BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..

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

Having read this thread, I think the main problem is that Strick needs to learn three little initials to add to his posts. They are: IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:49 PM

Strick, did you read the two Sojourner Magazine articles I linked to?

I didn't think so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:55 PM

"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."

Ah, so you have no objections to the Iraq war and do not believe it puts us on the "Road To Fascism", you only object that the Supreme Court intervened in the Florida election to determine who was the legal elected President ( ;)written less snidely than tongue-in-check, BTW.)? Otherwise the circumstances between these two wars are identical in every respect, right down to awarding the same corporations huge non-compete contracts.

I am overposting, I realize. I'll back away at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:00 PM

"Having read this thread, I think the main problem is that Strick needs to learn three little initials to add to his posts. They are: IMO."

Oh my god. What mudcat do you read?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM

"Strick, did you read the two Sojourner Magazine articles I linked to?"

Yes, when it first came out. I was amused that it considers what Bush says too secular (though with religious overtones) and mistaken in the message of the Gospel while the article leading this considers Bush too religious and inaccurately a fundamentalist. Then it does essentially the same thing and misrepresents the intent of Matthew's plank-in-your-eye passage by applying it to nations and makes a lot of assumptions about what the administration's motivations that are at best conjecture. The only thing I could see they have in common is that they both have religious themes and don't like Bush. They're quite the opposite otherwise.

On the whole the Sojourner article was more rational, of course, and not given to offensive labels. What were you thinking?

IMHO (doing pdc one better, no doubt out of pride)

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:45 PM

Don, your first long post here in particular I admire.

I certainly see dangers in Bush (and Blair) and their apparent refusal not only to listen but also to control the terms in which debate is permissible.

I also see similar dangers in many organised religions, although, ironically, most express themselves to be benevolent despite in so many cases having killed many in the names of allegedly religiously justified invasions or offensives.

Bush and Blair seem to concentrate these dangers. They seem to find support for their intransigences in a belief system.

The oddest thing however seems to be the overt Bush christianity but Bush's link with the so-called "neoconservatives", who, in the terms in which they are usually verbally attacked, are hypothesised not to be christian.

This seems to be inconsistent in parts - but Bush and Blair and their belief system certainties seem to echo religious belief system certainties, and both alarm me!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 08:56 PM

If that's the only basis for a claim of Fascism, they're both guilty.

I agree with the 'both guilty' part.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:34 PM

I think the worst will come over the next four years, if Bush gets re-elected. That scenario has a nightmarish quality -- he can cut loose and run with whatever he wants, as he won't have another term at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 07:25 AM

GUEST,pdc - 18 Mar 04 - 11:34 PM

Illogical

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 10:41 AM

Folks, here'a an article that's a little more pertinent to the question of Bush's practice of religion and from reasonably independent source:

Spirituality of President Bush - PBS Religion and Ethics

Here's a brief bio of the minister Bush considers his personal spiritual advisor. You may recognize him; the cameras cut to him a couple of times during the State of the Union. Look hard and tell me he's leading Bush into any form of Fascism. Have a look around his church's website. It might disturb you if you aren't used to the Christian rhetoric, but it's a clear example of the "socially active Methodism" mentioned in the Sojourner article Don posted the link to. This is the kind of social activism Methodists have been practicing for 250 years.

Kirbyjon Caldwell

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 03:27 PM

The gold standard was introduced by Sir Isaac Newton. Nothin' to do with anything.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 04:18 PM

Strick:

While the interplay between pastors, churches and George is interesting it says little about the quality or nature of his spiritual bent, aside from the fact that he says he espouses Christian-vocabulary discussion.

I find this assertion somewhat incompatible with the the fact that he deliberately led the nation in to a unilateral invasion costing twns of thousands of people their lives, including women, children, and non-combatant men. This exercise of violence as a method of leadership leaves me wondering which testament it is that he reads "on a daily basis", and which version of the Christian God it is that he gets his highly "spiritual" messages from.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 04:24 PM

Amos, I think that is because you are so sure you know what "Christians" think, and you are so wrong (for several reasons).

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 04:31 PM

Actually, John, I only know what some of them think, and that what they have told me. But his fondness for the "War President" character leads me to believe he draws his inspiration more from the Odl Testament than the New.   Or, he is a sham. One or the other. But you are right -- I do not know what "Christians" think, and aside from a sketchy sense of vocabulary, I doubt they have any major thoughts in common.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 04:43 PM

I reckon I'd say that Christians have been doing what they do for nearly, or more, 4000 years. I guess I'd agree that it is slow to equate to a real takeover. Interesting proposition though.

I personally think, IMO, that Christians are trying to get folks saved from the fiery place. And the only folks most Christians attempt to work with is those who will listen. Christ's message is to ignore those who will not listen.

As always there are fringe elements in any organization that will take things to an extreme. The hard lefties and righties certainly do not speak for me as a Christian. I can't say that I know what any Christian REALLY believes nor do I have an opinion about that. As a Christian I believe their relationship is between them and God - just as it is between me and my Lord. It's not about what I do right - it's what I do in His name.

I'm probably not being clear about what I'm trying to say but as far as a Christian takover - pretty funny really. But I have enjoyed reading the civil discussion regarding the same. Kudos to all of you for being courteous with it.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 05:29 PM

Comment 1:—
Major Boo-Boo:   When anyone says "Christians think . . . ," you can be sure that whatever follows will be a statement of belief or opinion that may or may not be held by the majority of Christians, but definitely not by all! There is a wide spectrum of beliefs held by those who consider themselves to be Christians. A popular mistake is to try to lump them all into one category. To me, the test of how close someone comes to being what I would consider a real Christian is how closely they follow the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels and conduct their lives in a manner consistent with those teachings. When, in a religious discussion, if a "Christian" spends most of his or her time quoting from Paul's Epistles*, from the Old Testament, and from the Book of Revelation instead of from the Gospels, my eyes start to glaze over.

*There are some "Christians" who could more properly be call "Paulists." They tend to be kind of cranky, hard-nosed, and hung up on other people's "sins."


