THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It has been a topic of much debate in these fora whether or not the injection of religion into political decisions is a good or a bad thing-and often, even whether or not this is happening. I consider that the injection of sectarian religious views into political policy making is a significant danger. It sidesteps the responsibility of responsible parties to take into consideration all the factors which impinge upon their decisions. For example, Bush is claimed to have told Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." The veracity of this quote is in dispute, but i have not found, in a good faith effort for house this morning, a positive refutation of the quote. What is significant to me, apart from this, is the extent to which members of the religious right are willing to follow this man, because they believe him to be the chose of the deity. As another example:

"Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice."

This is a quote from the page The Duty is Ours, at a site of the christian right which seeks to implement a religiously inspired agenda in national and local affairs--the quote above is at the bottom of this page. The page contains quite a few scriptural quotes which purport to establish that Bush is the chosen of God. On January 2, 2004, Pat Robertson stated during a 700 Club broadcast that: "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe that I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election of 2004. It's shaping up that way. The Lord has just blessed him . . . It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad. God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him." I have emphasized here what i consider to be the most dangerous concept embodied in this view of the president as chosen of god.

I've spent a great deal of time on-line to verify what i have posted here. I've left out a great deal for which i was not able to establish the attribution. Further, i did not want to clog this thread with the literally hundreds of thousands of hits i got when searching for quotations and attributions on this subject.

My point is that if one is convinced that they are the chosen of God, then there is no longer a sense of responsibility to consider the views of others, or even to proceed in a democratic manner. Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda. When this happens, those whoSE theological views are not consonant with said agenda, and those who are disturbed by or actively opposed to religious agendas worked out in the public arena are marginalized. Those who are of strong religious conviction but who do not subscribe to the creed or creeds being promoted are marginalized. And finally, the voice of dissent is quickly labeled as the propaganda of the Anti-Christ, and eventually, by extension, treason against the nation. For these reasons, i am continually and diametrically opposed to the injection of religious tenants into the arena of public policy decision.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,929 • Replies: 82

No top replies

Bush's election was bought by family money and political influence. Also by a Florida Supreme Court that was influenced by the Prez's brother Jeb. God had nothing to do with it.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Also by a Florida Supreme Court that was influenced by the Prez's brother Jeb.

So you don't actually pay much attention to politics?

0 Replies

For different reasons, I, too, am continually and diametrically opposed to the injection of religious tenants into the arena of public policy decision.

One of the great things about america is the whole "melting pot" of cultures. we are a country of vast beliefs from atheism to extreme evangelical to people who kill themselves for the need of a savior (various cults). Should any single religion to try to express itself through a representative of government, that representative should be held accountable and relieved of duty.

Now, I can see many of you already warming up the fingers for a lengthy rebuttal claiming Bush is doing this, but let me head you off at the pass on this one. At NO TIME, let me repeat that just in case you didn't get it the first time, at NO TIME has Bush forwarded his religion over the interests of the country.

Now, he may spout about his relationship with God, but that does not equal introducing laws in the name of God. Many of the things that keep getting brought up are not necessarily solely "christian" beliefs.

As a Buddhist, ALL life is sacred to me. I am opposed to abortion, but I do not push that because life is not as sacred to some people and that choice should be theirs to make. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good.

Stem cell research has not been banned, merely restricted from garnering federal grants for research.

There are many other things that make for long exciting posts and have filled voluimes of pages on A2K.

0 Replies

Unfortunately the ditch between Ethical Behavior and Political Expediency is a lot broader and deeper than the line between either Religious Values and Ethical Behavior or the hair's breadth division between Leadership and Megalomania.

0 Replies

The Constitation guarantess the separation of church and state. However, some politicians don't seem to draw that distiction. I am a Buddhist. As McGnetrix stated, life is sacred. However, I find McG to be a tad hypocritical seeing his pro-war posts.

0 Replies

There is more than one way to skin a cat and Bush is good at finding them all for whatever reason he happens to want at the time. He says just enough religiously to let the religious right know that he is on their side but not too obvious to be called on it. He also says things to other people so that later he can claim it is hersey but still the news gets out and it appease his religious right base. I think he is one big phoney pulling a scam on the religious right.

0 Replies

McG, leaving aside the problematic contention that Bush's policies have not been motivated by his purported religious convictions--the burden of my post which begins this thread is the religious right, and their belief that Bush is the chosen of God. This is disturbing because it means that not only are such voters unlikely ever to question the policies of the administration and the statements of the Shrub, but that they will condemn any who do criticize the administration. The potential for the smothering of dissent, and the exclusion of "non-believers" from input into national policy is disturbing, and in my opinion, more than just a small matter of personal principles.

