Please stay on topic. Please don't be asses.
ok, i'm properly scared. i won't encourage them, and you're totally right about sectarian divisions that can be exploited. but i've asked this question before on other posts and gotten a poor response: how many of us actually communicate regularly with xitianists? go to churches where they are found? i spent 8 years at divinity school, but i never once while there went to a fundie church. in fact, most of my fellow students looked down upon such communities as their leaders weren't properly educated and mostly hucksters.
then there's the other side of the problem: what fundie would take anything i say or write seriously? athetist lesbian pagan that i am, despite my degrees, i'm pretty sure that fundies would simply tune out any well reasoned poison pill i present, coming from the source it does. they've been tuning out reality for over six years now, i don't think that will change.
you're so right that they shouldn't be encouraged, but what i fear is that the impact of prolonged economic distress and pent up frustration over social policies will coalesce into the new century's itteration of what your acronym suggests.
erm, forgive the typos, i haven't had any coffee yet.
I think you're overblowing the dangers from all-theocratic Xtian-only party. Actual fundie evangelicals only constitute a minority of the electorate (
...(less than 20%) and not all of them would join this party. Plus, once formed, such a party would immolate its chances among the rest of the country by pushing radical religious measures like outlawing contraception and forcing closure of all businesses on Sunday. Not to mention the internecine warfare that would erupt between competing mullahs.
The Republican synthesis of country club money and evangelical foot soldiers has natural inherent fault lines. There's no reason to be squeamish about trying to wedge them.
Leviticus 26
1Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
There you go
"NaXi": That's inspired.
It's quite another, in an effort to defeat Republicans, to root for a splintering of the GOP into two groups such that the christianists establish a seriously powerful second national party* in opposition to Republicans.
I disagree, but then I would be okay with living in the nations of Mexifornia or Jeffersonia or Columbia....
I think what "There is a growing feeling among conservatives that the only way to cure the problem is for Republicans to lose the Congressional elections this fall," said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail pioneer. this means is that Vigueries is going to take credit for any election loss much as many groups often take credit for a particular terrorist event.
He is predicting a loss so that later on he can have more bargaining power.
This is like predicting an eclipse in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Close tag?
I'm irresistably reminded of the "Fosterites" of Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land." The Fosterites were, basically, idiots, pouring money into the church and its subsidiaries in exchange for a mindless "don't worry, be happy" ideology and a promise of salvation. (Ironically, their leader was named "Digby".)
But they were a political force to be reckoned with, due to their numbers and also to the fact that they could and did retaliate against anyone who their leaders told them deserved it. People like liberal journalists, . . .
re: Jerry's post quoting Viguerie: doesn't he sound a lot like Ralph Nader? May he do for the Goop what Ralph did for the Democrats in 2000.
"But they were a political force to be reckoned with, due to their numbers and also to the fact that they could and did retaliate against anyone who their leaders told them deserved it.
Stuart Thiel | Homepage | 05.15.06 - 10:13 am | #"
Reminds me of the readers at AmericaBlog.
A little birdy told me that James Dobson - in a soon-to-be released poll - has a 2 to 1 disapproval rating. That's here his home, some would say sympathetic, territory.
Couple that with 80% name recognition for the Fake Father and you have a bunch of pissed off people who know exactly who SpongeDob is and what he is up to.
Details as soon as they are publicly available.
Americablog? give me a break! so they make a lot of phone calls to an automaker that is going bancrupt about keeping their ads in gay magazines, like driving a chevy instead of a ford would be a "political statement."
They are just republicans over there that are upset that they can't be openly gay, especially at conventions.
There has not been any meaningful actions from that blog, just grandious proclaimations from john.
The decision to form a national Christian party will be based on whether or not it will give the fundie leaders a bigger cut of the money. They are probably asking themselves why they should pass the cash on to the Republican party when they can keep it for themselves. They are the progeny of traveling faith healers and scam artists. It's in their blood. The money comes first and salvation is for the suckers.
