'Now the religious right has turned against the Republican Congress, the great revolution is over'End of the culture war
Has the 'Religious Right' in the US shot its bolt? ********************************************************* 10-20-06, 11:51 AM DorianGreyed To some extent, yes, but as a whole, no. Only those on the RR that actually adhere to firm principles are leaving the Republican party. The others just shift their principles around, which fits right in with the actions usually taken by the majority of Republicans.
10-28-06, 01:20 PM newnickname 'Conducted by the PEW Research Center, it found that 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants surveyed felt the United States made the right decision in using force in Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, below the 71 percent in a previous poll in September.' US Evangelical Support for Iraq War Slipping
58% still represents a lot of Christians. What could the Christian justification be for the invasion of Iraq, and overthrow of Hussein?
How could a Christian feel that the senseless slaughter in Iraq has arisen from 'the right decision'? Wasn't it, at best, a mistake?
Are there really that many who buy into the bloodthirsty 'clash of civilisations/Armageddon Now' idea?
10-28-06, 03:22 PM DorianGreyed "Are there really that many who buy into the bloodthirsty 'clash of civilisations/Armageddon Now' idea?"
I don't think it's that. I think that most of those give no thought to how difficult it is, not to overthrow a dictator with a worthless army, but to occupy a country full of people willing to fight against the occupation. In other words, it's OK to remove someone from power as long as someone else is doing the dying to do so. I see very few Fundies on the front lines, or whatever passes for lines in Iraq.
You must also remember that any politician and his cause will get some support from some group. The fact that only 58% of the Evangelicals now think it was a good idea means that support for the war among the bush Faithful is dropping rapidly. That 58% represents almost a 20% loss of those who once supported bush's war. (58/71 = 81.7) A 20% drop in 30 days is a serious drop, and the numbers will continue to go down.
11-03-06, 06:12 PM newnickname 'The Reverend Ted Haggard, ex-leader of the 30m-strong National Association of Evangelicals, said he bought methamphetamine but "never used it".
He denies having sex with the man but said he did receive a massage...
...Mr Haggard, who is also known as "Pastor Ted" and has five children, has close contacts with the White House.
11-12-06, 01:32 PM DorianGreyed I wish Canada luck. The Christian Right in the US has shown that it has no morals when it comes to obtaining power, and it apears that some of the same people have joined their counterparts in Canada. At least Pat Robertson can't threaten the Left in Canada with the wrath of God in the form of hurricanes.
11-12-06, 01:36 PM juanruiz With the exception of the polygamous Mormon cult in the west that Babs wrote so passionately about, and the spare the rod, spoil the child far out group in the east, I never considered Canada to come anywhere near the right-wing Christianity found in the US. Frankly, I don't think Harper is going to push religion that much. He does have a minority government, and would very much like a majority in the next election.
11-12-06, 04:29 PM newnickname It's not so much that Harper is explicitly pushing religion, but that it's informing his politics. (And as far as mandates go, he's in much the same position as Bush has always been - with a slim to non-existant majority of the popular vote.)
For example, there's an experimental "safe injection site" in Vancouver, where drug abusers can use clean needles and inject with some supervision. It works. Local stores have accepted it, the police like it, and it gets the abusers into 'the system', opening the possibility of their getting cleaned up. There's no evidence the site has encouraged drug abuse, or caused any more problems locally.
Harper has hummed and hawed about allowing it to remain open, and has prevented any other sites from doing so. Most Canadians (although of course there are some pressure groups against them) seem to welcome the sites. They presumably know that advising abstinence to a drug addict is about as effective as telling someone with mental illnes to 'pull yourself together'.
But the religious world-view won't allow such practical compromises. The junkies just shouldn't do it. That's that. There are too many arbitrary absolutes in religion for it to work as a political agenda. The only absolutes in politics should be those set out (however vaguely) in the constitution.
11-13-06, 04:49 AM tsaeb juanruiz: I need a vacation. I just imagined that newnickname is Godfactor. Anyway, what happened to babs? (Here she comes, ready or not.)
11-13-06, 06:34 AM juanruiz Gf was from Montreal. I believe nnn is in the west. Babs is the one on vacation, or perhaps sabbatical is a better term.
