Rise of the Radical Religious Right-(Read it first, b4 you decide to lynch me)

Ok, so first of all I know I'm going to catch massive hate from a lot of members for even posting this. But I'm doing it anyway because I'm impressed by how accurate this essay is being that it was written in 2003 by some guy named Micheal Webb. Accurate yet somewhat over done in some parts too. Another reason I'm posting it regardless of the blow back is because if you actually do identify with the "Radical Religious Right" or "RRR" in the context of this essay then you're part of the problem.

Regardless of the title one should keep in mind that this isn't a slam against Conservative Christians that we all know and love and work and play with every day. The "RRR" in this case are not teaching a message of tolerance, or peace, or loving your neighbor etc. They have however hijacked that title as well as many positions of power and privilege within our society as many of us have noticed.

Again, keep in mind this was written 12 years ago, just two years after 9/11. When you think back to those times and now quite a lot has changed. So give it a read, it's not that long. I'm expecting some hate coming my way but hopefully most of you can understand why this isn't an attack on Christianity or Conservatives in their True Meaning, but is very much attempting to expose those who use such institutions as a means to a violent end.

Rise of the Radical Religious Right by Mike Webb

Some bits to chew on:

The radical religious right has gained power only by keeping its true intentions under wraps, by using the Republican Party as a cover, and by portraying itself as conservative rather than radical.

A more troubling and perhaps less obvious effect of the exercise of power by the radical religious right will be the rise of militant nationalism in the United States. Many people fail to understand this because, again, they are thinking of the religious right as being Christian, and that Christianity is a religion that teaches peace. That view misses the mark on several levels. Christian fundamentalists believe in biblical literalism, and the Judaeo-Christian bible is actually full of references to war and an angry, aggressive God, and certainly does not condemn war.

Fundamentalist Christians regard the "religious left," which includes Christian groups seeking to improve human rights and social conditions for the poor, as being under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist.

Such Christians openly believe that liberal Christians are inhabited by demons of Antichrist that deceive them into playing into Satan's desperate attempt to keep the world from seeing the light of Christ's Word.

Many Christian fundamentalists take a dim view not only of nominal moderate Christians, but also of Catholics, whom they regard as Mary-worshippers and idolaters, and certainly of Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and Muslims, all of whom they consider to live in spiritual darkness.

What your preconceived notions won't let you understand.

You can substitute the word "Left" for the word "Right" and it would be accurate.

There is a war for the soul of the American People.

To say this isn't against the Right. Now you think the "Right " is stupid.

This should of been left in the scrap heap of other divisive ramblings.

a reply to: mOjOm

I am British, but the thrust of this article applies just as readily to certain attitudes and statements I have heard uttered in my nation as well.

I am largely leftist by voting history, and right leaning by certain policy preferences, mostly relating to the idea of freedom, liberty, and what those things should, and should not mean for human beings, the right not to be surveilled unless strongly suspected of criminal activity, the right of people to go about their business unmolested save for the same strong suspicion, and so on and so forth...

I am also a Christian. I have been turned away, frowned upon by those who also profess to hold a faith akin to mine, because I believe that organised Christianity has been poisoned by its scale, by the money flowing through it, and that gathering people under the banner of Christ must never require mortal leaders like priests, preachers, bishops, cardinals, or even church wardens. I believe the maintenance of dedicated worship space, at the expense of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick is by its very definition Anti-Christian. I also believe it is possible to do greater, and better work for Christ, when out in the world absent the limitations placed on one by membership of a congregation, than would be possible if present in a Church on Sundays, being converted and yet being preached at, often by people who know their Bible, but only have a passing familiarity with Christ.

What I see coming out of the States, over the last ten years especially, concerns me greatly, because there is a great toxicity abroad in the flock, diseased congregations baying for blood in the name of The Lamb, ignoring the torrents shed for their sins, and the folly of man which lead to the necessity of His sacrifice.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
What your preconceived notions won't let you understand.

You can substitute the word "Left" for the word "Right" and it would be accurate.

There is a war for the soul of the American People.

To say this isn't against the Right. Now you think the "Right " is stupid.

This should of been left in the scrap heap of other divisive ramblings.

