The Religious Right's New Target: Transgender People

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

The Religious Right's New Target: Transgender People | Religion Dispatches

One of the most frustrating, and often infuriating things about religious conservatives is their stubborn penchant for dividing the world into either/or categories. People are either straight or gay, white or black, male or female, religious or atheist. And of course if you're on the right side of the dichotomy, you're on the right side of God. Anyone else is at best inferior and at worst, a sinner damned to hell.

We see this kind of thinking in a Washington Post On Faith post by Russell D. Moore, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Moore tackles California's new law protecting the rights of transgender students, allowing them to freely use bathrooms or locker rooms they feel fits their gender identity.

I used to be part of the religious right until I saw that there was nothing "right" about the religious right at all. Religious WRONG is more like it. I am still a Christian but do NOT want to be associated with those so called Christians that preach hate.

The main problem with the Religious Right here is that they interpret the bible to fit their preconceived notions instead of study the bible in order to mold their thinking. In other words a true Christian lives his life around the Bible while the fake Religious Right Christians use the Bible to back up their own political beliefs.

 

[dawny0826]

The Religious Right's New Target: Transgender People | Religion Dispatches



I used to be part of the religious right until I saw that there was nothing "right" about the religious right at all. Religious WRONG is more like it. I am still a Christian but do NOT want to be associated with those so called Christians that preach hate.

The main problem with the Religious Right here is that they interpret the bible to fit their preconceived notions instead of study the bible in order to mold their thinking. In other words a true Christian lives his life around the Bible while the fake Religious Right Christians use the Bible to back up their own political beliefs.

I prefer to steer from blanket labels. For one, who are the "religious right"? Who are you lumping under this umbrella? And are you sure that everyone under this umbrella twists interpretations to destroy the lives of other people?

 

[Revoltingest]

I prefer to steer from blanket labels. For one, who are the "religious right"? Who are you lumping under this umbrella? And are you sure that everyone under this umbrella twists interpretations to destroy the lives of other people?

And let us not forget that when Chaz Bono came out, Cher kicked her (at
the time) out of the house, but Sonny (the Republican) supported him (now).

 

[maninthewilderness]

Politically speaking, there really is no "religious right".
It's just a fictitious boogeyman that the liberals use to drum up support (and $$$$ of course).

And if there really were a "religious right", they sure wouldn't waste their time on such a tiny portion of the population that so called "transgender" people make up (I'm guessing less than 2%).

Politically speaking, who cares about what 2% of the population thinks....especially when only about 1% of that 2% bothers to vote.

It's a non-issue.

Actually it's worse than a non-issue.
It's a distraction from the real important issues this nation faces.

War, recession (bordering on depression), unemployment, stagnant wages, attacks on our Constitutional Rights, the government illegally spying on its citizens, racial unrest, illegal immigration, forced socialized healthcare, gang violence, failure of public education, etc.....

And we are supposed to care about transgender people (all 200 of them!!!!)!!!

Seriously?

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

First off, the religious right is real. I would know because I used to be a part of it. In America the have a huge influence on social politics and have sought to impose Fundamentalist Christian doctrine onto the secular sphere. For instance they bankrolled Proposition 8 and led an aggressive and misleading campaign that convinced many voters that voting 'yes' on Prop 8 was a vote to protect their religious freedom and their children. Furthermore, the influence of right-wing politics on the American Church is widespread and pervasive.

And the other thing: Just because that relative to the general population, the number of transgender or transsexual individuals is small does not mean that they cannot be a target of discrimination and hatred or used as scapegoats. African-Americans make up a minority of the population and are discriminated against. Historically people of the Jewish faith have made up less than 1% of the world population, but they have been subjected to discrimination and blamed for everything that goes wrong. Being small in numbers has nothing to do with actual discrimination and oppression.

 

[Skwim]

Politically speaking, there really is no "religious right".

Whatever "politically speaking" is supposed to bring to the issue. So I have to ask, in what way does the religious right fail to manifest, politically speaking that is?

It's just a fictitious boogeyman that the liberals use to drum up support (and $$$$ of course).

In what way have "the liberals" drummed up support using this entity you say doesn't exist?

And if there really were a "religious right", they sure wouldn't waste their time on such a tiny portion of the population that so called "transgender" people make up (I'm guessing less than 2%).

Interesting that you know what a fictitious group would and would not do. Know what the Eloi and the Morlocks wouldn't do in a given situation? How about the evil meanies of Toontown?

​

Politically speaking, who cares about what 2% of the population thinks....especially when only about 1% of that 2% bothers to vote.

Interesting figure you present. Knowing that you would never make up such a thing, care to clue us in on how you calculated this interesting number, or your source for it.

It's a distraction from the real important issues this nation faces.

You mean that people are forgoing their concern for all the important stuff you listed, and are instead devoting a good deal of their attention to, what, the fact that transgendered exist? How does this egregious lapse of attention actually work: A guy thinks, "Hey, there are people that have changed their gender identity people." then what, he has the same thought again? "Hey, there are people that have changed their gender identity people." Or, does he create other forms of the thought? "Wow, some people have changed their gender identity." To what extent does such a thought distract from "the real important issues this nation faces"? A half-minute's worth? A minute? Must be pretty important moments, these fractions of a minute that have robbed the real important issues this nation faces of their due attention. But I know what you mean. Try as I might, when in the throes of sexual congress I sometimes nearly forget about world hunger and the price we pay for neglecting the problem of stagnant wages. Shame on me for wasting my valuable time on anything that hasn't made the pages of The American Conservative or the National Review. Bad Skwim! Bad!

 

[Sunstone]

Politically speaking, there really is no "religious right".
It's just a fictitious boogeyman that the liberals use to drum up support (and $$$$ of course).

You should tell your theory to the folks at Focus on the Family. So far as I know, not even their Public Relations Department's professional liars have come up with a whopper as big and bold as that one.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Personally I would consider any sustained anti-transgender movement within the religious right to be (please read to the end of the post before you comment because I know this might offend if read simply as is) an encouraging sign.

If the religious right finds this such a significant issue that means it is gaining in prominence, that society has developed to a level where it is mainly considered at least tolerable (otherwise the religious right would not see a need to concern themselves with any sustained efforts against it) itself a major and positive progression towards a society of tolerance. It would also suggest that some of the issues that they have campaigned so strongly against in the past (such as the often conflated topic of homosexuality) have reached such a level of saturation that they simply do not arouse the same levels of vitriol as they once did. True the religious right still hates them - but a sustained effort to target an even more fringe group would indicate that this 'new' hatred is more virulent than that of their hatred of homosexuality; when you consider just how horrendous that hatred once was - public lynchings and so forth, you can readily recognise that it doesnt get more virulent than that which was once directed at homosexual individuals by the religious right, since the hatred against transgendered individuals is greater, that would seem to indicate the levels of hatred against homosexual individuals (and a number of other issues against which the religious right has traditionally campaigned) has diminished - not within the religious right itself, but within wider society and that I believe is greatly encouraging and might suggest transgendered individuals might look forward to greater levels of tolerance (though if history is any guide it will be one marked by a baptism of fire fueled by bigotry - a fire which diminishes the available fuel)

 

[DallasApple]

In other words a true Christian lives his life around the Bible while the fake Religious Right Christians use the Bible to back up their own political beliefs.

If you take the Bible and look at it..read it in "context" but you get the overall message?Its about love..(not doormat ) but love..this one will always stick..

If most or many even LOL..can get this one down the world would be a better place..And this is a challenge.(not to you but I mean in general ..I struggle)

1 Corinthians 13
New International Version (NIV)
13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[LilithReborn]

The answer to all this is fairly simple. The forefathers of America declared that all men were entitled to three things. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you're straight as a line or the most flamboyant gay man or woman in the world, that is your business. If you are a man, woman, transgender, androgynous, or gender-neutral, that is your business. If you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or Satanist, that is your business. You are entitled to a LIFE as who you are, LIBERTY to be who you are, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS to live contentedly as who you are. No man can take away your identity and as long as you are in the United States of America, he sure as hell has no right to make you miserable for it.

 

[Clarity]

I used to be part of the religious right until I saw that there was nothing "right" about the religious right at all. Religious WRONG is more like it. I am still a Christian but do NOT want to be associated with those so called Christians that preach hate.

The main problem with the Religious Right here is that they interpret the bible to fit their preconceived notions instead of study the bible in order to mold their thinking. In other words a true Christian lives his life around the Bible while the fake Religious Right Christians use the Bible to back up their own political beliefs.

The main problem with the left is that they're prone to prejudice.

Liberals can be taught to hate total strangers (and sometimes participate in the destruction of their families and lives) by simply being told what to think.

I have a policy: when I suspect liberal bigotry or prejudice, I say the name "Sarah Palin". If the response is hatred, I stop doing business with that person. Nothing disgusted me more than the 3-year, nationwide gang rape of Sarah by the liberal media, and the participation of liberals, even to the point of attacking the children, trying to destroy her marriage, publishing tens of thousands of her private e-mails looking for dirt, and the rancid attacks involving her new baby with Down's Syndrome.

The trend continues to this day with the visceral hatred for any right wing view expressed on the airwaves like those of Phil Robertson. The reaction to the GQ interview was pure liberal retribution simply because liberals disagree.

Liberalism is a societal poison. If you value decency, you can't identify yourself as liberal.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The main problem with the left is that they're prone to prejudice.

Liberals can be taught to hate total strangers (and sometimes participate in the destruction of their families and lives) by simply being told what to think.

I have a policy: when I suspect liberal bigotry or prejudice, I say the name "Sarah Palin". If the response is hatred, I stop doing business with that person. Nothing disgusted me more than the 3-year, nationwide gang rape of Sarah by the liberal media, and the participation of liberals, even to the point of attacking the children, trying to destroy her marriage, publishing tens of thousands of her private e-mails looking for dirt, and the rancid attacks involving her new baby with Down's Syndrome.

The trend continues to this day with the visceral hatred for any right wing view expressed on the airwaves like those of Phil Robertson. The reaction to the GQ interview was pure liberal retribution simply because liberals disagree.

Liberalism is a societal poison. If you value decency, you can't identify yourself as liberal.

Mmm...irony.

Phil Robertson and the Dixie Chix should get together. They had a similar problem.

 

[Sunstone]

The main problem with the left is that they're prone to prejudice.

Liberals can be taught to hate total strangers (and sometimes participate in the destruction of their families and lives) by simply being told what to think.

I have a policy: when I suspect liberal bigotry or prejudice, I say the name "Sarah Palin". If the response is hatred, I stop doing business with that person. Nothing disgusted me more than the 3-year, nationwide gang rape of Sarah by the liberal media, and the participation of liberals, even to the point of attacking the children, trying to destroy her marriage, publishing tens of thousands of her private e-mails looking for dirt, and the rancid attacks involving her new baby with Down's Syndrome.

The trend continues to this day with the visceral hatred for any right wing view expressed on the airwaves like those of Phil Robertson. The reaction to the GQ interview was pure liberal retribution simply because liberals disagree.

Liberalism is a societal poison. If you value decency, you can't identify yourself as liberal.

Hate much?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course they're going to attack transsexuals. They've largely lost the fight against gays and lesbians and since trans people are more misunderstood than gays and lesbians, it's easier for them to attack us. But they'll lose this fight, too. Things are gradually getting better for trans people. Young people (teens and 20-somethings) tend to be pretty accepting of us. Many of them already know a trans person in their own lives because more and more of us are coming out.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The main problem with the left is that they're prone to prejudice.

Liberals can be taught to hate total strangers (and sometimes participate in the destruction of their families and lives) by simply being told what to think.

I have a policy: when I suspect liberal bigotry or prejudice, I say the name "Sarah Palin". If the response is hatred, I stop doing business with that person. Nothing disgusted me more than the 3-year, nationwide gang rape of Sarah by the liberal media, and the participation of liberals, even to the point of attacking the children, trying to destroy her marriage, publishing tens of thousands of her private e-mails looking for dirt, and the rancid attacks involving her new baby with Down's Syndrome.

The trend continues to this day with the visceral hatred for any right wing view expressed on the airwaves like those of Phil Robertson. The reaction to the GQ interview was pure liberal retribution simply because liberals disagree.

Liberalism is a societal poison. If you value decency, you can't identify yourself as liberal.

Oh, please. The reason why Palin is "picked on" is because she's a dolt who says dumb things and there are many questionable things about her. It's like how Bush Jr. was made fun of for the many stupid things he said during his presidency. When people say stupid things in the media, they get made fun of. There was a Democratic congressman, I think it was, who made a hilariously idiotic statement about some island "capsizing" due to the population (lmao) and he was made fun of in the media about it.

