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

a reply to: mOjOm

I, too, am impressed by this essay! Accurate and includes so much. Good!

Since the late 1970s the religious right has steadily transformed the Republican Party from a basically secular, conservative, civic-minded party to become the public face of legitimacy for the otherwise alien values of the radical religious right.

The one commonality that would unite Southern Baptists/Pentecostal churches with the Catholic church was abortion. This commonality would draw many to the GOP...

For almost three decades the leaders of Christian fundamentalist groups have increasingly radicalized their followers by using certain explosively emotive issues. Principal among those has been the legality of abortion, which they consider to be the murder of unborn children.

As driven home by leaders of the radical religious right, any society that legally sanctions the murder of children must be unreservedly perverse. That conviction further hardens the position that no compromise is possible with the deluded mainstream, and that only radical change is acceptable.
.........

Overt opposition will only radicalize the radical religious right even further. In fact, if they fail to get their way through legitimate political means, they might eventually turn to terrorism, as some have done in bombing abortion clinics and shooting physicians who practice abortion.

When groups become radicalized, they start to believe that the nobility of their ends justifies any means, and they slip into thinking that any action, including violence and lying, is necessary and appropriate.

Mission accomplished....

The religious right is a grassroots movement as well as a national one. Local "cells" operating in churches run disciplined campaigns to win local offices by taking advantage of voter ignorance and apathy.

Because the GOP has successfully attracted and incubated the RRR, what will happen with American politics and government if the radical right breaks with the GOP? The Democratic Party will not take them back. Americans look at other countries who also have radical right (although often not as radical as ours!), but we do not have their parliamentarian form or proportional/representational voting/governing as they do.

For the first time in its history, the USA must deal with this political conundrum. The outcome will prove historical.

a reply to: Klassified

I'm going to have to disagree with you there my friend.
The percentage of Fundamentalist Christians has been shrinking if anything as it was composed of mostly older people who have since been dying off.
I would be surprised if even 10% of Christians identified themselves as fundamentalist.
The much larger majority have been secularized and changed their theology to be compatible with today's world.
The only danger they pose is from a tiny group who feel lost in todays world; those with nothing to lose but feel they would be doing God's work by bombing an abortion clinic.

When was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed?
I rest my case.

The OP overgeneralizes in lumping Fundamentalists and evangelicals together; you also have Pentacostals and the various denominations; Assembly of God, Southern Baptist Convention, etc. They are by no means a monolithic group with similar values ,beliefs and political ambitions (if any).

The greatest danger to the country and Constitution are those with no roots, who go along to get along, who have no strong moral convictions and who have no reason to fight back against government oppression and overreach.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

For the time being it's the leftist/socialist Democrats that are doing the most damage.

What Socialists? The reason the Democrats have been a detriment to this country is because they swung to the Right to appease the "squeaky wheels" on the Right.

Continuing the actions in the Middle East is not a socialist ideal.

The ACA (Obamacare) is not socialism.

Forgive me if I disagree with your statement. While the people of this nation as a whole are more and more leaning Left, the people in charge, our representatives, are stuck in NeoCon mode and that includes the Left.

a reply to: Asktheanimals
I should have been a bit clearer in my post. The true radicals, that would do something like bomb an abortion clinic, are indeed very few in number. And those that agree with doing such a thing, even fewer. Christian fundamentalism as a whole does not support violence. They're much more covert and subtle in their approach. Especially among leadership.

My point is that all of the more fundamentalist sects that you mentioned, and more, make up that 40-60% in the U.S. These are people that hold a literalist view of scripture, and believe this country should have a government that leans theocratic, even if it isn't called a theocracy. As you know, I was among them for a large portion of my life. I'm still around them. Their thinking hasn't changed. There are many millions of these people. My family is still among them, and the area I live in(Southern Illinois) is infested with this type of thinking.

These folks support a dominionist approach to government and law, and there are enough of them to consider them mainstream Christianity. Just because they aren't outwardly violent, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. lol.

a reply to: Klassified

I think a good number of people once in the movement were truly expecting the Rapture or Armageddon to happen a long time ago. They became disillusioned with waiting and moved on in life, a fair number of them anyway.
I've lived among them for 40 years myself but here I've seen a decline.

Falwell's first book written about him was titled "Capturing a town for Christ" by Elmer Towns. In reality it meant getting a bunch of bars closed down, news stands to stop selling adult magazines and hordes of his college students canvassing neighborhoods to try to get people to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church. Lynchburg was your run-of-the-mill working class town and a little wild until Jerry started his crusade here at home. It got to the point if you didn't attend his church there were many businesses that would not hire you. That was my awakening to what the Fundamentalists were up to. It wasn't long after that he started the Moral Majority and a Nationwide campaign to bring America back to God.

