BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..

Subject: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:24 PM

A friend sent me this article to read

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15261


It's a long article, but I found it worth the time. Whether the writer has his own agenda or not, I've also read a lot of this at different sites as well, so I don't think he is way off the mark.

I reserve my own comments until I see if some of you care to make any. I just thought it was a article worth bringing to your attention..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:43 PM

The writer certainly has a right to express his opinion. I don't believe, however, his opinion bears any more weight than anyone here on the Mudcat. He lost me when he equates Christianity to Fascism.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:56 PM

Good read, Ellen; thanks. I think he is a little loose on the swing, but not pursuing a private agenda; merely a genuine concern and fear for the future.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:57 PM

He has the right to express his opinion, but he does not have the right to be taken seriously. In the words of the great prophet Isaiah, "utter tripe old chap"

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 01:04 PM

I'm in too good a mood to respond fully to this tripe. There are so many factual errors and so many gross mis-representations in this, I find hard to believe anyone takes it seriously. If I need to, I'll be happy to puncture them one by one, but it's so obvious a hatchet job, I don't know why I should bother. I will say this.

Any serious attempt to compare what's happening in the US to Fascism is so ill-informed and so demeaning to the victims of the Nazi war machine and death camps is beneath contempt. Don't use these words loosely or later generations won't be able to comprehend the real horrors the world is capable of and might not be prepared to oppose them as a result.

Comparing the Christian community in the US, people who as a whole have political views as far left and right as any other community, to Fascist is at best simple minded and worst mass character assasination. Some Christians may be pushing a social agenda, but damn it, so is everyone else.

If you don't like what a politician says or stands for, don't vote for him. We're no where near what this malignant crap claims.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Frankham
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 01:11 PM

Couldn't get the article. But the equation of Christianity and Facism depends upon which version of Christianity.

The idea of the Right-Wing Fundamemntalist brand (Pat Roberson and Ralph Reed) is more fanatic and cultish than facist in the sense of Hitler. This brand of religion, if you can really call it that is inhumane in that it calls for the destruction of non-believers at the appointed time of "Rapture", a peculiar name to describe this heinous slaughter.

In this way, it resembles the fanaticism of other branches of religions and some upon which Bush and company have declared war.

There is an irony here.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 01:24 PM

"This brand of religion, if you can really call it that is inhumane in that it calls for the destruction of non-believers at the appointed time of "Rapture", a peculiar name to describe this heinous slaughter."

Frankham, I probably shouldn't speak for those Christains as I'm not one of them, but I can point out that nothing in their doctrine says that they are will responsible for what happens in their version of the end times, nor that should they conduct or be any part of any slaughter. That alone is a radical departure from what you describe.

Those events all happens supernaturally much as the Plagues of Israel did for much the same reason. These Christians believe that their job is to help people try to avoid being on the wrong side of that battle. And, of course, it's not related directly to the Rapture which either preceeds, follows or occurs in the middle of the appocalytic events you refer to (people differ in the timing). And, of course, some don't think there will a Rapture at all. They're not a very homogenous group, BTW, no matter how people try to set "them" apart.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 01:30 PM

An excerpt:

"...That dream died in December 2000 when the checks and balances of our Constitution collapsed and George Bush was inserted into the Presidency of the United States. September 11, 2001 furthered the atrophying of democracy handing the country into the hands of an emerging Corporate (and I say Christian) Fascism.

Fascism meaning the collapse of diverse spheres of power into one. Since that time we have witnessed, and have been unable to prevent, the emergence of an Imperial Presidency that has the unrestricted power to declare war against any country it chooses. The Imperial Presidency has brought to end the Constitutional mandate that 'ONLY CONGRESS' has the authority to declare war. It has furthered weakened international law and undermined the potential of the United Nations to spread democracy throughout the earth.

The Imperial Presidency has also gained unrestricted potential to round up American citizens incarcerating them in military brigs or concentration camps for unlimited amounts of time. The presidency can keep the accused from ever again communicating with friends, families, and attorneys, simply on the certification that the incarcerated are "terrorists," as he has done with Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi. The Presidency may also now kill American citizens abroad solely on the basis of naming the one killed "a terrorist". Just ask the family and friends of Ahmed Hijazi, anAmerican killed with a U.S.-fired missile in Yemen. This nullifies the Constitutional right: "no person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law."

---

The nullification of civil protections in the nation is a serious problem, taken entirely too lightly by the current ruler -- a man, for example, who sees nothing wrong with using the United States Consitution to protect unilateral moral decrees by making them into amendments (the marriage flap).

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

I read most of the article, but any author who can put the words "fascist" and "imperial" together has lost me. Mr. (Reverend) Lang certainly has a right to express his opinion, but I really wish he could have done so without inventing his own definition for terms and throwing them together only to magnify their negative connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:11 PM

"Plagues of Israel"

I meant the Plagues of Eygpt, of course. Brain fart.

"The Imperial Presidency has brought to end the Constitutional mandate that 'ONLY CONGRESS' has the authority to declare war. It has furthered weakened international law and undermined the potential of the United Nations to spread democracy throughout the earth."

Amos, you quote a passage I have real real problems reconciling with the facts. Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, but nearly every President has sent troops into combat with Congressional approval.    Last I heard one of the candidates running for President was having trouble articulating exactly why he voted to for the war in Iraq.

For that matter the last President who sent troops into combat without consulting Congress do so after the UN refused to support the action.

Read what Ramsey Clark, attorney general under LBJ, had to say about Clinton's use of force in the Balkins when the UN was deadlocked over what to do:

"CIA and Pentagon involvement in the civil war in the Balkans has positioned the U.S. militarily in a strategic region. At the same time it has frayed the developing unity among its European imperialist rivals. These U.S. rivals bear the increasing burden of hundreds of thousands of destitute refugees, thousands of ground troops in position and the bitter acrimony of competing interests.

"What appears to be a bureaucratic dispute between NATO and UN officials is in reality a struggle between the imperialist ruling class of the U.S. and its European rivals...

"Washington's November 1994 decision to unilaterally end support for the UN Security Council arms embargo was the most open statement to date that it would pursue its own agenda in Bosnia at the expense of the Europeans. This decision is also at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of uprooted and displaced people caught in the crossfire."

To quote from an article on the War Powers Act and Clinton's decision to use force in the Balkins on the University of Califorina website:

"Immediately after taking office, Clinton had pledged 20,000 U.S. peacekeepers as part of a multilateral force to be deployed in Bosnia. House Republican leaders lost a vote to repeal the War Powers Resolution because some defectors wanted to retain the 1973 law as a check on Clinton's ability to keep that promise...

"In foreign as well as domestic policy, legislators practiced a 'credit claiming' and 'blame avoiding' strategy. Neither Congress nor the courts would be likely to enforce the War Powers Resolution to check a Presidential order for U.S. air strikes on Yugoslavia. According to John Hart Ely: 'a tacit deal has existed between the executive and legislative branches . . . that the president will take the responsibility (well, most of it) so long as he can make the decisions, and Congress will forego actual policy-making authority so long as it doesn't have to be held accountable (and can scold the president when things go wrong).'"

At best these accusations against Bush are a bit hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:21 PM

THe writer would have us believe GWB singlehandedly invaded Iraq without the express approval of the Congress. He is dead wrong.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Deckman
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:23 PM

SHEEEEUH!!!! I just printed it out. TWENTY EIGHT PAGES! I'm going to take this into the bathroom, sit down, and read it. If you don't hear from me again, it will all be your fault. (it's NOT fair that you ask me to think at my age) Bob

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:04 PM

Couldn't find the article, but this summer in Canada I spent an evening "debating" with two fundamentalist Christian ministers out to convert Sikhs.
When the evening finished I said to my wife; "Now I know what it must have been like to argue with two Brownshirts in Germany in the 1930's"

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:52 PM

My exact sentiments, harvey.

