The religious right or left?

[LordKathen]

Great links Chewy! [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] I have seen those bumper stickers that say "Jesus was a liberal" and the like. I never really gave any of it much thought. Lets first seperate "faith, jesus, god, and spirituality", from the "religion". They don't call it the "spiritual right". They call it the "religious right". Big diferance in my opinion. I listen to alot of talk radio, which is almost exclusively "religous right", and I see it simply as a conservative republican, who bases his/her ideals on the bible, and traditional religous standards. They have no room for social diversity. I know a few devout christian liberals, who understand that as we continue to overpopulate this world, old standards are going to change. Once this is understood, we understand that we need to keep changing and diversifying in order to keep socialy evolving for the positive, and not oue demise. These are are my opinions on the matter. It has nothing to do with my athism, just seems like common sense to me. Keep your faith and relationship with your God strong, but understand that we are always moving ahead. Diversification is esential.

[Faceman]

I think the roots of this term lie in 19th century europe at the start of Marxism.
Marxism was the ideology of the poor working class and therefore positioned against the rich bourgeoisie which happened to be very "religious" people. Also the profanity of some religious leaders and the luxury of the catholic church (otherwise referred to as religious Art ) were a point to attack for the early Marxists. Another strong issue was the use of church and religion to oppress the lower classes (first addressed during the reformation in the 16th century).
This is why the "left" (speak: Marxist) ideology chose to turn away from chruch and (because in simplifying this is often attributed as equal) from religion.
This weird arrangement stuck with many left-wingers until today, but what also can be observed is that a lot of left-wingers who despise the Catholic church are very open minded to some other religions (be it reformed Christians or far-east religions) though also opposing some (namely Islam) for being very authoritarian.
The contradiction between "The Left" and the Catholic Church is also founded on the conservative stance of the CC on several issues (abortion, contraceptives, same-sex marriage, ...)
Especially in countries where the distinction between conservatives and progressives seems to be clear,religious (Christian) people if taking a political career are often driven into the conservative parties not so much because of policy but more because of peer-pressure inside the party.
So, while for a normal person it may be completely okay to have "left" political beliefs and be a Christian sticking to the Bible, for a politician this is not that easy.
The definition of the "religious right" often drives me crazy myself:
Although an agnostic I was raised with Christian beliefs and do still hold many of them dear. But even a believing Christian can sometimes find himself in trouble with whom to associate on e.g. the following issues:
+ Death Penalty
+ Abortion
While a true Christian IMHO should oppose both it is commonly displayed in public that there are only two sides on these issues:
+ "The Religious Right": ProLife (=Anti-Abortion) and pro Death Penalty
+ "The Atheist Left": ProChoice (=Pro-Abortion) and against DP
Strange isn't it



[ 10-25-2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The religious right is an umbrella term to describe a variety of organizations that seek to destroy the seperation of church and state in America, with the intent of creating a Christian theocracy, thereby allowing them to codify their particular set of moral interpretations as the law for the whole of the nation. See also: Religious right FAQ How to fight the religious right

The quote from the book of Acts I posted is an example of a Christian society in action. common ownership of property, and distribution of goods according to needs. As I pointed out, Christian extremists - Monks and Nuns (Christians living Christianity to the extreme) - also had common ownership, minimal posessions and communal living.

The quote I posted from the book of Deuteronomy, was during the Jewish theocracy, which in turn had a strong emphasis on welfare, music and the like.

Therefore, if the precedented Judeo theocracy was left wing, and the precedented theocratic Christian communities were left wing, and the existing extremist communities are left wing, it stands to reason, that any individuals working towards establishing a Christian theocracy - marrying Church and state totally - they would be ultra-leftist, working towards some utopian pseudo-socialist ideal.


-------------------------------------


Regarding the sites you posted Chewbacca:

Considering that the article mentions the Ku Klux Klan as part of a "Christian" religious right, and the obvious and clear truth that KKK is the furthest thing FROM Christianity, as any Black preacher, from Rev. Martin Luther King, to H.R.Bernard, (from the 8,000 member Black CCC church in Brooklyn) will tell you. Perhaps you Chewbacca, should be using the word "American right". I am not aware of a movement in any other nation that attempts to use Christianity as a justifier in the manner described in the site you posted.

Aside from which, it reeks of "conspiracy theory" paranoia. It labels untra rightists as "Christian fundamentalists" despite the contradiction, that a fundamentalist, is one who takes the FUNDAMENTALS of the faith quite literally and exclusively. A fundamentalist is the opposite to a liberal. All relative to the point of reference. A liberal Christian could be pro-war, capitalist, pro-death penalty, fine with revenge, cheats on their taxes, homosexual, or any other lifestyle choice that bends a legalistic approach to christianity.

