BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..

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

A friend sent me this article to read

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


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

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

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

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

DougR

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an irony here.

Frank

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

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

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

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

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

An excerpt:

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

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

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

---

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

A

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

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

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

"Plagues of Israel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At best these accusations against Bush are a bit hypocritical.

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

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

DougR

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

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

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

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

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

My exact sentiments, harvey.

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three points:

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to add a bit to 1933:

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

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

Wolfgang

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

Wolfgang:

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amos,

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

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

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

Wolfgang

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

And who controls congress?

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

"And who controls congress?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth.

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

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

Keep it funky, man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strick:

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


         

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't think so.

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my god. What mudcat do you read?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the 'both guilty' part.

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

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

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

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

Illogical

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

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

Spirituality of President Bush - PBS Religion and Ethics

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

Kirbyjon Caldwell

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

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

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

Strick:

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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


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

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

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

Here.

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO, of course. :D

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

oh come on, Don.

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

I thought you were better than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If all the changes in laws and procedures that are being pushed become standard, my grandchildren may just notice a bit more resemblance to classical fascism someday! I agree with Don's comment that "The best time to put out a fire is when you first smell smoke and see the first flames, not when the house is fully engulfed."

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

IMHO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:>))

A

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

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

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

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -

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



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

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

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

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



4. Supremacy of the Military -

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



5. Rampant Sexism

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



6. Controlled Mass Media

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




7. Obsession with National Security -

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



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

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


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

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

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


9. Corporate Power is Protected -

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




10. Labor Power is Suppressed -

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



11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -

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




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

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



3. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -

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



14. Fraudulent Elections -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, Frankham, let's talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you really doubt what I say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

"Do you really doubt what I say?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry. Premature mouse-click.

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 06:33 PM

Maybe so, but the Neocons would screw a dead seagull to remain in power by getting votes, and they will do that until Americans no longer have the right to vote. Then it won't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 07:40 PM

But, brucie, you're also describing city government in Chicago or Huey Long's Louisiana. I've heard people say that about any number of politicians on either side. You could find similar thoughts on people trying to stay in power in any ancient Greek or Roman history and quite a bit of their plays and poetry. That's part of my problem - if it's common to politicians of all stripes and all ages, how can you claim it's evidence of Fascism and Fascism alone?

Don, I'm a little embarrassed. Other than the article you quote from the Council of Secular Humanism (and it's endless reproductions), a novel that went out of print some 6 years ago and one speaking engagement last year, I can't find anything that proves Dr. Britt exists. One site said he was at Oxford, but that's not true according to their website. I find lots of evidence that people are trying to find out who he is, but none of them have been successful, even those who've written Free Inquiry asking about him. I'm sure it's just one of those things, the internet's not perfect after all. I'll keep trying.

Do you have any more info than I've been able to find so I can reach him? I'm sure he'll recognize the consulting firm I work for and be interested in talking to me.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 07:44 PM

Hey, pal, I didn't mention fascism. You did. Lighten up for fuck sake.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 07:49 PM

Dude, didn't you read the subject of this thread? Sorry if I assumed incorrectly we were still on topic.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 07:52 PM

Dude my ass. I did not claim it was evidence of fascism. You got so many words in your own mouth that now you gotta put some in mine? Like I said, lighten up.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 07:59 PM

brucie, I'm sorry, I mis-read your comment in the context of a larger exchange I've been in related to the main topic of this thread, Fascism (look at the subject line), nothing more. Say anything you want about neocons, they're no friends of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 08:12 PM

I'm sorry too. The friggin' Neocons give me a serious pain. I have enjoyed the writing on this thread, and you are a sharp cookie. No question about that. I guess I simply see it a bit differently.

The USA is not a fascist country. I had loaded rifles pointed at me at People's Park in Berkeley in the late 60s. Lots of us did. We didn't get shot. We would have been in a fascist state. Fascists don't care what people think. The USA does. American demonstrations are controlled with tear gas, not nerve gas.

When some religious idiots who choose to receive the word of God from people like Falwell and Swaggert (of the 'send us your money and we will pray for you most sincerely' Church of the True God as interpreted by the select few who run this television scam), but who have no real sense of decency at all, try to climb into bed with an American President who can't get his lines right or his facts straight, I think worrying about a fascist religious state is just a bit premature.

Our problem is the Neocon agenda. The religions and the President are really incidental.

Anyway, I am an ass for my remarks above, and please excuse me Strick. Later.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 08:14 PM

I was at fault and took no offense. Later.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: harvey andrews
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 07:13 AM

We didn't get shot. We would have been in a fascist state. Fascists don't care what people think. The USA does. American demonstrations are controlled with tear gas, not nerve gas.

Kent State?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

"Kent State?"

A bunch of frightened, poorly trained civilians, weekend warriors mostly 20 and under with guns, told to watch over a bunch of civilians, mostly 20 and under, who stopped protesting and began throwing rocks. Nothing I've seen says that any civilian authority ordered the shooting to start. The most likely senario (IMHO) is that one of the kids with guns panicked. It can't be jusified, but...

I've been that scared. I'm afraid to think what I might have done if I had been there with a gun or in charge at that age. Heaven forbid any of my sons be put in that position, kind loving people that they are.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 01:24 PM

Some folks get all crazy when they see a person in uniform holding a weapon. That specifically doesn't bother me. We throw terms like fascist around when that isn't what we really mean. I knew when I wrote the post that someone would mention Kent State. In a fascist state, there would have been many more than four dead. Soldiers in the USA do not as a rule get off on shooting civilians. In Berkeley, there was 'concertina' wire, gun emplacements and a few spotter/sniper teams on roof tops. I spoke with a guardsman who was behind the wire, and he assured me the weapons were safed. Good by me. I do not think America is fascist. A little right of center at present, but not fascist. I think maybe I have lots of 'faith' in the goodness of the American people, with all their faults and attitudes. I lived and worked in that country for about five years, and you will have to go a long way to convince me that America is fascist. Now, I don't doubt that someone will bring up Calley and Vietnam. It was a exception, not a rule.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 05:11 PM

Strick, I chose to answer your PM in open forum.

Since I did not log in to Mudcat Saturday afternoon or all day Sunday (busy making music), I'm not sure which "last post" you are referring to, but I have read most of what you have written. I must admit that on your longer posts, I scan them rather than reading your "point-by-point refutations" because, frankly (and I do not mean to be insulting here, but I have to say it), I find those point-by-point items to be made up of selective history designed to support your position rather than to present an authoritative and objective picture. I don't have the time that you seem to have to devote to this, and I feel no obligation to parse your posts as you do mine and try to correct where you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. I don't think it would work anyway. Brevity is the soul of wit, and although I rarely follow that dictum myself, I think it is a goal worth striving for, especially if you have a point that you feel is worth making and wish people to take the time to read it

My point in posting a link to Dr. Britt's "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism" was informational—to invite people to compare Dr. Britt's list with current events and see if they can detect any parallels. Although he doesn't say so explicitly, I believe that this was Dr. Britt's intention. At least, judging from the number of places I have found the list reprinted, a large number of people have inferred that this is so. You will note that I said "I strongly suggest you read it [the Fourteen Characteristics], observe current events, and judge for yourself." It was not my intent to take you (or anyone else) by the hand, lead you through it, and make these comparisons for you. Trusting in the acute perceptions and intelligence of most Mudcatters, I do not arrogate to myself the assumption that I should do their thinking for them. If others don't think there are parallels, that's their opinion and their privilege .

If you can't see these parallels, I, personally, think it's because you're not looking or you don't want to see them. There are trends that I find pretty disturbing, and apparently many other people do also. But everything I have to say on this subject I have said before, and I have no intention of spending the time and effort to repeat it. At 19 Mar 04 – 08:56 PM, Bill D shows he understands what I was saying when he wrote "Don Firth has made the point that we are not nearly a 'fascist' state yet, but are 'moving in that direction.'" So, as far as I'm concerned, mission accomplished.

As far as the Christian / Fascist connection is concerned, in my opinion, all one need do is listen to Pat Robertson on the 700 Club or any of several other "electric preachers" to hear the powerful lust on the part of these folks to acquire sufficient secular power to enforce their beliefs and morality on the whole country—or the whole world. Harking back to Mussolini's definition of fascism as the merger of state and corporate power, there is nothing there that prevents a particular church or group of churches from also joining in that bundle of sticks surrounding the axe. Here, of course (I feel I have to keep reminding people of this), I am referring, not to Christians in general, but to that substantial group of the "Christian Right" who are often in the forefront of the news and claim to speak for all "True Christians" (lots of rules; no mercy or forgiveness).

When one looks at the backgrounds and the connections of our leaders, one can hardly deny that our government and major corporations are made up of the same people. Cheney's Halliburton connection is well-known, but I leave it to you as a good exercise in research to check into the corporate connections of various members of Bush's Cabinet, and his large group of "advisors." And considering that President Bush, who starts every day at the White House with a prayer breakfast, has said in specific terms that he considers his presidency a "Divine mission," continually salts his speeches and press conferences with religious rhetoric, and wishes to legislate morality with Constitutional amendments; the blatant machinations of people such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has openly stated that he is "on a mission from God to promote a 'Biblical worldview' in American politics;" and the associations of prominent members of the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, to organizations like the Council for National Policy, which was co-founded by former Moral Majority head Timothy LaHaye, and includes Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Grover Norquist, and Oliver North, that had a lot to do with Ashcroft's efforts to ram through partial-birth abortion legistlation—I think it would be hard to defend the position that we actually have the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution. One can hardly deny that certain specific religious viewpoints have a strong foothold in the government, and some of it smells a lot like an American Taliban. Not here yet, I grant you, but straining at the leash.

