Could it possibly be that what Matt had in mind was not that religion itself was belittling, but that the usage of a disaster like this to promote one's religion is? America is a Christian nation -- it's not supposed to be, according to the Bill of Rights, which protects freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. This means that there can be no national religion. Realistically, however, the majority of Americans are Christian, which makes the majority of Congress Christian, which gives a bias -- both pronounced and inferred -- towards the Christian faith. The past few days have been filled with calls for prayer, the president has quoted Psalms (although that reference has enough of a secular quality about it now to not cross the line), and certain religious leaders have told us that God is punishing this country for perceived sins. Most of the time, I have no quarrel with people who are proud of their religion. In some ways, I envy the fact that they have managed to survive the "leap of faith" required to keep such a discipline. However, people like Falwell and Robertson, and certain other political leaders and talk show hosts, HAVE been using this unwarranted attack (and no matter how many times we left-wingers may criticize American foreign policy, there is no way we would ever have wished for this sort of attack, or believed it was America's fault)as an excuse to continue the sort of hate-speak they have been practicing for decades. It's easy to feel intellectually superior to Falwell or Robertson, because they have no intellect to work with in the first place. If criticism of Matt comes from the fact that he's sick of these people using these sorts of events to promote a closed-minded, bigoted, irrational belief, such as that homosexuals are sinful, that only Christianity matters, and that America would be a better place if only it weren't so darned liberal, then count me in with him.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST