0
   

Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 08:22 am
I think that is a bad analogy...........

Offensive is always offensive and should be disallowed unless the meeting is an offensive language club, or some other organization that has offensive language as a by-law. In that case she should leave.

In a public forum, it is wrong.

However, to insinuate that Secular is representative of offensive language and Christian isn't is an absurd analogy..........
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 09:33 am
blatham wrote:
Is it not possible that such an element, but theistically minded rather than Straussian, might gain such a centrality of power?


Sure Bernie. Any group could gain a centrality of power - to an extent. I have no problem agreeing with that.

Ok, this is likely to be long but... bear with me. Wink

In the grand scheme of things, IMO, it all does boil back down to the basic issue of control. The issue of political power and control is a lot like a child's see-saw. The side of the see-saw that is on the ground is the side that has the control.

Politically and socially the "left" has been in control in the US since the 1850s at least. (Not necessarilly every second of that time but for the bulk of it..) and both our laws and social policies have been moving leftward at a plodding rate since then with the fastest moving period being between 1930 and 1975 or so.

The "Religious Right", as I said, isn't any single identifiable entity. It's a collection of hundreds of groups with varying interests and the rise in their power as a collective isn't surprising to me in the least. The individual sub-groups each jelled in reaction to the activities of the leftward march. Some opposed the elimination of slavery, some resentful of the Civil War, the creation of the Social Security Program, others the Brown v. Board of Ed decision, some because of Roe v. Wade, etc.. (there are literally hundreds of individual issues..)

Whatever their rationale, we ended up with groups of disaffecetd citzens and when they complained those on the left basically told them to shut up and live with it. This was "progress"! It's the "will of the people"!

Well, all those little groups started talking to each other and started coordinating their activites and as a result they began to influence politcal events and social policy (which is what Butterfly has mentioned a few times now). And every court ruling on piddly stupid issues like the forced removal of nativity scenes on public property and the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience drove more and more "centerist" people to recognize alot of the silliness going on. Every "win" for the left added fuel (people/groups) to the right. At the same time a lot of people who were for many of left leaning programs saw a lot of other left-leaning groups going to far and the organized left fractured.

All of those gave the right more power and that shift in power has the same effect as weight does on that see-saw. Power, like weight, causes the see-saw to tip and suddenly the right found it's feet on the ground and the left has it's feet up in the air kicking wildly.

That tipping of the see-saw is what happened in 2000. There was enough of a shift of power that the right gained enough traction to effect right-ward change in both law and social policy with only limited resistance. The left lost control and the right assumed control.

But, the predictions of doom and gloom are hardly likely to occur. I expect that there will be other minor shifts to the right in some areas but the Right's consolidation on power isn't anywhere as strong as the Left's was in the 1960s. There are many on the Right that aren't anti-abortion and/or are for environmental issues. As we just saw with the Energy Bill, there are enough on the Right side of the spectrum that can and will vote against the far-Right that they are held in check.

Now, a lot of people on the Left have expressed resentment that those of us on the right have "poo-poo'd" their concerns about people like Newt, Delay, Rush, etc.. But the view from the right hand side of the spectrum is that Tom Delay is acting no differently than Ted Kennedy did for years and when people on the Right complained about Kennedy the Left poo-poo'd them so it's a matter of just desserts. The Left didn't want to listen to us before but now they expect that the right is supposed to listen to them. But that's not the way the game is played.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 10:15 am
MichaelAllen wrote:
Wow. Some real decrepit stuff being thrown around in this debate. When I return tomorrow, I will address each and every issue. Some things are so right, they couldn't possibly be wrong and you want to walk all over them from some deranged science unheard of in any real world. It is sickening what some of you have to say and you are afraid of the religious zealots?


"decrepit". "deranged". "sickening".

Yeah, gotta say I'm reallly looking forward to your next post.

Try not to spit on your monitor...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 10:18 am
fishin

This is pretty much timber's thesis too...that voices on the left are strident because they have lost control. JK Galbraith, in something I read a few years ago, acknowledged the shift and the pendulum nature of it and predicted, as you would, that it will change again.

It's an unsatisfying thesis to me, because it presumes two camps of citizens involved in something like a ball game.