Chimpy's agenda has nothing to do with a theocratic agenda. It is about raping this country's treasury and funneling BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to the military-industrial complex.
This will set the political agenda for generations to come - the nation will have to continually cut back government and "privatize" to pay the bills.
It certainly has nothing to do with religion, other than that is an important part of the base.
But it is not like the votes actually matter - we don't have free, verifiable, open elections in the US anymore. They need the religious crowd to create the illusion of an "energized base".
This way, they can talk about the "values voters" and "culture of life" crowd as such an "energized", single issue group that they vote in improbable/impossible numbers. The MSM will catapult that propaganda and this lie prevents of from talking about the theft of another election.
Instead, we argue about red/blue states.
Respectfuly, I believe you consistantly underestimate the real criminality of this administration and get distracted by the propaganda. Its just a side show to that keeps us from talking about the money trail and the people behind this moron's administration.
I seriously wouldn't worry about a NaXi party. Go back and take a look at the history of these fundies over the last three or four decades. Look at their finances.
Notice a pattern?
These guys are all about slash and burn organizations. They start up their wacky churches, they go holy rolling, big hue and cry. They go massively in the red, overextending themselves with creditors, suppliers, contractors and committments. Then they go bankrupt.
Of course, when you are a big wacky church, there are generally not a lot of buyers for your assets in bankruptcy. Instead, the assets are cannibalized by the next big wacky church... those assets include congregations, mailing lists, technical personnel, key figures etc.
So, the wacky fundy movement continues without even a hiccup. As far as the outsider can see, there hasn't been any chance at all, except at the very top, where its all a game of musical chairs.
Okay, now this is all well and good for a religious movement whose business practices resemble an ongoing Nigerian fraud scam.
But try and perpetuate that model on a national, enduring, ongoing political party? Forget it. They'll implode and it won't be pretty.
These people are nothing but angry losers. We should keep in mind their ability to do harm. But I refuse to respect them.
Some good points, Greg. The real religious wingnuts are free to commit any number of crimes cuz Jesus died for our since anyhow.
Hey, if God's only begotten son died for our sins, better make it worthwhile, right?
Greg and Den Valdron have a point. And if you take a longer view, what's usually happened is that fundies have gotten politically active about once a century or so for about a generation.
This cycle basically started in the 70s over the IRS's talk of lifting the tax exemption from church schools so it's likely due to end soon.
Usually the cycles end when they don't get their way and remember that the political world is supposed to be a sewer of corruption anyway and that their kingdom is not of this world.
bush's connection with them is at the level of businessmen's prayer breakfasts, the same as Delay's. These two use the same language as the real fundies because they sincerely believe God wants them to be rich. For bush it's been politically useful, and he may be the key figure who disillusions them. But it's a little early to tell.
I disagree. Let them form a party. Southern segregontists tried the same thing. They failed. Their power returned only after the Southern strategy and integration within the established GOP. Effectively, fundie power is greater by forming a coalition with so-called conservatives. Break up the coalition and their power goes away.
This would be analogous to African-Americans leaving their coalition partners in the Democratic Party.
In heavy republican areas, this split would give better odds to secular republicans to win elections if the fundies are truly NOT the majority of the party.
They couldn't get elecetd anywhere outside of Oklahoma, Idaho, and Kansas (Utah would not notice any difference).
Seriously, they wouldn't have the money of the "business" Republicans, and as you point out, there are far too many fracture lines amongst the religions.
It's a no brainer - if they form a naXi party, Dems will rule for another thirty years.
Sorry tri but you're wrong. If the NaXis break off from the Repugs, we will have a semi-permanent Democratic majority. The Repugs can't win elections without the NaXies, and the NaXis can never win an election.
