How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America

[Luddly Neddite]

How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America | Alternet

December 5, 2013 |



Religious freedom and separation of church and state have always been hated concepts to the religious right. Indeed, it’s fair to say that the religious right exists to fight any legal or cultural support for people who don’t want their narrow definition of Christianity foisted on them. From objecting to gay marriage to trying to wedge creationism in schools, the religious right exists as a political movement for the purpose of stripping away religious freedom and establishing their religious beliefs as the dominant organizing force in law, politics and culture.

So why then are we hearing all these people who live their lives attacking religious freedom complaining all the time that “religious freedom” is under attack from liberals? Why does every religious-right publication and event echo the claim that right-wing Christians are somehow being stripped of the very right to religious freedom the right has worked tirelessly to take from everyone else for decades?

The simple answer is they’re lying. Claiming the mantle of victimhood is so politically potent that religious-right leaders are going to do it, no matter how untrue it is, because, to be blunt, they’re not held back by any moral interest in honesty. Getting Grandma to think she's going to lose her church is a great way to get her to sign her Social Security check over to your organization.

Day to day, I don't think about christians. It never occurs to me to even think about attacking any religion. The tax scam churches enjoy is annoying but really, no politician will ever be willing to take that on so, even though most Americans know its not fair, we're probably stuck with it for a long time.

But, its true that churches steal from the average person. And, they give back relatively little.

And yet, they have the gall to claim they're victims.

What christians should be doing is helping to protect our country and our Constitution. Instead, they continue to demand sharia law in the US. They want laws passed on their translation of their bible. THAT is sharia law. They want an end to our Constitution so they can force their religion into our schools.

Across the board, you won't find more dishonest hypocrites in one place than churches. But, they have the right to be dishonest hypocrites. What they do not have the right to do is force the rest of us to believe their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

 

[kwc57]

Always the enlightened and tolerant one aren't you puddly?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Related -

How Rev. Billy Graham Taught the Republican Party to Sacrifice the Poor on the Altar of Big-Business | Alternet

The genetic makeup of the GOP is one chromosome away from Graham’s DNA. Today’s Republican Party is a neo-Confederate pro-corporation movement, thanks to the supposed life-long Democrat (when he wasn’t endorsing Mitt Romney)—the Reverend Billy Graham. A close friend of Richard Nixon's, it was Graham who helped the disgraced president articulate the “Southern Strategy,” which won Nixon the White House in 1968.

Steven P. Miller, author of Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, writes that it was Graham’s public relationship with Southern Baptist ministers, and quips like, “Prejudice is not just a sectional problem” and “Criticism of the South is one of the most popular indoor sports of some Northerners these days,” that made him an much-loved figure among his fellow Southerners. Miller also says that Graham’s evangelical understanding of the sins of racism allowed many white Southerners to declare themselves absolved from past guilt.

Right-Wing Is Filled with Biblical Illiterates: They'd Be Shocked by Jesus' Teachings if They Ever Picked Up a Bible | Alternet

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly defended the Republican Party’s spending cuts for SNAP by effectively declaring Jesus would not support food stamps for the poor because most them are drug addicts. If his insensitive remark is inconsistent with Scripture, which it is, then the question becomes why do talking heads on the right get away with proclaiming what Jesus would or wouldn’t support?

The answer is simple: Conservatives have not read the Bible.

The Right has successfully rebranded the brown-skinned liberal Jew, who gave away free healthcare and was pro-redistributing wealth, into a white-skinned, trickledown, union-busting conservative, for the very fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are astonishingly illiterate when it comes to understanding the Bible. On hot-button social issues, from same-sex marriage to abortion, biblical passages are invoked without any real understanding of the context or true meaning. It’s surprising how little Christians know of what is still the most popular book to ever grace the American continent.

Will even ONE radical religious right nutter have the courage to actually address any of these links? Or, will they do what they always do ... attack the source and/or the poster.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Always the enlightened and tolerant one aren't you puddly?

Dang, There's the answer to my question.

Will even ONE radical religious right nutter have the courage to actually address any of these links? Or, will they do what they always do ... attack the source and/or the poster.

C'mon, can anyone actually address the issues?

Check out the thread about how christians are so abused. I didn't attack the source (Michelle Malkin???????????????) or the poster. I address the subject of the post.

Can even one radical religious right nutter do the same here?

I doubt it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Your entire thread is predicated on attacking the messenger and you are claiming you didn't?

If you are going to treat people like crap, at least be honest about it. This self righteous nonsense is unbecoming.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your entire thread is predicated on attacking the messenger and you are claiming you didn't?

If you are going to treat people like crap, at least be honest about it. This self righteous nonsense is unbecoming.

I could write exactly the same thing about most of your posts.

How about using the same set of standards?

How come "christians" can be nasty and vile and vicious and lie and its okay. You get called on it and you get all holier than thou.