America has become like some scarey movie where the aliens have taken off about 10% of the people and replaced tham with folks that look just like the ones they took off, 'cept the replacements are steeped to the gills in dogmatism and intolerance.

I saw it coming in the 60's when the church I grew up in split down the middle over Vietnam. Unfortunately, the folks who held the churches were the pro-war folks so many Christains just fled. It was a terrible thing to witness. My family got caught up in in and, my father an elder in the church, and my mother a peace activist, quit the church. My story isn't that different from millions of others who no longer felt comfortable around these so-called Christains...

I am still very leary of many folks who profess to be Christain until I find out if they are one of the aliens or real Christains.

BTW, I consider myself to be one of the real Christains, or follower of Christ. I believe in tolerance, and love, and forgiveness, and of salvation.

But I am very concerned about these *brownshirt* Christians......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 08:33 PM

Progressive Christians (those weird people who have the peculiar notion that what Jesus said should actually have something to do with Christianity) turn a pretty jaundiced eye on the bellowing bunch of fundamentalists who arrogate to themselves the right to speak for all Christians. They bloody-well don't!

I highly recommend two articles that appeared in September-October issue of Sojourners Magazine (dig the cover!). The recommended articles are the two top links on this web page, "Dangerous Religion" and "The Project for the New American Empire."

As far as the Battle of Armageddon is concerned, I am reminded of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which a renegade Klingon is trying to talk Lt. Worf into deserting from Star Fleet, helping him commandeer the Enterprise, and joining him in gloriously battling his way through the galaxy. Worf replies, "You look for battles in the all the wrong places! The true battle is within yourself!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 09:20 PM

Darned good article, Don. I'd challenge anyone from the Christain Right to read it.... But they won't... Might mess up their neat little intolerant wiring...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 10:27 PM

I've known people like those described in the article in your opening post, Ellenpoly. Scary, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 08:34 AM

Yes, Don, those two articles are much in the vein of what I've been reading all along. A man with a mission, (as in missionary), but with the kind of political and economic power behind him that we might not have seen since the Crusades.

I don't know how far it goes, but yes, Carol, I'm scared enough to read all that I can and try to keep up, if I can't keep ahead, of what's going on around us.

Let's face it, Strick, fascism in Germany started out slowly and built into something that no one had even dreamed possible in a "Civilized" world. Is it to our advantage to ever be either ignorant or naive again about what is possible with powerful people convinced that they are being divinely guided? (Gee, it almost make you long for the good old days when these guys were just GREEDY.)

Oh, yeah, the aliens who look just like us...that's the damn problem, guys..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 10:19 AM

"Let's face it, Strick, fascism in Germany started out slowly and built into something that no one had even dreamed possible in a "Civilized" world."

I don't know about gradual. Hitler's intentions toward the Jews were clear from the beginning. In 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor he was made dictator, outlawed all but the Nazi party, burned books and opened the first concentration camps. Brown shirts, the kind that didn't argue but used clubs, roamed the streets beating people. Kristallnacht and the pogrom that followed were only 4 years after Hitler became full Fuhrer. Take a hard look at any timeline leading up to the start of WWII, not the worldshaking events, but what was happening to innocent people in the streets of Germany and Italy, and tell me, seriously, that you believe any thing like those event are happening now. How long were you expecting this new "fascism" to take to start bearing fruit?

Part of my problem with this is an experience I had a few years ago. I had dinner with an Australian and his wife from Italy and the topic of conversation turned to Ross Perot who was running for President at the time. As it turns out Perot and I have a mutual acquaintance who knows him well enough to say that Perot thinks Reagan was soft on communism and that Perot's personal politics are just to the right of the John Birch Society. Rather boldly I dismissed Perot as a fascist. It wasn't until I saw the look in the eyes of my Italian guest that I realized I probably didn't know what fascism was. I could talk about it, but she had lived with it, seen people beaten, their shops destroyed, bundled off to consentration camps, not just Jews, but anyone who disagreed with the Party. I don't use the term loosely anymore. I sincerely believe you're crying wolf and it will prevent some future generation from seeing the real danger in time.

If you're going to make that kind of accusation, you better cite specifics and don't repeat hyperbolic accusations about the war in Iraq that could just as easily be repeated detail for detail about Clinton in Bosnia or most US Presidents and their little wars since Truman. Don't accuse Bush of being a fundamentalist when he was raised an Episcopalian and is currently a Methodist, two of the most non-fundamentalist Christian denominations in the English speaking world. It either shows how little you understand the people you're talking about or that you're so biased you don't give a damn about the facts.

If you don't like the Christian influence in society, or more truthfully, some part of it, we still have viable elections unlike Germany or Italy in the 30s. Support the party of your choice and vote.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 10:33 AM

Excerpt:
"The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire.

America's foreign policy is more than pre-emptive, it is theologically presumptuous; not only unilateral, but dangerously messianic; not just arrogant, but bordering on the idolatrous and blasphemous. George Bush's personal faith has prompted a profound self-confidence in his "mission" to fight the "axis of evil," his "call" to be commander-in-chief in the war against terrorism, and his definition of America's "responsibility" to "defend the…hopes of all mankind." This is a dangerous mix of bad foreign policy and bad theology.

But the answer to bad theology is not secularism; it is, rather, good theology. "

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 10:35 AM

Ooookkayyy, I'm not going to argue with you, Strick, because it's clear I've pushed some important and highly emotional buttons. But please don't think I am biased against anyone but people who abuse power under any guise, govt, or belief system. You don't know my history, or my family's history involving the Holocaust, but we were't bystanders. And thank you, I will indeed support the party of my choice, for as long as we have choices.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 10:47 AM

Definitions are getting mangled here -- Naziism is not identical with Fascism, and what Italy experienced under Il Duce was more than just fascism. In other words:

NOUN: 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Now, it is true that locking citizens up without bail or trial is not the whole of Fascism, and that threatening to put Christian moral codes into the constititution is not the whole of fascism although it can be said to constitute suppression of the opposition through censorship.

But I think what is being offered here is that the seeds are of the same flavor. When our President starts asserting he has been given a Divine mission he is pushing awful close to the rationalizations used by those Germans who stamped Gott Mit Uns on their helmets, and those Japanese who were sure they were riding a Divine Wind. (Another excellent reason to keep religous matters out of political ones).

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM

"The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire."

Yes, Amos, but put the quotes they use to "prove" this about Bush up against any speech by Lincoln, FDR or Churchill immediately after a major crisis. The language is nearly identical. With a reason. That's how leaders are supposed to sound at times like that. If he didn't sound confident, he'd be as useless as a leader as Carter was (great ex-President though he is).

Bush's "nationalist religion" doesn't even compare to the jingoism of Presidents past whose wars were not "pre-emptive" only because of the flimsiest of pretexts. The religious tint is limited to some figures of speech and something so outrageous as proposing that some social services might be funded through charities that have religious connections. There are two social issues where some claim his position is relgiously based, but there his own denomination is evenly divided on the issues, as is the rest of the nation. The case for this argument just doesn't hold up.

Ellenpoly, no I don't know your history. Whatever it is, you don't have the right to tar 70% of the population with tripe no more substantial than this.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:08 AM

NOUN: 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Amos, the US, even the Republicans, doesn't qualify under single point of this definition and you know it. It's as valid as declaring Kerry a Stalinist because he's officially the most liberal member of the US Sentate. Blatant character assasination either way.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:09 AM

Strick, what on EARTH are you going ON about??? I didn't write the damn article, I just brought it to people's attention!! Get a grip here bucko.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:29 AM

Check out my Americana village :D
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/limbaughland.jpg


If you could go to a power prayer breakfast that start the day for many Republicans in Congress you might see a 4th Reichian ceremony or a fundamentalist religion directing affairs of state or
hypocrits that are delighted to get a few more dollars for their jurisdiction no matter what the cost in suffering, poisonings and death to the "unimportant" residents.

If you see something good and rightious, you are already lost.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:33 AM

"It's a long article, but I found it worth the time. Whether the writer has his own agenda or not, I've also read a lot of this at different sites as well, so I don't think he is way off the mark."