What DanF and grytpype said (although going along with a plan from someone called grytpype should give me second thoughts) - splitting the christian right from the Republicans would be a massive, massive boon to the Democrats, without any risk of theocracy at the federal level. It might well pose a risk at a state level, but then places like Alabama and Utah would be de facto theocracies anyway if it weren't for a few Supreme Court decisions.
The "secular anchor" of the Republican party is money. I'd be happy to see the GOP party base - which consists now of almost entirely Xian loons or at least those who are far too tolerant of them - cut itself free of that anchor.
Speaking of fighting among themselves, someone sent me a link to a typical fight at a "Christian" college. Interesting story and shows how the group has a tendency to splinter because so brittle.
Naxi Party - heh, heh. Skirting Gotwin's Law territory there, eh, Digby?
Naxi Party - heh, heh. Skirting Gotwin's Law territory there, eh, Digby?
Christianity was always a political organization. It is an imperial religion today, and has been one since it was elevated from an obscure sect of poverty-loving ascetics to the State Religion by Emperor Constantine.
He adopted it, with some editing, as a way of organizing and inspiring the loutish masses to accept and assist his imperial ambitions, first against his brother-in-law's legions, and then against all comers.
He set the pattern. He made Christianity into a world religion overnight by force of imperial arms and wealth. It really should be called Constantinism. But I digress.
After Constantine, to have a career in the Roman Legions or Senate or upper reaches of society, you had to be a practicing Christian. The tight bond between military conquest and Christianity established under Constantine remains unchanged to this day -- in terms of saving souls for Jesus, in terms of liberating other countries by brute force, in terms of spreading Christian mercy and enlightenment at the point of a gun or under the threat of economic sanction and starvation. Historically, death and misery is apportioned to populations who do not convert.
These brothers in arms, the Bible and the Gun, have rarely been separated. "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" is the Eleventh Christian Commandment.
But let us leave history aside and approach the subject brand new.
When I consider religion, I see that it has an inward and an outward expression. The dividing line is your own skin.
What goes on within you while you sit alone in prayer or communion or reverie or meditation happens within your own soul, inside your own skin, and happens only to you. No other person is in there. What happens, happens only between you and Spirit, according to your inward abilities.
I label this inner, solitary experience spirituality. It happens to human beings of all faiths, cultures, continents. Sometimes you have to search and work for spirituality. Sometimes it comes unbidden, like a thief in the night, and awakens your soul and inner faculties.
Then there is the world outside your skin, after you open your eyes and want to talk to others about what you experienced while alone inside your skin.
As soon as two or more human beings discuss and discover that they share similar beliefs about the way the world works -- what is moral, what is holy, how to live and so on -- you have a group. In action. Even if that action is to go about their lives peacefully and set a good example to others, they have set upon a group action in this world, to advance an agenda, a cause, a creed. And that is the very definition of politics.
I label this outward group expression of shared beliefs religion. It is self evident that it is political -- it is agreed upon group behavior, here in this temporal world, actively and passionately promoting a defined creed, or world view.
A world view held passionately. Beyond discussing. Beyond logic and science. Not open to criticism. A matter of faith. Take it or leave it. Be one of us or be with Them.
It is one of the inherent follies of our species that we so easily forget the spiritual -- found only by sitting alone in prayer, within our own skin -- as we pursue outward group action to advance 'our' world view against all other world views.
Christianity was and is perfectly organized for just this purpose. It is an imperial religion, suffering no rivals to survive. In the company of another faith, Christianity seeks a fight to the death.
Consider: the agreed upon Christian beliefs have at their core the conquest of the world for Jesus. Either he comes back to do the job himself, or his followers do it all for him ahead of time so he can come back or has to come back. One way or the other, total conquest happens. No soul is left alone, left unsorted. Everyone is either with Us, or with Them.
That's the core program. If you really believe the Bible, if you really believe in the Trinity, if you really believe in the Second Coming, if you really accept that black Book, then you have to do your part to conquer the world for Jesus.
And since most of the world's human beings have no interest in your total conquest project, you are going to have to carry both your Bible and your gun to get anywhere with it.
