quote:It is nice when political ads appeal to our better nature rather than to the worst in us.
Nice, but owing to our human nature, less effective use of campaign dollars.
I still expect we're going to get a boatload more negative ads this go around now that PACs can just flood the world with unaffiliated advertising.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Dan, to elaborate a bit on why the ad is problematic racially as well as xenophobically:
It would be different if the stereotypical Asian accent hadn't taken up the place it has in American racial politics. But in fact, a lot of people use it to make fun of Asian Americans, especially Asian women (like with the Full Metal Jacket "me love you long time" routine; ask any Asian girl how many times she's heard that).
Yeah, that makes sense.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, I think I understand the point you are make by trying to differentiate between racism and cultural stereotyping. I am not sure that you can make that distinction and, when culture and race are as inextricably linked as they are in many culture, I think that it can be dangerous to try. Further, both are likely to be offensive, so why make the effort?
It is nice when political ads appeal to our better nature rather than to the worst in us.
Thanks for the bone, I'll scurry back to my den and gnaw on it for the rest of winter.
Seriously, though, I think you're right. Chinese ethnicity and Chinese culture are heavily linked, and the cultural stereotypes that create prejudice against the race are, if anything, even more reprehensible than any pure racism.
It helped me to understand where I was going wrong to consider the particularly awful case of antisemitism, which is another example of racial and cultural stereotypes getting tangled up together.
I think the bottom line for me does boil down to something I said in a previous post: Sometimes, over-sensitivity can cause people to label criticism of a culture as racism, and that irks me.
But that's not really at play here, it was my own baggage that caused me to bring it up. Bad cultural stereotypes (and wrong cultural criticism, for that matter!) can be just as awful and justifiably offensive as racism.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As often as I'm exasperated by the base of both parties, this is one of the things that makes me quite a bit more scornful of Republicans than Democrats: who they would just *love* to be their guy, if it were possible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Didn't see that coming at all. He won all three, rather convincingly if you're just going by percentages. Hell, Paul came in second and beat Romney in Minnesota, that's new. And he absolutely crushed him in Missouri. Interesting that in Missouri, the only state that voted without Gingrich and made it a three person race, Santorum got more than twice as many votes as Romney, and won a clear majority rather than a plurality.
He's officially won the most states, and strung together the most wins in a row. In media-speak, that should make him the winner of the whole thing! It's his game to lose now, it's all over....except not, because I'm sure the media will spin this whole thing to mean something completely different.
Next few weeks should be interesting. Santorum is about to feel the wrath of the Romney attack machine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually come to think of it I don't know of any Republicans that would love any of the nominees (except a few nominally Republican libertarians who love Paul, of course). The most common sentiment I've seen is exasperated, distasteful acceptance.
Not that I think you would much like the candidates they would love, of course! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean OK, the options for Republicans are horrible. But, Santorum?!
The republicans that vote for santorum are a distilled essence of the fundie core. They may charitably be described as blatant theocrats. Or was that uncharitably? Nobody knows anymore. If you hammer it out with them, they will admit to being theocratic. The paramount political concern to them — dwarfing all others — is that it be 'reaffirmed,' legally, that this is a christian nation. And it can't be a real christian nation without abiding to a very specific mythoi about god-approved governance and it usually involves low taxes and sink-or-swim social everything. But they are not mere libertarians, for godly government doesn't want to just stop at not being useful to people in need, as there is a dire need to use what funding we do have for wrapping some fairly controlling social regulation in place against the things they fear, resulting in intense biblically-motivated regulations of media, internet, schools, sciences,contraception, the courts, abortion, marriage, approved manner of dress, and whichever countries we go to (holy) war against to make the world a constantly safer place. This, of course, is not a diplomatic way to summarize it, but each little individual piece of it is drafted carefully enough that each individual part can be a link to both charged and neutral assessments to the fact.
They are not all of conservatism, not by far — but they are powerful enough and vital enough a core to wed the entire party to their needs and a constant offering of platitudes and wedge offerings, and Santorum spooks them a little because he is Not of Righteous Clan (catholics ain't christians, you know) but he gets everything else just so right about those scary gays (ew) and atheists and secularists and socialists and caretakers of the sick (double ew) that they're willing to put that aside and give him support over romney, because mormonism is, like, right out, man. More importantly though romney once tried to help poor sick people and that is socialism so he is a big deffo no. Until it is only him versus the kenyan muslim. At which point he will have had his latest political mask on longer than their typical political memory span and will have somehow been elevated up to, if not God's chosen, then God's protest vote. Mysterious ways and all that. But until then, they can't just give it to Romney, they have to amass as much palpable discontent with the at-least-barely-electable candidate to stick up for the guy who has been consistently in favor of their moral entitlements.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Alright, 'like or be satisfied with', then, not 'love'.
I trust you, Dan, to mean what you say, so I do believe you mean that you don't know any, say, Republican Santorum voters or supporters. But it is exasperating, discussing this (much) closer to the center than where the real die-hards live, that it's just a mystery where these wackos and fundies get their support.
They get their support from other wackos and fundies, and yeah, I'm afraid that you almost certainly do know some, just like I do, Dan. At least you know several who if asked it would turn out that while they may not bid on Santorum specifically, they just happen by astounding coincidence to think some of his ideas (gays, bad! Foreigners, awful! Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful! No EPA, great!) are just spot on.
