The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger

[RyrineaHaruno]

Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, have begun to dismantle the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They are creating a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and shutting out all those they define as the enemy. This movement, veering closer and closer to traditional fascism, seeks to force a recalcitrant world to submit before an imperial America. It champions the eradication of social deviants, beginning with homosexuals, and moving on to immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims and those they dismiss as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace their perverted and heretical interpretation of the Bible. Those who defy the mass movement are condemned as posing a threat to the health and hygiene of the country and the family. All will be purged.

Although, this is a one sided article, but I would consider it a very interesting read it goes in too how the extremes in religion are going to take over some areas of politics.

 

[Teh Internets]

The Religious influence in Government is already here it's sad but true.

 

[rathi]

Your link leads to a new thread page, not the article.

I find such absurd hyperbole dishonest and counterproductive. There are religious group in the U.S. who promote fundamentalist values and believe the government should be used as a tool to hammer those who disagree with their religious beliefs. However, that does not justify distorting the truth to go after them. Intelligent design in schools should be fought with reason and logic, which is undermined by throwing around over the top terms like fascist.

 

[RightinNYC]

Here's a link to the actual article:

Chris Hedges: The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

It's hysterical ranting, better suited to a teenager's livejournal than any reputable publication. Not worth reading.

 

[Orion]

This article is over the top but I think it's true that the radical evangelicals are growing in power in the U.S. They have been for decades... and they are definitely counter-enlightenment in their values.

 

[RightinNYC]

This article is over the top but I think it's true that the radical evangelicals are growing in power in the U.S. They have been for decades... and they are definitely counter-enlightenment in their values.

What makes you think this is the case? I would be inclined to say that the number of religious extremists (however you want to define that) in this country is at the tail end of a century long plunge. Remember that less than a century ago, evolution was banned from the vast majority of classrooms while prayer was mandatory, legal access to abortion and contraceptives were nonexistent, and religious groups had enough clout to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol. By almost every measurable factor, our society's interest in religion has waned. The average "evangelical" of 2010 would probably be considered a godless heathen back in the 1930's.

 

[Orion]

What makes you think this is the case? I would be inclined to say that the number of religious extremists (however you want to define that) in this country is at the tail end of a century long plunge. Remember that less than a century ago, evolution was banned from the vast majority of classrooms while prayer was mandatory, legal access to abortion and contraceptives were nonexistent, and religious groups had enough clout to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol. By almost every measurable factor, our society's interest in religion has waned. The average "evangelical" of 2010 would probably be considered a godless heathen back in the 1930's.

I agree with you if you account for a longer time line, but in recent times they are on the upswing again and are regaining ground.

 

[samsmart]

What makes you think this is the case? I would be inclined to say that the number of religious extremists (however you want to define that) in this country is at the tail end of a century long plunge. Remember that less than a century ago, evolution was banned from the vast majority of classrooms while prayer was mandatory, legal access to abortion and contraceptives were nonexistent, and religious groups had enough clout to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol. By almost every measurable factor, our society's interest in religion has waned. The average "evangelical" of 2010 would probably be considered a godless heathen back in the 1930's.

It's not the religious extremists that is the cause for worry. Rather, it is the religious fascists who wish to push their religious ideas on the rest of this country. And there are many ways in which Christian fundamentalists are attempting to do this. One was one Christian group's attempt to unseat 4 judges in California who were up for re-election.

Christian conservatives target seated judges :: Something to talk about :: Post-Tribune

However, they were unsuccessful during this election. Even so, their attempts to control other people's lives because of their own beliefs and religion is still rather scary to those who don't share their beliefs.

One major example is "conscience rights" of medical professionals to be legally able to withhold certain procedures and prescriptions from a patient based on that med professional's own belief system. There was a big push for that in the waning days of G.W.'s Presidency, and it would have upset many people's lives in this country if it had passed.

Personally, I think the majority of Christians in this country, including most of the fundamentalists, are like every one else in that they wish to be left alone and live their lives however they personally choose to do so and don't really want to bother other people. However, it is those few influential reactionaries who wish to impose their world view on others that screw it up for everyone else, and it's those that we need to be careful about.

