 sj |
||
|
||
BS: History of US radical religious right
|
|
|
Subject: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 07:52 AM In this video, Max Blumenthal gives a talk about his book, Republican Gomorrah, which gives the history of the radical religious right in the US... http://fora.tv/2009/09/29/Republican_Gomorrah_Max_Blumenthal#fullprogram |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Oct 09 - 09:37 AM Yes, just another example of why it's so important to stamp out the scourge of religion. The Republican Party has been taken over by radical Christians: The Democratic Party has been taken over by the Jews: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 10:10 AM I don't think I would say, "the Jews" in the above context. Jews are also well represented in the Republican party, and especially the neocon wing of the Republican party. It might be more accurate to say that the Republican party has been taken over by radicals of at least two religions (or religious backgrounds), and the Democratic party has been taken over by PEPs (PEP = Progressive Except Palestine - from many religious backgrounds or no religious background). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Oct 09 - 10:38 AM What are these little underlined words that keep popping up in the posts, and how can they be kept out. If you click on "stamp" in my post it takes you to an ad for a video game, and if you click on "progressive" in Carol's post, it takes you to an ad for an insurance company. It's very annoying. Back to your point, Carol, there are Christians in the Democratic party too, but they break down roughly as I've stated. Obama's handlers are Jews. Ask Reverend Wright, he knows all about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 10:43 AM I'm not seeing the underlined words. But I'm using Firefox and I've got the Adblock Plus add-on, so maybe that blocks them out. My guess is they're a part of an effort to make the Mudcat self-supporting. Ok, next time I see the good Reverend, I'll ask him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Oct 09 - 10:50 AM Carol - I hadn't thought of that. I thought the site was being invaded by outside elements, but you could be right. In any event, the last time I saw Rev. Wright in the news he was complaining about the Jews not letting him in to see the president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: wysiwyg Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:40 AM Carol, thanks for keeping the distinction clear (that RRR is not all-Christians). Lotta babies in this dirty ole bathwater. Good idea to see clearly no matter how muddy the wash water gets. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 12:08 PM The word, "Christian" doesn't appear at all in my opening post or in the title of the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Oct 09 - 12:51 PM Although I don't support Rev. Wright's religion, I see his point of view and I think it has merit. America has behaved damnably in many situations and is doing so now supporting Karzai, Micheletti, and historically has other disreputable leaders and dictators. I am glad that the we've turned over the rock on the C Street Family Religious Mafia of Doug Coe and fascist Vereide. The religious right is principally a political organization. One could argue that religion is a form of politics. The problem as I see it is that the religious right is being enabled by well-meaning Christians who don't see their role in the advocation of religious doctrine. This should always be a private matter and not in the public sphere. Those who attempt to impose their religious values on anyone are part of the problem. I would make an exception on the part of the Quakers (American Friends Service Committee) because they are the banner carriers for outlawing the insanity of war. I wouldn't classify this exclusively as a religious value because not being religious myself I consider it to be a universal application to the survival of mankind. If he were alive, Darwin would have something to say about this. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:00 PM I'm a little worried by what might be perceived as antisemitism above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:59 PM I tried to head it off at the pass. Maybe doesn't look like I was very successful, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 10 Oct 09 - 04:07 PM Senate Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) Carl Levin (D-Mich.) Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) House of Representatives Howard Berman (D-Calif.) Susan Davis (D-Calif.) Bob Filner (D-Calif.) Jane Harman (D-Calif.) Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) Howard Waxman (D-Calif.) Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.) Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) Ben Cardin (D-Md.) Barney Frank (D-Mass.) Sander Levin (D-Mich.) Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) Martin Frost (D-Texas) Eric Cantor (R-Va.) Bernard Sanders (Ind-Vt.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 04:10 PM It should be noted that a lot of people who are PIPs (Progressive Including Palestine) and who are Jewish, wouldn't necessarily disagree with assertion that Obama's handlers are Jewish, so that one's a bit difficult to call. But any time someone uses the term, "the Jews" in reference to any behavior, that's incorrect and certainly can appear anti-Semitic. The Jews are no more a monolithic entity than are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 10 Oct 09 - 04:18 PM There is an excellent article in Wikipedia. (I didn't read it all, but the parts I did are well-written and well researched, imo. Might be a useful place to start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 10 Oct 09 - 04:21 PM ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: SharonA Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM Peace, Joe Lieberman doesn't have a dyed-in-the-wool "D" in front of that hyphen anymore. He is officially listed in Senate records for the 110th Congress and the 111th (current) Congress as an "Independent Democrat" and, as you may recall, he endorsed McCain for President in 2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:51 PM Also, a list of House and Senate members doesn't provide an accurate picture of who all of the prominent members of the Democratic and Republican parties are. A lot of them are commentators and members of the press, members of think tanks, the former members of the cabinets of various former presidents, current and former governors and mayors, party apparatchiks, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:45 PM SharonA: Thanks re Lieberman. Carol: True. But my post was in address to the notion that Jews control the US government. I don't think any group other than Neocons control US policies. Or did until Obama came along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:50 PM I don't see anyone saying that Jews control the US government in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:51 PM But anyway, I just started the thread so people could see that video I posted if they wanted to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:14 AM I wish religion would just fade away ... arguing about whether the Jews are democrats, or republicans or just downright communists or which radical religeous movement actually is in charge of the country or the whole damned world is just another part of the religious problem. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:24 AM The list was in response to this: "In any event, the last time I saw Rev. Wright in the news he was complaining about the Jews not letting him in to see the president." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:34 AM Ironically, the content in the video in the opening post is mostly not about Jews, although that might be difficult to discern if the content of the thread was taken as an indication. For those who can't view the video, it's about dominionist theology and politics, and the history of the more radical Christian movements in the US over the past few decades, and also how some of those movements fully intend to take over the government of this country on a permanent basis. They thought they had already accomplished this during the GW Bush presidency. People can read more about it by Googling "Republican Gomorrah". It also discusses some of the psychology behind the more extreme right wing radical religious thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: katlaughing Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:37 AM Concerning the underlined words and links mentioned above. It is my understanding that would have nothing to do with Mudcat's ad thing; they are supposed to appear at the end of threads and on various pages, but not in individual postings. It's more likely some setting in your browser which is set to do such. If it continues, please send a PM to Max or Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:38 AM I think the suggestion was that "the Jews" are controlling Obama and also the Democrats, but the same poster also said that the Christians control the Republicans. Keep in mind that the poster in question hates all religions. Has anyone actually watched or listened to the video? I found it to be an eye opener. I already knew some of that stuff, but a lot of it was a surprise (although I suppose it shouldn't have been). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:39 AM "Republican Gomorrah is a bestiary of dysfunction, scandal and sordidness from the dark heart of the forces that now have a leash on the party. It shows how those forces are the ones that establishment Republicans—like John McCain—have to bow to if they have any hope of running for President. It shows that Sarah Palin was the logical choice of a party in the control of theocrats. But more that just an expose, Republican Gomorrah shows that many of the movement's leading figures have more in common than just the power they command within conservative ranks. Their personal lives have been stained by crisis and scandal: depression, mental illness, extra-marital affairs, struggles with homosexual urges, heavy medication, addiction to pornography, serial domestic abuse, and even murder. Inspired by the work of psychologists Erich Fromm, who asserted that the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, Blumenthal explains in a compelling narrative how a culture of personal crisis has defined the radical right, transforming the nature of the Republican Party for the next generation and setting the stage for the future of American politics." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Neil D Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:30 AM One more update to the that list: Arlen Specter has recently switched parties and is now officially a Democrat. Frank Schaeffer, author of CRAZY FOR GOD: How I Grew Up As One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back, has a unique perspective on the takeover of the Republican Party by the radical religious right. If you've got 8 minutes check him out: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Neil D Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:31 AM Frank Schaeffer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:03 AM At least most Jews in America are atheists... not that I think the Dems have actually been taken over by them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: pdq Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM Max Blumenthal uses words to conduct acts of terrorism, as shown by Mr. Murdoch's post above. It is the people who believe this professionally-written character assasination puke who have problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: number 6 Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:20 PM I agree pdq ... very good. and it's people who get all wrapped up in the religious issue ... and ultimately it's people who are the victims .. from which ever angle you view it. sad ... very sad ... and it's not getting any better. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:27 PM The dominionists don't deny what they're up to. If someone asks them what their agenda is, they'll come right out and tell them. Their agenda is to take control of the government and they perfectly willing to instigate violent acts in order to help them accomplish this. I would say it is they who use words to conduct acts of terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:28 PM "Max Blumenthal uses words to conduct acts of terrorism..." That kind of rhetorical flourish insults those who have suffered from real acts of terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: pdq Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:45 PM All the Christians I know try to improve themselves every day and try to improve the lives of others. Saul Alinskyite Max Blumenthal is an anti-Christian bigot who is stirring up haterd for Christians by attacking a small minority. They may be a fringe group with a few problems, but don't be fooled. Blumenthal is aiming his hate at all Christians. He wants an Athiest country. He will not win because at least 70% of American consider themselves "people of faith". Mad Max can only attract a few disturbed followers who are pre-disposed to seething rage and haterd. He can do damage but he cannot win. Minimize the damage and turn him off. Click. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 01:00 PM Blumenthal is not talking about Christianity in general and neither am I. We are talking about the extreme radical right wing Christians, which do exist, and who are causing problems for democracy in the US. Looks to me like someone thinks we are only allowed to discuss extremism when it is practiced by Muslims. Well, I say, bullshit to that. And by the same token, if someone above can say we're not allowed to talk about extremism among some Christians because it will stir up hatred for the whole group, we can also say that about Muslims. If we are not allowed to talk about the extremists in the Christian religion for that reason, they we are also not allowed to talk about extremists in the Muslim religion because it will stir up hatred for the whole group. Can't have it both ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Oct 09 - 01:12 PM But that doesn't amount to "acts of terrorism". It would be a very good idea if nobody encouraged or accepted "disturbed followers who are pre-disposed to seething rage and hatred". And that should especially apply to anyone who wished to see themselves as any kind of Christian. It doesn't always work out that way, does it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Oct 09 - 01:25 PM "Not everyone who keeps saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 7:21) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:48 PM Blowing up abortion clinics is acts of terrorism, and that's one of the things that this ideology is responsible for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Oct 09 - 03:10 PM My post there referred back to pdq's previous post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: GUEST,dadman Date: 11 Oct 09 - 04:02 PM BS: History of US radical religious left http://realanswers.net/radio/desc/002757.html |
|
Subject: BS: History of US radical religious right From: hidigibaugh Date: 11 Oct 09 - 04:15 PM From: Riginslinger Yes, just another example of why it's so important to stamp out the scourge of religion and so how can we do this ??? .. does this include violence ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Oct 09 - 05:36 PM A suggestion to hidigibaugh. When posting a quote, together with a comment on that quote, it is advisable to indicate, by quotation marks or in some other way, which bits are quote and which are comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: hidigibaugh Date: 11 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM QUOTE = (From: Riginslinger) "Yes, just another example of why it's so important to stamp out the scourge of religion" COMMENT = and so how can we do this ??? .. does this include violence ?? . . . how does one go about "stamping-out" another person's belief ?? .. can Riginslinger please clarify ?? |
|
