Suicidal Arguments and the Loved Ones that Make Them That Way

One of this site's goals is to evaluate arguments by placing them in their proper context. In yesterday's Columbian (Vancouver, WA) Letters to the Editors, a Mr. Bob Donohoe writes to "Beware Religious Right", provides an example of an argument that annihilates itself.
Note: This is the Columbian's title not Mr. Donohoe's. My comments are italicized.

Beware religious right
Everyone has his or her own understanding of God and religion. However, when one group or faction thinks they must governmentally impose their beliefs on others, serious conflict and loss of personal freedom occur.

This is what the religious right is doing. They are imposing their beliefs on others as evidenced by attacking gays, limiting sex education, opposing Planned Parenthood and a woman's right to choose, intervening in the Schiavo case, manipulating the media, banning books, debunking science and using government funding to promote their ideology.

Next will be control of how you dress, your hair style, how you talk and what you eat.

Not to mention where you smoke; what behavior you have to accept as normal; abstinence is best but since you are just a horny animal use this latex thing that's been stretched out by a cucumber; how some life is unworthy of life (i.e. unborn babies and the disabled); manipulating the media by "religious right" consorts of Dan Rather, The New York Times, The LA Times, Air America, etc; how banning books is wrong but banning the "religious right" is "religious 'right'-eous"; and using government funding to teach ignore how life came from non-life. Oh wait. That's the "non-religious right". Sorry, please continue.

All people should have the freedom to live their own lives by what they believe.

That's what the "religious right" is doing.

However, no group should try to force others to adopt their beliefs.

If "no group should try to force others to adopt their beliefs" then Mr. Donohoe should not be telling others that they abide by a belief of not "imposing their beliefs on others." This is, itself, a view that the "religious right" should adopt Donohoe's belief, namely not to "force others to adopt their beliefs." If it is wrong to "force others" then Donohoe has violated his own principle in criticizing the "religious right" for "imposing their belief on others." That is Donohoe's belief not the belief (according to him) of the "religious right."

Separation of church and state is critical and needs to be upheld.

Does this mean the "religious right" should have no vote or that they should have no voice?

Government should be focusing on issues for the common good of all its citizens health, education, jobs, and the environment not promoting religious ideology and interfering in the private lives of citizens.

Religious ideology, like non-religious ideology, is simply a worldview; that is, the way in which we view the world. Religious ideology says there is someone or something above us humans that has some impact in the way the world actually is. Non-religious ideology says there are only humans or if there is someone or something above human, he/she/it has no influence in the way the world actually is.

Mr. Donohoe appears to want to impose his non-religious ideology on those with a religious ideology. That sounds like anti-religious bigotry.

If Mr. Donohoe believes the views of the "religious right" are wrong then fine. We can argue those views in the marketplace of ideas. And may the best view win based on the most well-thought out arguments. Unfortunately for Mr. Donohoe, this one occupies a drawer at the morgue.