Some seem to think that respect is a natural benefit of age, education, or position. Nonsense. Living long simply means one has seen and experienced a lot, not that wisdom was gained. Advanced education may merely mean one has been taught an extensive number of facts or techniques, not that the lessons were particularly well absorbed. A lofty position may simply mean one is a more adept game player, brown-nose, or down right cheat. True respect is gained by showing a propensity to seek cognizant enlightenment from one's experiences and use them to educate others, to show this knowledge to be a benefit to those of "lesser" status.
A related misconception is that surety of opinion or belief requires others to respect those views. In a free society one must respect the right to have those ideas, not that particular ideas are worthy of respect. Many find nothing adverse in bigotry, yet when challenged, they attempt to justify or otherwise claim supposedly justifiable reasoning. (Of course there are those who don't even try to rationalize, are even proud of their bigotry.) Political ideology is another area when more respect is demanded than earned.
Politics cover every aspect of life (some even positively). Many opposing views are worthy of mutual respect, if grudgingly. Others are just too radical to gain opposition respect. Still others are based on learned disinformation, misinformation, or plain wrong-headedness and it's very difficult to think they deserve respect, especially when attempts to educate are rebuffed due to a willingness, even pride, in their ignorance.
Interpretation of the US Constitution is one of those one of those political views where respect for the opposition is difficult. As one of the left-of-center, I honor the document's brevity as a construct intended by our country's founders' belief in societal evolution. Those right wing ideologues who say they fully comprehend the "original intent" and that it's not meant for interpretation are being obviously hypocritical. After all, they are expressing their interpretation. It is many of those same "originalists" who deny that the principle of separation of Church and state is in the Constitution, just because the word "separation" isn't included in the First Amendment.
Historical revisionism and the denial of the Constitution's authors' abhorrance of church-state entanglements are among the views for which I refuse, simply cannot, deem worthy of respect. While it's true that history is written by the winners, revisionists are out to change the facts, not interpretation. Separation deniers display an ideologue's willful ignorance of the writings and political tracts of the writers of our founding documents and their associates. There are only two mentions of religion in the US Constitution and neither supports its primacy in our democratic republic. (The Treaty of Tripoly, passed with unanimous vote, even states definitively that the USA is not a Christian naton.)
Alabama's Roy Moore is among these deluded figures. He was removed from his position as the state's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to comply with a federal court order to remove a 2.5 ton decalogue he placed in the foyer of the Alabama Judicial Building. He placed it so all who entered would know he decides cases based on Biblical law, not US jurisprudence. The citizens were smart enough to refuse him the governor's mansion in 2006 and 2010 but had a relapse into willful ignorance when they again dishonored themselves by electing Moore, once again, their chief justice. Moore's continual insistance that his idea if God's laws take precedence over civil law makes him unfit for the bench, unfit for any public office. With his fealty to only Biblical law, he'll be breaking his oath of office the second he takes it. But law isn't all that suffers from religious extremism and willful ignorance.
US Rep Paul Broun takes pride in his purposeful scientific ignorance. "[E]volution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell." The "manufacturer's handbook" teaches us how to run our lives, churches, families, "all our public policy and everything in society." In other words, he's a Dominionist. It matters not to him that there are people who have other "handbooks," or none at all. He would prefer a theocracy based on only one version of a book that contradicts itself. "[A]s your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, DC." So his oath, his solemn vow, to uphold the constitution means nothing to him. And, to the detriment of democracy, he is far from alone.
The evidence is obvious in the plethora of religiously moralistic legislation that is sweeping through Republican-held state legislatures. Under the disingenuous guise of supposed fiscal responsibility and protecting women's health they are passing legislation that deprives women, children, and men of vital health services and shreds social safety nets. Their favorite target is family planning. Using Targeted Regulation of Abortion Procedures, TRAP laws, they have succeeded in more than decimating available health clinics. Most of these misogynistic lawmakers have all but shedded their deceptive cover of being concerned for women's health and have admitted that the sole intent of the laws is based on their interpretation of their religious moral code. Their claims of a larger moral standing that abortion, including many forms of birth control, is murder completely ignores the life and well-being of the woman. Their claims to the title "pro-life" is, therefore, wholly inaccurate. The "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of women obviously is anathema to them. But women aren't the only ones undeserving of civil rights.
Another overly religious politician in Alabama is so sure his warped ideas of Jesus Christ's philosophy are of primacy that he wants those running for office to sign a pledge to oppose civil rights for about 10% of the population (homosexuals) and vow to rule by the Christian faith (as he views it). Apparently he also never read the US Constitution. Article VI, Section 3 states that there cannot be a religious test for office. Should the citizens be apathetic enough of their own country's principles to elect him he will be another who deserves impeachment the second he takes the oath.
Unfortunately, these two are far from being alone among elected officials. The revisionists who deny the fact that the US was founded as an areligious republic infest our local, state, and federal legislatures and all levels of the courts, including the Supreme Court. It matters not to them that there are million of people who disagree with their views. It doesn't matter to them that not even all Christians agree. They are blinded by their beliefs (I'm loath to call it "faith") and tyrannical in their opinion that all should believe the same as they. While that seems to be a tenet of some religions, it is, after all, only an opinion.
Point of disclosure: I'm an atheist. The power of these dominionists to influence policy and, tgerefore, others' lives helped me confirm my conviction decades ago. But my surity of no deity has no bearing on my opposition to these who seek to force their biblical laws on this nation. My opposition is because it is, and always has been, against the principles upon which this country was founded. It is against the document which spells out our governing rules. To want biblical law to govern here is simply unAmerican.