0 Replies

But, Setanta, isn't the slice of America that believes that Bush is a moron and should never hold any sort of office, much less have any responsibility for anything a balancing force?

Do you find these people equally disturbing? Doesn't the "Anybody But Bush" crowd also worry you because they will never accept anyone who does not criticize the administration?

0 Replies

No, because there is nothing inherent in the "ABB" crowd which suggests that policies will be determined by a narrow agenda. It is axiomatic that those who believe Bush is the chosen of God, appointed to work the deity's will in this country, have a very specific view of what government ought and ought not to do, and that they will seek to smother dissent and exclude any other input in to policy making decisions, including the input of those who are religiously fervent, but do not partake of the point of their point of view.

Whether or not the "ABB" crowd, as you call them, is a balancing force cannot be determined short of the next election. That so many people are disgusted and opposed to the Shrub is no evidence of a common agenda. It is far less of a stretch to impute a common agenda to those who believe him to be the chosen of God.

0 Replies

Re: THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Bush is a shrub. He's just an ordinary shrub.

[shrub1 n. A woody plant of relatively low height, having several stems arising from the base and lacking a single trunk; a bush.]

He is a person of small intellectual stature and is truly indistinguishable from a multitude of men who walk on platitudes. It is dangerous indeed when the sheeple blindly follow as he leads them to the slaughterhouses where individual rights are eviscerated.

But even more dangerous than the "injection of sectarian religious views into political policy making" is the ignorance and apathy of most Americans regardless of their religious affiliations.

In 1788, reverend Stillman spoke out in support of the Constitution during the Massachusetts convention and stated the following:

"After all, if this Constitution was as perfect as the sacred volume is, it would not secure the liberties of the people, unless they watch their own liberties. Nothing written on paper will do this. It is therefore necessary that the people should keep a watchful, not an over-jealous, eye on their rulers; and that they should give all due encouragement to our colleges, schools of learning, etc., so that knowledge may be diffused through every part of our country. Ignorance and slavery, knowledge and freedom, are inseparably connected. While Americans remain in their present enlightened condition, and warmly attached to the cause of liberty, they cannot be enslaved. Should the general government become so lost to all sense of honor and the freedom of the people, as to attempt to enslave them, they who are the descendants of a race of men who have dethroned kings, would make an American Congress tremble, strip them of their public honors, and reduce them to the lowest state of degradation."

We are no longer a people in an enlightened condition. We, as a people, are ignorant and apathetic. We take too much for granted when we shouldn't. We have grown complacent, weak, and unquestioning.

On June 6, 1966, Robert F. Kennedy gave his Day of Affirmation Address at the University of Capetown in Capetown, South Africa. RFK told the students:

"This is a Day of Affirmation -- a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom.

"At the heart of that western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states, exist for that person's benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any western society."

RFK outlined the dangers we face:

"First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills -- against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. . . .

"The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. . . .

"A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. . . .

"For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path. . . ."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, because there is nothing inherent in the "ABB" crowd which suggests that policies will be determined by a narrow agenda. It is axiomatic that those who believe Bush is the chosen of God, appointed to work the deity's will in this country, have a very specific view of what government ought and ought not to do, and that they will seek to smother dissent and exclude any other input in to policy making decisions, including the input of those who are religiously fervent, but do not partake of the point of their point of view.

Whether or not the "ABB" crowd, as you call them, is a balancing force cannot be determined short of the next election. That so many people are disgusted and opposed to the Shrub is no evidence of a common agenda. It is far less of a stretch to impute a common agenda to those who believe him to be the chosen of God.

I do not personally care for the President's religious views. I personally believe his religion is one that promotes an odd superstition.
But, this is merely because I am chauvinistic and prejudiced towards my religion.
However, I believe that a man who speaks from his "faith" is far more sincere and stable than those who speak from their cynicism.

On the other hand, the President does have some intellectual challenges that originally led me to vote for Gore.

However, the President is also doing an extremely intelligent and far seeing job on attempting to defeat Islamic fascists, the avowed enemies of the United States, and create a new Iraq where their fellow Muslims can reform Islam and influence other fascist Islamic states to reform.

And, the thought of turning over US policy making to the criminal body known as the UN, truly turns my stomach - which is what Kerry has pledged to do.

The insane frothy mad dogs who yelp "Bush lied" and "he stole the election" and "it's all about enriching his oil buddies" of the Anybody But Bush crowd are obviously demented and dangerous.
There is far more logic in believing that G-d manipulated the election so that Bush would win, than believing the moonbat conspiracy theories that you all are espousing.
Rolling Eyes

The only common agenda of those that disdain Bush seem to have is believing in fairy tales and evil forces that are out to manipulate their every thought and deed.

The religious right is far less cohesive in their beliefs....

