There are two things at play, bigotry and chauvinism. People forget how chauvinism plays a role. People who would normally be more open minded (hence not bigots) get pulled in to agreeing with something when another person they identify with says it. The radio host is thinking, he's a christian, I'm a christian, I should be supporting, defending, and agreeing with him to show support and unity, even though you could easily sense his cognitive dissonance in that slight pause. Chauvinism is part of the in group bias that goes back to tribalism. That's why chauvinism and tribalism are so dangerous; all it takes is 5 bigoted monkeys and the rest of the monkeys start to go along.
Chauvinism is something one has to constantly be conscious of to guard against, and is a daily struggle. We can never truly put it behind us. We all have square thoughts that resist circles.
The ironic thing in this case is that the U.S. constitution is very clear as Bastion has posted here.
http://www.********.com/livin... It should be an open and shut case, especially in the light of concern amongst Christians that their religious liberty is under attack. The Supreme Court should rule the way we want.
When I take Christians to task for hypocrisy, I do it by speaking Christian, which is easier for m...
There are two things at play, bigotry and chauvinism. People forget how chauvinism plays a role. People who would normally be more open minded (hence not bigots) get pulled in to agreeing with something when another person they identify with says it. The radio host is thinking, he's a christian, I'm a christian, I should be supporting, defending, and agreeing with him to show support and unity, even though you could easily sense his cognitive dissonance in that slight pause. Chauvinism is part of the in group bias that goes back to tribalism. That's why chauvinism and tribalism are so dangerous; all it takes is 5 bigoted monkeys and the rest of the monkeys start to go along.
Chauvinism is something one has to constantly be conscious of to guard against, and is a daily struggle. We can never truly put it behind us. We all have square thoughts that resist circles.
The ironic thing in this case is that the U.S. constitution is very clear as Bastion has posted here.
http://www.********.com/livin... It should be an open and shut case, especially in the light of concern amongst Christians that their religious liberty is under attack. The Supreme Court should rule the way we want.
When I take Christians to task for hypocrisy, I do it by speaking Christian, which is easier for me because I used to be one. Quotes like: "My kingdom is not of this world" can be helpful, and remind them that separation of Church and state evolved out of the early Catholic church; which is why the pope anointed Kings instead of taking direct power, and later from the reformation in challenge to the entrenched power of the corrupted Catholic church. And finally I remind them that it is they who believe that Christianity heavily influenced the drafting of the constitution, and that religious freedom extended to non-christians is a Christian thing to do. It doesn't bother me to "switch languages". If I went to Germany and started berating Germans who don't speak English, my ******** would be an enormous road block to communication.
This happens on ** all the time, people quoting scripture to non-believers (when the topic isn't scripture), relativists making moral cases against judging others to those who believe in Natural Law. The qualitative differences in base *********** is a chasm so wide that it can't be crossed without translation into the intended targets language, and that requires understanding the other persons language and the *********** their arguments are based upon. On practical matters if one holds that the person must be convinced out of their own beliefs first, before you can persuade them, then one will be waiting a very long time indeed. Meanwhile the other team is taking the ball down the field.
Libertarianism and upholding the constitution requires the support of such a wide base of people that no one group can afford to alienate another. I'm interested in building a lexicon that can be understood by Theist and Atheist libertarians and constitutionalists equally, as well as between religious faiths. A kind of political manifesto that would point out that if we arrive at the same conclusions in the exercise of political power it doesn't matter how we arrived at those conclusions in order to get behind sound policy. The infighting only helps the enemies - the Statists to seize ever more power.
That is not to say that these subjects can't be discussed civilly, and they should, but once it comes to political action we can act in concert to move the ball to the next set of downs.