Sorry, no common ground here

Guest Post by Morbo

Rabbi [tag]Eric Yoffie[/tag], president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the most [tag]liberal[/tag] branch of Judaism in America, journeyed to Lynchburg, Va., recently to speak at the Rev. [tag]Jerry Falwell[/tag]’s Liberty University.

I admire Yoffie’s gumption, and I salute much of what he said. For example, he told the students that government-sponsored school prayer is not a quick fix for all that ails society.

But I must take issue with the underlying idea, which Yoffie seems to embrace, that we can reason with the religious right. As reported by Religion News Service and the Associated Press, Yoffie told the crowd:

“We need less anger and more thoughtful reflection, less shouting and more listening. Even when we disagree, let’s do so without demonizing each other. I can discuss these issues and believe what I believe without calling you a homophobic bigot, and you can do the same without calling me an uncaring baby killer. Let’s promote respect for each other’s religious tradition, and let’s work for civility in public debate.”

Yes, it sounds nice in theory, but there’s one big drawback: Our side is willing to do these things, but Falwell’s is not. Falwell’s side believes its interpretation of ancient holy books gives it the right to run our lives from the moment of conception until “natural death” — with Falwell and his ilk determining when that will be. We have a duty and obligation to resist this form of spiritual fascism.

I simply do not share any common ground with some of these folks. Consider that the Rev. Rick [tag]Scarborough[/tag]’s latest book is called Liberalism Kills Kids. Kind of puts a damper on a friendly sit down over a cup of coffee, no?

The fact is, as James Carville once noted, we’re right and they’re wrong. The differences between the two sides are stark:

Our side believes in religious and philosophical freedom — you can believe or disbelieve what you want about god, and it’s no one else’s business. Falwell’s side believes there is one way to approach god and if you don’t go about it that way, your rights can be taken away.

Our side respects the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. Falwell’s side sees federal judges as “activists” and “black-robed tyrants” and seeks to find ways to take away courts’ ability to strike down obviously unconstitutional laws put into place by nutcase lawmakers who don’t give a fig about our Bill of Rights.

Our side values the [tag]separation of church and state[/tag], seeing it as the platform upon which religious liberty rests. Falwell’s side says separation is a “myth” and a force that strips Christians of their rights.

Our side believes in science and wants modern biology taught in public schools. Falwell’s side wants to replace that with Bible stories.

Our side values the moral decision-making of women and promotes reproductive freedom. Falwell’s side wants a police state where women who seek abortions and the doctors who provide them are charged with murder and thrown in prison.

Our side says an adult’s sex life is his or her own business and promotes equal rights for all, straight, gay and bisexual. Falwell’s side trades in crude homophobia and seeks to take away the rights of gay Americans.

Our side opposes censorship. Falwell’s side embraces it.

I could go on, but you get the idea. For anyone who needs a refresher course in how the religious right is determined to run our lives, I recommend a book I just finished: Terri: The Truth by Michael [tag]Schiavo[/tag]. Read it and then tell me we can dialogue with the religious right.

Nope. The only common ground the religious right is interested in is the ground we are willing to give them. I say, don’t give them any. I don’t want to dialogue with Falwell, Pat Robertson, James [tag]Dobson[/tag], D. James Kennedy, Rick Scarborough and so on. I want to engage them politically and defeat them — utterly.

Excellent post. And much of the same can be said of the “Right ” in general. There isn’t a parity of equal but separate ideas between Left and Right. The Left is inclusive and respects rights. The Right is repressive and pushes control. It’s not Left and Right. It’s Left and Wrong. (And let’s not leave out the religious fundamentalists around the world for our censure.)

  • Great post! One correction: it’s not “gumption”, it’s “chutzpah”.

    I agree with him, I’m glad he went and gave that speech, and I understand what he’s going for. I don’t think he’s being any more pie-in-the-sky or unrealistic than, say, Gandhi or MLK were. This is the goal we have to keep in mind: a world were we are all not just tolerant of each other’s beliefs, but actively curious about them.

    I agree with you that we can’t expect the wingnuts to play by the rules. But there’s no contradiction or conflict implied by that. Back to my favourite examples: Gandhi didn’t expect the British to play by the rules (and they didn’t) and MLK didn’t expect the segregationists to play by the rules either (and they didn’t). Somehow they won anyway…. which means we can too.

  • Once again, great post.

    Your points all remind me of the truth of what my great-uncle, once Harry Truman’s grey eminence, told me at a young age: “the only ‘good Republicans’ are pushing up daisies.”

    And btw – since Carville did indeed say “we’re right and they’re wrong,” how does he manage to keep sleeping with the SlimeBimbette of Belsen? I mean, in my experience of relationships, having that stark a difference over all vital issues does not lead to marital bliss.

  • There are social issues on which people broadly agree. Adam Przeworski says: every Pole wants to avoid a Russian invasion, every Floridian wants protection against hurricanes. But there are others on which we can’t expect to agree, e.g., wealth distribution by maj vote. For whatever reason, the class #2 has totally driven out class #1.

  • Great post, CB. I do think, however, that there are some on the left that are intolerant of others who don’t think “their” way. For example, those who say that people of faith “believe in superstition”… that sort of thing. Or look down on those who don’t live, eat, whatever, the same way they do. Human nature I guess, to label and group people.

    But you are right in that it’s next to impossible to get through to people whose minds are already made up. It’s interesting to me that some people can be confronted with facts that contradict their mindset, yet they remain firm in that mindset, unable to accept the facts, and have to rationalize keeping that mindset (oh, you’re just against the president, etc., that’s why you’re saying these things).

    One more thing, is that now that the press is doing a better (still not great) job of reporting Repub misdeeds, what you hear from these folks, who have been told over and over that the press is liberal (when it wasn’t), is that the press has gone from being liberal to being communist, traitorous… or something. They are absolutely outraged that anyone could contradict our dear leader because that is such a blow to their mindset.

    Enough rambling from me…

  • Hannah– I’ll agree that sometimes liberals hold “intolerant” views, however the key difference is that those are our private views, we don’t want them enforced via laws. We don’t want discriminatory laws that punish or discriminate against people for not sharing our views.

    We might want others to share our views but we don’t demand it– I think it is a core progressive view that there is room for all of us, that people can believe/worship/think as they choose. The right declares “war” on their liberal enemies, portray us as a “threat” to American values, etc. It’s not the same thing. In their hearts they want us to disappear, in our hearts we just want them to leave us alone.

  • “In their hearts they want us to disappear, in our hearts we just want them to leave us alone.”

    Bingo. To frame it slightly differently, we believe they have a legal and moral right to their opinions; they think we’ll burn in hell for what we believe and thus that steps to silence us are moral in God’s sight.

  • You say it best when you say you cannot “reason” with the religious right. That’s because their beliefs are not based on reason but on “faith” (warped as that faith may seem). No amount of logic, even that based on logical interpretations of the bible, will make a dent in their beliefs because they didn’t arrive where they are through logic.

    Arguing, reasoning or attempts at education are a waste of energy and resources. These should be directed to the ignorant or indifferent to alert them to the dangers that the religious right poses to everyone and to the wellbeing of the country and the world as a whole. It is generally best not to even acknowledge fundamentalists or if one must, to speak of them in the third person. That is not being “intolerant” of their views; it is merely refusing to reason with the unreasoning.

  • Comments are closed.