Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

I haven't the time now. However, what sparked his stand against fetal stem cell research and his religious agenda. His religious beliefs. They have no place in government. One of the fears that was expressed with the Kennedy election that he would be controlled or influenced by the Vatican. He never was. Can the same be said about Bush and the religious right?

I was just putting the question out there.......but I do think that the present administration is one that would force their beliefs on society as a whole and punish those who didn't fall in line if they could......I agree that it probably won't get that far...but I absolutely believe they would take it to that extreme if they could......I believe they would revise libraries, books, music, secular culture on every level without hesitation IF they got carte blanche to do it........and that is disturbing.

I see nothing hysterical or fear mongering about that....

Now keeping people in a constant state of anxiety about impending doom from all around us.....that's fear mongering......also attention diverting...... :wink:

Au,

That makes no sense.

The stand against fetal stem cell research is a political stance.
Bush has the right to be against fetal stem cell research - doesn't he?

The reasons he is against it are irrelevant in a democracy. He has the right to his opinions and his values. He can then advance his values under the laws of our democracy.

There are Americans who support Bush because of his views on such matters. If enough Americans disagree, he will not be elected. That's democracy.

You can not exclude someones views simply becuase of his religion.

It's your assumption, Craven that it's hysterical. Your judgement. I don't share it. I know hysteria when I see it. Reasonable alarm about a present threat is good reality testing, not hysteria.

ebrown,

There is evidence, plenty of evidence that the religious right is succeeding in their efforts to control the government through elected officials who are carrying out their wishes. And their wishes have nothing to do with a separation of church and state. They believe their religious convictions are right and should be imposed on the rest of us, not just in the USA but on the world. Look at the article I posted above. Do you think they won't be successful in blacklisting certain scientists or studies? They will be successful. How much of that will it take to convince you that it's not hysteria?

I'm not a person given to hysteria. I have a more obessesive style than one of hysteria. But I do know danger when I see it.

What a coicindence, I know hysteria when I see it too.

hysteria-from the Greek meaning the uterus is detached and wandering about. Seems to me to have little to do with politics or religion. But heck, thats just me.

Lola,

This is a democracy!

If those you call the "religious right" are getting ino power through "elected officials" (and I do want to emphasize elected), it is becuase they are elected. My point is that in a democracy people elect those they feel will reflect their viewpoint or interests.

How do you propose to protect against this so-called menace to the separation of church and state?

Should we not allow the "religious right" to run for office? (This would of course mean we create a blacklist of the religious right.)

Or maybe we should just not allow people who go to church to vote....

Ebrown_p, I am far more alarmed than you appear to be, but I am very concerned with the hatred and anger toward the fundamentalists.

I don't think that we should just accept them if they are elected; instead, I think we should do everything we can to get them out of office and to keep them out of office. By becoming hysterical and exressing hatred and disgust toward them-even if we feel that way-they will gain power by being downtrodden and attacked by those who don't agree with their religion; at lease, they will make it seem that way.

Revulsion is what I first feel when reading articles like the one above and so many others, but articles like that won't go very far in changing minds if those reading them are, at the same time, being bombarded by hysterical anger. They will gain a greater sense of being right and ordered by God to take over this government. (And I do believe they are trying to take over the government.)

If those articles are presented with concern, even outrage, they will be read and considered when it comes time to vote. There are so many areas in which their narrow-minded agenda is apparent, that we could easily make a nonbreaklable case against the fundamentalist right.

We must be very careful not to include mainstream religion in this group and that is what I see happening, and I speak as an agnostic. As soon as the fundamentalists appear to be the underdog, they will gain enormous power from others who resent having their religion attacked, even if they aren't fundamentalists.

Craven,

Calling one person's concern for something hysterical is an insult. May I refer you to the TOS?

Dys,

The common use of the word "hysterical" usually means a response to a phenomenon that is out of proportion to some assumed reality. It also means "over reactive." It's a term often used to put down the ideas of another person without answering the content of the other's idea. It's a method used to avoid true debate. It's ad hom.

In the psychiatric meaning, it means that a person is more likely to operate based on feelings without consulting the facts. As opposed to obsessive which is someone who avoids feelings in favor of the facts. They are both a certain style which we all have more of one than the other. When the style is off balance (too many feelings, not enough fact or the other way around) it's considered to be neurotic.

In any case, I don't appreciate the implication from Craven or any other that I'm behaving in an hysterical way. There are plenty of derogatory labels I could suggest for you or Craven or others here, but I think that would be rude.

In other words, Craven, I think you're being rude to me and I don't like it.

I would prefer, Craven, you look at the linked article above and comment on your ideas about that and leave your opinion about my personal style to yourself.

Forgetting for a moment whether it is the result of hysteria, hyperpole, paranoia, or prejudice...

