Do not expect me to be tolerant of extreme religious fundamentalists

[Hugabear]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by MineralMan (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Do not expect me to be tolerant of those who espouse extremist religious fundamentalist beliefs. The Constitution may guarantee someone's right to believe whatever the hell they want, but it also gives me the right to question, criticize, and even mock those beliefs if I so choose.

Personally, I think the idea of praying to any invisible deity is silly, as is the notion that some singular magical being somehow is responsible for everything in the universe. When it comes to Christianity - the religion I am most acquainted with - there are so many ways to pick the religion apart, it's difficult to know where to begin. If someone's belief is so fragile that they cannot withstand any scrutiny or questioning, is that my problem?

But for the most part, I really don't have any major quarrels with those who want to practice their religious beliefs in private or within the company of like-minded people in their churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. However, I do have a major beef with extreme religious fundamentalists. By this, I mean anyone who believes that their belief is the only correct belief, and that they believe it is their duty to impose their beliefs on everyone else around them.

When this is applied to the public realm, the results are disastrous. For many years, people used religion to defend the practice of slavery (after all, in the New Testament book of Philemon, Paul instructs a slave to return to his master). I've heard many fundamentalists use the Bible to justify segregation and to oppose interracial relationships. Women are treated as second-class citizens because of religions reasons, with government having control over their bodies. Fundamentalist attitudes towards homosexuality is very well established - with many fundamentalists still advocating death as a legitimate recourse for gays. Fundamentalism leads to a decline in education (many believe that public education should be abolished completely). Schools would be required to teach creation as a valid science, evolution would be banned. Many still believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs - despite absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up, they would have this taught in school. Indeed, there is a push among many fundamentalists to have Biblical "history" taught in public schools. Most fundamentalists are very rigidly anti-choice, even in cases of rape or incest. Birth control is also to be discouraged or even banned.

Then there is the foreign policy aspect of fundamentalism (I'm going to reference Christian fundamentalism here, since it's the most prevalent form in the US). It's safe to say that almost all fundamentalists have this obsession with Israel, which they believe is "God's chosen nation". Under this viewpoint, Israel can do no wrong - they must be supported no matter what. There is a belief among fundamentalists that in the "End Times", every nation on Earth will come together against Israel in the final battle - Armageddon - and that Christ will return at this point and defeat these forces and set up his 1000-year rule on Earth before the Final Judgment. Of course, the fundamentalists would like for the United States to be allied with Israel during this Final Battle. Many of their policy decisions are geared towards this goal.

So yes, please do not expect me to be "tolerant" of those with extremist religious viewpoints. In the US, the biggest threat just happens to come from Christian fundamentalism, but I also have the same opinion towards Islamic fundamentalism, or any other group who would try to impose their religious beliefs on those around them.

[jberryhill]

1. Okay, I won't

But what can I expect of you, then?

[grantcart]

16. When I see these "don't expect me" posts

I always wonder if there is some DU program somewhere like a baseball game where we are all keeping track of what we expected all of the other DUers are thinking.

I am sure glad we don't have that because I would have gotten that one 100% wrong. I had him down as completely tolerant of Evangelical and Pentacostals beliefs but 'ambiguous' on the Amish.

[FarLeftFist]

2. I hate that people try to push their religion on me every time I sneeze.

But seriously, It works both ways for me, as an Atheist myself I actually dislike when Atheists try to suppress other people's free-will of wanting to practice religion.

[Deep13]

4. I suppose if that ever happens, I'll join you in that dislike.

So far it hasn't. It's religious people who are trying to impose their will on everyone else, including other religious people who don't agree with them. Atheists, are expressing disagreement, but are not suppressing anyone.

[TheWraith]

12. Frankly, I see plenty of obnoxiously self-rightous atheists.

Christopher Hitchens being the classic example, but there's a whole lot that follow in his footsteps to the point where the obnoxious atheist who thinks anyone who believes in any kind of spirituality is crazy is one of those "cliches because it's true" things.

I try not to get into those arguments (being pretty much agnostic, I really don't have a dog in that fight) but they sure as hell are out there.

[Major Nikon]

19. It's going to take a whole lot more to catch up with the Christian zealots

As an adult, you can pretty much decide whatever you want to believe or not believe and not get much flack about it. However, you don't really get a sense of how persistent and pervasive Christian zealotry is unless you've grown up in this country as a non-Christian placed in a majority Christian environment. It gives you a little different perspective regarding how much influence some of these people try to have over the lives of everyone else. Then if you've ever lived in Europe for any length of time you start to realize that things really don't have to be that way. If it takes a few obnoxiously self-rightous atheists to change the status quo here, I'm all for it. The worst that can happen is at least you have some diversity among those who claim the moral high ground.

