Warning: Much of the following is strictly satire. Follow the link to understand the context.
***
In light of wiscmass's heroic and wise diary calling for religious tolerance, I have finally found the courage to make a call for tolerance of my own. You see, I've noticed that there's a lot of intolerance towards republicans and conservatives on this blog, and I confess that I, as a conservative republican, find that I am unable to recognize myself in any of these descriptions. What bothers me about this is that as a progressive conservative republican, this sort of intolerance goes against everything we stand for as progressives.
more below the fold...
With these concerns in mind, I feel the need to present some thoughts that the community should bear in mind.
Because Politics is in the details: A plea for tolerance
Republicans seem to be a pretty hot topic on dKos. In general, there is a common kind of diary about republicans I'm used to seeing here. This is the sort of diary we've been seeing a lot of lately, in which some organization, demented individual, or governmental body advocates and/or attempts to impose a specific republican perspective on unwilling people through abuse of power, violence, threats, or majoritarian arrogance.
One of the things that frustrate me to no end is that so many otherwise tolerant, good-hearted people fail to see that there are many republicans that aren't this way. I hope -- though I still have my doubts -- that this is part of what Zell Miller was trying to get at in his speech prior to the 2004 elections. Even here, where (in my experience) people are far more tolerant, fair-minded, and intelligent than most of the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis, I am sometimes amazed by the level of intolerance expressed towards republicans and people of conservative values. Whether it's an ill-informed screed about social conservatives; the baseless attribution of Joementum's tooliness to his connections with the White House; the ecological fallacy that all republicans are trying to impose their beliefs on all people; or the generalized accusation that all republicans are anti-science, pro-school prayer, anti-equality, anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-war, unthinking mouth-breathers (hereafter "Rethugs"); it's still not based in reality, it's still a generalization, and it's still intolerance. And I submit that such generalizations about republicans are no different from similarly hateful generalizations about race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or any other category.
Research consistently demonstrates that education is a powerful tool against intolerance. In that spirit, allow me to address some of these fallacies by listing a few things everyone should know about people of faith. A detailed examination will reveal that none of the generalizations apply; as my title and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe suggest, God is in the details.
We're not all the same.
Like some of you, I am of a libertarian mindset. Others here are liberals of various sorts. Some are socialists. Some are greens. Some practice centrism. And so on -- if you can name the political orientation, there is probably at least one practitioner among our fellow kossacks. But politics is a highly personal thing, and what holds true for one person in politics may not for another, even within the same party. We can't all speak for each other. Heck, in the republican party we have an expression: "Two republicans, three opinions, one opinion matters." In short, we can't even speak for ourselves sometimes. So when Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Fred Phelps, Dumbya (who, incidentally, I tend to think of more as a poseur and an opportunist than someone who is genuinely a republican, but that's an issue for another time), or some nameless local conservative politican says something hateful, a reasonable person cannot in good conscience attribute their bigotry to all people of their party, let alone all people of conservative orientations.
We don't all hate gays and lesbians.
We believe that politics should be used to promote lovingkindness, not hatred. We are just as appalled as you are by the homophobia justified by many as a political platform, and we shout out against it at the top of our lungs. We regret that the loudest homophobic voices are coming from people who describe themselves as republicans, and we're going to continue to do the best we can to show the world that we won't tolerate the bigots' attempt to hijack our party.
We're not all raving mad protestors outside abortion clinics.
A great many of us are pro-choice. Some of us volunteer at clinics; I've been an escort for terrified patients on several occasions. I suspect if you polled us, many of us would be in the Clinton camp on abortion -- we want it safe, legal, and rare. Rather than condemn people who have or perform abortions, we think they should be treated with compassion. Rather than have the government ban abortion, we think the government should do something about the underlying problems that make abortion the least of several possible evils in many circumstances.
We're not all crazy, stupid, delusional, mindless, unthinking, or uncritical.
