Why religious people can be in politics
There is a lot of discussion these days about
whether people who identify themselves as religious have a right to engage in
politics. Obviously they do, just as non-religious people do, but most of the
discussion one hears is not very cogent.
The argument the right wing often makes is:
"You lefties applauded King, and he was certainly religious. Why do you object
when the religious right tries to speak
up?"
The reason M. L. King made a very constructive contribution to American politics while the likes of Fred Phelps and the other current "family values defenders" don't is that King did not advocate what he stood for only on the basis of his own moral beliefs and those of his particular church, or those of Christianity as a whole, even. He didn't even limit himself to religious grounds. He was very well versed in American history, political theory, and non-violent/Gandhian social change theory, and was able to appeal to both his friends and foes on very broad humanitarian grounds, as well as being able to deliver a rousing sermon when the occasion called for it.
When the contemporary fundies call for outlawing abortion going back to the moment of conception (whenever that is supposed to be), repressing homosexuality, converting public-school science classrooms into halls of proselytization for their world-view, etc., they are basing themselves exclusively (essentially) on their own doctrinaire religious beliefs, and declaring war on the whole "secular" world (i.e., everyone who doesn't share those beliefs). Furthermore, they refuse to engage in any sensible dialogue with the world outside their precincts. This makes the normal democratic process of policy debate impossible. They don't want to play by democratic rules; they want to wreck the whole game.
Of course, they do put forward arguments now and then that appear to be addressed to outsiders. They wave pictures of fetuses that look like babies, and refer to studies arguing that fetuses at certain stages feel pain, and so on. They try to argue that homosexuality is a more unhealthy life-style than heterosexuality. But these arguments are mostly completely unfactual, as everyone outside their circles can easily recognize. And even when they contain a grain of truth, that grain is exaggerated into a wheat-field, so that it is obvious that their religious principles are the real reasons for their taking their positions.
In short, they are no more willing to engage in real dialogue with the rest of the world than are the JWs who knock on your door. (Reminds me of the old joke: what do you get when you cross a JW and a Unitarian? Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.) It's not the fact that they are religious that makes them undesirable politically, it's that they're not democratic (with a small "d"). Democratic politics can certainly accommodate religious folks, non-religious folks, and half-one, half-the other, as long as their arguments are based on more than just their own dogmas and they are willing to engage in real dialogue with the rest of the populace.
The reason M. L. King made a very constructive contribution to American politics while the likes of Fred Phelps and the other current "family values defenders" don't is that King did not advocate what he stood for only on the basis of his own moral beliefs and those of his particular church, or those of Christianity as a whole, even. He didn't even limit himself to religious grounds. He was very well versed in American history, political theory, and non-violent/Gandhian social change theory, and was able to appeal to both his friends and foes on very broad humanitarian grounds, as well as being able to deliver a rousing sermon when the occasion called for it.
When the contemporary fundies call for outlawing abortion going back to the moment of conception (whenever that is supposed to be), repressing homosexuality, converting public-school science classrooms into halls of proselytization for their world-view, etc., they are basing themselves exclusively (essentially) on their own doctrinaire religious beliefs, and declaring war on the whole "secular" world (i.e., everyone who doesn't share those beliefs). Furthermore, they refuse to engage in any sensible dialogue with the world outside their precincts. This makes the normal democratic process of policy debate impossible. They don't want to play by democratic rules; they want to wreck the whole game.
Of course, they do put forward arguments now and then that appear to be addressed to outsiders. They wave pictures of fetuses that look like babies, and refer to studies arguing that fetuses at certain stages feel pain, and so on. They try to argue that homosexuality is a more unhealthy life-style than heterosexuality. But these arguments are mostly completely unfactual, as everyone outside their circles can easily recognize. And even when they contain a grain of truth, that grain is exaggerated into a wheat-field, so that it is obvious that their religious principles are the real reasons for their taking their positions.
In short, they are no more willing to engage in real dialogue with the rest of the world than are the JWs who knock on your door. (Reminds me of the old joke: what do you get when you cross a JW and a Unitarian? Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.) It's not the fact that they are religious that makes them undesirable politically, it's that they're not democratic (with a small "d"). Democratic politics can certainly accommodate religious folks, non-religious folks, and half-one, half-the other, as long as their arguments are based on more than just their own dogmas and they are willing to engage in real dialogue with the rest of the populace.
Posted: Tue - August 16, 2005 at 12:25 AM | |
Quick Links
SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
(while I bone up on html and css)
(while I bone up on html and css)
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Comments powered by
Archives
Truth Laid Bear
Technorati
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