So I will say once again (therefore hardly following the aforementioned dictum about brevity) that I invite people to read Dr. Britt's list and observe for themselves.

I do not see that I have anything to defend.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 05:35 PM

"If you can't see these parallels, I, personally, think it's because you're not looking or you don't want to see them."

And I must repeat that, in my professional and very expensive opinion, the list is structured like a horoscope where anyone who wants to can read anything they want to in the list. It may be gratifying to do so, but not social science as anyone I know represents it.

I know this thing is quoted and linked to all over the internet and sincerely believe you posted it in good faith. That doesn't change the fact I'm beginning to suspect it's a fraud. I haven't completely dispaired of locating "Dr." Britt to discuss his study, but I'm considering dropping a little cash with one of the companies on the internet who locates people. If that fails I'll contact a buddy who used to write for the Washington Post to see if his contacts can locate him. If this is what I think it is, I'm sure Harry (who you can find first try on a Google) will be happy to see that it's debunked in a responsible publication.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 06:40 PM

I will be interested to see what you come up with. I, too, was unable to find anything on Dr. Britt beyond the brief article containing the list of Fourteen Characteristics and various references to it.

However, I disagree with your horoscope analogy. You speak of your "professional and very expensive opinion," however, I have no idea as to what your credentials are. Nevertheless, I don't think you can invalidate Dr. (with or without quotes) Britt's list of characteristics, which I find consistent with the characteristics and behavior of fascist governments that have existed in the past, by attempting to invalidate Dr. Britt himself.

In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, there is a scene in which a disillusioned Lt. Worf confronts what he has learned is a clone of Kahless, the Klingon messiah, and not the messiah himself. The clone of Kahless (who, until a short time ago, that he was Kahless) says to Worf, "But if the words are true, what does it matter who says them?"

Don

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:11 PM

I am a senior manager with a multi-billion dollar consulting firm traded on the NYSE. You see our name TV if you look at the right golfer's hat. I currently consult on data management and warehousing and spent the last several years consulting to state regulatory agencies (big states, think lots of electorial votes) on various aspects of the performance measures imposed on local telephone companies in order to meet certain FCC regulatory requirements. I worked my way through graduate school as a research assistant (great job) in the business and finance area of my university, where I supported faculty research, mostly conducting analysis against public and private databases to identify patterns in the data that could be used to predict behavior, changes in property or asset values, bankruptcies, and the like. I have been published at least in a minor way, since I was more involved in corporate speaking engagements when I was active in the area.

It's fair to say I've done what a bit of what Dr. Britt claims to have done in his article if in different areas; at least the experimental design is the same. I can say with great confidence that while he probably can support what he says he found in his fourteen characteristics of Fascism in the regimes he studied, there's no basis for arguing that finding one or more of those characteristics in a regime constitutes any reliable evidence of Fascism because he has not, could not have validated the predictive qualities of his list. If what he did worked, you couldn't imagine the number of PhDs who'd have gotten rich playing the stock market.

I found a copy of Dr. Britt's book that I've purchased online. While it appears to be a vanity printing, I'm hoping I can get enough information from the dust cover to help locate him.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:44 PM

The only thing I have been able to devise that can predict anything is a math thing that predicts squares. Chaos is too much with us. Once ya get to gangs of variables, predictions go out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:49 AM

Stand back! This man has swallowed his nose, get me a catchers mitt, I am a qualified sheet metal worker.

Sorry, but whenever anyone starts trotting out why they believe their political opinions are more valid than others, based upon their professional expertise, for some reason or other Gahan Wilson's cartoon always comes to mind. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:59 AM

Hell! America has been putting guns in the hands of frightened people, young and old since its inception. ROTFLMAO

Don't shoot until you see the whites of their isotopes!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:54 AM

"Sorry, but whenever anyone starts trotting out why they believe their political opinions are more valid than others, based upon their professional expertise, for some reason or other Gahan Wilson's cartoon always comes to mind. LOL"

Sorry, Metchosin, Don Firth asked about my qualifications when I questioned the quality of the research on a link he posted. I don't believe anything on my CV gives me any better right to a political opinion than anyone else, but I am qualified to speak on the validity of the specific argument Don was making.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:38 AM

I think there has been a great deal of thread diversion from the main points, so I'm going to ignore a lot of what has been written and simply state my own perceptions.

People professing Christianity and fascism together have been known occur, principally in Europe of the 30's and early to mid 40's with some recidivists to the present day. People professing Christianity and anti-fascism together have been known to occur in even greater amounts in the same time period.

In the United States, Christians have such incredible diversity that huge political differences occur within major denominations as well as between them.

I think that stirring up a fear of Christian fascists is precisely that, doesn't accomplish much, and adds to the 'fear itself' mentality that FDR raised in his first inauguration speech. If someone chooses to advance their political beliefs in the name of their religion I prefer they are up front and honest about it. When some brain-damaged school board tries to have 'evolution' stricken from the school books I say 'bring 'em on'. But I'd rather live in a society where people are open about their beliefs and passionate in defending them, then one in which causes are advanced by blaring nasty labels such as has happend with 'liberal' these days.

Hoping to shed more light than heat (this time)

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:54 PM

Impressive credentials indeed, Strick, but I don't see anything there that makes you an expert on political science or an authority on what is or what is not fascism. I do not consider myself an expert on the subject either, but when it comes to knowing how to dig up information, I did spend a portion of my working life as the news director of a network affiliated radio station. I had to stay on top of the national news, and I was directly responsible for the veracity of the local news. I got pretty good at research, and at distinguishing the real news from the on-going tsunami of BS that some folks wanted to get aired.

But all of this is beside the point. There is considerably more being discussed here than whether or not Dr. Brill actually exists, or if the Fourteen Characteristics are an accurate reflection of the real world. I refer you to the wisdom of Kahless, the clone of the Klingon messiah, which I quoted above. I consider debating this issue and exercise in the picking of nits.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:10 PM

Fair enough, Don. Based on the wisdom of Star Trek, faulty pseudo-science and an interpretation of human events that says more about you than the world (IMHO), you believe the US is moving toward Fascism. Those are some pretty damn big nits. While acknowledging that the danger could be present and it's good to be ever vigilent, I don't.

Oh, BTW, Brill exists, someone paid to get that novel printed. I just don't know he's a "Dr" or an expert on social science. As I've said, I never pretended to be a social scientist or political expert myself, just someone who can recognize bad "science" when he sees it.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:39 PM

Cheap shot, Strick. My reference to Star Trek is hardly an indication of where I get my view of the world, it was a way of couching a true statement in a more-or-less humorous context. We've brought up the matter of the argumentum ad hominem a number of times in Mudcat discussions. My reference to the Kahless comment was a way of saying what the argumentum says without lapsing into Latin. Trashing Dr. Brill doesn't invalidate the Fourteen Characteristics. If the humor was lost on you, perhaps I should stick to being a bit more stiff-lipped. And perhaps you missed it, but I don't think we were talking about science, pseudo or otherwise.

And once again you misinterpret what I say. The nit I was talking about was getting bogged down in a discussion of the validity of Dr. Britt and his Fourteen Characteristics. Not whether or not the US is moving toward fascism. Obviously we disagree on a number of things.

But don't be indiscreet enough to try to characterize me as a doofus. I think Mudcatters know me better than that, and it can only undercut your own credibility.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:48 PM

You guys gotta pull your shit together. William Shatner was on Star Trek. He is a legend. Just ask Little Hawk or Amos. They idolize him. Me too. So does Ellenpoly. You are beginning to tread on v e r y thin ice.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:53 PM

Don, I have been a bit tongue-in-cheek in part of this myself, but honestly, I thought you were serious when you quoted STNG twice. If not, I'm sorry.

I haven't trashed Britt, I just want to talk to the guy and I've grown suspicious as the result of my search for him. Part of that is due to the misrepresentation of these fourteen points and the implication that they can (however much they shouldn't) be used to say something about the state of politics in the US. They may even be marvelous analysis by a legitimate political scientist, they just don't do what I think most people who quote them think they do.

Their only relation to all of this is that I understood you used them to support your opinion. It's easy to see they don't add credible support, but you're more than welcome you opinion regardless, right?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:57 PM

BRucie:

Actually as far as Shatner goes, I am steadfastly opposed, as I believe him to be a do-nothing actor with the grace of wet cowflop on an October morning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:22 PM

Yes, but Bill's recording of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds!!???

Don Firth
Patrick Stewart ROCKS!!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:31 PM

See, I told you Amos likes him!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Backstage Manager(inactive)
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:43 PM

"The USA is not a fascist country. I had loaded rifles pointed at me at People's Park in Berkeley in the late 60s. Lots of us did. We didn't get shot. We would have been in a fascist state. Fascists don't care what people think. The USA does. American demonstrations are controlled with tear gas, not nerve gas."

Brucie knows of what he speaks.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:48 PM

Jaysus! Mistakes of one's youth do come back to haunt a guy.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:59 PM

"Jaysus! Mistakes of one's youth do come back to haunt a guy."

Come on, brucie, that kind of thing's a badge of honor around here. Who didn't protest something that long ago. The only negative I can see is that you took a pretty classy looking guitar into harm's way. :D

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:54 AM

IMHO - and mine alone - this is much ado about nothing. It appears to me that the good Dr. must first be found to exist, second to find he is an "expert" of some sort, and third to figure out his methodology for his summation.

