On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break

Josh, you ignorant slut.

I've always wanted to use that old SNL point/counterpoint line. In reality I respectfully disagree with some of Josh's post: "If everyone agrees the religious right is 'nuts,' can liberals finally catch a break?"

Look at the title. Nobody agrees that the "religious right" is nuts; in fact, it's the same sloppy characterization that continues to haunt liberals in pursuit of their own ideals: namely, respecting that Truth is not the exclusive property of one world view or other.

This is not to outline some hippy-dippy, all-things-are-equal ideology. I don't agree with the way much of the religious right sees, and interacts with, the world -- in fact, I find some of it downright frightening and repugnant. But when we disrespect it as the "wrong" way to see the world, we do so at our ethical and political peril.

But Josh will say that this is a straw man and that the post focuses on the distinction between the hucksters at the head of the religious right and the rank and file at its heart.

To that I say...yes, it's an important distinction and one often overlooked by those out to tar liberals with the religion-hater label. It is a talking point that liberals hate religion, though it's not fabricated from whole cloth. It's just as much of a straw man to claim that liberals are being smeared despite their respectful and diligent efforts to reserve their ire for those who've proved themselves hypocrites and politicos.

I'll grant you this: I haven't seen anybody in the Democratic Party or many in the progressive media bashing religion. But take a look at the comments section of any story or blog post concerning religion. Talk to people in progressive or liberal circles, and what you'll find is a general consensus that religion is a fairy tale fabricated either to calm the tortured human soul or to keep the masses at bay. The corollary is that the world's political situation will creep closer to justice as we become more and more secular.

Take a look at the hero worship of people like Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins, whose latest book is called The God Delusion. I'm not sure much more need be said about it. How freaked out and offended would liberals be, if hardcore religion scholar were to release a popular book entitled: The Science Delusion?

This is as ignorant as it is offensive, though I doubt many would even characterize it as antagonism toward religion. Which is where the divide becomes fundamentally evident; in the inability to even see where our most elemental beliefs are at odds. It's not that religion shouldn't be expolored, poked, and prodded. It should be a matter for debate. But the tenor of the debate is where the problems often begin. I find it anti-science to begin an honest exploration of religion with a title that strongly suggests the project's outcome. It doesn't even fight the battle on the proper battlefield.

I just find it ironic that the very facet of religion that many find dangerous and repellent -- namely, its inability to accept the truth and legitimacy of other, sometimes opposing ideologies -- is the one adopted by many liberals in their wholesale or sloppy condemnation of religion. It's funny because I see the most dangerous mindset as being the one that, regardless of its team membership, believes that it has a grasp on the Great Truth.