Comment 2:—
The word "fascist" is highly emotional for almost everyone who hears it. It conjures up images of black uniforms, swastika armbands, marching in goose-step, the sharp knock on the door in the middle of the night, and the specter of dark cells or concentration camps for anyone who dissents—or at the whim of a government official, or because some neighbor has denounced us, or sometimes for no discernable reason at all. It is a term that is extremely and especially offensive when applied to politicians or a political movement with which one agrees. Nevertheless, fascism has some distinct characteristics that are fairly easy to identify if one takes the time to look, and it doesn't necessarily conform to the trappings usually associated with it, such as the uniforms and jackboots.

I do not believe that George W. Bush or anyone else in his administration considers himself or herself to be a fascist. I do not believe that the United States is a fascist country. Yet! I do, however, feel that we are moving in that direction. Benito Mussolini's comment, which I quote above, about the relationship between government and corporations sets the definition of fascism, and to a large extent, in the United States, at the present time, corporations and government are the same people.

This list has been posted before, but I strongly suggest you to read it, observe current events, and judge for yourself:

Here.

Especially relevant to the present discussion regarding religion, I call your attention to characteristic number 8.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 06:49 PM

You know how people who write horoscopes make everyone think they're writing just about them. If they make their comments vague enough and the reader is gullible enough, some people will buy it every time.

OK, Don, let's go through the 14 points one by one. By the way folks, I'm enjoying this, but's turned into an incredibly long post. You really don't have to read it if you don't want to. It's OK, I don't mind.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - This may not be conclusive, but this one seems to be representative of Communism, Socialism, and just about any ism you want to name since the rise of the nation state. Do you really think the US is becoming more Nationalistic compared to the jingoism of the 50s and 60s (not to mention the 1890s) or other eras? Your definition of "powerful" has a much lower threashold than mine.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - You may be right here. The US has suspended habeas corpus and, no, wait, that was the Civil War. Right. Ignoring due process, we interned hundreds of thousands of citizens, wait, no, that was WWII. We have over 600 illegal combatants being held at Gitmo under Marshal Law in accordance with International Law. Not pretty, but not really to the magnitude or character of the items listed as examples in this either. Exactly what human rights violations were you thinking?

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - Ah. Al Qaeda is a scapegoat,they're innocent? I know it's not all of Islam because the few acts of violence against Muslims I've heard of in the last 2-3 years were treated like hate crimes. That's it! The French. ;)

4. Supremacy of the Military - This one escapes me. We respect our military, but they're hardly anything like supreme. You do see the difference between true warrior cults and waving the flag on Veterans Day, don't you?

5. Rampant Sexism - hahahahahahahahaha. Not at my house. Even Texas has a woman Senator (had a woman governor a couple of times). My church has women 2 associate pastors (had 3 but the one you might worry about, the lesbian who hasn't come out yet, got her own church last June). Call me when they kick Hillary out of the Senate because she's a woman.

6. Controlled Mass Media - vain, gullible, mercenary, yes. Controlled to the level of Pravda in the past or the press in Communist China in the present, no. Suppose a report found compelling evidence that Bush really had skipped National Guard duty in Alabama for months at a time. Exactly how long do you think the US government would be able to cover it up? And just try controlling the internet (though the Chinese are getting better at it).

7. Obsession with National Security - "fear as a motivational tool over the masses", that's what it says right?   Secret police watching us everywhere? Children informing on their parents? People disappearing never to be seen in the night? No, I don't think so. I do have to take my shoes off to go through the metal detectors at the airport and sometimes there's this color coded thing on CNN I don't understand, and I got this letter from the IRS, but on the whole, no. Even the Patriot Act still has more safe-guards for civil liberties than some modern European countries provide.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - "In God We Trust" on currency, some bozo trying to put the Ten Commandments in stone in a courthouse (and get it and himself the boot in the process), even proposing a Constitutional Amendment that clarifies the definition of a civil proceeding, none of that meets a definition of "entwined". Is religion a requirement for holding office in the US today? Have members of certain religions been disengranchised or lost their property rights? Are people being feed to the lions for not sacrificing to the Emperor? Not even close. There are still more of us who are religious in one fashion or another than there are who are not, but the tension between church and state hasn't changed much in the last 50 years and the courts are still effective at striking down anything they don't like. I know this is the one you're counting on, but I still disagree.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - "business aristocracy", I like that phrase. So Fascism has something in common with capitalism. Wonder where the dividing line is and how you desern prevent Edwardian England from being considered Fascist, for example.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Absolutely. Does that mean that Kerry has to give back all those Union dues he's taken as political contributions? Wait, maybe it's possible that the decline in labor unions goes back decades, has other, more fundamental causes and isn't related to any current political activities Fascist or otherwise. Naw, I'm sure your right on this one.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Well, no more than usual. Does reality TV count as distain? Where does Britney Spears fall in this? Last I heard there was something I would call distain, but mostly because certain intellectuals and artists value their political opinions higher than those of "common people". Not distain for their intellectual activities or their art, but distain for their opinions which have to face the scrutiny of the public debate like anyone else's.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Has the US's interest in law and order changed that much in the last 30 years? Mandatory sentencing is fine tuning, not an "obsession". What was the defining characteristic? Limitless police power? Not really happening right now, is it? Limitless?

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - You'd have something here if this weren't part of the US system of government since the beginning. We have all those laws because different scandals over the years taught us they were needed. The spoils system, Tammany Hall, Teapot Dome, Chicago even today, they invent new forms of corruption (or stick to the classics), we catch them and send them to jail and it starts all over. This sounds like that corporation thing. Unless you can convince me it's radically different from some period in our history no one would consider "Fascist", I can't really count this one.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Ditto above. Daley stealing the 1960 election for Kennedy, Landslide Lyndon Johnson, Huey Long, this is as American as apple pie.

As I said, you probably could find things that seem like Fascism based on these items if you want to. Oh, look there's a cloud that looks like a bunny!

IMHO, of course. :D

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 07:27 PM

Dr. Britt's analysis is, I think, to be taken a bit more seriously than the daily newspaper horoscope, Strick. But I am no longer trying to convince you, because your mind is made up. I have neither the time nor the interest in attempting to change it.

I posted Dr. Britt's list for the consideration of those who are concerned about what's going on and who are open-minded.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 07:33 PM

oh come on, Don.