Heck - I've a Master's degree and most likely wouldn't know what he did - but then again - I think -

And a wary eye is part of the process - it's what isn't allowed in socialist/facist regimes.

Meanwhile - back to one very good discussion -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,lookin' in
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM

There's an old poster delineating the difference between capitalism, socialism, and fascism based on how a farmer raises or owns his cows.

Goes something like:

You are a farmer with two cows.

FEUDALISM: The lord takes some of the milk.

SOCIALISM: The government collects the milk and divides it among the people.

COMMUNISM: The government takes the cows and sells you spoiled milk.

DICTATORSHIP: The leader takes the cows and keeps the milk.

FASCISM: The government shoots the cows and drafts you.

CAPITOLISM: You sell one of the cows and buy a bull.

Add Your own 'Two Cows' Definition


Finally: NEVER demean the philosophy of Star Trek. You'll be Vulcanized!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 07:57 PM

. . . and as a glass dropped from a fair heighth to a concrete floor, you'll be Shatnered.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:51 PM

"...you'll be Shatnered."

I always thought THAT...was when you OVER ACTED...in a STILTED, WAY using strange rhythms...and ACCENTS, SPOCK!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 10:36 PM

Hey brucie you look like Desi Arnaz Jr.

Desi Jr.

(Don't feel bad... first time I saw LH's picture, I said he looked like Roddy MacDowell ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 10:59 PM

More on the Early Bruce -- hey, man -- playing opposite Farina and Sky is pretty spiffy!

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:20 PM

Swerving just slightly back onto topic (!), I found the following website that shows what Americans are up against in terms of Christian fascism. Be warned that everything on this site is real, even that which seems too exaggerated to be possible. It made me shudder.

The far-out right.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:28 PM

PDC:

My gawd, what a mess o' authoritarian bigwigs!! DANG!! It's enough to make you think those guys who wrote the constitution were just kidding!!! They aure have a clean bead on Truth, Wisdom and Superiority, huh? Ya gotta wonder how they got that way!

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:41 PM

I don't know how they got that way, Amos -- I can't even hazard a guess. I only know I don't want them in my way, and I don't want to be in theirs. Forcing your views on another is just plain evil, IMO, and when the views are as weird as the ones on that link, well to repeat myself, I shuddered.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:21 AM

Well, I wish it were that simple. They are the kind of evil that can -- in the worst of times -- synchronize their efforts and forces and end up elevating some White Knight to power who will then try and jam their mad remedies down the public throat.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:42 AM

People like that are fairly common. Except for the obviously anti-Semitic ones. Most of the hardcore Christians I know believe that Jews are "God's chosen people" and since, in their belief, the Christian religion was an outgrowth of the Jewish religion, they (the Christians) regard themselves as "God's chosen" by extension. I have a few of them in my family, and we don't come originally from that sort of religious mindset. Of the ones who are that way, they became that way well into their adulthood. They consider themselves "born again evangelical Christians" I don't know about Dr. Laura though. She's Jewish. Are there evangelistic Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,cat
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:52 AM

I like brucies..

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:40 AM

There's some real weirdos in the world, pdc, but I'd be more impressed (distressed?) if I hadn't seen some of what where essentially the same quotes coming right back at 'em on that secular humanist site Don posted.

All this does is confirm there's a cultural war in progress and both sides are taking a hard line.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:20 AM

"Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -- Winston Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:53 AM

There's plenty of free speech; but some of that free speech makes a lot more sense than other parts. In this case, the free speech being quoted is bigoted, biased, authoritarian, inherently illogical, fanatical, non-Christian, dictatorial and against the grain of the best inclusive principles of human brotherhood once associated with CHristianity.

Free, but of negative worth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:27 PM

Thanks for the link, pdc! There you have it, folks! In their own words!

Isn't that Ann Coulter a sweetie, though?
The reincarnation of Lucrezia Borgia!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:24 PM

Unfortunately, only some of them, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:01 PM

However,

This filth has been around for decades. The question has to be one of how much influence can they collectively exert on the Exec and the Congress. Aye, there's the rub. Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 02:05 PM

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
by Thom Hartmann

Published on Monday, July 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

The Republican National Committee has recently removed from the top-level pages of their website an advertisement interspersing Hitler's face with those of John Kerry and other prominent Democrats. This little-heralded step has freed former Enron lobbyist and current RNC chairman Ed Gillespie to resume his attacks on Americans who believe some provisions of Bush's PATRIOT Act, his detention of American citizens without charges, his willingness to let corporations write legislation, and the so-called "Free Speech Zones" around his public appearances are all steps on the road to American fascism.

The RNC's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and Democrats was short-lived, but it brings to mind the first American Vice President to point out the "American fascists" among us.

Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Vice President when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman President), Roosevelt had two previous Vice Presidents - John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945). In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.

Vice President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:

" If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."

Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. "American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."

Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American. When Windrip becomes President, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.

As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy." And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,' which nickname was generally used."

Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book "It Can't Happen Here." And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler. These events all, no doubt, colored Vice President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:

" Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases."

Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state."

Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies, feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly defined as "rule by the rich."

Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his new book "What's The Matter With Kansas" that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle America - 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."

The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." He added, "Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself."

But American fascists who would want former CEOs as President, Vice President, House Majority Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working people. Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.

In a comment prescient of George W. Bush's recent suggestion that civilization itself is at risk because of gays, Wallace continued:

" The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination..."

But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations - who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media - they could promote their lies with ease.

"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism the Vice President of the United States saw rising in America, he added, "They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

Finally, Wallace said, "The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."
Excerpted from this article. Click for the rest of the essay.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:01 PM

This may have been pointed to before, but for a quick review of the key characteristics of a Fascist regime, see This Presentation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 09:24 AM

Cats that look like Hitler.com

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: 282RA
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 08:36 PM

The Bush administration is indeed a form of Christian fascism.

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

Perhaps this is true and that is why I never throw such words around lightly. George Bush and his administration and much of the GOP IS INDEED FASCIST.

There is this drive for race and nation as embodied in the anti-immigrant stance. The demand that only English can be the language of America. That when this is lost, the nation is lost. The nation is bigger than the individual who is but a cog in the machinery of the State.

There is the concentration of economic power and the formation of policy strictly held and wielded by the political arm of the administration. In fact, there is no other arm to this administration.

There is the corporatizing of nation and society. In fact, when we talk about the machinery of the state, we talk as much of corporatizing as of bureaucracy. Society has been chopped up into small bodies or corporations. Each of these, in turn, is subservient to the State and the State is the Leader and the Leader is the State. Under the leaders throne, the corporations squat like deformed cats (let's call them little kitlers) that fight and claw at one another ruthlessly but are always subservient to the ruler/State. There is room for each kitler to maneuver to reach number 1 but the State/Ruler is beyond that--the TRUE #1, the Transcendent #1, irreplaceable, the very soul of the State, the Master, the Protector, the Messiah.

There is the need for fear-mongering and for war. Convince the people that their State is under attack and they will do anything to defend it and this is far better than having them sit around content and fed--that causes them to become spoiled children expecting privilege, to start thinking, to start observing, to start learning, to start criticizing, to start organizing into an unauthorized body that may threaten the State.

There is the belief that without the Ruler/State there is only gang rule, complete anarchy, a Mad Max multiple warlords sort of non-society in need of a strong unifying leader. This is extended to the entire world. All nations are merely gangs under a leader and they must all answer to one leader and Bush has decided that leader is him.

Like Calvinism, Bushian fascism is only comfortable making war. As long as good and evil battle, then the struggle of God goes on. And the struggle of God is no different than the struggle of the State/ruler. The story his reign and path to power is what he would call "my struggle."

This struggle consists of guiding the nation to accept his vision. To proclaim him Leader. To see him as the embodiment of the glorious State--of America the Beautiful. His struggle is to dismantle the previous government as a nation of conquerors dismantles the conquered's temples and august institutions just as he tore down Iraq's governmental infrastructure. There is that new vision, the struggle for Transformation, the setting up of a New Order. For Bush, the message to make the vision reality was 9-11, his personal Apocalypse.

Israel and oil are the same thing to Bush. One without the other is unthinkable--literally. Oil is the source of American power, the blood of the American Century. So it only makes sense that America's future lies under the sands of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran--any enemies we can personally attack. For those we can't, there's Israel. Israel must survive because its existence is proof of biblical prophecy and that is where the final battle is--the Middle East--all roads lead to Israel. In order to fight this battle, we must have oil and it must be nearby and plentiful and only for us so that we may finish this glorious mission.

The Invasion of Iraq was not a response to 9-11 but something preordained.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 09:47 PM

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
Date: 2006-06-02, 1:10PM MST



10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 09:49 PM

Above from http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/phx/167335230.html

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: 282RA
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 10:10 PM

I think Bush has been truly shaken by his involvement in Iraq. Apparently, the easy victory God promised Bush in vision (i.e. pie-eyed drunken stupor) has not materialized. God had promised it would be so easy. Just go in and knock down Iraq's govt and those bone-headed little camel-jockeys will throw themselves on the ground at our feet promise us the moon and sun.

This leaves Bush with two unsavory conclusions:

1. God was wrong

OR (and far worse)

2. George W. Bush was wrong

Now he is uncertain. As long as he made believe his god marched alongside him, he swaggered and smirked his way through his presidency. But now? Now, Bush is like the emperor who suddenly realized he's naked in front of the whole world. Suddenly, he's indecisive about what should be done about Iran and North Korea. Suddenly, he wants Russia and Putin to get tough with Iran at G8. He wants China to take the lead with N.K. Japan is threatening to launch a preemptive strike on N.K. and Bush can only stand there bewildered as though he never saw this coming--simply because he never did.

