The myth of "far right Christian fundamentalism"

[koshergrl]

Lol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

HE didn't bring the term up; I . did. He doesn't get to redefine what I meant by it. The fact is the original comment brought up "religious extremists" with their moral dictatorialism. That has nothing to do with universities or football or anything else. Period.

Just more of this incessant need to fuck with other people's words to make a point that isn't in the conversation. He does this all the time. In my experience, every thread he goes to. He can't deal with the present point, so he changes it, then I challenge him to quote where I said that, then he runs away and comes back with something else. Or just runs away. Been there, done that, lather, rinse, repeat.

That's why I find it supremely ironic that he'd refer to someone else lying. DeNial is a deep deep river.

I did not define it for you, I defined it for everyone else on the planet. I even used a dictionary, now you are the one that is attempting to close the debate by insisting that you are the only person who gets to define words, and that anyone else that uses the word has to use it the exact same way you do.

Interesting tactic, I understand it is still used on playgrounds all across America.

Uh, it's my point dood, so damn right I get to define it. Sorry if that doesn't suit your controlfreakism that insists on dictating what other people are talking about. Grow the fuck up.

I never said it wasn't your point, nor did I try to say your definition is wrong, unlike you. I made a different point, and you still want me to use your definition.

Fuck off.

 

[Pogo]

I did not define it for you, I defined it for everyone else on the planet. I even used a dictionary, now you are the one that is attempting to close the debate by insisting that you are the only person who gets to define words, and that anyone else that uses the word has to use it the exact same way you do.

Interesting tactic, I understand it is still used on playgrounds all across America.

Uh, it's my point dood, so damn right I get to define it. Sorry if that doesn't suit your controlfreakism that insists on dictating what other people are talking about. Grow the fuck up.

I never said it wasn't your point, nor did I try to say your definition is wrong, unlike you. I made a different point, and you still want me to use your definition.

Fuck off.

What kind of narcissist does it take to keep whining about not being allowed to hijack a point sixty posts later?

Another in a endless series of quantum compressed air...

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, that thread already went down.

So again....why is it all progressives think that men who want to protect the innocence of children are perverts?

I can only surmise it's because they want those kids available for sexual predation. I mean, what other reason could there be?

Because I view my daughter as a person not a possession. I raised her to be an independent individual, not a dependent cook, maid and babysitter. I didn't raise her to be subservient to a man, I raised her to be an equal. I don't see her as a second class citizen, I see her as someone who can be anything she wants to be and should be paid equally for her abilities.

And that has....what....to do with abortion? You do realize most abortions involve coercion?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah, that thread already went down.

So again....why is it all progressives think that men who want to protect the innocence of children are perverts?

I can only surmise it's because they want those kids available for sexual predation. I mean, what other reason could there be?

Because I view my daughter as a person not a possession. I raised her to be an independent individual, not a dependent cook, maid and babysitter. I didn't raise her to be subservient to a man, I raised her to be an equal. I don't see her as a second class citizen, I see her as someone who can be anything she wants to be and should be paid equally for her abilities.

And that has....what....to do with abortion? You do realize most abortions involve coercion?

It has nothing to do with abortion, because that is not the topic...

coercion? by WHOM??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh, it's my point dood, so damn right I get to define it. Sorry if that doesn't suit your controlfreakism that insists on dictating what other people are talking about. Grow the fuck up.

I never said it wasn't your point, nor did I try to say your definition is wrong, unlike you. I made a different point, and you still want me to use your definition.

Fuck off.

What kind of narcissist does it take to keep whining about not being allowed to hijack a point sixty posts later?

Another in a endless series of quantum compressed air...

Irony alert.

 

[Political Junky]

Because I view my daughter as a person not a possession. I raised her to be an independent individual, not a dependent cook, maid and babysitter. I didn't raise her to be subservient to a man, I raised her to be an equal. I don't see her as a second class citizen, I see her as someone who can be anything she wants to be and should be paid equally for her abilities.

And that has....what....to do with abortion? You do realize most abortions involve coercion?

It has nothing to do with abortion, because that is not the topic...

coercion? by WHOM??

I'd love to hear who coerces abortion, too.

 

[MarcATL]

Answer to what? You are dismissed as a moron. You obviously think a lot more of your intelligence than you should.

Carry on.

Meanwhile, I made my point..which is that the myth of the fundie takeover of the Republican party is just a myth.

Fundie myth? Preachers are now endorsing candidates from the pulpit and telling their sheep who to vote for... all while keeping tax exempt status. This is illegal, by the way. And there is no way shrub would have been voted for even once if it wasn't for all of the the bible thumpers.