You present something that took no work (I didn't realize you were cut and pasting) and got a gentlemanly and comprehensive response, and you blow it off like it was nothing?

I thought you were better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 07:46 PM

You astonish me, Don. I didn't see anything in Dr. Britt's analysis at your link that claimed the US is entering into Fascism, Christian or otherwise. I thought that was your claim. Surely his list was just a general definition of Fascism. Where did Dr. Britt apply these criteria to the US and what evidence did he offer to support any conclusions? Did I get the wrong link? (BTW, I would like to talk to Dr. Britt. I consult in helping companies and government define both quantitative and qualitative measures for different purposes and some of his critiera are too vague or too common in history to be much use.)

My mind's open enough. If it's "closed" to any extent, it's because you haven't offered any evidence that passes a basic "sniff test" to support your case. You can change my mind. All you have to do is offer some rational evidence and a reasonably objective critera if you don't agree with mine. Then we can debate the facts. Fair enough?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 08:56 PM

Don Firth has made the point that we are not nearly a "facist" state yet, but are "moving in that direction"....

Of course G. Bush and cronies, having been raised in the U.S.A with certain values and traditions, do not sound just like Hitler in 1933 or Mussolini in the same era, but their impulses to adopt various of the practices noted in the 14 characteristics above make me wonder how G. Bush would have developed and acted had his family been part of Italy or Germany in the 1930s!

Yeah, it's speculation, but I see trends and explanations and laws and claims and manipulation of the political processes that leave me aghast! The conservatives not only want to *win*, as any political movement does, they want to Gerrymander voters and 'adjust' laws and alter financing and control the courts and pressure voters in 'interesting' ways that they will never, ever LOSE again! They seem to be willing to do as Hitler did, and make the very machinery of the state operate according to THEIR rules.

If all the changes in laws and procedures that are being pushed become standard, my grandchildren may just notice a bit more resemblance to classical fascism someday! I agree with Don's comment that "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."

Patriot Acts and "homeland security" practices and tax law changes..etc..are disturbing puffs of smoke which need to be monitored!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 09:45 PM

Bill, all I can say is that "moving in that direction" isn't consistent with the charge made in the article that lead this thread and the only case that's been made is that the US is a little more to the right than it was. OK, that's the direction of Fascism. Would moving to the left justify claiming we're moving to Stalinism? It's the right, I mean, correct direction. Puffs of smoke indeed.


Let's talk about your concerns about manipulating the system. Politicians have been gerrymandering voters, adjusting laws, altering finance and trying to control the courts since the beginning of the Republic. On all sides. Every adminstration tries to control retirements from the bench so they can control who gets appointed. FDR tried to load the Supreme Court to keep his programs from being struck down. Democrats gerrymandered electoral districts here in Texas without shame for over 100 years. There were no Republicans in high office in the state for most of that period. They used to preprint voter registration cards "Democrat" to discourage Republicans from registering. The Democrat's original version of campaign finance reform left staggering loopholes for their prime special interest groups. I was a little embarrassed in my list of people who are infamous for their voter fraud because they're all Democrats (honest, I don't know any Republicans off the top of my head). Democrats are out to win completely, too. Whatever gave you the idea American politics was softball?

You said, "They seem to be willing to do as Hitler did". We've had that conversation. Prove it. Be specific, don't speak out of an unease or vague feelings, give me something Hitler like and tangible. It's not enough that they're doing what politicians of all stripes from the time of the Greek city states have done. Tell me what they're doing that compares to what Hitler did. The list is of things he did in this thread is not comprehensive, but it's a good start.

As to what your grandchildren might face, well, by the time my grandchildren are grown (the first is still on the way), anything can happen. Only 25 years ago it would have been inconcievable that there's not only would we have Republican Governor, that Republicans would be the majority of either branch of the state legislature. By then both parties could be as obsolete as the Whigs and the Tories.

I'm not afraid of the kind of gradualism you seem worried about. I HAVE criteria for deciding when government has gone too far. Come on, so do you. We can both oppose what we don't trust without this hyperbole. Don't go to extreme over every issue you don't like. It creates noise in the system. I'm repeating myself, I know, but that kind of thing makes it difficult for people to be aware of the real thing when it comes along. You desensitize them to the horror. Don't be guilty of that.

IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 10:45 PM

Well danged! Me an' the Wes Ginny Slide Rule agree that, unless we get some kina "Devine Intervention", then we're like, ahhhh, *toast*!!!

The elements of facism are undeniably everywhere wew look. Heck, the Republican Party itself is so completely steeped with the influences of folks who once were Nazi's. After WW II, the Republican broght into its ranks many former Nazis and pro-Nazi facists that's its unreal that we are not yer goosesteppin'. Wait a year or two... The *Brownshirt Chistains" will have all of you goosesteppin' in short order...

Waht I can't understand is like folks like Strick???? Here the handwritin' is not only on the wall, but in yer TV, in yer newspaper, in every molecule of air you breathe, in everything you consume, yet you don't see???? This is so very frusteratin' and confusin'... I mean no disrespect but when are you gonna get it???? When they come for you????

The parallels that Don has pointed out are not fantasy. They are what is going down... You can't dismiss fact under the guise of "Copy and paste" Truth is truth and facts are facts....

If you will take the time to examine the basic components of facism, the US is very much..... right (pun intended) on course...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 10:45 PM

John Hardly, I challenge you. Point out what I cut and paste that took no work.

The gentlemanly and comprehensive response I got from Strick was just more of the same picky attempts at refutation by obfuscation that have grown wearily familiar. His argument is with Dr. Brill. Not with me.

I declare you and Strick winners of the argument. I can blow it out of the water, but 1) you guys will just be back with more of the same; and 2) I don't have the time for this. I've said what I have to say on the subject and I stand by it. That slamming sound you just heard is my mind closing.

