I think many Christians (or other religious groups) feel isolated in politics because they can feel comfortable choosing to associate primarily with co-religious people in their personal lives and living most of their lives by their personally held religious views. Unfortunately living under a representative Democracy or Republic vice a theocracy or some other mono-social government means that legally and politically, their personal religion is personal, not codified.
In effect, they've "lost power" by not being able to surround all their public dealings with their personal world view. It's frustrating and slightly shocking, as it's easy to assume that everyone else is like the religious practitioner and their circle of associates.
My very Presbyterian Step-Mother-in-Law who lives in San Antonio always has a problem with "Well, why don't they just..." when she mistakes her moral code and viewpoint as the basis of legal rights as opposed to the "additional" rights the "non-upper-middle-class(or wealthy), non-Presbyterians" around her seem to want to have - especially ones that deal with privacy, entertainment, social safety nets, worker's protection, finance, and general status under the law.
It's difficult for her to feel "included" if her religion isn't recognized as it is a major part of her life. Intellectually, she understands it's a blind spot - she's a smart woman and fair.
But she still feels attacked if someone tells her, (no matter how nicely), that they don't see why her personal religion or religious views should have any major part in a conversation about the political, legal, or personal/social rights of someone else, or that simply that being "religious" dosn't count more in a person and should'nt grant one more leeway or forgiveness than to someone who isn't.
Likewise, if you point that out or point out the hypocrisy of some of her co-religionists who take advantage of "belonging", it's an attack on her for her belief rather than simple a point of disagreement or pointing out the sins of someone else.
How can one have a serious political conversation if there is a big open pit in the middle of the conversation that one has to dance around or be perceived as "a bully" for pointing it out as a tripping hazard? No matter how many times one can say:
"of course, your personal religion is important and valuable to you, but other equally fine and good citizens have their equally important religions or viewpoints, so let's just get past this onto the real issue"
the setting aside of a religious person's "religious concerns" is always going seem to be an uncomfortable attack on that person's sense of value to the community at large.
And the con men, the wolves in sheep's clothing, will always use that understandable gut reaction of the religious to prey on them and set themselves up as some sort of protector and leader of that religious flock.
As it is, I'm sure there's some very good, nice, religious people who right now are feeling that fight or flight twinge that precedes that feeling that they are being attacked for their beliefs, even if they agree with the Secular/Sectarian divide in principle.
I'm sorry for it, but that's a common situation when living in a Secular society...my personal opinion is not an attack against other people's personal opinions, unless they are using their opinions to push me out of the communal discussion. And I shouldn't be prohibited from pointing out the hypocrites, bullies and grifters who use religion to put themselves up as petty tyrants over others who are giving them a pass for the lip-service they are presenting.
For example, after I offended a very nice, protected, very religious young woman I was tutoring in Project Management last semester by calling a particularly nasty media personality a "Bible Thumper" in passing, I had to explain to her I wasn't attacking her
personal religion...I said:
"My view is that 'Bible Thumper' should never be a term of pride or respect to any religious person. A Bible Thumper is the ultimate Blasphemer - a bully who abuses their supposed holy book by setting themselves up as the Only True Protector of their Deity and turns their holy book into a weapon against anyone or anything they
personally disagree with, whether there is a religious quality or not."
Once explained, she agreed whole-heartedly; she wasn't stupid. But I suspect she'll still feel a bit of offense when she hears that term used derisively in the future, just as my SM-i-L, who still thinks that term is "distasteful" and would rather claim "No True Scotsman" than actively call out the hypocrites and Bible Thumpers who are profiting off the shit they are stirring up in the name of religion.
The Sectarian ranks will always close against the Secular, given the slightest excuse.
Haele
= new reply since forum marked as read
