Amaros
Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
I worry that non-religious people mistake these conservatives as representing all of Christians. It certainly is not true. If we consider the matter of homosexuality we see that many evangelical groups, such as Focus on the Family, are actively railing against gays and the 'gay agenda'. But the Episcopal Church has ordained a bishop who is gay, the United Church of Christ (a rather large denomination) has officially adopted a pro-gay affirming stance.and many individual churches have issued similar statements. Agreed - the subject onle tends to come up however when one of these conservatives starts spouting - there are a lot of Christians, it would be very hard for anyone to dislike all of them on account of a few - one runs into that problem however when one identifies oneself formally or informally as a member of a group with very specific and public views on certian subjects, organized religions tend to be very "my way or the highway" - you might say, "well, I'm not like that", fine, but the criticism itself might stand, if the subject happens to be public policy. It's also a problem when one levels these criticisms, there is always somebody who is going to be offended (I'm not like that...) but what happens then is confusion - how is one to identify the slander of conservatives, and differntiate it from the more tolerant attitude of an annonymous member of the flock, if that happens to be the case? In short, I find the "I'm insulted" defense to be dishonest, particualarly when it's accompanied by veiled or not so veiled insults - "how dare you question my religion you atheist"! "Atheist" generally taken in context to mean godless heathen commie anti-American faggot terrorist symp. This is a cconservative tactic, not neccessarily a religious conservative one, and it's very intention is to introduce confusion into the discussion by attacking a generalization (which by convention, is usually a "you know who you are" generalization, by broadening the generalizaiton and dragging innocent bystanders into the fray. In the first term for instance, criticisms of Bush administration policy were often met with accusations of treason. The purpose here is not to further discussion, but to shut it down, and a highly undemocratic act, particularly by those claiming to be the "real and true supporters of liberty". Anyway, it typically tends to turn threads into either flame wars or elaborate group apology fests, accomplishing the goal of shutting down whatever cogent discussion got it started, so as a tactic, I usually treat it as false outrage, which it usually is - you know who you are, and if you're not, then you ought to know that too, and not allow yourself to be used in that fashion. Moving on, I can certainly see how one could find a spiritual component in sex, nothing unusual there, and quite a number ancient religions gave it it's just due - I am more interested in, as you mention, the very public and "official" views of certain spokespersons of organized religion, versus how individuals who happen to belong to these organizations might come to terms with that.
|