 

[justabubba]

we will see this growth as inversely proportional to the quality of public education provided to our society
let's say it all together: Sheep Sounds and Noises

 

[Arcana XV]

I thought the article, though grandiloquently alarmist, was interesting. I couldn't help but feel that the exact same article could be written about other parts of the world simply by replacing the word Christian with the word Muslim. It seems to me that what the author feels is happening in the US with some frustrated, dejected and angry Christians is pretty much what has been happening to many Muslims around the world. They turn to religion and their religious leaders when their political leaders fail them.

 

[RightinNYC]

I agree with you if you account for a longer time line, but in recent times they are on the upswing again and are regaining ground.

But what are you basing this on? I just don't think it's the case. Back in the 80's, the Moral Majority and its ilk were a powerful force. There're no equivalent groups today and society as a whole is far more tolerant than it ever was.

My point is that the "hard right Christian resurgence" has been a part of the conventional wisdom since I was in middle school, but I've never seen any solid evidence to support the idea. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it seems contrary to everything that we can see about society's changing social views and religious affiliations.

It's not the religious extremists that is the cause for worry. Rather, it is the religious fascists who wish to push their religious ideas on the rest of this country. And there are many ways in which Christian fundamentalists are attempting to do this. One was one Christian group's attempt to unseat 4 judges in California who were up for re-election.

Christian conservatives target seated judges :: Something to talk about :: Post-Tribune

So there were some Christians who said they wanted to get elected so that they could protect the values they held dear? How is that different from anyone else?

However, they were unsuccessful during this election.

Which is fairly relevant, I think.

Even so, their attempts to control other people's lives because of their own beliefs and religion is still rather scary to those who don't share their beliefs.

Just like any elected official's attempt to control someone else's life is rather scary to those who don't share that person's beliefs.

One major example is "conscience rights" of medical professionals to be legally able to withhold certain procedures and prescriptions from a patient based on that med professional's own belief system. There was a big push for that in the waning days of G.W.'s Presidency, and it would have upset many people's lives in this country if it had passed.

The fact that some pharmacists didn't want to have to proscribe birth control is evidence of "religious fascism"?

Personally, I think the majority of Christians in this country, including most of the fundamentalists, are like every one else in that they wish to be left alone and live their lives however they personally choose to do so and don't really want to bother other people. However, it is those few influential reactionaries who wish to impose their world view on others that screw it up for everyone else, and it's those that we need to be careful about.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I just think the threat of "christian fascism" is monumentally overhyped.

 

[Orion]

My point is that the "hard right Christian resurgence" has been a part of the conventional wisdom since I was in middle school,

What are you implying here? That it's talked about even though it's not true?

 

[lizzie]

I agree with you if you account for a longer time line, but in recent times they are on the upswing again and are regaining ground.

I seriously doubt there is either an upswing, or that they are gaining ground. We live in an age of instant mass communications, and we hear about it- There is no increased threat, just awareness of what people think and believe on a much broader scale. It's a very small but loud voice, just as we see with any other variety of extremist.

 

[tacomancer]

What makes you think this is the case? I would be inclined to say that the number of religious extremists (however you want to define that) in this country is at the tail end of a century long plunge. Remember that less than a century ago, evolution was banned from the vast majority of classrooms while prayer was mandatory, legal access to abortion and contraceptives were nonexistent, and religious groups had enough clout to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol. By almost every measurable factor, our society's interest in religion has waned. The average "evangelical" of 2010 would probably be considered a godless heathen back in the 1930's.

I am inclined to agree with RightinNYC. The only reason they are getting louder and more forceful is because their way of life is dying and that freaks them out badly. It is the same with a large part of the tea party, they cannot handle culture change. I am not too worried about them though because time is against them and barring no major developments, their kind will die off eventually to be replaced with people who are used to the modern culture (and than that will change and people will freak out again, it is the way of things)

 

[lizzie]

It is the same with a large part of the tea party, they cannot handle culture change. I am not too worried about them though because time is against them and barring no major developments, their kind will die off eventually to be replaced with people who are used to the modern culture (and than that will change and people will freak out again, it is the way of things)

When people like myself and many in the tea party movement die off, it's not fear of culture change that will freak people out. It's nature that will come to call, and no matter what one wants to believe, mother nature works, and you can't fool her in the long run.