There's enough of them that they are a powerful, even decisive force every four years, in picking our President. There ain't just a couple of em wrapped around the buckle of the Bible Belt, they're all over the place. There's enough of 'em that only a few years ago, one of the (believed to be) most liberal states in the union amended their Constitution to confirm the inferiority of homosexuals, because everyone knows that, it's in the Bible, duh!
We all know 'em. There ain't a place you can go without rubbing shoulders with some far-right social conservatives, Dan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We all know 'em. There ain't a place you can go without rubbing shoulders with some far-right social conservatives, Dan.
I manage it pretty well. Of course, I work at a university and live and work in the distract where Jan Schakowsky can count on getting better than 70% of the vote without campaigning. I do theatre and sing folk music. Even church is liberal.
I have to come to Hatrack to see conservatives.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do "know" a couple through Hatrack, a few people who are really old and not very political. I know a couple of tepid Republicans but can't think of any far-right social conservatives. I probably do but not well enough to know their politics.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My entire family outside of my parents and brother are all far right social conservatives. Delightful, salt of the earth, loving, people with whackadoodle political ideas. But I rarely talk politics with them.
On the whole though, I spend every day talking with grads students and professors, and then come here, where even the conservatives weigh in at somewhere closer to Mild than FIRE on the Taco Bell Political Spectrum.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Born-again Chinese Christians are the most social conservative folk I typically run into. White social conservatives, not so much.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My ex cousin-in-law was socially conservative, now that I think about it, but I haven't seen him in years. My 80 year old uncle is an old school Republican. My Dad was, too, until President G.W. Bush.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My ex cousin-in-law was socially conservative, now that I think about it, but I haven't seen him in years. My 80 year old uncle is an old school Republican. My Dad was, too, until President G.W. Bush.
If your uncle is a 1930s Republican, doesn't that basically make him a 2012 Democrat?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well more like a 1950s Republican but he is from Wisconsin and can't bring himself to believe that the GOP has moved away from him.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My ex cousin-in-law was socially conservative, now that I think about it, but I haven't seen him in years. My 80 year old uncle is an old school Republican. My Dad was, too, until President G.W. Bush.
If your uncle is a 1930s Republican, doesn't that basically make him a 2012 Democrat?
Heh.
Yeah, man, I mean, look at this guy. His positions were basically the same as Obama's!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well more like a 1950s Republican but he is from Wisconsin and can't bring himself to believe that the GOP has moved away from him.
So he's a Cardian Democrat.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *sigh* Alright, 'like or be satisfied with', then, not 'love'.
I trust you, Dan, to mean what you say, so I do believe you mean that you don't know any, say, Republican Santorum voters or supporters. But it is exasperating, discussing this (much) closer to the center than where the real die-hards live, that it's just a mystery where these wackos and fundies get their support.
They get their support from other wackos and fundies, and yeah, I'm afraid that you almost certainly do know some, just like I do, Dan. At least you know several who if asked it would turn out that while they may not bid on Santorum specifically, they just happen by astounding coincidence to think some of his ideas (gays, bad! Foreigners, awful! Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful! No EPA, great!) are just spot on.
There's enough of them that they are a powerful, even decisive force every four years, in picking our President. There ain't just a couple of em wrapped around the buckle of the Bible Belt, they're all over the place. There's enough of 'em that only a few years ago, one of the (believed to be) most liberal states in the union amended their Constitution to confirm the inferiority of homosexuals, because everyone knows that, it's in the Bible, duh!
We all know 'em. There ain't a place you can go without rubbing shoulders with some far-right social conservatives, Dan.
Thanks for trusting me not to be a liar.
So, I guess, upon reflection, I was wrong. I think my partner's extended family includes a couple of people I would bet are so-cons. An uncle, a couple cousins. When I've spoken politics with them, we only ever talked fiscal matters, because that was what they were the most concerned with, but I'd bet they're also anti-abortion and probably anti-gay marriage (though like many so-cons, I know they were okay with civil unions).
But really, I was less talking about my personal acquaintances than I was the public-figure conservatives I know of. I don't watch Fox news much, but I do occasionally browse a lot of Republican-leaning internet media sources (blogs and the like). The overwhelming number of them are not very socially conservative (though again, when I put my mind to it I can name a couple I don't follow much).
This is probably a self-selecting group, though; people who write about politics all day may just be less likely to be hardcore social conservatives.
Thing is, even the social conservatives I have to stretch hard to remember I know of barely fit your caricature anyway. And I don't think that's just my perception, either.
I mean, that's what really boggles my mind. The way that you can characterize social conservative positions as "gays, bad! Foreigners, awful! Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful! No EPA, great!" and at the same time accuse the right of being the one that is incendiary and divisive, demonizes its opposition, and so on. Maybe you don't do the latter, Rakeesh, but I'm sure you'll agree the attitude is common.
Just to break down your list: Gays, bad... well, I mean this one is the core principle of the social conservatives! And maybe you're right, although the polling I've seen of the most conservative republicans in general shows about 40% support of civil unions. For moderate republicans it was over 50% support for civil unions. This plus minority groups in both categories actually supporting gay marriage paints a picture either of a part not dominated by the social conservatives you've pictured, or social conservatives who don't look like your picture.
And, of course, this is all setting aside the fact that lots of social conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage don't really have the opinion of "gays=bad" and you know, man. People like Santorum aren't in favor of arresting gays and stoning them to death. He's just against gay marriage. I'm not saying such people have the right idea about marriage, but drumming that up into "gays are bad!" is just intentionally inflammatory.