...I would prefer to err on the side of being hard-assed and defensive when it comes to Christian fundamentalism than I would to err on the side of being too accomodating and/or too trusting.

I've seen way too many examples right here in the forums of fundamentalist Christians claiming this country as their own -- and who think the rest of us live here at their sufferance -- for me to suppose they are a benign force truly not intent on imposing their agenda on the rest of us.

...

It was not even an ad hominem and anything in the politics forum can be contued as an insult to someone. Heck I'll just go ahead and call your post an insult too and refer you to the TOS. To repeat, I think you guys sound hysterical. If criticism of your posts is not allowed then there's little point in discussing anything with you.



I'm not going to withold criticism of what you say just because you are sensitive about it.



I have not been rude. I do think that the fears of religion are hysterical. I also think you are being quite sensitive. AND rude.



I've not commented on your personal style. And I have given my opinion, I think it's misplaced hysteria. Please get over yourself. You are not above criticism and a general criticism about the hysteria of a group is not againt the TOS.

Or would you like your every criticism of the fundamentalists to be a TOS violation as well?

Man did I start some ****....unintentional I assure you.........

ebrown,

I would suggest the radical religious right's methods be exposed for when we do have an election, which we will have in a year. Hopefully at that time the voters will be better informed. The Radical fundamentist evangelicals are highly organized and have been organizing since the early 1980s for the very purpose of getting their candidates elected. They will not be stopped unless there's a effort made to defeat them. I propose educating the voters. It seems to fit in nicely with a democratic system.

Of course fundamentalists have a right to be elected, just as KKK members have the same right. Does it mean you want to elect them, just because they have the right?

Craven,

I think you're an opinionated little tyrant who cares more about having the last word than about participating constructively. Let's not withhold our criticisms of each other's personal styles. But it will have to go both ways, and I doubt it will contribute much to a constructive discussion. Hysterical is a pejorative word, and you know it. Criticize, if you will, by addressing the argument, not labeling those you disagree with by pejorative names.

Diane and Lola,

This is a democracy!

Yes you need to accept people who have been elected whatever you think of them. You of course can and should organize and oppose them if you disagree.

Diane thank you for your concern about the hatred and fear toward fundamentalists. I agree that we don't need to react with hatred and fear toward anyone who is acting within our democratic system.

Craven,

Kudo's for your patience with Lola.

The vast majority of us appreciate your work and your ability to promote open discussion. I don't think you said anything offensive. You were clearly disagreeing with her views, not attacking her personally.

But we should keep Lola around. She has nice legs...

Lola,

I am sorry that my opinion doesn't coincide with yours, it should come as no surprise to you that I disagree about being a tyrant as well and I also disagree that "constructive" discussion means never saying anything negative that you can cosntrue as a grave insult.

I am less tolerant of religion than you are. I think Bush looks silly to think God annointed him and I have a longstanding issue with people who think they were appointed by a god (grew up in a cult where the leaders proclaimed themselves prophets). I know fundamentalism well and frankly if I had my druthers religion would be a capital offense. I simply realize that my opinion has as much merit and right as those who wish to do silly things like pray. I have not called you names. I have said that the claim that America is turning into a fundamentalist Christian state is hysterical. ebrown had excellent comments on this. Use of hysteria and fear as a tactic is counterproductive.

Diane noted that it bolsters the religious by letting them don the blanket of "persecution". I know this well.

So you've taken objection to my opinion, you call me rude and add a few more names there. What you don't seem to care about is that I have only labeled an opinion hysterical, and I stand by it without resorting to insults.

I can't help it if you take a negative opinion I have as an insult. That you think this gives you the right to insult puzzles me.

When the administration was saying Iraq was a threat and referenced mushroom clouds I called that hysteria as well. Some agree with the administration but they managed to realize that my consideration of the threat to by hyperbolic hysteria was not a violation of teh TOS and if it were no meaningful discussion would be possible.

I object to you calling me rude, and I haven't given you any appelations so you are reciprocating an act that did not occur.

Yes hysterical is a pejorative term. And the rules are not such that no negative opinions can be expressed. The rules aim to prevent what you have just done above, by making the people the focus instead of the issue.

I had no intention of "insulting" you. I commented and gave an opinion that another opinion is hysteria. Others have done the same, and they weren't trying to insult you either.

There is no need for the conversation to degenerate into unecessary namecalling. I have not done that to you and don't appreciate it.

I agree with the "hatred" part of your post.

The part where you suggest we not "fear" them is, in my opinion, a bit naive.

I think it would be a very, very big mistake to suppose that Christian fundamentalists need not be feared -- or hould not be feared. Or at very least, treated with a good deal of caution.

I suggest it would be a prudent move -- and it can be done without hatred.

Thanks ebrown, days like this make me regret the efforts.