 

[tacomancer]

When people like myself and many in the tea party movement die off, it's not fear of culture change that will freak people out. It's nature that will come to call, and no matter what one wants to believe, mother nature works, and you can't fool her in the long run.

Yeah. I had accounted for that. People are naturally (as mother nature dictates) more resistant to change as they get older and tend to romanticize their youth. But as I stated, people will grow up in a culture, it will change, they will freak out and die off. A new generation will rise that does the same thing. Its been working this way for a really long time now and I see no reason for it to change.

I think I had a moment last week when I looked at teenagers and have a "get off my lawn moment" about something (I forgot what it is now)

 

[RightinNYC]

What are you implying here? That it's talked about even though it's not true?

That it's one of those things that's frequently mentioned as a "rising force" that never actually seems to come to fruition and lacks any sort of quantifiable evidence.

 

[samsmart]

So there were some Christians who said they wanted to get elected so that they could protect the values they held dear? How is that different from anyone else?

There's a difference between one protecting values they hold dear and one imposing their values on others who have different values.

Which is fairly relevant, I think.

Indeed.

Just like any elected official's attempt to control someone else's life is rather scary to those who don't share that person's beliefs.

You're absolutely right.

The fact that some pharmacists didn't want to have to proscribe birth control is evidence of "religious fascism"?

No. The fact that some medical professionals and some pharmacists wanted to have the legal authority to refuse to allow their patients a medical procedure or medicine based not on medical expertise but their own religious beliefs is the evidence. Patients don't go to medical professionals for religious reasons - they go to medical professionals for medical reasons. And if such a law allowing "conscience rights" of medical professionals was passed, it would have endangered many people who live in rural areas where there are few choices, if any, for medical professionals.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I just think the threat of "christian fascism" is monumentally overhyped.

I agree with you. I put it at the same level of overhype as the threat of "progressive socialism" is right now.

 

[Gabriel]

I actually think the libertarian side of the republican party is losing strength. This isn't the same as the religious right growing though it may seem like it. They may be garnering more influence because the free market/anti interventionist/anti government aspect of libertarianism has taken a square punch in the face the last couple years. Their philosophy is completely been discredited by the market itself and even further by big oil deregulation.

Libertarians may have to support the fundamentalist side of the right to have any influence. Intellectually of course it's been discredited as legitimate but the religious right will adhere to it for lack of a better philosophy to argue. Lets just say the relatively legit side of the republican mindset is not working well so the focus flows to the religious right for attention. While libertarians lick their wounds.

 

[Orion]

That it's one of those things that's frequently mentioned as a "rising force" that never actually seems to come to fruition and lacks any sort of quantifiable evidence.

Aside from the U.S., most western leaders are neo-cons at the moment.

 

[RightinNYC]

There's a difference between one protecting values they hold dear and one imposing their values on others who have different values.

How is that any different than when anyone else wants to "impose their values" on others, whether it be a desire for a larger social safety net or for a more limited government?

No. The fact that some medical professionals and some pharmacists wanted to have the legal authority to refuse to allow their patients a medical procedure or medicine based not on medical expertise but their own religious beliefs is the evidence. Patients don't go to medical professionals for religious reasons - they go to medical professionals for medical reasons. And if such a law allowing "conscience rights" of medical professionals was passed, it would have endangered many people who live in rural areas where there are few choices, if any, for medical professionals.

I just don't see how this is proof of a rise in religious fascism. 30 years ago, this wouldn't even have been a question - the contraceptives wouldn't have been available in the first place.

Aside from the U.S., most western leaders are neo-cons at the moment.

But what does that have to do with "christian fascism"?

 

[samsmart]

How is that any different than when anyone else wants to "impose their values" on others, whether it be a desire for a larger social safety net or for a more limited government?

What I do when I "protect values I hold dear" is try to ensure that I continue those actions that I hold of value according to my belief. What I label as "imposing beliefs onto others" is taking any choice from other people and forcing them to pursue those actions I prefer.

For an example of this, let's talk about church tithes. I protect the values I hold dear by tithing to my church. What I don't do is lobby for legislation that calls for all people to pay a tax that would go to a particular religious organization. That would be imposing my beliefs on other people. I also lobby to prevent making tithing illegal, as it would impose others' beliefs on me.

