From: bob@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Organization: Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
	<1992Nov12.035614.14567@funlwb.enet.dec.com>
	<BOB.92Nov11210959@dolores.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov17.050246.12001@funlwb.enet.dec.com>
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:26:56

In article <1992Nov17.050246.12001@funlwb.enet.dec.com>
sunderl@obvius.stl.dec.com (Mike Sunderland) writes: 

   Seriously though, what is it that pisses you off about the
   "religious right" so much? I mean what makes the religious right
   the bad guys?

They want to legislate their morality for everyone in the US.  Their
moral code has no place in it for freedom of speech, thought,
religion, or expression; no place for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals;
no place for rational scientific enquiry; and no place for women who'd
prefer not to be barefoot, pregnant and immured in the kitchen. 

   Ok, they hold a world view that is probably seriously at odds with
   yours.  They think you are doing something morally wrong in having
   sex with a partner of the same gender as yourself. AND they want to
   make sure that everybody hears about what they have to say about
   it. Are they wrong just because they disagree with you and
   disaprove of something that you hold very dear, or is there more to
   it than that? And what does all this creationism stuff have to do
   with the subject?? Enlighten me.

Again, they want to enforce their oppressive "morality" by law.  Even
if they have a majority, enforcing such an oppressive moral code on
the population at large is a clear case of a tyranny of the majority.

BTW, I do not believe it is possible to avoid legislating morality
entirely.  My point is that the "morality" of the religious right is
such a hateful and narrow thing that enacting it into the law is
clearly evil.

Creationism is relevant as a case in point.  Logic is irrelevant to
these people.  Scientific facts are irrelevant to these people.
Arguments based on the notion of human rights are irrelevant to these
people.  All that they care about is whatever beliefs they happen to
hold at the moment.

   BTW, on the judgement thing - am I not allowed to hold an opinion
   about what other people do just because their activities don't
   affect me? If I don't like what you do does that mean I am judging
   you? Is it ok for me to believe that some things are open to
   personal preference while some other things are not?

If you choose to believe that some behavior on the part of other
consenting adults that does not affect you in the least is "sinful",
"inappropriate", "degenerate", or "bad for them" without compelling
rational evidence supporting your opinion then that belief is a
gratuitous judgement.

I think we all make gratuitous judgements of the above kind, and I'd
say these judgements are nothing more than useless and mostly harmless
mental baggage --- as long as no attempt is made to inflict these
judgements on others.

On the other hand, the religious right think their mental baggage is
"the word of God", and wants to inflict it on everyone.

   I'm not trying to stir up a flame war or poke fun at anyone, but I
   do want to understand. I am often annoyed when I see people talking
   and acting as though sexual immorality were the only kind of
   immorality - ignoring things like greed, corruption, dishonesty and
   all kinds of injustice. But I think maybe you have some other
   concerns?

I hope my response, and the other responses as well, have helped.

The bottom line is that while rational people can recognize the
possibility of a legitimate difference of opinion on an issue, a
zealot cannot --- there is only one right answer.

The US religious right is led by charismatic zealots.

- Bob