For your consideration...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><font color=maroon>They're both wrong</font></h1></center>

In reaching for political power, the "religious right" has abandoned their roots. All of the great progressive movements in America have had their roots in religion. From the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage,to the end of child labor, to the civil rights movment of the 50's and 60's...All were rooted in the concepts of justice preached by Jesus in the New Testament. The people who were at the fore-front of these movements lived their religion. For them it was a thing come alive to set us all free, regardless of our beliefs.

Contrast this with the mean-spirited, narrow, dogmatic and selective vision of the "religious right" which seeks political power to impose its vision from the top down rather than the bottom up, and that contrast is stark. Rather than an inclusive view which welcomes all, theirs is exclusive..."Believe as we do or we want no part of you!" Rather than seeking solutions with aim of the good of all, they seek to blame others for America's short-comings while providing no genuine solutions beyond the imposition of their dogma upon all. Theirs is nothing short of hubris laced with the language of persecution. Their grasp for power is bad politics and even worse theology.

The left is not blameless either. They have sought to turn religion into a private expression of one's values. They fail to understand that while religion is personal, it is never private. Whatever philosophical view we hold to, either implicitly or explicitly, affects how we experience and react to the world around us. It is their failure to acknowledge it that prevents them from establishing an effective dialogue with the many religious moderates in this country who resent the religious right's hijacking of Christianity to further their political agenda. And until they do this, we will continue to see the increasing polarization in this nation, centered on a few non-issues, rather than focusing on the broader, deeper problems that face us.

We stand at a cross-roads in America today. We can take the easy path and slide into the fascist state that we seem to be headed towards. Or we can roll up our sleeves, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or what have you...Do the hard work and build a new America from the ground up, rooted in the common values of our beliefs and made a living thing to set us all free.

 

[musicman]

Up the Christian theocracy! Concentration camps for all unbelievers! Accept the loving grace and salvation of Jesus Christ or we'll kill you!

 

[Deornwulf]

Actually, I think Bully has it right. There are elements of the Christian Right who seek to turn America into a theocracy. But they are the worst examples of Christians. I really like Bully's statement that while religion is personal, it is never private.

 

[musicman]

Actually, I think Bully has it right. There are elements of the Christian Right who seek to turn America into a theocracy. But they are the worst examples of Christians. I really like Bully's statement that while religion is personal, it is never private.

Well, not to nit-pick, Deornwulf, but a Christian theocracy is actually a contradiction in terms. Since man's free will is the bedrock principle of Christianity - the whole point of the exercise - a theocrat would be a poor Christian; a Christian, a poor theocrat. "Accept salvation or I'll kill you" is not acceptable Christian teaching.

I like the particular statement of Bully's that you cited too, though.

 

[Avatar4321]

I cant seem to figure out how anyone is imposing religious values from the top down when its the majority of the PEOPLE who are rejecting liberals. Its not religious wackos who have usurped the power of the country and are oppressing their values on the majority. This is a majority rallying through grass roots efforts to throw off the shackles of the unreligious left oppressing us with taxes, restricting free speech (IE political correctness and campaign finance reform), and enslaving us with handouts. There is nothing top down from this.

 

[no1tovote4]

<center><h1><font color=maroon>They're both wrong</font></h1></center>

In reaching for political power, the "religious right" has abandoned their roots. All of the great progressive movements in America have had their roots in religion. From the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage,to the end of child labor, to the civil rights movment of the 50's and 60's...All were rooted in the concepts of justice preached by Jesus in the New Testament. The people who were at the fore-front of these movements lived their religion. For them it was a thing come alive to set us all free, regardless of our beliefs.

Contrast this with the mean-spirited, narrow, dogmatic and selective vision of the "religious right" which seeks political power to impose its vision from the top down rather than the bottom up, and that contrast is stark. Rather than an inclusive view which welcomes all, theirs is exclusive..."Believe as we do or we want no part of you!" Rather than seeking solutions with aim of the good of all, they seek to blame others for America's short-comings while providing no genuine solutions beyond the imposition of their dogma upon all. Theirs is nothing short of hubris laced with the language of persecution. Their grasp for power is bad politics and even worse theology.