Another example is beer and liquor. I protect the values I hold dear by choosing not to drink either beer or liquor. What I don't do is lobby for prohibition of beer and liquor, as that would be imposing my beliefs on other people. I'm also against requiring people to drink alcohol, as it would be an imposition on me beliefs that I don't have.

There's a fine line between the two.

I just don't see how this is proof of a rise in religious fascism. 30 years ago, this wouldn't even have been a question - the contraceptives wouldn't have been available in the first place.

But contraceptives are available now, and the major reason why they are being opposed is for religious reasons. This is just one of many examples of new technological advances being opposed for religious reasons. A current one is stem cell research. A past one was bar codes, as Christian leaders feared that it was the prophecy of the Mark of the Beast of the Anti-Christ being fulfilled.

So the danger here is technological advancements being declared illegal based on the religious beliefs of a particular doctrine.

 

[RightinNYC]

What I do when I "protect values I hold dear" is try to ensure that I continue those actions that I hold of value according to my belief. What I label as "imposing beliefs onto others" is taking any choice from other people and forcing them to pursue those actions I prefer.

For an example of this, let's talk about church tithes. I protect the values I hold dear by tithing to my church. What I don't do is lobby for legislation that calls for all people to pay a tax that would go to a particular religious organization. That would be imposing my beliefs on other people. I also lobby to prevent making tithing illegal, as it would impose others' beliefs on me.

Another example is beer and liquor. I protect the values I hold dear by choosing not to drink either beer or liquor. What I don't do is lobby for prohibition of beer and liquor, as that would be imposing my beliefs on other people. I'm also against requiring people to drink alcohol, as it would be an imposition on me beliefs that I don't have.

There's a fine line between the two.

Radical christian wants to ban contraceptives.
Drug warrior wants to criminalize marijuana
Neighborhood committee wants to restrict nightclubs from the area
Civil rights activist wants to prevent private clubs from discriminating
Concerned mother wants to keep pedophiles from living within 1 mile of a school
Veteran wants to ban protesters from marching outside military funerals
Conservative wants to prevent immigrants from accessing social services
Liberal wants to prevent people from owning rifles

These are all examples of people who are trying to impose their beliefs on others. I don't see how we can criticize one of them for trying to bend society to his vision while excusing the others as merely protecting their values. We can each make our own decisions about which of the impositions we agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all impositions. To single the first one out and call that religious fascism seems unfair.

But contraceptives are available now, and the major reason why they are being opposed is for religious reasons. This is just one of many examples of new technological advances being opposed for religious reasons. A current one is stem cell research. A past one was bar codes, as Christian leaders feared that it was the prophecy of the Mark of the Beast of the Anti-Christ being fulfilled.

So the danger here is technological advancements being declared illegal based on the religious beliefs of a particular doctrine.

I understand that this can be seen as a "danger," but how is it any different than a similar danger from another source? Put another way, if a person opposed stem cell research because of fiscal or non-religious moral reasons, how is that any less of a "danger" than if the person opposed it because they thought that Jesus wouldn't like it?

 

[samsmart]

Radical christian wants to ban contraceptives.
Drug warrior wants to criminalize marijuana
Neighborhood committee wants to restrict nightclubs from the area
Civil rights activist wants to prevent private clubs from discriminating
Concerned mother wants to keep pedophiles from living within 1 mile of a school
Veteran wants to ban protesters from marching outside military funerals
Conservative wants to prevent immigrants from accessing social services
Liberal wants to prevent people from owning rifles

These are all examples of people who are trying to impose their beliefs on others. I don't see how we can criticize one of them for trying to bend society to his vision while excusing the others as merely protecting their values. We can each make our own decisions about which of the impositions we agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all impositions. To single the first one out and call that religious fascism seems unfair.

Okay. Fair enough.

I understand that this can be seen as a "danger," but how is it any different than a similar danger from another source? Put another way, if a person opposed stem cell research because of fiscal or non-religious moral reasons, how is that any less of a "danger" than if the person opposed it because they thought that Jesus wouldn't like it?

No, he is no less of a danger. I think that secularists are capable of being just as ****ty to others as religious people are.

 

[Dav]

we will see this growth as inversely proportional to the quality of public education provided to our society
let's say it all together: Sheep Sounds and Noises

Because religious groups never take steps to further the education of society... :roll: