- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
An interesting thought piece from the Deseret News. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692420/At-BYU-speaker-says-religious-rights-ties-to-Republican-party-spurred-secularization.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692420/At-BYU-speaker-says-religious-rights-ties-to-Republican-party-spurred-secularization.html Thoughts?
Quote:But at BYU on Tuesday, Notre Dame political science professor David Campbell said that the political movement known as the religious right would do better to look itself in the mirror than express outrage when Democrats, liberals and progressives rail against religious expressions in the political arena.
Quote:“If my argument is right,” Campbell said, “there’s this tremendous irony that the religious right was formed to advance the cause of religion in the public sphere, but it has actually contributed to a decline in religious affiliation in American society.”
This is a tough topic to comment on because the conversation could get too political. Mahatma Gandhi wrote:I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
I think that during the most recent presidential election many people that don’t have skin in the game (or they have lots and lots of skin in the other team playing the game) started to see things this way.
The article mentions this, and I’ll state it a different way here.
From what I’ve observed people put politics before religion but they
believethat their religious beliefs steer all of their political choices. During the most recent presidential election in the United States I saw people on both sides of the political coin diminish the sins of their candidate and magnify the sins of the opposing candidate. Pretty common, nothing to see here. But…
One side has been decrying the sins of the other as the reasons why the opposition can’t be trusted in office and they’ve been doing it for decades. Now someone comes along who is flawed enough to where the flaws cannot be as easily hidden or ignored and the same side that cited the sins of the opposition as making someone unfit for the office were either rushing to excuse the behaviors of their candidate or they appeared to be completely oblivious to them.
That’s a tough position to put people in when they recognize the flaws. Those kind of actions can be viewed as hypocritical.
I’ll be honest. I really, really struggle with my evangelical friends and family. Some of the positions they take come across as showing a complete lack of compassion/empathy. The article talks about the ties between politics and religion, so sometimes it gets hard to not associate what I perceive to be a lack of compassion and empathy with their religion.
Whether they are religious or not, conservative or liberal, no matter their race, sex, or orientation, human beings have a very strong tendency to think that their own perspectives are the clearest, that their ideas are the most rational, and that their values are the most enlightened. Anyone who disagrees, on the other hand, is easily seen as deficient… because after all, if my viewpoint is the right one then everyone who doesn’t agree with me is wrong, by definition. Yet, in our world, which is overflowing with people who all think themselves smarter than their neighbors, people still don’t know who has the right of way at a traffic circle, they lose their keys frequently, forget important dates and appointments, and constantly butt-dial each other.
In other words, we aren’t all as omniscient as we think we are, and a little bit of allowing others to have opinions that differ from our own without having to psychoanalyze the other person would probably be a good thing.
A wise person once told me that in order have a productive disagreement with someone – I must present my argument as my perspective and acknowledge that I may be wrong. Roy wrote:
A wise person once told me that in order have a productive disagreement with someone – I must present my argument as my perspective and acknowledge that I may be wrong.
This is one of the key principles of our marriage. We are both strong-willed, divergent thinkers who do/see/think about things very differently.
This is honestly what bothers me about the religious right. I disagree with their values, and I disagree with their politics–which ARE in fact, not religious at all, but are incredibly secular. The left does this, too, when it equates social justice or social funding with Jesus’ injunction to care for the poor or downtrodden. Political parties and aims should be about public policy and the public good, not a manifestation of private devotion. For example, you can say that you would never have an abortion for religious reasons and yet see why abortion should remain legal for social reasons; it can be shown to benefit society. We do stuff like this all the time. Religious people can say “Adultery is bad” without jailing or fining adulterers. It’s really just that the religious right wants to preserve status quo which pretty much always means upholding white cishetero male privilege rather than taking the rights of women and minorities equally seriously.
Personally I consider the Democrats to be a right wing party too… as for so called liberals, they are in the soggy center at best, not on the left. I just want to say that On Own Now’s comment is a prime example of why I am ecstatic to have OON here. Brilliant.
We are all wrong (myself included). I don’t trust anyone to make optimal decisions for others, society, or even themselves. We all have flaws in our worldview, so I think it’s time we stop arrogantly assuming we’re right and just love each other. It’s time we respect other people’s ways of doing things even when we disagree. We should not impose one way of doing things on others. The arrogance of “I’m right and you’re wrong” is devisive and destructive to society regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right. And it’s coming pretty hard from both sides.
It’s still fine to criticize ideas- and in fact, that is a key ingredient to obtaining truth IMO. But we should be criticizing ideas and not people. Ideologies, but not tribes. Doctrines, but not religions. Culture, but not groups. Management, but not managers.
We need more love and truth. We need less hate and slandering.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:But at BYU on Tuesday, Notre Dame political science professor David Campbell said that the political movement known as the religious right would do better to look itself in the mirror than express outrage when Democrats, liberals and progressives rail against religious expressions in the political arena.
Just looking at this quote for a second… this is how I read it:
Quote:“Instead of railing in outrage against those who rail in outrage against you, you should look in the mirror, and see the correction you need to make within your own ideologies.”
Wonderful sentiment! We all would do better to self reflect than rail in outrage against anyone. But at the same time, it feels like “the pot calling the kettle black”. The overall theme of the message may be true; I can see how the religious right can spur secularism, much in the same way feminism caused Donald Trump to get elected. You push too hard for too long, and then the pendulum starts swinging in the other direction.