Maybe in the heartland of the Midwest they're still clinging to theocratic ideas - something I agree was always their method; i.e. making the government pass laws of "that shalt not" do ____.
It was this insane idea that by removing temptation people will become better and more Godly.
For real Christian conversion many people have to hit rock bottom first before they turn to Christ.

a reply to: introvert

Forgive me if I disagree with your statement. While the people of this nation as a whole are more and more leaning Left, the people in charge, our representatives, are stuck in NeoCon mode and that includes the Left.

I have to admit that I never understood this left and right business. So I Googled it. I even took three of the numerous test they offered, to determine what your leanings are.

Surprise! I scored right sack dab in the middle of the graph on all three.

Another surprise? Six of the people I could coerce into taking the test, scored close to the same way. Not enough to make a definite claim, but it was enough to tell me, that the average American isn't concerned about left or right. They are concerned about their daily lives, putting food on the table, keeping a roof over the heads of their family, having a little peace and a little joy.

They don't go around thinking about politics. Until someone brings it up, they don't even think about all the ills of the world, or who they think is the right person to fix them, or even if they can be fixed.

People just aren't all that into anything that is not in their face and directly affecting them. And that my dear friends is the problem. Not some handful of religious nuts on any side of the aisle. The problem is that people aren't motivated to change anything until it is flood waters are washing under their doors.

a reply to: introvert

If I say socialism I mean Fabian socialism; where the oligarchy still rules and owns most everything.
It's the same as capitalism just a different name and approach to get control.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

It's only the extremes on either side that get the media attention.
The vast majority in the middle are completely unremarkable and not newsworthy.
Media coverage is designed to push us emotionally or mentally in one direction or the other.
It's good to hear you and your friends are average Americans.
To me that's what real Americans are, not extremists in any form - just everyday people.

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

Agree. Christianity was meant to transform the individual, who would then be in a community of like minded individuals, which would then be able to transform the world around them. What Jesus taught was a religion of inclusiveness, that "the other" was indeed whom we should treat as ourselves, that what we did for "the other" we would be doing for Jesus/God. it went beyond tribalism. The Good News!

The poisoning is when a religion becomes exclusive, reverting back to tribalism. This is precisely the stance of much of today's "Christianity". Christianity has become a religion where distancing oneself from the other is seen as a good thing. One should not become "contaminated" by "the other" and "the other's world".

If one is not part of the tribe, one is not "saved". It is safer to stay within one's tribe, never transforming to go outside of one's tribe to do what Jesus required. The tribal road is easy, Jesus's "way" is not.

The mixture of an exclusive religion with those in a political party who demand exclusion in the world around them has resulted in what we see today. Not the multiplication of loaves and fishes, but the multiplication of hate and exclusion. This is not Christianity!

Yes, there are those who have turned around to take a good look at their church and have found it lacking in what the Good News was all about. Some have in recent years left their hollow church or have tried to warn the church they love, that the church is on the wrong track.

I will add here the nicety of having a religion that makes you "saved/forgiven" just by declaring so, tied in with politicians who can do whatever they want and voters will still vote for them on the politician's having said he was "saved/forgiven". Whatever you do is eventually ok, because all you have to do is say the magic words.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Klassified

I'm going to have to disagree with you there my friend.
The percentage of Fundamentalist Christians has been shrinking if anything as it was composed of mostly older people who have since been dying off.
I would be surprised if even 10% of Christians identified themselves as fundamentalist.
The much larger majority have been secularized and changed their theology to be compatible with today's world.
The only danger they pose is from a tiny group who feel lost in todays world; those with nothing to lose but feel they would be doing God's work by bombing an abortion clinic.

When was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed?
I rest my case.

The OP overgeneralizes in lumping Fundamentalists and evangelicals together; you also have Pentacostals and the various denominations; Assembly of God, Southern Baptist Convention, etc. They are by no means a monolithic group with similar values ,beliefs and political ambitions (if any).

The greatest danger to the country and Constitution are those with no roots, who go along to get along, who have no strong moral convictions and who have no reason to fight back against government oppression and overreach.

When Bobby Jindhal, Mike Huckabee, and Ted Cruz - all at the time Republican runners for the Presidential nomination attended Kevin Swanson's recent conference, they (a) endorsed the hateful rhetoric being spewed by Swanson, (b) made it acceptable to the mainstream, (c) showed that fundamentalism has been adopted as a political tool.
Kevin Swanson actively called for all homosexuals to be put to death. This isn't secularism, this is not compatible with today's world, and it is not the minority.