I think power, who holds it, is the key question in here. But I also think that the game metaphor disguises more than answers the truths of power - who really has it, and what they wish to do with it.

But I must head to work...will return.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 10:22 am
What historians call "the first Great Awakening" can best be described as a revitalization of religious piety that swept through the American colonies between the 1730s and the 1770s. That revival was part of a much broader movement, an evangelical upsurge taking place simultaneously on the other side of the Atlantic, most notably in England, Scotland, and Germany. In all these Protestant cultures during the middle decades of the eighteenth century, a new Age of Faith rose to counter the currents of the Age of Enlightenment, to reaffirm the view that being truly religious meant trusting the heart rather than the head, prizing feeling more than thinking, and relying on biblical revelation rather than human reason.

The earliest manifestations of the American phase of this phenomenon--the beginnings of the First Great Awakening--appeared among Presbyterians in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Led by the Tennent family--Reverend William Tennent, a Scots-Irish immigrant, and his four sons, all clergymen--the Presbyterians not only initiated religious revivals in those colonies during the 1730s but also established a seminary to train clergymen whose fervid, heartfelt preaching would bring sinners to experience evangelical conversion. Originally known as "the Log College," it is better known today as Princeton University.

Religious enthusiasm quickly spread from the Presbyterians of the Middle Colonies to the Congregationalists (Puritans) and Baptists of New England. By the 1740s, the clergymen of these churches were conducting revivals throughout that region, using the same strategy that had contributed to the success of the Tennents. In emotionally charged sermons, all the more powerful because they were delivered extemporaneously, preachers like Jonathan Edwards evoked vivid, terrifying images of the utter corruption of human nature and the terrors awaiting the unrepentant in hell. Hence Edwards's famous description of the sinner as a loathsome spider suspended by a slender thread over a pit of seething brimstone in his best known sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 10:38 am
fishin' wrote:
Politically and socially the "left" has been in control in the US since the 1850s at least. (Not necessarilly every second of that time but for the bulk of it..) and both our laws and social policies have been moving leftward at a plodding rate since then with the fastest moving period being between 1930 and 1975 or so.


Sorry. This opinion of yours is horseshit. A heaping, steaming pile of it.

fishin' wrote:
Whatever their rationale, we ended up with groups of disaffecetd citzens and when they complained those on the left basically told them to shut up and live with it. This was "progress"! It's the "will of the people"!


Pile #2. Watch your step, folks...

fishin' wrote:
Well, all those little groups started talking to each other and started coordinating their activites and as a result they began to influence politcal events and social policy (which is what Butterfly has mentioned a few times now). And every court ruling on piddly stupid issues like the forced removal of nativity scenes on public property and the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience drove more and more "centerist" people to recognize alot of the silliness going on. Every "win" for the left added fuel (people/groups) to the right. At the same time a lot of people who were for many of left leaning programs saw a lot of other left-leaning groups going to far and the organized left fractured.


"A brief history of time", summarized by our fair moderator.

fishin' wrote:
All of those gave the right more power and that shift in power has the same effect as weight does on that see-saw. Power, like weight, causes the see-saw to tip and suddenly the right found it's feet on the ground and the left has it's feet up in the air kicking wildly.


You've been spending too much time at the elementary school playground.

fishin' wrote:
That tipping of the see-saw is what happened in 2000.


uh, NO, IT'S NOT. Evil or Very Mad

Democracy was purloined in 2000.

As badly as Republicans want to make it so, this isn't a battle, or a war, or Left vs. Right or Good vs. Evil.

This is just plain old politics.

Obviously, nobody realized what a bunch of bittermans the right-wing freaks were, or else they wouldn't have gotten this far.

I haven't seen a single conservative post in here who wasn't just absolutely cocksure they knew precisely what motivated "The Left", told us all about it, how evil it was, and that that was why "The Left" was wrong, out of power, etc., retch.

Even conservatives --the real ones, not the ones in power now -- are appalled at what they see happening.

(And why is it the Left and the Right, for God's sake? You're just as bad as timber with this capitalization problem.)
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 11:15 am
PDiddie wrote:
Sorry. This opinion of yours is horseshit. A heaping, steaming pile of it.


