Comments on: Rooting Against the Religious Right

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sat, 07 May 2005 20:00:15 +0000

Nobody denies it's big, Jill.
But even your own reaction suggests it's not getting the intended job done.

By: Jill

Jill — Sat, 07 May 2005 02:44:34 +0000

I can't believe we're still seeing this about the democrats not having "effective messaging"... Let's see, the Democrats have the liberal media at their disposal, all the network news shows, even television shows all plugging the liberal message and I can't even pick up a women's magazine without some liberal crap being shoved down my throat. And they still can't get their message across? Uh huh. Riiight. Whatever you say.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 06 May 2005 19:04:45 +0000

Bit,

I'm not ignoring it. What I do--lately at Balloon Juice--is needle the Chicken Little's who think the "religious right" is some monolith with a Secret Protocols plan for national domination.

Hey, domination and Dominionists are words with the same root!!! I've cracked the conspiracy, and Barry Lynn is right!! Omigosh!

Cordially...

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 06 May 2005 17:33:32 +0000

(shrug)
Right enough. Rick.
Then again, we seem to be forgetting, in this discussion, that something on the order of 80% of Americans attend religious services at least monthly. I think that puts a light on this discussion we cannot ignore...

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 06 May 2005 16:45:28 +0000

Ironic, that Rick likely is not aware of the link between his question and Stalinâs similar questoning of the Pope.

Bithead,

No irony--I chose the famous formulation for unstated reasons. Like the Pope has greater legions than the new liberal bugbear: the 700 Club.

Shoot, the old USSR had a lot of battalions, and the libs lost the good sense of being wary of THEM!

Cordially...

By: Defense Guy

Defense Guy — Fri, 06 May 2005 16:09:48 +0000

Well Spoken James. The only exception I would take to your stance is that rather than being cautious to a group feeling alienated, we must be cautious to not actually alienate. In other words, it must be an actual tyranny of the majority as opposed to an apparent one.

By: rho

rho — Fri, 06 May 2005 15:27:01 +0000

The instinctive fear blue-staters hold for white Christianity--you'll never hear them rail against a black Christian--is quite entertaining. I'm reminded of a stereotypical housewife standing on a coffee table, skirts gathered in hand, shrieking at the appearance of a mouse. People have ideas and opinions. Those ideas and opinions can come from the Bible, the scientific method, random guessing or thoughtwaves beamed directly from space. It doesn't matter. These ideas and opinions have equal weight in the arena of debate, and the people who hold them have equal access to the democratic process. The thought that somehow a position that originates with the Bible--a document upon which the most stable and successful societies have at least partially based their existence--is a priori invalid is bugshite lunacy. You might as well toss out the Constitution because it was written by white males, some of whom owned slaves.

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Fri, 06 May 2005 15:14:57 +0000

The Theocrats are coming! The Theocrats are coming!
(Idiot warning!) Christopher Hitchens Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right "I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so...

By: Dean's World

Dean's World — Fri, 06 May 2005 09:21:27 +0000

Theocracy Thoughts
Michael Barone likes to say that all arguments over process in governance (such as the recent kerfuffle over the Senate filibuster--on both sides) are insincere. I can agree with that. I'd say that, similarly, almost all handwrin...

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 06 May 2005 02:12:26 +0000

Well put,Wanda.

And it goes deeper.

Given something like 75-80% of Americans attend religious services at least monthly, can this mean that we're actually going to exclude them from the political process, or from holding a governmental office?

By: Wanda

Wanda — Thu, 05 May 2005 21:37:57 +0000

What if, in the supposed dialog above, Anderson and Dr. Dobson are proposing the SAME THING? No one is going to question Anderson's good intentions. But to gain the same goodwill, Dr. Dobson will have to lie. He'll have to come up with two reasons for what he proposes, since any reference to religion is enough to automatically disqualify his proposal, even if it's the same as Anderson's. So religious people must learn a kind of Doublespeak - among friends and fellow believers, they can acknowledge the religious motive, and among outsiders they have to speak a different language. It's an unhealthy situation because it's effectively driving genuine religious expression underground.

By: Sue Dohnim

Sue Dohnim — Thu, 05 May 2005 21:17:46 +0000

Anderson wrote: Really, McGehee? MLK said that blacks were entitled to equal rights merely because it says so in the Bible somewhere? Yeah, how ridiculous. It's not like Rev. Martin Luther King was a Christian or anything. And that whole thing about "all of God's children" being "created equal" was just metaphor.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 05 May 2005 20:59:39 +0000

Anderson...
Are you going to now deny that the civil rights movement was rooted in and driven by religious figures in our society?

Perhaps you're thinking we should remove the gains had by these simply because they were religious and were driven by their religion?

By: Ace of Spades HQ

Ace of Spades HQ — Thu, 05 May 2005 20:30:24 +0000

A Debate I'd Been Hoping To Avoid
Well, the religious and irreligious wings of the conservative movement are now openly fuming at each other. Outside the Beltway has a round-up of columns by Hitchens, Will, and (most spot-on) James Taranto, who probably has a pleasant speaking voice....

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 05 May 2005 20:18:57 +0000

Really, McGehee? MLK said that blacks were entitled to equal rights merely because it says so in the Bible somewhere?

What on earth are you talking about?