11-13-06, 08:19 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: For example, there's an experimental "safe injection site" in Vancouver, where drug abusers can use clean needles and inject with some supervision. It works. Local stores have accepted it, the police like it, and it gets the abusers into 'the system', opening the possibility of their getting cleaned up. There's no evidence the site has encouraged drug abuse, or caused any more problems locally......
But the religious world-view won't allow such practical compromises. The junkies just shouldn't do it. That's that. There are too many arbitrary absolutes in religion for it to work as a political agenda. The only absolutes in politics should be those set out (however vaguely) in the constitution.
Am I missing something? What on Earth has drug use or drug addiction to do with religion ? Confused
Is there some biblical injunction which these "religious " people invoke? What of other religions? Or do they feel that their interpretation of whatever they think the bible or Jesus himself teaches binds all faiths and every faith?
11-13-06, 04:57 PM juanruiz
quote: I wish Canada luck.
I remember seeing a documentary on the CBC a few years ago which chronicled the development of a far-right Christian movement in AB and SK which was in close contact with a brother movement in Montana and Idaho.
01-31-07, 02:18 PM doñadiana What an odious, hate-mongering article. And judging by the comments of readers, it stirred up a number of radical atheists who are just looking for an excuse to do violence to all theists and especially Christians.
DD
02-01-07, 09:55 AM newnickname To be honest, I can't bring myself to do more than skim through the comments (they lack the polished wit and enlightened give-and-take we're used to here at Answerpool Smile); which comments made you think 'radical atheists' are looking for an excuse to do violence to Christians?
02-01-07, 10:49 AM babthrower I read the whole article (choke!) and the odious hatemongering seemed to originate from the founders of the American republic, well over two hundred years ago. Examples:
quote: Thomas Jefferson (American Statesman, 1743-1826)
“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & in-grafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many countries & even in some of these United States. Even in 1783, we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were effectual.”
“But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.” Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810
“An amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that [the preamble] should read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.”
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes.”
“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.”
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity.”
Were the Pope, or his allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith.
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
...I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”
The American republic was the first nation in recorded history to establish a viable democracy free of a totalitarian union of church and state; and the recent European history (before the American revolution) was a hideous mess of RELIGION-BASED, RELIGION-JUSTIFIED war and torture that had continued since the 4th century.
Let's face it. We don't have the Christian Right saying "Let's make America a Christian nation, where Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses and non-denominational Christians can all worship in peace and freedom." What they really want is to establish the hegemony of the Christian Right.
02-01-07, 12:57 PM doñadiana
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: To be honest, I can't bring myself to do more than skim through the comments (they lack the polished wit and enlightened give-and-take we're used to here at Answerpool Smile); which comments made you think 'radical atheists' are looking for an excuse to do violence to Christians?
Then there is offensive speech, another significant element of Christian speech, which although it may not be a crime or a tort, and may in fact be protected speech, may, nevertheless, subject the speaker to thereafter have to do his speaking through a hole in his mouth about the size of the offended listener’s fist.
Doug (50472), that’s b***s***! Christians have already taken innocent lives here. What about abortion clinic bombings? What about violence against homosexuals? What about the daily violence against women and children, all sanctioned by their holy writ? For that matter, how many of them justified the Iraq war in their own minds as bringing Christianity to the Middle East?
Christian fundamentalists are perhaps marginally better-behaved than Islamic fundamentalists, but both groups are full of violent nutters.
You seem to forget that for more than 350 years good christians in the south murdered tens of thousands of african slaves (men,women, and children) in the name of god, christ, and profits. And when slavery was abolished these same good christians created jim crow laws and enforced those laws with more than 5000 lynchings of men, women, and children. Finally, it is these same good christians in the south that form the backbone of the growing christian facist movement crawling through dark recesses of the American body politic. A long dark history of American christianity which you seemed to have forgoten
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the like have been getting heavy criticism for their take no prisoners approach in condemning many religious institutions and their message. Dawkins even considers pounding the message of Christ’s love into a youngster’s head, while warning that He’ll get you if you don’t do EXACTLY what He says, is a form of child abuse.
We The People are going to have to save our own game, as they say of baseball pitchers. And we don’t have much time.
These god damned idiots kneel and pray but god doesn’t give a damn. If there is a god, god must be sick and tired of hearing billion prayers a day from some crackheads. (Moslem?)
These bunch and lots of so called christians are nothing but waste of natural resources.