And your war will not end in your lifetime, and you will never be at peace in your own skin again.
Antifa Generally I agree with what you said, but your very sweeping definition of political group seems a little silly. By your definition 2 kids playing catch are a political group, c'mon.
Sorry to launch a stink bomb into Digby's otherwise grand analysis...but does anyone mention the fact that a potential "Naxi" Party could just as well capture as many DEMOCRATS as splinter Republicans???? Here in the South there are plenty of conservative evangelical voters who nominally vote Democratic but who support a lot of the Xian Reich agenda; I would think that if Viguerie gets his way and splinters off the "base" into a new party, he could get a lot of support from not a few conservative Democrats...especially if the new party emphasizes some form of right-wing "populism" against the usual "liberal elite".
Not that this is ever going to happen, mind you....since even the likes of Dick Viguerie are simply way too dependent on the finances of Scaife and the right-wing money tree, and have way too much to lose in alienating their Repub base in Congress.
Unlike liberal Dems who have NO power and influence whatsoever in a DLC-dominated party; the Reich does have at least some juice and some direct influence; this talk of secession is just posturing and positioning for the post '06 elections in case they get their clocks cleaned.
But then, that's only my opinion.
Anthony
Is it posturing in case they get their clocks cleaned? Maybe, but doesn't one's value as the captain of a political machine correspond directly to the amount of votes you turn out on Election Day? If you can't promise the votes and deliver on your promise, the party looks for someone who can do both. Isn't that how it works?
Although Brando's post is ot, it only reinforces what everyone with half a brain knows has been going on in this misadministration.
Anitfa's post is right on the money. And as far as money is concerned, ALL X-TIAN SECTS NOW PRACTICING IN AMERICA SHOULD BE HEAVILY TAXED -- AND REGULATED by the new Democratic majority. That'll stop all this church/state crap.
the last thing this country needs is a wealthy politcal party hellbent on inflicting its nutty theocratic agenda on the rest of us.
What makes you think the real money would go to this party? There'd be a lot of nickel-and-dime contributors, but I think it's much more likely that this party would be somewhat anti-corporate -- not in a way that would cheer progressives, but in ways that track with the Christianist/talk radio agenda.
These people would want to seal the borders -- which business interests oppose. They want a la carte cable packages and steep fines for broadcast obscenity -- which media bigwigs oppose.
I think we could eventually wind up with an extremely socially conservative populist movement and/or party -- something like what we had in the days of William Jennings Bryan, who opposed big business and evolution.
Um, it's Tristero's post, not Digby's.
....to tell the christianists to crawl back underneath whatever rocks they hale from.
_________________
Remember to tell that to Martin Luther King and Jessie Jackson.
The Dominionist are a real threat that is not taken seriously enough by the majority of Americans who believe that church should not be making decisions for state. While they have not yet achieved their goal of replacing our Democratic Government with a religious theocracy, it is not for lack of trying.
These people are very patient, and they take the long view. They have separate think tanks, institutions, even educational institutions (Pat Robertson’s Regents University Journalism Department graduated 800 students with Master degrees in a fully accredited institution).
http://www.yuricareport.com/
Domi...ngOfAmerica.htm
They use stealth tactics to achieve their goals, some successful (“Conscience Clause” to allow Pharmacist to refuse to dispense contraceptives) and some not (Dover Schools and creationism). If they are not stopped, they may successfully take over the Governmental Institutions at State and Federal level within the next two decades. Get enough Dominionist on the Supremes in the mold of Scalia, (Sc)Alito, and Thomas, and the progressive movement is cooked.
Tristero, you worry too much old boy.
The Christian Nationalists would never get a majority, but they would irreperably split the right-wing vote. that would mean the center left governs forever. Just because they'd be dangerous in power doesn't mean they have a prayer of getting it.
Here's the post Tristero mentioned about Roy Moore.
