2
   

The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 01:54 pm
george insisted
Quote:
I remind you all of my earlier assertion that they were a relatively small and easily co-opted political minority (where else can they turn?) with little real influence on the majority of the population and little lasting political power.


You aren't really arguing that the Republicans can hold onto congress, senate and/or presidency without this voting block (and grassroots organizational clout) are you?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 02:33 pm
No, not at all. Only that they have to do very little to keep those votes - as long as the Democrats can be counted on for the heavy lifting in that area.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 02:35 pm
Hi George,

I've missed you lately. I've been very busy.

You wrote:
Quote:
It is good to be right.



And yes it is good, especially for those of us who are actually right. They (the fanatical fundamentalists of all types) are quite dangerous if ignored and the Christian fundies are no exception. They have been very well organized and financed, supported by certain factions within the media..........fortunately these types can be depended on to sooner or later pee in their own post toasties, which it appears they have done. But fundamentalist urinie would have gone unnoticed had there not been those of us who recognized the danger and were ready to pounce at earliest opportunity. Fanaticism feeds on the illusion of absolute control and they never give up. They can't. So it's up to us all to work against their goals.

I agree with Bernie in that the threat is not gone. I'll admit that they avoided too many mistakes for a lot longer than I expected. I was losing hope a bit. I disagree with Bernie in that he sometimes believes that no amount of action will stop the threat. But he's always been a little bit cynical and pessimistic.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 02:45 pm
Lola wrote:
And yes it is good, especially for those of us who are actually right. They (the fanatical fundamentalists of all types) are quite dangerous if ignored and the Christian fundies are no exception. They have been very well organized and financed, supported by certain factions within the media..........fortunately these types can be depended on to sooner or later pee in their own post toasties, which it appears they have done. ...

I agree with Bernie in that the threat is not gone. I'll admit that they avoided too many mistakes for a lot longer than I expected. I was losing hope a bit. ....


Good to hear from you as well. Also reassuring to see that you still cling complacently to the old familiar illusions. None of us would be as interesting or entertaining without our faults.

I think the secular humanist fanatics are also quite well-funded and orgainzed and note that they include or influence a much larger portion of the media, particularly its establishment parts, than do the religious fundies. As long as George Soros has millions to spare they will prosper.

Glad to hear that the business is doing well and to observe ('tho we all frequent A2K less often than in the past) that you and Bernie are well and in character.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 02:56 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Lola wrote:
And yes it is good, especially for those of us who are actually right. They (the fanatical fundamentalists of all types) are quite dangerous if ignored and the Christian fundies are no exception. They have been very well organized and financed, supported by certain factions within the media..........fortunately these types can be depended on to sooner or later pee in their own post toasties, which it appears they have done. ...

I agree with Bernie in that the threat is not gone. I'll admit that they avoided too many mistakes for a lot longer than I expected. I was losing hope a bit. ....


Good to hear from you as well. Also reassuring to see that you still cling complacently to the old familiar illusions. None of us would be as interesting or entertaining without our faults.

I think the secular humanist fanatics are also quite well-funded and orgainzed and note that they include or influence a much larger portion of the media, particularly its establishment parts, than do the religious fundies. As long as George Soros has millions to spare they will prosper.

Glad to hear that the business is doing well and to observe ('tho we all frequent A2K less often than in the past) that you and Bernie are well and in character.


laughing.........here we go round the mulberry bush. Some secular humanists are fanatical, however they are less likely to be so since they are usually more laid back and easy going. It's not fanatical, for instance, to resist domination.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 02:57 pm
of course , ralph reed and his group know how to scare quite a few people into voting their way . they are very effective in using god as their ally , and there are plenty of people (voters) who think they'll go to hell if they don't vote the way ralph and his consorts tell them too .
a little watching of some "christian" shows tells the true story .
(haven't been able to figure out what's "christian" about those show and probably never will).
hbg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 03:04 pm
Here's the sort of thing that causes cognitive dissonance for the christian right ...
Quote:
Afghanistan Deports Christian Koreans

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 3, 2006
Filed at 4:10 p.m. ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan on Thursday ordered hundreds of South Korean Christians to leave the country, accusing them of seeking to undermine Islamic culture.