Saying feminism caused Donald Teump to get elected is an incredibly sweeping generalization, and it fits pretty well, I think, the main idea addressed in the article and our discussion. Evangelical Christians and other conservative Christians elected Trump, and shifting the responsibility/blame/whatever (depending on one’s point of view) dilutes the ability to be introspective. His religious supporters ignored someone whose personal morals are the opposite of their professed beliefs, and there were a LOT of more moderate-liberal citizens who supported Bernie Sanders and didn’t vote due to outrage over the DNC working hard to ensure Hillary Clinton was the nominee. Finally, Trump didn’t get the majority of votes in Utah – so there was MUCH more that played into his win than singling out generic feminism. Sure, the reactions of liberal people and groups (including feminists) to such an unqualified, flawed candidate, who admitted serial, reflexive assault of many women, hardened the religious right’s determination to vote for a Republican, no matter what – but that general oppositions would have been there no matter who the final candidate was.
To return to the focus of the article, the harsh, extreme, unyielding focus on cultural warring from the right is driving many moderates to embrace more liberal alternatives than they might not have supported otherwise. When you make a war out of every disagreement or different practice, it isn’t surprising when formerly neutral observers side with those who actually weren’t / aren’t warlike and against those who make wars out of simple attempts to be tolerant, inclusive, understanding, and charitable.
Curt, of course that was a sweeping generalization. Trump won by masterfully assessing the political climate, and geniously running his campaign; that’s the most direct cause. But your explaination is exactly in tune with what I was saying before. It’s very easy to pass judgement on others, and very difficult to introspect. The news is still full of stories riddled with cognitive dissonance, as to why he won. Which is why Trump won the 2016 election, and will (I bet 10 to 1) win a second term. I don’t want to get too political here, but it ties in perfectly with the point made in the article (although not in the context they were aiming for). Here’s what we know for sure:
-Trump won in the primaries, despite the Republican leadership’s strong reservations.
-Trump won the general election, which is not won by the far left or right, but by moderates, independants, and those who can be swayed to vote against their parties candidate. This included a shocking win in liberal Flordia.
-Trump won the general election despite having record low rankings in the polls.
This strongly indicates the presense of a silent majority (an unspecified large group of people who do not express their opinions openly). They are the ones who won Trump the election. Why did they vote for him? The far left says it’s because they were sexist, racist, lazy, privledged, who are too stupid to realize how much Trump goes against their invalid religious concerns. They wrongly believed the political climate was gamed against them and what they felt were their best interests (which again revolved around their sexist, privledged, neo-nazi desires). They were also probably white, fat, balding, with small hands.
Old Timer wrote:Sure, the reactions of liberal people and groups (including feminists) to such an unqualified, flawed candidate, who admitted serial, reflexive assault of many women…
Wonderful example. Here’s how I view it. When you’ve got a “silent majority”, it’s because a huge chunk of the population is afraid to voice their true beliefs. Feminism is very loud, and lauded as courageous and heroic, even though it is supported by the vocal majority. There were accusations by the feminists against Trump, calling him fat and ugly, small-handed, sexist, misogynist, perverted, privledged, and stupid. I’m not saying those allegations aren’t true… but guess who suddenly shares A LOT in common with Trump? Most white males in America. I know I personally have had all those labels placed on me. I was called sexiss at work by a feminist, for helping another woman with a particular technical problem, who asked for my help. I have been called both privledged, lazy, and stupid on account of unemployment. And I have been made fun of because of my looks, and no one cares because I’m not LGBT or a woman. Cis-men should “man up” and take it.
Old Timer wrote:His religious supporters ignored someone whose personal morals are the opposite of their professed beliefs…
If you invalidate the religious concerns of another Christian demographic, guess what? Remember when Trump grossly misquoted the bible while speaking at a Christian University ? The left felt calling him out would undermine his position. But what really happened, was suddenly Trump’s religion was called into question and mocked (He misquoted the bible on purpose, BTW). Suddenly, he has a lot more in common with the religious right.
The rally protests are another strong example. Did you know there were very few protests at Sander’s and Clinton’s rallies? But there were a TON of very vocal protests against Trump at his rallies. But once again, they only cemented his win. You see, the silent majority isn’t vocal about their support of Trump out of fear. Fear of retribution, fear of being bullied, fear of being physically hurt. They saw Trump being bullied, saw his supporters being bullied, and found they had a lot more in common with Trump than they ever thought. They were bullied too, and forced to keep quiet about it. But when it came to the voting booth, we saw for the first time how they truly felt.
It was a brilliant, masterful campaign on Trump’s part. He was really pulling som persuasion ju-jitzu, using his opponent’s strength against him. It’s also why, those who demean the religion of other’s, such as in this article, will never inact real change. All they’ll get is the approval of a very vocal bunch, for supporting their world view. Do you want to enact real change? Do you want to solve the issues of misogeny and homophobia in America? Do you want to divert the “religious right” from the error of their ways? Here’s what you do:
Find common ground.Just like Trump. I feel that I am a reasonably well informed citizen. I read the news almost daily. However, I do not feel like I can understand very well the forces that were at play in the 2016 election. The division in our country right now saddens me. Regardless – these political questions/ponderings are quite controversial AND do not fit the mission of this site. Therefore, from perhaps an overabundance of caution, I will lock the thread.
- The topic ‘Religious Right? Secularism’ is closed to new replies.