Next one! "Foreigners, awful!" Hmm, well, no. Social Conservatives, like most conservatives, oppose illegal immigration. But I don't know of any conservative movements to close our borders and stop legal immigration. Newt Gingrich got massive applause at one of the GOP debates when he said that it should be much easier to enter the US legally.
And again, I think you know this. So why would you characterize "illegal immigrants are bad!" as "foreigners are bad!" Rakeesh? You can disagree that their ideas for stringent border control/deportation/civil liberty invading enforcement... but once again you're taking their position and warping it into a wrong and incendiary version of itself.
"Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful!" Really? God-awful? Thinking that Christians are the best, and we should be a Christian nation, is not the same thing as thinking that all non-Christians are awful. Most so-cons do have the terrible idea that Christianity should have primacy over other faiths and beliefs in the US. But I think you know that very few so-cons advocate, say, making it illegal to be Jewish or atheist or whatever. Has that ever even been discussed by the Christian right? (Cue Sam providing a link)
"No EPA, great!" Well, this one I got nothin'. You hit the nail on the head, there. And so did they! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it.
Not really. LaFollette and his sons characterized the idea of "Republican" from the turn of the century on.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it.
Psst. This guy was president in the 30s. And some of the similarities are spooky.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you win, Lyr. I honestly forget Hoover was a Republican most days.
Aaah, those are good days.
But seriously, while Hoover was certainly a lot more leftist than Coolidge, I'm not entirely sure what you're basing your statement of him being the equivalent to a 2012 Democrat is. Elaborate?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it.
Not really. LaFollette and his sons characterized the idea of "Republican" from the turn of the century on.
Not being from Wisconsin, I wasn't terribly familiar with LaFollette. Now I am, and I'm frankly boggled. That's his idea of a Republican? A guy who ran for president in the Progressive party? Bizarre.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. But you seem to equate being anti-slavery with everything else leftist, and that's a fallacy.
The so-called Southern Strategy was implemented by Hoover. But Coolidge, who preceded Hoover, was vastly more conservative on fiscal matters. Republicans were the party more likely to contain laissez-faire small government types long before the souther strategy. But LaFollette doesn't seem to fit that mold.
That's fine, I'm not saying everyone did or should. And since he was influential to WI, it makes sense that your grand-dad would see him as the quintessential Republican.
Not being from WI, I strongly disagree.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican Party didn't entirely lose its mind and heart until the 1980s when it joined forces with the Moral Majority. We are talking about "far-right social conservatives, yes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think you know that very few so-cons advocate, say, making it illegal to be Jewish or atheist or whatever. Has that ever even been discussed by the Christian right? (Cue Sam providing a link)
The groups who are described loosely as the hard Dominionists and Christian Reconstructuralists — the sort who I speak of — absolutely do. They did with frightening consistency back in the 80's. They are significant in number, and their views are prevalent in ALL american evangelicism. They are also usually postmillennialists — crudely stated, "God's kingdom actually began at the first coming, and is and absolutely will by God's design spread inexorably across the globe by the will of its followers until all of earth is Christian. Period." It is a sign of progress that they have since been cowed into being very tacit about these ultimate goals, especially regarding old testament law for homosexuals, worshippers of false religions (i.e., every other one), and nonbelievers. Schaeffer, Robertson, Graham, North, Atwater, Ledeen, and a whole host of backers and public faces for the movement — Robertson, Falwell, etc. — set in motion a concerted plan to create a culture of dominionism specifically designed to export its influence to government and the white house; it's the story of Liberty University and the evangelical advisory board (starring later-famous Ted Haggard) that consulted with George W. Bush weekly on spiritual and policy matters. The extent to which they intertwined themselves with the GOP (and still pretty much are) is an amazingly fascinating story, which — to me — culminates most visually with all of Bush's strategy briefings for the war being these odd photoshopped pastiches he would be handed for perusal — of Iraq's security and military situation, with christian imagery and bible quotes all over them.
Michelle Goldberg studied the Reconstructuralists in specific, and reported (correctly) how it "openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy."
They have concertedly buried the most extreme portions of their theocratic beliefs, but their statements to that fact are frozen in time, assuming one is intrigued enough to go delving through journalistic inquiry about the dominionist movements. Some even sit on the American Taliban page.
Gary North: "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship."
Gary Potter: "When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
Morecraft: "Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
Randall Terry: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
Simonds: "Atheistic secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected...Government and true Christianity are inseparable."
These people sure aren't the whole of conservatism, but the extent to which the intended intertwining with the Neoconservative movement was an amazing success (and, for that matter, how they still have representation in high places) means that to not know of them and their true aims is, as was put, non-optional. They are not insignificant in number, and they have held an amazingly huge influence over multiple presidencies and hold an amazingly disproportional representation in congress. I don't mean to bring all this up to be all like "BE AFRAID OF ALL THESE SCARY CHRISTIANS!" because I'm really not afraid of them and think that they broke on the rocks a while back (and that it's all mostly downhill for them now) but to point out that they exist and they are not a negligible element of american conservatism; they are actually a very prominent part of american conservatism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't mean to bring all this up to be all like "BE AFRAID OF ALL THESE SCARY CHRISTIANS!"
Yeah, I have to say this stuff reminds me of the people talking about how significant and powerful groups of Muslims really do want to implement Sharia law everywhere and really do want to exterminate all the Jews.
