Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

The church frequently claimed authority over marriage, but it wasn't until (well) after Trent that it beacme the official mechanism for prosecuting it.
In the Americas Church marriage not the norm until well into the mid 18th century.
See Morrone, Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History Yale, 2003, and Godbeer,The Sexual Revolution in Early America, Johns Hopkins Press, 2003.

hobit

You are a great resource. I ought to turn to you far more often. do you make good coffee too?

Wow, you two! Why do we need Google when we have BlatBob!

Anyway, why would any of us accept church authority unless we were believers?
What obligation does a non-believer have to tow a line drawn by some church?

And, come to that, and considering the behaviors of the Christian churches these days, why are we so polite to them... A serious question..

Perhaps a little more aggressive questioning about their authority might clear these little matters up toot sweet. Clear throat, put on a little snile, and say to president or pastor (or Reed or Robertson), Who da hell do you tink you ARE, man?!

Well I just read the last six pages and found au1929's DOO WOP horses by far the best thing I have seen.

Second best are the calm, rational, and perfectly reasonable defenses of the democratic process so well presented by ebrown_p. This one encapsulates my view of the debate at hand.

[quote="ebrown_p
You can not have democracy without free speech and the freedom of association. This means that Scientologists and Sun Yeung Moon must have as much as a voice as anyone in a democratic society. I am not at all uncomfortable with this.

There are a number of Americans who support Scientology and a number support Rev. Moon. So what?

Do you want to decide which groups are good and which are bad. I assume from you post that Scientology and the Moonies would be on your bad list. But, who get's to make the list? The UN and the NAACP would appear on the list of "baddies" for many Americans.

I am not afraid of giving the rights of free speech and freedom of association to Scientologists or the Moonies or anyone else.

Rather I am far more afraid of denying these rights to any voice in America. Doing so would attack the heart of our democracy.[/quote]

In all the quotes from Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, I see nothing to suggest anything dangerous from either of them. Reed is apparently an astute political tactician. Robertson appears to be a bit dotty at times, but, if anything, that should reduce the fears of those inclined to see danger there.

More than anything this debate highlights the intolerance of those who, in their professed fear of the imposition of a theocracy here, are strangely willing to deny the basic freedoms of others, and confound the democratic principles they profess to defend.

Right, George. Nothing to fear. The point is to treat these folks with canny, witty disrespect -- they deserve no more no less. You know, the way most people treat the mentally ill, the petty felons, flatlanders, people who've never heard of Britney what's-her-name. Outsiders. Ne'er-do-wells. There's nothing like public disrespect and ridicule to change the mind of a populace -- so why not give those excessive Christians a taste of public disdain? That should end the problem right quick.

Tartarin,

Between us you seem to have the greater appetite for expressions distain and ridicule. Frankly I find the intolerant paranoia about a looming theocracy far more ridiculous than the occasionally dopey statements of Pat Robertson..

george,

What bothered me about ebrown's posts was that he didn't seem to get it that I had not said they shouldn't have " the rights of free speech and freedom of association." And no matter what I say to him, he still just keeps on saying I said something else. I thought he might have a difficulty reading or perceiving, but I see you seem to have the same. So maybe it's something else. Of course everyone has the right to free speech. But if you read the materials of these folks a bit, and you don't have to delve very deep to find it, they do believe free speech should be limited to them alone. That's my worry. If all they wanted was free speech and the right to associate, we would have no prob at all. None.

Excuse me, I did reside in Seattle for five years!

Lola,

I believe I understand your worry. However, I have read nothing of the so called religious right to suggest that they advocate the silencing of secular or other opposing voices. However, it often does seem that you and Blatham would like to see theirs silenced. If instead you intend only to mobilize people to oppose specific elements of their political agenda, then I would say fine - your right to advocacy is the same as theirs.

George -- Disdain and ridicule have, most unfortunately, been weapons of choice used by the Right since Reagan's ascension. For examples of some of the most virulent users, see the cast of characters in William Henry's post, above.

george,

wow! Do I feel better. I was beginning to feel like my efforts to communicate were entirely ineffectual. But I find it interesting that you and ebrown were perceiving that I wanted to silence them. I believe your absence of worry has to do with two things (perhaps.............I must remember to qualify because this subject lends itself to polarization and misunderstanding). One is that I think you don't want to believe this group either has control of your party or that they are dangerous even if they do. And Secondly, as I've said before, you don't know them the way I do.

My first speculation is perhaps not fair or at least it's risky to say it because it sounds like I believe I know what you're really thinking. So again, it's purely a speculation or actually, maybe it's a question. Could it be that you are comfortable with the fact that your party is in power and you don't want to evaluate or investigate more deeply into the hidden, stealth agenda of these elements of your party? I think that's a fair question to ask, and to hope you'll consider seriously and with as open a mind as possible.

On the second point, I think I've discovered something in myself that I have not previously been aware of. I've discovered it, actually, just now. My fervor, what you and ebrown must be picking up as my wish to silence them, has to do with an expression of my feelings. When I say there's a danger, I mean that I am feeling afraid of these folks having so much power. (I'm especially worried about the courts.) Because I know this group so well, I know their size and I know a lot about their level of determination to control others, and I know about their plan and how far along they are in achieving it...............because of this I have a sense of alarm. I find it disconcerting when I say that I believe there to be a danger and for others to respond saying, "ah.........you're just being hysterical." So this comes down to a sense that I'm not being taken seriously. I see no sign that there's an honest attempt to listen to what I'm saying and consider it without making a snap decision with a closed mind. (Until your post above.)