Howard Dean made a speech here in Seattle this morning about reforming the Democratic Party, and it's going to be rebroadcast in a few minutes. I'm going to go listen to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 01:50 AM

I think if I were going to draw any parallels between what the US government has been doing (certainly more in the open now than ever before, but it's not really a new practice for them), and what Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were trying to do, it would be this one:

They all agressively sought/are seeking world domination. That's certainly enough to give me cold shivers.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 06:42 AM

You're right, Don. I wrongly referred to your link as "copy/paste". You first offered it up and then in a subsequent post snidely (not like you) pointed at Strick with "did you even read my link -- I didn't think so".

Now he's not only read it but given a lenghty response and you're more comfortable with a "whatever" response.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 08:56 AM

was a little embarrassed in my list of people who are infamous for their voter fraud because they're all Democrats (honest, I don't know any Republicans off the top of my head). Democrats are out to win completely, too.

Yes, sir, no mistake -- politics is a slimey game, and hard to stay upright in. But your notion of Republican purity about voter fraud is shortsighted. Can you spell Flooooriduh? Katherine Harris? Sure you can!

:>))

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: harvey andrews
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 11:05 AM

The thread seems bogged down in politics. I feel we should consider more "society". The ordinary, everyday people who are swallowing creationism,rapture,and all the other ignorant and backward beliefs and raising their children to believe in them and then sending them out to convert others. That's where the grasroot action is taking place and that's what worries me.Reports over here say a majority of Americans actually believe in angels!
I repeat the point I made earlier, having met two missionaries of the Fundamental cause. Their hysterical laughter at the thought that we once had tails,that we evolved, (they'd never even heard of Neanderthals), their racism,their ignorance of the basic facts of human history, their practice of keeping their children to be educated at home, their derision of any intellectual approach to the subject of religion, their stated belief that every word in the Bible was true.....
Oh yes, they'd burn books if they had half the chance.
Over breakfast the next morning he asked me;
"Do you see us as the enemy?"
"I certainly do." I said."We've been fighting you for thousands of years."
"You submit (his favourite word) to nobody?"
"No"
"You will." he said.
Made me shiver!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Frankham
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 12:13 PM

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -

I don't think that communism applies as there was a lack of interest
in Soviet style communism. Socialism is too scattered. It has to be continually redefined. Empire however requires the consent of the people.



2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - You may be right

Guantanamo. Slavery. Suppressing women's rights and the defeat of
ERA.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -

It was "communisim" in the fifties. Now it's "terrorism". It often is a nebulous enemy posing embracing all those who don't agree with the status quo.



4. Supremacy of the Military -

Juntas and occupying forces. Military solutions in lieu of diplomacy.
Example: Bush in Iraq.



5. Rampant Sexism

If a man becomes inconsistent, he is given a pass. If a woman does it, she catches hell. Compare Martha Stewart to Tom Lay. Pillory Hillary is the banner of a Right-wing takeover. Actually, Hillary doesn't deserve the vitriol she gets from white males of the Bush persuasion.



6. Controlled Mass Media

Corporations own the media. Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channels, Faux News, white-washing network reports, pundits and demagogues like Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and other hate-radio talk show hosts,......even the pollution of NPR with banal programming and resisting controversial subjects...NPR and PBS controlled by commercials such as Archer Daniel Midlands (agribusiness) and trust funds.




7. Obsession with National Security -

The Bush Administration is obessed with it. The American people may
have more sense. Guantanamo. Ashcroft. It's a potential hazard.



8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - "Is religion a requirement for holding office in the US today?"

For important offices, yes. There are no atheist presidents.


"Have members of certain religions been disenfranchised or lost their property rights?"

It depends upon what you consider a religion. There are many cults that have been penalized and lost property rights.

The Separation of Church and State is being eroded. This is part of the Bush modus operandi.


9. Corporate Power is Protected -

It depends on how powerful that power is. Here hegemony can become
facistic.
Empire can become totalitarian.




10. Labor Power is Suppressed -

The only reason labor power is suppressed is because of political interests. Corporate interests are increasingly suppressing labor
and much of the established unions are no longer protecting the "rank and file".



11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -

The majority of the American public has been dumbed down. It's important for some in power to see that this happens because then
they can control the public. One way to do this is to destroy public education and make it only accessible to the wealthy.




12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - "Has the US's interest in law and order changed that much in the last 30 years?"

Yes. A good example of this is what happened in Florida when Jeb sent in his storm troopers to beat the WTO protestors. It has become more pronounced in recent years.



3. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -

Facism is a wave. It grows and recedes through the history of every country. It's a tendency as well as a political system. A definition of facism has to be agreed upon of course. I believe that there are facist tendencies in governments and when they take over,
then a facist state exists. But being vigilant about this tendency
is as a tumor eats at a body. It can be milignant or benign.



14. Fraudulent Elections -

Again, it's a facist tendency to use gangsterism in stealing elections. This is being done today in Haiti. In 2000, the RNC recruited people to act as protestors to the recounting of votes in
Florida. These were not the "people" but hired thugs.

America is not facist yet but there are tendencies that every American should be vigilant in observing. There are American facists.
To white-wash them as being "usual" or "part of the system" is
naive and dishonest.
They are not part of the ideals of America.
Frank

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 12:14 PM

Strick...re:" Prove it. " I can't 'prove' it. That's why I write as I did..

"Be specific, don't speak out of an unease or vague feelings,".... I do not immerse myself in the minute details of daily political nuances. I do not read every analysis, commentary, rebuttal, spin & antispin I can find in newspapers & on the WWW. Life is too short, and unless I am in the business, or it is my MAJOR hobby, I must content myself with scanning, listening and thinking...and relating what I see & hear in an average day to what I saw and read during every administration from Truman to the present.

NO ONE can "prove" these fears, no matter how deeply they delve, and no one can "prove" the opposite....that Bush & company are not a danger. But I have NEVER seen so many warning signals go up...not with Reagan, not with Nixon. It is, simply, 'different'.

One of the major driving reasons for so many feeling more than just disagreement and dissatisfaction with the current administration is the not-quite-explict but not-totally-hidden ,motivation for some of these decisions and attitudes that we express worry over. If Bush IS driven by some of the more extreme aspects of Christian fundamentalism, and if he IS injecting personal motives such as "finishing Daddys work", and if he IS as personally ignorant (as opposed to Bill Clinton, who WAS aware) of the details of the issues as it appears, and is being fed a lot of his data by Karl Rove and others...then we had ALL better worry, whether we can 'prove' anything or not!