This isn't an endorsement of the main point of the article?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:38 AM

Donuel, you might have a point there. But when I see the richest man in the Senate, educated in private schools in Switzerland and wearing a suit of clothes that cost more than a years tuition at my local state university standing before a union and going on about the plight of the working man so he can take their money, I sort begin to think that there's enough hypocracy to go around.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:52 AM

No, it's saying that I have seen this stuff before, and I'm thinking there might be some truth in it, but that I was hoping others would offer comments and other articles, which they have done. I did NOT expect to be attacked for starting this thread, and did not expect such vitriol coming directly my way, as it was only meant to open up a discussion. I'm not at all sure of ANYTHING here, and am only looking for more information. If you read the two articles that Don Firth added, you'll see what I was hoping to learn. I never mind finding out that I'm wrong, but I do mind how you chose to direct your thoughts to me. I hoped this could be a forum for exchange, not a battle ground. No one else is taking this kind of tone, so I'd ask you to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 12:01 PM

I have not directed anything at you, only the content of this article. My opinion of it is clear enough. I've done little more that react to misinformation anyone could see in a quick scan of the article and react to its grossly unjust conclusion.

Forgive me if that opinion sometimes seemed to spread to the person that referenced it and seemed to support its conclusions. I'm afraid I don't have much respect for people who considers this kind of content (politically biased, mis-representative and factually wrong) legitimate evidence to support a case for anything, whatever side they're on.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 12:07 PM

I will live with your lack of respect for someone who you don't know and did nothing but try to find some answers to a lot of questions. But I will say that I think you undercut your own opinions by how you chose to present them.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 12:22 PM

Respect given or otherwise can be earned based on the evidence given. This article is two notches above what you can find on the internet related to Elvis and the Space Aliens. If I was mislead in thinking that you agreed with its views or the flawed argument it presents, again, I apologize.

At the risk of turning this into a dialogue between us, what exactly were your questions?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 01:11 PM

gee, Strick...I didn't know being rich automatically made your mind biased and your politics suspect!
Kerry is saying many of the right things, and has other items beside wealth in his portfolio. John Kennedy was rich, and he managed to care reasonably about the plight of the common man and the labor unions.

I see no particular virtue in exaggerating and highlighting Kerry's possible weaknesses right now, when we need to defeat Bush! Should we 'keep an eye' on Kerry if he is elected? Sure...

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 01:23 PM

It's OK, Bill D, I was contrasting and comparing examples, not making a political statement. You can see the potential for irony, though, I presume?

By your own reasoning, I didn't know being a Christian (and a member of a mainline Protestant denomination, the same one as Hillary Clinton at that) automatically made your mind baised and your politics suspect either.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 02:38 PM

Rev. Lang's article is spot on. If you can't see the signs yourself, consider it an early warning.

Granted, Naziism under Hitler came on rather quickly, but Hitler had a model to work from (although from Hitler's assuming power in 1933 to Kristallhacht, which occurred in 1938, is five years—not all that quick). There were indeed people in Germany who were aware of what Hitler intended and tried to sound a warning, but too many others didn't take any of it seriously. (Hello!!) If one wishes to argue these points, in the spirit of thinking that it's a good idea to know what one is talking about, one would do well to read up a bit on how Naziism developed in Germany HERE. Hitler's model was Benito Mussolini, and as you will note, in Italy, Fascism took a bit longer to establish.

Mussolini adopted the fasces as both the symbol and the basis for the word "Fascism." The fasces is a bundle of sticks tied around an axe. As Mussolini described it, the sticks represent the corporations and the axe represents the power of government. The two act as one.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"
                                                                                                                                 —Benito Mussolini

And who should know better that the man who invented it?