The Korean group's leader, Choi Han-woo, denied its 1,200 members, who gathered in Afghanistan for relief work and a cultural festival, took part in any religious activities.

However, Interior Ministry spokesman Yousef Stanezai said that although the Koreans came with tourist visas, their activities showed they had a different agenda.

''The program was against the Islamic culture and customs of Afghans,'' he said, adding they have been told to leave the country as soon as possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghan-Christians-Departed.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 03:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
No, not at all. Only that they have to do very little to keep those votes - as long as the Democrats can be counted on for the heavy lifting in that area.


Now there's an analysis not much beyond a slogan or cliche.

What is "the little"? A veto on stem cells? A Bush appearance at a pulpit where Condi wouldn't be terribly welcome? A foreign policy derived from thorough-going textual investigations of Revelations?

There's good reason to conclude that America is now more divisive and effectively and implacably at war with itself now than was the case in the 60s. This is one clear consequence of the modern conservative movement's strategies to create or activate a largely reactive populist electorate.

You minimize, at the peril of much that represents the best of your nation, the red-meat-devouring beast that has been created. It isn't merely the rabid religious element. In tandem with the same sort of nationalist extremism, it is getting uglier all the time, george.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 09:55 am
Here's an interesting tidbit. And it is concerning, to say the least. Since the article is from AlterNet and therefore suspect to some conservatives, it has inspired me to do a very quick and limited goggle search. See results below.

AlterNet

Quote:
America's Holy Warriors

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted January 4, 2007.

The radical Christian Right is coming dangerously close to its goal of taking over the country's military and law enforcement.

The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement. This effort signals the final and perhaps most deadly stage in the long campaign by the radical Christian right to dismantle America's open society and build a theocratic state. A successful politicization of the military would signal the end of our democracy.


CBS

Reuter's

Asian Tribune

Quote:
The most notorious example of this attempt to drum up a religious-based "will" to wage war came to light in 2003 with press reports of speeches delivered by Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, to audiences assembled by the Christian right.

Boykin repeatedly told audiences that the war was being waged by a "Christian army" and a "Christian nation" against Islamic forces aligned with Satan. He proclaimed that his own confidence in victory over a Muslim foe was based on the knowledge that "my God was bigger than his . . . my God was a real god and his was an idol." He likewise declared that George W. Bush was "appointed by God," despite having failed to win the majority of the votes in 2000, and indicated that he saw himself as answerable only to God's commands.

While the general's anti-Islamic bigotry and profoundly anti-democratic remarks provoked outrage, the Republican right and the Bush administration leapt to his defense. The general himself asked that a Pentagon inspector general investigate the controversy. The result was a report that avoided the content of Boykin's remarks, delivering only the mildest rebuke for his failure to assert that they were his personal opinion and to clear them first with superiors.

General Boykin remains to this day the senior uniformed officer in military intelligence and a top policy-maker in the "war on terror," overseeing assassination squads, illegal abductions and torture.


Associated Baptist Press

Quote:
ARLINGTON, Va. (ABP) -- The influence of evangelical Christians in the military's highest ranks is again under question, after complaints about an evangelical group's promotional video that features several top-ranking Pentagon officers, some in uniform.

The Pentagon inspector general's office received the complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The foundation -- founded earlier this year by an Air Force veteran who made headlines in a dispute over evangelical influences at the Air Force Academy -- made the complaint public Dec. 11.

The video appears on the website of the Christian Embassy, a Washington-area institution that serves high-level leaders in the federal government and the city's diplomatic community.

The organization is an outgrowth of Campus Crusade for Christ, an international evangelism and discipleship group for students.

Referring to the Pentagon's 20,000-plus employees, the video's narrator states: "Through Bible studies, discipleship, prayer breakfasts and outreach events, Christian Embassy is mustering these men and women into an intentional relationship with Jesus Christ."

