Jim Guinee wrote:
> I'm continually amazed at comments such as Paul's. Paul is
> typical of some people on this list -- he is very intelligent and
> open-minded (more than me), but it seems that when it comes to the
religious right
> (who exactly are these people anyway? they sure don't go to my church),
its
> time to slam those religious people. At least it seems that way.
As Thomas Timmerman pointed out, "Creationists who have demonstrated
dishonest behavior obviously deserve every stone tossed their way". If you
change the above paragraph to read "...its time to slam the religious
right", then it's a fair characterization of what I'm doing. What does it
say when "very intelligent and open-minded" people strongly object to the
actions of some group? At some point, isn't it reasonable to start wondering
just what that group is up to, anyway?
Obviously there's difficulty identifying exactly what term best identifies
the problem group, but I hardly think "religious right" is too far off-base.
If you use that term to include the legitimate, honest believers as well,
then substitute whatever term you use to identify the kinds of people you
object to in your post. My point still stands.
> I'll admit there are people out there in the religious
> community who quote "spare the rod and spoil the child" as an excuse to
beat the
> snot out of their kids. How they can defend their actions is beyond me.
The bible is
> supposed to be used to teach children to be good (not just
> obedient), and therefore making a kid behave in a manner that lacks love
and
> understanding is biblically incorrect. Maybe those are some of the people
> Paul and others are talking about.
Those are exactly the people I'm talking about - dishonest folks hiding
behind religion. It's important that honest religious persons recognize the
harm done to religion _by that kind of person_. Not by me. The child-beater
you described, the creationist, the homophobe, the right-to-lifer - they're
all hiding behind the shields we quite rightly provide to the honest
believer. In my opinion, religious belief is not an excuse for unethical
behavior. Obviously that's your opinion as well.
Trust me, I distinguish between "religious people" and "the religious
right". Your post very effectively clarifies the distinction. Pretend I had
originally written something like,
"I believe that the majority, and perhaps the vast majority of people who
beat their children while quoting the Bible are somewhere between dimly
aware and well aware that they're doing so on their own: the Bible doesn't
tell them to do so"
I read your sentence "How they can defend their actions is beyond me" as
implying agreement with this claim. Is it so hard to plug in the
creationist, the homophobe, and the right-to-lifer? Take away the
intentional lies, and all three doctrines fall apart (well, all four, if you
include child-beating).
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