Three points:

1) Consider the implications of religion, particularly a religion that feels it has both the duty and the right to force its beliefs upon others, joining those sticks surrounding the axe. When religions of this nature are backed by secular power, or when the lines between such religions and government become blurred . . . well, history is full of examples (here's one and here's another) of what can happen. The fact that Bush wants to legislate morals by passing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage is a clear symptom of this kind of thinking;

2) You don't have to wear a uniform to be a Fascist. A dark suit with a red "power tie" will do just as well; and

3) By the time it's obvious to a large enough percentage of a country's citizenry that the government has morphed into Fascism, it will be too late. The best time to put out a fire is when you first smell smoke and see the first flames, not when the house is fully engulfed.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 03:04 PM

"Mussolini adopted the fasces as both the symbol and the basis for the word "Fascism." The fasces is a bundle of sticks tied around an axe. As Mussolini described it, the sticks represent the corporations and the axe represents the power of government. The two act as one.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"
                                                                                                                         —Benito Mussolini"

So you see the Democratic Party descending into Fascism, too, since the corporations call the shots regardless of who's in power? Clinton, Gore and Kerry didn't taking outrageous political contributions from corporations (including the ones Kerry openly criticizes) and Clinton didn't fail to act against the corporate fraud that took place in the late 90s? You're against the whole American political system since in this matter, there's not a hair's difference between them?

And, above all, you have no compunction about calling something on the order of 50-60% of Americans Fascists on what amounts to little more than some vague analogies and your opinion? What you describe are not just fundamentalists, but Catholics and most of the mainline Protestants as well.

You see no difference between recent events in the US and what happened after Hitler came to power over roughly the same span of time:

1933
Jan. 30 Hitler appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg
Feb. 27 German Reichstag burns down; communists blamed, arrested.
Mar. 23 Enabling Act passed by Reichstag; Hitler assumes dictatorial power
July 14 Nazi party declared official party of Germany; all other parties banned
Oct. 14 Germany quits League of Nations

1934
June 30 Hitler orders murder of SA Chief Ernst Roehm in "Night of the Long Knives"
Aug. 19 Hitler combines the offices of president and chancellor; assumes the title of Führer

1935
Mar. 16 Military conscription introduced in Germany in violation of Versailles treaty
Sept. 15 Nuremberg race laws promulgated

Even if the article were free of factual errors and blatant misrepresentations, I find it hard to believe you really believe that Bush has declared dictatorial powers, outlawed the Democrats, Greens and Libertarians and passed laws disenfranchising part of the population and revoking their citizenship. Favoring civil unions over gay marriage is in no way the same thing as the Nuremberg race laws, no matter how you try to stretch it.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 03:18 PM

Just to add a bit to 1933:

Feb 4: free press restricted, right to assemble restricted
Feb 11: SA gets police status
Feb 28: Most civil right guaranteed by the constitution eliminated
April 7: Non Aryan disallowed as civil servants
Oct 4: All non Aryans and 'unreliable elements' forbidden to have any job in press and publication

The comparison betrays a complete lack of historical knowledge in my eyes and no sense of proportion.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM

Wolfgang:

I accept your remarks about proportion. I think, nevertheless, that it is fair to say that Bush's machine has moved our country further in the direction of fascism than it has been at any time in the past. Civil rights previously accepted as provided by the consitution have been reduced; Congress has been bullyragged into accepting the delegation of war powers; the nation has stood away from the UN and assumed the right of preemptive declaration of war; the nation has UNILATERALLY determioned a casus belli exiostend and proceeded to ,aunch an invasion on the strength of it, causing the deaths of 10s of thousands of humans on both sides; and a movement was begun by the President to use the national Constitution to enforce religous principles on no better grounds.