Except without the added benefit of the demonized group constantly, vigorously, explicitly stating said goals.
Help me out here, man. I hate conspiracy theories. Have no patience for 'em. Instead of showing me all the people analyzing Perry and Bachman and attributing motives and nefarious secret cabals, show me where they said this stuff.
And not, said stuff in code that because you have the decoder ring you actually know what they meant. Actually said it.
Show me who (aside from Rushdoony, who even your article admits was denounced by other members of the Christian right) "openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy" and show me when and show me who agreed with them.
I'm not saying I don't believe such people exist. But I'd love to see some actual evidence that these people are as common and powerful as you say. I suspect that what you're going to give me are a lot of "telling" circumstances and connections, a la the people who think Obama hates white people because he went to Reverend Wright's church.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Help me out here, man. I hate conspiracy theories. Have no patience for 'em.
Not a conspiracy theory. The reconstructionalists had not largely denied their motivations at all, which is the reason why I no longer consider them a threat — even though I have to consider them a lingering influence.
quote:The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.
So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.
The Recons are keenly aware of the P.R. difficulties such views pose as they become more widely known. Brian Abshire writes in the January Chalcedon Report, the official magazine of Rushdoony's institute, that the "judicial sanctions" are "at the root" of the antipathy most evangelicals still show towards Reconstruction. Indeed, as the press spotlight has intensified, prominent religious conservatives have edged away. For a while the Coalition on Revival (COR), an umbrella group set up to "bring America back to its biblical foundations" by identifying common ground among Christian right activists of differing theological backgrounds, allowed leading Reconstructionists to chum around with such figures as televangelist D. James Kennedy (whose Coral Ridge Ministries also employed militant Reconstructionist George Grant as a vice president) and National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist Robert Dugan.
quote:Lest such relations become unduly frictionless, here's a clip-and-save sampler of Reconstructionist quotes to keep on hand:
On the link between reason and liberty: "Reason itself is not an objective `given' but is itself a divinely created instrument employed by the unregenerate to further their attack on God." The "appeal to reason as final arbiter" must be rejected; "if man is permitted autonomy in one sphere he will soon claim autonomy in all spheres....We therefore deny every expression of human autonomy--liberal, conservative or libertarian." Thus affirmed Andrew Sandlin, in the January Chalcedon Report.
Intellectual liberty (other religions department): Hindus, Muslims, and the like would still be free to practice their rites "in the privacy of your own home....But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state....every civil order protects its foundations," wrote the late Recon theologian Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen added that the interdiction applies to "someone [who] comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)."
Intellectual liberty (where secularists fit in department): "All sides of the humanistic spectrum are now, in principle, demonic; communists and conservatives, anarchists and socialists, fascists and republicans," explains Rushdoony. "When someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate...those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed," wrote Bahnsen.
On ultimate goals: "So let us be blunt about it," says Gary North. "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
quote:Barber is the Associate Dean for Career and Professional Development and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Liberty University . Just last year, Liberty University was a sponsor of the American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference entitled "2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference - Biblical Blueprints for Victory! "
The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.
re: Coral Ridge Ministries, via the Southern Poverty Law Center
quote:Beginning in the early 1960s, the Rev. D. James Kennedy turned conservative Coral Ridge Presbyterian into a mega-church that now claims 10,000 members. In 1974, Kennedy branched out with Coral Ridge Ministries, which has since become one of the largest fundamentalist enterprises in America with some 160 employees, several divisions including a Washington-based Center for Christian Statesmanship, and radio and television studios producing shows that reach a combined weekly audience of 3 million.
Kennedy has described the works of Reconstructionism founder R.J. Rushdoony (see Chalcedon Foundation), which are laced with anti-black racism and anti-gay vitriol, as "essential." His ministry has sold a book by leading Reconstructionist George Grant that laments the abandonment of legal codes prescribing death for homosexuals.
And I could just go on and on and on, from Coral Ridge Ministries to American Vision:
quote:Founded in 1978 by Gary DeMar, one of America's most prominent proponents of Christian Reconstructionism, American Vision produces a wide variety of "educational resources" designed to "restore America's Biblical foundation."
"The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion," says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.
While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."
Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them."
DeMar is also down on anti-poverty programs. "Nowhere in the Bible is civil government given authority to help the poor by raising taxes on the rich," he insists in the American Vision Web site essay. "In fact, as history shows, the 'war on poverty' became the war on the poor."
... the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Coalition on Revival, founded in 1981 to get in on spreading reconstructionism ...
quote:The formation of the Coalition on Revival (COR) has been a key force in the politics of religion. At the same time that COR provided a catalyst (and a cover) for the discussion, dissemination, and acceptance of Reconstructionist doctrine, these ideas have percolated up through a wide swath of American Protestantism. COR "is a network of evangelical leaders from every major denominational and theological perspective who share a vision for and a commitment to worldwide revival, renewal, and reformation in Church and society." ...
Article 20 (SPM): "We deny that God and His truth should ever be separated from the State; this should put to rest the Reconstructionists' claim that the Church will not control the government in a theonomic society."
Article 22 (SPM): "Christians must be involved in all processes and offices of civil government in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ ... such involvement is part of the Church's prophetic role in society."
Article 21a (LWE): "The ultimate goal of missions ... must be the totality of the gospel and the necessity of Christ's lordship in all of its fullness for all the life of individuals, families, churches, states, and other aspects of society."
