Link. I've read quite a number of her articles, and I'm almost always in complete agreement with her perspective. This one's no exception. My only complaint is that the article is solely analysis; there's no prescription.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Amazing article. I have begun pimping it. Seriously, I have friends and relations on both sides of this thing, and it drives me nuts. I recently had a (rather polite, thankfully) discussion with a lady who was very upset by the fact that a scientist on the Human Genome project wrote a religious book (I think it was about his scientific understanding informed his faith). It was like she believed that religion is the enemy, and it was evil for a person to try to 'use' science to 'prove' god.
I was shocked by the venom, really. She really thought we'd be better off with no religion at all. Me, I'll put up with a few Jack Chicks or Westboro Baptists (what was that 'God Hates Fags' guy's name?) if we can keep the Bishop Tutus and Mother Theresas.
In any case, thanks for the link. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Me, I'll put up with a few Jack Chicks or Westboro Baptists (what was that 'God Hates Fags' guy's name?) if we can keep the Bishop Tutus and Mother Theresas.
Exactly
And I'll put up with the Michael Newdews of the world as long as we can keep the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've read quite a number of her articles, and I'm almost always in complete agreement with her perspective. This one's no exception. My only complaint is that the article is solely analysis; there's no prescription.
Considering that, unless you're living under a rock, her 'analysis' really isn't that insightful, I think I'm fairly underwhelmed by the piece.
Don't get me wrong, I normally love Cathy Young because, for all that she's on a libertarian site, she's fairly even-handed about how she looks at things, yet isn't shy of coming to conclusions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My problem with the article is that she allows the more extreme ends of the spectrum to define the "sides". This, in my opinion, exacerbates the problem. A big problem with "divides" - and not just the divide over religion is making the divide seem larger than it is by paying attention to the extremes - which tend to be louder. This attention both empowers and embattles those extremes. She contributes to this by buying into and spreading/confirming that point of view and that pushes more people to the edges. All the "ooooo - scary divide" stuff frightens people into taking sides where they otherwise might not.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, kmb, are you saying there is no divide? Or just that CY's method of denouncing it is counter-productive?
As someone who at times feels very alienated from my society and culture because of my faith, I found the article much more conducive to good feelings towards non-religionists than destructive. After reading it I felt more tolerant of those who didn't share my views rather than less.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the two extreme ends of the spectrum are doing a good job of making sure this debate is all about them without Young's help.
I think she did a nice job of succinctly laying the blame on everyone, but she should have gone one step further to explore the majority of people who are continually trapped in the middle of this feud.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't think she talks only about extremes. She keeps pointing out atheist conservatives, religious liberals, Christians working to abolish slavery (and others trying to justify it)...makes it sound like the world is a varied place, which it is.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, there is a greater, and more disturbing divide in this country, one that can not be straddled easilly.
I am, of course, refering to the Mississippi River.
It practically divides the country in two, while people on each side rarely communicate or talk to each other except electronically.
And the distances people go, Maine, Florida, Peurto Rico on the east, and California, Alaska, and Hawaii on the west.
Your average Hawain may never have seen the Mississippi, not to mention crossed over. And how many Maine folks have dared to go West past the dividing stream?
With such vast and almost unimaginable distances between these people, how can we remain a united nation? HOw can we call ourselves The United States when a great wet wound slashes through our center, dividing us all.
Well, except for those who commute across it.
Or those few who fly across it.
But that isn't the point. America is divided beyond all hope.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Thanks for the link Senoj. "Free minds and free markets." I like it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I cross the Mississippi minimum twice a day. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of agree with that article. I'm not Christian, but want to strive to emulate Jesus. I want a middle ground, not just left and right all the time.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Has anyone been watching Studio 60? I've enjoyed the way that show has been portraying the religious/secular divide.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have been. I think that for every time they pick on it, they show the other, sensible side of it. Both sides are equally represented whenever it (frequently) comes up.
Furthermore, I just love that show, I think it gets better every week.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)