0 Replies

Inferential ad hominem, straw men galore, acidic racist invective . . . that pretty well covers it all, Bubba . . . welcome to the monkey house . . .

0 Replies

To wear such a straight jacket of the mind as fundamentalist religion is to automatically rule out consideration of non religious solutions. However, I do not know for sure how deeply devoted to his faith Bush truly could be when so many of his actions result in the monetary enrichment of his cronies and contributers. Figuring in the neocon influence adds another dimension. He had been so incurious of life beyond the reach of his own fingers, the neocons had to guide many of his decisions in foreign policy, no matter how cloaked in religious pronouncements Bush may have cited.

0 Replies

Setanta, what do you think could realistically be done without limitting democracy? I'm Christian, and I'm not blind to the problems you describe, but I definitely want to vote for whomever I feel will best represent my religious views. Right now, that is not Bush.

Anyway, back to my first question, before I digress too far.

0 Replies

EB, i'm trying here, though, to get at the danger inherent in a belief that someone is the chosen of God, from the point of view of how dangerous this makes those holding the view. As for the sincerety of the Shrub, that is something which i cannot answer with certainty, but my feeling is that the concept is not applicable to someone so child-like in egoism, and so obviously handicapped in articulation--one need be able to explain one's ideas to oneself to ever claim to have an idea coherent enough to be explained to others. If find the danger of which i speak in the absence of questioning and criticism from "the faithful," and the concommitant condemnation of those who do question and criticize.

SCoates, i don't advocate attempting to "do" something in the sense of interferring with the electoral process (which is after all what so many people are willing to at least question, if not actually accuse the Shrub of having done), or in any regard to personal measures against Bush. I'm doing what i advocate as reasonable; and more than simply reasonable, even an expression of one of the core values of the republic--i'm speaking out, in a sincere belief that knowledge is power (i will avoid a flippant assertion which i would make based on the history i've read, but i will take notice of it--i'm convinced that knowledge is power, but absent the acquisition thereof, and/or the putting to use of the knowledge, at the least in the voting booth--knoweldge is no power; hence my reservation about asserting this as an absolute). It rather disturbs me ('though not greatly) to think that you would vote for someone who represents your religious views. I would rather think that people make that decision based upon the welfare of the republic, which is sufficiently diverse of sects, and sufficiently secular to argue that voting one's religious preference, as opposed to the welfare of the republic, is irresponsible, and inimical to a core value of the republic.

That's my story, an' i'm stickin' to it . . .

0 Replies

All of my views are religious, because I am a religious person. When I say I would vote for someone who would best represent my religious views, I see no difference when you vote for someone who represents your views. For example, if I am against abortion, if I am for greater budgets for education, if I am for gun control. Those are my religious views, and I want them represented.

You've cited a few cases where religion is taken to a disturbing level, but it is not always taken to a disturbing level. Religion simply affects my values, and I want those values represented.

Perhaps you already understood me to mean that, but I'm curious why it disturbs you that someone would vote for a candidate whose views reflect their own.

0 Replies

The religious right is a whole nother animal from the other religions in America ensconced. They have formed a block that pushes religion and politics on an equal footing. They listen to no other viewpoints and they always vote for the one they percieve closest to they in religion. In that repspect, Bush is a sure vote getter with them, no matter what else he says or does.

0 Replies

It is the contention of a religious provenace of the "value"--it is the implication of those who are possessed of faith being unwilling or even constitutionally unable to question doctrine. If one holds that a candiate is acceptable only on when they share the spiritual vision of the voter, then other issues pale in significance, when considering the power of either blind loyalty or self-righteous outrage at a perceived betrayal.

I cannot for moment consider gun control to be a religious issue. I see that ending murder and violence is an issue which goes to the heart of religious values--but i would question the "social loyalty" of any member of society who did not oppose those things as inimical to social contract by which we are all enabled to live together. As for the issue of education budgets, in fact, a support of broad public education goes against a core value of all christian sects throughout most of the history of that religion. It is still to be found among some fundamentalists and charismatics that any education outside of scripture, or "authorized" scriptural commentary is not only unnecessary, but a positive evil.

I consider it a founding principle of the republic that all of those who adhere to the polity do so in acceptance a social contract, without regard to sectarian membership or adherence. To the point of what christians purport to believe, it is my understanding that you are enjoined to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to render unto God that which is God's. It would seem that even two millenia ago, there was a working concept of the separation of church and state.

0 Replies

Of course America would be changed for the worse if the religious right got their way about everything.

Just like America would be changed for the worse if labor unions got their way about everything.

Just like America would be changed for the worse if big business got their way about everything.

Or if anyone got their way about everything.

That is what makes a free society so vibrant - the interaction between different groups pushing their individual agendas.

0 Replies

THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know