Well, to start with you couldn't have read it in that short amount of time so I don't know why you're commenting on it.

Also, had you read it you'd know why I said it's not against the right and no I don't think the Right is Stupid at all. In fact I'm counting on them to be smart enough to understand this for what it is saying.

I also think that it's this same kind of hijacking of a Religious Format which we see happening with Muslims as well. Only there it seems to have already kicked off in forming it's violent factions.

But like I said, if you're offended then it might be because you like the idea of a violent Religious Coup. If you don't then this isn't talking about you so there's nothing to be offended by.

a reply to: mOjOm

Were you thinking Christians were going to hate on you for posting this?
I could be way off but I'm not sure. I see no reason to hate on you.
I didn't read it all tho. Almost half and skimmed the rest.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

I am also a Christian. I have been turned away, frowned upon by those who also profess to hold a faith akin to mine, because I believe that organised Christianity has been poisoned by its scale, by the money flowing through it, and that gathering people under the banner of Christ must never require mortal leaders like priests, preachers, bishops, cardinals, or even church wardens. I believe the maintenance of dedicated worship space, at the expense of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick is by its very definition Anti-Christian. I also believe it is possible to do greater, and better work for Christ, when out in the world absent the limitations placed on one by membership of a congregation, than would be possible if present in a Church on Sundays, being converted and yet being preached at, often by people who know their Bible, but only have a passing familiarity with Christ.

I totally agree and I read your posts often and notice a profound difference between you and other devout Christians too. I think everything you just pointed out is also why so many people have a similar opinion about their faith now. More and more people I notice are saying things like "I'm Christian but I don't go to Church". Or "I follow Christ but not through official membership."

Regular people may not automatically put the pieces together but they see the Institutions of Religion becoming poisoned but know it's not true message that is the problem but a twisted political version of it that is causing the trouble. So they ditch the System in order to stay true to the message. That is what I find hopeful too. The more that the institutions lose their power I think the more truth will be brought back.

Like I said earlier I get the impression that Islam is going through a similar crisis which may be more advanced in the process. This in turn will help to radicalize it's opposite if not careful. The last thing we need is a holy war between the two most dominate religions on the planet. I doubt any of us would make it out alive.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Such Christians openly believe that liberal Christians are inhabited by demons of Antichrist that deceive them into playing into Satan's desperate attempt to keep the world from seeing the light of Christ's Word.

So much for the religious right remembering the following rules :
'Those who live by the sword, die by the sword' &
'Thou shalt not kill'

i wonder what they are going to say when they all kill the liberal Christians and end up in hell with blood on their hands.

a reply to: randyvs

Well, I was hoping not but you never know. Some people don't get past the title. Obviously you understand what it's saying and know the difference. Which I'm glad you do. That's what I was hoping for but I've tried pushing this kind of message before without a very kind response. People often time get defensive when they see their labels being discussed without first looking deeper into what the message really is. The fact that you get it makes me happy though!!! I think if you and I are able to see the common ground here then others will also.

a reply to: mOjOm

I just in a different thread asked another member to pay close attention
in general. Myself being one the those you mentioned above. A non churcher
but dedicated follower. Christians more and more are distancing themselves
from "TV evangelists and snobby judgementals". As I did way before I ever
came to these boards. Not to boast as some kind of trend setter, but it's
kind of neat to be ahead of the curve so to speak. I think you'll be alright
with this.

SnF

originally posted by: mOjOm
Ok, so first of all I know I'm going to catch massive hate from a lot of members for even posting this. But I'm doing it anyway because I'm impressed by how accurate this essay is being that it was written in 2003 by some guy named Micheal Webb. Accurate yet somewhat over done in some parts too. Another reason I'm posting it regardless of the blow back is because if you actually do identify with the "Radical Religious Right" or "RRR" in the context of this essay then you're part of the problem.

Regardless of the title one should keep in mind that this isn't a slam against Conservative Christians that we all know and love and work and play with every day. The "RRR" in this case are not teaching a message of tolerance, or peace, or loving your neighbor etc. They have however hijacked that title as well as many positions of power and privilege within our society as many of us have noticed.