Of COURSE these are not identiical to events in Germany in 1933-35; but there's a smell of arbitrary, dictatorial, even Messianic authoritarianism in the air around Washington, and I don't like it. Perhaps the use of the word Fascism is hyperbolic. Perhaps Cheny's claims of imminent threat were, also.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM

"Congress has been bullyragged into accepting the delegation of war powers; the nation has stood away from the UN and assumed the right of preemptive declaration of war; the nation has UNILATERALLY determioned a casus belli exiostend and proceeded to ,aunch an invasion on the strength of it, causing the deaths of 10s of thousands of humans on both sides"

Yes, Amos, but as you'll see if you look back at my third post, all that (short of invasion -- it only matters when we kill innocent civilian on the ground, not from the air?) happened in 1994, too. Where were your concerns then? Why is this only now an issue? How has this administration gone further than where the last had already gone?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 04:13 PM

Fascism is, at its base, essentially an economic system. It is clear to anyone who knows anything at all about history or economics (and, for what little its worth, I have degrees in both) that the Bush administration is not at all fascist. While he clearly intends to make life as easy as possible for big business, there is no indication in his policies that he or his cohorts have any interest at all in centralized control of business or industry, a key point of the fascist economic system. Nor is he a Nazi (and, as someone else noted, fascism and Nazism are not the same thing), since "racial purity" was at the heart of the Nazi system and I think I have heard Bush called just about everything else but a racist.

BTW, President Hindenberg had no real choice other than to make Hitler Chancellor and give him an opportunity to form a government. The Nazi party, in the last free elections before the takeover (November, 1932), won the largest number of seats in the Reichtag...196 to the Social Democrat's 121. The results would have been very different if the Communists (100 seats) hadn't had orders from the Commintern not to form a coalition with the Socialists.

It is unnecessary to exhume boogiemen from the past in order to find a lable for Bush and the Bush presidency. What he is is bad for the country and bad for the American people, and he needs to be gone.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 04:14 PM

Amos,

I don't know about all the details that may have changed in the USA, but I can say I personally have felt much more threatened by American politics under president Reagan.

That doesn't mean I find present US politics good. Internationally, they are dangerous in the long run, disregarding truth and international institutions, and the most dangerous, setting a bad precedent by preventing a group of people having a right to trial and lawyers. I have supported the politics up to Afghanistan which I still consider a necessary response. Iraq was when they went astray.

For interior politics, I don't know enough, but the fact that you can vote your government out of power very soon is one of the 'minor' things different in comparison with fascism. It's only nine more months, isn't it?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 04:30 PM

And who controls congress?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 04:39 PM

"And who controls congress?"

A rhetorical question? Is that control certain beyond the next election? Do you really think they wouldn't walk quietly out the door if the election went against them? Well, not quietly, that's too much to expect of any politician, but at least without hesitation?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 04:57 PM

Who controls Congress? Members of Congress get money from various interest groups (and anybody who thinks that doesn't effect how they vote is plain nuts), but that doesn't constitute control. In the final analysis, the voter controls Congress . It is unfortunate that not all voters are fully informed or think about the ramifications of what they are doing, but that's something that will never be cured. Vote! Get registered, and then vote! I read this morning that some 35% of eligible voters in the US are not registered. I guess that this uninterested, uninvolved or disgusted 35% are the ones who really control Congress. I have to think that those who fail to vote really forfeit their right to complain about the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 05:43 PM

Nicely framed throughout, Strick. Don't sweat the overreaction here. I'm reading the gentleman you are, not the boor you are being irrationally painted.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 05:43 PM

Strick, you're being a bit hysterical. You're attributing things to me that I never said and then attacking me on that basis. That's the tactic of someone who doesn't have much of an argument. I stand by what I said, not by what you said I said.

I, for one (although I know there are people here who would disagree with me), believe that there is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Not much, perhaps, but the Democrats at least pay lip-service to progressive ideas, and their somewhat plastic nature (people keep accusing them of being "wishy-washy," but that's not necessarily a bad thing) makes them easier for citizens to influence. The Republicans have an agenda that's pretty much cast in stone. They don't listen to much of anybody but each other. Lockstep. And the Democrats are not in bed with the right-wing fundamentalist churches the way the Republicans are. If there's no difference between the two parties, then we may as well throw in the towel, because one of the two of them is going to be in. I, however, am not ready to give up yet.