A fundamentalist would possibly disagree with womens ordination, eschew posessions, advocate a welfare state, give most of their money to homeless shelters or child sponsorship groups, not own a TV, or stick to other interpretations of the faith on a FUNDAMENTAL level.

Sydney diocese of the Anglican church is commonly regarded as fundamentalist. The Anglican churches are fundamentalist Christian, by their own description, and all that of the other churches in Sydney (that reject fundamentalist interpretation) This is totally at odds with the definition of your atheist website. Yet again, an example of atheists misunderstanding Christianity.

Only last night I was in a service at Times Square Church, (not my preferred church, but even so..) that was a cultural melting pot. A larger version of my own churches cultural multigrain aspect.

Christianity unifies races, and is opposed to racism.

What you are describing is an American phenomena. Look at your own people and culture before casting a slur on a collection of a over a billion people from all over the entire world. Christianity is not the exclusive domain of America. If there is a right wing American movement, call it that. The American right. Don't bring a worldwide mutlifaceted faith into it.

[Faceman]

While your statement holds true on many points Yorick, sadly the pseudo-Christian right is not only an American (or US) phenomenon but can be observed in most western countries and among some politicians in non-first-world countries too.
Personally I think (as I emphasized at the end of my statement before) that it mainly is a phenomenon of the political cast and extended to some "fundamentalist" groups (with fundamentalist in the incorrect but commonly used meaning) which adhere to a policy contradicting their faith but believe that it is required by their faith (paradox again). These two make up the perception of a "Religious Right".
This is publicly emphasized because true Christianity also teaches modesty and so you won't see nuns or monks or missionaries doing incredibly "left" work on TV that often. You only meet these people if you come to them (may it be to seek guidance or to assist in their service to the community).

[Chewbacca]

I haven't cast a slur on anyone the world over. The "religious right" is a contemperarily accepted and commonly used term. If someone has a problem with it, they should take it up with 'gods' of popular culture and language, not me. I'm gonna keep on using the term when the shoe fits.

You would think religion is totally perfect and above critism the way some people take offense at any critism of it or use of the term that isn't totally pure and holy. I think if you go out looking to get offended, you will.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Faceman: While your statement holds true on many points Yorick, sadly the pseudo-Christian right is not only an American (or US) phenomenon but can be observed in most western countries and among some politicians in non-first-world countries too. Personally I think (as I emphasized at the end of my statement before) that it mainly is a phenomenon of the political cast and extended to some "fundamentalist" groups (with fundamentalist in the incorrect but commonly used meaning) which adhere to a policy contradicting their faith but believe that it is required by their faith (paradox again). These two make up the perception of a "Religious Right". This is publicly emphasized because true Christianity also teaches modesty and so you won't see nuns or monks or missionaries doing incredibly "left" work on TV that often. You only meet these people if you come to them (may it be to seek guidance or to assist in their service to the community).

Faceman, I respect you bro, but you've got to elaborate on that generalisation there. Which nations and what are the movements called? The KKK is an American problem. Sure racism is a global issue but Christianity connects races.

Hitler's religious ideals very very strange indeed. Nazism was founded on an anti-Christian theology deifying the Arian race in a bizzarre spiritual purpose. Considering Jesus was Jewish, hatred of the Jews is also not in alignment with Christianity for as the bible says :
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Considering the west is Europe, North America and Australia, and that European rightism has been centred around Fascism and Nazism, I find it hard to see how you justify that claim.

Australia certainly has nothing of the sort. I would argue further, that if there is an indication of any similarity to American rightist movements, it would be as a result of the Cultural Imperialism so prevalent, rather than inidenous Christian ethics.


Additionally I must point out two things. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Firstly, the main Church in Russia was the ORTHODOX Church, not the Roman Catholic church as you described in your post about Communist reactions against the Church. There is a substancial difference.

Secondly, you dumped pro-abortion and anti-death penalty on the atheist left, and anti-abortion pro-death penalty oin the so-called Christian right.

I am left wing, Christian and ANTI -abortion and ANTI - death penalty. Most christians I personally know are anti-death penalty.

This shows the ludicrous of the camps you're describing. The idealogy I'm espousing could be "Enhance life's value". Get rid of the cheapness abortion and the death penalty give to human life.

A persons politics should not be confused with their faith. Let's get rid of the term "Christian right" as it is completely incorrect. Let's be accurate when we speak of Christian extremism, and refer to Christians taking Christianity to the extreme, rather than ignoring it.

The words have meaning and value. Yes it means we must know more about peoples beliefs, but isn't knowledge a good thing? Why perpetuate ignorance, error and misconception?

[Chewbacca]

Conspiracy theory eh? The links I provided contained information on far more than just the KKK. The KKK is the old school of the religious right, past their prime, bankrupt, and virtually defunct. There are far more relevant groups that are a threat to religious, spiritual, and philisophical freedom than the tired old KKK.

The religious right(non-KKK) in their own words:

Family Research Council: [W]hile it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage. Our Founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference. As for our Hindu priest friend, the United States is a nation that has historically honored the one true God. Woe be to us on that day when we relegate him to being merely one among countless other deities in the pantheon of theologies. Culture Facts newsletter 9/21/2000 (commenting on a Hindu priest giving the opening prayer in the House of Representatives)

Jerry Falwell: Most American children do not know that this is a Christian nation... [O]ur Constitution won't work in Russia, won't work in Haiti, won't work in Iraq. It only works where the people believe in the Christ of the Bible. The United States of America. "Sunday Live with Jerry Falwell," July 23, 1995

D. James Kennedy: This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God's help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us. Character & Destiny: A Nation in Search of Its Soul (1994)

Joseph 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. Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, "Biblical Role of Civil Government" speech delivered on August 21, 1993 at the Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference.

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, just as they were in ancient Israel. Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (1989)

Randall Terry: I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. 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 on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. The News Sentinel, (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993.

Jerry Falwell: If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth. "Moral Majority Report," September, 1984.

John Ashcroft: Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus. Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University.

Pat Robertson “When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. ‘What do you mean?’ the media challenged me. ‘You’re not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?’ My simple answer is, ‘Yes, they are.’” The New World Order, (Word Publishing, Dallas, Texas) 1991, p. 218

D. James Kennedy “How much more forcefully can I say it? The time has come, and it is long overdue, when Christians and conservatives and all men and women who believe in the birthright of freedom must rise up and reclaim America for Jesus Christ.” Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)

[ 10-25-2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I haven't cast a slur on anyone the world over. The "religious right" is a contemperarily accepted and commonly used term. If someone has a problem with it, they should take it up with 'gods' of popular culture and language, not me. I'm gonna keep on using the term when the shoe fits. You would think religion is totally perfect and above critism the way some people take offense at any critism of it or use of the term that isn't totally pure and holy. I think if you go out looking to get offended, you will.

More disempowering words from an Ironworker. It's always "them" not me, you or us.

What do you think I am doing? I am challenging the "generally accepted term (in America)". Where else but here? Now? If I write a song about it and it gets played all over the world then I'll deal with that in interviews. Until then, conversing on forums like this does more than enough in speaking with the "gods" of popular culture. Word of mouth. Small conversations. That is how change occurs. If you are aware of an error, and you perpetuate it, you perpetuate ignorance.

You'd be suprised what difference respecting truth and accuracy does, and realising the strength in applying an empowered decision to BE THE CHANGE you want to see.

The term IS incorrect. By all means use it though if error floats your boat. I will be using the correct definitions henceforth, no matter what medium I am using.

Truth in description seems to be optional in America. Only the other day I saw a sign in a simple Pizza shop. "Joes Pizza". At the top of it was "WORLD FAMOUS". What a load of crap. Similarly, I'm seeing countless "Gourmet" Carrot cakes in delis and service stations, wrapped in cheap plastic looking old. Again, crap. All it does is cheapen the words. It's like how if I describe someone/something as "nice" to many Ameircans I know , it can be taken as almost an insult. 'Nice" somehow no longer means "nice" in America, but bland, boring, stale, half-arsed or lame.

Wierd.

Then there is "I haven't seen him forever". Well that would mean you've never seen him dear. How about all the "free" products you pay postage and handling for, or the free trips to Florida you win, but have to pay $200 per person for. Then there's the number of Americans who will praise some subjective thing here as being the best in the world... even if they've never been anywhere else.

I'm working on maintaining a no bullshit attitude to descriptive language. People that know me, know when I say something is "nice" it's nice. If I say it's superb, it is. It allows me room to emphasise with accuracy.

If I refer to a religious right, it will be to NeoNazism that maintains Hitlers spiritual theology and political ideologies religiously.

[Yorick]

Chewbacca, none of those statements you posted sit on the right of the political spectrum. If they are advocating a theocracy true to Christianity and non-pluralism, it would still sit to the far left, due to the ideology behind Judeo-Christian values.

[Chewbacca]

Yorick,

They call themselves conservatives and in America that is considered "right".

Besides what you consider Christian ideaology another Christian may not. If your on a kick to be exact and literal maybe you should qualify your statements about Christianity to indicate they are your own, and may not represent what another Christian believes or considers Judeo-Christian ideaology.


Good luck on your crusade to change popular culture and language.