Nobody can help lumping the various sects of of "the one true faith" together when they all forge toward the same end game.
Do you honestly believe that political, and social pressure to change laws in line with your belief system is acceptable?
But, I'll take a guess here, you'd be really upset if we changed laws to suit the beliefs of another religion, right?

You rest your case at the last time an abortion clinic was "bombed"???
You may want to do a little research, and stop hiding behind pedantry.

Oh, and the little barb about no strong moral convictions isn't helping you.

a reply to: Asktheanimals


Even though we're seeing a lot of the ugly side of religion across the world right now. I agree regarding a decline. Religion must change to survive in an "evolving" social climate, or it will die out completely. What we are seeing now may be the death throes of the old guard.

a reply to: Klassified

I am curious as to where you get those figures from. All I can base things on is real life experience. Being in the buckle of the Bible belt, there are plenty of radical Christians around, but in comparison to what I consider "normal folk", they pale in comparison. They are louder, so perhaps their voice tends to make them seem higher in numbers.

If you factor out the Sunday morning Christians, (the ones who spend Saturday night drunk and looking for sex with strangers, only to don a suit and tie, then stand at the doors of the church to greet you on Sunday)I believe the numbers would be even less.

Regular people who believe in God, live a decent life and try not to stick their nose in others business are generally quiet and ignored in these types of lists. (and I feel as if they might make up the majority here)

But when the term radical is used, I pair that with killing in the name of ____. If you aren't willing to kill for your deity, you just don't earn the term "radical" in my book.

Just wait till the radical atheists come about. They are already organizing, putting up billboards, having meetings.....

originally posted by: network dude
Just wait till the radical atheists come about. They are already organizing, putting up billboards, having meetings.....

Certainly one does not have to be Radicalized through only Religion. But it still must involve a very proactive ideology that one can become fully dedicated to in order for it to happen. While many seem to think Atheism is a Religion too that idea is quite false. Atheism lacks much of what is needed in the form of an organized system of ideology. It is that organized and systematic practice and devotion to an ideology which causes the inability for some to question their thoughts and actions.

Religions that become radicalized have been very well constructed with certain beliefs which reinforce it's devotion toward non acceptance of new ideas. Things like being taught to reject things of this world in favor of a life after death. Rewards for being a martyr or destroying one's enemies for a higher purpose. Not questioning the most high authority regardless of how unreasonable and outside common reality it may seem. Elevating one's personal spiritual purpose above the overall common good of the people around you (The Spiritual Warrior).

Then there are also the reinforcing ideas that act to protect themselves when challenged. Lessons that teach it's followers that when the their faith is challenged the most it's a sign of how true it is. It reverses the normal logic which is used to verify what is true and what is not. When an idea is challenged with logical arguments which point out inconsistencies and problems within that idea, that isn't a sign that the idea is actually correct. Just the opposite, that is how we figure out which ideas may in fact be incorrect, by pointing out it's problems.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm impressed by how accurate this essay is being that it was written in 2003 by some guy named Micheal Webb.

I am quite impressed that you would subscribe to a guy named Webb. Who is this Webb guy and what background check have you done on him?

Firstly, I don't hate on you at all but I do question why you would choose an article which a guy mixes religion with a political party and try's to sell it as radical. Not one word of Jesus and what Jesus teaches but substitutes his own understanding as a mixture of what he, in his confusion, calls radical. By his standards a democrat or a Jew or a Muslim is a righteous left winger saint who is out to save humanity from the god awful right winger Conservative Christians.

I had never understood Jesus as being a left winger democrat. I always understood that you believed in His covenant (doctrine) or you did not believe. I have never heard of a Conservative Christian high jacking any form of Christianity and don't really understand how a republican or democrat or independent political preference can get you any closer to heaven. Whether this applies to other countries would be fun to have explained by this Webb guy.

This fellow (whoever he is) reads like a confused person who really doesn't know what he he is talking about. In the first place he doesn't make clear which Christianity he is talking about. I know he is not talking about the first century Christians because they had no republican party or any such thing as a conservative liturgy. Even in this era there are many doctrines of Christianity and I am quite certain not all are of this bad republican (American) organization.

originally posted by: Seede
I am quite impressed that you would subscribe to a guy named Webb. Who is this Webb guy and what background check have you done on him?

I'm not sure what you mean by subscribe exactly. I'm not too concerned with who he is personally either and I don't see how it changes what is written in the essay. I read the essay for what it has to say rather than some analysis of the inner workings of it's author.