I agree that third parties have never succeeded in America, and probably never will, at least under normative electoral politics. But people forget how the Nazis came to power: they never won an election. They attracted, eventually, a fat 30 percent of the electorate -- similar to the current GOP base -- and used that to springboard to power. When their tactics had successfully destabilized German democracy, they used the opportunity to forge a coalition with the elites and seize power.
No, a Christianist party could never obtain a majority. But it could be a powerfully destructive force, and it could inflict enough damage to destabilize our democratic institutions (something Bush has done a fine job of undermining too), at which point all bets are off.
I think the thing to watch out for is a Christianist-Nativist coalition. Hasn't happened yet, but it well could.
Incidentally, Mr. Chung, neither Rev. King nor Rev. Jackson qualify as "Christianists."
Let the hardcore Dominionists have their own party. They represent no more than 15-25 percent of the population, except maybe in AL, MI and SC. I don't not count Mormons along the Dominionists. Besides the high percentage of Jacks, they are simply too well educated. Mormons believe in evolution and birth control. Also the hardcore Dominionists can barely conceal their hatred of Mormons. They hate Catholics almost as much, but their are too many of them to risk alienating them.
That way the Republican party will have to openly pander to the fundies to return to the fold instead of just quietly expecting the Christianist army to be their GOTV backbone. If this happens I would expect the Republican voters to splinter into at least one more party.
In states like Indiana there has been a strong Libertarian faction for many years. Currently in races when the a Dominionist candidate wins the Republican primary the state Libertarian party will field a candidate who will often do quite well. Libertarians may hate Liberal Democrats, but they love their sexual freedom, porn, guns, liquior, pot, strip joints and are fiercely anti organized religion if not out right atheists. Already in Indiana you may be suprised to find out that about 2-4% of the electoriate will vote Libertarian when there is an option.
In Indiana at least when you scratch a self-styled Libertarian, you will often find somebody who grew up dreaming of escaping their own Fundamentalist hell of family, relatives, coachs, teachers, principals and other asorted small minded bullies. That is often the source of a libertarian's the deep seated hatred of authority. The thought of a serious Dominionist party will get them off the couch and politically active. I grew up in Indianapolis and I went to Indiana Univerity and I can tell you a met at least a half dozen people from small towns around the state who loved Ayn Rand's wild anti-authority and atheist lunancy simply because of their own childhood exposure to fundamentalism.
So let the Dominionists form their own party, the Republican party will simply implode into several pieces.
Actually, my experience is that the average evangelical is more level headed than their leaders are. An alternate solution is to speak past the crazies like Dobson and reach their followers.
Listen to this episode of "Speaking of Faith". It's an excellent program about at least one evangelical leader who has a more "reality based" position.
in 2002, I had a conversion to the science of climate change, and, as a consequence, I've become not just a spokesperson of some sort for addressing climate change, but I happen to be articulating a re-engagement with science because our evangelical forefathers rejected science. They did so by their witness at the Scopes Monkey Trial, saying, "No, no, no, we stand for Christianity, not evolution." And thus they retreated en masse from engaging on a critical front that, in this time and year, 2006, we simply can't do anymore.
Everywhere I go. And I'm around the country a lot, from visiting, for example, eastern Washington state for a niece's wedding and confronting the pastor at a small town in eastern Washington and saying, "Well, you're a church of the NAE, what do you say? You read my newsletter, don't you?" He said yes. I said, "Well, am I off the mark? Am I simply walking off the left-hand face of the Earth, as some senators on Capitol Hill have said? Am I simply walking to my own tune here or are you with me?" And around the country, evangelical leaders and lay people and young people have said, "No, keep it up. You're hitting the right notes."