I do not imagine that Dubya is gonna stand up at a news conference and SAY.."We have to subdue all these heathen Muslim/Arab countries and make the democracies, so we can send in missionaries and convert them to Jesus before the Rapture arrives"....if his beliefs do run that way, even he is too smart to lay it on the line....but there are hints that he has this sort of agenda. BOY, would I like to believe otherwise!...but since I can't, I will just listen and make my "vague, uneasy" comments....and encourage others to vote to remove the object of my concerns in November.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

"Waht I can't understand is like folks like Strick???? Here the handwritin' is not only on the wall, but in yer TV, in yer newspaper, in every molecule of air you breathe, in everything you consume, yet you don't see???? This is so very frusteratin' and confusin'... I mean no disrespect but when are you gonna get it???? When they come for you????"

Bobert, all I see is a sharply divided country where one side has decided to demonize the other over things that they are equally guilty of doing. You can find good or evil in anything if you look hard enough. In my humble opinion, what people see in this case says more about them than it does about what they're looking at. I refuse to believe hate is a form of logic or accept "facts" that on sober reflection are nothing more than slander, malicious rumor, and character assasination. From either side.

Carol, you know I mean no malice when I say we disagree. Even if the fantasy of world domination exists somewhere, we just don't have the capability to pull it off. If Iraq served no other purpose, it proved that. I posted a link to an article in another thread that described how the Mullahs in Iran were afraid they would be next after Iraq. One look at how we're bogged down there and they're laughing with relief, because they see they have nothing to worry about. We might be able win any war one on one, but we don't have the resources or the will to fight peace after peace.

Amos, Amos, what Harris did was merely enforce state law. She might have done so with partisan zeal, but that's hardly the same as registering entire grave yards and practicing the motto, "vote early, vote often" like they did in the 1960 election in Chicago. Then there's that other little thing I don't see mentioned much here. Isn't it odd that, what was it, two or three independent counts after the fact using a variety of different methods for evaluating chad, etc. all showed that Bush would have won anyway?

I agree the Florida election was a fiasco, particularly in the counties in question. I can only take comfort in the thought that every elected official who had anything to do with those elections was a Democrat. I'm not blaming them. Managing local elections is hard with the resources available, but I'm damed if I'm going to feel guilty about their failures.

Harvey, most Americans believe in flying saucers, too. I understand your discomfort with the people you describe. They think I'm going to hell, too. I can only take comfort in the thought that they're an extreme miniority and there are weirdos in every crowd. Most of us think they're nuts, too, so I'm less worried they'll ever get in charge. To contrast, I know some environmentalists that are serious when they say that most of the world's problems would be solved if 5/6ths (or pick your percentage) of the population were eliminated. I hope they're not serious when they discuss how that reduction could be accomplished. How much do you think should I worry about the environmental bloc of the Democratic Party's base?

Don, I regret you don't have time to present your argument more fully. I would love to hear it. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've presented so far.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 12:34 PM

Don't take this as any kind of endorsement of GWB. I certainly won't be voting for him in November. I'm no fan of him, his policies, particularly those that have eroded civil liberties, or the Republican Party (who did essentially steal the 2000 election).

But the fact that this discussion can take place on an American-based forum is evidence that we are not living in a fascist society. The fact that we are free to dissent is evidence we not living in a fascist society. The fact that there is an *election* taking place this year in which Bush may very well go down to defeat, is evidence that we are not living in a fascist society.

Casually throwing around terms like "fascism" or "Naziism" demeans the people who have suffered and died under such regimes.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 12:36 PM

Strick, notice I said "sought/are seeking". That's a very important thing to notice, because the Nazis and the Fascists never completely succeeded in their quest for world domination. But look at the hell they created while pursuing it.

Same with the US government. All of the major documents that have been written by the "think tanks" that are populated by the very same people who occupy the highest levels of our current government, state quite clearly that world domination is their goal. In the long run they may not fully succeed with their goal, but they sure as hell are doing their level best to make it happen. And it's still early innings yet. Still lots more time for them to create all kinds of mayhem and misery.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM

OK, Frankham, let's talk.

1. "I don't think that communism applies as there was a lack of interest in Soviet style communism."

You don't agree that the entire Soviet system was bent on forcing Communism on the rest of the world? I imagine your view of the 30s, 40s and 50s is radically different from mine. There's a good book you should read: Hitler and Stalin that might clear that up for you.

"Empire however requires the consent of the people." History shows nothing could be further from the truth. I'd refer you to any good history of Rome or the British Empire.

2. "Suppressing women's rights and the defeat of ERA." Bush is responsible for defeating the ERA? Odd, I thought it was the result of the amendment failing to pass in enough states back in the last 70s that did that in.

Slavery? You blame the existance of modern slavery on the current Administration? Do I need to respond?

Guantanamo. Well there you have me. All I can offer is that Marshal Law changes the rights of any individual, particularly those who are not legitimate combatants. I don't recall anyone imposing Marshal Law in the US except in small local emergencies since the Civil War. How do you see this as a more general threat to the US? I'd support you in opposing Marshal Law under most circumstances.

3. "It was 'communisim' in the fifties. Now it's 'terrorism'." See now there's part of the problem with this list. It doesn't clearly distinquish between Fascim and anything else. It's as if I were going on a long journey, and, warning me about tigers, you say that they are big and hairy and have menacing teeth and a vicious snarl. The descriptions vague enough I might die of fright from my first encounter with a camel. Sorry for the aside. Are you saying terrorism is not a threat or that the Truman Administration was Fascist?

4. "Juntas and occupying forces. Military solutions in lieu of diplomacy." The US is ruled by a military junta? We can stop all this election crap now? There's no evidence that the US plans to leave Iraq peacefully? The US has chosen to use military solutions in or disagreements with North Korea, Libya, Syria or even Haiti (where, of all things, the US agreed to the French plan for addressing the crisis)? I don't see this one, sorry. Gross exaggeration at best, malicious misrepresentation at worst.

5. You mean Ken, not Tom Lay, don't you? What about Jeffrey Skilling, and the other 14 officers of Enron who've been or are being prosecuted? It's a wicked case to make because of the byzantine accounting, but don't be surprised if Skilling turns Lay over to the Feds in the next few months. Then there's Bernie Ebbers, John Rigas, and the dozens of officers of companies, mostly males, that are in jail or under indictment. You haven't completely thought this one through, right? I must also point out that Enron and these other companies caught in fraud were mostly exposed in 2001 or 2002. The fraud had been underway for years and years. Which Administration was most responsible for not preventing or catching them at their fraud?

6. Controlled Mass Media. All I can say is that we're all disappointed in some aspect of the media. You're concerned that over the past 15 years much of the media has come under what you consider conservative control. I find much of the media coverage biased to the left. You can come up with stories that you think the media should have covered but didn't, I'm sure. You'd be hard pressed to prove the government was involved; commercial realities are sufficient cause. The American people are getting what they're willing to support and pay for, don't blame anyone else.

7. Obsession with National Security. We have different definitions of obsession. Sit back and watch that film of the towers falling one more time. It's hard to believe that any administration wouldn't make security a major priority after that. Imagine the social, economic and political impact of another bloody attack on a highly visable US target and then try to convince me you wouldn't be damning the Administration for not doing enough. Then, too, the security in question is oriented at protecting the population, not controlling it as descussed in the text of this point.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined. Most of what you describe would be true for the US in any of the last 220 years. We've been Fascists from the beginning? At worst the "excesses" you mention are the actions of the people, not any government. I don't see how the Bush Administration is preventing atheists from being elected President or that it's been active in surpressing any minority.

9. Corporate Power is Protected. Still guilty on all fronts. As I've said, a rule like this isn't really meaningful unless it's useful in distinguishing between behavior that is Fascist and that which clearly isn't. You should have seen the way FDR propted up corporations in the 30s. That when the phrase, "What's good for General Motors..." was coined. Do you believe that the FDR Administration was Fascist? Really? You should because when you include what they did during WWII, they meet a lot more of these criteria than any other US administration.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed. Let's take unions out of it. The real reason "labor power" is less than it was is that the majority of Americans don't have jobs that are affected by traditional labor concerns. "Labor Power" in the sense it was used by social activists from the 1880s on is obsolete. The issue has become jobs and if the news of any value, politicians ignore jobless rates at their peril. Hard to call this current state of affairs active suppression, isn't it?

11. "The majority of the American public has been dumbed down." Dumbed down from what? Dumb because they don't agree with you? Didn't Lincoln say that God must have loved the common people because He made so many of them? We're better educated and better read than any Americans in history. The commercial medium has just grown so large that we're faced with the lowest common denominator on all fronts. And how in the hell is this different from the way it was in the 60s, 70, 80s or 90s except for the growing ubiquitousness commercialims in the media? You hold the Bush Administration countable for quite a lot, don't you? Short of requirement everyone to watch PBS 10 hours a week (not that what they're producing isn't crap now, too) and read avant guard novels, what do you propose the Administration do?

12. "'Has the US's interest in law and order changed that much in the last 30 years?' Yes. A good example of this is what happened in Florida when Jeb sent in his storm troopers to beat the WTO protestors." This didn't happen in Seatle, the most liberal city in the US, as well? You didn't watch the Democratic Mayor Daley order te police to attack during Chicago Democratic convention in 1968 live on TV? You need to read the details of this point. Britt's not talking putting down occasional protests, he's talking systematic and serious abuse of the legal system.

13. "Facism is a wave." Your definition of Fascism and its consequences are radically different from mine. I can only repeat, calling what you describe "Fascism" is calling wolf. No one who really understands how serious this was would do that lightly, IMHO.

14. "Again, it's a facist tendency to use gangsterism in stealing elections. This is being done today in Haiti. In 2000, the RNC recruited people to act as protestors to the recounting of votes in
Florida. These were not the "people" but hired thugs." Some of this is true, some of it false. The international community cutoff aid to Haiti because of obvious fraud in the 2000 election and much of the justification for Aristide's overthrow was that he planned to defraud the next election as well. The US did not intervene to prop his government up because the French were against intervention. Are the French Fascists, too?

BTW, I'm afraid you're a bit misinformed about the facts of the "Republican Riot" during the 2000 election. It was prompted when Republican activists were locked out of the recount about to take place, to be sure, but at the time there was a Democratic activist sitting next to each counter in the room. The Republicans were only protesting the obvious inequity of the situation. They were only "guilty" of bringing in "hired thugs" because the Democrats got there with their "hired thugs" first who you couldn't cowering in the back of the room. From your WTO comment I would have thought you would respect an honest protest. The delay in the recount was nothing more than the result of negotiations over who was going to be allowed to observe the recount and how each observer was going to be allowed to comment on or protest each ballot counted. As far as riots go, this was pretty civilized and certainly had a democratic (small "d") objective in mind: a fair and impartial count of the votes. I doubt you'll agree, but it's the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 01:49 PM

Problem is ya'll respond faster than I can ('cause I'm long winded).

Carol you know we'll continue to disagree. If I see evidence of what you say moving beyond the fantasy stage, I'll be with you. I just like harder evidence than what I've seen. Do you really doubt what I say?

"One of the major driving reasons for so many feeling more than just disagreement and dissatisfaction with the current administration is the not-quite-explict but not-totally-hidden ,motivation for some of these decisions and attitudes that we express worry over. If Bush IS driven by some of the more extreme aspects of Christian fundamentalism, and if he IS injecting personal motives such as "finishing Daddys work", and if he IS as personally ignorant (as opposed to Bill Clinton, who WAS aware) of the details of the issues as it appears, and is being fed a lot of his data by Karl Rove and others...then we had ALL better worry, whether we can 'prove' anything or not!"

Bill, I respect this. All I can offer is that those of us who understand the difference between mainline Christianity and fundamentalism (and don't have a political bone to pick like the author of the first article, a member of a group called "The Left Most On the Left Coast" in my denomination) realize that Bush isn't a fundamentalist. Please don't confuse all Christians with fundamentalists, or even assume all fundmentalists are like the ones being demonized here. Beyond that, I'm not arguing you should vote for or against anyone, just don't call the Right and a good chunk of the Middle Fascists or suggest seriously that they're acting like Fascists. It's not true and it's hardly the way to bring others to your way of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 03:34 PM

Do you really doubt what I say?