Totality of the gospel. Necessity of christ's lordship. and on, and on, and on. I am really only stopping the post here because I think it's getting retardedly long, but there's just so much to delve into.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not going to have time to read all of it now, but I really do appreciate it (Also nice job sourcing Reason, that's a surefire way to get me to read it, but I suspect you already knew that!)
Hate to impose on you, but mostly I'm seeing here a description of the wackjob ideas of the reconstructionists. Re: the linking of mainstream republicans like Perry and Bachmann to these groups... is that a they-went-to-churches-with-reconstructionist-ties sort of a deal, or do we have them quoted as saying they support this crap?
I don't need a Perry quote saying "The execution of the occasional gay would be good for America," but I'd love, say, "I've read everything Rushdoony's every written, and that man was a genius with a brilliant plan for this country!" Do those exist?
The part I was characterizing as conspiracy theory, by the way, was largely the "lingering influence" angle. Like, if Perry used some phrase made popular by Reconstructionists, or Bachmann attended a church with a Reconstructionist, or something like that, I would say that claiming they are secretly Reconstructionists is a conspiracy theory.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, you win, Lyr. I honestly forget Hoover was a Republican most days.
Aaah, those are good days.
But seriously, while Hoover was certainly a lot more leftist than Coolidge, I'm not entirely sure what you're basing your statement of him being the equivalent to a 2012 Democrat is. Elaborate?
If you want a quick and dirty list of policy initiatives:
Pro-labor legislation, dramatically raised taxes on the wealthy ten times as much as Obama has proposed in his wildest dreams, big public works projects, proposed the creation of the Department of Education, proposed programs for urban renewal, removed troops from foreign soil and tried to tamp down American militarism, government relief programs for failing banks and to prop up state and local governments, raised corporate income tax.
You look at all that and tell me which party he'd be in today.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Hate to impose on you, but mostly I'm seeing here a description of the wackjob ideas of the reconstructionists. Re: the linking of mainstream republicans like Perry and Bachmann to these groups... is that a they-went-to-churches-with-reconstructionist-ties sort of a deal, or do we have them quoted as saying they support this crap?
The thing is is that it's like it is with GWB: You couldn't say he's a reconstructuralist, but he acts as an example of the extent to which the movement branched out and ingrained themselves in brain trusts and think tanks and check-writers and became influential partners and became a big part of policy representation, and they still have colleges and movements and ministries everywhere which teach tens of thousands of americans, straightforwardly, upfront, that this is to be a christian nation governed by biblical law. Of course, a lot of the hard and fast rules of reconstructuralism tend to dilute out to the greater public, similar to how probably less than 1% of american catholics are really following catholicism's rules, but you still get the major salient points going through and becoming common viewpoints in evangelicism. See: "This is a chistian nation founded on biblical law, the founding fathers were actually, um, all .. ministers! Yeah! Baptists, in fact! Whatever, this is all blatant historical revisionism anyway, let's just go nuts!"
Perry and Bachmann can easily be identified as dominionists based on a point-by-point reading of their governing ideals, and still play up a lot of their lore (including the whole christian nation bit) but at the SAME TIME they act as examples of how quickly the ideals of the movement have been transitioning to political poison; Bachmann, in particular, dropped mention of dominionist figures in her political friends list like they were white-hot, such as Dr. George Grant of New College Franklin (a reconstructuralist christian university). I would bet that even though she would have described herself precisely that way in the past (she even went to Oral Roberts University, pledge included, so it's a very easy case to make), she would deny being part of the movement today. It has had to 'go underground' and have much more tactical fronts that don't endanger its adherents in office (see also, creationism turning into intelligent design). It is the primary indication of how it's pretty much evaporating at present into a much more diluted form.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
So instead of a ton of links and quotes of crazy reconstructionist beliefs, do you have a ton of links and quotes to support the idea that reconstructionists "branched out and ingrained themselves in brain trusts and think tanks and check-writers and became influential partners and became a big part of policy representation, and they still have colleges and movements and ministries everywhere which teach tens of thousands of americans, straightforwardly, upfront, that this is to be a christian nation governed by biblical law."
Cause that's sort of what I'm questioning.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, but, that involves a read, not a skim. I can try to bold individually relevant parts, but, I'd say, read all this junk anyway.
Aside from what is contained in the links already there:
quote:Reconstructionists also exert significant clout through front organizations and coalitions with other religious fundamentalists; Baptists, Anglicans, and others have deep theological differences with the movement, but they have made common cause with its leaders in groups such as the National Coalition for Revival. Reconstruction has slowly absorbed, congregation by congregation, the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (not to be confused with the progressive Presbyterian Church [USA]) and has heavily influenced others, notably the Southern Baptists.
