I've argued elsewhere that, despite the fact that I consider "the radical right," fundamentalists, etc., scary and hateful, I don't actually know any of them as people and so I discourage my fellow progressives from their knee-jerk dismissals of them.

I want to understand the people in the Bible belt, too. Even if I disagree with them, I want to see them as human beings, not caricatures.

Many people here, for instance, resort to facile slogans about religion being the opiate of the masses.

I think this is destructive too, though it's a critique I'm broadly sympathetic to. I am religious, but I also am a secular humanist and have been an atheist, so culturally I tend to find myself more in the secular-humanist/atheist camp than the "religious" camp. (I don't think this is a helpful dichotomy, though I recognize it exists.)

I just firmly believe that the path to learning to get along lies in, well, learning to get along.

Rejecting whole groups of people out of hand (e.g., members of the Nation of Islam) is simply unproductive. It distorts reality.

Here's the link to the argument I made reference to. I wrote it awhile ago, but it's basically me arguing to a leftist crowd that they need to temper their vitriol and make real efforts to understand the "Bible-belt" people we identify by unflattering labels.

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6672

Heh heh.

You're a dear.

:)

Oh, I understand. He does need to become president, so I understand the nature of his speech today.

I'm just disappointed, is all. Less in Obama than in "my fellow liberals" represented specifically, here, on this board, in the person of Joan.

As I say, I'm an idealist, but I'm not so zealous I can't forgive Obama for being a politician. He still has light years to go (in my view) before he approaches Clinton-style pandering, which is world class, so I'm prepared to overlook this whole thing.

Still, it's with sadness that I do so.

Have to disagree with you.

This is not, fundamentally, about religion and politics.

It's about the spectrum of legitimate opinion.

The fact that these issues are coming up in the context of a church and a pastor are really incidental; at root, the issue is basically about left-wing analysis v. right-wing analysis, and about the kind of country people believe they're living in.

If you imagine Obama had an association with Noam Chomsky, these same issues would come up.

Religion is only the particular form here of a more substantial cultural divide.

Forgive me if this is a breach of etiquette, but I feel compelled to reprint this letter from the last thread.

It deserves to be its own front-page essay.

At the very least, Joan owes it to her readers to respond, in a detailed way, to the sentiments and argument expressed.

Joan, if you were to do so, I guarantee it would go a long way towards helping us all further this dialogue in a productive and enlightening way.

Please consider doing so.

(See next comment.)