Here's one statistic. Cut the poverty rate by 10 percent and you'll cut the abortions by 30 percent. And there are analysts on Capitol Hill who've persuaded me it's true, and they've shown so. And so, if you care about the sanctity of human life, then I say care about whether people live desperate lives and care about whether the mercury being emitted from coal-burning power plants is infecting pregnant women. One out of six bear children with birth defects. One out of six in America, in the greatest country, I believe, in the history of mankind, one out of six children are born with forms of mental retardation and other disabilities associated with mercury that comes from air pollution? What in the world is going on? Is that not a sanctity of life issue? Of course it is!
It is possible to talk to and to reason with evangelicals, you just have to look past the extremists. There is a more rational middle, we have to engage them.
...the last thing this country needs is a wealthy politcal party hellbent on inflicting its nutty theocratic agenda on the rest of us.
Don't be so sure. What we've had is a wealthy political party that's managed to con certain delusional sheep into thinking they have a theocratic agenda. The real agenda is corporatist. Nobody in the Republican party is going to put God ahead of profit, except rhetorically. That's what Dobson & his merry band of bigmouths is reacting to now.
A political party with an openly theocratic agenda might be just the ticket. Most people don't get what clowns like Dobson are advocating. Most people don't support it. The voters have an impressive track record of rejecting "Christian" candidates once they realize what they are really about.
The best technique to keep a NaXi party disorganized and ineffective might be the strategy suggested in this report from America's Finest News Source:
Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God.
In our current two-party system, political minorities are often either shut out completely, or (if they gain control of the D's or R's) given power far out of proportion to their actual numbers. Third parties, if they can form, mainly just tip elections to the major party they have least in common with.
We'd be better off with a multi-party system. Of course, we'd also be better off with a parliamentary form of government, but I'm not holding my breath for that either.
There are some misconceptions in these comments that need to be dispelled. One, the Religious Right has extraorndinary money and will continue to generate more of it--from billionaires, donor-advised funds and investments and an interlocked direct-mail machine.
Don't confuse the executives in the Religious Right with the sanctified showmen and women you see on Trinity Broadcasting or CBN--that's like thinking Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie actually run Miramax or Disney. Any third-party effort (and I believe that the time is coming, perhaps as soon as 200
will fuse the Christian conservatives with Middle American anti-government nativists, New Right paleos and regional right-wing business interests in the South and the Plains. Their focus has been and will continue to be effective leverage in these states and beyond. They are all zealots for a return to Tenth Amendment supremacy--weaken the federal government, remake the federal judiciary, privatize across the board and return power and sovereignty to the states. With the census figures steadly shifting South, pointing to the day when the electoral college "gets" will be below the Mason/Dixon, such a third-party would play hell for some years to come.
A NaXi party (great name) would be a fantastic boost for the religious left, who is just starting to get itself together.
The Democrats aren't a national party? That's ridiculous. They control almost half the governorships, around half the state legislatures, and almost half of both houses of Congress.
Just because you're not the current ruling national party doesn't mean you're not a national party.
What particular opposition party in the developed world is doing especially worse than the Democrats?
Tistero,
I think is it very important that we follow Digby's example and use the Dominionist/Dominionist. Here is the reason I prefer Dominionist vs Theocratic, Fundamentalist or even "Christianist".
First of all Theocrat implies the rule by a leader who is also the head of the state religion. The Religious Right has learned that approach will not work after Pat Robertson's disastrous run for the GOP nomination in 1988. Besides the United State does not have a history of a state religion or a single dominate religious sect. A straight up Theocratic approach by the Religious Right would have hardline Catholics, Mormons, assorted Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostalists..... all at each other's throats.
Second, I have met Fundamentalists who believe their bible is the word of God who none the less absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. They would not have it any other way less they might someday be the persecuted ones. They reject and abhor a Judge Ray Moore's idolatry and politicizing of the the Ten Commandments.