For Bush, he was only supposed to get the ball rolling and god would handle the rest. Now Bush has no idea how to yank the ball back and god is nowhere in sight for consultation.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 10:45 PM

Brilliant analysis, 282. ANd bobad, your Craigslist borrow is a pure-dee crack up.


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 12:24 AM

Couldn't get past the second paragraph. Bush isn't Christian. By their deeds you shall know them. He's no more Christian than the zionists running Israel are Jews. As a matter of fact, Bush has surrounded himself with zionist advisors, and his deeds indicate he's acting more in the interests of Israel than of America. So does that make him a Jew?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 02:13 AM

No, GUEST, it means Bush is a Zionist.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 02:24 AM

What a fool you are. The same fool who thinks that killing off half the world population is a good idea. The men half of course.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 11:43 AM

There you go again, GUEST, trying to put words in my mouth. I never said killing anyone was a good idea, especially not men in general.

Grab a sense of humour and a few brains.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 01:13 PM

"The men half of course."

i think that GUEST has a death, dianavan. or maybe its a bad grammar complex. (Maybe his gramma did something bad to him once?)

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 08:19 PM

Dianavan's statement

I know you're just jokin', Bobert, but by then men will probably be redundant. After all, all we women need to keep on reproducing is just one, very fertile male specimen. Of course there are those of us who will miss the action but, heh, we shouldn't be selfish about this. Its probably a very good way to decrease the population.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 08:22 PM

Genocide. You support that do you

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 11:59 AM

I missed something. When did Bush become a Jew?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 12:56 PM

The Dianavan biological model of a virtual "single" male for reproductive purposes does exist in the African Driver ant species.
The driver ants are the most deadly, populous (20,000,000 per colony) and aggressive ant species on Earth. They devour men women and children by going down the windpipe and filling the lungs... so they can eat the person at their leisure without a stuggle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for a rise of Christian fascism in the wake of the rising tide of Islamic fascist fundamentalism, I need only tell you about my neighbor across the street.

As a piano technician/tuner, he seems like a reasonable man but the longer he has participated in evangical meetings the more strident his world view has become.

He describes his latest outrage as a war against tolerence. He claims tolerence is the root of all evil in the world. The polemic rhetoric he repeats from his meetings is "If I went to your house and clubbed your children to death, I am sure you would not be tolerent. Tolerence is the enemy. Homosexuals are attacking the American family. The agents of tolerence are the Liberals...etc."

Get this-----> his dad was a Jew and fought for America helping to free Concentration camp victims.


I am a clinical hypnotist and am familiar with group dynamics and the pressure individuals are under to conform. I view the changing attitudes of my neighbor to be that of a willing victim being brain washed by the invocation of the word of God - according to extreme ring wing agendas and personalities that he is not even fully aware of.


He is adopting the gospel of hate more and more day by day.

They say Jesus saves but I only wish I could save my neighbor.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 01:29 PM

I think he has to save himself, of course; but any help in doing so would be appreciated one day. It's a sorry thing to think of a human being actually arguing such bizarre and twisted propositions.

One thing that has to be part of any help is getting him to differentiate between his own thoughts and those pushed by others. ANother, equally important, is rejecting sweeping generalizations and asking questions like "which homosexuals? which American families have been attacked? when did this happen?" -- specific acts. That breaks the dramatization of generalized evil or whatever.

But really, a guy like that needs a long vacation in a safe place free of threat and "triggers".


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 05:57 PM

Bush is NOT a Jew. Just look at the differences between the Christians in the White House and the Jews running Israel. Bush is bombing innocent women and children. He is threatening to invade Iran. He's... Wait a minute...

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 06:02 PM

It is good to know that there are Hizbullah supporters on this thread too.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 09:42 PM

Religion is not my favorite topic, never having been raised with one or even seriously considered adopting one. My parents were the rebels when it came to rejecting the religion they were raised in. My brother and I grew up just wondering every now and then what all those "other" people were doing on Sundays, a whole lot of funerals and weddings we could only conclude.

However, having prefaced my naive upbringing, I'm quite impressed with a book the wife of one of my nephews has put together based on her interviews and research. The book is getting quite a bit of play in the national media and is titled KINGDOM COMING: The Rise of Christain Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg. I'm impressed with how much money the Bush Administration has been able to channel to evangelical Christian groups, ostensibly for counseling but in reality to "pray upon" tose in need of professional help. I'm impressed with the number of evangelical Christians who are now in key policy making positions in the Bush Administration. It's not a stretch to say evangelical Christians now control a majority of Congressional Representatives, and a strong minority in the Senate. Only the Federal court system seems to have survived this assault on the basic rule of law, the rule of science, and concern for all individuals in our society; and with the recent changes at the U. S. Supreme Court we may experience a radical revision of the rights and responsibilities that we have enjoyed for the last half century.

I only recommend this book if you are seriously interested in more details. It's not very entertaining but I do find it hard to put down.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 11:14 PM

Charley, I do hope you don't really lump every evangelical Christian in this country with the power-grabbing movement under discussion here. Granted, between the consciously power hungry, and the well-meaning folk who follow them blindly, the numbers are far too dangerously large.
   I was raised pretty much as a fundamentalist, but never quite indoctrinated beyond the "point of no return". I shifted by degrees over the years to a stance as a non-fundamentalist evangelical, realizing that belief in a totally literal and infallible Bible is untenable. Eventually I further realized that it is just as untenable to hold that Christians have a monopoly on morality, spritual truth, or the eternal favor of "God".
   I consider myself a Christian by very liberal definition; I believe in God, in a much less defined sense than I once did, and know I'm still shaped by my Christian background.
   But I still interact regularly with Evangelical Christians, and I can assure you that by no means are all of them in lock-step with the right wing neo-conservative agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:40 AM

I am not and have never been a Christian but . . .
I've lived among 'em, a lot of 'em for too long to put much credence in the fears and accusations being bandied about here.

I didn't vote for Shrub, I don't like a lot of his policies, his people, his behaviors. But that don't make 'em necessarily illegal. And fascist, in the sense of Wartime Italy and Germany, I think not. We're seeing a lot of anxiety on the part of certain belief systems that a lot of people subscribe to. Those people have been able to form a powerful voting block, and we're seeing a high water mark of these considerations. They aren't doing the country a lot of good, but they are a legitimate expression of how a lot of American people feel, and the very reason we're getting the brunt of these is beCAUSE we're in a democracy.

I'm not a fan of faith-based education, missile defense, or high colonics, but I'll take faith-based over fear-based any day!

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:35 AM

I agree with robo that the Bush regieme is not a full fledged fascist organisation.

They are proto fascists seeking unlimited executive power.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:53 AM

Frogprince-

To lump "every evangelical Christian in this country with the power-grabbing movement" would strain my basic ethic of "do no harm to others if they do no harm to you." But I have to admit my "shields" are up with regard to all evangelical Christians.

My nephew's wife Michelle admits in her book that she was generally impressed with how friendly and open various fundamentalistic leaders were when they were speaking to her. And yet when she questioned them about some of their past "mean-spirited statements" about gays and lesbians, abortion supporters, or even liberals they were unrepentant. And it's not just their statements that such behavior is "immoral," which can be in my view a legitimate position within their group, but their focused effort to make their view "the law of the land."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 11:36 AM

Looking at religious groups, like Christians, as just another group, of course they're going to impose their will on govt if they can. Why don't you people squawk when the pharmaceutical companies do it? Look at the "New Freedom Initiative." Written by big pharma. Forced drugging of your children. But that's fine with you, as long as you have the evil Christians to focus your hostility on. And look at what the FDA just did (Food and Drug Administration):

June 30, 2006 is a day that will be long remembered as a dark milestone in the history of FDA and its campaign against health consumers. On June 30, an FDA "Final Rule" goes into effect, establishing a regulatory power grab of such scale and scope that it attempts to bypass all laws, the will of Congress and fundamental protections for consumers. This "Final Rule," which may as well be called a "Final Solution" for drug consumers, claims that consumers can no longer sue drug companies for the harm caused by any FDA-approved drug, even if the drug's manufacturer intentionally misled the FDA by hiding or fabricating clinical trial data....

http://www.newstarget.com/019497.html

Fascism is the merger of business and govt (takeover of govt by business interests). GWBush keeps talking about "public/private partnerships," and the interest groups are writing his legislation, so I have news folks...full-fledged fascism is on the ground and breathing in the U.S. And it's been made possible by the willingness of the "opposition" party to go along with the program.

While you people blame the Christians.

If you don't know the truth by now, it's because you don't WANT to know the truth. The wealthy world elite stole the White House, and the U.S. military is now being used to create global unrest. The unrest leads to big changes in real-estate ownership, and those changes somehow always come out in favor of the elite. Simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 11:47 AM

but I'll take faith-based over fear-based any day!

Ah, but then the 'faith based' promotes and is a constituent part of the 'fear-based'.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 06:24 PM

The rise of Christian Nationalism, unlike the capitalist market economy, is a relatively new movement. You can trace some of the players back to the John Birch Society but as a movement it didn't really become part of an administration, in body and spirit, until George W. Bush et al took over in 1990.

Some of the players were appointed to the FDA, which is why people who would like access to the "morning after pill" still find it extremely difficult to procure it.