Of the things you've said, I'm not sure which ones you are addressing with this question. I don't doubt that we disagree on the things I've said. I don't doubt that you would be in agreement with me if you saw what I see. I do doubt any assertions that what I see is still in the fantasy stage. I think we're way beyond that, and I don't really think it started with the GW Bush administration. I just think that this lot is much more out in the open with their agenda than previous administrations.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 03:39 PM

John, I'm sorry you feel that I just gave a "whatever" to Strick when you seem to feel that he deserves a longer response. Also, note that the remark I made that you characterize as "snide" was merely a single riposte for several snide remarks sent in my direction. One tit for several tats, if you will. And since Strick seemed to be entirely ignoring the Sojourner Magazine article I linked to, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that he didn't actually read it until I made my "snide" remark.

I did not, and do not, chose to rebut Strick's attempted point-by-point refutation of Dr. Lawrence Britt's "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism" for a number of reasons.

First, I posted it as an informational reference, and if Strick (and apparently you) chose to blow it off, that's your privilege.

Second, Dr. Britt has a PhD in political science, is considered an authority on the subject, and, among many other things, writes for Free Inquiry Magazine and several other publications. I think he knows whereof he speaks. I felt no more obligated to try to defend Dr. Britt's position than I would feel had I posted a link to an article on physics by Richard P. Feynman and Strick had attacked that point by point. Strick is entitled to his opinions, but I think Dr. Britt knows more about political science than Strick does, so if he wants to take issue with the "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism," he can write to Dr. Britt in care of Free Inquiry Magazine and do so directly.

Third, Strick has a tendency (like a couple of others I have encountered on Mudcat in the past) to try to engage someone in a protracted debate by dodging the main points and going after minor nit-picks, often presenting historical events that can be (and have been) interpreted by historians in ways different from the way Strick chooses to interpret them, and stringing them out in supposed point-by-point "refutations" that require scrolling through several screens to read, and would require hours of research to attempt to correct his revisionist history. For example, see his attempted refutation of the "Fourteen Characteristics" or any of several of his posts above.

Fourth, although I enjoy these little debates and often learn a fair amount from them (usually from links people post, such as the one Ellenpoly posted which started this thread), I get weary with people who are here not to learn, but here to try to win arguments. I have a relative like this. If I venture an opinion on something, he leaps in to take the opposite view. On any subject. And once the discussion starts, he won't let it go, and eventually simply wears me out and/or bores to death everyone else present. I've tested him out. I've asserted an opinion that he asserted a few months before, and damned if he doesn't take the position I took in the previous discussion. And there, too, he has to win. Hangs on like a pit-bull. I think it's a testosterone thing. No interest in learning. Just in winning.

Fifth, I don't enjoy these discussions when people get abusive and start make personal remarks about people with whom they disagree. It's a dead giveaway that they think their own argument is weak or downright wrong, but haven't the courage to admit it. And I don't enjoy having to write the same thing over and over because some people either didn't get it the first time or didn't read it at all.

And sixth, Howard Dean delivered one helluva speech here in Seattle yesterday morning. Although I will continue to read these threads and post when I feel impelled to, picking up on a couple of things that Dean said in his speech, I think I can spend my time more valuably doing things other than arguing with someone whose viewpoint is set and will never change, no matter how much information is presented to them.

But don't rejoice yet. I'm not going away.

Don Firth

P.S.: I don't recall who it was who said it, but it makes a pretty good point:   "You have a right to your own opinion. But not to your own facts."

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 03:43 PM

"Do you really doubt what I say?"

My apologies. I'm not going to get that uptight over this until I see the Administration actively preparing for another war. I'm confident they can't even begin to for political, diplomatic, economic and military reasons, but if they start positioning aircraft carriers and or troops to attack Syria, Iran, Venezuela or anyone else short of a response for an actual, unequivocal attack by one of these parties on the territorial US, I'll join you in opposing them. All I meant was you can trust that.

Cooperating with France to put peacekeepers in Haiti (the neocons give a damn about Haiti?) doesn't count.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 04:06 PM

"And since Strick seemed to be entirely ignoring the Sojourner Magazine article I linked to, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that he didn't actually read it until I made my "snide" remark."

On the contrary, as I mentioned in my reply, I read the article when it first came out. A fluke, I admit, but true the same. I just found it had nothing to do with the Christian Fascism made in the first article.

"For example, see his attempted refutation of the 'Fourteen Characteristics' or any of several of his posts above."

Bless you, Don, but you need to go back and re-read the article you linked to. Dr. Britt never once refered to the US in any part of that article listing the "Fourteen Characteristics" or asserted that they apply to the US. I never refuted the "Fourteen Characteristics", I was discussing your evident assumption that they applied.

My concerns with the "Fourteen Characteristics", which I didn't really address, are not a matter of political science. I don't doubt what he describes could be found in past Fascist regimes. The problem is that finding those characteristics doesn't necessarily mean a regime is Fascist. He never bothered to test his results with other regimes in other countries and times to see if they were predictive. Many of his points fall apart when you do. They simply lack the ability to usefully distinquish Fascism from any of a number of other "isms" great and small, good or bad.

Long posts, yes, I regret it. Still taking things to actual cases is the only way to address the broad, sweeping assertions being made. If you take away the argument that Bush is a fundamentalist and show his actions are consistent with the acts of non-fundamentalist Christians, that no one legitimately argue the US is Fascist in any meaningful way, that many of the points made in the original article are false or misleading (I still fume at the gold standard accusation), you have to accept that the propostion is false and heavily biased. Well, maybe you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 04:52 PM

Well, in the case of Venezuela, they don't need to start positioning aircraft carriers and/or troops. The covert operations we've got going on over there are doing an excellent job of destabilizing that country and ripping its democracy out of the hands of the majority of its citizens (in order to gain access to its oil, of course). We don't just do overt wars. We're also quite adept at gaining dominence over other countries using other means. Bear in mind that I said "world domination" and not "world conquest".