George W. Bush has called Reconstruction-influenced theoretician Marvin Olasky “compassionate conservatism’s leading thinker,” and Olasky served as one of the president’s key advisers on the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Bush also invited Reconstructionist Jack Hayford, a key figure in the Promise Keepers men’s group, to give the benediction at his first inaugural. Deposed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, though his office won’t comment on his religious views, governs with what he calls a “biblical worldview”—one of Reconstruction’s signature phrases. And, for conspiracy buffs, two heavy contributors to the Chalcedon Foundation—Reconstruction’s main think tank—are Howard Ahmanson and Nelson Bunker Hunt, both of whose families played key roles in financing electronic voting machine manufacturer Election Systems & Software. Ahmanson is also a major sponsor of ultraconservative politicians, including California state legislator and 2003 gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock.
quote:Reconstruction’s major impact has been through helping to found and guide cross-denominational and secular political organ-izations. The Council for National Policy—a group that holds meetings for right-wing leaders, once dubbed “the most powerful conservative group you’ve never heard of”—was founded in 1981 as a project of top John Birch Society figures (see “The Fountainhead”). Its members included Rushdoony, Gary North, Tim LaHaye, former Reagan aide Gary Bauer, and activist Paul Weyrich, who famously aimed to “overturn the present power structure of this country.”
Another group, the Coalition on Revival, brings together influential evangelicals to produce joint statements and theological white papers. North and DeMar are among the coalition’s most influential members; one of its founding documents is signed by 116 Christian right activists, including Rushdoony, mega-evangelist D. James Kennedy, and Roy Jones, a top staffer at the Republican Senatorial Committee.
quote:The Council for National Policy (CNP), is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. It has been described by The New York Times as a "little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country," who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.[1] Nation magazine has called it a secretive organization that "networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy."[2] It was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians seeking to strengthen the political right in the United States.[3]
quote:The enemies of morality will not stop and will not back off. The Left cannot and will not change. . . .If the Democrats in the Senate try again to usurp the President's constitutional authority by filibustering. . . , there will be a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea. —James Dobson
While Rushdoony and Schaeffer are virtually unknown outside Christian right-wing circles, their teachings, co-opted by those with political agendas, have taken on lives of their own.
Fueled by the political writings of Rushdoony and the social activism of Schaeffer, and energized by the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye launched the Moral Majority in 1979. That same year, Beverly LaHaye started Concerned Women for America as a biblical counterpoint to the National Organization for Women. Since then the Christian Right has seldom looked back, even as it has taken on wildly apocalyptic overtones.
By the early 1980s the Christian Right had formed a voting bloc that burgeoned into a powerful movement. It effectively ushered Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush into the presidency. As Katherine Yurica describes in "The Despoiling of America," "The years 1982-1986 marked the period. . . that would turn millions of Christians into an army of political operatives. It was the period when the militant church raised itself from centuries of sleep and once again eyed power."4
As the media empires of evangelical leaders and televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, and Paul Crouch grew to encompass print, radio, and television, so too did the reach and power of the Religious Right. It now boasts of representing some 30 million Christian voters, as its leaders are fond of reminding elected officials. For example, dominionist-influenced leaders often have a direct line into the White House. It has been reported that James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, held weekly telephone conversations with Bush adviser Karl Rove during the campaign. As Falwell remarked to Vanity Fair about his participation in a group made up of right-wing political and religious leaders, the Council for National Policy, which enjoys regular access to the Oval Office, "Everyone takes our calls."5
quote:Members of the CNP have included: General John Singlaub, shipping magnate J. Peter Grace, Edwin J. Feulner Jr of the Heritage Foundation, Rev. Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Jerry Falwell, Senator Trent Lott, Southern Baptist Convention activists and retired Texas Court of Appeals Judge Paul Pressler, and the Rev. Paige Patterson ,[5] Senator Don Nickles, former United States Attorneys General Ed Meese and John Ashcroft, gun-rights activist Larry Pratt, Col. Oliver North, and philanthropist Else Prince, mother of Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater private security firm.[6][7] Membership is by invitation only. The membership list, previously made public, is now "strictly confidential." Guests may attend "only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee." Members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks.[1] New York Times political writer David D. Kirkpatrick suggested that the secrecy since its founding was intended to insulate the Council from the "liberal bias of the news media".[3] CNP's meetings are closed to the general public, reportedly to allow for a free-flowing exchange of ideas. The group meets three times per year.[8] This policy is said to be similar to the long-held policy of the Council on Foreign Relations, to which the CNP has at times been compared. CNP's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status was revoked by the IRS in 1992 on grounds that it was not an organization run for the public benefit. The group successfully challenged this ruling in federal court. A quarterly journal aimed at educating the public, promised in the wake of this incident, has not substantially materialized. The group has launched a website that contains selected speeches from past gatherings. While those involved are almost entirely from the United States, their organizations and influence cover the globe, both religiously and politically. Members include corporate executives,[9] legislators[9] former high ranking government officers,[9] leaders of 'think tanks'[9] dedicated to molding society and those whom many view as "Christian leadership".[9]
quote:CNP was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series of books. Other early participants included Cleon Skousen, a prominent theologian and law enforcement expert; Paul Weyrich; Phyllis Schlafly; Robert Grant; Howard Phillips, a former Republican affiliated with the Constitution Party; Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail specialist; and Morton Blackwell, a Louisiana and Virginia activist who is considered a specialist on the rules of the Republican Party.
quote:The Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University considers the Council for National Policy a leading force in the Dominionist movement. TheocracyWatch, a CRESP project, describes it as "an umbrella organization of right-wing leaders who gather regularly to plot strategy, share ideas and fund causes and candidates to advance the theocratic agenda."
quote:The Great Right Hope by Frederick Clarkson documents how Dr. Steven Hotze out-shouted the GOP Chair to take over the leadership of the Harris County (home to Houston) political apparatus:
The wildest dreams of the Far Right in America may actually be within their reach - control of the Republican Party.
