THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

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.

Are you serious? You can't prove Bush ever said these things, but you are going to stick by it because you couldn't (in a good faith effort) find a positive refutation? So, because you can't find someone who can prove a negative (That Bush didn't say these things) you figure they're worthy of using to lead off your argument.

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.

You are giving Pat Robertson far too much credit for religious zeal. He doesn't support Bush because he believes God has annointed the man, he believes God has annoited the man because he agrees with Robertson on many issues.
Are their foolishly zealous people out there who have somehow come to the conclusion that Bush is God's choice and will thus vote for him no matter what? Probably. There are people who believe he is a murderous criminal and would therefore never vote for him no matter what he did. What is the difference?


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.

I'm afraid your first quotation doesn't speak much for your on-line scholarship so forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

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.

You can prove some people, at least, contend that they believe Bush is the choice of God. You cannot, at all, prove that Bush believes he is the choice of God.

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.

This makes for empassioned rhetoric, but it is little more than the same sort of demagoguery you, undoubtedly, ascribe to the Religious Right.

Your first statement is a classic:

"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."

Well of course they won't if they have accepted someone's claim to divine authority. I have news for you, so will a stew bum or a liberal radio commentator. It's sort of axiomatic isn't it. If you believe some has divine authority you're not going to question their motives. Of course, the real question is how many people who believe in scriptual authority and revealed truth believe anyone, let alone George Bush, has divine authority?
Perhaps your on-line research has provided you with reliable evidence to prove that the group is legion.

Similarly you have jumped from being "Good Christian Soldiers" (Which has far far less of a militaristic connotation that you would prefer) to at best, dismissing the views of others, and, at worst, charging those opponents with the foulest of sins.

Opponents of a particular school of thought or even simply non-believers can not be truly marginalized unless the school of thought is dominant. Fundamentalist Christianity is not. Simply more demagoguery on your part.

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

And, of course, you are entitled to taking this overly dramatic position, that doesn't make it any less dramatic or ill founded.

It also doesn't make your position any less intolerant, or prejudiced.

Considering that for many people (not just the ones with which you disagree and fear) religious tenants shape their beliefs on such issues as war, abortion, the death penalty, aiding the needy and so on, it's difficult to imagine how you might succeed with your mission.

I am not a Christian nor member of any religion, and I do believe that fundamentalism of any kind can, under certain circumstances, be perilous to society, but I have no use for what amounts to blatant bigotry towards honest and decent Americans who happen to share a faith which is not in vogue with liberal elitists.

Members of the so called Religious Right are as entitled to express and act upon their political opinions as are Gays & Lesbians, Autoworkers, or any number of secular groups organized around commons beliefs and/or interests.

When the Religious Right makes a serious attempt to impose a State Religion, or persecute those whom they deign to be heretics, then I'll join you on the ramparts. In the meantime it's all left wing demagoguery.

I definitely want to vote for whomever I feel will best represent my religious views . . . 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.

There's no need to use ALL CAPS!

There's no need to use ALL CAPS!

Earl Grey wrote:

There's no need to use ALL CAPS!

True, on my screen, I see no all caps anywhere.

I often use all caps to headline my threads. Non issue, dude. LOL.

I have very strongly, and continue to state that religious devotion carries with it an unquestioning acceptance of the dictates of religious leadership which is not present in other categories of interest groups.

t gets a little lonely on the House floor. We need more Christians in Congress; we need more godly people.... Let's bring this nation back to godly values; let's bring this nation back to godly principles."
--Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.), speaking at the "Road To Victory" convention - Ms. Davis is in need of facts: 491 of the 535 members of the 107th Congress professed a Christian religious affiliation

"They would have us believe that Islam is just as good as Christianity. Christianity was founded by the virgin-born son of God, Jesus Christ. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people."
--Rev. Jerry Vines, Former President of the Southern Baptist Convention and current pastor of the 25,000-member First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla., June 10, 2002


"For too long, government has attempted to censor expression of religion. Discrimination against religion under the guise of separation of church and state needs to end."
"The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of the values this nation was built upon, and the basis of so much of our legal system here in America."
--U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R -Ala.), March 7, 2002 during the unveiling of the "Ten Commandments Defense Act" - H. R. 3895


"[The bill] does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Ten Commandments do not represent one single religion - in fact they are tenets of Judaism, Islam and Christianity."
--Rep. Robert Aderholt, quoted in press materials released in February 2002

"[W]e would make the argument, the Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution."
--Rep. Robert Aderholt


"It couldn't have been because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud, by teaching evolution as fact."
--U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, commenting after the Columbine massacre

Earl Grey needs to get a grip.