I knew I was viewing pure total fascism and pure total evil. He had a smug, self-satisfied smile on his fat face as he spewed this hatred in the guise of love. I wondered who this fascist bastard was--.
After 2,000 years of failed “Christian Nations” you’d think humanity would learn--Christian nations are nations of fascists and murderers. Only when the Christianity is expelled from government and confined to churches and homes can it be a force for good.
People who beleive in fairy tales are dangerous whether moderate or fundamentalists.
Religion is holding us back and may just destroy us all.
“The irrational belief in God is at the heart of this matter and it should be the goal of all rational people to expunge it from our world.”
Religion is the worst thing ever created by people. We all suffer from its continued existence.
. Religion, in fact, is a virus that kills (I can give examples) and the sworn enemy of human knowledge—and should be treated as such by those whjo want to save this democracy for their children.
I used to feel a little guilty telling the Seventh Day and Latter Day Saints canvassers that I wasn’t interested and sending them away from my door. Now I relish their visits so I can damn well run them off my property with threats of personal harm should they ever return!
Religion is the studpidest, most destructive idea ever conceived by the human mind.
“Christian Fascist Movement”
The battle is being lost, in large part because no one wants to think of Christianity as dangerous
Even more horrorifing is the knowledge that if this enterprise succeeds, if they are allowed to reach their objective of total power, they will have the nuclear arsenal at their disposition to intimidate the rest of the world.
Christian fascists are a great threat to the USA.
christo-crypto-fascists
These people must be stopped.
02-02-07, 09:40 AM newnickname OK, so 'Doug' is himself an offensive blowhard, he lumps all Christians together, and he shouldn't be threatening personal harm to anybody. There's always going to be at least one intemperate fool on a web-page open for comments. That's not really representative of the article or the other comments, though, is it? Most of them (now that I've had to go and read them) seem to be a lot more reasonable. Is the "number of radical atheists" you mention just one?
The article itself is clearly talking about one "ominous mutation of traditional Christianity", not Christians in general.
02-02-07, 11:06 AM doñadiana
quote: Is the "number of radical atheists" you mention just one?
Well, maybe Doug and Rae, the one who can't wait for the Seventh Day Adventists and LDS to show up at her door so she can run them off and threaten them with violence if they return. Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
'...The worldwide Christian opposition seems to me the most neglected story related to the religious debate about Iraq: Despite approval for the president's decision to go to war by 87 percent of white evangelicals in April 2003, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts poll, almost every Christian leader in the world (and almost every nonevangelical leader in the United States) voiced opposition to the war.
In their enthusiastic support of the White House's decision to invade Iraq, evangelicals in the United States practiced an ecumenical isolationism that mirrored the prevailing political trend. Rush Limbaugh may have pleased his "dittoheads" in mocking the dissenting pastors, archbishops, bishops, and church leaders who stuck their noses into our nation's foreign policy, but the people in the United States who call themselves Christian must organize their priorities and values on a different standard than partisan loyalty.
These past six years have been transformative in the religious history of the United States. It is arguably the passing of the evangelical moment - if not the end of evangelicalism's cultural and political relevance, then certainly the loss of its theological credibility...'God and Country
The "Religious Right" is probably the most misunderstood voting block. Yet it is quite simple to understand. Why are they so powerful??? Because they will go out and vote.
The mistake many analysts make is trying to lock them in as following one leader, one party. Contrary to what many believe, while many of the Religious Right are Republican, there are many Democrats as well. And while many of the Religious Right may listen to what Rev. James Dobson has to say, that doesn't mean they are following his recommendations. And many do not.
When trying to predict how any type of voting block will swing, might as well be weather forecasting. Because it can turn out quite mixed.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
And who would have voted for Jesus? 1) not in the mainstream of thought.Opposed by established parties. 2) demographic probably of young men (though can get the vote of cured lunatics,cured lepers and those brought out of coma) as judged from fact that all close associates are men 3) inspiring speaker,can draw a crowd of five thousand (and provides instant catering for them all) 4) no experience of foreign policy, and shows definite and dangerous signs of accommodating enemies. At its highest this can be spun as 'soft power' at worst pacifism gone mad 5) known to associate with or meet undesirables (lepers, lunatics, adulteress et al) 6) has never married 7) acts as though he's been sent by God
AnswerPool.com 