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 04:56 PM

"Bear in mind that I said "world domination" and not "world conquest"."

Fair enough. I'm as appalled by McDonalds in Dublin and US movies everywhere you go as anyone. Those are the real tools of global domination, our bastard culture. I have to hear more than vague rumors there are covert operations in Venezuela to react, however.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 05:08 PM

I have to hear more than vague rumors there are covert operations in Venezuela to react, however.

Even if you did decide to react, there probably isn't all that much you could do about it anyway. As far as I can tell, this bahavior will continue whichever party wins the election (unless it's a third party, which I consider a virtual impossibility).

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 05:10 PM

"Bless you, Don, but you need to go back and re-read the article you linked to."

Sorry, Strick, but no score there either. As I said, I posted it as an informational reference. However, if you do a google search on "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism," you will notice that literally dozens of others, including political scientists and politcal commentators have indeed drawn many parallels

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 05:21 PM

Sorry. Premature mouse-click.

As I was saying:    . . . literally dozens of others, including political scientists and commentators have indeed drawn many parallels with what is currently going on in the United States. When I have time (might be a day or two, because I'm busy for the rest of the day, and Sunday I'll be out of town), I will post links to several of those articles for your enlightenment and education. But please, if you take issue with them, take it up with the authors themselves. Don't expect me to spend my time defending the viewpoints of others with whom you disagree. They usually provide their own footnotes and sources. Check them yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 05:22 PM

One point of clarification - when I say domination, what I'm referring to is what is outlined in the Project for a New American Century and some other documents. Basically, that means that no country would be permitted to become as powerful as, or more powerful than the US. It has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with the ability to impose our will on other countries, even if it means depriving other countries of having access to democracy. We did this in Iran a few decades ago. We crushed their fledgling democracy and had a puppet regime installed in its place (the Shah, who was a ruthless dictator of the Saddam school of dictatorship), and which we then propped up against the wishes of the people of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 05:52 PM

"...those of us who understand the difference between mainline Christianity and fundamentalism...realize that Bush isn't a fundamentalist. Please don't confuse all Christians with fundamentalists,..."

I don't make that mistake, and I know Bush is not directly affiliated with a fundimentalist church....what I DO know is that those whose business/hobby is following these things have done a lot of digging and extracting of remarks and quotes that show him in various degrees of sympathizing, supporting and comfort with the ideology of various fundamentalists. Some of the remarks I have seen worry me. What I have NOT seen is any clear denial that this is true. I would assume that IF it were true, he would not care to have it widely publicized at this point. It is difficult for those who do have these leanings to totally restrain themselves from "witnessing", and I am inclined to believe Bush is barely able to keep his remarks sounding neutral....until.....

We shall, as they say, see...hmmm?

I will go away now and not belabor the point unless I get more definitive information.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 06:05 PM

Don, you're going to have to help me with this one. I Googled exactly what you said, "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism", and the trail's running cold on page 7 or so of the search without finding what you're refering to. The article is referenced a gazillion times, but usually as originally published, no one adding any siginificant detail to what Dr. Britt published at the Council of Secular Humanism.

I did find the same article on two different sites that had a two comments apparently meant as evidence, but they weren't made by all those distiquished people you mention and they'd be hard pressed to be considered conclusive. Surely you don't think that people putting US flags on their car antennas is a priori evidence of Fascism? That's absurd. I can see how the example of Halliburton might apply, but to paraphrase Freud, sometimes corruption is simply corruption. The Teapot Dome scandal wasn't a sign of Fascism was it? It doesn't necessarily follow that a corporate corruption scandal is automatically evidence of Fascism.

As soon as I can get to a computer where I have email, I'm going to write Dr. Britt for his original study. I can appreciate his points, he certainly found these characteristics in Fascism. The problem is I find nothing to suggest he ever tested the predictive ability of his characteristics. To put it simply, he seems to generate a huge number of false positives. There are too many things that would indicate a particular regime in a given country was Fascist when no reasonable person would accept it was. You've fallen into a false syllogism:

All Fascists are corrupt;
The Bush Administration is corrupt (even if this were universally accepted as true);
Therefore the Bush Administration is Fascist.

The logic is wrong, that kind of error that's one of the first things they teach you in Fundamentals of Logic. It would be correct only if the order of the second and third clauses were reversed, but that isn't what you're saying. As it is, this doesn't prove anything. Making the same first year mistake in logic over and over doesn't make what you say true, no matter how much you want it to be.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 06:19 PM

With all the scholarship I have read on this thread, I am almost ashamed to post.

Politicians who want to get re-elected have as many moral qualms as a bitch in heat? The Falwells and Swaggerts of the Sunday morning 'send us your dollars and we will pray for you very sincerely' variety of religion control votes.

Ah, hell, it couldn't be that simple, could it?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 06:22 PM

"I don't make that mistake, and I know Bush is not directly affiliated with a fundimentalist church....what I DO know is that those whose business/hobby is following these things have done a lot of digging and extracting of remarks and quotes that show him in various degrees of sympathizing, supporting and comfort with the ideology of various fundamentalists."

I'll listen if you come back with something I can follow, that's all I can promise.

I'm sure you understand part of the problem is that mainline Christians and fundamentalists often use the same jargon, the same figures of speech, even the same doctrine while not sharing each other's nuances of belief or social goals. The differences might be too subtle for some outsiders to see. For example, the site I linked to above with the bio of Rev. Kirbyjon (as he's affectionaly known) reads exactly like any number of the sites of fundamentalist churchs. I had to look hard to make sure I was in the right even though Windsor Village is one of the most liberal churchs in the South, both theologically and politically speaking. Kirbyjon's also a devout Democrat, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 06:30 PM

"Politicians who want to get re-elected have as many moral qualms as a bitch in heat?"

Yes, though the whole truth is an insult to bitches everywhere.

"The Falwells and Swaggerts of the Sunday morning 'send us your dollars and we will pray for you very sincerely' variety of religion control votes."

Maybe, but not many. Fewer that the Greens or the Libertarians. You saw how far Pat Robinson got in the Republican primaries back when he was at the hight of his power, didn't you? 'Bout as far as Al Sharpton.