[Union Scribe]

22. Don't worry, they make up for it in volume. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. We try.

Practice makes perfect.

[Logical]

5. Like forcing them to take their kids to a doctor? Or forcing them to...

Deliver birth control at a pharmacy?

[Hugabear]

7. Where has that happened in this country?

I'm unaware of any atheists trying to "suppress" someone else's freedom of religion.

There's a huge difference between working to ensure separation of church & state and actually trying to oppress freedom of religion. There's also a huge difference between questioning, criticizing, and even mocking someone's religious beliefs and actually oppressing their religious beliefs.

[DonCoquixote]

8. Not in this country

But sadly one of the things that hurt the left is that the Soviets did indeed oppress religion.

[tblue]

17. Well said, Hugabear.

I wish we could all just live and let live.

[Deep13]

3. You're infringing my right to oppress Jews, women, and gays!

How could you?!

(sarcasm)

[RZM]

6. Ok, but you also left out the counter arguments

People also used religion to condemn slavery. Some of the most prominent figures in the abolitionist movement were preachers. Clergy were also front and center during the Civil Rights movement. And not just the black clergy. Plenty of white clergy marched as well and used religion in their arguments.

Also, though it's not often mentioned, the Jimmy Carter campaign was the first to feature broad support from evangelical Christians, who before had largely been wary of politics. They helped get him elected in 1976.

I'm also an atheist, but I choose to tolerate the beliefs of others. I also choose not to be insulting when it isn't necessary and I refrain from saying things like 'sky god' and 'magical being.' That's my personal choice. You might not make the same one, but mine works for me.

If you want respect from anybody, the first step is giving it yourself. If you still don't get it in return, then it's neither your fault nor your problem. If you're not giving it in the first place, that's a different question.

[Hugabear]

9. I'm referring to extremist religious fundamentalists - not moderate religious followers

If everyone emphasized the positive aspects of religion - peace, love, understanding, etc - then I suspect we wouldn't have as many problems, and there would be much less hostility towards religion.

But you're not going to get me to respect those who would say that I'm going to burn in Hell, that homosexuals should be forced back into the closet, that women should not have any control over their bodies, that government should openly promote religion (by which I mean their brand of religion).

[RZM]

11. Plenty of abolitionists were not 'moderate religious followers'

There certainly were many extremist abolitionists, including some whose opposition to slavery was rooted in their strong religious faith.

Reminds of a tale from 'The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas.' He mentions that one of the ways slaves learned to read was from fundamentalists who defied convention and taught slaves their letters so that they would be able to read the scriptures for themselves. Those were people who risked their own personal safety to violate the norms of slavery purely out of religious conviction. Many were not abolitionists, but they nonetheless bucked the status quo on slavery because of faith.

The history of religion's interaction with social life and social policies is very complex - far more complex than your characterization. That's the point I made.

Of course I agree with you that I don't respect calls to condemn homosexuality etc. But I also know that such faith does not characterize most believers. It's a a small but quite vocal minority. Kind of like the Islamic fundamentalists terrorists. They make a lot of noise, but they don't characterize the faith of most Muslims.

[RainDog]

20. but he's referring to modern day religious fundamentalists

not historical figures.

Lincoln was elected in 1860. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. It would be entirely understandable for a religious person at that time to be a creation literalist in that context.

To believe in creationism at this time, as in a young earth creationism, is simply a refusal to accept reality b/c it interferes with belief. Even though those beliefs are a direct result of the Second Great Awakening, to hold such beliefs now is just tribalism.

If the OP wants to rant about fundamentalists and their beliefs AT THIS TIME - there is no need to chastise that such people do not represent the majority of believers, right? Because that's not what he said he was talking about.

Fundamentalists became involved in politics when our nation moved to respect the religious rights of others in the 1960s with court decisions that moved prayers out of schools, with the civil rights act of the 1960s, in the 1970s with rulings that respected the rights of women to make reproductive health care decisions (that followed the development of birth control and the right to use it in the 1960s), and with the rejection of military service and support for American militarism in the 1960s because of the lies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

Fundamentalist Christians are not a minority in the south. The reason the south now goes to Republicans in elections is because of the large fundamentalist voting bloc there.

Republicans won the Senate for the first time since 1952 because of Reagan's appeal to white racists in the south (i.e. The Southern Strategy.) If not for religious fundamentalists, Republicans would not win elections in the U.S.

Religious fundamentalists will not align with a party that is pro-choice and pro-equal rights unless that religious faction substantially reinterprets its idea of civic involvement.

