![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This battle has been the bedrock definition of all my father's religious and political arguments for as long as I can remember - probably a result of reading so much Francis Schaeffer while in training college. It consists of defining two main camps: the Godly - that is, the Religious Right, though my father would define it somewhat more loosely than that - and the Godless - i.e. secular humanists, the Secular left, and anyone who advocates for the separation of church and state.
It's really a masterful comparison, from the point of view of the religious right. It lets them condemn everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do to the other side - i.e., secular humanism - and thereby write them off, frame them as evil, marginalize the plethora of different viewpoints making up that side by lumping them in together. Better still, Christians who are not part of the religious right have bought into the same false dichotomy, while occasionally trying to break it down into bits that fit them better - Christian Left, for example.
However, the definition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. First, if you pay any attention at all to politics in America, you can name a few members of the Religious Right, and a few organizations that promote their viewpoint. I can name about ten off the top of my head, starting with the President and his entourage. But who are the Secular Humanists? The ACLU? They're currently defending Fred Phelps' right to free speech around funerals - that doesn't sound like a secular humanist act to me. In fact, the secular humanists are not really organized at all, and with good reason: they are not the evil bad guys trying to take down the Right, trying to keep Christianity out of the public sphere, etc, etc.
The article says it better than I could. If this interests you, read it. Link courtesy of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
dark_christian, the moderators of which actually run the website in question.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/2/55634/83636/Front_Page/Barack_Obama_Steps_In_It
It's really a masterful comparison, from the point of view of the religious right. It lets them condemn everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do to the other side - i.e., secular humanism - and thereby write them off, frame them as evil, marginalize the plethora of different viewpoints making up that side by lumping them in together. Better still, Christians who are not part of the religious right have bought into the same false dichotomy, while occasionally trying to break it down into bits that fit them better - Christian Left, for example.
However, the definition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. First, if you pay any attention at all to politics in America, you can name a few members of the Religious Right, and a few organizations that promote their viewpoint. I can name about ten off the top of my head, starting with the President and his entourage. But who are the Secular Humanists? The ACLU? They're currently defending Fred Phelps' right to free speech around funerals - that doesn't sound like a secular humanist act to me. In fact, the secular humanists are not really organized at all, and with good reason: they are not the evil bad guys trying to take down the Right, trying to keep Christianity out of the public sphere, etc, etc.
The article says it better than I could. If this interests you, read it. Link courtesy of
dark_christian, the moderators of which actually run the website in question.http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/2/55634/83636/Front_Page/Barack_Obama_Steps_In_It