Firstly, I don't hate on you at all but I do question why you would choose an article which a guy mixes religion with a political party and try's to sell it as radical. Not one word of Jesus and what Jesus teaches but substitutes his own understanding as a mixture of what he, in his confusion, calls radical. By his standards a democrat or a Jew or a Muslim is a righteous left winger saint who is out to save humanity from the god awful right winger Conservative Christians.

I think you're missing the point of what it's saying. Religion and Politics have always been in bed together to some degree since we've had civilization. At certain times one or the other seeks to dominate the other while at the same time they both seek to dominate society. This I think is why keeping them separate and protected from each other is so important. When joined they have an overwhelming power to control people's lives and restricts the possibility of change. Separate they can both flourish while also keeping the other in check to some degree. I suggest not viewing it as for against the Left or Right politics so much but understand that they are involved. It's also not Religious specific and can really be attached with any kind of exclusive ideology with advocates strong loyalty to the movement.

I had never understood Jesus as being a left winger democrat. I always understood that you believed in His covenant (doctrine) or you did not believe. I have never heard of a Conservative Christian high jacking any form of Christianity and don't really understand how a republican or democrat or independent political preference can get you any closer to heaven. Whether this applies to other countries would be fun to have explained by this Webb guy.

Again, I think you're missing the fact that he's pointing out the difference between those who follow the Christian traditions of peace and tolerance and the politicized version which becomes radicalized by twisting those same messages into messages of war.

This fellow (whoever he is) reads like a confused person who really doesn't know what he he is talking about. In the first place he doesn't make clear which Christianity he is talking about. I know he is not talking about the first century Christians because they had no republican party or any such thing as a conservative liturgy. Even in this era there are many doctrines of Christianity and I am quite certain not all are of this bad republican (American) organization.

Obviously he's not talking about first century Christianity. He's talking about the present day Fundamentalist, primarily evangelical form which is being used today. Try not to get hung up on the left vs. right nature of what he's saying which only matters as far as pointing out that they too are being twisted and changed from their more traditional version as well.

originally posted by: Seede
... an article which a guy mixes religion with a political party and try's to sell it as radical.

... I have never heard of a Conservative Christian high jacking any form of Christianity and don't really understand how a republican or democrat or independent political preference can get you any closer to heaven. ...

....Even in this era there are many doctrines of Christianity and I am quite certain not all are of this bad republican (American) organization.

Permit me to interject some history.... from 1981... written by John C. Bennett, president of Union Theological Seminary

Assessing the Concerns of the Religious Right

There has always been a ‘religious right." Perhaps the first Christian instance of this phenomenon was the resistance of the Jerusalem Christians to Paul’s liberal tendencies, as recorded in Acts. Though Paul provided many proof texts for future conservatives, on the greatest issue of his time he was adventurously liberal, opening the church to the gentiles and traveling over half the known world to gather them.

The rest of the essay goes into fundamentalist theology and how it is either promoting destructive national values or inhibiting positive national values

It ends with

On May 15 the National Council of Churches’ Governing Board, which consists of 266 delegates from 32 denominations, made one of the most courageous statements that I can remember coming from such a representative church body. It is clearly ahead of present public opinion, but I regard it as an early presentation of what will soon be widely recognized as true. The statement declared that the Reagan administration is trying to remake America, that it threatens "the vision of America as the model and embodiment of a just and, humane society" After many specific criticisms of policies, it says of the administration’s vision of America that "the fittest survive and prosper, and there is little room for public purpose since it interferes with private gain, . . . and government is at best a necessary evil which must be strong enough to protect privilege from assault but kept too weak to impose public responsibility on private prerogative." This is also a description of the vision of America held by the Moral Majority and the religious right.

These rightists appeal to the real anxieties of a great many Americans about some serious moral issues, but their prescriptions are not likely to help in dealing with those issues; moreover, they threaten other moral values. What is more serious, they either neglect or respond inappropriately to the most fateful moral problems facing all humanity: the problem of economic justice in this country and in others, and the struggle for peace ...

The author, a prophet in his time, greatly underestimated the power the religious right would be granted by the Republican Party. He could not know of the progress of satellite tv and its influence on viewers. We know the outcome.

originally posted by: mOjOm




Rise of the Radical Religious Right by Mike Webb

I'll throw something into the mix. Something that horrifies me. I will read the thread after I get this down:

Refering to Kevin Kruse's book "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America"

From an NPR interview:

Kruse's book investigates how the idea of America as a Christian nation was promoted in the 1930s and '40s when industrialists and business lobbies, chafing against the government regulations of the New Deal, recruited and funded conservative clergy to preach faith, freedom and free enterprise. He says this conflation of Christianity and capitalism moved to center stage in the '50s under Eisenhower's watch.

