NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48257

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.5 KB | 65 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!coren
From: [e-mail] (Robert Coren)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:16:48 GMT
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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?
>
> 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.

The point is that the religious right in the USA does not merely have
objectionable opinions that they are vocal about. They have real
political power -- disproportionate to their actual numbers, I believe
-- and they use that power to control lives in ways that horrify
people who respect civil liberties. GLB folk in the US are
particularly sensitive to this issue because we are a principal target
of the religious right.

The relevance of "creationism" is that in many parts of the country
the agenda of the religious right directly affects what it is
permissible to teach in schools. They are capable of stirring up a lot
of trouble in some places if somebody dares to teach evolution as
accepted scientific fact, without at least giving "equal time" to what
they are now calling "creation science". A vocal minority (or even, if
it came to that, a vocal majority) that attempts to force its views on
the entire population, especially at the fundamental level of forcing
their viewpoint to be taught in public schools, is dangerous to people
of all viewpoints.

They are particularly dangerous to us because they have a goal of, at
the very least, denying GLB folk full citizenship, and at the most
extreme of eliminating us entirely. They have the power to get laws
passed denying us our civil rights -- in case you hadn't noticed, this
just happened in the state of Colorado. They are not merely an
annoyance; they are a serious threat.

Apparently you are unaware of the political strength of the religious
right in the US. You got taken to task for your original post because
it seemed to suggest that because you had not heard about this, and
couldn't conceive of it, then it must not be the case. Think for a
moment about why people actually living under this threat might find
such an attitude a shade arrogant.

>
> 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?

Not if it means that you attempt to deny me the right of exercising my
preference, insofar as it doesn't affect you directly.