The left is not blameless either. They have sought to turn religion into a private expression of one's values. They fail to understand that while religion is personal, it is never private. Whatever philosophical view we hold to, either implicitly or explicitly, affects how we experience and react to the world around us. It is their failure to acknowledge it that prevents them from establishing an effective dialogue with the many religious moderates in this country who resent the religious right's hijacking of Christianity to further their political agenda. And until they do this, we will continue to see the increasing polarization in this nation, centered on a few non-issues, rather than focusing on the broader, deeper problems that face us.

We stand at a cross-roads in America today. We can take the easy path and slide into the fascist state that we seem to be headed towards. Or we can roll up our sleeves, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hinu(sic), Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or what have you...Do the hard work and build a new America from the ground up, rooted in the common values of our beliefs and made a living thing to set us all free.

Fascist? I don't think we are headed for fascism, that is an extreme exaggeration of what is actually happening and is in direct contrast to the actual events.

To take a small piece of history attempt to make a correlation without the actual context and pretext and then say "fascism" is being unnecessarily alarmist in an attempt to make people emotionally reactionary to rather than logically considering of your point. It takes away from your point that most may agree with in a way that most will simply dismiss a good point because of the whole attempt at emotional response.

Of course this may be your goal, it creates an "enemy" that believes differently to a good point that almost everybody would agree if presented in a less alarmist and reactionary argument. And makes it easy to dehumanize and say "See? They don't care about *insert argument here* they say it doesn't matter...". It appears to me that this is an attempt to create enmity where common ground actually exists rather than an attempt at actual Statesmanship. This would be something a politician would do in an attempt to make himself seem reasonable while being able to point to the opposition and say they were nazis attempting to steal all freedoms away rather than something a politician would say that was actually a Statesman and searching for the common ground to better society.

 

[Avatar4321]

Fascist? I don't think we are headed for fascism, that is an extreme exaggeration of what is actually happening and is in direct contrast to the actual events.

Especially considering fascism is a deriviant of socialism. Which is something we are moving away from.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Especially considering fascism is a deriviant of socialism. Which is something we are moving away from.

not according to This

or this
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
engages in corporatism,
implements or is a totalitarian regime.

 

[musicman]

not according to This

or this
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
engages in corporatism,
implements or is a totalitarian regime.

Ah, but now we enter that strange realm between the socialist dream and the socialist reality. The lovers' words of Stalin, Mao, and, yes, Hitler, invariably translate into the actions of cruel totalitarianism. History hasn't seen it fail to happen yet.

 

[Avatar4321]

not according to This

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
engages in corporatism,
implements or is a totalitarian regime.

Silly me. I figured I'd just take Hitler's word for it when he said he was a socialist and that the National Socialist German party (IE Nazi) might have socialist leanings.

Hitler was a socialist


By the way that chart is an insult to all intelligent people. You really think Margret Thatcher was a Fascist? sheesh.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Silly me. I figured I'd just take Hitler's word for it when he said he was a socialist and that the National Socialist German party (IE Nazi) might have socialist leanings.

Hitler was a socialist


By the way that chart is an insult to all intelligent people. You really think Margret Thatcher was a Fascist? sheesh.

must get my glasses fixed. I never realized that thatcher and hitler were right on top of each other.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sorry Bully, it really isn't about the right although I know you use whatever you can get to throw a screw in the works against them. Your equating religion with building a new America and that's exactly what all you libs been complaining about with the right. Damn you people are some confused mofo's!

When a religious movement develops a persecution complex, which the religious right in this country has, it becomes a problem. It is this same seige mentality that has led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalists and their virulent attacks against anything not of itself. They too are seeking to grasp political power instead of living according to their religious tenets. It's not about "right and left", it's about "right and wrong".

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, not to nit-pick, Deornwulf, but a Christian theocracy is actually a contradiction in terms. Since man's free will is the bedrock principle of Christianity - the whole point of the exercise - a theocrat would be a poor Christian; a Christian, a poor theocrat. "Accept salvation or I'll kill you" is not acceptable Christian teaching.

I like the particular statement of Bully's that you cited too, though.

