Competing worldviews of fundamentalists and religious liberals (moral, tradition, homosexual)

[Sunstone]

From the article:

"Fundamentalists themselves would claim that the Bible is the center of their worldview, but scriptural support for their more controversial positions is often scant and open to alternate interpretations. Ault notes that members of the pseudonymous Shawmut River Baptist Church “generally held such views before they were ‘saved’ and became born-again Christians. Their pro-family conservatism could not be explained, then, by doctrines or practices found in any particular religion.” Instead, Ault attributes Shawmut River’s conservatism to a “villagelike” web of multigenerational family ties very different from what he observed among his academic acquaintances."


This strikes me as a very interesting paragraph. Especially the point that how one views the family preceeds conversion. Would anyone care to elaborate on this?

[lilithu]

Namaste David,

Wonderful post. And thank you so much for all your work in the Katrina relief effort.

Originally Posted by Davidium

Ok, I could probably make it as a liberal Episcopal with at little obfuscation and effort , but why? Why when there is a movement that is the beacon of Religious Liberalism, and which is working in our world to actively better the lot of mankind, and in which I am one of the more "conservative" members, not the most liberal one...

I love being the "conservative" side of a Liberal movement.... suits me nicely.

lol, me too! I've always felt more comfortable with people who are more liberal than me than with people who are more conservative than me. I'm much more comfortable telling a bunch of optimists that they should slow down a bit than I am trying to get pessimists to...care.

I can totally understand why religious conservatives would be threatened by us because I feel threatened by them, on a visceral level. When I talk to someone who is afraid of gays, or afraid of Muslims, or afraid of blacks, or just afraid, my brain may be able to talk to them respectfully and my heart may still try to have compassion for them, but my gut shrinks into a self-defensive little ball. There is something in me that is horrified by that negativity. Another reason why I love our senior minister, Rob, is because he has repeatedly acknowledged that he has to struggle not to fear that fear, not to hate those who hate, not to turn into that which he stands against. I struggle with that too. It is that giving into that darkness that turns a religous liberal into a fundie UU, a ghost of hir former liberal self.

But now I think I've completely digressed from what we were talking about.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

From the article:

"Fundamentalists themselves would claim that the Bible is the center of their worldview, but scriptural support for their more controversial positions is often scant and open to alternate interpretations. Ault notes that members of the pseudonymous Shawmut River Baptist Church “generally held such views before they were ‘saved’ and became born-again Christians. Their pro-family conservatism could not be explained, then, by doctrines or practices found in any particular religion.” Instead, Ault attributes Shawmut River’s conservatism to a “villagelike” web of multigenerational family ties very different from what he observed among his academic acquaintances."


This strikes me as a very interesting paragraph. Especially the point that how one views the family preceeds conversion. Would anyone care to elaborate on this?

Great observation, Sunstone!

I think what it's saying is that we use our religious doctrines to justify what we already believe in our hearts. It's not the doctrines that cause us to believe what we believe.

Certainly, I think this is the case. How is it that liberal Christians and conservative Christians can look at the same bible and one sees a doctrine of "love thy neighbor" and the other sees a doctrine of "only those who believe shall be saved." There is a basis for both of those views in the bible and religious liberals and religious conservatives selectively see what they are already inclined to see.

The reason why these people in the article were saved/born-again into this particular brand of Christianity is because they saw "truth" in it. A "truth" they already held in their hearts before their conversion. If they had encountered a different brand of Christianity that held a different "truth," they likely would not have converted. It is a self-selecting process.

Something that I repeatedly hear from new members of our denomination is "I've been searching all my life for people like you." or "I've always been a UU but didn't know it til I found you." We have no pretense about having taught our members what the "truth" is, or what the proper views on family are. They came to us because they already agree with us. What we do provide is support so that people don't lose hope, and guidance so that they can better articulate what they already believe.

(Sorry for the plug there Sunstone, but this is the UU forum, and Maize and Davidium have got me feeling so good about us that I'm kinda bubbling over right now. Check in next week and I'll be ranting about what's wrong with us again. )

[Bennettresearch]

Thanx Lilithu and Davidium,

To clarify my statement, I was only referring to religious fundamentalists. As to being a Conservative as opposed to being a fundamentalist, let me say this. My viewpoint on the attack upon our basic values in America is not something I dreamed up. I have the unique experience of driving a cab in Seattle. Latte sucking liberalville. Instead of voicing their "progressive" opinions on matters, they are pro-actively anti-conservative, which they have their own definition of. They have radar!!! I can't count the times that someone tried to beat me up with their agenda. It is really education to view someone who doesn't bother to put on a good face and will show their real side to you. Therefore, if traditional family values are considered to be conservative, then they are opposed to it. This was a far cry from talking to a liberal in a different social setting where there was civility.