If Democrats try to curry favor with religious fundamentalists by kowtowing to them on social issues - Democrats will lose their base. They'll also lose the future because greater progress is the arrow of political time in the U.S., even when politicians don't recognize this.

iow, I have no problem with someone ranting about religious fundamentalists because our recent history has demonstrated that they retard civil rights and economic justice. If you can demonstrate how this is not true - I'd love to see it. In the present - not a hundred years ago.

[RZM]

21. Carter brought the evangelicals into presidential politics

What you wrote is not entirely correct, though I agree those things did motivate them to some degree over the years. Their debutante ball as an organized force was the 1976 election, when they came out FOR Carter, because he was an evangelical too.

[RainDog]

25. Nixon initiated the southern strategy that started the white fundie realignment

before Carter. the SS was based directly upon southern reaction to the civil rights act.

Carter ran as a "clean" politician, in contrast to the dirty politics of Nixon. A lot of people thought Ford was a sell out b/c he pardoned Nixon. The populist south went for the outsider. I mean, George Wallace was the popular southern candidate in the elections leading up to Carter's run - so, honestly, what's good about Carter bringing evangelicals into the voting booth?

It's sort of a shame that Carter won the evangelical south when you consider the consequences of their increased involvement in politics.

[RainDog]

26. oh, and just to note - Carter did not kowtow to the fundies on social issues

he spoke openly about his beliefs in desegregation and noted that, tho he was not pro-choice, he respected others' rights to make those decisions for themselves.

he also promoted a humanitarianism in foreign policy that southern fundies rejected.

and, most importantly for the "at this time," he left the southern baptist convention a few years ago because he said their religious beliefs were sexist and he could not in good conscience align with them.

[RainDog]

27. Here's what Carter said

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html#ixzz1hpExQEV

...my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still have -- an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.

[Union Scribe]

23. Yes, but you couldn't help get some swipes in against them, too. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. BRAVO! I couldn't agree more. I consider all religious fundamentalists to be a

threat to society, particularly since all religious fundamentalists have one goal: to convert others, and turn the nation fundamentalist in their particular religion.

And that's without even mentioning the fact that all religious fundamentalist religions mistreat women in one way or another.

[hfojvt]

13. if I didn't believe my belief was correct, then why would I believe it?

If I believed that many other things were also correct, then why should I continue to believe my belief?

So here I am, believing that pi equals 3.1415926535897932384626433832795

Some other group believes that pi = 17. I think they are wrong.

The nerve of me!! Oh, the sheer nerve. How dare I believe that somebody else is wrong? I guess that is wrong, and that pi could actually be anything. It could be 17. It could be minus 12. It could be 144. Or it could even be e plus i divided by the square root of 1 minus v suared over c squared. (I feel like I have failed somehow in this by not including Planck's constant and Avogadro's number.)

I kinda like fundamntalists myself, in some ways. I spent a number of years going to Free Methodist and Nazarene churches. Unlike the average liberal Presbyterian who occasionally drives their nice car to church, the fundamentalists actually believe they need to put their religion into practice. They are often very nice people, with some wacked out beliefs often, but still very nice people.

[Zorra]

14. Yeah...RW fundies are totally serious problems for the rest of humanity. They're ignorant,

bigoted, and dangerous in so many ways.

[quinnox]

15. "But for the most part, I really don't have any major quarrels

with those who want to practice their religious beliefs in private or within the company of like-minded people in their churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc."

Whew, that's a relief.

[Dewey Finn]

18. I wouldn't dream of it n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

24. And by the way, saying "There is no God" isn't any more bigoted than saying "Jesus loves you"

although some people here will argue endlessly that it is.

[LanternWaste]

28. I imagine taking any human construct to the extreme is counter-productive...

I imagine taking almost any human construct that exists nowhere but our own imaginations to the extreme is counter-productive... religion, politics, philosophies, etc.

Although I realize we'll more readily rationalize and justify the extremes we ourselves take as we directly and indirectly attempt to impose our own agendas on the nation through voting, civil disobedience, etc.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. True

Human nature is human nature and everyone is an equal opportunity a-hole.

[lapislzi]

31. Well, part of the problem with fundamentalism...

is that proselytizing is not only encouraged, but expected and demanded. In their own bizarre way, they think they're doing you a favor.

When confronted by this attitude, I thank them politely for their concern, explain that I'm an atheist, and that their time would be better spent elsewhere on a more receptive mind.

[MineralMan]

32. Locking: Posts that deal with religion

belong in the Religion Group. Posts that deal with Israel/Palestine belong in that group.