Pulpit politics: Pastors endorse candidates, thumbing noses at the IRS - U.S. News

How odd that I've been in church for the majority of my life and never had a preacher tell me who to vote for.

Interesting.

the base your speaking of didnt used to vote.

they were courted by the republican party

Now they are harming the very party that courted their vote.

Christians did not vote? Since when?

By the way, a little reality for you, Reagan courted the evangelicals, and promptly screwed them over after he won the election. That has been the pattern since that time, which is why Robertson decided to run for President in 1988. If the Christian right had actually taken over the Republican Party he would have won, but he didn't.

I was all a political power play by the evangelicals, because in 1980 they voted against a man who professed to be "born again" and went to church regularly in favor of a man who down played his religion and rarely went to church.

kg, when she talks "christianity", she means fundamentalism and evangelicalism

kg, when she talks "christianity", she means fundamentalism and evangelicalism

Of course she does.

Naturally other Christians -- thinking Christians -- object.

And that has....what....to do with abortion? You do realize most abortions involve coercion?

It has nothing to do with abortion, because that is not the topic...

coercion? by WHOM??

I'd love to hear who coerces abortion, too.

It was never answered.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

 

[HUGGY]

I keep hearing how this "fundamentalist" class leapt into existence in the 60s...and how the Republican party is "now" full of "fundies"...and how anyone who doesn't support abortion, gay marriage, the taxation of churches and sex counseling in schools is a "fundie".

It occurs to me that nothing exists in a vacuum. We are more liberal today than we have ever been...but the defamation of Christians began in the 60s with the rise of the radical left. The further left they pulled us, the more we heard the term "fundamentalism" applied to traditional, American, Christian values.

Essentially what has happened is this...we took an abrupt and severe left turn in the 60s, with the rise to power of pukes like Ayers, who infilterated the media and schools, and began to lament the "extremism" of the establishment.

They're the ones who blew people up...but suddenly, mainstream Americans became *fundies* and *extremists*.

Ironic, no?

Doublethink noted in red. Corollary to "ignorance is strength".

Of course what actually happened was that so-called "social conservatives" (i.e. those driven by social issues, gay marriage, abortion etc) crept into the RP (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee et al), injecting religion into politics (where it has no natural place), demagoguing a lot of religion hooey into Conservatism, which is as natural a relationship as fish an bicycles, in a naked lust for power.

A hijacking took place, and few in the RP have the balls to stand up to it. Goldwater was one who saw it coming...

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
~ Barry Goldwater, as quoted in John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience

What's the connection with "Media" here?

If it had not been for this ad:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Id_r6pNsus]"Daisy Girl" Rare 1964 Lyndon Johnson Political Ad -aired only once- 9/7/64 - YouTube[/ame]

run by Johnson that scared the crap out of voters Goldwater would have been our president and I believe he would have pulled the country out of Viet Nam and the USA and the world would be a much better place.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The myth of "far right Christian fundamentalism"

This is clearly not a ‘myth’ when in this very forum we have conservative members starting and subscribing to these and other similar threads:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/286393-abortions-should-women-be-allowed-to-choose.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pt-civil-unions-and-just-be-done-with-it.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...history-behind-normalizing-homosexuality.html

Needless to say this is but a partial sampling, obviously representative of a social conservative agenda hostile to privacy rights and the equal protection rights for same-sex couples.

Moreover, that any rightist would start a thread asking whether women should be ‘allowed’ to decide to have a child or not is a remarkable example of the clueless arrogance of the social right.

Far right Christian fundamentalism is indeed no ‘myth,’ unfortunately it's alive and well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, that thread already went down.

So again....why is it all progressives think that men who want to protect the innocence of children are perverts?

I can only surmise it's because they want those kids available for sexual predation. I mean, what other reason could there be?

Because I view my daughter as a person not a possession. I raised her to be an independent individual, not a dependent cook, maid and babysitter. I didn't raise her to be subservient to a man, I raised her to be an equal. I don't see her as a second class citizen, I see her as someone who can be anything she wants to be and should be paid equally for her abilities.

And that has....what....to do with abortion? You do realize most abortions involve coercion?

The OP again confirms the fact she’s a liar.

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah, that thread already went down.

So again....why is it all progressives think that men who want to protect the innocence of children are perverts?

I can only surmise it's because they want those kids available for sexual predation. I mean, what other reason could there be?

Because I view my daughter as a person not a possession. I raised her to be an independent individual, not a dependent cook, maid and babysitter. I didn't raise her to be subservient to a man, I raised her to be an equal. I don't see her as a second class citizen, I see her as someone who can be anything she wants to be and should be paid equally for her abilities.

