The New Face of the Religious Right…Militant Intolerance

This is becoming a huge problem. Since when is the right to be a bigot or to hate other people either a protected right or a religious duty? Sounds pretty anti-Christian to me. We also have drug stores refusing to sell contraceptives, although it's perfectly legal to buy them, on the basis that it's an infringement on the religious freedom of the druggist to require that he sell them. In a community, or even a neighborhood where there is only one place to get them, this is easily a militant violation of the law, too. People have a right to attend schools knowing they're not going to be attacked, physically or verbally, and attacking other people is hardly a civil right. Businesses performing any kind of public service, like pharmacies, are also required to perform those services or go out of business. Nobody's forcing those fanatics to be in a business they don't approve of, especially when their goal is to violate other people's legal rights to those services.

Meryl,
I agree. Religious intolerance takes many forms. I wrote an article on the pharmacy problem that you refer to.
Here is the link.

Bert, is is something I covered as well in an article of mine. It is becoming more obvious that the argument that Christians are just against gay marriage, and are the victims is becoming very clear. They just want to be able to openly attack gays if they choose to, and want every company to do the same. If it were left up to them, we would not have homes, jobs, or anything. Sad.

Absolutely right, Jonathan. I am becoming more convinced every day that religious intolerance...which is fostered by the religions themselves...is responsible for most of the conflicts and bloodshed in the world.
The world would be better off without religion of any kind. Unfortunately, I am a member of a very small minority who believes that. If the Religious Right has its way, I will someday be attacked and vilified or worse for my views too.

Legislating intolerance and hatred... It's easy to figure out how this can happen:

Let's start with Bert's statement "I thought about the Bible, and its many intolerant statements, urging death to gays and nonbelievers.  The Bible is full of contradictions, though.  You can find a Bible quote to support almost anything."

Then we'll make a few changes:

Let's switch out the word "Bible" with the word "government"... change "death" to, let's say, "persecution"... and, for now, just leave gay people out of it (because they're just a sub-group of "non believers", really).

So now we have:
"I thought about the government, and its many intolerant statements, urging persecution (of) nonbelievers.  The government is full of contradictions, though. You can find a government quote to support almost anything."

Smoke and mirrors... hiding what?

These things are happening because hardcore, radically conservative, intolerant people know they have friends in high places right now and, for the first time in modern history, they have a chance of pushing their hardcore, radically conservative, intolerant ideas through.

Peas in a pod...

Very interesting and perceptive comment, Donald.
And also dead right. Lets hope the agony doesn't last too much longer and reason, moderation and tolerance return to the American political scene.

I'm beginning to like these online editorials of yours, Bert. Beats having to look all over the place for a newspaper.

I'm not sure if the total abolition of religion is the right stance. After all, if this piece weren't about Catholicism and all of the injustices it has perpetrated against human civilization, this suggestion might not have even materialized! As you have said in previous articles and comments, the best solution to the strife looks to be everyone practicing their religious practices, in the privacy of their own home or in the company of people sharing the same beliefs.

Another good article, Bert! And I agree, what Donald did with this is dead right, and scary. Enoch suggests what I would also: the best solution to the strife looks to be everyone practicing their religious practices, in the privacy of their own home or in the company of people sharing the same beliefs. And I don't think any churches should have tax exempt status.

Right, Enoch. Now I need to quote from the article that prompted this piece:

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church."

This is a quote from Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy.
These people feel persecuted because they are being chastized for spreading their intolerant views. They feel that society is being intolerant of their intolerance! How's that for the ultimate in hypocrisy?

You made some excellent points here, Bert. And let me say that, as a Christian, I am just as turned off by the discrimination and intolerance that "Christians" seem to be a part of. I don't find in it any similarity whatsoever to the way that Jesus would be. Christians can point fingers all they like at gays or pro-choice activists, etc. But the fact remains that fingers could be pointed right back. How many Christians are divorced? Does Jesus not state that he hates divorce? How many Christians covet and steal and lie and cheat? The answer is WE ALL DO. For the Bible says if we break only ONE commandment, we have broken them all. The Ten Commandments were given to us to show us how weak and helpless we are and how much in need of God we are. ALL of us. Christian AND non-christian. Straight AND gay. Pro-life AND pro-choice.

Cheryl,
Thanks for that. You are absolutely right. If everybody, especially fundamentalist Christians, would just practice a little tolerance, the world would be a much more pleasant place.

"Constitution guarantees the right of free speech,....."

Not exactly. I believe the first amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law......". There is no constitutional limit on private employers or private organizations or private property owners regarding "free speech".

In some cases, anti-discrimination statutes may apply to actions.

The world would be so much 'more pleasant' if people would just practice a little tolerance and quit telling other people they are wrong. Like for instance telling them they are intolerant.

If intolerance is wrong, isn't intolerance in the name of fostering tolerance just as wrong? But if there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong, how can telling people they are wrong be wrong?

Bert:
Though because of my grad student status I tune in infrequently, I am grateful that you post what you do. As a friend on mine said not too long ago: How long must we tolerate intolerance? That, I think, is the key question. I find it incredibly ironic that non-believers are more tolerant of believers than vice-versa. The old testament, rather than the new, rules, it seems.

space monkey,
Are you telling me I should be tolerant of intolerance?
I plead guilty. I am intolerant of people who try to tell me how to live my life.

Bert,

As usual! ... Provocative.

Years ago in the Peace Movements and the Freeze Days some -- of us -- sat around and talked about 'trade-offs' in budget terms to create a sort of contrast in cases where we were doing one thing but not doing something more desirable. The coming period in our USA may be a period of taking hard looks at trade offs.

When I was working for my MBA years ago I had a course in Organization Theory. On the final exam I got interested in a new part in looking at policy making. A question had to do with logic involving 'contrasts' and 'relationships'. For example : 'How does advertising relate to production scheduling? Should managers put more money in advertising to potential customers and less in trade channel advertising? And so on.

In your recent fine contributions you seem to me to be framing a methodology of relationships and contrasts. Money here denies money there! Justice here denies justice there. Like outlandish executive salaries deny stockholders' dividends AND may not permit price declines in products and services produced and therefore inhibit corporate growth. Like: How many elementary schools in the USA can be built with one day's costs in Iraq? Like some 'non-profit' using 50-percent of contributions to pay high salaries to the involved working persons in the very worthy organization? And so on!

There is much small stuff around that corrupts. and much big stuff too. Cracks are starting to display themselves in 'laissez-fairest' logic. The real solution is 'easy'. All we need are good, competent, and caring people all over the place. You may be starting a trend! Interesting times are developing on the analysis of problems front, it seems to me.

Thanks for your insights -- and your seeking after CARE FULL thought and better ways to act!

Dick

Dick,
Thanks to you for a thoughtful post. I do believe that, with the continuing drawdown of our enormous national wealth, we are entering a new period of 'limits' where hard choices will have to be made. The competition, both inside and outside government, for access to the increasingly scarce uncommitted tax dollars will be intense.
And my repeated contention that government spending is a "zero sum game" where there is a loser for every winner will be borne out. It's not true yet...we are still in denial, running up huge deficits, but that is going to end soon, when we can no longer find anyone to finance them.
That is when the rubber will hit the road, and some really agonizing choices will have to be made.