Or even one funny bit.
Once again, my lack of subtlety is taken as derision.
In my defense, I have no requirement to show respect to any belief system, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Gaia-worship, or some dude praying to his Labradoodle.
Likewise, you have no right to demand that I either respect or disrespect any of them.
I posted about a whackjob who believes that sci-fi authors are going to cause people to stop believing in “God”. I asked if fiscal conservatives, small “L” libertarians and the Republican Party could finally ditch him and his fellow freakazoids so that maybe some people who don’t get side-tracked by meaningless social issues can get this country back on the right track.
And then some of the Christians who stop by here on the regular tell me that I’m “disrespecting” Christianity.
I was. His idea of Christianity. The idea that demands a person vote for someone based on their belief system and what is best for the religion instead what is best for the nation and its citizenry. The Christianity that demands anyone not righteous enough to cast their vote in that manner be considered less worthy of a place in “the afterlife” than one who would.
If you use a belief in a higher power to give you structure for your moral background in day-to-day actions/decisions, who am I to care? If you need a deity to hear your confessions when you make “mistakes” and to help lessen the number of mistakes you make, wonderful. Neither of those things picks my pocket or breaks my arm.
But don’t expect me to respect the entirety of that belief system and every jackoff/janeoff who hangs out under that banner.
You have no right to ask that of me. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Likewise, you have no right to demand I play patty-cake with my rebuttal of your demands that I do.
Believe what you want. I couldn’t give a squirt.
But use your belief system to decide that stopping loose wimmin from getting Plan B, and keeping the queer folks from kissing in public, and the removal of nekkid pictures from teh intarwebz, and sci-fi authors not writing enough books about “God” or writing books about a “God” that doesn’t resemble the Christian “God” are the most important issues of the day and I’m possibly going to have to draw a line, call someone a whackjob, and post my opinion on it.
Caution: Posts may mention the religious affiliation of whackjob freaks.
If said affiliation begins with a “C”, am I going to get people telling me that I’m insulting them every single fucking time?
I went back and read the original post. I made no mention of Christianity. I used the phrase “religious right” once, suggesting that people who vote for their god over their fellow citizen’s individual rights need to take a fucking hike.
What is so damn objectionable about that? That I didn’t use kid gloves?
Really. Answer me that.
The next day I succinctly clarify the phrase “religious right” and write about how some people who are a little too deep into their belief system vote to restrict the rights of others not so full of love for a deity, specifically mentioning that it is not only Christians who do this.
More objections. More accusations that I’m a hater or that I’m projecting or some such bullshit.
Really?
Two days of getting aspersions and stones cast my way, by people professing a belief in, and a love of, Jesus, for pointing out some jackass who thinks Heinlein is leading people down the road to hell and suggesting that people such as he should check their heads before they vote?
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
By the way, Gerry, and I’m mentioning you specifically because I thought you were above this, “shoving it down their throats” does not include the standard raising of children just because they are in a Christian household.
Offer it to your children. Let them offer it to theirs in perpetuity. I utterly give less than a rat’s asshole.
I can make a list of things I have seen people do to their children that I consider “shoving it down their throats” and email it to you if you’d like. Top of the list: Punishment for the child not wanting to go to church. Do you do that, Gerry? Because you clearly seem to believe you’re doing something objectionable.
Just this Atheist’s $0.02:
Ya might not want to go there.
No one has any business telling anyone else how to raise their children, unless you can prove that said child is being endangered.
The notion of preventing “forced Christianity”, on kids can just as easily be morphed into preventing “forced atheism” or “forced heterosexuality”, or “forced exposure to guns”.
…and this is why a political coalition of the right will never work.
One can only hope, that when the time comes, we can get back together at the barricades, else the bullets will be coming from too many directions for ANYONE to live through it.
One can hope that the defense of the Constitution means more to the right than has been indicated here…if not, I might as well just pick the least worst of the socialist democracies and apply for a visa to live there, because no one is gonna want to live here in a few years.
I have read, for years, the opinions of the stalwarts of the Right on this page, and offered more than a few of my own. Never before have I seen a demonstration of the fatal schism which apparently has cleaved this political movement asunder.
I weep for the glorious past of my Country, for now I am sure it cannot be saved.
It is a black day, indeed.
Heya, Phil – long time no comment, just sort of been a lurker – life has been too hectic to really wage much of a battle these days. I agree with you 100% – the fact that some aspects of the right have fallen into an “ideological purity” trap is pretty sad.
Religion isn’t just a part of the right’s composition these days – it has now become a hammer with which to bash anyone who does not have the right amount of “purity” or “belief”. Nice way to court young people – by telling the that science fiction is to be shunned because it doesn’t believe in the right god or gods. It’s a absolutely pitiful message to send.
