The myth of "far right Christian fundamentalism"

[koshergrl]

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?

 

[koshergrl]

"
In research based on national data for the 1972, 1980, and 1984 elections, Kiecolt and Nelsen (1988) found that conservative Protestants were actually less consistent in their beliefs and had less consensus than liberal Protestants. Analyzing national data for 1988, Jelen (1990) found little attitudinal consistency on a broad range of issues among Evangelical Protestants. "

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Stratification%20%28Politics%20and%20Social%20Movements%29%20Copies%20of%20Articles%20from%202009/Davis-ScientificStudyReligion-1996.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

So much for the myth of "fundies taking over" right wing politics.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[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?

 

[koshergrl]

"Wuthnow maintained that the political involvement of religious conservatives grew partly in reaction against the expansion of government intervention in "welfare, education, equal rights legislation and other kinds of regulation" (1988:114; see also Hunter 1991:110-115). "

In other words, they pushed back against leftist pukes...and thus were labeled as newly "fundie" and "extremist". Respond to extremism, be labeled an extremist.

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Stratification%20%28Politics%20and%20Social%20Movements%29%20Copies%20of%20Articles%20from%202009/Davis-ScientificStudyReligion-1996.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I prefer discussing these topics with human beings, thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Another person that doesn't pay attention to the real world, see my reply to TM.

 

[koshergrl]

"Thus, contrary to the portrayal of the religiously orthodox in the popular media, by the leaders of political movements, and in some recent scholarship, they are not a united conservative front. Instead, even Americans who are at the extreme of religious orthodoxy, the group one might most expect to be ideologically consistent, are moderate or even liberal on many issues, show little political uniformity on specific concerns, are divided on many of today's most contested issues along lines of race, sex, class, and age, and are as individuals, inconsistent in their opinions across issues. In view of the political indirection, ideological inconsistency, and disunity we have found among the religiously orthodox, we must ask whether the culture war they are said to be engaged in with theological progressives exists mainly in the minds of media pundits, leaders of political movements, and academics. We also question the widespread use of the political labels, "the Religious or Christian Right" as synonymous with religious orthodoxy or traditionalism. These labels, which many media analysts would have applied to all members of our sample based on their religious orthodoxy, fit only a small minority of traditional religionists."

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Stratification%20%28Politics%20and%20Social%20Movements%29%20Copies%20of%20Articles%20from%202009/Davis-ScientificStudyReligion-1996.pdf

 

[rightwinger]

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?

What power does Ayers have?

 

[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?

Another person that doesn't pay attention to the real world, see my reply to TM.

Another poster who doesn't read posts not his own; your reply to TM has nothing to do with mine.

 

[Truthmatters]

Christian right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Race and diversity

The conclusions of a review of 112 studies on Christian faith and ethnic prejudice were summarized by a study in 1980 as being that "white Protestants associated with groups possessing fundamentalist belief systems are generally more prejudiced than members of non-fundamentalist groups, with unchurched whites exhibiting least prejudice."[85] The original review found that its conclusions held "regardless of when the studies were conducted, from whom the data came, the region where the data were collected, or the type of prejudice studied."[86] More recently in 2003, eight studies have found a positive correlation between fundamentalism and prejudice, using different measures of fundamentalism.[87]

A number of prominent members of the Christian right, including Jerry Falwell and Rousas John Rushdoony, have in the past supported segregation, with Falwell arguing in a 1958 sermon that integration will lead to the destruction of the white race.[88][89] He later changed his views.[90]

In Thy Kingdom Come, Randall Balmer recounts comments that Paul M. Weyrich, who he describes as "one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s", made at a conference, sponsored by a Religious Right organization, that they both attended in Washington in 1990:[91]


In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

—Paul M. Weyrich

Bob Jones University had policies that refused black students enrollment until 1971, and admitted only married blacks from 1971 to 1975. The university continued to forbid interracial dating until 2000.[92] In an interview with The Politico, University of Virginia theologian Charles Marsh, author of Wayward Christian Soldiers and the son of a Southern Baptist minister, stated:[93]


As someone who grew up in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement, … my reading is that the conservative Christian movement never was able to distinguish itself from the segregationist movement, and that is one of the reasons I find so much of the rhetoric familiar — and unsettling. By the end of the civil rights movement, the way was set for this marriage of the Republican Party and conservative Christians. … At the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi in 1980, (Ronald) Reagan's statement "I am for states' rights" was a remarkable moment in the conservative South. The Southern way of life was affirmed and then deftly grafted into national conservative politics.

 

[Truthmatters]

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[9] but merely popularized it.[10] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[2]

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Nope, completely missed the mark there, skippy.

"Thus, contrary to the portrayal of the religiously orthodox in the popular media, by the leaders of political movements, and in some recent scholarship, they are not a united conservative front. Instead, even Americans who are at the extreme of religious orthodoxy, the group one might most expect to be ideologically consistent, are moderate or even liberal on many issues, show little political uniformity on specific concerns, are divided on many of today's most contested issues along lines of race, sex, class, and age, and are as individuals, inconsistent in their opinions across issues. In view of the political indirection, ideological inconsistency, and disunity we have found among the religiously orthodox, we must ask whether the culture war they are said to be engaged in with theological progressives exists mainly in the minds of media pundits, leaders of political movements, and academics. We also question the widespread use of the political labels, "the Religious or Christian Right" as synonymous with religious orthodoxy or traditionalism. These labels, which many media analysts would have applied to all members of our sample based on their religious orthodoxy, fit only a small minority of traditional religionists."

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/in...igion-1996.pdf

You lose.

 

[Truthmatters]

The is why they seek to disenfranchise black voters.

 

[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?

Nope, completely missed the mark there, skippy.

"Thus, contrary to the portrayal of the religiously orthodox in the popular media, by the leaders of political movements, and in some recent scholarship, they are not a united conservative front. Instead, even Americans who are at the extreme of religious orthodoxy, the group one might most expect to be ideologically consistent, are moderate or even liberal on many issues, show little political uniformity on specific concerns, are divided on many of today's most contested issues along lines of race, sex, class, and age, and are as individuals, inconsistent in their opinions across issues. In view of the political indirection, ideological inconsistency, and disunity we have found among the religiously orthodox, we must ask whether the culture war they are said to be engaged in with theological progressives exists mainly in the minds of media pundits, leaders of political movements, and academics. We also question the widespread use of the political labels, "the Religious or Christian Right" as synonymous with religious orthodoxy or traditionalism. These labels, which many media analysts would have applied to all members of our sample based on their religious orthodoxy, fit only a small minority of traditional religionists."

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/in...igion-1996.pdf

You lose.

You actually think blowing your text up to garish colors and unreadable sizes makes a point? No wonder you're confuserated. Or perhaps you were trying to hide the operative words... I bolded them for ya. You're welcome.

You post a quote here from somebody's book asking whether blanket labels are justified. ---- what the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

[koshergrl]

I refer you to the OP. Try, try again. Eventually comprehension will come to you. Or not.

 

[Pogo]

I refer you to the OP. Try, try again. Eventually comprehension will come to you. Or not.

So you have no answer.

You lose.

The OP is where I started. I even quoted it and addressed it directly. You might have noticed. You might not.

I don't see a point to this thread beyond reversalist history about left-right contemporary trends clumsily coupled with a 'poor me' martyr-complex propaganda.

 

[koshergrl]

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.