Now you and others don't know me, except for your experience with me on these boards for the past few months. So, I can understand that you may be disinclined to pay attention when I say something that seems to be fantastical. Because I want to maintain a level of personal anonymity, I'm not free to share some of my sources. But perhaps you know me well enough by now to take my concern into consideration when you're considering information which conflicts with your own evaluations. I'll work hard to find material to present that I think demonstrates cause for my caution.

george

You chubby salt-encrusted nincompoop.

First, yes, silencing is not an intention here, it is the perceived (by us) threat of future silencing that worries us. You won't find me arguing against JS Mill anywhere, anytime.

But let's just take ebrown's thesis, which I'll restate as 'democracy works, and the present system is sufficient to maintain liberty'. If that is so, then it follows logically that we've achieved a (effectively) perfect set-up which will see us through until the end of time. Do you see how that is entailed?

It also follows that there is no need to remain alert to internal threats to democracy...for it is already sufficient, and will handle all such on its own.

Now, he acknowledges the need for an educated and responsible citizenry (at least I take that from his words), but is that an on/off switch, or a gradient? If it is a gradient, then where is the perfection thesis?

You, in fact, are concerned about a diminishment in certain qualities of civic life and behavior which you think may endanger democracy, yes? ebrown may even think that the arguments advanced by lola and I (and others) here represent such a threat.

So, either the system is perfect and we are all just whistling through whatever we whistle through, or it's not and there is cause for alertness and it's just a matter of figuring out what criteria ought to be ringing bells.

a chubby salt encrusted nincompoop huh?

I'm doing karaoke at a biker bar tonight, if anyones pisses me off I'll think I'll use that. by the time they figure out what I said, I'll be packed up and out with the money... :wink:

Well, I think what we keep coming back to is the issue of dissent. The problem for those who hold with the current administration is that we dissenters are not only taking issue with policies, but with behaviors, dishonesty, manipulation, and the bona fides of the extreme supporters of the other side. I can understand George's discomfort, but it seems to me he hasn't made a real effort to take a hard look at the materials Lola has posted. I don't honestly see how one can look at the beliefs of the religious Right, their modus operandi, and their numbers without conceding that there's trouble ahead.

My point is that we have an idea in our society that the "religious" require special treatment from us -- we need to be extra polite -- and I'd say we're damn fools if we don't draw the line between honest faith and the politics of religion. We need to expose the political movement for what it is, and if bannering its own statements does the job, we need to do it. If turning their weapons (ridicule, disdain) back on them works, then that's what we need to do. As we move towards another election in which they hold sway, I'd feel safer if both weapons were used.

bp

George and I get on just fine. He's a believing catholic and I'm an atheistic satyr. He's an economic conservative, and I want access to his bank account. He drinks fine wine, and I smoke fine weed. His mother was not terribly attractive, and mine made angels weep even when she wore rubber boots covered in cowshit. Both of us, you see, share the swagger which comes from being particularly well-endowed, or, having seen enough Errol Flynn movies to convince ourselves than it could be so in some parallel universe. We are, in short, buds.

Lola,

Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking reply.

I will concede that my satisfaction at those political successes the Republicans have gained may have dulled me to an examination of all the factors that contributed to it. The political game is hard fought on both sides, and there are enough seriously objectionable things in the Democrat camp that to perhaps cause me to overlook some corresponding things among Republicans.

THe key issue over which we disagree is the matter of who is in charge of the current administration. While I am more than willing to concede there are some wacko ideas afoot in some quarters of the evangelical movement, I do not believe they are 'in charge' of anything. If anything they are being used. Conversely, I believe the equivalently wacky elements of the Democrat party do wield real power there. Happily there are so many and with such often discordant single issue agendas that they often lose themselves in internal conflict.

While you see some of the ideas of these sects as dangerous, for me what is most offensive is their smarmy vulgarity. My impression is that what you find most disturbing is the energy with which they prosleytize and advance their ideas. Please understand that I find the secular agenda increasingly thrust on me and mine through the actions of government equally repellant and dangerous. (Worse those in opposition claim that an imagined utter separation of religion and state precludes any reference to God in public life and requires me to be silent about my objections.) Viewed in this light we have merely a conflict of ideas in the democratic political arena - hence my very positive reaction to e brown's comments.

I don't think you are paranoid or hysterical at all. I am willing to accept that your experiences have led you to fear for some of your own beliefs, just as I fear for some of mine. The essence of democracy is that we work out a practical solution and avoid being led about by the rigid doctrinaire advocates of either side.

tart

That's an issue I am quite willing to take up, and with some spiritedness. I grant religious ideas and groups NO special dispensation at all where they are operating within the civic community to forward notions of social arrangement and social values. I don't give a damn if I offend some religious sensibility.

Particularly when it's ersatz, Blatham, as it is with the "Christian" Right. Wolf in The Lamb's clothing...

Bi Polar, and I hope you make it (almost) to the door.