Again, keep in mind this was written 12 years ago, just two years after 9/11. When you think back to those times and now quite a lot has changed. So give it a read, it's not that long. I'm expecting some hate coming my way but hopefully most of you can understand why this isn't an attack on Christianity or Conservatives in their True Meaning, but is very much attempting to expose those who use such institutions as a means to a violent end.

Rise of the Radical Religious Right by Mike Webb

Some bits to chew on:

The radical religious right has gained power only by keeping its true intentions under wraps, by using the Republican Party as a cover, and by portraying itself as conservative rather than radical.

A more troubling and perhaps less obvious effect of the exercise of power by the radical religious right will be the rise of militant nationalism in the United States. Many people fail to understand this because, again, they are thinking of the religious right as being Christian, and that Christianity is a religion that teaches peace. That view misses the mark on several levels. Christian fundamentalists believe in biblical literalism, and the Judaeo-Christian bible is actually full of references to war and an angry, aggressive God, and certainly does not condemn war.

Fundamentalist Christians regard the "religious left," which includes Christian groups seeking to improve human rights and social conditions for the poor, as being under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist.

Such Christians openly believe that liberal Christians are inhabited by demons of Antichrist that deceive them into playing into Satan's desperate attempt to keep the world from seeing the light of Christ's Word.

Many Christian fundamentalists take a dim view not only of nominal moderate Christians, but also of Catholics, whom they regard as Mary-worshippers and idolaters, and certainly of Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and Muslims, all of whom they consider to live in spiritual darkness.

Thar was ALL true. It is 100% correct. People disagreeing with it are out of step with reality.

whyamihere: NO. You can't switch the words and get the same thing.

Fundamentalism/Extremism is about control. Period.

The beliefs can vary, but it's still all about control.

a reply to: mOjOm

Pretty interesting read and I bet he is not far off the mark,my sister would be what I would consider to be a member of the radical right and displays quite a bit of the behaviours and attitude he alludes to...

Amazing how the focus is on the Muslims taking over yet here we have radical Christians involved in a take over...,and the argument is always Christians haven't acted like that since the crusades and that is partially right the difference is these sects of Christianity have turned to a more covert method of indoctrination and destruction they are as just as bad if not worse for our society and our freedoms....

I think the big problem that Christians (of which I am one) face right now is the definition of the term "Christian".

People use it so very loosely in this day and age; but if we allow the Bible to define a Christian, then this is as good a phrase as any to do so:

"If anyone would come after me, He must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."

Christianity, as distinct from the common use of the term, is a movement - and I mean that in the most literal sense of the term. To be a Christian is to follow Christ - and to do so in a way that is fundamentally self-abasing, humble and with love and compassion for others - and that, primarily out of gratitude, because "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us; the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God."

Now, let's assume for a moment that my definition there holds - that a Christian is a sinner, saved by the completed work of Jesus Christ, in death and resurrection, and one who follows in the footsteps of Christ as he or she is called to do.

How many of the 2/3 of Americans that claim the name now live up to its nature?
You'd have to say very few.

Take that a step further - does the Roman Catholic Church live up to that nature?
As others have pointed out, you can't hoard riches and claim to be living a selfless life in Christ. "Religion that God accepts as pure and faultless is this: to help the fatherless and the widow".

I'm fond of quoting verses from Acts, wherein Peter and John, who had just healed a man born lame, were called before the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, "regarding the fact that Peter and John were unlearned fishermen, took note that they had been with Jesus."

That's the criteria. Call yourself a Christian - but when people look at you, do they take note that you've been with Jesus?

If not, you might just be on the wide road, and not the narrow one Jesus called you to walk.

With that in mind, you talk about the radical right? Go ahead. I'm right wing, and proud of it - but you know what kind of radicalism this world needs? The kind Jesus showed. Put it this way. You want to be radical like Jesus? You won't do that by bombing abortion clinics - you do that by drawling a line in the sand and showing mercy to those who feel they least deserve it. That is radical.

he radical religious right has gained power only by keeping its true intentions under wraps, by using the Republican Party as a cover, and by portraying itself as conservative rather than radical.

...This could only come from the radical left.

In all seriousness... was this guy drunk or were you?

...both probably.

