.

Welfare & Poverty

Move more welfare recipients off the welfare rolls.

Again, I don't think anyone advocates putting more on welfare rolls.

 

Let's look at the Democrats' platform:

Families & Children

Family is the center of American life.

Gee, where have I heard something similar?

Immigration

Path for undocumented aliens to earn citizenship.

Sounds like our president. Now which party does he belong to?

Welfare & Poverty

Expand middle class.

Again, sure sounds similar to something else I read!

 

So before anyone start labelling the "other" party as the bogeyman, let's argue/debate issues instead of trying to paint the other party into a corner with tainted beliefs.

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)