I find it encouraging that a young woman such as Michelle Goldberg has managed to bring together as much material on this movement as she has, and place it into context.

The founding fathers of this country were wise to uphold the right of religious freedom while at the same time prohibiting the establishment of a state religion.

Of course, some Christians Nationalists are even attempting to revise that interpretation of our nation's history.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 07:12 PM

From my own experience, I've heard wingnuts insist that separation of church and state is a misinterpretation of the constitution for over forty years now; the good news, then, was that they were mostly powerless yahoos who got little more respect than they deserved from the greater populace.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:28 PM

Frogprince-

I'm personally convinced that the old gods exist and still exercise some power if we pay suitable attention to them. offer them a little honey wine in an appropriate ram's horn. I did witness their power while working in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia back in the 1960's.

But I would never confuse that revelation with the current "holy" crew that's trying to hijack our government, while generously lining their own coffers in the process.

I'd much rather get back to archane music and forget about this but I think dear Michelle has made an impression on me with her damn book!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:22 PM

Give me that old-time religion
"                            "
"                            "
It's good enough for me;
It was good for Aphrodite, When she wore her see-through nightie;
It was good for Aphrodite, and it's good enough for me.

             Pete sang it; I don't know if he wrote it.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 11:23 AM

Frogprince, I think the writer was Mark Graham. Who also wrote 'I've Seen Your Aura- and It's Ugly.'

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: mandotim
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 03:10 AM

The post above from Donuel about tolerance got me thinking (I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I've spent the last couple of hours reading, digesting and running down references). I'm a Brit, but I know a lot of Americans both in person and virtually. What strikes me most is the self reliance of Americans, which sometimes translates into 'I'm American, I don't need any other currency/language/religion/political system/culture/leader/resources/army' etc etc. This may be true, but it seems to preclude the need to understand anything non-American. This is particularly true of the younger Americans in my experience (and I fully accept that it is wrong and dangerous to generalise from the few to the many; this post is intended to be contemplative rather than definitive). In the case of fundamentalist Christians (or any fundamentalists) this tendency seems to breed an unwillingness to tolerate opposing viewpoints whatever the evidence (eg creationism versus evolution). Lack of tolerance gives no opportunity for real understanding, which debases the quality of debate in many cases; this seems to be the root of the argument between the Christian Right and their perceived opponents; if God is on our side, why do we need to understand your point of view? An American wrote something good here, and I make no apologies for quoting extensively;
'If I do not want what you want, please try not to tell me that my want is wrong.
Or if I believe other than you, at least pause before you correct my view.
Or if my emotion is less than yours, or more, given the same circumstances, try not to ask me to feel more strongly or weakly.
Or yet if I act, or fail to act, in the manner of your design for action, let me be.
I do not, for the moment at least, ask you to understand me. That will come only when you are willing to give up changing me into a copy of you.
I may be your spouse, your parent, your offspring, your friend, or your colleague. If you will allow me any of my own wants, or emotions, or beliefs, or actions, then you open yourself, so that some day these ways of mine might not seem so wrong, and might finally appear to you as right -- for me. To put up with me is the first step to understanding me. Not that you embrace my ways as right for you, but that you are no longer irritated or disappointed with me for my seeming waywardness. And in understanding me you might come to prize my differences from you, and, far from seeking to change me, preserve and even nurture those differences.'
From 'Please Understand Me' by David Kiersey
This was meant for individuals, but to me it sounds like good advice for governments and religions too.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 07:13 PM

*Aaron Russo's New Movie -- AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM*
http://freedomtofascism.com

AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM Synopsis

Determined to find the law that requires Americans to pay income tax,
Aaron Russo (THE ROSE, TRADING PLACES) sets out on a journey. Neither
left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic
erosion of civil liberties in America. Through interviews with US
Congressmen, a former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax
attorneys and authors, Russo connects the dots between money creation,
federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (becoming
law in May 2008) and the implementation of radio frequency
identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. A striking case
about the evolving police state in America.


*CBS, Todd David Schwartz*- *"Four Stars (Highest Rating).*
*The Scariest Damn Film You'll See This Year. It will leave you
staggering out of the theatre, slack-jawed and trembling..."*

*NewsWithViews.com, Steven Yates*- *'America: "Freedom to Fascism" A
Must See Movie'*
See a movie review:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven20.htm


*Opening July 28th* in Chicagoland at theatres including Chicago, New
York, Kansas City area, Austin Texas area, and Tampa Florida area:
http://freedomtofascism.com/screenings/screenings.html


_______________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:09 PM

Arrested Bush Dissenters Eye Courts

By TODD DVORAK Associated Press Writer

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8J152I80.html

July 22,2006 | CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- When school was canceled to
accommodate a campaign visit by President Bush, the two 55-year-old
teachers reckoned the time was ripe to voice their simmering
discontent with the administration's policies.

Christine Nelson showed up at the Cedar Rapids rally with a Kerry-
Edwards button pinned on her T-shirt; Alice McCabe clutched a small,
paper sign stating "No More War." What could be more American, they
thought, than mixing a little dissent with the bunting and buzz of a
get-out-the-vote rally headlined by the president?

Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM

This type of stuff began under the "liberal" Clinton, with his "Free Speech Zones."

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 01:59 PM

My local rag this morning had a brief article on the report that the IRS is planning a "reduction in personnel." For some reason, the story didn't make it to their website, but the byline was from DAVID CAY JOHNSTON at the NY Times.

"The federal government is moving to eliminate the jobs of nearly half of the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.

"The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency's 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an IRS deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after the New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the IRS who oppose them.

"The Bush administration has successfully lobbied Congress to enact measures that reduce the number of Americans who are subject to the estate tax but has failed in its efforts to eliminate the tax entirely.

"Brown said that he had ordered the staff cuts because far fewer people were obliged to pay estate taxes under President Bush's legislation.

"But six IRS estate tax lawyers whose jobs are likely to be eliminated said that the cuts were just the latest moves behind the scenes at the IRS to shield people with political connections and complex tax-avoidance devices from thorough audits.

"Sharyn Phillips, a veteran IRS estate tax lawyer, called the cuts a "back-door way for the Bush administration to achieve what it cannot get from Congress, which is repeal of the estate tax.""

Another case of "if you don't like what the ^***legislators do, just ignore them." (?)

^*** Also applies to the Constitution, apparently.

John

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 04:19 PM

I happen to know something about Clinton's alleged institution of "free speech zones" because I was there when the incident that triggered them happened.

It was following the WTO conference in 1999 in Seattle. There was an orderly protest march composed some 40,000 people from various unions and other organizations. They had all the proper parade licenses and other permits that the law requires. No problem. It was all very orderly, and the world was beginning to note that not everyone liked a lot of the ideas being discussed at the World Trade Organization. So far, so good.

But then—a group of self-appointed "anarchists" who said they were from Eugene, Oregon, and several other gooney-birds, some in small groups and some individually, a few of whom may have been motivated by opposition to the WTO, but most appeared just to be out for mayhem, ran amok downtown, smashing plate glass windows and setting fires. This was well covered by the news services and became known around the world as the "Battle of Seattle."

That's about 200 rioters out of 40,000 peaceful demonstrators.

To forestall further riots of this nature at future WTO meetings (I think the next conference was somewhere in eastern Canada, in which case, "free speech zones" can hardly be laid at Clinton's door—I'm sure someone here can either confirm or correct the location), demonstrators were kept some distance away from the meeting places in order to keep the conference from being disrupted as they had been in Seattle. The "anarchists" from Oregon had announced that they were going to be there too, so the zones at the second WTO conference were not an attempt to stifle peaceful protest, but to prevent rioting.

I do not recall that it was Clinton who actually instituted "free speech zones." Perhaps the nameless GUEST who alleges that he did can provide links to verifiable documentation. I think that's fair enough to ask.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If the assembly is not peaceable, but a riot, then the authorities are within their constitutional rights to take steps to break up the riot or prevent it from occurring under similar circumstances.

One wonders about the real motivation of those who intentionally turned a peaceful demonstration into a riot. Perhaps their intention was to goad the government into attempting to prevent all demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise.

But even if Clinton was the one who instituted the "free speech zone" practice, this does not excuse the Bush administration from its widespread efforts to continue its use, especially in the case of peaceable assembly, in order to keep the president insulated from all indications that not everyone agrees with him. Or for the press to neglect to cover protests and demonstrations, even if they are several blocks—or miles—from where Bush is.

No, you can't blame this on Clinton without verifying it and qualifying it a great deal.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 10:36 PM

Blame it on Clinton? You just did. Those were govt agitators, by the way. False-flag terrorism. Works every time. Worked in Seattle, worked on 9-11, working for the fascist Israelis against Lebanon right now. Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 10:50 PM

That is an incorrect use of the term 'false-flag'. The purpose of false-flag work is to find individuals who say they are with you but really aren't. The person is given information that is specific to just that individual, so if and when the information is used, the people looking for who is leaking the information can determine who that is by the nature of either the info itself or bits of info in the message.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Slag
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 02:26 AM

I'll admit right from the start that I have not yet read all the posts. There are just too many rabbit trails to persue. Nor did I condescend to waste my time reading a the dia-tripe in the original article. What swill. "We hate George Bush" Satan incarnate, no doubt. Learn how to be a good loser and you may do better at the next election. You know, as bad as I thought Clinton was going to be, he wasn't. As good as I hoped George Bush would be, he isn't. I'm tempted to say, "such is the nature of a democracy" but I won't because one of the points I want to make is the glaring error in the original article which appearently no one has picked up on. The United States of America is first and foremost A REPUBLIC. That is an important little piece of the puzzle to hold onto. We are a limited democracy. That is another of the neat little checks written into our constitutional government. The reason it is there is the fact that sometimes the majority can be WRONG ! (appeal to populace, informal fallacy). It's like that great REPUBLICAN President once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

The word "fascism" certainly gets wide currency on this site but I've yet to see a worthwhile definition. If I were to garner a definition solely from it's use here I would have to assume that it meant, "anybody who doesn't agree with my opinion." While you're scrambling for your favorite dictionaries it might behoove you to remember that the Nazi party of Germany was a SOCIALIST party. Fascisim gains a foot hold (1) where ever people don't make an effort to think for themselves (2) Where people do not respect the right of the other person to state his opinion whether they agree with it or not (3) Where human dignity is forgotten in the heat of the debate (4) where personal attack takes the place of intelligent debate.