But that's not, apparently, the way some see it. And that's what happens when religions attempt to seize political power...Their doctrine becomes corrupted as the leaders become drunk with that power.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Since we've gotten a bit off topic with defining fascism rather than seeking common ground, I will direct yout attention <a href=http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html>here</a> for those who wish to go off topic and obsess about the issue.

 

[no1tovote4]

Since we've gotten a bit off topic with defining fascism rather than seeking common ground, I will direct yout attention <a href=http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html>here</a> for those who wish to go off topic and obsess about the issue.

The point I made was not about the actual relevance of fascism, but the way you presented the argument. By creating the pretext of fascism it presents one that may agree with your statement that the RR and the Lefties have both gone too far with the only option of agreeing that the current environment is fascism.

They therefore will disagree with your point and you can then attempt to demonize them by saying they support fascism, even though that may not be the case. This is not an example of Statesmanship or even an attempt at finding common ground, but another attempt at separation. Any person who disagrees with you must be a fascist, even when that is what the disagreement is. The current environment does not include the necessary totalitarianism that is represented by fascism, it can only be implied by the loosest of descriptions.

I therefore think that the original post was designed to make people disagree with what otherwise would have been a point of agreement for many on the board and therefore allow them to be termed as fascist supporters.

In the context of such argument how you say something has as much weight as what you say.

 

[5stringJeff]

When a religious movement develops a persecution complex, which the religious right in this country has, it becomes a problem. It is this same seige mentality that has led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalists and their virulent attacks against anything not of itself. They too are seeking to grasp political power instead of living according to their religious tenets. It's not about "right and left", it's about "right and wrong".

There are not enough of the hardcore religious right to make a difference, politically. While a lot of the GOP identifies as evangelical Christian, it's not like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the "men behind the curtain."

 

[Bullypulpit]

I cant seem to figure out how anyone is imposing religious values from the top down when its the majority of the PEOPLE who are rejecting liberals. Its not religious wackos who have usurped the power of the country and are oppressing their values on the majority. This is a majority rallying through grass roots efforts to throw off the shackles of the unreligious left oppressing us with taxes, restricting free speech (IE political correctness and campaign finance reform), and enslaving us with handouts. There is nothing top down from this.

Ahhh, but in that you are mistaken. The religious right was swooning in ecstasy when Dubbyuh was selected in 2000 and elected in 2004. They view themselves as sitting at the right hand of the POTUS, and seek to impose their values by presidential or legislative fiant rather than by persuasion. Why else would Pat Robertson beseech God to "...remove three Supreme Court Justices quickly..."?

And While Dubbyuh claims to make his decisions from a religious base, one need only examine his record to know that it is otherwise. He is a wholly political creature using the language of religion to meet a political end.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The point I made was not about the actual relevance of fascism, but the way you presented the argument. By creating the pretext of fascism it presents one that may agree with your statement that the RR and the Lefties have both gone too far with the only option of agreeing that the current environment is fascism.

They therefore will disagree with your point and you can then attempt to demonize them by saying they support fascism, even though that may not be the case. This is not an example of Statesmanship or even an attempt at finding common ground, but another attempt at separation. Any person who disagrees with you must be a fascist, even when that is what the disagreement is. The current environment does not include the necessary totalitarianism that is represented by fascism, it can only be implied by the loosest of descriptions.

I therefore think that the original post was designed to make people disagree with what otherwise would have been a point of agreement for many on the board and therefore allow them to be termed as fascist supporters.

In the context of such argument how you say something has as much weight as what you say.

Your over-analysis is, as usual, wholly mistaken.

 

[musicman]

Gee, Bully - I can't imagine why any Christian in America would feel persecuted in this day and age - except for the fact that he is under constant, relentless attack by an entity that not only wields tremendous power, but openly professes its hatred and contempt for him and everything he stands for. Sheesh - get over it already!

Would you be so kind as to point out, by name and deed, some of these paranoid poitical Christians? And, while you're at it, could you tell me how you reconcile your statement that religion is personal but never private with your obvious belief that Christians - and ONLY Christians - should divorce their religion from their politics?

 

[musicman]

And While Dubbyuh claims to make his decisions from a religious base, one need only examine his record to know that it is otherwise. He is a wholly political creature using the language of religion to meet a political end.

So what are you worried about?