Subject: History of US radical religious left From: hidigibaugh Date: 11 Oct 09 - 08:16 PM QUOTE = "And by the same token, if someone above can say we're not allowed to talk about extremism among some Christians because it will stir up hatred for the whole group, we can also say that about Muslims. If we are not allowed to talk about the extremists in the Christian religion for that reason, they we are also not allowed to talk about extremists in the Muslim religion because it will stir up hatred for the whole group. Can't have it both ways. " COMMENT = show me the website that lists all of the murders and killings these "Christian extremists" are commiting compared to what the Muslims are doing . . . what .. you have nothing but excuses for Muslims ? the Religion of peace indeed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Donuel Date: 11 Oct 09 - 08:45 PM Blumenthal's concept of RR sado masochism can be seen in virtually all the remarks of the most extreme RR politicians. C Street perversions as well as the perverse remarks by Barbara Bachmann to slit their wrists for their cause is par for their course. Religious sado masochism in the political ring is a bit "high faloutin fancy talk" for what most people call sexual hypocrits and domestic terrorists striving to dismantle secular goverment and replace it with a Biblical theocracy. Blumenthal has put faces and dates on what we all knew in our hearts, such as the conservative movement having more than their share of self loathing homosexuals. He has given me a better understanding of James Dobson's rise to power through the mutual exploitation of Ted Bundy. He has also drawn back the curtain and exposed where and from whom they got countless millions of dollars to overthrow secular goverment. He has probed the racist and fascist right wing elements of Isreali politics which I have been warned against alluding to by Jews who prefer to ignore their right wing extremists. In my opinion to ignore these exptremists is to open the door to apartite enthusiasts. The call for an authoritarian father figure by the Christian right is better understood with the help of Blumenthal's writings. Having been a target for some of these religious fundamentalists I can attest to their high anxiety and self denial to their own potentials. They are indeed afraid of free will and freedom. I have watched the nervous tremors in their hands and other symptoms of anxiety that becomes transmuted into attacking the non believing infidels. Calvanism constipates the psyche and drives people mad. Galvanizing these self frustrated people under the likes of Glen Beck who pleads with them to let out their hate and frustration and direct it toward Barak Obama is as dangerous as smoking atop a heap of gun powder. Talk about an ever lasting lake of fire... Watch his video Rapture Ready... it is a comedic horrorific documentary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: hidigibaugh Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:01 PM Man !! .. you must not sleep very well .. what a buncha' BS "these self frustrated people under the likes of Glen Beck who pleads with them to let out their hate and frustration and direct it toward Barak Obama" . . . obviously this man hasn't seen G Beck's program .. must be an Oberman groupie . . . time for another anti-depressant ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:41 PM I think people can try to get their points across without making attacks on other posters. We're having a thoughtful discussion here, not a street fight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: pdq Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:54 PM Anybody who would post Mad Max Blumenthal's rancid puke does not deserve the time of day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 10:29 PM Fine, don't participate in the thread then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: pdq Date: 11 Oct 09 - 10:31 PM A much better solution is for anti-Christian hatemongers to stop posting this king of puke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:33 PM I'm not anti-Christian, nor do I hate Christians. I'm married to a Christian and most of my family members are Christians. My Christian husband doesn't approve of what the Christian extremists are doing any more than I do. In fact, what they are doing makes him very angry, and he has no problem whatever with people discussing it. Not only does he not mind it, he encourages it. So the best solution would be for me to provide even more information about the extremists who want to take over our government, and also lots of information about acts of terrorism and other kinds of killing and violence committed by them, and that's exactly what I am going to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Donuel Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:35 PM Christians of twenty years ago and the fundamentalist Radical Right of today have virtually nothing to do with one another. That is why the radical right would not support John McCain. I too would not give the time of day to Christian hate mongers. That would include people who hate Christians as well as Christians who practice hate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 09 - 12:47 AM Never mix religion, politics and sex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:49 AM Violence and killing: Eric Rudolph - Bombed 2 abortion clinics, 1 gay nightclub, and the bombing of the 1996 olympic games Murders - In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least nine people, including five doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[5] * March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison. * July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside of another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings, received a death sentence, and was executed September 3, 2003. * December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International,[6] was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings. * January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result. * October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001. * May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.[7] Another doctor, George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama on August 21, 1993, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.[8] [edit] Attempted murder, assault, and threats According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[9] The attempted murders were:[5][10][11] * August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics). * July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton. * December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the same-day shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols. * October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.[12] * January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson. Anthrax threats - The first letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting, and since then, there have been a total of 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.[10][13] * November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare on December 3, 2003. Arson, bombing, and property crime - According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[14] More recent incidents have included:[5] * December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[15][16][17] * October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[18] * May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.[19] * September 30, 2000: A Catholic priest drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being shot at by a security guard.[20] * June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.[18] * July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[18] * December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[21] * September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc.[22] * April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[23] * May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[24] * December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[25] * January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [26] rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[27] President George W Bush is a Christian reconstructionist - http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm Bush's actions in Iraq are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of US troops. isms: Reconstructionism - - is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or ''Biblical Law,'' is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth. Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely ''social'' or ''moral'' issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a ''Biblical world view'' and ''Biblical principles'' by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: ''The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law.''... ...the Reconstructionists go further and set a course of world conquest or ''dominion,'' claiming a Biblically prophesied ''inevitable victory.'' Reconstructionists also believe that ''the Christians'' are the ''new chosen people of God,'' commanded to do what ''Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do. . .create the society that God requires.'' Further, Jews, once the ''chosen people,'' failed to live up to God's covenant and therefore are no longer God's chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are... ...Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of Biblical ''warfare'' is the centrality of capital punishment under Biblical Law. Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, ''sodomy or homosexuality,'' incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, ''unchastity before marriage.'' According to Gary North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, ''along with those who advised them to abort their children.'' Rushdoony concludes: ''God's government prevails, and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.'' Reconstructionists insist that ''the death penalty is the maximum, not necessarily the mandatory penalty.'' However, such judgments may depend less on Biblical Principles than on which faction gains power in the theocratic republic. The potential for bloodthirsty episodes on the order of the Salem witchcraft trials or the Spanish Inquisition is inadvertently revealed by Reconstructionist theologian Rev. Ray Sutton, who claims that the Reconstructed Biblical theocracies would be ''happy'' places, to which people would flock because ''capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society.'' Dominionism - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/20/2406/2232/786/259560 Organizations: Army of God Christian Identity Watchmen On The Walls Joels Army According to Bentley and a handful of other "hyper-charismatic" preachers advancing the same agenda, Joel's Army is prophesied to become an Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers. "An end-time army has one common purpose — to aggressively take ground for the kingdom of God under the authority of Jesus Christ, the Dread Champion," Bentley declares on the website for his ministry school in British Columbia, Canada. "The trumpet is sounding, calling on-fire, revolutionary believers to enlist in Joel's Army. … Many are now ready to be mobilized to establish and advance God's kingdom on earth."... ...Those sounding the alarm about Joel's Army are not secular foes of the Christian Right, few of whom are even aware of the movement or how widespread it's become in the past decade. Instead, Joel's Army critics are mostly conservative Christians, either neo-Pentecostals who left the movement in disgust or evangelical Christians who fear that Joel's Army preachers are stealing their flocks, even sending spies to infiltrate their own congregations and sway their young people to heresy. And they say the movement is becoming frightening. "The pitch and intensity of the military rhetoric of this branch of the global Dominionist movement has substantially increased since the beginning of 2008," writes The Discernment Research Group, a Christian watchdog group that tracks what they call heresies or cults within Christianity. "One can only wonder how long before this transforms into real warfare with actual warriors." Joel's Army believers are hard-core Christian dominionists, meaning they believe that America, along with the rest of the world, should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in their doctrine for democracy or pluralism. More on Joel's Army - What's worse, though, is that to "Joel's Army"...this isn't fiction, and they expect to be the guys literally swimming in everyone else's blood as they descend from Heaven at the end of the Tribulation and slaughter the world. God-Warrior mandates and physical violence in the name of "spiritual warfare" Combine this with a major scripture-twisting of Joel 2 that describes themselves as not only a "third Pentecost" but as a locust-like army of God Warriors and the known use of extremely coercive tactics that have been documented to cause personality changes in less than three days... ...well, if you aren't disturbed, you should be, seriously. And if this isn't enough to worry you, think of this--the goal is ultimately omnicide of the entire world population other than neopentecostal dominionists (no, Jewish people don't get an out unless they convert to "Messianics") via thermonuclear war. The mere promotion of this in churches (which has gone on for quite a long time; I've personally witnessed it since the late 70s in the Assemblies church I am a walkaway from, and this sort of thing has been promoted since at least the fifties in the context of nuclear warfare) is scary enough. However, there's been a distressing trend over the past twenty years or so of the concept of "spiritual warfare" being increasingly embraced in the physical realm as well. One area is with paramilitary training of youth and indoctrination. "Jesus Camp" detailed what is actually a mild version of this in Assemblies of God circles; increasingly common are literal boot camps, including literal paramilitary training in the Assemblies' "Christian alternative" to Scouting. Movements popular in the Assemblies and its "daughters" tend to be even worse; Bill Gothard runs a literal paramilitary training facility for "Joel's Army" youth. This also means that the US military has become an increasing target for infiltration. The very paramilitary training camp noted above has gotten quite official sanction by the general in charge of most of the US Air Force's military recon and IT security. This effort has become disturbingly successful; no less than two of the primary parties involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal including policymaker William Boykin are directly involved in the Assemblies and the "Joel's Army" movement within the denomination, and in many cases the US government has literally been paying for packing the chaplaincy of the US Army and Air Force with "Joel's Army" promoters. (Boykin is especially interesting in this regard; he has quite explicitly referred to Joel's Army theology in speeches to his fellow soldiers.) One of the major groups involved in infiltration of the military, Campus Crusade for Christ, has been known to promote this sort of theology as well. Increasingly, though, these groups aren't restricting themselves to infiltrating the military (or political parties, for that matter) or having their kids play soldier in "Bible boot camps". Increasingly, "Joel's Army" theology is leaking into real world violence--including the neopentecostal dominionist hategroup "Watchmen At The Walls" (which has received official support from the Assemblies of God as a whole) as well as domestic terrorism (such as targeted assassinations of women's clinic workers and bombings of not only women's clinics but adult bookstores and LGBT nightclubs). Not only this, but increasingly "Joel's Army" is no longer even bothering to keep a "private face"--such as Joseph Fuiten's call for the mass denationalisation and deportation of non-dominionists. And if this doesn't scare you yet--these groups may have influence to the very highest levels of government and documented histories of particularly horrific genocides (ask Guatemala about the hell it endured under Gen. Rios Montt sometime)...and the largest denomination embracing "Joel's Army" theology has an estimated membership of nearly three million people...and they've rather explicitly targeted the largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention, for total conversion from within. More on Joel's Army - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/9/165026/2943/580/511990 Blackwater (a private army owned and run by dominionist Christians): Testimony from a former Blackwater employee - "To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades. Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to 'lay Hajiis out on cardboard.' Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as 'ragheads' or 'hajiis.'" Dominionist Christians actively working to take over the US government - http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InfiltratingTheUSMilitaryGenBoykinsWarriors.html Dominionist Christians actively working to take over the US military - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/6/194930/0382 http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_363.shtml http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/19/1092889283618.html?oneclick=true ...and using religious bullying against people who are not Christians - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4091956.stm That's a start anyway. There's tons more out there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:56 AM This article by Chris Hedges is an eye opener as well... The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mr Happy Date: 12 Oct 09 - 08:42 AM 'Lovers of unintentional comedy!!' Just love that line!