And that has....what....to do with abortion? You do realize most abortions involve coercion?

Your stupidity is breathtaking. There are several dynamics that go into effect when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. NOBODY(a woman) ever gets pregnant just so they can kill an unborn baby. EVER! It is ALWAYS a difficult decision. From the women I have known I would guess that misscarraige is more comon than abortion. The angst that a woman goes through when she loses a pregnancy or is forced through circumstance to abort one is absolutely devastating. Degrading the emotional trauma a woman has to endure to the level of "coercion" is just plain ignorant. Your religious conviction has taken over any reason on the subject. My guess is that you had an abortion a long time ago and you were crushed by the decision and now you are transfering your guilt onto others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The myth of "far right Christian fundamentalism"

This is clearly not a ‘myth’ when in this very forum we have conservative members starting and subscribing to these and other similar threads:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/286393-abortions-should-women-be-allowed-to-choose.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pt-civil-unions-and-just-be-done-with-it.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...history-behind-normalizing-homosexuality.html

Needless to say this is but a partial sampling, obviously representative of a social conservative agenda hostile to privacy rights and the equal protection rights for same-sex couples.

Moreover, that any rightist would start a thread asking whether women should be ‘allowed’ to decide to have a child or not is a remarkable example of the clueless arrogance of the social right.

Far right Christian fundamentalism is indeed no ‘myth,’ unfortunately it's alive and well.

The OPs from the threads you just cited.

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote!
Read MOAR!:

Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery

And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...

"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled

Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."

1971: Zapping the APA Convention


The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.

It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.

Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...

But not always:

University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia

Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002

Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)

Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...

With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.

"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...

Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."

In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."

"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."

Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.

The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.

The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."

A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.

In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."

She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.

She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...

You can read MOAR at the link under the headline.

Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.

And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.

The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.

History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.

I'm just an Observer.



peace...

None of them mention Christianity, and you have posted in them a lot more than I have. In other words, it doesn't matter to anyone but the drooling idiots that think those threads are about Christianity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It occurs to me...

and herein lies the foundation of the flawed argument.


The left in America never ruled. The Democrats in the 60s were opposed by the left. There were tons of liberal Republicans in the 1960s.

Dante had always had pity for the likes of a KosherBoil type, but sometimes we need to slap the retard silly

 

[Pogo]

I keep hearing how this "fundamentalist" class leapt into existence in the 60s...and how the Republican party is "now" full of "fundies"...and how anyone who doesn't support abortion, gay marriage, the taxation of churches and sex counseling in schools is a "fundie".

It occurs to me that nothing exists in a vacuum. We are more liberal today than we have ever been...but the defamation of Christians began in the 60s with the rise of the radical left. The further left they pulled us, the more we heard the term "fundamentalism" applied to traditional, American, Christian values.

Essentially what has happened is this...we took an abrupt and severe left turn in the 60s, with the rise to power of pukes like Ayers, who infilterated the media and schools, and began to lament the "extremism" of the establishment.

They're the ones who blew people up...but suddenly, mainstream Americans became *fundies* and *extremists*.

Ironic, no?

Doublethink noted in red. Corollary to "ignorance is strength".

Of course what actually happened was that so-called "social conservatives" (i.e. those driven by social issues, gay marriage, abortion etc) crept into the RP (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee et al), injecting religion into politics (where it has no natural place), demagoguing a lot of religion hooey into Conservatism, which is as natural a relationship as fish an bicycles, in a naked lust for power.

A hijacking took place, and few in the RP have the balls to stand up to it. Goldwater was one who saw it coming...

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
~ Barry Goldwater, as quoted in John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience

What's the connection with "Media" here?

If it had not been for this ad:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Id_r6pNsus]"Daisy Girl" Rare 1964 Lyndon Johnson Political Ad -aired only once- 9/7/64 - YouTube[/ame]

run by Johnson that scared the crap out of voters Goldwater would have been our president and I believe he would have pulled the country out of Viet Nam and the USA and the world would be a much better place.

Having lived through and remembering that election, I can't agree with the prediction. LBJ won in a landslide that can't be attributed to an obscure TV ad that has taken on symbolic significance in the years since. The landslide was going to happen regardless. There was a very strong groundswell of sympathy out of the Kennedy assassination less than a year before, and Johnson got a turbo boost from it. It was going to take a tremendous candidate (and message) to be able to overcome that.

The TV ad has become infamous in the study of negative ads but it hardly turned the election.