The religious right or left?

[Timber Loftis]

As Chewie pointed out, the religious right refers to the Southern Baptist Coalition and other groups who use religion to support right-wing conservative "command and control" ideology in politics. Believing homosexuality is wrong is fine, for instance, but passing laws to force that belief on everyone is a whole other issue. Religion is religion. The religious right have conservative beliefs and try to enforce them on us all.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 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.

A Christian is seeking to change society. Seeking to live "in the world but not of the world". An evangelistic Christian is working to achieve changes in society by changing the lives of people. In a certain sense, Christianity is completely at odds with certain capitalist values. Black Christian activists are certainly not advocating a return to any past existence. Black Christian activists would not seek to keep the status quo - thus are not conservative. Christianity is a radical faith that challenges one to go against human nature, materialist society and the values of "the world".

However, because it is a faith about Grace, not works, you can fall far short of the ideal, and be no more or less Christian than one who follows in the original apostles footsteps.


Here are some sites I dug up on political definitions:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/anti-hate/definitions.html

Christian Right - Often used (incorrectly) interchangeably with New Right. Denotes that sector of the right-wing political movement which came to prominence during the mid-70s and 1980s, with its ideological roots and constituency in fundamentalist and evangelical Christian movements. It is primarily conservative or ultra-conservative and authoritarian, rather than revolutionary, in outlook. May also be used to denote those sectors which are Reconstructionist or "theonomist." The Christian Right is a subset of the New Right. Extremist - This is an indeterminate term with a pejorative connotation designed to separate the "mainstream" from the "margins." It is used in some quarters to describe the Left as well as the Right. Do not use interchangeably with white supremacist or far right. In those circumstances when a term to connote the political margins is appropriate, it may be used advisedly. Far Right - Used as an umbrella term which describes extremist or ultra-conservative elements future to the right than the New Right. These elements are dominated by various conspiracy theories mixed with anti-communism and anti-elite or right-wing populist agendas. Includes the white supremacist movement as well. The John Birch Society is a far right political organization more radical than the Moral Majority but less dangerous than the Liberty Lobby.

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

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/e.htm

Left-wing / Right-wing Left/Right is the basic polarity of political temperament, the axis of political antagonism which manifests itself across all shades of politics, all epochs and social movements. Broadly speaking, the left-wing expresses that social force which is the most marginalised by, and has the least commitment to, the status quo and power relations of the existing society, and it responds to this position by being reformist or revolutionary. Meanwhile, the right-wing is by and large committed to reinforcement of, or at least adaptation to, the status quo and its power relations by being conservative or reactionary. Historical Development: The left-right identification in politics dates from the seating arrangements in the French Chamber of Deputies after the French Revolution of 1789. It is believed that the practice of the conservatives sitting to the right of the Speaker and the radicals to the left had its origins in the old custom by which a host would place their honoured guests to the right at formal gatherings. It is usually clear in any given political context which is the left and which is the right-wing position on a given question, but political deception aside, sometimes even an objective view of what is right and left is obscure. For example, is it left or right for hospital workers to take pay cuts to provide lower costs of medicine? What about gun-control and citizen participation in maintaining law and order? Furthermore, over time the concrete, day to day meaning of left and right changes. For example, in the earliest days of capitalism only the right-wing of the workers' movement would look to the state for social support, while the left-wing looked to independent workers' organisation for social support; during much of the twentieth century however, the idea of the state taking responsibility for everything from workers' health and education through to economic management was a left-wing position. At the onset of the 21st century, the political forms of the left-right axis are continuing to change. At first sight it would seem that certain values, such as community or equality, are more valued by the left than the right. However, this is hard to sustain. While the left may support communitarianism against individualism, it may also counterpose class struggle to community, and individual autonomy to moral conformity - it depends on the context. Everybody is for freedom and equality, but these values are subject to different definitions - free trade, free enterprise and free speech may all be right-wing policies, for example, because they are freedoms which consolidate the existing power relations. The left traditionally opposes censorship, but favours government regulation of foodstuffs. The Left generally supports emancipation, but this by no means supporting "freedom" in every instance (e.g. the "freedom" to exploit others). Extremism of either the left or the right, manifesting itself in either revolutionary or reactionary forms, is formed from a hard core of the most excluded, the most down-trodden and marginalised layers of society. You can't have a revolutionary or reactionary movement without people who are extremely oppressed becoming active in overthrowing that repression in either a progressive (left) or retroactive (right) way.

