Moderate Xs Must Speak Out
Feb. 9th, 2006 09:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenTriggered by several posts in the last month or so. One of them started off like this:
The Christians are going to show up at the [Florida] state Capitol in a few days to show support for the "definition of marriage bill", or whatever ya want to call it.
I suggested to the poster that 'some Christians' might be a more appropriate phrasing, since there are plenty who don't support such bills, and it's irritating for those folk to be continually lumped in with the godbotherers. AFAICT, she had no objections to that, but another poster responded:
It is not the fault of more liberal non-Christians that Christians these days are associated in the public mind with right-wing causes. The right wingers are taking away the name. If liberal Christians want it back, it is up to them to take it--not because *I* have a prejudice. I do not, but it wouldn't matter if I did, if I was the only one. It is up to them because it is their name, and no-one else can do it for them. It is up to them because if they *do* care about equality and choice--not just personally, but as a supporting pillar or their religious beliefs--those rights are in danger...
I DO wish there were groups of Christians, people who spoke the language of their faith and community, who could articulate a vision that makes that faith consistent with a more open and just society, and get that message out. I realize that there are people out there trying. I wish that they too would hire PR firms and get on television... I wonder if any tolerant Christians will be [at the Capitol Steps], representing?
First off, whatever the basis for one's personal morality, I agree that there is a time to make a stand for it. Moderate Christians (Muslims, etc etc) who believe in gay rights, women's rights, etc. etc. should be working for those things... but because they believe in those things, not as a way of saying "We're different from those wackos".
What I think is a Bad And Wrong Idea is the implication that moderates have a moral duty to fight those battles in the same fora as the extremists*: if Pat Robertson is blasting homosexuality on the 700 Club, the moderates should be starting an 800 Club, if the anti-gay-marriage Christians are waving their banners on the Capitol steps, the pro-gay-marriage Christians must be there too with their own banners or they've failed in their duty.
There are a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea, but they boil down to one big one: the day that the moderates make those tactics successful is the day they stop being moderates and become just another bunch of assholes who use their religion as a bludgeon instead of a compass.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cornute posted a Christian perspective on this here, referencing Matthew 6. Most of that chapter is concerned with the message that performing good deeds and celebrating your faith showily is an empty exercise:
When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
You don't have to be a believer to appreciate the sense of this advice. Look at the folk who make a lot of noise about their faith - people like Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and a great many Bible-waving politicians - and you'll notice that they are not very good at living that faith. Perhaps some of them are sincere in their beliefs, but put so much effort into advertising them that they have nothing left over for following them. But I suspect for most of them, even the belief is pretty hollow - after all, how easy can it be to keep your mind on your God when you're fixated on making an impression on your fellow man?
In the end, what most of us really want from other people's religions is meekness. We want them to respect our own beliefs, allow us our own choices, and generally refrain from getting in our faces. We do not want political decisions made on a religious basis. Encouraging moderates to enter into religious argument with their extremist brethren in the political and PR arenas doesn't achieve that goal; it gets more religion in our faces, not less.
And I'm not convinced it does a lot to dilute the extremism, either. See, the reason the Buchanans and Santorums of this world invest so much of their efforts in TV and politics is that that's where their strengths lie. Those arenas don't favour honest folk who think things through carefully and live by their convictions; they're made for slick, empty people who can boil the most complex of issues down into a quick sound-bite. While moderates do sometimes need to make a showing in those arenas, it's not where they're going to win their big victories - meekness and honesty are a grave disadvantage there. At best, they can defend some ground there; at worst, in learning how to win, they forget the things that made them moderates.
IMHO, the best thing the moderates can do is to do what they're good at - which is living by their faith, visibly but not intrusively, and setting an example at a personal level. That may not attract headlines like the hatemongers who call for beheadings and assassinations and whatnot, but ultimately, I think the example of a trusted friend is far more persuasive than the slickest of televangelists.
So, no, you won't see the moderate, gay-friendly Christians out brandishing placards on the Capitol steps. They'll be off raising funds for Third-World relief projects, or doing volunteer work for AIDS patients, or having a quiet cup of tea at home with a couple of gay friends... and that is all the more persuasive an advertisement for moderation because it's not intended as an advertisement.
*BTW, I'm not saying that everybody who supports the Florida bill and suchlike is an extremist; different people have different motivations. But to simplify this argument, let's just pretend that all the moderates are on one side of the issue and all the extremists are on the other. Feel free to mentally substitute a different issue if that works better for you.
The Christians are going to show up at the [Florida] state Capitol in a few days to show support for the "definition of marriage bill", or whatever ya want to call it.
I suggested to the poster that 'some Christians' might be a more appropriate phrasing, since there are plenty who don't support such bills, and it's irritating for those folk to be continually lumped in with the godbotherers. AFAICT, she had no objections to that, but another poster responded:
It is not the fault of more liberal non-Christians that Christians these days are associated in the public mind with right-wing causes. The right wingers are taking away the name. If liberal Christians want it back, it is up to them to take it--not because *I* have a prejudice. I do not, but it wouldn't matter if I did, if I was the only one. It is up to them because it is their name, and no-one else can do it for them. It is up to them because if they *do* care about equality and choice--not just personally, but as a supporting pillar or their religious beliefs--those rights are in danger...
I DO wish there were groups of Christians, people who spoke the language of their faith and community, who could articulate a vision that makes that faith consistent with a more open and just society, and get that message out. I realize that there are people out there trying. I wish that they too would hire PR firms and get on television... I wonder if any tolerant Christians will be [at the Capitol Steps], representing?