Thank you for your intellectually stimulating review. Since you spend all your time wallowing in **** I suppose you are the expert.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:40 pm
BillW wrote:
I think that is a bad analogy...........

Offensive is always offensive and should be disallowed unless the meeting is an offensive language club, or some other organization that has offensive language as a by-law. In that case she should leave.

In a public forum, it is wrong.

However, to insinuate that Secular is representative of offensive language and Christian isn't is an absurd analogy..........

I respect your opinion, Bill, but I think the analogy is pretty on target. (Not claiming the values "left--profanity", but the perception from the Right point of view.) The Right considers much of the policies of the left to be offensive. fishin' started a thread (about the child of a gay woman in Louisiana) that fits neatly into the analogy.

He's 7, and explained his mother's gay relationship in sweet, simple terms to the children of a lot of parentswho were horrified that their children were informed about gayness--not by them at the age they chose, but by a child at age 7. Their pristine pool has been pee'd in.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:49 pm
That's a very different twist than what I got from that story Sophia! Smile
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:50 pm
Bill answered--
Offensive is always offensive and should be disallowed unless the meeting is an offensive language club, or some other organization that has offensive language as a by-law. In that case she should leave.
----------------
Very sensible. But, when the club is America, and the by-laws are so muddy...
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 01:51 pm
fishin' wrote:
That's a very different twist than what I got from that story Sophia! Smile

I'm interested to hear what you thought. Would you expound on your thread? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 02:11 pm
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap12-03-233258.asp?t=apnew&vts=12420031148

The "they" of the right you speak about is the teacher and the "offensive language" is the word "gay"...

Read the story for yourself..........

If the left is offensive to the right, then should we be banned from America Question

This gets to the crux of your thinking Question
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 02:18 pm
MichaelAllen wrote:
Wow. Some real decrepit stuff being thrown around in this debate. When I return tomorrow, I will address each and every issue. Some things are so right, they couldn't possibly be wrong and you want to walk all over them from some deranged science unheard of in any real world. It is sickening what some of you have to say and you are afraid of the religious zealots?



Michael,

I'm looking forward to your words.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 02:43 pm
PDiddie wrote:
MichaelAllen wrote:
Wow. Some real decrepit stuff being thrown around in this debate. When I return tomorrow, I will address each and every issue. Some things are so right, they couldn't possibly be wrong and you want to walk all over them from some deranged science unheard of in any real world. It is sickening what some of you have to say and you are afraid of the religious zealots?


"decrepit". "deranged". "sickening".

Yeah, gotta say I'm reallly looking forward to your next post.

Try not to spit on your monitor...


Yeah. I've got to admit my pleasant intoxication at the time of that writing. But, after reviewing the discussion again just now, I can still see why I was slightly alarmed.


Pistoff wrote:
Quote:
--The Party calls for the United States monetary system to be returned to the gold standard (2000).

Don't get the problem. Gold is already the standard for currency.

Quote:
--Congress ... should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

A system of checks and balances is always a good thing to keep in place.

Quote:
--The Party supports the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America....

Huh?

Quote:
--The Party calls upon the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress to repeal any and all laws that infringe upon the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution; and to reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns.

Ahh. You peace loving people who want to disarm yourselves. You'll get shot by a drug dealer who understands no bounds. You are better off leveling the playing field.

Quote:
--The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.... The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy.

On this one, I really have nothing to say. I don't think politics has any business trying to legislate morality.

Quote:
--We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

I don't think tax dollars or insurance monies should pay for abortions either. If people want to have abortions, that's their business. But, other people feel it is wrong. It is truly a wrong to make people who oppose abortion be partially responsible for the funding of abortions.

Quote:
--We call for the abolition of the U. S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency.

Can't address this one entirely. From the outset, it seems wrong. But, I don't know the reasoning either. Education began as an initiative and not a mandatory requirement. Most kids were doing chores on farms. School days lasted only a few hours. Sixth grade was the highest level some people achieved. Education has grown to be a mandatory requirement until the age of at least 16 and federal funding comes with some rather interesting requirements. Character education and sex education are among some of the requirements. While at first, these seem to be just fine endeavors for a school, character education is the masking of a morality based education seen by most people as a way of impressing upon kids a certain way of life. Wishes of parents are being overruled and character education steps over major boundaries. Under the argument that kids are going to do it anyway, sex education oversteps major boundaries as well. Some teachers have actually proposed teaching homosexual acts to kids so they know how to do them right.