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


If you take the above defintion (from a Marxist site) the Communist Party at the end of the USSR would have been right wing, while the Capitalist Democrats, would have been left wing.

However, regardless, the ruling communist part were indisputably the CONSERVATIVES, while the democrats were the radicals.


Here is more. Seeing as I quoted from a Marxist site, here is one from another viewpoint:


-------------------------------------------------
http://www.alankeyes.com/columns/stone/021228

The popular model in politics is the left / right model that places liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. The more radical liberals are labeled extreme left, far left, ultra left, etc., and the more radical conservatives are labeled extreme right, far right, ultra right, etc. This model has at least two problems. The main problem is that it originated in France just after the first socialistic revolution in modern times--the French Revolution--which was a counterfeit of America's legitimate war for independence. The French model was created in 1789, when radicals in the French Legislature were seated to the left of the speaker, and traditional or conservative nobles were seated to the right. In time, the notion that liberals constituted the left and conservatives constituted the right became prevalent throughout Europe. Ultimately, the model became dominant in American politics, as well. Unfortunately, because the model is purely European, it reflects Europe's general acceptance of socialism of one kind or another. Hence, both European liberals and conservatives tend to accept many of the same socialistic assumptions and goals, differing primarily in approach, application, and aggressiveness. This leads to the second problem with the French political model. The terms used to define the opposite ends of the spectrum are themselves inadequate. By definition, liberal means "suitable for a freeman" (original meaning); "tolerant of views differing from one's own"; "of democratic or republican forms of government"; "favoring reform or progress, specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual"; "progressive." Conservative, on the other hand, means "tending to preserve established traditions and to resist or oppose any changes in these." (Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition) The dictionary then defines left-wing as "the more radical or liberal section of a political party, group, etc.," and right-wing as "the more conservative or reactionary section of a political party, group, etc." (emphasis added). Here's the clincher. A "reactionary" is defined as one who espouses "a movement back to a former or less advanced condition" (emphasis added). Need I say any more? According to the dictionary, liberals are admirable people who favor principles of freedom, democracy, and republicanism, and conservatives are intolerant "reactionaries" who are "less advanced" than their liberal counterparts and who oppose human progress. Bear in mind that my dictionary was published in 1970, well before political correctness made these kinds of definitions even more pronounced than they are today. Is that the kind of labeling that we are going to take sitting down? It has always been obvious that the European left-wing / right-wing paradigm is defined by its promoters as a continuum in which GOOD is on the left and BAD is on the right--with the result that all thinking, compassionate persons would want to align themselves with the left, or at least with the center, which of course over time has become increasingly liberal. Conservatives are left increasingly out in the cold, while civilization marches progressively forward. (That's a recapitulation, by the way, of Hegel and Marx.) Obviously, we need a better political paradigm than the European model, and we also need better terms with which to define what it means to be a constitutional conservative.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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..

Which was why I posted quotes from the proclaimed source of Christian belief in my first post and did not just post my speculations.

You have to know the source to then know how accurate someones words are when measured against what they profess to believe.

It's indisputable when you read the Bible. I could have posted mountains more. Did Jesus charge people when he healed them? No. He gave what he had freely to all who needed it.
Did Jesus charge for the wine he made at the wedding? Or for all the food he created when he fed five thousand people? No. He provided for all who were present for free.

Very clear. So to were the examples of early Christian society I posted. And the strong urgings from a number of biblical writers to care for the needy, for the have nots.

The other thing you seem to miss is the concept that Christians seek greater understanding of the Bible, and gather together to find the truth of it. You've mentioned numerous times "I can't speak for Christians because I only have my interpretation" etc.

We have a solid frame of reference. The Bible. Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability. There is variety in that we have individual relationships with God, but there is commonality in the one work.

I have taught in Churches. Teaching implies directional movement in believers ideas, and that there is a discernable truth within the bible.

You may believe truth cannot be known, we believe truth is revealed in the Bible. The more one walks with understanding of the Bible, the more that truth becomes apparent. Put simply, it works. [/QUOTE]Thanks for illustrating my point so clearly, several points I have made recently actually.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

When I'm talking right I'm talking conservatives, not nationalists/racists. I'm talking about capitalistic, conservative only slightly national "burgeouise" guys and there's plenty of them in Europe's conservative parties. However I will agree that neither of these parties is as "right-winged" (which IS a fuzzy term) as the American Republicans for example.

