flynn23 wrote:
] As an individual in this society, I do try my best to
] understand my common man. I may not agree with someone who
] feels abortion is evil, or that homosexuality is evil, or that
] prayer in schools should be required. But I'll die supporting
] their ability to speak about it, propose it, and even lobby
] for it. I'm willing to spend the time, energy, and attention
] to at least hear their perspective and contemplate it.
]
] What I'm offended by is that this is not reciprocated. I don't
] hear about groups aligned with these agendas willing to listen
] to alternatives, or even acknowledge their existance in most
] cases. I rarely engage with an individual who overtly sides
] with these issues and related issues who's willing to even
] listen to a rational alternative, much less engage in
] discussion. Hence, I don't ever get the feeling that there's
] mutual respect on the other side. I don't get the feeling that
] anything less than total conversion is acceptable. And that is
] extraordinarily upsetting.

[ That's because discussion and rational argument is a virtue for you, whereas moral certitude and faith are virtues for them. It is our very open-mindedness that makes us weak, at least in the framework that exists at present. We're easily painted as wishy-washy, unsure of ourselves, directionless and so on. It's because grey areas, and the very concept of being convinced by logical argument are completely foreign to the mindset of a fundamentalist.

In fact, once you start painting issues in the colors of religious doctrine, not only is dissent impossible, it's evil, by definition.

And I'm generalizing, of course... there are levels to which this mindset has been adopted, but at the core, openmindedness and fundamentalism are completely irreconcilable. They *can't* listen to your point of view, because doing so would undermine the rock of faith, on which they've based their entire lives.

] Why is it that by doing the right thing (being tolerant, even
] supportive) puts you in a position of being abused and
] vulnerable? Why can't we agree to disagree and leave it at
] that?

[ The "right thing" is a construction of your value system. Tolerance, much less support, of viewpoints which counter what they think of as the "right thing" are more than incorrect or fallacious... they're wrong... morally wrong. It's a framework we on the left have trouble with, not because we don't believe in morality or even religion, but because we don't discuss our ideological stands on the basis of morality. It's not impossible, though I don't argue that it's the best or only thing to do...

] I don't want to make the rest of the country in my own
] image. Why do they?

[ Well, in the sense that you want them to address all situations with an appeal to logic, reason, discussion, and anlysis, you do, and with the belief that doing so will yeild results similar to those you came to. The distinction being that if, through their analysis, they come to a different conclusion, one that can be articulated without vague assertions of what Jesus would do, or stubborn adherence to dogma, you'd be happy to accept that situation. -k]

Yep, God says I'm right, so you're going to Hell. Well My book says, "God isn't an asshole. He might not be fair, but he's got better things to do than go out of his way to screw with someone."

I'll be greatly entertained when I see every single televangelist on the planet getting roasted in Hell because God decided, "Guys, you went around and made people miserable and you did it under My name? Jesus may be willing to turn the other cheek, but He's only part of Me and the other parts say you can go burn in Hell."

RE: Moral values... (from atrios)