Intolerance Spans The Religious Divide [New Buzz-Word...'Secular Left']

The Boston Globe ^ | 1/26/2004 | By Cathy Young

[johnny7]

YOU KNOW HOW sometimes when you listen to two opponents in a debate or two warring soon-to-be-ex-spouses, each side does such an awful job of self-presentation that the more you listen to one party, the more you sympathize with the other? That seems to be happening right now in the war over religion in public life. Last week, I expressed my dismay over the notion that insufficient religiosity is, in 21st century America, a disqualification from high political office (we're voting for president, not pontiff).

[johnny7]

Whenever a woman starts a diatribe with 'you know', you know you're getting a load of sh_t.

[NCPAC]

Christopher Hitchens supported the war in Iraq: Even more evidence he is one of the few remaining lefties who truly does have some operating brain cells.

Actually, I though this was a fairly well reasoned article (except for the author calling The Village Voice "left-of-center." That paper is socialist dreck to the core.) Niether religion nor lack of religion in an individual's life or background should ever be cause for "a smear" attack.

[tdadams]

Whenever a woman starts a diatribe with 'you know', you know you're getting a load of sh_t.

Did you actually read the article? I thought she made a very good point.

[sirchtruth]

Lack of religious devotion should not be a basis for a smear. But neither should religious belief -- and the truth is that the intolerance of the religious right can be fully matched by that of the secular left.

At fist glance you might think this is a well thought statement. I think though you have to go deeper into what "INTOLERANCE" really constitutes today...

What is the "right" intolerent of opposed to the left?

[johnny7]

Did you actually read the article?

Yes. Did you comprehend it?

[MarkL]

Christopher Hitchens supported the war in Iraq: Even more evidence he is one of the few remaining lefties who truly does have some operating brain cells.

There are two key differences between Christopher Hitchens and most of the rest of the political left.1) He still believes that there are things known as "right" and "wrong."

2)He's judgemental, which is anethema to most of the left.

What most thinking people believe to be "bad," the left sees as "just different." The amazing thing is the way they delude themselves with these contradictions. For example, they see George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as evil, because they were slave owners. They refuse to judge them, based on the ethos of their times. On the other hand, the slavery we see currently practiced in the Sudan isn't evil... It's a "cultural thing."

While I disagree with Hitchins on many things, I respect him for his courage and convictions.

Mark

[tdadams]

You may disagree with me, but gratuitously insulting me only makes you look like a petty a-hole.

[BSunday]

I completely agree with Johnny, both in his general statement and his application of it. But so far you have offered me no evidence to make me change me mind and agree with you, other than calling people names.

Johnny, after I read the article I was racking my brain trying to think of the proper intellectual response to that piece of garbage until I saw your post. Well said.

[NCPAC]

I respect Hitchens, too, though - like you - I disagree with him the vast majority of the time. He has both a spine and a brain, which is why I'm happy he's not trotted out more than he is as a representative from the left.

[fourdeuce82d]

Gotta admit I'm missing what's so abhorent about the article- seemed to me she was pointing fingers at the lefties...what exactly is wrong with what she said?

[BSunday]

Religious Sterotyping. If there was the same amount of racial sterotyping in this article as there is religious, it would be denounced and demands for apologies would abound, possibly even resulting in the loss of jobs.

[StonyBurk]

LOL x3-- had a reply ready but can't stop laughing at
the dead on accuracy of your post.

[StonyBurk]

But NCAC you fail to recognize that the distinction between
Democrat--and Republican/ Liberal--and Conservative/
Red and Blue States can be seen in light of Religious
conviction--or lack of same. Ones Religious belief is not
somehting that can be put on -nor taken off at will and does
detemrine ones political/philosophic idiology. . . to a greater or lesser degree.

[StonyBurk]

So where is the insult? Asking if you comprehended the
article is as straight forward and nonthreatoning as your
reply .

[tdadams]

Quiestioning ones reading comprehension is most often used as an insult around here, in case you weren't aware.

[fourdeuce82d]

Religious Sterotyping.

I'm sorry, I still don't see it- the only examples of religious stereotyping I could pick out were the ones the author mentioned before condemning them, and giving counter examples to discredit them.

Could you please show me examples of the author stereotyping religion/religious people? I still don't see it.

[RJCogburn]

Good job, Cathy.

[johnny7]

Some look but don't see. tdadams reads but does not comprehend. I did not insult him and yet he chooses to insult me. Go figure.

[BSunday]

I didn't say it was the author who was stereotyping...

The key, he claims, lies in the popularity of evangelical Christianity, which sees the devil as a real, ever-present and ever-scheming entity. In O'Hehir's (and Ellis's) view, the same fundamentalists who can fall for a satirical story claiming that the evil influence of the Harry Potter books is driving millions of schoolchildren into Satanic covens can also easily believe in an "axis of evil." For a "born-again believer," Ellis is quoted as saying, there is no doubt that "the person who is giving the orders to bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and the leader of Iran and the leader of North Korea is, of course, Satan."

I'm not sure how much clearer I can spell it out. Any ideas, Johnny?