And not one of you has the courage to address any of the very valid points made in these three articles. I read these some days ago (look at the dates) but didn't post them because I don't need to. But, reading this crock --
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...y-are-we-so-quiet-about-christianophobia.html
-- changed my mind.

Quit playing the poor little victim. Its dishonest and sickening and, along with the never ending bible quotes, quite tiresome.

 

[hangover]

Your entire thread is predicated on attacking the messenger and you are claiming you didn't?

If you are going to treat people like crap, at least be honest about it. This self righteous nonsense is unbecoming.

^^^^^This coming from a right wing holier than thou....BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Your entire thread is predicated on attacking the messenger and you are claiming you didn't?

If you are going to treat people like crap, at least be honest about it. This self righteous nonsense is unbecoming.

^^^^^This coming from a right wing holier than thou....BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, no one is forcing you to be a right wing holier than thou.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Scrolling through the replies I guess Koshergurl hasn't logged in yet

1st Amendment allows quite a bit of religion in public schools in point of fact, just has to be presented from a neutral pov. Can teach the Bible if you teach the Quran and other texts. Can pray as long as school staff doesn't lead it thereby 'endorsing' it. That Christians don't do this is curious if they want religion in the public spaces. Guess faced with other faiths getting their own representation scares them.

Big ol page here, but answers a lot of the questions as to how reliigon can in fact be present in public schools:

Frequently Asked Questions - Religion | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

 

[Avatar4321]

Our constitution doesn't forbid religion in schools. In fact, schools were originally created in this nation so that people would be literate and could read the Bible.

And if you read the Bible, you would realize that Christianity teaches liberty and freedom. From as early as Joshua we are taught to "Choose this day whom you will serve" whether it be God or someone else.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, liberty is also.

And I am sure there are a number of Christians who are Christians in name only. Doesn't change the fact that Christians "imposing" their idealogy on America would be allowing men to be free to make their own choices. Because that's what the scriptures teach.

 

[Chuckt]

Right-Wing Is Filled with Biblical Illiterates: They'd Be Shocked by Jesus' Teachings if They Ever Picked Up a Bible | Alternet

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly defended the Republican Party’s spending cuts for SNAP by effectively declaring Jesus would not support food stamps for the poor because most them are drug addicts. If his insensitive remark is inconsistent with Scripture, which it is, then the question becomes why do talking heads on the right get away with proclaiming what Jesus would or wouldn’t support?

The answer is simple: Conservatives have not read the Bible.

Not true. I know there are over 1,000 Churches that go verse by verse through the Bible and Sunday School is also about studying the Bible.

It assumes there are no Christian colleges or religion majors.

You are painting with a broad brush.

It is also your assumption that you can pick and choose the verses we should be about. The hypocrisy is that if Democrats wanted Christians to be in their party and working on things for their cause, they wouldn't have kicked a lot of them out. The fact is that the godless in their party actually interfere with Christians doing what they claim we should do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America | Alternet

December 5, 2013 |



Religious freedom and separation of church and state have always been hated concepts to the religious right. Indeed, it’s fair to say that the religious right exists to fight any legal or cultural support for people who don’t want their narrow definition of Christianity foisted on them. From objecting to gay marriage to trying to wedge creationism in schools, the religious right exists as a political movement for the purpose of stripping away religious freedom and establishing their religious beliefs as the dominant organizing force in law, politics and culture.

So why then are we hearing all these people who live their lives attacking religious freedom complaining all the time that “religious freedom” is under attack from liberals? Why does every religious-right publication and event echo the claim that right-wing Christians are somehow being stripped of the very right to religious freedom the right has worked tirelessly to take from everyone else for decades?

The simple answer is they’re lying. Claiming the mantle of victimhood is so politically potent that religious-right leaders are going to do it, no matter how untrue it is, because, to be blunt, they’re not held back by any moral interest in honesty. Getting Grandma to think she's going to lose her church is a great way to get her to sign her Social Security check over to your organization.

Day to day, I don't think about christians. It never occurs to me to even think about attacking any religion. The tax scam churches enjoy is annoying but really, no politician will ever be willing to take that on so, even though most Americans know its not fair, we're probably stuck with it for a long time.

But, its true that churches steal from the average person. And, they give back relatively little.

And yet, they have the gall to claim they're victims.

What christians should be doing is helping to protect our country and our Constitution. Instead, they continue to demand sharia law in the US. They want laws passed on their translation of their bible. THAT is sharia law. They want an end to our Constitution so they can force their religion into our schools.

Across the board, you won't find more dishonest hypocrites in one place than churches. But, they have the right to be dishonest hypocrites. What they do not have the right to do is force the rest of us to believe their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

How does not toeing the ideological line drawn by your opponents impose your ideology on them? If it really works that way, isn't your argument that they are refusing to agree to your terms an admission that they are right when they complain about you imposing your ideology on them? I also love how you never attack any religion even as you attack religion almost every day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Always the enlightened and tolerant one aren't you puddly?

Dang, There's the answer to my question.