In 1990, Dr. Bruce Prescott received a video from Dr. Hotze:
In February 1990 I received an unsolicited video in the mail. The video came from a Dr. Stephen Hotze and was entitled "Restoring America: How You Can Impact Civil Government." Filmed at a church in my neighborhood, I recognized the actors as the pastor and congregants of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church (the Jerry Falwell kind). The video was a guide on how to 1) take over a Republican Party precinct meeting, 2) elect "Christian" delegates to the GOP District meeting, and 3) put planks supporting the theocratic agenda of Christian Reconstructionism into the party platform.
San Jose Mercury News, 1992, Two articles -- one before the election, one after:
A group dedicated to making the Bible the law of the land has quietly positioned itself to take over the Republican Party's power structure in Santa Clara County.
The 17 Christian right candidates for the Republican Central Committee appear on a mailer put out by a Tehama County group called Citizens for Liberty. The flier says the candidates advocate "traditional family values, more jobs, lower taxes, welfare reform and choice in education.".. More liberal Republicans say the Central Committee campaign is part of a widespread "stealth" effort to take over America by starting with little-noticed local races. They cite elections in San Diego County two years ago, when 60 of 90 Christian right candidates for low-level offices won election, largely by campaigning through conservative churches.
"Clearly the strategy is to control the central committees and then use the central committees to give credibility to their candidates," said Luis Buhler...
A fundraising letter ... includes "a call for the death penalty for abortion, adultery and unrepentant homosexuality."
Many of these links come from The Activists Handbook, by Frederick Clarkson and Skipp Porteous of the (no longer active) Institute for First Amendment Studies. Articles from the Handbook have been scanned for this site because they are not otherwise available on the web. These articles document the activities of the Christian Coalition from 1991-1993 as they began to take "working control" of the Republican Party.
To read about the covert tactics of the Christian Reconstruction movement, click here.
quote:Much has been made of the "stealth tactics" practiced by the Christian Right. Whereas the Moral Majority, led by Jerry Falwell, was overt about its Christian agenda, many contemporary Christian Rightists have lowered their religious profile or gone under cover. In fact, these tactics have been refined for years by the Reconstructionist movement, as Robert Thoburn's education strategy suggests. Gary North proposed stealth tactics more than a decade ago in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (1981), urging "infiltration" of government to help "smooth the transition to Christian political leadership. . . .Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure, and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order." Similar stealth tactics have epitomized the resurgence of the Christian Right, as groups like Citizens for Excellence in Education and the Christian Coalition have quietly backed candidates who generally avoided running as overtly "Christian" candidates. The Christian Coalition actually proposed something similar to Gary North's notion of "infiltration" when its 1992 "County Action Plan" for Pennsylvania advised that "You should never mention the name Christian Coalition in Republican circles." The goal, apparently, is to facilitate becoming "directly involved in the local Republican Central Committee so that you are an insider. This way," continues the manual, "you can get a copy of the local committee rules and a feel for who is in the current Republican Committee." The next step is to recruit conservative Christians to occupy vacant party posts or to run against moderates who "put the Republican Party ahead of principle."
Antonio Rivera, a New York Christian Coalition political advisor, suggested similar ideas at a 1992 Christian Coalition meeting. While urging that Coalition members seek to place themselves in influential positions, he advised that "You keep your personal views to yourself until the Christian community is ready to rise up, and then wow! They're gonna be devastated!" Some leaders have now publicly renounced "stealth" tactics.
Central to the Christian Right's strategy is to exploit the national pattern of low voter participation by turning out their constituents in a strategically disciplined fashion and in greater proportion than the rest of the population. An important vehicle for achieving this goal is the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism or its stripped-down root, dominionism, which at once deepens the political motivation of their constituency and widens that constituency by systematically mobilizing a network of churches, many of which were politically uninvolved until the early 1990s.
Much has been written about the success of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition in accomplishing these goals. But it could be argued that the Christian Coalition would not have been possible without Reconstructionism, and that Operation Rescue would not have been possible without the Reconstructionist-influenced philosoper Francis Schaeffer. In the 1970s, Pat Robertson was an apolitical charismatic televangelist, and Randall Terry a would-be rock n' roll star.
quote:Christian Reconstructionism's ultimate moment may or may not arrive; however it has had tremendous influence as a catalyst for an historic shift in American religion and politics. Christian colleges and bookstores are full of Reconstructionist material. The proliferation of this material and influence is likely to continue. Christian Reconstructionism is largely an underground, underestimated movement of ideas, the rippling surface of which is the political movement known as the Christian Right.
quote:The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.
Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.
For much of Reconstructionism's short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders' expectations.
and onnnnnnnnn
quote:In 1973, R. J. Rushdoony compared the structure of the JBS to the "early church." He wrote in Institutes: "The key to the John Birch Society's effectiveness has been a plan of operation which has a strong resemblance to the early church; have meetings, local `lay' leaders, area supervisors or `bishops.'"
The JBS connection does not stop there. Most leading Reconstructionists have either been JBS members or have close ties to the organization. Reconstructionist literature can be found in JBS-affiliated American Opinion bookstores.
and on I guess but I shouldn't have to introduce the John Birch society and its continued legacy in the current american conservative movement, including the tea party, which has been brewed quite nicely in the cauldron described.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not done reading all the stuff you posted yet, but, man, are you seriously taking the position that none of these sources are conspiracy theorizing?
Just riffing off of the quotes I've read so far...