There should be freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. And basing public policy on religious doctrine is a HUGE mistake. And something we (rightly) criticize loudly when other religions, like Isalm, do it.
You can be moraly opposed to abortion and make it a part of your party’s public policy without invoking a higher being.
But, you now find yourself in a losing war – you cannot have a reasonable conversation about the role of religion in conservative politics – because the true believers don’t want a conversation. They want a conversion – and if you don’t toe the line, you are to be cast out for your lack of appropriate belief and piety.
Hope all is well
This schism between the “true believers” and those interested in protecting individual liberty and property predate our revolution and the enlightenment. What today’s “true believers” seem to have mostly forgotten is that many of their ancestors, of all stripes, be they round head Puritans, Quakers, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, or fleeing English Catholics colonizing Maryland, was that they came to America to escape religious persecution and to practice their beliefs as they saw fit without meddling or repression by government. After their long histories of government repression, they all agreed to keep each others noses and the governments nose out of everyone’s beliefs. That’s the true meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I guess it just goes to prove that not only the irreligious left in this country are ignorant of history. Either that, or religious fundamentalists are as a group just as willfully blind and stupid as the MSM makes them out to be.
I pray, for the sake of our republic and my children, that citizens of every or no religious conviction can put aside differences, and agree that the trend to overwhelming statist government is the greatest threat to all free citizens of these United States. We need to squelch all this static and concentrate on restoring a Constitutional government.
Nicely ranted. I’ve always said: “Your God is your problem. Unless you make it my problem, then you and you God can GTFO.” Sucks to see people take words out of context and manipulate them just to offend themselves, then come back and bitch about it.
Also:
The ethical double standard required for people to demand freedom from government interference in their lives, and turn around and demand intrusion in the life of another free person makes me sick.
For the narrow minded, that is not just a shot at your religious group or political affiliation. This is a shot at both major parties, and a bunch of the smaller ones; as well as ALL of the people who get into politics as an extension of their religion and try use the government to force non-believers to conform to the laws of the church.
Well Said Phil…
Well said Ben C…
I tend to ignore the bible thumpers. I really don’t care about how “righteous” they think they are or actually are. They are fucking up the conservative movement. It takes someone that has “faith” to overlook the contradiction between wanting “small government” and then demanding that EVERY WOMANS REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE be the responsiblity of the BIG government. Lots of rational people would vote for a real conservative, but with the “abortion question” thrown in, they will go for the “choice” candidate most of the time. You want to believe in a sky pilot or whatever, fine. Don’t try and LEGISLATE my beliefs while you are at it. Same thing goes for the “drug question”. Both come down to the same thing. MONEY. Otherwise, why don’t we TAX CHURCHES? And tax drugs instead of spending trillions to not stop them?
“In my defense, I have no requirement to show respect to any belief system, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Gaia-worship, or some dude praying to his Labradoodle.”
Well true, but there was a thing on this blog called civil discourse, and respect, now a thing of the past as Phil declares Believe as I do or be called bad names and don’t dare critic my beliefs or else! Hey, you put your self out there on the net and are surprised at the response when you grievously insult a large percentage of your readership? Juvenile and arrogant.
That post sounded like it was written in Johnson’s Little Green Footballs then RNS.
You established in writing YOUR personal stereotype of “religious right†and are just as guilty as the Far Left in your rock throwing defense. I expect like LGF’s to be banned now, that would fit in with this new mentality on display. One can only hope not.
As you can see by the above comments the haters are now installed firmly in your blog.
In the several years I have been reading RNS now, I have seen a consistent pro-liberty stance. Opposing those who move to restrict the freedoms enjoyed by others regardless of race, religion, or political party. Seems to be a real shame that those who try to use their political position to legislate their morals, and those that support that behavior, get all bent out of shape when they get called out on it.
Nothing in this comment should be construed as me hating you or your beliefs; however, as long as your beliefs involve restricting my freedoms and non-destructive behavior, you and your beliefs will get no respect from me either.
This is really noting more than the old Free Thinker vs. Religion argument.
A quick look inside the history books will show you that all important citizens of this nation, those who HAVE made a difference, have been free thinkers. Personally, they may have adopted religious guidance in their lives, but they ALWAYS put their non-religious Nation first.
That cuts across ALL political lines.
If you are a religious person, you may be useful to your Nation, but the custom AND law of this country says that your civil duties to the Nation come before any Canon duties your religion might want to impose, and you handle yourself accordingly.