True tolerance can only take place where someone holds convictions or considered opinions on some subject. It disgusts me when I hear non-thinkers parroting slogans and then shouting down someone who present a different point of view, regardless of which side of the issue he comes in on. Bottom line is this: If we are going to have a civilization we are going to have to act in a civilized manner. If we want to be heard, we are going to have to listen. If we want our rights respected we are going to have to respect the rights of others.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:53 PM

That's just an assertion, GUEST. You're bloviating.

Let's have some documentation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 02:36 PM

I think I said all of this before up above somewhere, but—

National Socialism (Nazism) is not the same as straight socialism. In the context of "National Socialism," "socialism" was just a meaningless word. But then, Nazism was not pure fascism, either.

Benito Mussolini, who essentially invented Fascism, or at the very least, implemented it for the first time, defined it by saying, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." He chose the fasces, an axe surrounded by a bundle of sticks, as the symbol of fascism. To him, the sticks symbolize the corporations and the axe symbolizes the power of the State. The two work as a unit.

There is more to the definition of fascism than this. But in many ways, since people tend to think of Nazism as the quintessential expression of fascism, they are somewhat misled. For example, Nazism was strongly racist. But this is not a necessary part of fascism. Fascist Italy (where there was a purer form of fascism than there was in Germany) was not particularly racist. Nor does it require black uniforms, swastika armbands, and jackboots. A dark business suit and a power necktie can be just as much of a uniform.

When you consider the revolving door between the offices of power in Washington, D. C., and the offices of power in the major corporations in the United States (starting with Vice President Dick Cheney, how many or our elected leaders are former CEOs or will become CEOs when their term of office is up?), and the obvious catering, if not downright kowtowing to big business that the government indulges in, in the light of Mussolini's thumbnail definition of fascism, it's pretty easy to make the case that we're already there.

As to "Christian Fascism," I'm not sure that "fascism" is the right word. History has given us a number of examples of such meldings of religion and state. More blatant examples of how bad this can get are, historically, among Catholics, the Spanish Inquisition, Protestants, the Salem trials, and in modern times under Islam, the Taliban.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:01 PM

Review, if you will, the Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism and compare them to the ideals defined by the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. COnstitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I believe you will find that certain aspects of American political life at present have slipped tragically toward the former from the latter.

Just go down the list and see if you can spot any such instances. A healthy exercise for any free-thinking human.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 08:59 PM

So if the "fascism" in America is being blamed on Christians, is the fascism in Israel being blamed on Jews? I catch a little TV every once in a while and of course Israel's being portrayed as long-suffering and put-upon, but aren't they murdering civilians in Lebanon right now? And isn't Israel a "Jewish state?" So what's up with the rise of Jewish fascism?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:00 PM

And what's up with Islamic fascism?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:07 PM

The contrast is between the founding spirit of the place and its current unfortunate misadverntures; it is incidental, in some ways, that the "base" is reactionary Christian to a large percentage. Muslim nations have never stepped up to serve as models for liberty, or the inalienable rights of human beings, nor has Israel.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:19 PM

From Forbes:

A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:19 PM

You know if this thread were refocused on "Christian Nationalism" in this country we all might learn something. And I grant that it is a serious subject.

Or we could continue baiting one another or engaging in entertainment:

"Oh, that poor little lion hasn't got a Christian!"

What famous movie does that quote relate to?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:34 AM

Islamic fascism. As practiced where? I've heard Rush Limbaugh froth about Islamic fascism, but I don't think he's ever mentioned a particular country. I know there's been a serious problem in the Sudan for the last few years...Muslims killing Christians...and if GWBush and gang were really Christian, that's where they'd be right now. Right? They'd be stopping the slaughter of Christians.

But the Bush gang isn't in the Sudan. They've put American troops in harm's way because Israel wants to eradicate its neighbors. How 'bout that photo a couple days ago of school kids in Israel taking a field trip to a military facility and signing their names on howitzer shells. What loving people. Gonna shell Lebanese kids...from Israel to its Lebanese neighbors, in the hopes that they can soon co-exist peacefully. What a crock.

And if GW and his gang were such fundamentalists, how come Israel even exists today? I mean, fundamentalists are stereotyped as stumbling around, muttering in tongues and saying "the Jews killed Jesus" during their coherent moments, so if Bush is so fundamentally Christian, why doesn't he nuke Israel? The country meets all his criteria of "terrorist state" and "rogue nation," and the fundamentalists say the Jews killed Jesus, so why is Israel still on the map? Something doesn't add up here.

Bush isn't a Christian. Some of his so-called Christian appointees are pro-zionist because they think Jesus will rule from Jerusalem when He returns, so we gotta secure Jerusalem. And some of the fundamantalists believe America's not mentioned in Revelations in the "end times," therefore America has to be destroyed before Scripture can be fulfilled. Odd thinking, admittedly, but then Jews and Muslims have some quirky beliefs too. But to ascribe any Christian attribute to Bush at all is absurd. Can't argue with the fascism, though.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 09:25 AM

Well, like many extreme Christians, Bush has a personal delusory hotline with the Almighty; like many extremist Christians he believes he has a firm grip on "high" moral principles which are sound enough to justify dictating them to other people, based on a poor understanding of the New Testament sprinkled with some distinctly Old Testament biases. There are several other similarities between Bush and extreme Chrstian practices de facto, although I agree none of them qualify as "Christian" in the sense of "following the teachings of Christ".

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 01:36 PM

Apparently GUEST here doesn't fully understand the nature of Christian fundamentalism. The vast majority of Christian fundamentalists, perhaps all, are Millennialists, believing in the second coming of Christ.

According to the agenda that comes with this belief, the Nation of Israel must be reestablished and all Jews returned to their natural homeland. There will be great warfare and strife as this happens (they look at current events and say "See? The End Times are near!"). Then somewhere along the line "The Rapture" will take place. Born-again Christians, and only born-again Christians will be beamed up to Heaven, the Antichrist will appear, and the world will go to Hell in a hand basket. There will be wars and rumors of wars, plagues and pestilence, earthquakes and other natural disasters, and the moon will turn the color of blood—all in all, not what you could call "a fun party."

When things can't possibly get worse, Christ will appear.

Now this won't be the Jesus we know as the gentle teacher who preached peace and unconditional love. This aspect of the Godhead will be more like Saint Michael with a Flaming Sword (who will probably be there, too), and the Battle of Armageddon will then take place: Christ versus Darth Vad— the Antichrist, or the forces of Good versus the forces of Evil, and like any good movie, Evil, in the end, will be vanquished and the Antichrist cast back down into Hell.

At this point, the Jews in the recently established Nation of Israel will be give an opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior—those who do will become Christians and be saved, and those who do not will be consigned to Hell—and from that point on, the Millennium will begin. That will be the promised Kingdom of God:   1,000 years of Peace under the rule of Christ. Now they don't go so far as to say what will happen at the end of those thousand years, which, in geological time is not that long, but then even Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy" only covered about that much time.

None of this glorious picture of the future can take place until the Nation of Israel is solidly established. The sooner this happens, they believe, the sooner Christ will return. This is why the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, instead of reviling Jews as "Christ-killers" and all that rot, work like little beavers to support the establishment of the Nation of Israel. And this, GUEST, explains quite a bit of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Now, this is how it was explained to me by the vociferous fellow who used to live in one of the apartments upstairs and who made periodic efforts to save my soul. But—I know a lot of other Christians who, when they hear someone like him, just shake their heads. The Kingdom of God, they maintain, is to be found, not in the outside world, but in your own heart. And Jesus was all about love and forgiveness, not about retribution. My former neighbor says they are all going to Hell, too. Incidentally, he moved away because he saw two guys walking down the street holding hands, and concluded that there are too many gays living in this area of the city.

He didn't smile much.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:18 PM

I really have no idea what GWB believes in other than assuming as much power as he can usurp from Congress and the Courts into his own hands as President. Even the American Bar Association is now taking him to task for violating the Constitutional separation of powers by his actions.

The Christian Nationalists who give me the creeps are Judge Roy Moore, Rick Scarborough, D. James Kennedy, and John Eidsmoe, all who have been shaped by dominion theology which asserts that, in preparation for the second coming of Christ, godly men have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society. They are very earnest men.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:02 AM

"Incidentally, he moved away because he saw two guys walking down the street holding hands, and concluded that there are too many gays living in this area of the city."

So, Don, how much beer did you have to buy your two pals to put on that hand-holding act, & get the guy to move?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:50 AM

For an interesting view of multiple personalities with multiple personalities exchanging and comparing psychoses, here is a page from the Toledo Blade discussing "End Times" studies going on. Rapture me up, Scotty!