First off, whatever the basis for one's personal morality, I agree that there is a time to make a stand for it. Moderate Christians (Muslims, etc etc) who believe in gay rights, women's rights, etc. etc. should be working for those things... but because they believe in those things, not as a way of saying "We're different from those wackos".
What I think is a Bad And Wrong Idea is the implication that moderates have a moral duty to fight those battles in the same fora as the extremists*: if Pat Robertson is blasting homosexuality on the 700 Club, the moderates should be starting an 800 Club, if the anti-gay-marriage Christians are waving their banners on the Capitol steps, the pro-gay-marriage Christians must be there too with their own banners or they've failed in their duty.
There are a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea, but they boil down to one big one: the day that the moderates make those tactics successful is the day they stop being moderates and become just another bunch of assholes who use their religion as a bludgeon instead of a compass.
cornute posted a Christian perspective on this here, referencing Matthew 6. Most of that chapter is concerned with the message that performing good deeds and celebrating your faith showily is an empty exercise: When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
You don't have to be a believer to appreciate the sense of this advice. Look at the folk who make a lot of noise about their faith - people like Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and a great many Bible-waving politicians - and you'll notice that they are not very good at living that faith. Perhaps some of them are sincere in their beliefs, but put so much effort into advertising them that they have nothing left over for following them. But I suspect for most of them, even the belief is pretty hollow - after all, how easy can it be to keep your mind on your God when you're fixated on making an impression on your fellow man?
In the end, what most of us really want from other people's religions is meekness. We want them to respect our own beliefs, allow us our own choices, and generally refrain from getting in our faces. We do not want political decisions made on a religious basis. Encouraging moderates to enter into religious argument with their extremist brethren in the political and PR arenas doesn't achieve that goal; it gets more religion in our faces, not less.
And I'm not convinced it does a lot to dilute the extremism, either. See, the reason the Buchanans and Santorums of this world invest so much of their efforts in TV and politics is that that's where their strengths lie. Those arenas don't favour honest folk who think things through carefully and live by their convictions; they're made for slick, empty people who can boil the most complex of issues down into a quick sound-bite. While moderates do sometimes need to make a showing in those arenas, it's not where they're going to win their big victories - meekness and honesty are a grave disadvantage there. At best, they can defend some ground there; at worst, in learning how to win, they forget the things that made them moderates.
IMHO, the best thing the moderates can do is to do what they're good at - which is living by their faith, visibly but not intrusively, and setting an example at a personal level. That may not attract headlines like the hatemongers who call for beheadings and assassinations and whatnot, but ultimately, I think the example of a trusted friend is far more persuasive than the slickest of televangelists.
So, no, you won't see the moderate, gay-friendly Christians out brandishing placards on the Capitol steps. They'll be off raising funds for Third-World relief projects, or doing volunteer work for AIDS patients, or having a quiet cup of tea at home with a couple of gay friends... and that is all the more persuasive an advertisement for moderation because it's not intended as an advertisement.
*BTW, I'm not saying that everybody who supports the Florida bill and suchlike is an extremist; different people have different motivations. But to simplify this argument, let's just pretend that all the moderates are on one side of the issue and all the extremists are on the other. Feel free to mentally substitute a different issue if that works better for you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 01:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 01:43 am (UTC)IMHO, a newspaper editorial is a much better place for a moderate message, because it allows room to develop thoughts.
The Opiate Of The Masses
Date: 2006-02-09 04:28 am (UTC)Brilliant phrasing!! The unfortunate thing is that the moderate voice of reason is seldom heard these days unless it shouts. One can't rely on basic common sense to prevail any more. If moderates had failed to take a noticeable stand , we'd have Creative Design being taught in most schools - if not blatant Creationism. The current debate here in Australia about (abortion drug) RU486 is another dangerous mix of religion & politics threatening to dictate the law.
Too often, silence is seen as consent. General apathy is the real problem here. Knowing this, the extremists are forever making loud pronouncements on what is right, so that the common herd don't have to figure it out for themselves. Unless an opposite (or more moderate) view is just as forcefully proclaimed, the extreme view is taken as gospel. The struggle is to remove the blinkers that most people are quite happy to have fitted to their views.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 06:54 am (UTC)The televangelists are propagating a frightening meme: "We Christians see the world as full of evil things, that only we, led by our religious leaders, can stop."
The cure for this meme isn't "We Christians don't see the world as full of evil things that only we, led by our religious leaders, can stop."
The cure starts "I'm not here to hurt you, and I don't hate you." And it's not something you can spread from afar-- you have to spread it by sitting down with someone and NOT poking them with a stick about religion or evil or what they really ought to do. About anything.
I made a new friend this week. Because of who and what my friend is, no one has ever been openly Christian around them in a nice way. So, instead of spending time getting to know my friend, I'm having to spend it sitting back, having nice conversations about nothing much, while I convince my friend I'm not going to hurt them, and I don't hate them.
It makes me want to kick Christian ass sometimes. But then, when would I get to know my friends, if I was kicking ass constantly?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 05:46 pm (UTC)I think this applies to areas of personal and political conviction that are non-religious, too.
It is how I strive to behave in regard to my convictions about animals (perhaps not always successfully). I arrived at this only after an unfortunate few years of being a total jerk about it (but then, I was a teenager, so perhaps it can be forgiven). I don't know if I would call myself a "moderate" on that issue although I would not categorize myself as a radical either.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 09:29 pm (UTC)