And where do you get your percentages and how did you come by the notion that I'm calling American Christians, or a big percentage of them, "fascists?" I belong to a main-line church myself. Rev. Lang is a minister in another main-line church. Just because the right-wing fundies are louder, claim to speak for all Christians, and get more press, doesn't mean that they are in the majority. Haven't you ever heard of the National Council of Churches? Thirty-six different denominations and 140,000 different congregations. Considering that these congregations range from a few dozen to several thousand people each, that counts up to a lot of people. Check their web site and get a clue as to their viewpoint. There is the majority of American Christians, and there're getting a little fed up with the fundies claiming to speak for all Christians and with Bush implying that he has a mandate from the Almighty.

And as far as treading the road toward fascism, of course there are differences between the way we are headed and the way Germany went. You don't have to follow exactly the same route to get to the same destination. History never repeats exactly, and to insist that it has to or a predicted outcome won't occur is to have your head in the sand and your butt highly vulnerable.

And another thing: not all flavors of fascism are the same. There were substantial differences between Naziism (which was a specific variation of fascism) and Italian Fascism. Just because someone is not wearing a swastika armband doesn't mean he isn't a fascist. And just because someone doesn't consider himself to be a fascist doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't one!

Don Firth.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:02 PM

Strick,
You're not being hysterical. It always just percieved that way when you counter the orthodoxy here.

Keep it funky, man.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:31 PM

I do know plenty of people who claim that Clinton was actually to the right of where Bush during his administration and others who claim that Clinton was a Republican in disguise. As far as I can see the only difference between the two parties is which specific special interests they consider in their base. They take roughly equal money from corporations each election. If that's the only basis for a claim of Fascism, they're both guilty.

"Rev. Lang is a minister in another main-line church. Just because the right-wing fundies are louder, claim to speak for all Christians, and get more press, doesn't mean that they are in the majority."

Rev. Lang is a member of the same denomination as Bush and I are, but on the extreme left wing of it. His article is factually wrong in a number of cases and mixes apples and oranges to damn Bush with criticisms that might be just but have nothing to do with Bush. For example Lang writes: "First and most basic is that Dominion Theology wants to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern according to a very literal and peculiar interpretation of Biblical law." The problem is, there's no trace of this theology in anything Bush has done or said. Bush is no more a fundamentalist than Lang is, nor despite the Reverend's claims, has Bush ever claimed to speak for all Christians. As I've posted in the past, none of Bush's public pronouncements have waivers the slightest bit from any our mutual denomination's core doctrine or social principles, the ones Rev. Lang has sworn to uphold. I have them in writing here in front of me. Lang has a political agenda and is not speaking for our church. If he's calling Bush a Christian Fascist, he's calling all of us in the center of Christianity Fascists.

"And as far as treading the road toward fascism, of course there are differences between the way we are headed and the way Germany went...

Yes, but just because politics in the US have taken a temporary swerved to the right doesn't mean that what you see will lead to Fascism. It certainly sure doesn't support the claim today. Making the claim is pure demogogary.

"And just because someone doesn't consider himself to be a fascist doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't one!"

Neither does calling someone a Fascist make him one, especially on such flimsy pretexts.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:38 PM

Strick:

es, Amos, but as you'll see if you look back at my third post, all that (short of invasion -- it only matters when we kill innocent civilian on the ground, not from the air?) happened in 1994, too. Where were your concerns then? Why is this only now an issue? How has this administration gone further than where the last had already gone?


         

I too see you as a gentleman, sir; and although you are one who disagrees with me, that doesn't make you less of one. In answer to your question, in 1994, policy was being set by an elected President. A large difference in my view.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:45 PM

Actually this has driven me to near hysterics. This Lang claims the Republicans are going to reinstate the witch burning laws and reintroduce the gold standard! My God, not even a Fascist is stupid enough to reintroduce the gold standard, not after Churchill tried it in England the 30s. Where did he get this crap and how can he dare attribute it to the people he does?

I'm convinced Lang's still pissed off that he and a Methodist Bishop didn't get any media coverage they wanted when they were protesting the Iraq war. Every time they got near a microphone, Al Sharpton or someone more colorful would turn up and they'd be left in the lurch. It was funny. Heard them complaining about it on NPR last year.