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation's complaint, addressed to Thomas Gimble, the Pentagon's acting inspector general, said the appearance of Department of Defense employees in the video violates several military rules, including rules against active-duty service members promoting political or religious causes while in uniform.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 07:55 am
http://www.alternet.org/stories/47679/

Quote:
The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig
Posted on February 8, 2007, Printed on February 8, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/47679/
Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told his students that when we were his age -- he was then close to 80 -- we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."

The warning, given 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and television evangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts toward taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. This call for fundamentalists and evangelicals to take political power was a radical and ominous mutation of traditional Christianity. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 08:44 am
Nice to see ya, Lola!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 04:20 am

I'm not impressed, and I'd even say this if I agreed with the basic thesis and didn't find it way exaggerated.

When an author writes an article titled "the rise of Christian fascism and its threat to American democracy", I expect him to supply arguments for two propositions: 1) the sort of Christians that may usefully be compared with European fascists is rising, and 2) they pose a threat to American democracy. Chris Hedges asserts both points, but presents no discernible evidence for either. All he gives is arguments from the authority of his teacher, James Luther Adams. Most of us don't know James Luther Adams, and have no reason to accept his word on current events. For us, Hedges doesn't offer any reason to change our minds. His article preaches to the converted.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2007 02:38 pm
I went off-topic on the Coulter thread with the following post, but then I remembered this thread, where, in light of discussions I had here, when?, a few years ago?, it fits perfectly..

Quote:
No offense, but I think the religious right has been the most overhyped threat in this decade's US politics.

Think about it. What three basic pillars of support and ideology have the Bush administrations leant on?

  • the tax-cutting, corporate-friendly, corruption-tolerant, free market ideologues and big business pals

  • the war-starting, executive power-entrenching, overreaching neoconservatives who were going to change the world in America's image by force

  • the evangelical, puritan, culture war-fighting religious right with its obsession with abortion and gay marriage.
For sure, each constituency has tolerated or even approved of the actions of the others, brought together in their common pragmatic grab for power and shared distaste for anything liberal. But they're still three - the three, IMO - easily identifiable separate strands of Bushism.

OK, now ask yourself: which of these three strands has had the most influence, these past six years? Which of them succeeded best in getting their pet laws and policies pushed through? Which of the three has best succeeded in changing America in its own image? And which the least?

Face it: of the three, the religious right is the strand that got shafted. The highest ranking pol they got in Bush's admin was Ashcroft, and he dissappeared halfway through. Theres been hardly any change on abortion. Their agenda has come to be symbolised by the Schiavo debacle, which made Frist and the lot look foolish, and which they even lost, too. The only notch they can carve is the state referendums they won on gay marriage, and some of those were only symbolic.

The Bush era will forever be identified by Iraq and the monumental failure there of the neoconservative project. Once withdrawal from there ensues, however, the Bush era feature that will turn out to have had the most far-reaching impact in the US will be the huge, ideologically-inspired tax cut bonanza giveaway to the richest, and the deregulation of whole chunks of what remained of the government's ability to check market abuses that came with it. The religious right's agenda, on the other hand? As long as you're not gay, it's been a mere, and rather comical, blip on the radar.

And now the new presidential elections are going to come up and they are already rubbing the religious right's impotence into its face, confronting the bible-thumpers with probably having to swallow RudyMcRomney for '08.

Its almost enough to start feeling sorry for them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2007 03:16 pm
"Politics is the shadow cast by business over society." John Dewey wasn't stupid.

David Kuo's recent book supports your notions here, nimh. The alliance between the traditional interests within the Republican party and the christian right has worked out to be, in Kuo's experience, much better for those traditional interests than for the RR. Apparently, some significant proportion of us are born with an innate passion and drive to be pawns.

But this is a big and complicated bit of american history. Lots of good stuff yet to be written on all of this.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2007 03:45 pm
I was reading along the first few pages of this thread and found:

McGentrix wrote:
Which Christian moral of his has been forced upon anyone?


Acquiunk wrote:
Stem cell research, faith based social initiatives to name two and there are others coming, most likely abortion restrictions in the immediate future.