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 12:12 PM

Eddie, you're devious! I hadn't thought of that, but if I had, I probably could have got the guy out of my hair a lot sooner.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:46 PM

From the New York Times, an interesting tale of a pastor with more guts:

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church's — to conservative political candidates and causes.

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute "voters' guides" that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn't the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

"When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses," Mr. Boyd preached. "When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross."

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God's ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul — packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals — was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

But there were also congregants who thanked Mr. Boyd, telling him they were moved to tears to hear him voice concerns they had been too afraid to share.

"Most of my friends are believers," said Shannon Staiger, a psychotherapist and church member, "and they think if you're a believer, you'll vote for Bush. And it's scary to go against that."

Sermons like Mr. Boyd's are hardly typical in today's evangelical churches. But the upheaval at Woodland Hills is an example of the internal debates now going on in some evangelical colleges, magazines and churches. A common concern is that the Christian message is being compromised by the tendency to tie evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party and American nationalism, especially through the war in Iraq.

At least six books on this theme have been published recently, some by Christian publishing houses. Randall Balmer, a religion professor at Barnard College and an evangelical, has written "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America — an Evangelical's Lament."

And Mr. Boyd has a new book out, "The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church," which is based on his sermons.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:05 AM

As we approach the 5th anniversary of the September 11th attack, we might mull over the words of two leading members of the Christian nationalist movement (9/13, 700 Club television show) as Jerry Falwell explained the attack:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

"Well," Pat Robertson replied, "I totally concur."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:30 AM

Secular Humanism. The United Nations "religion." Secular Humanists preach tolerance, then sue religious groups for intolerance. A ten-year old should be able to see the hypocrisy in that. The United Nations made up a religion, and this new religion is intolerant. Yet a lot of people seem to believe it's the embodiment of tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:36 AM

Hello ???

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:07 AM

There is a name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit, tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship." --The Nation, 12/22/05

America is at one of those "tipping points" that we always hearing about. The November elections may well decide whether we are going to live under the rule of law, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and expressed in our Constitution; or be subject to the whims of a dictator. It is up to us.

• "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." --Thomas Jefferson

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:17 AM

Your post is bass-ackwards, Guest. Suing groups for being intolerant is perfectly consistent with preaching tolerance. There is nothing about the prnciple of human tolerance that says it has to be self-immolating or embrace hatreful intolerance.

Secular humanism is a straw bogeyman, or a paper tiger. It seems clear from your post that you do not understand what it is, and do not care to examine its merits or alternatives.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:20 AM

Here's a re-cap of the major principles of Secular Humanism, Guest. Which of them do you think are bad principles? (from WIkipedia)

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[4]

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 12:23 PM

RE the point of humanism given by Amos: The fourth and the sixth, at least, are at loggerheads with fundamentalism. To the fundamentalist, all truth, and all valid solutions to human problems, are found in scripture (of whatever persuasion) and to condone any modification of that is heresy.
There is actually nothing there that says that anyone has to discard all the tenets of his "faith" out of hand; it justs asks that he be willing to subject them to "the light of day".

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 08:36 PM

A federal prosecutor may inspect the telephone records of two New York Times reporters in an effort to identify their confidential sources, a federal appeals court in New York ruled yesterday.

The 2-to-1 decision, from a court historically sympathetic to claims that journalists should be entitled to protect their sources, reversed a lower court and dealt a further setback to news organizations, which have lately been on a losing streak in the federal courts.

The dissenting judge said that the government had failed to demonstrate it truly needed the records and that efforts to obtain reporters' phone records could alter the way news gathering was conducted.

The case arose from a Chicago grand jury's investigation into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government was planning to take against two Islamic charities, Holy Land Foundation in Texas and Global Relief Foundation in Illinois. Though the government contended that calls from the reporters tipped off the charities to impending raids and asset seizures, the investigation appears to be focused on identifying the reporters' sources. No testimony has been sought from the reporters, and there has been no indication that their actions are a subject of the investigation.

"No grand jury can make an informed decision to pursue the investigation further, much less to indict or not indict, without the reporters' evidence," Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr. wrote for majority, in an opinion joined by Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse. "We see no danger to a free press in so holding. Learning of imminent law enforcement asset freezes/searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential, or even common, to journalism."

---

Thus, the NY Times.

The failure of the court to see danger to a free press in offering up the phone records of reporters to the federal prosecution machine is, to me, not only dismaying but cruelly disingenuous.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:53 PM

As I said, in a post above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:58 PM

Dear Gawd, that is truly awful stuff, Don.


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:39 PM

A new twist: the government seeks the desire to define crimes at wil in military tribunals against POWS:

"From the Washington Post -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html?nav=hcmodule

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts
By R. Jeffrey Smith

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to
expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include
trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda
or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international
terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal
by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of
defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's
jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more
individuals than previously expected before military juries,
officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate
hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the
administration because defendants would be denied many protections
guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice
systems. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:09 PM

"Time proved Riley wrong, and the WFCA's obsession with the evolution eventually doomed the organization. In 1927, despite a furious effort by Riley and his followers, the legislature of his home state of Minnesota rejected a bill to ban the teaching of evolution by an eight-to-one margin. The blow devastated Riley and "signaled the end of William Bell Riley's efforts to secure anti-evolution legislation." (EL, 230)


By 1928, Riley became a fringe figure within his own denomination. In early 1930s, he preached a virulent form of anti-Semitism and became a fascist sympathizer. World War II finally softened his anti-Semitism. In his last years, Riley persuaded evangelist Billy Graham to replace him as head of three educational institutions—a seminary, a Bible institute, and a college—he had established in Minneapolis. (PC, 68-71) Graham, in his ministry, chose to ignore the Scopes trial. (EL, 261)"

End of an interesting article here.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 09:57 AM

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=10037

...Petition on Impeachment Not Quietly Going Away
By: Rebecca Ransom
08/03/2006
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
WASHINGTON-A group of activists is going back to the Board of Selectmen this month to re-petition for a special town meeting on adopting a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.
Members of the informal group are currently in the process of collecting signatures on a second petition seeking a session that could put the town on record as the first municipality in the state asking that the appropriate elected officials begin an impeachment process.


In June, selectmen denied the petitioners' request 2 to 1 on the grounds that the meeting being sought would be "improper," largely because municipalities have no formal role in national issues. Republican Mark Lyon and Democrat Nicholas Solley voted against the request. Democratic First Selectman Dick Sears was in favor of allowing the town meeting.
"We will give [the Board of Selectmen] reasons why this is proper ... why this is important for the town," said petitioner Ken Cornet.
In seeking the meeting, the petitioners claim the president should be impeached on the grounds that he has "subverted the Constitution," illegally spied on American civilians, "conspired to commit the torture of prisoners" and "formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a signing statement to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit."
In challenging the selectmen's reasons for denying the first petition, Mr. Cornet noted that in the 1980s many towns across the country, including Washington, passed resolutions declaring the municipalities "nuclear free zones."
"There have already been resolutions on national events. It has already happened. It is already precedent," he said.
At a meeting in July, Mr. Sears suggested a compromise to the petitioners and officials-to call a special Board of Selectmen meeting instead of a town meeting. At that session, Mr. Sears said, the audience could debate the topic and vote on "a motion that the citizens present at the meeting endorse the goals in the petition presented." Mr. Sears said he borrowed this model from the towns of Cornwall and Salisbury, which held similar meetings to debate the war in Iraq.
According to Mr. Cornet, the group is choosing not to pursue that option at this time. "The whole point is that we want it to be official. Otherwise, if we just have a discussion, those who don't care won't come out and it's my personal feeling that people have to get involved in what's going on. ... . The last few weeks are evidence that we cannot just let politicians go off and do what they want," he said, referring to the violence in Israel and Lebanon../...

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 06:56 PM

A minor facet of the belief of some of those who believe that the rapture is at hand (once again and again and again) is that since the US did not exist when the "prophesies" were made, in addition to restoring Israel to glory the United States must cease to exist. This seems to be rather counter to the opinion of others that George is the saviour who will bring Israel back; but I have heard local ministers on my TV make "favorable reference" to the concept, without of course actually saying their "flocks" should believe it.

I suppose all those other nations who've popped up since the days of prophecy should also be fearful of these same ... (descriptive noun omitted - plural).

John

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM

To understand the political philosophy behind this "Dominionist" activity, it's necessary to look into Leo Strauss and his model for the "New American Century".

He was from University of Chicago and his views are held by Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove and others who represent the extreme Radical Right in this country.

His views are Machievellian and involve consolidation of the Religious Right as a propaganda tool to furthur the aims of the Radical Right.

The key component to this kind of Christianity is embodied in Authoritarianism.

For furthur elucidation, check out John Dean's new book.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 11:36 AM

Conservatives Without Conscience (John Dean)

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 01:51 PM

But Leo Strauss was known as a leftist. A Trotskyite. Bush's advisors ARE disciples of Strauss, though, which should explain why Bush has tripled the size of the Federal govt. He was supposed to be a small-govt, states-rights conservative, but he has now spent more money on govt than all other presidents before him combined. Socializing American Society.

So, the "radical right" is really the "radical left." That's why a lot of us have come to realize we're being played by the "two-party system." There are no two parties. Just one, and they swing the White House and congress back and forth like a snake charmer, keeping us mesmerized with our imagined "power of the ballot box." What crap.