Read that again!

www.npr.org...

Not only did "Faith, Hope and Charity" turn into "Faith, Hope and Love" but the whole "Under God" thing started then.

And this bit:

On the Rev. James Fifield

He takes over the pastorate at the First Congregational Church in Los Angeles, an elite church, literally ministering to millionaires in his pews. It's got some of the town's most wealthy citizens — the mayor attends service there, [Hollywood filmmaker] Cecil B. DeMille. He tells these millionaires what they want to hear, which is that their worldly success is a sign of heavenly blessing. He has a very loose approach to the Bible. He says that reading the Bible should be like eating fish: We take out the bones to enjoy the meat; all parts are not of equal value. Accordingly, he disregarded Christ's many injunctions about the dangers of wealth, and instead preached a philosophy that wedded capitalism to Christianity.

From the NY Times:

But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and slogans that come to mind when we consider whether this is a Christian nation. Our grandfathers did.

Back in the 1930s, business leaders found themselves on the defensive. Their public prestige had plummeted with the Great Crash; their private businesses were under attack by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal from above and labor from below. To regain the upper hand, corporate leaders fought back on all fronts. They waged a figurative war in statehouses and, occasionally, a literal one in the streets; their campaigns extended from courts of law to the court of public opinion. But nothing worked particularly well until they began an inspired public relations offensive that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity .

And - read closely here:

Accordingly, throughout the 1930s and ’40s, corporate leaders marketed a new ideology that combined elements of Christianity with an anti-federal libertarianism. Powerful business lobbies like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers led the way, promoting this ideology’s appeal in conferences and P.R. campaigns. Generous funding came from prominent businessmen, from household names like Harvey Firestone, Conrad Hilton, E. F. Hutton, Fred Maytag and Henry R. Luce to lesser-known leaders at U.S. Steel, General Motors and DuPont.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: mOjOm

What would be their true intentions? Also you failed to understand that Christians in America are just not very religious to actually do this. We are the lite beer of the religious and typically extremism comes about when religions rules 100% of a person's life, here I give it 5%...lol

a reply to: network dude

I am curious as to where you get those figures from.

I averaged them from several sources. Everyone seems to have different figures. Personally, I question the higher figure.
As for the rest of the types of Christians you mention. Don't be fooled. If you met the fundamentalist side of my family, you would think they're the "regular" people you mention. And they are. They'll give you the shirt off their back, figuratively speaking. A few of them are even "Sunday morning Christians" as you call them. But I have been around these people and their Christians friends much of my life. I have heard them talk in and out of church. Until you've been a part of these peoples social and private lives, you don't know what they really think. Same with any group I suppose.

I don't expect anyone on ATS to take my word for it. Only those of us who have been in, and part of, those churches know how these people think, and what they believe. Most of them aren't going to shout it from the roof tops. At the same time, that doesn't mean all of these people are evil. They aren't. Not by any means. But they do hold strongly to their convictions, and have ideas about how this world should be run. If given the chance, we would all be living in a Christian theocracy.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Also you failed to understand that Christians in America are just not very religious to actually do this. We are the lite beer of the religious and typically extremism comes about when religions rules 100% of a person's life, here I give it 5%...lol

I think you explained it quite well.

I can only go by what I know. I know no devote dyed in the wool Christians. Most likely because if they were, they would have nothing to do with the likes of me.

I know three basic types of Christians. The Sunday go to meeting kind. They go to Church on Saturday or Sunday and go on with their lives, trying to be your average run of the mill good person. The Church supporting Christians. They go to Church most Sundays and devote some of their time by working in the Church and in the community, then go on with their lives, trying to be your average run of the mill good person. The Sometimer Christian. They believe in Christ and attest to being Christian, but they only go to Church for weddings and funerals. They go on with their lives, trying to be your average run of the mills good person.

I think 5% is a high number for the average American Christian. They are just not extreme enough to get out of the bed on Sunday, so I don't see them as being much of a threat.

People with political or financial motives, will do anything to get what they want. They will eat their own children. So lying, cheating, stealing and grooming an army of Christian Soldiers is not beyond what they are capable of, I just am not buying that this is some kind of massive movement that is going to change the face of our government or America.

Unfortunately you see this kind of activity in all of the larger well know religions. From the beginning of time, religions has been used as a mystery tool to control the masses. It just amazed me that in all this time that this ridiculous ruse is still working on so many people.