Neither the Promise Keepers nor the John Birch Society can be described as endorsing some sort of psychotic totalitarian Christian state unless you start making up lots of sinister secret motives.
The JBS is quite straightforwardly an extreme constitutionalist small government group, which is pretty obviously antithetical to a totalitarian state of any kind. It seems like you are attributing all kinds of secret evil motives to them (and by association the tea party, but we probably don't need to go down that road again right now).
The Promise Keepers are vaguely creepy in the sense that take their religion sincerely and that creeps me out. But to attribute totalitarian motives to them, again, is to "decode" their message and "examine" their connections.
To say nothing of the Council for National Policy! Oh man, the conspiracies! They meet behind closed doors! The most powerful conservative group you never heard of! Dun dun DUN!!
Yeah, I'll keep reading, but this stuff is pretty histrionic. Not sold yet.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are inputting your own histrionic narrative, like this:
quote:Oh man, the conspiracies! They meet behind closed doors! The most powerful conservative group you never heard of! Dun dun DUN!!
.. and then saying you're not sold on that narrative.
That's fine, because it's your own. Go ahead and trash it as much as you want!
Who's talking about CNP 'conspiracies' because of their secretiveness? It's not like it's a 'conspiracy theory' that it was literally even founded by Tim LaHaye, any less than it is a 'conspiracy theory' that Rushdoony was literally actually part of the John Birch Society, as was a whole host of strict reconstructuralists right out of his camp, or that the John Birch Society still subscribes to dominionist thought today (its originalist interpretation of the constitution is overtly religious)
The point is to show that the CNP, like a whole host of other important elements of american conservatism, show the extent to which reconstructuralist thinkers became prominent influences on the christian right, and spread dominionism to a profound level of prominence in conservatism.
quote: It seems like you are attributing all kinds of secret evil motives to them
There is a serious difference between 'attributing all kinds of secret evil motives' and showing JBS's straightforward ties to Reconstructionists as part of a wider story of how Reconstructionism became influential for a long, long time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
You see, guantanamo was bad, but now our guy is keeping it open, so, see, it's not so bad anymore. it's different now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. Guantanamo is still bad. As I inform the Democratic Party every time (at least a couple of times a week) they call to ask me for time or money. Plus the letters.
But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it? Sometimes you don't get everything you want.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just a reiteration of that oh-so-constant theme, where people get so invested in the party mentality that makes something okay because it's OUR guy doing it. To the extent that a majority of democrats have now gone and gotten cozy with guantanamo.
Or I guess indefinite detention expansions. Or, you know, whatever. But if Obama actually put the kibosh to these things, they would not have excused it but said 'it was an obviously bad thing good thing Obama stopped it'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Satire got the best of unsuspecting or factually impaired Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana this past Friday. An ardent opponent of abortion, Fleming posted on his Facebook account a link to a May 11, 2011 story by The Onion titled "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex."
Fleming's Facebook status, which has since been deleted, included the link with the note, "More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale."
It's this kind of thing that really bolsters my opinion that no, both parties are not equally ridiculous.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You are inputting your own histrionic narrative, like this:
quote:Oh man, the conspiracies! They meet behind closed doors! The most powerful conservative group you never heard of! Dun dun DUN!!
.. and then saying you're not sold on that narrative.
That's fine, because it's your own. Go ahead and trash it as much as you want!
Who's talking about CNP 'conspiracies' because of their secretiveness? It's not like it's a 'conspiracy theory' that it was literally even founded by Tim LaHaye, any less than it is a 'conspiracy theory' that Rushdoony was literally actually part of the John Birch Society, as was a whole host of strict reconstructuralists right out of his camp, or that the John Birch Society still subscribes to dominionist thought today (its originalist interpretation of the constitution is overtly religious)
The point is to show that the CNP, like a whole host of other important elements of american conservatism, show the extent to which reconstructuralist thinkers became prominent influences on the christian right, and spread dominionism to a profound level of prominence in conservatism.
quote: It seems like you are attributing all kinds of secret evil motives to them
There is a serious difference between 'attributing all kinds of secret evil motives' and showing JBS's straightforward ties to Reconstructionists as part of a wider story of how Reconstructionism became influential for a long, long time.
No, showing that people with reconstructionist ties are involved in (or even founded, gasp) an organization does not actually prove that organization has in any way advanced a reconstructionist agenda.
How has the JBS, for example, advanced a dominionist attitude?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's just a reiteration of that oh-so-constant theme, where people get so invested in the party mentality that makes something okay because it's OUR guy doing it. To the extent that a majority of democrats have now gone and gotten cozy with guantanamo.
Or I guess indefinite detention expansions. Or, you know, whatever. But if Obama actually put the kibosh to these things, they would not have excused it but said 'it was an obviously bad thing good thing Obama stopped it'
I'm very quiet about Obama these days. Primarily over these issues. I've been deeply disappointed. I wouldn't be stupid enough to think a republican would have done better. That's a laugh- but OBama should have.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. Guantanamo is still bad. As I inform the Democratic Party every time (at least a couple of times a week) they call to ask me for time or money. Plus the letters.
But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it? Sometimes you don't get everything you want.
I was convinced that he would. Foolish me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. Guantanamo is still bad. As I inform the Democratic Party every time (at least a couple of times a week) they call to ask me for time or money. Plus the letters.
But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it? Sometimes you don't get everything you want.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