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Oct 09 - 10:52 AM In any event, religion is a really bad idea; it's pretty obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Andrez Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:02 PM This thread seems even worse than hidigibaugh's original Bible Prophecy thread! I wish people would just get one thing: Religion and Politics DONT mix. When they do there is no such thing as a right or correct view. They are all wrong and just reinforce and entrench bigotry, prejudice and racism and thoroughly corrupt normal political processes. Just look at the Health debate in the land of the "free to make a quick buck at the expense of others", as one example that comes immediately to mind. Cheers, Andre |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:06 PM I think I would say that spirituality and politics don't mix. But it seems to me that throughout history, religion and politics has been inextricably intertwined. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:09 PM Having said that, though, I am definitely in favor of a very strong separation of church and state in my own country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:27 PM Me thinks that alot of folks here are caught in a trap... The "religious right" is nothin' more than a block of voters that certain Mostly Republican politicans ***use*** to keep them in office and those big corporate check$ comin' in... (But this block is a block of real people, Bobert...) Yes, it is a block of real people who, BTW, are so ignorant of how they are being used that they can not be considered part of an "informed electorate"... Most, if they lived in Afganistan or Irag, would be the kind of folks that al-qeada or the Taliban would recruit as suicide bombers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:35 PM I disagree. Some of them are being used by a political machine that doesn't care about them at all. But some of them are people with a particular religious ideology who are using the political system to promote their agenda of religious supremacism. I think the difference between those two groups is the difference between the terms "religious right" and "radical religious right". And I think that difference is a very important one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM Me thinks this a chicken and the egg arguement, Carol... Now if Jerry Falwell had become a US Senator I might buy into that but to my knowledge we haven't had many of these folks who have actaully made it into eleted office... But sure, radical or not is like splitting hairs... It doesn't take too much of a shove to get a religios right to become a radical religious right... Just a little more propaganda in the right, ahhhh, correct places and waalaa... Suicide bomber... But I am concerned that the country is headed for another round of righties thinkin' that assasinating progressives is just peachy... They have been killing abortion doctors for a couple decades now but have fairly well had the federal governemnt locked up... Now that has changed and they are real pissed off... These folks don't like sharing power... And they hate progressives being in power... And they think that the 1st and 2nd Ammendments were written especially for them... Very bad combinations... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Alice Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:58 PM You are forgetting all the Congressmen who are in the C Street cult, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 07:08 PM We certainly have had many of them in elected office! Including George W Bush and several members of congress. How about reading the thread, huh? And watching the videos. It's all there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 09 - 07:40 PM Well, Alice, yeah... But if there wasn't so much money in politics I doubt if the C Street Cult would exist... I mean, where is the Christ in what they have done... Nowhere... I think we need to keep in mind that George Bush wrote the book on faking being a man of Faith... Faith my ass!!! George Bush is/was no more a Christain than I am an astronuat... No, what his daddy did was send the little coke-head weizel into the South to organize, ahhhh, Christain voters... So waalaa, the coke-head weizel becomes a Christain??? Want to buy a bridge??? The Republican Party is the most un-Christ party that I can think of... They do not support Christ-like postions... No, they ***use*** Christianity and Christains with a great deal of distain and disrespect... They work rednecks up into a lather over seinseless stuff... Hey, wee saw them last month at the town mettings... These folks would probably say they are strong Christains... Bullshit... Christ would have run them all off... Yeah, Jesus didn't happen to like folks using the temples to do business but that is exactly what the Republicans have done... The Southern churches and their members have become a major funding source for the Republican Party... No, this thing is all about money... And ways that Republicans can continue their heathenous ways while mascarading as, ahhh, Christains wjile laughing up their sleeves at the dumb ignorant folks who really do have some core beliefs but are too ignorant to know that they are being used... C Street was nothin but a training center for phony politicans to hone up on their phony Christianity... No, it was more... It was a place for these liars to shack up with their mistresses... My bad... Jesus would have burned the joint to the ground... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 09 - 07:47 PM Again, I would recommend actually reading the thread and the material provided in it. This movement exists outside of the Republican party and independently of it, and it exists in other countries besides the US. George W Bush is a Christian Reconstructionist. Now, many Christians might say that that is the same thing as not being a Christian, but it is groups like that one that this thread is about, and not the forms of Christianity that most Christians would probably consider to be real the Christianity. This is why I titled the thread, "radical religious right" rather than "the Christian right". Unfortunately, however, the movement is growing in power and influence, and in many respects, IT controls the Republicans and not the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Alice Date: 12 Oct 09 - 07:48 PM I was responding to what you wrote... "to my knowledge we haven't had many of these folks who have actaully made it into eleted office" - so now your are saying you agree that many radical religious right have been elected? Think of all the governors and state legislators and even school board members who have been elected and are radical religious right. We have a problem with school text books in this country because there are so many who want to have creationism taught instead of science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 09 - 09:28 PM Well, yeah... Lotta thse folks have found their way into local politics... Especially school boards where just about anyone can get appointed/elected if they are willing to make an effort... I think it is harder at the ligher levels of power but I do fully appreciate those folks out there who have to deal with righties who have infiltrated school boards in particular... Lets face it... There is a lot of Talibanish thinking in the United States... Of course these people would be horrified and would threaten to kill you if you made that claim to their face... But that's just the effects of the propaganda... As for Reconstrtionist Christians??? Fancy term for liars... What else... Oh yeah... Seeing as the Fox/Republican Complex has so tied itself to the votes and ollars from these folks I don't think that one can discuss this subject in some kinda vacuum... It is reality... To not look at it this way is like watching a band and not listening to half the instuments 'cause you like the others more... Can't be done... One cannot discuss the "radical religious right" without acknowledging that the Republican Party is using them like pawns... And in doing so these "radical religiou right" folks are empowered, pawns or not... But, yes, there is a movement of very radicalized people on the right world wide... This is the fight the US finds itself in the middle of as we speak... The one common denominator, however, is this view that each holds that their "relgion is the trueist" amd that being a given then anything that they do in the name of that relegion is just fine and dandy... It is some very screwed up, intolerant thinking but it is what they think... But the larger issue is "thinking" itself... Another common denominator is that thinking is a bad thing for the common folks... BTW, this is not new... Historically we have had times like these where the common man was just 'sposed to sit back and let the "smart people" do the thinking... This was pre-romantics... Remember the tall cathedrals... There was a psychological reason for them being so tall... The Catholic Church wanted people to feel small... And to not question... To not think... Just let the popes and high priests do that heavy liftin', folks... Just put yer money in the plate and go out and earn some more to put in the plate... What we have going on is exactly that... The Taliban does not want you to think... And make no bones about it... The Taliban is a radical right organization... The Christain Right does not want you to think either... And yes... The Republican Party, backed by the Christain Right, does not want you to think either... And so, yeah, we have school boards all over this country where these Tasliban/Christains have found an area where they can exert their don't-think-because-we-have-it-under-control power over lots of people... I'd say it's about time for progressives and liberals to start buying guns and let it be known that we are buying guns... Seems that is about the only way that the radical right, which BTW is way ahead of the liberal side in gun ownership, will see that liberals/progressives aren't willing to relinquish their rights to think and have say over how things go in their communities... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Andrez Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:12 AM Boberts confused polemic as well as many others above reminds me of the old quote: Fighting for peace is like F**king for virginity". Its not literally the same but........ for liberals and progressives to take up with guns just pulls you into the muck just like the people you are criticising making you no better than they are. Lighten up guys! Cheers, Andrez |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mr Happy Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:25 AM A classic example of the abuse of religion is its manipulation as a form of control of the gullible by powerful & unscrupulous groups globally |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:27 AM Well, Andrez, when our very own Rapaire stated exactly what I have states a few years back I was shocked... Yeah, shocked... Guns flew in the face of everything I came to learn about change and peace in the 60's... It flew in the face of the teachings of Dr. King... It flew in the face of the teaching of Jesus, of Ghandi, of all the folks who I came to respect... As things have progressed (ha) digressed since tyhe Reagan Revolution (ha), make that the Reagan Reaction, it seems that the one common denominator we find in the rightwing community is that they not only own guns but they want everyone else to ***know*** they own guns... Given our history of the radical right using assasination as a tool to effect change then it is not an unreasonable position for the left to take a page out of their play book... And the sooner the better... Hey, I'm not saying that the left has to go out and assasinate anyone... I am saying that Mao was somewhat correct in saying that power comes from the barrel of a gun... One doesn't have to shoot it at anyone for that power to be achieved... (But Bodert, haven't you time and again argued against gun ownership???) Well, not exactly... I have argued for gun control whereby we collectively pass and impliment laws that keep guns out of the hands of violent people, where at least hand guns are registered and where people have to pass gun safety classes before they can own guns... This, in no way, prevents the left from doing what the right has done for the last 30 some years and levels the playing field... Right now we have alot of, yeah, relgious (my butt) loonies thinking because they have guns that their opinions mean more than lefties... I mean, llok at the guy who showed up at an event where the president was going to speak with a semi-automatic starpped to his leg... Though somewhat shocking this radical rightie wasn't arrested... Why???... Had a leftie done the same back during the Bush administartion then that leftie would have been shot or arrested... See, what we as progressives have is a Catch 22... Society has accepted that the radical right is armed and dangerous... This is why the radical right can own FOX and broadcast it's radical right message 24/7 over the ***public airwaves***... This is in violation of the the origina FCC charter, BTW... So, yeah, with a heavy heart, I now see that my buddy, Rap, was/is absolutely correct... The radical right, be they just loonies or religious loonies, has an unfair advantage and that is that they are armed... I hate that it is this way but me hating it does not change it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Oct 09 - 10:09 AM And now the Religious Right and the Jews in Congress want to send more troops to Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 09 - 12:45 PM George W Bush cured me of any ideas I ever had about gun control. Of course, I don't call myself a liberal, but I used to favor gun control. Interestingly, whether or not one considers advocating for gun control a liberal or conservative principle sometimes depends on what country they are from. JtS (Canadian) says that gun control is a conservative principle, and that allowing people to have whatever guns they want is very liberal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 09 - 01:45 PM And if I haven't made myself perfectly clear, I don't believe that there is such a thing as the "religious" right... I don't know of any religions that preach imperialism and corporatism yet it seems that the religiuos (ha) right, at least in the US, never met a war not worth fighting or a corporation with the big bucks that was distainfull... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Oct 09 - 02:20 PM "I don't know of any religions that preach imperialism and corporatism..." That's because they're sneaky. It's not what they preach, it's what they practice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 13 Oct 09 - 02:21 PM "I don't believe that there is such a thing as the "religious" right..." Well they certainly seem to embody an awful lot of things usually rejected by traditional Christian teaching. Whilst simultaneously claiming JC as their very own personal saviour (personal as in meaning 'MINE but not yours', rather than 'a close or intimate relationship'). Some people get upset at the supposed "Christian-bashing" on this site. But I think whatever it is, that's being "bashed" (or indeed simply criticised) has probably got very little to do with what most of the rest of the worlds Christians, would recognise as representative of genuine Christian teaching or practice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 09 - 02:46 PM Which is why I didn't include the word, "Christian" in my opening post or in the thread's title. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Oct 09 - 05:58 PM And well you didn't. Christianity isn't the only bad religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 09 - 06:42 PM Don't think it matters all that much, Carol... Just seems that if we are discussing "history of US radical religious right" seems that most of the folks that coem to mind are those who call themselves Christain... BTW, seein' as this is a discussion of history it should be pointed out that many Naziz and sypathizers considered themselves Christain... It should also be pointed out that, yes, the Republican Party opened its arms to these folks and that it was these folks who first organized the Heritage Foundation, a right wing organization... In Ray Wylie Hubbard's song about dreamin' of being in Hell he writes about a conversation he is having with the devil: "Well, tell me this, hot shot, which religion is the truest?"