The Galloping Beaver
Excellent assessment of the successful marriage between the religious and political right. What worries me is that that marriage seems to have defined the political landscape, most notably in the US where you see every Democratic leadership contender trying to appeal to religious voters. And what of the NDP's recent announcement of giving committee status to the Faith and Social Gospel caucus?
Excellent piece, Dave. That idea of not criticizing public leaders is alive and well in some of the less rigorous xian churches, too. I have family who absolutely hate it when my letter to the editor calling the government or someone on the crap their dealing. It's weird.
I think the NDP's Faith and Social Justice Commission is an attempt to address that weirdness in a meaningful way. I hope it is also a chance for the party to get back to its roots in democratic socialism and away from the neo-liberalism adopted by the NDP in SK. Time, as they say, will tell.
Excellent piece Dave (and thanks for the link to Mr. Altemeyer's book).
Are there any examples where the Pol truly is a fundamentalist or are they always separate entities?
.
Beaver,
I appreciate the call for maintaining the separation between religion and politics. In particular, fundamentalism inists that its dogmas be reflected through both priorities and method of implementation - regardless of the facts or impact. That is plainly dangerous. No one has a true rule book that both reliably and comprehensively tells us how to manage ourselves.
Nevertheless, the genuinely faith on the right can advocate good government - law, order, fair play. Just as within the religious left, they advocate a social gospel of fair play, support, and community.
Responsible government and care and support for community and individuals are both constructive goals, regardless of who genuinely presents them.
However, fundamentalism (and its equivalent to the left - radicalism) does not care about impacts but merely lusts for the power to disturb and control. So yes, they need a propaganda machine to control followers (few know this better than me) otherwise their people will see the damage potential and challenge it.
The propaganda machine of the fundamentalist right is not out there to change voters minds, but rather to control "the party faithful" so that the faithful will proselytize and stay on message (under the threat of being shunned by the propaganda machine).
In practise, all political parties use this tactic to some extent as there are always hacks that argue if someone is an orthodox party member or not. Propaganda with the threat of being labeled unorthodox is standard in all political parties… but when it becomes the main message, it is fundamentalism and dangerous.
Work against the temptation to label people as “in” (orthodox) and “out” (unorthodox) based on dogmas (religious dogmas or otherwise). And, avoid the temptation to label someone as "religious" and hence "in" or "out". Rather, argue for your position based on impact/benefit value.
Cheers (and Merry Christmas),
Walks
In reading Altemeyer's work for many years it seems even those pols who claim to be fundamentalists aren't in the true sense of the word. They are less committed to the "faith" than they are their personal gain.
Even some of the "faithful", the leaders of some of the fundamentalist churches, are actually more politician than they are religious.
The shorter answer is, I don't know, but I haven't seen anything which even remotely suggests Altemeyer could be wrong.
Dave--
Ya, me too - but thought I should ask before I mentioned the name.....
.....Huckabee?
.
I have some doubts about him. He's a nutball but he's still a politician. You might be right though.
That's really pretty scary, isn't it?
Yup.
And now, with Romney having been exposed as a serial 'seer' (see King, Martin Luther Jr.), there suddenly appears to be a whole lotta hopes being pinned on the guy who, I'm pretty sure, is soon going to start pining for the fjords and/or the riverbanks once roamed by Samuel Clemens' (second?) most famous character.
Or some such bizarre thing.
.
Yes because chretien's MSM campaign that the alliance was scary was not based on fear mongering, ha, ha,
Dave said:
"The politicians, out to serve their own purposes"
What purposes do they have?
Todd said:
"What purposes do they have?"
Why, to get re-elected, of course!
Do we have a troll?
Berlynn said:
"Why, to get re-elected, of course!"
Yes, but why?
If you're referring to me, Dave, I'm curious as to why you're turning politicians into a fungible group whose actions are "self-evident" as your post strongly implies.
No, Todd, I was not referring to you at all. There's another entity in there passing itself of as dinosaur.
The reason I identified politicians in the way I did is because they form a homogeneous group separate from the population complete with their own set of traits.
Why do politicians want to get re-elected? Well, some are in it for self-interest, some are called to do it for the public good and some are called to do it for their friends.
Walks, I missed your comment the first time around. I'm wondering who and/or what might be considered the radical religious left. I have nothing to grab onto there...
A. Radical Christian Right - Fundamentalists, examples Jason Kenny, Stockwell Day, Meighen (sp?), maybe Diefenbaker
B. Christian Right -
Good Government, example secular Catholics which most Canadian Liberal prime ministers more or less fit that description. Tony Blair.
C. Christian Left -
Social Justice, Tommy Douglas (I don't know if Trudeau is rightly understood in this category, as another example).
D. Radical Christian Left - Liberation theology in extreme, See Central America (I don't know if we ever had this in Canada.)
I.e. the religious fit in all categories and parties; the radicals have been rare in Canada whereas the moderate Christian left and right have been rather common in Canada, historically speaking.
I can agree with A, B, and C, though I find it difficult to place the NDP these days anywhere but Centre and maybe just a hair's breadth to the Left. And, if D includes Paulo Friere-type work, then I don't agree with that being radical. It may have been early on, but it seems to me to be too mainstream to be considereed radical nowadays.
" I can agree with A, B, and C, though I find it difficult to place the NDP these days anywhere but Centre and maybe just a hair's breadth to the Left. And, if D includes Paulo Friere-type work, then I don't agree with that being radical. It may have been early on, but it seems to me to be too mainstream to be considereed radical nowadays."
I think the NDP has some Christian Left in it. In Canada we have Christian ministers in the NDP believing in a social gospel message ... and practicing it.
Radical Christian left would be thost that use of violence or the law to force social change... i.e. forcing others to comply. You can find any number of those types in Latin America. Although you are right that this is more rare today.
Cheers,
Great stuff!
You guys/gals are awsome!
Thanks, things are now a whole lot clearer for me now.
Commenting by HaloScan