But that's just my first impression of the issue. I'd have to explore it a bit further.

Quote:
--We support the requirement that schools teaching sex education must teach directive abstinence until heterosexual marriage with an uninfected person as the only safe and healthy means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases, the spread of AIDS, and pregnancies in unwed students, and is also a way to build strong and lasting relationships.

So factual, I don't understand the problem. Abstinence needs its representation as well. Schools teaching sex education want to skim past abstinence encouragement and start immediately talking about the condom. I guess you would support the encouragement of promiscuous sex, which you know is not very safe or healthy.

Quote:
--The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian nation, which was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible (2002)

It was at one time. I really have no idea what to say here, because I'm not really sure what they're going after unless it's to identify themselves with a morally correct group and let no mistakes be made about it.

Quote:
--Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State. We support the right of individuals and state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property subject to their control (2002) (similar language in the 2000 platform).

The separation of Church and State was voiced at one time, but never committed to at all. This country is far too religious to let it go. Most laws are based on religious beliefs. In Maryland, we can't buy beer in a liquor store on Sunday. I don't get it at all. Good thing I live close to West Virginia where I can buy beer. While most people get caught on the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" they conveniently forget that it is also states "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Quote:
--Since Secular Humanism is recognized by the United States Supreme Court as a religion, and our government-funded schools are prohibited from teaching any religion, the Party believes that Secular Humanism and New Age Religion in any form should be subjected to the same state and federal laws as any other recognized religion.

Sounds fair.

Quote:
--We support individual teachers' right to teach creation science in Texas public schools.

It's science isn't it. Deserving of equal representation.

Quote:
--We support and strongly urge Congress to pass a Religious Freedom Amendment which provides: "Neither the United States nor any State shall prohibit student-sponsored prayer in public schools, nor compose any official student prayer or compel joining therein."

The problem here is with the confusion most schools are in right now. A child was given detention for praying over his meal. I believe he should have a right to do that. But, all the requirements being placed on schools because of new laws being passed against religion requires that someone stand up and say, "Quit taking our right of worship away."

Quote:
--The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress thereby reducing abuse of the Act (2002)(similar language in the 2000 platform).

Sounds harsh at first, but if you look around, you'll see so many people living off of the system. I know a lady who divorced a man she has children with. He has some kind of disability. He can work, but he won't because his disability is covered. If he were to work, it would terminate his disability. I've seen the man work. I can hardly imagine what disability he has. He doesn't pay child support because the court won't require him to do so. It's people like him who drag the system down. We try to make an easy law and allow it to cover everyone. People find loopholes in a system like that. People need to be taken on a case by case situation in order to qualify for a disability pension.

Quote:
--The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.

Social Security wasn't really working anyway. We were robbing Peter to pay Paul. A person should get a retirement based on what value they gave their life while they were working. If they worked for peanuts, they hardly deserved the same as someone who owned a business and employed hundreds of workers. A person needs to plan early and quit expecting the system to take care of them when they are older. We can only do so much.

Quote:
--We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed.

That's the first time I ever heard someone say they want to pay taxes. I believe another system needs adopted as well. There is too much government waste. They think the money belongs to them. We can't get a road fixed, but a senator can fly his family in Airforce one for free.

Quote:
--We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, and payroll tax be eliminated. We recommend the implementation of a national retail sales tax, with the provision that a two-thirds majority of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is required to raise the rate (2002).

A system based on economics. In a capitalist society? Go figure.

Quote:
--The Party believes the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market (2002)(similar language in the 2000 platform).

Minimum wage hardly pays the rent. In wealthier communities, no one will work for minimum wage to begin with. Minimum wage laws protect the weak from being manipulated. I personally believe we need to focus our attentions on creating more socially aware individuals and helping them strengthen their backbones rather than cater to them hand and foot.

Quote:
--We demand that our federal legislators vote only for balanced budgets. Social Security should be taken off budget. In case of a budget surplus it should never be used to increase spending, but rather to pay off debt or be returned to the United States taxpayer.