... ()devil)"Hard to say, Budda wasn't a Christain but Jesus would have made a good Buddist"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:26 PM Here's a great interview with Max Blumenthal on his book... Republican Gomorrah |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:15 PM Good interview... I especially enjoyed his bringing up Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" which I have used many times here in Mudville to describe folks who are perfectly willing to turn over their own abilitities to ***think*** for themselves... This is a point I have brought up here in this thread... Also Francis Schaffer in his dieing days saying the very same things... It's really about zombies... No religion involved here... Just some very angry and confused people ready and willing to strap on suicide bombs... This is disturbing... This is exactly what them brownshirts were about... Some things just don't change... Yeah, I remember going to Richmond to college in the 60'sd and one night while trying to leasrn the area came upon a KKK ralley... I remember a huge sign on a road leading to Varina that read "Niggers and Communists Beware" with the crosshairs of a rifle painted next to those words... I mean, yeah, the hoods have been replaced and the signs are no longer up but things haven't changed all that much and I do worry that these radical righties are so far removed from independent thought that our country is indeed on the doorstep of abother round of right wingers thinking (ha) that it's perfectly okay to drag a gay guy down a dirt road with a pickup truck, or to shoot a black man who happens to also be the prsdient or to kil anyone who does not fit the mold of what these zombies are told is out of the accepted mainstream... And, yeah, I have struggled with my views on guns but then again there are more ways to interpret The Who's warnings to "not be fooled again"... *Right* now, the right knows that lefties won't shoot back... That empowers them... No, I am not advocating stooping to the mindless levels of the right but there is a difference between shooting first and shooting back... The righties need a wake up call and the left arming itself against the next round of political assasianations and killings of anyone that does not fit the right's idea of ideal it think might be an important step toward making the rightie, ahhhh, ***think*** about the consequences of their behaviors... Meanwhile, yeah, forget relgion... The radical right is allready at war with our country and as they loose more and more elections they are going to be even angrier... If that is possible... Anger + ignorance = a dangerous combination... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 09 - 09:18 PM The talk he gives in the link in my opening post is very good, too, and a lot more complete, if it hadn't been listened to yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Andrez Date: 13 Oct 09 - 11:27 PM In the words of St Bragg, its useful to remember: "When one voice rules the nation Just because they're on top of the pile Doesn't mean their vision is the clearest" I think I hear you care Bobert, along the lines of your own logic............ " And the best of all this bad bunch Are shouting to be heard Above the sound of ideologies clashing" But in the end guns dont solve problems, they perpetuate them and give credence to the ideas behind the guns. Look at the ongoing Middle east crisis and all the macho posturing by both sides over the bodies of men. women and children! Neither side is right in that context. Although I accept that staring down the barrel of a gun held by a loony or right or left persuasion puts you into a very "here and now" type of situation and that in addition if I had a gun and needed to defend my family, I might use it as a last resort, the problem has to do with the ideas and values that the gun supporters (on both sides) are defending or promoting in different ways, at different levels of society. Look at how the BNP work in the UK or our own One Nation, or National party here in Australia as examples of this. Religion gives these ideas and values legitimacy and status and frequently forms a package of ready made beliefs that people who dont have the skills, education or inclination to think things through for themselves take up and use to make sense of the world around them. This leaves them open to manipulation by those who actually understand this process and use it to further their own ends that usually boil down to money and power. The message once again is.... dont get sucked in by the voices of whoever happens to be shouting loudest and try and keep some perspective on what is happening in your community or country. Cheers, Andrez |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:14 AM "Here's a great interview with Max Blumenthal on his book..." Except Max Blumenthal is hopelessly addicted to the ancient superstition of Judaism, so he comes to the discussion with a giant credibility problem of his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:16 AM It would be very nice if we could pull this thing off the way that Ghandi and King drew it up on the chalkboard but... ...those were very much different situations... The radical right was by no means as armed as it is now... The NRQA wasn't pounding propaganda into their thought-less little brains 24/7 about how they needed to get bigger and badder guns because the governemnt/liberals/elitists were coing to get them and take away their guns... Guns, guns, guns... I mean, let's do a little review here... Since the 60's, whcih BTW was the last time that the pedulum swung toward liberalism/humanism there has been one political assasination after another of liberals/humanists... And look where it has taken US??? Hey, would one think that we would have gotten to this place in history had JFK, RFK and MLK not been assasinated??? These assasinations weren't just 3 men... These assasinations were the hopes and dreams of over 100 million people... Three bullets brought down "the movement"... Three lousy friggin' bullets... Now we have an army of looney zombies armed to the teeth... They are so removed from critical *thinking* that they show up at public events with semi-automatic weapons strapp0ed to their legs like Rambo... Why??? Because we have collectively made an exception for these radical right zombies/martyrs (with papers in order)... How could this happen??? Guns, guns, guns... Right here in my rural county one such radical right zombie thought it was perfectly okay to fire thousands and thousands of live rounds of heavy duty ammo in my6 and my wife's direction... When the bullets would fly by us, sure, I'd call the law... The law would come and basically tell US over and over, "If the guy shoots at US we'll either arrest him or return fire" then the law would leave US to dodging this man's insanity... That's what I mean here... The US has slowing succumbed to it being pertfectly okay for radical righties to do what they want with guns... But let some lefties take a page out of the RR's (radical right) play book and the reaction is much different... Think back to the 60's when if any leftie's group t5alked about arming themselves for self defense that that group was branded as a revoultionary group to be erradicated??? Hmmmmmmmm???? So it's okay for the barinless RR to be armed but not okay for the left to be armed??? That creates an unlevel playing field... _____________________________________________________________________ As for the link that Carol put up, yes, I did listen to the entire interview... Couldn't find much there to disagree with other than I wouldn't put LaRouche in with the RR'ers... Radical nutball??? Yes... But not exactly a rightie on all the issues... I know alo of LaRouchies and they ain't that easy to pin down... True believers??? Yeah, just a hodgepodge of beliefs... Radical??? Yeah, but radical on both ends of the political spectrum... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:10 PM Blumenthal has been described here in this thread as both an atheist and someone who is hopelessly addicted to the ancient superstition of Judaism. Personally, I don't care what his beliefs are. I respect his work. He goes after Jewish extremists as much as he does Christian extremists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:31 PM Working under the theory that it takes a clear mind to consistantly solve problems, I'll simply state that as soon as Blumenthal recognizes religion as the problem, I'll respect his work as well. Until that time he'll remain just another participant in the food fight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:35 PM Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would just point out that some people make a religion out of hating religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:43 PM I think it would be helpfull to just drop the "Jewish" or "Christain" when talking about the radical right... They are neither... They are misguided people who have relinguished, for the most part, all ability for independent thought to despots... Yes, they are radical right... But that is it... The religion part is nothin' but a smoke and mirrors shield they usde to justify their anti-human values... Same goes for "Islamic" radical right... Islam does not teach the dogma that the Taliban, as is tyhe case with the so called Christain Right, uses in it's intolerance to any view points but their own little twisted ones that, BTW, are motivated my a thirst for power amd supremecy, not religion... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:51 PM Sometimes it's necessary to use the distinctions they themselves use when referring to themselves just to keep track of who is doing what. They're not all doing the same things, and they don't all have the same agendas, although the Christian and Jewish extremists are more aligned in their beliefs and practices than either is with Muslim extremists. But the harassment of people who aren't Christian in the US military is being done by people calling themselves Christians only, and they are harassing Jews (among others), so it's very clear that the extremist Christians are not aligned entirely with Jews of any sort. And the extremist Jews are treating the Christians in Palestine no better than they are the Muslims there, to it's also clear that the extremist Jews are not aligned entirely with Christians of any sort either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:57 PM "..it's also clear that the extremist Jews are not aligned entirely with Christians of any sort either." They mumble different words while they wallow around on their knees or bang their heads on the floor, but other than that, what's the differnece? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Donuel Date: 14 Oct 09 - 01:21 PM Since everyone else is doing it, I too have decided to add a new parable to the Bible. __________________________________________________________________ Paul was standing on the beach when Jesus appraoched from the sea. Jesus: Shalom Paul! Paul: Shalom Jesus. I thought that was you. Jesus: Oy it sure is a beautiful day. Paul: Whats new? Jesus: While taking a walk, the sea spoke to me. Paul: Really, what did it say? Jesus: She said that every drop of water on Earth is like a child of God and able to give life to the world like religion to the soul, but should we corrupt her with but one drop of Evanoxia, all the water would become poison and be an abomination to God. Paul: Jeez! What did the sea mean by that? Jesus held a small bottle and carefully extracted a needle bearing one drop of fluid. He held the trembling drop upon the needle for a moment and then let it drop into the surf. Immediately the sea began to turn a sickly red and the waters began to froth. The entire sea had turned a foul stenching red from horizon to horizon in the span of taking one deep breath. Paul: Jesus, what was that? Jesus: That was but one drop of politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 02:14 PM Atheism is a form of religion and requires belief just like any other religion. Atheists who believe that everyone else should believe as they do, are evangelists. Atheists who believe that their religion of atheism is the only legitimate one and that all others should be wiped out are religious extremists. I am no more inclined to believe what evangelical atheists have to say about religion than I am to believe what evangelists of any other religion have to say about religion, and I am especially not willing to take my marching orders from atheistic religious extremists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 09 - 03:59 PM "Atheism is a form of religion and requires belief just like any other religion." Hopefully, you'll recover! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:30 PM I'm not an atheist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:36 PM Right, so hopefully you'll recover! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:08 PM I'm not going to become an atheist. I really am not interested in belonging to any religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:37 PM Well, it sounds like you're a free thinker! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:41 PM Yup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:32 AM "That was but one drop of politics." But what do you do with countries that are run by religious leaders like Iran and Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: DougR Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM Bobert: You're NOT an Astronaut? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:04 PM Israel is not run by religious leaders, Rig. It's run by political zealots who serve a political cause called "Zionism"...a cause which primarily has to do with establishing a Jewish political state in the lands that the Jews lived in about 2,000 years ago before the Romans scattered them across the ancient world. Jewishness is not a religion. It's a cultural designation. Many Jews are self-proclaimed atheists. Also...some of the most orthodox religious Jews are openly opposed to the political cause of Zionism (although you seldom hear about their views in the press). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:56 PM Well, I just don't know what's to be done about it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:56 PM Actually, archaeologists are now saying that the Romans never did actually scatter the Jews across the ancient world. In fact, they are now saying that most of the biblical account of Jewish history is fiction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:05 PM Ecatly what I've been sayin', LH... Religion is gettin' a bad rap here... There are no radical religious right folks... Lotta radical righties, tho... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:40 PM That's not the case. While those who comprise the government of Israel are for the most part not religious extremists, there certainly are religious extremists in Israel who have their own agendas that, while they are often synchronous with the agendas of the government there, they are not always, and sometimes they even cause problems for the government. And the radical religious right in the US are very religious, and it really is not correct at all to suggest that they are not. They may be practicing a religion that other religious people don't agree with, or find distasteful, but they are strongly religious nevertheless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:44 PM When one refers to Christians as just "Christians", but one refers to Jews as "the Jews", that really does come across as anti-Semitic. Is there a reason that Christians are just "Christians" to the poster in question, but Jews are always, "the Jews"? And how would we stamp out religion without even bigger violations of human rights than are committed by the worst religions? And if we can't do it without that, then what, really, is the difference? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 12:59 PM "'Christians are just "Christians" to the poster in question, but Jews are always, "the Jews"?'" There are a lot more Christians than Jews, and Jews display more tribalistic behavior. In fact, they talk of themselves as tribes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:16 PM Christians also exhibit tribal behavior. They talk in terms of tribes as well. They give it a different label, "denominations". Tribalism has caused the prevalent wars in the Middle East and ireland. These are basically and fundamentally religious wars. What the military in the US is doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a religious war against Islam. McChrystal and others are doing it. Carol I wish someone would correct you on the term "atheism". It is not a religion. That's a ploy by the religious right to discredit atheists as fundamentalists. Sheer propaganda. Education and enlightenment is the only solution to the assault by the religious right or left. Mythology has always been used as a political weapon. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:21 PM But they don't all think and act alike. One can't paint them with a broad brush like that. There are as many different kinds of Jews as there are different kinds of Christians. Not all Jews behave in a tribalistic manner and not all of them refer to themselves as tribes. The term "the Jews" is a racist term because it doesn't take these things into account and therefore doesn't treat them as human beings but rather as a collective consciousness, which they are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:22 PM Atheism requires belief just as any other religion does. That makes it a religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:25 PM I should add to my last post. Belief alone wouldn't make it a religion. But belief that everyone must agree on in order to be one (there is no God) makes it a religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:40 PM ". . . and Jews display more tribalistic behavior. In fact, they talk of themselves as tribes." That's historical, Rig. Judaism had its beginnings when all the earth's people were tribal. I don't know of any modern Jew who considers Jews to be tribal, save in retrospect. And the same goes for Christians. Get current. And as to Christians being "just 'Christians,'" at latest count, there were about 150 some odd denominations that call themselves "Christian." Major ones are first Catholic, then as a result of the Reformation, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and on and on, all the way to Kingdom of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and things too weird to mention. Even among Lutherans, there is the German Lutheran, the Swedish Lutheran, the very conservative Missouri Synod, the much more liberal ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), and a couple of others. All of these churches claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, but they split over differences of opinion on various major or minor theological matters—and sometimes over differences in political opinion. So, to consider "religion" in general, or "Judaism" or "Christianity" as all some kind of giant monolith is just plain ignorant. It's especially erroneous to assume that all Christians are radical right-wing. The right-wingers seem to make a lot more noise, and the news media tends to focus on them rather than the far less outrageous liberal Christians, who actually comprise the majority. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 02:31 PM I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone in this thread has said they consider all Christians to be radical and right wing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 18 Oct 09 - 03:51 PM Perhaps not on this specific thread, Carol, but I've heard people claim it, and I have read a lot of blanket statements to that effect posted by Mudcatters, some of whom are inhabiting this thread. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Oct 09 - 03:55 PM "All the Christians I know try to improve themselves every day and try to improve the lives of others." - you must not know any from the Southern US, then... "Atheism is a form of religion and requires belief just like any other religion." - Nonsense. That is like saying that baldness is a hair color. Where is the belief that isn't a logical conclusion, but faith in the absence of evidence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:00 PM Perhaps I am wrong about how atheism is defined, then. My understanding is that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Is that not correct? Certainly there is no proof that there is no god, and certainly the absence of proof that there is a god is not proof that there is no god. So if people who self describe as atheists believe there is no god, how is that different from the belief that there is a god? I don't see any difference myself. It's all belief one way or the other, and such belief is required in order for one to be an atheist. In the absence of such a belief, one would be an agnostic rather than an atheist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:54 PM As for these so-called religious Jews who run Isreal??? Who really knows their hearts... But one would be hard pressed to find a scriptural basis for thier policies toward the Palestinians... That's why I challenge the concept of radical "religious" right... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:07 PM "Nonsense. That is like saying that baldness is a hair color." Great line! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:09 PM Actually, Israel Shahak has found a lot of scriptural basis for how the Palestinians are being treated, and there are rabbis currently employed by the government who are serving as rabbis for the IDF who are using scriptural teachings to whip up a lot of fervor for killing and displacing Palestinians, and the complete elimination of all Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. These people are not representative of all Jews, but they are a significant and very powerful force in Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:24 PM It may be emotionally satisfying to come up with a line like that, but it is not accurate. The absence of a belief in god is not the same thing as absence of belief. It would be accurate to say that calling agnosticism a religion is the same as saying baldness is a hair color, because agnosticism doesn't involve belief in the absence of proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:10 PM Major ones are first Catholic, then as a result of the Reformation, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and on and on, all the way to Kingdom of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and things too weird to mention. Don missed out the second largest Christian denomionation after the Catholics - the Eastern Orthodox, with over 200 million adherents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 18 Oct 09 - 10:06 PM Didn't really miss it, Kevin. I just didn't want to spend the afternoon listing the whole roster. Also, there's Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and perhaps other schisms I'm not aware of. In the late 14th, early 15th century, for example, the Roman Catholic church had two papacies: one in Rome and one in Avignon. It wasn't my intent to give a complete history of the Christian religion in all its variations. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:51 AM Besides, there's a new one born every minute, so it would be impossible to name them all. "...agnosticism doesn't involve belief in the absence of proof." Actually, an agonstic is someone who would be an atheist, but who simply doesn't want to deal with the issues. If there was proof, how many atheists would there be. There isn't proof because it defies human reason for there to be proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Oct 09 - 08:53 AM Eastern Orthodox includes Greek and Russian orthodox and there are various other national versions - they aren't in schism with each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:48 PM If there was proof, I imagine that most agnostics would be atheists. But until there is proof, atheism will be a religion and agnosticism will not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:57 PM Wrong, CarolC. There is evidence - but there is *never* **proof** of ***anything*** in science. You might as well say that since gravity is a theory, falling down is a religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Donuel Date: 19 Oct 09 - 02:00 PM People fall for religion all the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 02:29 PM Falling down doesn't require belief. At least not in the sense that most people understand belief. If it did, then falling down would be a religion. But it doesn't, so it's not. But there is no more evidence of the absence of a god than there is of the existence of a god, so people who believe there is or isn't, and who have stuck a name on their belief, and who must share the belief in order to apply the name to themselves, are religious people. Religion (from Wikipedia): A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Oct 09 - 03:38 PM Atheism means simply lack of belief in theism. Agnostics can be atheists as well. There is no proof that can be determined one way or another. "You can't prove a negative" is a logical fallacy. The idea that atheists agree on any particular idea is nonsense. They all have different reasons for their atheism and none of those could be said to be religious in any sense. There is the so-called institutional atheism of Communism practiced by Stalin but this runs counter to the free thought concept of atheism. Stalin, himself, had liturgical beginnings and attempted to make a religion of Communism. It couldn't and didn't work. Dictionary definition atheism noun nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism. So you see there are different forms, not a monolithic view as there is in religion since in that there is a belief in a supreme being or a god. The acceptance of any form of religion is not atheism. Once again, the enablers of the concept of religion can't accept the idea that it doesn't have to exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 03:51 PM Websters defines atheism as... 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity That's why there are two different words for belief in the non-existence of god (atheism), and lack of belief in a god (agnosticism). The roots of the word agnosticism are a (without) + gnosis (knowledge). The roots of the word atheism are a (without) + theos (god). Agnosticism is the acceptance of a lack of knowledge of god, and atheism affirms the non-existence of god. Someone who acknowledges that they don't know one way or another if there is a god may call themself an atheist, but they are really an agnostic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 09 - 04:46 PM I was speaking of the schism between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, Kevin. The "Great Schism," or divide between the East and West happened in 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Eastern Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. The primary cause was a dispute over papal authority. The Eastern churches denied that the pope had any unique authority over them. There was also a dispute over the Nicene Creed. While the Western Church stated that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son, the Eastern Church believed the Holy Spirit to be only of the Father. It is from this kind of disagreement that schisms are made. Really, as I said, I did not intend to write a detail history of Christianity. That's already been done by a number of scholars and historians, far better than I would be able, or care, to do. My whole intent was to point out that there is no one "Christian Church" or Christian body of belief, therefore it is erroneous--and misleading--to regard the Christian religion as one single entity. Clear enough? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:12 PM I love that they each excommunicated the other. I can just hear the Monty Python sketch about it... "I excommunicate you, you stinking son of elderberries!!!" "No! No! I excommunicate you first, you farting mother of hamster dung!!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:46 PM What's a real snort is that within 150 years after the death of Jesus, there were some 82 bishops, all claiming to be actual, or at least spiritual descendants of the original twelve apostles, and each with his own ideas about what it was all about. They were "excommunicating" each other right left and center over some pretty ridiculous stuff. It wasn't until the Emperor Constantine "saw a vision" and became a Christian (or usurped Christianity) that things started to gain a little cohesion—at least temporarily. Constantine declared, "Dogma is what I say it is!!" Suddenly, rather than being at odds with Rome, Christianity had the power of the Roman state behind it. The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman, Alfred A. Knopf, New York (2003) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:53 PM Yes, Constantine should have gone back where he came from, or something. He was the beginning of the end. I agree that dogma approaches religion a lot more closely than not believing in anything godlike does. But you do not *have* to have faith to be an atheist. Any sensible person can look at the mountain of replicable data that requires no supernatural explanation, and at the belief in the supernatural in the total absence of actual replicable data, and conclude that there is no need for a supernatural explanation. See, no faith involved! CarolC, what replicable data do you know of that actually is evidence *for* the supernatural? I don't know of any, at all. So you have a mountain on one side and nothing on the other, and you think it takes faith* to decide that the other is therefore much more likely to be wrong? Also, do not confuse disbelief in yes with belief in no. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:55 PM And lest I be corrected yet again, Constantine felt that Rome was too far from what he considered to be the center of things, so he moved the capitol of his empire to Byzantium, hence "Constantinople" (later, Istanbul). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:22 PM People with a bias will define words and concepts in ways that support their arguments. An Atheist will say that there is no replicable data to support the assertion that there is a god. A person who believes in a god will say that all of life and all of reality is replicable proof that there is a god. It's all semantics, really, and how one defines the words and concepts will be ultimately shaped by the beliefs they hold. Neither one can prove the other wrong, or themselves right. Disbelief in yes is definitely a belief in no. Webster's definition of "disbelief"... Main Entry: dis·be·lief Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\ Function: noun Date: 1672 : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue But as I said before, if someone acknowledges that they don't really know one way or another (disbelief in yes), they are an agnostic rather than an atheist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:30 PM Actually, I need to modify my last post. A disbelief in yes is not the same thing as an acknowledgment of a lack of knowledge either way, so that would not be agnosticism. A disbelief in yes is a rejection of yes, and agnostics don't have any beliefs about yes one way or the other. They understand that they simply have no way of knowing on way or the other. Anyone who thinks they do know one way or the other in the absence of proof is practicing belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM If somebody says the don't know one way or the other, they are saying that the impossible might be true. And Mrrzy is right. It's takes no faith not to believe in god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM But it does take belief to say there is no god. Atheists say there is no god. Agnostics say they don't believe there is a god, but they don't believe there is no god, either. They simply don't have any belief one way or the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:16 PM The agnostics I know simply don't want to get caught up in a debate like this, so they shrug they shoulders and refuse to take a position. I don't blame them, but I think if you could really pin them down they'd come down on the side on no god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:16 PM The back & forth of some of the recent post is why I approach it all as I do. I simply refer to myself as a 'skeptic'. Using the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", I look at claims about BOTH science & religion with the same basic attitude. "Show me why you claim these things." Generally, science does better than religion when providing support for claims..........and when problems arise, science is generally (if done right)self-correcting. Religion ummmm... takes awhile |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:18 PM No, atheists do not believe in god. CarolC, you say "A person who believes in a god will say that all of life and all of reality is replicable proof that there is a god." In other words, there is no scientific evidence for deity. Just what we atheists have been claiming. Funny how we agree, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:23 PM No, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a god. But that doesn't prove that there is no god. So to say that there is no god requires belief. A real scientist would say that the absence of proof is not itself proof of anything. They would say that the absence of proof of a god is not proof of the non-existence of a god. They would say that the question requires further study. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:28 PM I'll just say, "There sure don't seem to be no god around here, or anywheres else for that matter." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 20 Oct 09 - 12:27 PM Of course no proof of god isn't the same as proof of no god, but considering that proof has been being sought for millennia and never, ever found, can lead one to conclude, logically, with no faith involved, that they aren't there to be discovered. Like we've said, when there are mountains of actual data on one side, and nothing but beliefs -not even a molehill- on the other, it isn't rational to say the question has to remain open for ever. At some point, it makes sense to not believe in the other. Which is *not* saying that there is proof of no other. It's just saying that when you look at reality, there is no rational reason to continue to believe in deity. Which should be fine with the believers, since after all, belief is *supposed* to take faith. I don't understand why they (the believers) insist that their belief be considered rational - faith isn't, and that is what belief in deity takes, and that is apparently the way the mythical deities want it anyway, so why argue about the data? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 09 - 12:54 PM A scientist would never say that. There are too many questions that science can't answer. Science is not in the business of shutting out possibilities. Science is in the business of finding things out. In science, the lack of an answer is not considered an answer. In science the lack of any scientific evidence of a god doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is a god, so the question remains an open one. Anyone who decides that the lack of an answer is itself the answer and who, on that basis concludes that there is no god, is practicing belief. It's also not accurate to say that there are mountains of data on the other side. There is no data that says there is no god. There is not even any data that suggests that there probably is no god. Personally, I am not suggesting that any belief is rational, not belief in a god, nor the belief that there is no god. Belief is, by definition, not rational. It is belief. Neither side of the issue is any more rational than the other. They are both equally guilty of engaging in belief in the absence of proof, and neither is any more rational than the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:01 PM The problem with the radical religious right is that it may be enabled by more moderate religious believers. There is a lot of sweeping the dirt under the carpet. Otherwise The Family would have been brought out sooner and censured by the US Congress, Senate and the White House. A National Day of Prayer in Washington is an example of how this agenda is being perpetrated by so-called "moderates". Rushdoony/Ron Paul connection is very interesting. Leviticus prevails in Libertarianism. "Theocratic Libertarianism" Ahmansen has a big theater in L.A. Francis Shaefer invaded the Left with Jimmy Page and Bono. Back to the moderate enablers. Shaefer and Operation Rescue. "He created a monster". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:06 PM The problem with your theory, Carol, is that there is a mountain of evidence that says that any god that has been defined can't take place scientifically. There is not even weight for both sides of the equation. You can prove that the concept of god as has been expressed by anyone is not consistent with scientific knowledge that we know today. To follow your logic, Santa Claus may actually exist today in the North Pole. There is "no evidence" that he doesn't exist. There is no "evidence" that any myth isn't real. Again, "you can't prove a negative" negates your argument. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:15 PM Nazi-Jesus is a new development in the Family and by Vereide and Doug Coe. But this authoritarian mindset is historically not new. There is Calvin. Other notable authoritarian religious figures emerge as well. Some who protected Nazis during the war. Violence is an important element of religion. Check the bible or the koran or the torah. "Will you swear on the bible, I will not!" said he. "For the truth is as holy as the book to me." ...........George Fox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:17 PM Carol, I compliment you for the expose by Blumenthal. It's great. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:38 PM Blumenthal reinforces the notion that Lakoff has put forward that there are no real "centrists". There are enablers or opposition. The so-called "Centrist" is one who is a "bi-conceptual" who embraces conflicting ideologies. This is what makes them ineffectual politically. A military mindset is consistent with Christian authoritarianism. This is at the root as to why the U.S. is in Afghan/Pakistan and Iraq. Mikey Weinstein has a lot to say about this. Bibles are illegally being sent to Afghanistan by the U.S. military. Then there is Blackwater who is headed by religious fundamentalist, Eric Prince. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 09 - 03:59 PM While it may be true to say that any god that has been defined can't take place scientifically (although I rather doubt that anyone has taken all of the ways that god or divinity has been defined and shown that they can't take place scientifically - I suspect that they just used the definitions from the more well known religions, if, in fact anyone has actually conducted such an examination, and I also would be interested in seeing the scientific studies that have established that even they cold not take place scientifically if they do exist). If someone were to define divinity or god as being the life force that exists in all of life and all of creation (all there is), it would not be possible to say that this can't take place scientifically. At least not with the science we have now. Especially with some of the new theories that are coming out of the realm of quantum physics which hold that all matter is made up of energy. It would not be possible to demonstrate scientifically that such energy could not have consciousness. There are many ways of thinking of a god that would not be inconsistent with what can take place scientifically. On the subject of culpability of others besides the extremists themselves in not holding The Family to the legal standards we say we embrace in this country, it's not only Republicans who are culpable. There are Democrats who are involved, in one way or another, in the Family as well. Quite a few Democrats attend their prayer breakfasts, and this may account for their turning a blind eye to what The Family is doing. I agree. I think what Blumenthal has done is very important. I am hoping to eventually be able to get the book that the talk in the opening post is based on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:27 PM I *am* a scientist, and so are a lot of other atheists, perfectly happy to say that there is no *rational* reason to believe in the supernatural, given what we can now explain about the natural. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:41 PM I know what kind of scientist the above poster is. They are a marketing psychologist. I don't think that makes them any more qualified to say whether or not any of the other scientists have established any evidence that there is no god, or even that the question is closed and doesn't require any further study. In fact, I would be willing to bet money that they don't have any evidence whatever that any branch of science has determined that there is no reason to keep the question open any longer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:46 PM I would further suggest that anyone who has a PhD in the science of manipulating people, really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to telling others what to think or believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:47 PM The point is, Carol, atheists do not tell other people what to think or believe. Religious leaders do that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:52 PM It's definitely not true that atheists don't tell others what to think or believe. Some may not, but plenty of them do. And there appears to be at least one of them here in this thread. And it's also not true that all people who believe in a god tell others what to think or believe. Again, some do, but many do not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 09 - 10:00 PM I would also add to what I said in my 20 Oct 09 - 09:41 PM post that I would be willing to bet money that there is no branch of science that has established that there is any rational reason to deny the existence of the supernatural either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 09 - 01:07 AM I have heard the best arguments there are for the existence of God (Thomas Aquinas and a whole bunch of others) and I've heard the best arguments from the atheist viewpoint. I find that in both cases, the proponents start with their conclusion and then try to "reverse engineer" to prove their belief. That's bound to skew the "logic." The best "logical" arguments of all for the existence of God are Aquinas's, and even they have gaping holes in them. The most rigorously logical arguments I've encountered for the non-existence of God were put forth by Ayn Rand (yes, that Ayn Rand!). They, too, are full of holes. IF there is a God, a Creator of the universe—first, consider how immense the universe is, and then consider the idea, put forth by recent cosmologists such as Michio Kaku, that this "universe" we inhabit is merely one of a huge number of "mulitverses," further complicated by multiple dimensions (eleven at latest count). Then, consider that any Entity who could have created all this is so far beyond our comprehension that for someone to say that they "know the mind of God" or are "doing God's will" borders on the ludicrous. I also maintain that those Creationists who believe that the universe is only 6000 years old, that there was a literal Adam and Eve, and all that goes with it—well, they worship a very puny God indeed. Little better that a minor wizard. But this is not to say that life does not have a spiritual dimension. One area for consideration: In that realm of multiverses, and multidimensions that modern cosmologists, quantum physicists, and string-theorists are contemplating lies a possible explanation for the occasional manifestation of what might be called "paranormal phenomena" sometimes experienced by perfectly sane and reliable people. "Leakage" between dimensions? A rift in the membrane between our universe and the one next door? Or the matter of an Afterlife? Perhaps, when we die, our awareness ("soul," if you insist) merely slips into another universe or dimension, just as physical as the one we currently inhabit. Or not. Perhaps the God that people worship as if He were a benevolent father is actually a lab technician and we are merely a culture in a cosmic Petri dish. I wonder what the nature of the experiment might be? And how, do you suppose, are we doing? Do I believe any of this? Not with any strong conviction. But I don't know that it isn't the case, either. The true nature of reality is best summed up by geneticist and evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane, who said, "the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." Being totally, rigidly, and absolutely imbedded in a body of belief that brooks no questioning or new information and refuses to adapt when new information is presented is to close the door on true knowledge and growth. If one holds that, one is as good as dead already. I have no trouble reconciling science (dedicated to questioning, revising, and updating when new evidence is presented) and religion—provided it is the kind of religion that is open to Mystery and is not rigidly dogmatic and authoritarian. There are things that we will never know Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:16 AM One further point on the subject of psychology and discussion of the "supernatural" (a misleading term, since for many, what is being described with that term is perfectly natural). The only thing psychology can do and has so far done, is to show that there are possible explanations for some phenomena that some people describe as "supernatural". They have not produced any evidence that there cannot be other explanations for these things, or that it is necessarily any more likely that their explanations are right than the spiritual explanations, nor have they produced alternative explanations for all aspects of these phenomena. So even psychologists and people who study the brain have not provided any scientific or rational basis for anyone to deny the existence of a god, or of any other sort of spiritually based understanding of reality. They have only demonstrated that belief in the existence of those things is not based on rationality or science. It is still necessary for someone to employ belief in order to deny the existence of god, spirit, or the "supernatural", and such belief is also not rational or based on any kind of science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:42 PM I'm not a marketing psychologist, what is that? I am a *cognitive* psychologist who worked in marketing analysis for years. That means I studied how the brain works - in particular, how the brain of bilinguals process one language at a time. That required actual hard science, quantifying the unquantifiable. Then I used my statistical skills in analyzing revenue streams for law school publications. I may have written letters to law school faculty describing how our books were better than the competition's, but that's about as far as my "manipulation" went. I have no *clinical* training, and do not do therapy, other than as a patient. And I ask again (note - not telling), what rational, data-based reason -any reason- can you come up with to back up any belief that there needs to be any supernatural explanation for any natural phenomenon, including the existence of human life on this planet? And again, by data, I mean scientific, experimental, replicable manipulable data - not "well the world is beautiful and that's evidence" non-data. I am not, again, saying that there is evidence *that there are no* gods. Please, CarolC, answer the actual question, instead of going off on imaginary tangents about my professional life. Oh, oops, on rereading, you have completely agreed with me again, without admitting it: They have only demonstrated that belief in the existence of those things is not based on rationality or science. Exactly. Faith is faith-based, and not rational. So why do you keep arguing against that position? That's what I've been saying all along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:20 PM I have never argued against the position that faith is faith based and not rational. I am only arguing against the position that faith in the non-existence of a god is not also faith based and not rational. I am saying that anyone who thinks they know the answer to whether or not there is a god, or anything that some might describe as "supernatural" is operating on belief and not science or rationality. That goes equally for atheists as it does for people who believe in the existence of a god. I am saying both are flip sides of the very same coin. It's only those who reserve judgment until they have proof one way or the other, who are behaving rationally, and in a manner that is consistent with science. There is so far no proof one way or the other about the existence of a god, so that means that atheists are just as much operating on belief as people who believe in the existence of a god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Oct 09 - 05:35 PM All this discussion about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism calls to mind Les Barker's contribution. (And here's the man himself on YouTube proclaiming the Gospel of Uncertainty. Comes after he's given the Shipping Forecast.): Brothers and sisters; I speak to you today in the Church of the Wholly Undecided; I wanna hear you say "Yeah!" I wanna hear you say "No!" We are gathered here together, Sister side by side with brother, To proclaim we are Agnostic; Don't know one way or the other. In this, we won't be shaken, Though hard the winds may blow; In doubt we are united And we cry: "We do not know!" Brothers and sisters; I wanna hear you say "Eeeeeeaaaahhhh!" I wanna hear you say "There are two sides to this, you know!" We hold no fear of persecution, It pains us not to be derided As we stand here in the Church Of the Wholly Undecided. Oh my brothers and my sisters, I know I speak for you When I say we know for certain That we haven't got a clue. Brothers and sisters; I wanna hear you say "It's beyond my comprehension!" I wanna hear you say "Well, it's a bugger, isn't it?" I believe that some believe Just their beliefs are true, Though I believe what they believe I don't believe I do O my friends, be ye contented, For ignorance is bliss; We stand foursquare behind our message And we don't know what it is. Brothers and sisters; I wanna hear you say "I am not a sheep!" I wanna hear you say "I will not mindlessly do everything I am told!" We know that we don't know, So let our vision still be pure; We are Agnostic Fundamentalists; We're fundamentally unsure. Peace, my sisters and my brothers; The Agnostic does not smite; We are tolerant of others; There's a chance they might be right. Brothers and sisters; I wanna hear you say "Death to nobody whatsoever!" I wanna hear you say "The infidel might have a good point, you know!