Will even ONE radical religious right nutter have the courage to actually address any of these links? Or, will they do what they always do ... attack the source and/or the poster.

C'mon, can anyone actually address the issues?

Check out the thread about how christians are so abused. I didn't attack the source (Michelle Malkin???????????????) or the poster. I address the subject of the post.

Can even one radical religious right nutter do the same here?

I doubt it.

Why should anyone address the links when the entire thread is based on the double standard that you are free to impose your ideas on others by not agreeing with them, but they are not free to disagree with you because they force their standards on you when they do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your entire thread is predicated on attacking the messenger and you are claiming you didn't?

If you are going to treat people like crap, at least be honest about it. This self righteous nonsense is unbecoming.

I could write exactly the same thing about most of your posts.

How about using the same set of standards?

How come "christians" can be nasty and vile and vicious and lie and its okay. You get called on it and you get all holier than thou.

And not one of you has the courage to address any of the very valid points made in these three articles. I read these some days ago (look at the dates) but didn't post them because I don't need to. But, reading this crock --
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...y-are-we-so-quiet-about-christianophobia.html
-- changed my mind.

Quit playing the poor little victim. Its dishonest and sickening and, along with the never ending bible quotes, quite tiresome.

You can't write it about mine, I have never once shied from my self appointed task of sneering at idiots. Feel free to tell me how self righteous you are while not attacking my beliefs by attacking them, and thus forcing me to impose my belief system on you.

By the way, for the self appointed police of civil language, this is why I refuse to let you define my debate. If I were civil when dealing with assholes like Luddly he would be free inside his own delusional head to call me a hypocrite for not attacking him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scrolling through the replies I guess Koshergurl hasn't logged in yet

1st Amendment allows quite a bit of religion in public schools in point of fact, just has to be presented from a neutral pov. Can teach the Bible if you teach the Quran and other texts. Can pray as long as school staff doesn't lead it thereby 'endorsing' it. That Christians don't do this is curious if they want religion in the public spaces. Guess faced with other faiths getting their own representation scares them.

Big ol page here, but answers a lot of the questions as to how reliigon can in fact be present in public schools:

Frequently Asked Questions - Religion | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

You really are dumber than dog shit, aren't you?

There is nothing in the First Amendment that requires schools to be balanced when they talk about religion. You can read it all day and still look like an idiot for even attempting to argue that it imposes a neutral POV on schools. The only restrictions in the First Amendment are placed on Congress. If you were half as smart as you think Koshergirl is you would admit that,m and go on from there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

and LN just demonstrates why the atheist far left is as bad as the right wing far right socons

it is good that both silly wings are losing influence in America culture and politics

 

[S.J.]

More Christian bashing from the Godless left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

and the far right socons bash everyone they don't like

No difference 'tween the S. J.s and the LNs

 

[kwc57]

Always the enlightened and tolerant one aren't you puddly?

Dang, There's the answer to my question.

Will even ONE radical religious right nutter have the courage to actually address any of these links? Or, will they do what they always do ... attack the source and/or the poster.

C'mon, can anyone actually address the issues?

Check out the thread about how christians are so abused. I didn't attack the source (Michelle Malkin???????????????) or the poster. I address the subject of the post.

Can even one radical religious right nutter do the same here?

I doubt it.

Why should anyone address the links when the entire thread is based on the double standard that you are free to impose your ideas on others by not agreeing with them, but they are not free to disagree with you because they force their standards on you when they do?

That's why I rarely if ever engage Puddly Pillowbite in any serious debate. He isn't serious. He's an ideological troll with a closed micro-mind. While it isn't polite and I shouldn't do it, all I can do is point and laugh. It's all he deserves. I don't believe he has the capability of civil discourse or upping his game.

 

[Avatar4321]

Your entire thread is predicated on attacking the messenger and you are claiming you didn't?

If you are going to treat people like crap, at least be honest about it. This self righteous nonsense is unbecoming.

I could write exactly the same thing about most of your posts.

How about using the same set of standards?

How come "christians" can be nasty and vile and vicious and lie and its okay. You get called on it and you get all holier than thou.

And not one of you has the courage to address any of the very valid points made in these three articles. I read these some days ago (look at the dates) but didn't post them because I don't need to. But, reading this crock --
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...y-are-we-so-quiet-about-christianophobia.html
-- changed my mind.

Quit playing the poor little victim. Its dishonest and sickening and, along with the never ending bible quotes, quite tiresome.

You can't write it about mine, I have never once shied from my self appointed task of sneering at idiots. Feel free to tell me how self righteous you are while not attacking my beliefs by attacking them, and thus forcing me to impose my belief system on you.

By the way, for the self appointed police of civil language, this is why I refuse to let you define my debate. If I were civil when dealing with assholes like Luddly he would be free inside his own delusional head to call me a hypocrite for not attacking him.

He can't really say it about me either, but if it makes him feel better, he may as well lie about me. Better than killing people.