Respecting the beliefs of others, even (if grudgingly) the religious Right

Truth is, its hard to get into a discussion about politics without also discussing religion. And when I get into discussions with my friends, on web and blog forums, or with authors who I wish could here me as a verbally respond while reading their books/articles, I am often miffed at how dismissive my fellow progressives and other Left-leaners are towards the faith of the religious Right. Recently I wrote a post on Mormonism which was inspired not only by a few articles I linked to in the post, but also by the Mormon bashing I hear from my progressive friends (who think of themselves as very tolerant). For whatever reason, people whose political beliefs lie a little left of center tend to be a little two faced about respecting diverse religious beliefs, as they continue dismissing fundamentalist and conservative Christians as nut jobs, whackos, or other similar epithets. At times, I’m guilty of it, too.

But do any of us really think that we’re going to get anywhere if we refuse to accept the genuineness and sincerity of fundamentalist and conservative political beliefs? While it may make us feel superior to dismiss those on the other side of the political fence as unintelligent, or worse, in doing so we do ourselves and our democracy a grave disservice. One has to recognize that there are some pretty smart cookies over on the right hand side of the political divide. The sophistication of the Right’s political and media machine betrays the amount of brain power that went into building and maintaining the religious Right. But recognizing the intellectual prowess of the religious Right is just the first step and, in my opinion, the easiest.

The next step, and by far the harder of the two, is recognizing the authenticity of the faith of the religious Right. It can be hard for me and other Left-leaners that I know to understand the religious beliefs of conservative and fundamentalist Christians because they go so strongly against my/our own. But even though they are so different, that doesn’t make them any less authentic or valid. Even though I/we may even find some of the beliefs and practices of the religious Right to be morally reprehensible, that doesn’t invalidate the religious experiences that have led people to hold those beliefs and carry out those practices.  The vigor and energy that the religious Right puts into carrying out their political agenda in our world only attests to how deeply they hold their beliefs. Beyond the institutional and organization energy of the religious Right I mentioned above, look at the Rev. Haggards, whose beliefs on homosexuality were so strong it led them to be anti-gay crusaders despite their own homosexual orientation.

Once we recognize the intelligence or the religious Right and authenticity of their beliefs, we can change the way that we dialogue with them, and more importantly, the way we dialogue about them. Its really quite obvious that when we talk with the religious Right we need to be respectful of how deeply held their beliefs are, even if they don’t always respect how deeply held our beliefs are. Buts its also incredibly important that we remain respectful when we talk with other Left-leaners about the religious Right.  The political spectrum is a tricky enough social construct to navigate, and it becomes trickier with the false dichotomy America’s two party system has forced on our political discourse. It becomes far too easy to construct an other-ness around the religious Right which impedes our ability to come to dialogue with them from a truly respectful and equal footing.

What can we accomplish when we make this subtle shift in our thinking? We can change the tone of the dialogue. I doubt I’m the only person out there, on either side of the political divide, who is frustrated with how partisan and generally aggressive political dialogue is today. While I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to make progress in our dialogue when we have a sense of decency in our discussions and when we know that the other side isn’t bad mouthing and mocking us among themselves and on their blogs. But I also think that if we can make the discussion about truly understanding what each side believes and why, instead of trying to change the minds and beliefs of the other side, that we can make the most progress.

I want to share this interview with author Ronald Numbers, who wrote an excellent history of creationism, from Salon.com. Writing this post at this time was largely inspired by how Dr. Numbers talks about creationists and advocates of ID, which I think can be a starting point for us as we think about how to change the tone and character of our dialogues with and about the religious Right. (Indeed, recognizing the authenticity of the faith of fundamentalists of all religious traditions. If we stopped dismissing Islamic fundamentalists as nut jobs and whackos, we might make some progress at curbing violence and distrust, but that’s another post.)

Comments

[Huw Richardson]

Forgive me for the lack of constructive reply... but AMEN! Preach it! Thank you for your post.

One of the things we use at work (with clients in active addiction) is "when you... I feel... I need..." language. It works as far as it goes - provided the user forces herself to put a real "feeling" in the second space. It takes the blame out of the conversation.

But in the context of belief, it fails to acknowledge the reality of both parties' systems. Each party is in a "reality tunnel" crafted, in part, by their religions sense. Each tunnel is equally real to those inside it and unreal to those outside of it (making no evaluations as to "right" or "wrong" or "truth" content). It's not enough to say "when you say what your religion teaches, I feel oppressed, I need you to not say that."

We need a different way to formulate "when you..." statements when they function as interfaith / inter-tunnel dialogue.