Calling us crazy because you disagree with us is insulting to people with genuine mental illnesses. (It's also a hallmark of far loony left rhetoric rhetoric.) Many of us are highly educated; I am a PhD from one of the best universities in the country. We are doctors, lawyers, engineers, candidates for higher office (see, for example, Ted Strickland and Barry Welsh), scientists, professors, teachers, and students. We believe in science as well as our party -- and no, that doesn't mean we subscribe to "intelligent design" over evolution. We accept prevailing scientific wisdom as fact, not theory. We question our leaders when we believe they are wrong and we seek to the best of our ability to rectify wrongs committed in the name of our religion. We do not all accept our sacred texts as the literal word of God. Okay, so our party doesn't always listen to us, but at least our voices are there, trying to provide some balance.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant for dKos, we are a powerful weapon to aid in the election of Democratic candidates. According to many polls, nearly 50% of Americans self-identify as adherents to the republican party. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that generalizing republicans and conservatives as crazy, stupid, delusional, mindless, unthinking, or uncritical is a great way to alienate enough voters to ensure that we never win another election. Like it or not (I opt for not), a substantial proportion of the electorate has gotten it into their heads that Democrats are anti-republican and anti-conservative. We progressives of conservative orientation can fix that if given the chance. We speak the language of conservativism, and we walk the talk as well. We can convince independent voters that Democrats aren't anti-republican. We can convince lots of people that the ideals of the Democratic Party far more closely resemble the ideals of most Americans' conservativism than the ideals of the Rethugs. In a time when many people still unthinkingly repeat the meme that there is no difference between Dems and Rethugs, we progressives of conservativism can help convince swing voters of conservative orientations to vote for Democratic candidates. Use us and we all win. Alienate us and we all lose.
Alright, end snark. After observing wiscmasses diary, having observed other diaries like it, and after having winced at his responses, I would like to respectfully suggest that wiscmass is missing the points. First, I would like to humbly suggest that anti-religious comments on the left are almost exclusively directed at fundamentalists. When I read these anti-religious comments, the Jewish people, Wiccans, Hindus, Bhuddists, Taoists, and so on, are not the people who come to my mind as the target of these criticisms. I read these comments as shorthand for comments directed at fundamentalists and I'm baffled as to why others so often seem to see themselves as the target of these criticisms.
I'm glad wiscmass is a nice guy. I'm glad that he's tolerant. I'm glad he believes in science. And I'm glad he doesn't want to force his beliefs on others. I'm also glad that people like Martin Luther King existed and applaud the role their faith played in their humanitarian and political work. I'll take progressive religious folk as my allies anyday when they advocate these sorts of values. However, I do believe diaries such as this are extremely counter-productive. I believe they are counter-productive because they discern persecution where little or none exists, and, more importantly, I believe they are counter-productive because they make it exceedingly difficult to discuss an issue that is one of the central problems with American politics today.
Apparently wiscmass would like to dismiss the thesis that there is a very large, powerful, and wealthy segment of the population, driven by a fundamentalist form of religious belief that has significantly impacted the political sphere. Ted Haggard was the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, which boasts a membership of 60,000,000 people. Pause and let that number sink in for a moment. Think about what it entails as far as political clout, about the ability to organize, about the ability to raise substantial amounts of money. Moreover, Haggard once boasted that he met with the President by phone each month, as have a number of other fundamentalist ministers. This is not a small or marginal group of religious folk. This is a man who regularly campaigned against GLBT folk, as well as on a number of other reactionary issues. Think about the hundreds of thousands of people Dobsen is able to reach each year with his radio show, or Falwell, or Robertson.
Yes, I know wiscmass is just as disturbed by these sorts of groups and I thoroughly agree with his message of tolerance. However, when I criticize religion it is these types and these types alone that my criticisms are directed at. I try my best to say this explicitly, but I'm sure that sometimes I slip and refer to "religion" when I specifically mean "fundamentalism". I suspect this is the case with a number of other kossites critical of "religion" (note the square quotes, please!!!). If I had one holiday wish, it would be that the religiously sensitive kossites reflect a bit on who, exactly, is being targeted by these criticisms. Is it really progressive religious believers? I don't think so. Perhaps we could save a lot of wasted breath if we exercised a bit of charity in reading our fellow progressives, put comments into context, and recognize the true target.
Oh, and I can't resist one further point: It is thoroughly disingenious to suggest, as wiscmass appears to do, that these things are purely an individual affair. We are talking about organized groups with tremendous power and clout, not individuals; and these organized groups have the ability to do amazing harm. We cannot afford to shut up about these things... Progressive believers and atheists alike.