BS: History of US radical religious right

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.