With Phil Robertson, it was more about him making hateful statements about groups of people (gays and then black people). He deserves all the hate he gets about that. A&E deserves hatred too for letting a bigot represent their brand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, please. The reason why Palin is "picked on" is because she's a dolt who says dumb things and there are many questionable things about her. It's like how Bush Jr. was made fun of for the many stupid things he said during his presidency. When people say stupid things in the media, they get made fun of. There was a Democratic congressman, I think it was, who made a hilariously idiotic statement about some island "capsizing" due to the population (lmao) and he was made fun of in the media about it.

Still, I think he makes a point that Palin came in for extra scorn in the media. Contrast her treatment with that of her counterpart on the other team, Biden. He is at least as accomplished a bumbler at public speaking, but add to this his having no executive experience whatsoever. Yet most of the media called him an "elder statesmen", & excused his every gaffe as though he were a lovable but clumsy family pet. (I wouldn't want either a heartbeat away from the presidency.)

 

[Clarity]

Oh, please. The reason why Palin is "picked on" is because she's a dolt who says dumb things and there are many questionable things about her. It's like how Bush Jr. was made fun of for the many stupid things he said during his presidency. When people say stupid things in the media, they get made fun of. There was a Democratic congressman, I think it was, who made a hilariously idiotic statement about some island "capsizing" due to the population (lmao) and he was made fun of in the media about it.

With Phil Robertson, it was more about him making hateful statements about groups of people (gays and then black people). He deserves all the hate he gets about that. A&E deserves hatred too for letting a bigot represent their brand.

Sarah is one of the most successful women in American history. "Dolt" ? That's your sexist view peaking through. Dumb women jokes are old. You need new material.

And the limit of Phil Robertson's hate was to say "I prefer a va.... over a man's a...."

You've been suckered by your sources, and you weren't smart enough to realize it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The main problem with the left is that they're prone to prejudice.

Liberals can be taught to hate total strangers (and sometimes participate in the destruction of their families and lives) by simply being told what to think.

I have a policy: when I suspect liberal bigotry or prejudice, I say the name "Sarah Palin". If the response is hatred, I stop doing business with that person. Nothing disgusted me more than the 3-year, nationwide gang rape of Sarah by the liberal media, and the participation of liberals, even to the point of attacking the children, trying to destroy her marriage, publishing tens of thousands of her private e-mails looking for dirt, and the rancid attacks involving her new baby with Down's Syndrome.

The trend continues to this day with the visceral hatred for any right wing view expressed on the airwaves like those of Phil Robertson. The reaction to the GQ interview was pure liberal retribution simply because liberals disagree.

Liberalism is a societal poison. If you value decency, you can't identify yourself as liberal.

I think my irony meter just exploded. Conservatives spew more hatred and ignorance than anything I've ever seen.

I've grown to see conservatism as a disease, of which morality, knowledge, wisdom, and compassion are the medicine. Liberalism is a much more ethical and humanistic ideology, and doesn't worship money as a god.

Palin, like Bush Jr, was an idiot. If you're an idiot, and don't want to be called out on it, don't do idiotic things in public. Let's not forget, it's the conservatives who are trying to convince people that a marriage between the god of Christianity and the god of money is the only political ideology that will work. And anyone who stands in their way? Demonized, and this includes blacks, Mexicans, LGTBQ, non-Christian religions (with the occasional exception of Judaism), liberals, socialists, greens, anarchists, the poor, the homeless, and generally anyone who's not a rich white evangelical conservative Republican.

Don't get me wrong, I think Democrats are just as guilty. And don't think that there are many liberal Democrats, because there's not. There are very few true liberals in this country, because we've been so ingrained and brainwashed to think that anything that even gets too close to center is evil and satanic, that most dare not even cross that center line. So what we have in Washington are far right-wingers, and moderate right-wingers, and that's about it.

 

[Clarity]

I've grown to see conservatism as a disease, of which morality, knowledge, wisdom, and compassion are the medicine. Liberalism is a much more ethical and humanistic ideology, and doesn't worship money as a god.

If you think you can simply call people "idiot", you're not an adequate judge of morality (and I suspect you do nothing more than repeat what you're told from sources you've not bothered to vet).

If you can be taught by the media to hate people you've never met, you're not an adult, and you're not a moral person. Both maturity and values are adequate shields, and you exhibit neither.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

If you think you can simply call people "idiot", you're not an adequate judge of morality (and I suspect you do nothing more than repeat what you're told from sources you've not bothered to vet).

If you can be taught by the media to hate people you've never met, you're not an adult, and you're not a moral person. Both maturity and values are adequate shields, and you exhibit neither.

Tell that to the neo-cons.