Strauss and his mentor didn't really have left/right politics. They used them as an ends to a means, but they really believed in elitism. The DUTY and RIGHT of some people to rule. Friedrich Nietzche's "superman" thinking. Strauss believed some people had an obligation to use their superior intellects to subjugate those around them. For the good of society and the species. And if they couldn't rule, then they owed it to society to destroy it. Hitler subscribed to the same philosophy. The people running Israel and Washington right now subscribe to it. Hitler's Master Race thinking leveling Beirut right now. Who'd've thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 02:20 PM

What a perversion. I have always felt that awareness carries responsibility with it, even if I haven't really loved up to it always. But to twist that truism into "intelligence imposes an obligation to subdue others" is really perverse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 02:45 PM

The porposal by the Bush administration to make coercion and star-court mangling of due process legal has raised ire amongst those who Blog on such things. Some summaries:

"Bloggers roundly excoriate the Bush administration for its proposed military tribunal system. They've also got mixed feelings about yet another death knell for conservatism, and about a new study that proves the way to a man's heart is indeed through his stomach.

Hamdan overdrive: In response to the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, the Bush administration has offered a replacement system for trying terror suspects. The defense secretey would have authority to add crimes at his discretion that fall under the purview of proposed military "commissions," which await approval by Congress. Defendants would be deprived of a speedy trial, the opportunity to face their accusers, an injunction against hearsay evidence against them, and immunity from "coercive interrogations." Bloggers aren't happy.

Ronald Bailey at libertarian Reason magazine's Hit and Run sees the administration as a naughty child that has taken its lumps only to run back for more: "Is the Bush Administration taking a cue from how the People's Republic of China conducts secret national security trials? The two Congressional committees hearing testimony today on this scandalously un-American proposal should hold Administration officials in contempt of Congress for violating their oaths to defend the Constitution and toss them in jail."

At Prague Twin, Mike, an American living in the Czech Republic, wants to see the legislative branch scandalized by its submission to this new brand of martial justice: "[A]lthough the [Supreme Court] has already ruled that an almost identical tribunal as the one proposed is unlawful, they left the door open for Congress to approve a tribunal. They made it pretty clear that if the executive submits a plan to Congress, and Congress appoves that plan, the court will not interfere."

At Zaphod's Head, peacenik Glyn Evans of Alberta, Canada, is frightened by the administration's new plan: "I am not sure which is scarier. The ability of the Secretary of Defense to add crimes at will to the list or the lack of rights the detained people no longer get. Is this Justice? Or perhaps is this a sign of even more things to come? Military lawyers complained that the new draft doesn't have enough 'due process rights' for prisoners and it could 'further tarnish America's image'. Well no shit Sherlock."

Equally appalled is the progressive military-affairs aficionado Jason Sigger at The Armchair Generalist: "This White House would rather play its hand for a set of Orwellian criminal procedures than take the chance that processing the Gitmo detainees might result in some of them being found not guilty and freed by current procedures. Maybe the Bush strategy is to delay longer until they can stack the federal courts with more conservative judges (a la Alito and Roberts) that favor these kind of tactics.""

---

From Slate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 05:08 PM

Amos-

LOL

"I have always felt that awareness carries responsibility with it, even if I haven't really loved up to it always."

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 05:27 PM

Deathless Freudianism, at your service, sir!! LOL



A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:14 AM

I've had to endure Karl Rove's style of negotiating since GWBush was installed as Governor here in TX. In brief, you want a clean table. Bush throws a turd on the table then sits down to negotiate. You finally compromise and he takes away half the turd. And all you wanted was a clean table. That's it in a nutshell. That's how the Bush crime family negotiates.

And I mention this because I heard a JAG officer interviewed a couple of days ago. He testified "against" the Bush administration's desire to hold people forever without counsel, etc. But this colonel's half-a-turd compromise was the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Court martialling of American citizens. So we have this English common-law justice system of juries and habeas corpus running back to the Magna Carta which is working just fine on one hand, and a group of ghouls who say they want to arrest you for any misdemeanor, try you in secret and execute you in secret. Then this JAG off. says Let's just use the military system. He was the half-a-turd man in this scenario. Don't accept any form of justice other than the one outlined in the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:42 PM

Well and graphically put, GUEST. You can see this sort of thing in action in the way the Bush administration uses "diplomacy" in dealing with North Korea and Iran. The Bush administration tells them, "Do what we want you to do and then we'll be willing to negotiate with you." To which, of course, North Korea and Iran respond, quite reasonably, "If we have to do what you want us to do before you'll negotiate, then what's the point of negotiating? Get stuffed!!"

The Bush League doesn't want to govern, it wants to rule.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 10:35 AM

"Michelle Goldberg, the author of the must-read "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism", is a veteran reporter and expert on the religious right. She will be debating Phil Burress an outspoken leader of the religious right's assault on gay and lesbian Americans, especially in Ohio. Earlier this month, James Dobson's Focus on the Family announced they have partnered with Burress and Ohio Citizens for Community Values in their most recent campaign to "educate voters" in eight key states, including Ohio."

Goldberg is a DefCon (Defend the Constitution) advisory board member. Her opponent is the president of the religious right organization Ohio Citizens for Community Values. The debate will be broadcast live from Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.

You may register here to listen to it at 7pm Mudcat time: http://events.streamlogics.net/donordigital/aug29-06/index.asp

I applaud Michelle on her courage and the brains to back it up. This should be very good and I am grateful there are young people like her who are making a difference.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 05:11 PM

Go, Michelle!

Well, I'm especially proud of her for her brains and courage, and proud of my nephew Matt who convinced her to marry him.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:14 PM

He must've gotten his persuasive abilities from his Uncle Charley.:-)

I tried to tune in, but there must've been a lot of traffic. Even with broadband it kept buffering, so I missed a lot and finally shut it down. I hope they will archive it. What I did hear was good.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 10:01 AM

Follow up

I spoke with the neighbor across the street who said American families are being attacked by homosexuals and that tolerence toward people who "club our children to death" sic. is the real enemy.

His son told me his new CD was available for $10 o when I had the cash I brought it over to his house. The father answered the door and went to get a CD. He invited me in and told me to stay in the vestibule. He returned with the CD and put his hand on the front door, barring any exit. He said "is there anything you want to say to me?" I told him I that he made me sad that he had adopted the gospel of hat. He said he had written proof I should read regarding tha savageing of America by gays. I said I really am not a spokesperson for the gay community and do not like being put in a defensive position. I went on to say that it seems to me that gays are part of and will always be part of our society's body much like our toenail. For a person to hate part of their own body does not make much sense. You may want to trim the toenail as to not rip your socks but it would be foolish and dangerous not to mention painful to rip out your own toenail.

He reminded me of the proof I could read and said lots of things to stir people up aren;t true like the story that our kindegardeners were get oral sex lessons in textbooks at school. It alluded to real proof of his family being attacked would be an account of an attack on his family.

He took his hand and weight off the front door and opened it saying " I'm just opening the door and not saying you must leave"
I just left and reminded him to tell his son I bought his CD.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 10:04 AM

Damn

The Gospel of HAT?
What the hell is the Gospel of HAT?

Honest to GOD
Would it really be impossible to allow people to edit a word here

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 01:04 AM

Edit? Did Freud wear a slip?

Subject: The Greatest Crime
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:08 PM

Possibly the greatest crime yet considered by our furless leaders is the corruption of the rule of law which has been embodied since the days of the Magna Carta in the principle of habeas corpus -- the prohibition against causing people to disappear without trial.

Here is the story of one lawyer whose life is dedicated to the protection of that principle and who is reasonably concerned that this underpinning of all "rule under law" may be about to be unpinned.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/26/habeas/index_np.html

A

I am closing this thread due to 27 of the last 28 posts being spam. We can re-open it at a later date. Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 05:55 PM

For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is 'God's Foreign Policy'
               
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: November 14, 2006 (New York Times)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.

International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
When a Christian-Jewish group ran this ad during the Lebanon war, evangelicals responded en masse to support Israel, an official said.

He called the conflict "a battle between good and evil" and said support for Israel was "God's foreign policy."

The next day he took the same message to the White House.

Many conservative Christians say they believe that the president's support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state, which some of them think will play a pivotal role in the second coming. Many on the left, in turn, fear that such theology may influence decisions the administration makes toward Israel and the Middle East.

Administration officials say that the meeting with Mr. Hagee was a courtesy for a political ally and that evangelical theology has no effect on policy making. But the alliance of Israel, its evangelical Christian supporters and President Bush has never been closer or more potent. In the wake of the summer war in southern Lebanon, reports that Hezbollah's sponsor, Iran, may be pushing for nuclear weapons have galvanized conservative Christian support for Israel into a political force that will be hard to ignore.
(...)


A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 06:22 PM

Carl Sagan opened one of his lectures (collected in the posthumous book, "The Varieties of Scientific Experience") with a deathless quote from Plutarch:

"The truly pious must negotiate a difficult course between the precipice of godlessness and the marsh of superstition."

A

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:25 AM

Speaking of Carl, his The Demon Haunted World is pertinent to the discussion of fundageical idiocy.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:20 AM

"fundageical"   Did you just coin that, Greg F, or have I missed something that's been around for awhile?

How about "fungusmentalism"?

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:51 AM

Naw, 'tain't mine, tho I wish I COULD claim it. Might be Jim Hightower's- picked it up a while back but can't recall where.

Subject: RE: BS: GB and the Rise of Christian Fascism..
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 12:38 PM

fungal demagoguery -- the virulent rhetoric used by people in the dark to lead other mushrooms....


A