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.

Though I never mentioned anti-semitism in my posts it IS a main issue. You will find a lot of conservative Catholics here in Europe (especially here in Austria) who still believe that "the Jews murdered Christ". I know this is nonsense and you know this is nonsense, but they don't (want to). Anti-Semitism still ranks high among Catholic fraternities in Austria for example, that's where I first saw the disgusting habit of placing your beermug on the table after clinking and before drinking with the words "Ka Jud am Tisch" (= no Jew on this table).

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.

European rightism has only been centered around fascism/nazism during WWII. Before and afterwards it consisted of nationalists and conservative Christians (which is the discussable European equivalent to the discussed "Religious Right"). Hitler and Mussolini certainly were anti-Catholic, but they also were Socialists in their programs, so they of course apprehended the already atheist working class (Marxism remember?) while appeasing and (at first) going easy on the Catholic upper class. Hitler even coaxed an Austrian Kardinal into writing a pastoral letter approving of the "Anschluss". Nazism/Fascism is nearly dead in Europe nowadays and the right again consists of Conservatives and Nationalists.

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.

I was talking about Marxism, an ideology which arose in 19th century Germany. You are talking about Communism, a form of government based on that ideology which was established in Russia 1917. To compare Marxism and Communism is about as fair as comparing Catholicism with the profane bishops of medieval Europe. Opposing religion was founded in early Marxism already and only taken over by the Communists.

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?

That was the whole point! I am also proLife on noth issues, but like I said TRUE Christians seldomly get heard because MODEST people are'nt on TV every day.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability.

The consistency of my "neo-pagan amalgams" has roots older than the bible and contains guidance for enlightenment and spiritual illumination with certain clarity that one could only hope the bible had.

[ 10-26-2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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..

Which was why I posted quotes from the proclaimed source of Christian belief in my first post and did not just post my speculations.

You have to know the source to then know how accurate someones words are when measured against what they profess to believe.

It's indisputable when you read the Bible. I could have posted mountains more. Did Jesus charge people when he healed them? No. He gave what he had freely to all who needed it.
Did Jesus charge for the wine he made at the wedding? Or for all the food he created when he fed five thousand people? No. He provided for all who were present for free.

Very clear. So to were the examples of early Christian society I posted. And the strong urgings from a number of biblical writers to care for the needy, for the have nots.

The other thing you seem to miss is the concept that Christians seek greater understanding of the Bible, and gather together to find the truth of it. You've mentioned numerous times "I can't speak for Christians because I only have my interpretation" etc.

We have a solid frame of reference. The Bible. Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability. There is variety in that we have individual relationships with God, but there is commonality in the one work.

I have taught in Churches. Teaching implies directional movement in believers ideas, and that there is a discernable truth within the bible.

You may believe truth cannot be known, we believe truth is revealed in the Bible. The more one walks with understanding of the Bible, the more that truth becomes apparent. Put simply, it works.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability.

The consistency of my "neo-pagan amalgams" has roots older than the bible and contains guidance for enlightenment and spiritual illumination with certain clarity that one could only hope the bible had. [/QUOTE]1.Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide me with the name of a tome like the Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, Qu'ran, Torah, New Testament, or other work that is used as a solid consistent point of reference for that faith to ascertain whether your stated beliefs, or your intended beliefs match up with your actions and actual beliefs.

2.My point was not to be insulting, but to point out, that your belief in individualised incorporation of theologies to make your own religion up, is not shared by other faiths. Namely the monotheistic faiths, which have solid frames of reference.

3."Roots older than the bible"? Interesting. How are we proving that again? Judaism originated in Sumer around 4000BC if Jewish writers are to be believed. Moses wrote the first five books of the bible 3,500 years ago. We have the records that co-relate with other cultures history.

Those first five books are so clear that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all revere them. That's a lot of people and a lot of clarity, so I'm not sure how or what measurements you're using in measuring "clarity that one could only hope the bible had"

Have you in fact read the Bible?

Additionally, the newer works in the bible, not only cross reference the older works, but they elaborate on the themes. That's close to 4,000 years of accumulated wisdom that remains relevent to this day. Oral wisdom isn't nearly as precise, nor constant.

In any case, why are we getting into this? You avoid being pinned down by the nature of your amalgamational beliefs, (and then extend that perspective into your assesment of others faith).