Last, a word like Christianist preferred by the likes of the insufferable, mercurial and self-styled "conservative" Andrew Sullivan is just too cute and potentially confusing. It does not differentiate somebody who might sincerely wish to use the moral philosophy of Jesus Christ as a basis for a political or legal philosophy from a true Dominionist. One may be from the old school where calling somebody a good Christian could have been done to describe Mahatma Gandhi's quest for Indian independence or Saladin's refusal to slaughter the Crusaders in reprisal for their atrocities against Muslims after recapturing Jerusalem. Both are examples of historical men of different religions who yet were influenced by their knowledge of the new testament gospels and the teachings of Jesus.
No, I think using the words Dominionist/Dominionism are very important because they precisely describe the heretical legal and political philosophy of those who wish surreptitiously to rewrite the history of our country and the founding of its constitution along the lines of their own strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Dominionism is the very word it adherents use to describe their political goal to repudiate the the First Amendment's Establish Clause separating Church and State as a first step towards completely redefining 200 plus years of legal precedence in interpreting the US constitution. In that regard their goals are as Un-American as Communism, Nazism, Fascism.....
One last thing about the word Dominionist, besides its precision. While it has the problem of being a new word that the majority of the public is as yet unaware as to its meaning. I see that as an advantage because everytime somebody hears it they will ask what it means. And now it will be necessary to provide the public with its definition until it is commonplace in the political language. And guess what?? Everytime somebody outside of the koolaid drinking Dominionist orc army hears what it means they will react by saying, "But that is crazy, that is unconstitutional and Un-American". That being exactly the response we should be looking for.
**** them all and let God sort them out.
To read an analysis on what appears to be Republican infighting but is more likely part of a larger Karl Rove campaign strategy...link here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Yeah, NaXi is appropriate. As it is I'd bet the evangelical right has the largest number of backwoods militia - terrorist types as part of its membership as compared to any other American religious movement.
The Knights of Columbus have nothing on these guys.
And I'm still waiting for the emperor...er president to call on them in his moment of need.
David Neiwert,
Are you sure about that?
You're telling me that Martin Luther King would not qualify as a "Christianist" when everything he accomplished in effecting political and societal change in America was animated by his religious beliefs?
Read it and weep.
People who believe in the Gospels of Jesus Christ are Christians. People who use the Gospels of Jesus Christ for political gain, and for a political program of right or left, are Christianists.
There's much wisdom in this thread -- and, sorry Tristero, but most of these folks are ahead of you this time.
The person who observed that we get a national case of the fundies once every 80 years or so gets it. And every time, the epidemic ends with some spectacular overreach that terrifies the nation back to its senses -- and embarasses the fundies so badly that they let go of politics and hie back under their rocks for another 40 years or so.
In the 1840s, it was the Millerites with their pronouncements that the world was going to end (and, to a lesser degree, the Mormons and some of the other sexually experimental sects of the era). When the sky didn't fall on schedule, public favor for these kinds of extremists did.
In the 1920s, they were back. In Scopes, they won the battle - and lost the war.
And so here we are again -- and the moment of humiliation is soon upon them. Splitting the sheet with the GOP money moderates would be about the stupidest thing they could do (which is our guarantee that they will do it). Now, they'll be free to say and do exactly as they please. And every time they do, another few thousand Americans will turn their backs in shame.
In five years, nobody will admit ever having known any of these people.
And Jose: stop trolling. Your definition of "Christianist" is off-base and incomplete, and you know it. I'll leave it to you to explain just what's wrong with it.
"...rightwing operatives who hide behind the skirts of priests are so pissed they are threatening..."
Sorry. No. Not going to buy that one. Posturing, pure and simple. They see the handwriting on the wall. They can read polls. The Republicans look like they're toast this November (however, let us not count our chickens just yet & Howard could use a few quid, so if you got it ...pony up: https://www.democrats.org/page/co...?
source=NETA464 ) The TheoCons are just trying to get look ahead and stake out their turf so they can tell the Party "See, you need us. You lose without us. Do what WE say."
Jose Chung;
One question as regards that First Amendment thingy in the Constitution. The separation of church and State. You know the 'wall'.
Real or a myth?
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