We forget this at our peril, gentlemen. We cannot, no, SHALL NOT put any purely religious concept ahead of a civil tenet of law where the two conflict. That principle has ALWAYS guided this nation, and the citizen-leaders of almost all US-based religions know and follow that principle. Those who don’t oppose the Nation itself, and are our enemies in this life.
… but there was a thing on this blog called civil discourse, and respect, now a thing of the past as Phil declares Believe as I do or be called bad names and don’t dare critic my beliefs or else!”
Nice try, Sul, but please take a moment and point me to where I demand anything from anyone else?
Secondly, my definition of the “religious right” is the one everyone still in the real world uses. If someone wants to slather themselves under the title of a group forever known for their lack of respect for the rights of others it does not automatically become my problem when they get offended when I point a mental midget out to the world.
Also, while LGF has stepping of the AGW cliff, his stance against religious and political extremists < (whether they be Muslim or Christian, Repub or Dem) still runs straighter than most right of center websites and all left of center ones.
I will point out, however, that unlike Chuckie, I don’t engage in “Reasoned Discourse”.
Btw, since I haven’t actually done what you’re accusing me of, I’m going to make a demand right here and now: If you thought Pat Robertson was hitting the nail on the head and should have the President’s ear or be President himself, OR if you think Huckabee wouldn’t be such a bad President, don’t darken the RNS porch. Don’t go away mad. Just go away.
I’m a Christian. My faith works for me, it works for my family. Christians who want to use the government as a tool to bludgeon the populace into behaving as a christian should piss me off. They are missing the whole point – just like my pastor who proclaimed himself a libertarian and then went on to announce that he voted for prop 8 to deny gays the right to marry. Stuff like that is where the right loses me. I’m sick and tired of people wanting to use government to ban stuff they don’t like, regardless of political persuasion. The religious right embarasses the hell out of me, especially because once people find out that I’m Christian, they tend to assume that I’m like that myself.
The “religious right” isn’t. It’s not right, and it isn’t religious!
Christianity is about respect for others rights, not about demanding that the government fix problems that are perceived as threats. Christ was accepting of all people, and the fact that so many Christians forget that is the reason that we see the dichotomy in what Christianity teaches (tolerance of others) and what “Christians” often practice.
You cannot, and should not, legislate morality. That is part of the free will that we are born with.
You may believe that choices made by others will condemn them in the end, but you have to right to condemn them in the present.
Everyone has the right to associate with whomever they please. If someone offends you, for whatever reason, you have no responsibility to continue to associate with them. I don’t personally like hanging out with drunks, or with meth addicts, or with pimps, so I don’t. Its simple, really.
I have lots of friends who are atheists, or Catholic, or Baptist, and even some muslims, but we accept each others differences, and in some cases even embrace it.
It’s about accepting that we have differences and appreciating that among other things.
However, there is an issue with the general breakdown in society caused by poor or no parenting, and that issue, in the past thousands of years, has been addressed by demanding that parents stay together. Over thousands of years it was found that a male parent and a female parent worked best to raise children. We are seeing that broken down, and I’m not convinced that as a society we can endure single parent homes or homes with two parents of the same sex. The experiment is ongoing, though, and I may be surprised.
A large portion of the population seems to have a built in (maybe instinctive or herd memory?) belief that it isn’t workable, which they define as “wrong”, and thus there is huge antipathy towards that situation. Others will define it as a “moral” issue.
Regardless, if the “religious right” were to closely examine their own beliefs, they would realize that allowing others their free will in the matter is what their most basic tenets teach.
“I will point out, however, that unlike Chuckie, I don’t engage in “Reasoned Discourseâ€.”
Well that has become patently obvious. And by the by Pat Robertson, for whom I had no use never passed nor did he seek the power to pass laws. Shout loudly about his opinion, yes, but even in your America that’s still legal. I don’t care for Huck either but I respect his right to speak. Apparently you don’t. Your right but don’t even think of trying to force it one me.
Please give me a recent example of where mad king Charles has allowed criticism of Islam. He is now a defender of the PLO and only hates, wait for it…Christians.
You put up a stereotype that “everyone still uses in the real world”. Oh, really which world is that? One with respect and tolerance or you rather limited one?
Its called erecting a straw man.
Be a believer or don’t, don’t care one way or the other, but the rights you so loudly proclaim are the result of fighting/dieing of a lot of “right wing religious nuts” who believed that the Judo Christian ethos was worth dying for. Can you say the same?
By the way as THE WON today signed an executive order “integrating the actions” of state and federal militaries under the Federal Governor’s conference you may need those “right wing nuts” a lot sooner than you thought.
“Be courteous. It costs nothing and will make it easier if you have to kill him.” Heinlein or words to that effect…
But you are right about one thing, those who will show respect for different ideas even if they are nuts have no place here. TA