|
(1.) Some truth to this one (though it's irrelevant)... there are some religious people who cannot tolerate the idea of relative morals... I don't suppose a great many elements of the truth or reality much appeal to them. So, okay, no equivocation... everything IS relative. They can't be reached anyway, so there's precious little worry about "appealing" to them, on here or anywhere among those who cherish Democratic values.
(2.) Not so much, they don't care whether our values are tolerance and equality (or helping the poor, loving my neighbor as myself or any other "proper" "Christian" values). I doubt they give a second thought to what we believe--even presuming they could understand. In any case, if they have a problem with our values, including our preferences for the search for justice, speaking out against bullies and defending the vulnerable--whether it offends them or not is just too bad--though I doubt that they could actually mount an offensive argument against such values (without being made to look bad anyway).
(3.) The sad fact is, even the most dedicated Atheist (or infidel) among us probably knows as much or more about the typical religious American's own religion than they themselves do--and certainly lives up to the moral guidelines as well or better. Hopefully, the individuals you're referring to will indeed attempt to "call us" on our use of religious language, it would provide the opportunity for dialog. You seem to suggest that there are people here who would attempt to falsely use "religious language" without knowing what it's about or being sincere. Not likely, those who would bother use their language would usually always be truly exemplary examples of the given religion. Presuming you intend Christianity, that is still true. Obviously, however, there are many here who do not share and do not buy into the concept that a person's religious beliefs are beyond question/deserving of "sympathy" or even respect. Alas, such attitudes may very well not "appeal" to the religious out there--not that they would treat Atheists with even the smallest respect, intellectually or otherwise. Regardless of the fact some would dare question the religious beliefs of others, that doesn't mean that they will treat them (the religious Republicans) with a lack of "human" respect (though often such Republicans, neither return the favor nor show through their own words and deeds that they deserve to have either their beliefs or their humanity respected in any way).
(4.) It may be that not many are actually eager to defend Muslims over their responses to those provocative and insulting cartoons (referring to defending some of their more abusive reactions, that is), but then again, not many are interested in condemning the whole group either. In the main, they behaved much as any American Christian or religious person would in similar circumstances. Those religious Americans are just lucky that they don't face the same circumstances. Very few indeed would suggest that there was any fair justification for reacting with criminal actions or by engaging in violence. The fact is, the vast majority of Muslims didn't react that way anyway. It may seem that way, but that's just because the few who did were the ones our media covered. As as matter of fact, the foregoing is not really even a "defense", it's merely expecting rational, reasonable people to consider the whole picture with all of it's exceptions and complexities--just as they themselves would wish to be judged (if they would even submit to or tolerate being judged). It's simply not a black and white, open and shut case as many of the fundamentalist American "religious" would view it. One simply cannot judge a Billion (more) people on the actions of a few. By the way, if our take on it doesn't "appeal" to some "religious" Americans, alas... our lives don't revolve around appealing to them. When and where it's reasonable to reach out to them, we may do so--but it's not something that we're going to suppress or change our own beliefs in order to do (this sentiment also applies to the other of your items--and beyond).
(5.) Religious extremism certainly isn't limited to Arab states. Indeed, it's alive and well in America and long has been--unfortunately it's been on the increase in recent decades. The tyranny in those "Arab states" is indeed a misfortune for the people, mostly Muslims, who have to live under those governments. To the limited extent that we can, we should try to help them realize a better way with greater freedom, but alas, those are sovereign countries and it's against international law and ethics to force regime change upon them. It doesn't work well in any case. I doubt that anyone around here would deny the oppressive religious, social and governmental conditions in most of the Arab world. Still, I wouldn't be surprised at all if many would argue with your characterization of it. You attempt to frame it as though it were total and, as you say, terrible. In some ways, it may well be bad, in others, it's the way those peoples choose to live. As for their Religious "extremism", they have their extremists as well as their moderates and those who just go through the motions--though they probably face somewhat stronger social pressures to display their religion publicly. Ironic that we seem to be coming closer to resembling them all the time. As for their political oppression, again, alas. You'd probably argue that I've just done what you're commenting on--I've just "minimized" those aspects of their society and religion! Well, that's just expressing a more complete view of reality. It's not wrong to express the truth, even if it doesn't "appeal" to certain American "religious" people. We're not "apoligizing" for them--their extremists are guilty of the usual bad behaviors and a small fraction of them even engage in "terrorism" (oooh, the big scary word). Of course, in a sense, our own American religious extremists seek to do the same things--only they haven't felt it necessary to engage in terrorism on the same scale as their Arab counterparts do (I mean bombing a few abortion clinics and such, while similar, isn't really on the same scale--yet). Well, I've begun to repeat myself, so I'll move on...
Of course, I can't speak for everyone here and opinions do vary--even on the points you wrote about. Nevertheless, while I think you've missed the mark for the most part on most or all of them, I will take the chance and attempt to speak for the majority of Democrats/Progressives/Liberals and typical members of DU (and ask their forbearance as this is an admitted assumption only done for the sake of argument). Generally, it's probably fair to think that we would like to reach as many open minds on the Religious Right as are reasonable enough to take the time to find our common ground--for we believe that it's greater than has been recognized by most of them. In any case, we won't be perverting any of our values in an effort to 'appeal' to them, even making the unsubstantiated assumption that any of your points identifies any issues that would really matter very greatly to any among your group of "religious" voters.
Alas, your post probably didn't merit this much of a response, if it was even worthy of a reply. The only reason for doing so was on the off chance you simply hadn't thought it through... that you somehow weren't aware of how your whole premise buys into typical Republican (and particularly Religious Right Christian) spin. Yet the obvious presumption that we'd be desperate to pander to what can only be referred to (and this is implied in your remarks) as the 'Religious Right' (for want of a better term)(which is complete with intolerance, superiority, all or nothing/black or white perspective, as well as the supreme belief that they're both always right and the only one's who are right) makes me think I've wasted my time. Whatever the case, I don't mind.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(259 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