Let's not forget Bush's approval to teach Creationism in our schools.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:35 am
nimm
Not sure if you are familiar with this reporter. He's one of the best around presently. The portion I've noted in red points to the period when key figures in the evangelical movement aligned with the RNC and the interests more traditionally associated with that party. Some of this was out in the open, but some of it has to be teased apart through association ties and various obscure sources. Lola has dug into this stuff with a fair thoroughness and gusto.

What I've concluded is that this movement has had considerable power in the US due to a number of historical reasons and more recently, due to this alignment which Dionne and Lola speak about. Brock's The Republican Noise Machine has valuable information on that too. Where Lola and I might disagree (perhaps even loudly in the privacy of our own home) is on the relative power of this group contrasted with other elements of the Republican constituency. But it is quite certain that Republican dominance over the last quarter century or so has come as a direct consequence of the evangelical shoulder to the wheel. It is also quite unarguable that the US has moved considerably to the right in roughly the same time frame and it would be inaccurate to hold the evangelical community (I'm uncomfortable with this generalization, but we need some rough way of speaking about this) has gained nothing or little through this period. But it is also certainly true to make the case that what they have gained in either cultural shift or in power has been far from what they would desire and a great distance from theocracy.

Quote:
Christians Who Won't Toe the Line
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21

Evangelical Protestantism in the United States is going through a New Reformation that is disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine. This historic change will require liberals and conservatives alike to abandon their sometimes narrow views of who evangelicals are.

The reformers won an important victory this month when the board of the National Association of Evangelicals faced down right-wing partisans and reaffirmed its view that solving global warming was an important moral cause. In so doing, it also expressed confidence in the Rev. Rich Cizik, the NAE's vice president for governmental affairs.

Cizik, who combines opposition to abortion with a firm commitment to human rights, the poor and the environment, came under attack from a gang of ideologues who would freeze evangelicals on a political course set more than a quarter-century ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501868.html
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:53 am
Inserting an off-topic post to say hello to Bernie, Lola, Habibi, cicerone and Thomas.

*tips cap*

*Bows deeply to Lola*

Pardon the interruption and do carry on, please.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 06:12 am
jesus christ almight in heaven poop heck darn!

We missed you, fella! On at least two occasions over the last three years, your name has come up. (Your wife's came up way more, but we think of you as a team).

How the hell are you?!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 07:17 am
I'm well, Bern. I dropped by to post a remembrance of timberlandko and am hanging out for a few minutes before I go.

I had 867,710 new posts since my last visit, and since the pages here still load as if I'm on a dialup connection, I don't think I'll be seeing what everyone has been up to. A quick update from here:

Sue's father passed away one week ago today (not unexpected; he'd been suffering from bladder cancer for seven years). She's holding up as well as can be expected. Her mother went to the hospital the very next day -- as Sue was preparing to leave for Miami and her father's funeral -- with congestive heart failure and pneumonia and remains there. Her dementia is end-stage, so her passing wouldn't be a terrible shock, either. Sue's sister, undergoing her own chemotherapy for lymphoma (in remission, just a booster) collapsed in the ICU, was transported a few steps over to ER and diagnosed with dehydration and a fever. She went home the same day.

Been kind of a rough week, and it looks like it's improving already, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

How's your health these days?

(Sorry for hijacking the thread. Reply in PM if you prefer.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 07:00 am
nimh wrote:
Face it: of the three, the religious right is the strand that got shafted. The highest ranking pol they got in Bush's admin was Ashcroft, and he dissappeared halfway through.

While that's literally true, it's also a bit misleading because justices Roberts and Altio aren't "pols". True, the conservative faction on the Supreme Court is still one vote short of sacking Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, but one vote short is progress from their perspective, which I think you underestimated.

It's nice to have an ally about the overhyping though.

Pdidie wrote:
Inserting an off-topic post to say hello to Bernie, Lola, Habibi, cicerone and Thomas.

How nice to see you! I hope you stick around a bit.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 07:09:42