Addressed earlier.

Quote:
--The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.

Maybe we could stand to back off from world policies and just focus on ourselves for awhile. The U.S. could stand to be less involved and leave other people's business alone.

Quote:
--The Party urges Congress to support HJR 77, the Panama and America Security Act, which declare the Carter-Torrijos Treaty null and void. We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama.

Good.

hobitbob wrote:
Quote:
The leaders of the larger groups feed the fear and hatred that "Christians" feel toward anything that is outside of their experience.

-Education is bad because it leads to independent thought, which might lead to questioning one's leaders and the "scripture" that they use to establish their authority.
I know of no Christian who opposes education. They would oppose some things being taught, some programs..etc. They might open their own schools to control what is being taught just as the secular schools control what they are teaching. But, no opposition to "education."

Quote:
-Affirmative action is bad because it might lead to an "other" achieving parity or surpassing your standard of living.
Affirmative action had its time and place. It is going overboard now.

Quote:
-Welfare is bad, because it denies the notion that poverty=sinfulness, and therefore wealth=godliness, and instead indirectly involves the citizenry in the care of those many consider to be "undesireable".
Welfare is being used and abused by so many people who don't need it. People who do need it sometimes can't even get it. HUD for instance has a list of people. First come, first serve. People who think Christians oppose welfare need to look at Christian doctrine that supports caring for those less fortunate than ourselves. And then, you need to listen better to Christians when they explain their stand on welfare.

Quote:
-Homosexuality is bad because it represents the separation between sexual desire and reproduction. If non-reproductive sex is made acceptable and not a furtive event, then biblical notions of social control may be invalidated.
I have no reason to speak on this one. It's a dead horse.

Quote:
-Abortion is bad because not because it represents the death of a foetus, but because it implies the personal control of a woman over her own body.
Abortion is taking the right to live from a being who can't even voice an opinion yet. That's the Christian stand. Life over selfishness.

Quote:
-Internationalization is bad because it represents the acknowledgement that the US is not an exceptional institution, but part of a wider community of nations, therefore also implying that other forms of governments, and by extension other ideologies are also valid.
Christians believe they live in a world of one community. Where are you getting these ideas?

Quote:
-Freedom of dissent is bad because it allows the expression of opinions counter to those of the movement's leadership, thereby possibly instilling dissention among the governed.
Christianity has long stood for placing leadership in check.

You have to actually listen to them. Quit forming your opinions before they finish speaking. And quit letting the media tell you what they believe. The media will pump you so full of crap your head will spin. Take time to hear what Christians have to say for themselves. I think so many of you want to put them down and don't even really know what they oppose or support or why.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 05:19 pm
Seperate topics
You have responded to many topics. Most are seperate from the main topic of this thread. Many could be a post by themselves. I will address one issue even though it is not directly related to the actual topic brought forth in the 1st place.

"It is truly a wrong to make people who oppose abortion be partially responsible for the funding of abortions."

I oppose war. Why should my taxes partially pay for any wars?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 05:24 pm
You have to read the Federalist Papers and other writings especially by Monroe and Jefferson to know their intent about seperation of Church and State. If you are a cognitive reader, you can only conclude that any form of Theocracy was anathema to them. We also conveniently forget that most of the forefathers were not overtly religious. Washington likely went to Church to pray that he never do anything to lose his rich wife.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 06:05 pm
I see we're back to the ping pong match. Someone let me know when the game is over and a winner is declared so we can spread the tapestry out on the table and resume working on the weave.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 07:06 pm
I don't understand how we're always getting accused of going off topic. The crux of this topic is that religious fundamentalists, right wing Christians as some have called them or fanatical Christians as I have termed them, aren't appreciated in the political realm. Some would venture to say that they are an organized and influential group with illogical ideas and they are infiltrating all levels of politics. Those who oppose them don't want extreme religious sentiments to dictate public policy.

I am the opposition.

Is everyone clear?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 07:11 pm
Has anyone read A Handmaid's Tale by Atwood? The resemblences between the direction this country seems headed and the "backstory" in the book are chilling. Shocked
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 07:12 pm
good point hobit
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 08:16:04