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 21 Oct 09 - 06:39 PM LOL (they always do it in America.... ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Stringsinger Date: 22 Oct 09 - 10:14 AM The argument becomes a tautology. If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, therefore he might. Or she might. Or it might. Or Santa Claus or Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster might. Ignorance is bliss. There is plenty of scientific evidence that refutes the idea of a single monothesism. Teleology, ontology and cosmological evidence for the existence of a supreme being has been refuted by science. There is the rationale that the earth might be flat because we don't have enough information yet. In the meantime, we are asked to be tolerant of ignorant suppositions. No thanks. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 22 Oct 09 - 10:54 AM When we discus the possibility of the existence of a god or divinity or some aspect of the "supernatural", or spirit, or whatever, we aren't necessarily talking about a single monotheism. However, I would be interested to know what scientific evidence there is that refutes any of these possibilities, including "single monotheism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 22 Oct 09 - 10:57 AM And by the way, we have plenty of scientific evidence that the earth is not flat. I think science has determined that that question needs no further study, unlike the question of whether or not consciousness exists separate from the physical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Oct 09 - 12:28 PM But CarolC, nobody here is saying that they have faith that there are no gods, so again, I don't see why you're arguing about that, when you have already agreed with us that there is no rational reason to have faith. Which is all we've been saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 22 Oct 09 - 12:31 PM Sure looks like some somebodies are saying that. I would suggest reading all of the posts again. This one for instance... 22 Oct 09 - 10:14 AM. However, if the above poster is saying they understand that the possibility of there being consciousness separate from the physical has not been eliminated by science, then I will not try to suggest that they are one of the people who are acting on faith that there isn't any such thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Feb 10 - 03:27 PM Hey, that last is not from anybody I know... I thought this would be about how they were history... oh well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: mousethief Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:21 PM This was a very interesting thread until it became about whether or not God exists. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:27 PM Well, you'll notice that some buffoon who parades around with the title of "guest" posted it, so it probably makes sense to get back to the history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:14 AM Looks like it was deleted, because I don't know what's being discussed any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:30 PM If you take radical religion back much beyond Ronald Reagan, you end up with William Jennings Bryan, and he was a Democrat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:48 PM "Democrat" and "Republican" have largely switched places in the last 150 years. Labels mean very little without perspective. Abe Lincoln was a "Republican"..... do you think his attitudes & policies would have been supported by today's Republicans? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: mousethief Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:49 PM There was definitely a sea change with Reagan. His were the years of the "Religious Right" and "Moral Majority" (a play on Nixon's "Silent Majority"), the rise to power of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and other such hyperconservative religious leaders. It's basically the point at which the American Con-Evo (Conservative Evangelical) right woke up and discovered it wielded a certain amount of political clout. And the Republican party quickly sussed this and coopted the Religious Right for its own ends. (You give us votes to pass our pro-corporate agenda, we occasionally throw you a bone for your social conservative agenda.) It was a marriage made in heaven. It has not yet given out, although it has strained some in recent years. It has resulted in middle-class Americans voting repeatedly to screw themselves financially, and in a string of presidential candidates who were vetted entirely on one issue: were they willing to say the believer's prayer, to wit: "I believe that human life begins at conception." Any other sin could be overlooked (and was) as long as the candidate could say the prayer. At the same time the con-evos were redefining Christianity as well to make it primarily about The Prayer, but that's another story. On the other side of the aisle stood the Democrats, forsaken by a good number of their former stalwarts (dubbed at first "Reagan Republicans" as people who crossed over from being Democrats to being Republicans because of Reagan), and henceforth defined as a coalition of a lot of (mostly) small interest groups. As such they can't put together a coherent, strong platform to lure anybody back away from the Republicans, especially given that none of the Democratic contenders are willing to say The Prayer -- certain members of their coalition prevent it. Obama was elected not because he had a particularly strong message ("change" as a campaign platform isn't terribly convincing) but because he wasn't Bush, and after 8 years of mismanagement and malfeasance under Bush, the great middle, who aren't in anybody's coalition and aren't sold on The Prayer, were ready for change (which is the sense in which "change" won Obama the presidency -- he's not Bush or a Bush-like entity). How's that? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: GUEST,infowars.com Date: 19 Feb 10 - 08:18 PM "Democrat" and "Republican" have largely switched places in the last 150 years. Labels mean very little without perspective. Abe Lincoln was a "Republican"..... do you think his attitudes & policies would have been supported by today's Republicans? Watch this 8 minute video by a young black Republican. All civil rights advances have come about as a result of Republicans. All of them. Even modern ones. From the mouth of a black man. The Truth about Black History For you with slow dial-up, take the half hour or so to open this. It'll open your eyes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:11 PM That really can't be said about the Civil Rights act of 1964. More Democrats voted for the legislation than Republicans, and it was signed into law by a Democratic president. What can be correctly said is that had the majority of Republican voted against it, it would not have passed, so it was certainly a bi-partisan effort. But it could definitely have passed without any Republican help had the Republicans abstained from voting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:23 PM That guy's being extremely dishonest. He only mentions the Democrats who were against civil rights for African Americans during the 1960s, but he neglects to mention the many Democrats who worked very hard for it, and he also neglects to mention any Republicans who also worked against it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: GUEST,infowars.com Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:25 PM Well, I won't argue with the young man in the video. Contact him with your views. The true political battle in the world is between individualism and collectivism. And it's odd how people who identify themselves as liberal and say that people should be "free" are in favor of MORE government than their conservative counterparts. Liberals preach the dignity of the individual while supporting legislation to regulate individuals. Do you see the irony in this? Do you see the hypocrisy? It's the Democrats who hold down blacks, through restrictive legislation. Democrat/liberals are the true racists, and they don't even know it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:31 PM The guy in the video is entitled to his own opinion, infowars, but he's not entitled to his own facts. There's no truth whatever to the assertion that liberals are in favor of more government than their "conservative" counterparts. At least not if you include the Republican Party in your category of "conservative". Republicans are responsible for the biggest increases in government of any party in the history of the country. It was (Republican) Abe Lincoln who took states rights away from the states. It was GW Bush who increased the size of government beyond what it had ever been in history with his Department of Homeland Security. When you use the URL for the infowars site, are you saying that you speak for the owners of that website, and for Alex Jones? Are you Alex Jones yourself, or do you have permission to speak for him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:46 PM "All civil rights advances have come about as a result of Republicans. All of them. Even modern ones. " Oh, my.... I don't even know how to approach such a distortion of history & facts. (As I said, it makes little difference what the name of the party was) What's that rustling I hear? I think it's Lyndon Johnson thrashing in his grave! Mr. infowars.... *I* spent several weeks in Mississippi in 1964, picketing and doing voter registration and being spit on by white citizens and harassed by white police. I guarantee you there were very few Republicans around! And there very few Republicans in the NAACP, COFO, SNCC or supporting reform. In the deep South, it was hard to get ANY politicians to stand up for civil rights, as they took their life in their hands to do so, but real progress was always being led by Democrats... and no distorted opinion by a Young Republican is going to change the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:58 PM and..."....people who identify themselves as liberal and say that people should be "free" are in favor of MORE government than their conservative counterparts." What has 'freedom' got to do with necessary government regulation? I see the current conservative concept of 'freedom' being that of no restraint of their ability to manipulate prices and control all the relevant power vectors of society. "More government" is the only answer to **ABUSE** of power by business and corporate interests, aided by lobbyists and various religious pressure groups! It levels the playing field a bit. Heck, I knew by the 8th grade in school what happens when greedy folks are not monitored and supervised. It's sad, but that's how it is. Let me know when YOUR side is willing to be fair and sane, and maybe I'll vote for a bit 'less' government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: pdq Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:07 PM ...and now for the facts: Civil Rights Act of 1964 House of Representatives: Democrats for: 152 Democrats against: 96 Republicans for: 138 Republicans against: 34 Senate: Democrats for: 46 Democrats against: 21 Republicans for: 27 Republicans against: 6 Many sources cite numbers provided by an issue of Congressional Quarterly. For example, on the web site of the 5th Legislative District Republican Party for the State of Washington, they state: "The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. [...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:19 PM Percentages are meaningless in this context. The number of Democrats who voted for the bill is larger than the number of Republicans who voted for it. So in terms of who is responsible for passing the bill, more Democrats are responsible for its passage than Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:24 PM Yep... those are 'facts' alright... but it remains a fact that it took Democratic leadership to get the topic to a vote at all! We know about the Dixiecrats and their legacy. It was painful knowing that many Southern Democrats would not support civil rights...but only the 'fact' of a Democratic majority allowed it to pass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:33 PM Read the Wikipedia article on the bill, showing how LBJ and public pressure, plus amazing maneuvering by **Democrats** like Mansfield, Humphrey, Celler & others managed to outsmart recalcitrant southern racists and get the bill passed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM Some of us are not in a Democrat versus Republican rut (although I note that the posts by the person using the screen name 'infowars', are promoting the Republicans over the Democrats). Some of us recognize that party politics is just used as a way to distract the voters from the crimes that are being committed against us by those in power. But I still don't like to see people spreading lies on the internet, and I'll do my best to correct them when I see them. Because people use those kinds of lies to manipulate the voters into voting in ways that are contrary to their own interests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 10 - 12:09 AM Here's a question I think deserves to be asked (and answered) - after Lyndon Johnson signed the equal rights legislations in the '60s, what percentage of racist southern Whites switched their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:59 AM They switched from Dixiecrat to Republican. And Civil Rights is fine, but then they went on to pass Affirmative Action, which is government sponsored racism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Paul Burke Date: 20 Feb 10 - 10:34 AM "Affirmative Action, which is government sponsored racism. " People are where they are because of history. It doesn't seem unreasonable to give certain advantages to people whose ancestors were deliberately denied the right to make choices which could improve the prospects of their offspring. There is an alternative, of course: abolish hereditary privilege. But in my experience, the people against action to atone for the past are also the strongest defenders of that privilege. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 10 - 12:38 PM Some of my posts were in response to posts that have been deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Greg F. Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:02 PM what percentage of racist southern Whites switched their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican? AH! Ya mean the infamous Republican "Southern Strategy" that they're so proud of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Amos Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM The notion that affirmative action--intended to be a corrective to decades of covert and overt abuse--could be construed as government racism is --I think--delusory. It is not the ideal scene of all men being color blind but for crying out loud, mon, recognize the context! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: mousethief Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:09 PM Just what we need, a hatemonger on the Left to offset the hatemongers on the Right. This Blumenthal should be stuck in a room with Ann Coulter and they can hate each other to death. Ugh, what a filthy man. I'll be back after I take a mind-shower. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:26 PM ?? This is getting confusing... who mentioned Blumenthal? And WHICH Blumenthal? Can't tell the hatemongers without a scorecard.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:20 PM Read the thread, Bill. In particular, I would suggest reading the opening post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:45 PM "The notion that affirmative action--intended to be a corrective to decades of covert and overt abuse--could be construed as government racism is --I think--delusory." I can sympathize with the intentions that generated Affirmative Action, but a number of things went wrong. First of all, it only punished poor white males. Bill Gates never suffered from Affirmative Action. And then it was expanded to cover everyone but white males: women, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and on and on. So the people who paid the price became a small minority group in themselves. And then, to go back to the first point, rich white males didn't pay, so the group became even smaller still. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 09:40 PM *sigh*..Ok, mea culpa..thread started last Oct., and I didn't post in it for 9 days....and then I opened it with the 50 at a time column and saw no references. Old brain loses track of the details. I WILL add my voice to those who agree that affirmative action is, regrettably, necessary. It certainly is NOT "government sponsored racism". There IS no precise formula for correcting injustice and bias. ALL attempts will be met with complaints that 'it goes too far' or 'it doesn't deal with every case equally'. Right.... it just simply must be attempted and tweaked to make it better. (I never understood why the FSEE (Federal Service Entrance Exam), which I took several times in the 70s, needed to have the Veterans preference scores give 'exactly' 5 & 10 point bonuses. I got a pure score of 96.5 on one, and STILL could not get a job when some veterans with scores of 88 were beating me. But that's the way it was, and I understood why there was a bonus being given.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:44 AM In the case of veterans, it was something they earned. Affirmative Action is ridiculous the way it is now. Tiger Woods' children would qualify for special consideration. It would be better to do away with it all together. But if it has to be there, it would make more sense to simply apply it to "poor people" without consideration of ethnic background. Ward Connerly is right on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 06:03 PM "Reacting to news that Booker T. Washington had dined at the White House, Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina predicted, "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that ni**er will necessitate our killing a thousand ni**ers in the South before they will learn their place again." Randall Kenedy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 21 Feb 10 - 06:16 PM Sawzaw, there's no denying that there were a lot of racist Democrats in the past. Nobody is even trying to deny that. But you can't use what happened in the past to define what is happening now, and you also can't do that with regard to the Republican party, either, which these days is the more racist of the two parties overall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 21 Feb 10 - 06:17 PM "In the case of veterans, it was something they earned. Which I already said I understood.... but which does NOT answer why the bonuses were set so high. I was not against vets getting the benefit of close scores over me, I just thought that 10 points (why not 4...or 6?) was defeating a lot of the reasons for having an exam and thus, watering down the talent pool. I gather that this is one of the standard complaints about affirmative action. I am not complaining...just noting what the issues are. Sadly, most of the details of such decisions are political and voted on by legislators pressed by lobbyists, rather than being designed by experts in several fields. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 11:13 PM JFK, RFK and MLK Assassinated by Whom? Who ordered MLK under surveillance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:35 AM Interesting questions. How do the killings of JFK, and RFK relate to racism. Personally, I'm willing to consider the possibility that Johnson was involved in all of that (although it was Uncle Jedgar who put King under surveillance and I don't know if he actually took his orders from anyone else... he probably had Johnson under surveillance, too). However, I said now, which is almost a half century after those events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:50 AM "'In the case of veterans, it was something they earned.'" "Which I already said I understood.... but which does NOT answer why the bonuses were set so high. I was not against vets getting the benefit of close scores over me, I just thought that 10 points (why not 4...or 6?)" Yes, government intervention upsets the apple cart--as it does with Affirmative Action. You should have been a contractor in California, where everything under 10 million dollars was set-aside for minoritys, and you couldn't bond 10 million. Again, the rich guys didn't pay. Affirmative Action, the way it's currently practiced, is just simply not workable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:01 PM No... it IS workable, it's just not perfect.... like judging the skating performances at the Olympics. You can't have perfect when trying to adjust inequities. Unfortunately, some inequities need to BE adjusted, and I can't see anyone other than the government to do it. You want to 'suggest' to employers that they 'be nice & fair', and leave them to it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Donuel Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:12 PM Evangelism with all the trimmings, like the rapture, started with a pracher in the UK. Funny that it took root in America but withered in England. I suppose that whacky new ideas regarding religion is best exported to America for fun and prophet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:18 PM "Unfortunately, some inequities need to BE adjusted, and I can't see anyone other than the government to do it..." More unfortunate than that, if the adustments aren't made in your working lifetime, you just simply get fucked. I wonder if they'll work out an Affirmative Action program for my children and grandchildren to make up for what they did to me in mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:30 PM *shrug*...I dunno, Rig... are you Native American or something?...or are youjust a disgruntled WASP? You can try to hire a lobbyist, but some of them would just laugh at some complaints... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:25 AM Well, I'm not Protestant, so I guess that makes me Native American. But aside from that, if there was a way to track it, I'll bet Affirmative Action has produced more NeoNazi's, Skinheads, and National Alliance members than the numbers of minorities it helped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:11 PM Riginslinger, how would you propose that a society in which the government, private industry, and educational institutions had been practicing institutional racism and discrimination for many decades, might help to correct the inevitable results of such discrimination? It's not possible for that kind of broad institutional racism and discrimination to not have a debilitating effect on the discriminated population. And such institutional racism and discrimination doesn't just disappear the moment it is made illegal. It lingers for a very long time in ways that may not be easy to detect, but that continue to have a negative impact on the ability of the target group to have a level playing field with those who are not discriminated against. What remedies would you suggest for correcting this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:41 PM Rig: What is your impression of the social prpocess by which affirmative action produces neoNazis? I just have no idea how that assertion is even imagined to work, let alone any evidence it does. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM " I guess that makes me Native American." Well gee, if you have been discriminated against, I guess you could Sioux someone! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:30 PM "Riginslinger, how would you propose that a society in which the government, private industry, and educational institutions had been practicing institutional racism and discrimination for many decades, might help to correct the inevitable results of such discrimination?" Certainly not by simply shifting the same discrimination to another helpless group. "What is your impression of the social prpocess by which affirmative action produces neoNazis?" When the government discriminates against a group of people, that group of people will certainly want to retaliate. When they do, the often band into groups to do it. They look for those individuals who are the cause of their misery, and, like we see in published reports, they discover that Jewish politicians and media outlets support increased immigration, affirmative action, and they act accordingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:40 PM Certainly not by simply shifting the same discrimination to another helpless group. So in your book, it's ok to allow dark skinned people to continue to be discriminated against and disadvantaged if correcting the problem could cause any inconvenience for the white skinned people? Or do you have any better ideas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:45 PM Rig...that convoluted bit of rhetoric makes me gasp in frustration that anyone can suggest such twisted causality! So now, the only way to object to racism and stupidity is to do it ANONYMOUSLY? People like neo-nazis don't NEED an excuse to organize for nefarious purposes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:49 PM "So in your book, it's ok to allow dark skinned people to continue to be discriminated against and disadvantaged if correcting the problem could cause any inconvenience for the white skinned people?" The larger problem for me is it only caused an inconvenience--or drove to bankruptcy--POOR white skinned people. It didn't have any affect on well-to-do white skinned people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:51 PM So it's ok to cause the same problems for dark skinned people but not white skinned people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:27 PM Jewish politicians and media outlets support increased immigration, affirmative action, and they act accordingly. Rig: I am sorry but you have just revealed yourself to be seriously aberrated and small-minded in this one post. Your conflation of policies and religious classifications is, to put it simply, bigoted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:52 PM Not really, Amos. If you sit through one of the neoNazi programs on the History Channel, or go to the National Alliance or a neoNazi web-site, you will see that those are the points that are made by the extreme-right-wing followers. I'm just telling you what they think--or at least, what they say they think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:56 PM "So it's ok to cause the same problems for dark skinned people but not white skinned people?" As stated earlier: all you have to do--if you have to do anything--is to give the same breaks to "Poor People" that you give to "Minority" people now, without dividing them into groups. You will essentially be helping the same people you help now, but it saves the government from acting as a racist organization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:35 PM Rig: I apologize--the context was unclear, and it sounded like you were saying those things as your own. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:36 PM "I'm just telling you what they think--or at least, what they say they think. " And there's the key....of course folks who intend to discriminate and to violate the point of laws, if not the letter of the laws, will provide some self-serving rationale! They 'usually' (these days) don't just say "I hate all X & Y groups, and I intend to stop them any way I can." There's always some indignant description of their 'enemies' as interfering with their 'rights' and blanket, unprovable accusations of 'secret controlling bankers' and 'tri-lateral commissions' and anything else they can dream up! This in NO way shows that we should design programs to reflect inherently biased views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:49 PM As stated earlier: all you have to do--if you have to do anything--is to give the same breaks to "Poor People" that you give to "Minority" people now, without dividing them into groups. You will essentially be helping the same people you help now, but it saves the government from acting as a racist organization. This sounds good, but how do you do that when the institutionalized discrimination goes underground and minorities can't get past the "old boys' networks"? How do you ensure that everyone gets the same breaks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:27 PM "...how do you do that when the institutionalized discrimination goes underground and minorities can't get past the "old boys' networks"? How do you ensure that everyone gets the same breaks?" How is it done now? It's just too random. To be Hispanic, for instance, all you have to do is have a Spanish surname. Somebody from Spain or Portugal would qualify. They'd be just as Euorpean as a Swede. It depends on what the activity is. If it was an appliction to a university, bringing in a copy of your parents tax return might do it. How would some "old boys' network" have anything to say about it? And why wouldn't they anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM Until there was affirmative action, the old boy's network determined who would get contracts. The old boy's network is the product of institutionalized discrimination. It keeps all newcomers out, and fortified the entrenched power structure of white male dominance. Affirmative action helped people break through that entrenched power structure so they could start to correct that imbalance. How would you get rid of an entrenched power structure like that if you didn't use a tactic like affirmative action? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:07 PM Use Affirmative Action, just don't make it "race based." The "old boys' network" you talk about keeps unconnected poor whites out of the system too. The way it is now they're the only ones kept out of the system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:25 PM How would you structure that, Riginslinger? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:54 PM Similar to the way it's structured now, only you deal with economically disadvantaged people instead of race and ethnicity. 90% of the time it would be the same people, but you wouldn't be punishing poor (meaning without resources) white males |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:21 PM That might be a good idea. Maybe you should write to your elected representatives about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:59 PM If my representatives won't listen to Ward Connerly, why would they listen to me? But I'll try it anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:36 PM Did Ward Connerly suggest the same thing you did, about providing affirmative action for economically disadvantaged people people regardless of race, or did he just say that they should get rid of affirmative action all together? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM I was wondering if MLK was a Republican so I started searching. I found a site that happily reported that the was. Then I saw on that site that the FBI had taped him having sex etc. How juicy. I was going to find the evidence and post a big expose featuring the indisputable words of Rev. Aberbnathy. After reading and reading and reading I found out it is all horseshit propaganda. Abernathy never said it. He seems to be a good guy and King does too. He does cast aspersions on some others like Jesse Jackson. J Edgar found there were some former Communists among MLKs associates so he requested permission from RFK for surveillance. This caused friction between MLK and the Kennedys. Whatever the FBI taped has been sealed in the National archives until 2027 and those reports of what was in the tapes seem to be pure speculation and rumors that got legs. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp MLK was assassinated by a racist, pure and simple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:25 PM Good work, Sawz. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:52 AM "Did Ward Connerly suggest the same thing you did, about providing affirmative action for economically disadvantaged people people regardless of race,..." Yes, that's exactly Ward Connerly's point. He says Affirmative Action should not be "Race Based." Otherwise, he says, it continues to force people into groups, to be seen as members of groups, and compels the groups to be antagonistic to one another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Feb 10 - 10:31 AM I hope I get some credibility for trying to search out the truth and not just gleefully posting arbitrary things to stir up a controversy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:02 PM You do with me. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: CarolC Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM You certainly get credit for it, Sawzaw. That was a thoughtful post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right From: Bill D Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:58 PM That is how serious researching SHOULD be done. On the internet, anyone can fabricate a story or repeat gossip as if it's true, and then anyone who reads it and wishes to believe it can copy and paste is as 'data' into discussions, reformulate it as part of new web pages, and allow Google to dispense it as 150 'hits', causing careless researchers to assume it's a widely known 'truth'. It takes a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff, and I'm glad to see an example of doing it right. |