Your faith is only as old as you are. When you incorporate you make a new hybrid. My faith is my faith. Personal. Individual. It co-aligns with other christians simply because I've read, tested and accepted the Bible as truth. Age means nothing.

I did not intend insult in my language, I was simply seeking to use accurate descriptive language. Calling a spade a spade. If you're offended I'm sorry.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Yorick: The Religious right or left? I find it wierd that some here refer to an entity called "the religious right". What is this exactly? A persons politics are different from their faith. Certainly if they are right wingers. It can be argued that IF Jesus teachings fit into a political spectrum it would be to the left. If the Bible was a political manifesto, it would be left wing. Why then, lump peoples faith in with their politics?

I didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but I'll just give my opinion. I think that when people say "religious right" they mean the parti(es) on the right side of political spectrum which call themselves after a religion (usually Christian). In Sweden, for example, you have the Christian Democrats, and you have a party with the same name in Slovenia too. They're both right, and they both put their main characteristic as a religion. In my opinion, these parties' supporters support them because they're called "Christian" and not because of some other beliefs they put forward. Let's face it, these parties have as the main thing in their ideology Christian values, so if somebody wanted something else they would probably vote for some other, "bigger" and more successful party (since there are other parties which have similar agendas). So they get their voters on the basis of religion. And that is what I think of when somebody says "religious right". A (usually) right-wing party which puts religion and their religious morals above other things, or makes decisions on the basis of these morals. But that doesn't mean that all Christians are in this party, as there are lots of religious people participating in the parties on the left side, for example.

I know you're bothered by people saying the "right" part, but most of these parties (or at least the ones I know of) are right. Just look at the Christian-Democratic parties in the EU Parliament. You can't claim they're not right. The best you can say is that they're centre-right. But that isn't surprising - the Church itself is a conservative institution, so the parties fit that.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Spelca: the Church itself is a conservative institution

Is it? Not in communist eastern Europe. Not in China. Not in Singapore. Not in Nazi Germany. The underground churches were, and are radical.

A thriving growing alive church is countercultural. Ennabling a revolution of peoples souls, values and community. Dead, dying decaying and shrinking churches are conservative.

The church I am in in New York, is countercultural from the isolationist, careerist, addicted, stressed out culture of professional Manhattan.

It is seeking to radically reform the society, replacing isolationism and disconnectedness with connection and community, accountability and relationship. Replacing careerism and addictions like workaholism, with self esteem based on God, not on peoples acceptance, success or materials that are temporary and varied. Replacing the stress and habitual rudeness so prevalent in financial sectors, with inner peace, time spent breathing, non-retaliational or vindictive confrontation, and self worth not measured on the job description, partner, apartment size, address or other such factors.

Counter-cultural to the values so foundational to the maelstrom that is Manhattan.

[ 10-26-2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: I did not intend insult in my language, I was simply seeking to use accurate descriptive language. Calling a spade a spade. If you're offended I'm sorry.

What place is it of yours to comment in the first place? You are free to your own opinions, even if they maybe belittling towards others and incorrect. I want to know what gives you the right to espouse those opinions about me publicly? I have a hunch, but I will keep that to myself.

Did I comment on your *personal* practice of religion? No, I simply put forth the idea that you don't speak for ***everyone*** who calls themselves a Christian, if not for the sake of being exact, than to avoid misleading generalizations.

Save your sorriness, I'm not offended. Why am I not offended? I do have a hunch like, I mentioned previously, it is more of a hunch based on past experience rather than a purely intuitive hunch. Considering this hunch maybe perceived as derisive of you, I will withhold from publicly sharing it. Anyway, Why should I waste my energy being offended if my hunch is correct?

If my hunch is wrong, then your were just incorrect by basically making judgment about my spiritual life while lacking alot of information needed to accurately make one. Calling a diamond a spade while looking at the back of the card. Why should I find your being wrong about me, offensive?

Oh, and I have read the Bible, a few times to be exact. In my opinion, it is a very contrary & inconsistent book with regards to ethical lessons and the guidance it contains for spiritual illumination is veiled by it's sheer volume and heavy interpretive restrictions.
Just my opinion, of course. This is no secret if you recall the 'contradictions in religion' thread a while back. I explored some, but not all, of my thoughts on the bible with regards to these opinions.


You ask why are we even getting into to this, well I have no answer to that. I do know that having said my peace, and of course giving you ammo for a rebuttal, I am now hereby getting out of this.

Cheers [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-27-2003, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]