As to what is permissable in our society. I don't consider my conservatism to be restricting anyone else's life and it accepts people as they are. However, when it comes to radically changing our tradition in US, I will surely not say that all stops are out and everything is permissable. Why not just have total anarchy then?

[lilithu]

Namaste, Bennettresearch.

(Forgive me but every time I see your username my mind initially thinks you are a pharmaceutical company. )

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

To clarify my statement, I was only referring to religious fundamentalists. As to being a Conservative as opposed to being a fundamentalist, let me say this. My viewpoint on the attack upon our basic values in America is not something I dreamed up. I have the unique experience of driving a cab in Seattle. Latte sucking liberalville. Instead of voicing their "progressive" opinions on matters, they are pro-actively anti-conservative, which they have their own definition of. They have radar!!! I can't count the times that someone tried to beat me up with their agenda. It is really education to view someone who doesn't bother to put on a good face and will show their real side to you. Therefore, if traditional family values are considered to be conservative, then they are opposed to it. This was a far cry from talking to a liberal in a different social setting where there was civility.

I can't deny these people exist, and are loud and virulent. In fact, that was my main motivation for posting the thread, "Liberalism is dead. Long live Liberalism!" As I say there, I grew up in San Francisco. (btw, Seattle cannot hold a candle to San Francisco in terms of being "latte sucking liberalville." We are the ones who spread our tentacles up there.) I am very familiar with the "liberals" who are only tolerant of views that are the same as theirs. It was from seeing them that I turned a critical eye on myself and asked where I might be failing as a true liberal.

I can't even say that these people aren't really "liberals." Afterall, that is what they call themselves. All I can say is that these people are not true to the original spirit of liberalism, as put forth by our visionaries like John Stuart Mill and other Enlightenment thinkers. And it is this optimistic liberalism, tempered by 20th century reality, to which I refer in my posts.

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

As to what is permissable in our society. I don't consider my conservatism to be restricting anyone else's life and it accepts people as they are. However, when it comes to radically changing our tradition in US, I will surely not say that all stops are out and everything is permissable. Why not just have total anarchy then?

Believe it or not, I do recognize that tradition is often tradition for good reasons...because it works...and that there have to be some checks and balances to change. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's good. I'm not advocating that we automatically throw out tradition. That would be extremely harmful, as witnessed by the "communist" revolutions that rocked the first part of last century. But I do advocate that when a tradition comes into conflict with someone's life and liberty that we critically re-examine this tradition. Perhaps it was never really necessary. Or perhaps it was necessary at one time but is not necessary now. And I suggest that the criterion by which we re-examine tradition are the following questions:
Are people suffering as a result of this tradtion?
If so, is the tradition necessary to prevent an even greater suffering?

If people are suffering as a result of maintaining this tradition, and there is no compelling reason to maintain it, then I would advocate changing the tradition. I'm not advocating anarchy, just what is fair.

[Bennettresearch]

Good posts Lilithu,

Yes, you are right. The terms have been redefined a lot. As a liberal of the 70's,
i am now a Conservative of the 21st century. How did this happen? I would say overreaching on the left is the best way I could say it. This is why I gave an example of my experience driving a cab. I was all a surprise to me and I found myself being attacked!!! We can be generous and say that it is over zealousness, or self absorbed acting out, or on and on. What I was found was that those people were empowered behind an agenda and immediately went around pounding on other people who they deemed as the "opposition". I once joked to one thanking them for pointing out that I was a "whitebigotedracisthomophobicmisogynisticlatinopho beanitislamic". Boy, I never knew that! Needless to say, it caused me to reject all of these causes because I thought I was liberal but they pointed out that this is not so.

[Bennettresearch]

oh, by the way Lilithu,

I am new to forums so I just used my official moniker. I am a researcher of the Bible and history. Still learning a lot, and this is why I thought that this was descriptive of where I am coming from.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

oh, by the way Lilithu,

I am new to forums so I just used my official moniker. I am a researcher of the Bible and history. Still learning a lot, and this is why I thought that this was descriptive of where I am coming from.

Wow, very cool!! And do you get paid to do that; I'm so envious.

I have also had people tell me that I'm not really a liberal. I've had liberals tell me that because I disagreed with them. (They meant it as an insult.) But more often, I've had conservatives tell me that because I agreed with them. (They meant it as a compliment.) Hey, call yourself whatever you want. I do.