How is this any different than saying all Muslims are radical? Or all democrats are weak minded radical socialists hell bent on bringing the world together under one government ruled by justin beiber?

originally posted by: mOjOm
Like I said earlier I get the impression that Islam is going through a similar crisis which may be more advanced in the process. This in turn will help to radicalize it's opposite if not careful. The last thing we need is a holy war between the two most dominate religions on the planet. I doubt any of us would make it out alive.

I would disagree there. IMHO Islam is going through the phase that christianity already went through during the last 500 years. A phase where the various branches were totally intolerant of each other and anyone not a christian was treated worse than an animal. Lots of war and death but when armed with swords the death toll is considerably less than being armed with machine guns! Religious leaders having a very obedient flock.....or be flogged. Torture was rife at one point "in the name of God". Roll forward and Islam is doing the exact same phase unfortunately the weaponary employed is far deadlier. The main difference I see is that the average Muslim is not as easily led due to the easier access of information. There are always people who will become fanatics or brainwashed irrespective of any cause.

There is a danger that the religious right win the propoganda war and label all Muslims as an evil to be purged. The language today by some leaders is right out of Germany 1930, just replace "jew" for "Muslim" and hey presto all the speeches are already written.

a reply to: Awen24
I agree with you 100%. I don't have a penny in this nickel, but I can tell you that the entire time I was reading the piece, I felt a bit confused. I had to keep reminding myself this was written around 2000, so the guy was responding to something in his life that he didn't like, and felt he had no power to fix, so in his quest to find the cause, he determined that a group of people with great power were to blame.

Problem I had with the piece, is that by his definition, the people he was labelling as the religious Christian right, did not fit the definition of Christian at all. If you replace the words "religious Christian right" with Atheist, the story would sound more fitting, but still would not be accurate.

I know a lot of Christians, and I know they come in a lot of flavors, and a lot of temperatures. I have not seen massive amounts of any Christians that fit the the description this guy gives. And even if it were true back then, after 15 years the massive, super powerful group, would have taken over the government and the schools by now.

I say look at what is controlling the government and the schools today. I hardly think anyone would call the group that is calling the shots Christian. They weren't Christians 15 years ago and they are not Christians now.

It was about 15 years ago when I too came to the realization, that Christianity is just a label that most people stick on anyone that says they believe in God. It is a huge, and potentially dangerous misconception.

To believe something exist doesn't mean you agree or are devoted to it.

originally posted by: whyamIhere

There is a war for the soul of the American People.

Well, you're right about that.

Will we favor our traditions of equality and liberty, or will we elect those that wish to make this an unapologetic theocracy and/or corporatacracy?

Read the article on the OP and then comment on it.

originally posted by: Awen24

That's the criteria. Call yourself a Christian - but when people look at you, do they take note that you've been with Jesus?

If not, you might just be on the wide road, and not the narrow one Jesus called you to walk.

I don't share your religious beliefs, but, you're spot on with this comment.

The basic philosophy of "Jesus" was to care for other people as much as oneself ... there's not much of that to be seen today (as the OP and the OP's linked source points out so clearly).

I've lived most of my life in Lynchburg, VA and knew Jerry Falwell even before the Moral Majority was started. The effects of the religious right were first felt right here at home and frankly they scared the bejeezus out of me. The election of Reagan was a seminal change and the religious right were the political hammer of the Republican party.

The article is from 2003 which was about the peak of their power. There has been a major swing to the left since which is hardly less objectionable or authoritarian in nature. Both sides will claim the moral high ground and refuse to compromise leaving the American public out of the process entirely. The Religious right is like the big dog with a nasty bark but no teeth. For the time being it's the leftist/socialist Democrats that are doing the most damage.

a reply to: mOjOm
I read the whole article. He makes some good points, but I think he either ignorantly or intentionally downplayed the percentage of the population that thinks this way. Evangelical/fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. make up from 40-60% of Christians in this country. That's a lot of millions folks. Though many of them would likely not confess their agreement with the so-called RRR. Make no mistake. They agree with and support a theocratic system of law and governance in this country. They would trash the constitution in a heartbeat, because it's a construct of man/Satan.

This is NOT a small, radical group of Christians in this country. This is mainstream Christian thinking. Watch the televangelists, and visit some non-denominational churches incognito. Hear it from their own mouths.