The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

http://www.theocracywatch.org/


Theocracy Watch: Offering a thoughtful perspective on the ongoing efforts of the radical religious right to redirect the nation's future.

Here we are in the year 2004 and a small group of religious extremists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. This web site demonstrates how we got here and how the media, even the progressive media is missing what is the most important story in modern American politics.

Please don't misunderstand the title: the Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. This site is not about religion, nor about Christianity, nor about Republicans. This site is about how a small group of Republican strategists targeted a religious constituency to expand the base of their party, and how a small group of religious extremists targeted the Republican Party to bring the United States government under religious control.

It's so good, it is one of my links at Anti-CNP

I mean...if we subscribe to a religion, shouldn't we all be passionate about it? The term is used so negatively to deride people who are very sincere about religious beliefs.
Let's be clear. People who kill other people or lie or cheat aren't subscribing to ANY religion by these actions. People who do evil things aren't religious, but may be hiding behind religion as Hitler did. And as Islamic terrorists are.
Religious people, those who really subscribe to religion, are good people. Let's not disparage good people.

The bible (and other religious texts) condones killing all over the place. Why wouldn't they be following a religion by adhering to it. We are talking about the whacked out "Christian" fundamentalists who wish to impose their belief system on everyone in this country.

They are the equivalent of the Islamic terrorists. I have no respect whatsoever for the "religion" of the christian right. It is bigotry and hate cloaked in biblical words.

You are dragging out examples from the eye-for-an-eye times of the Old Testament and trying to say "..therefore Christians are for killing".

You are comparing Christian fundamentalists with terrorist murderers from Islamic countries? That is absurd and insulting. First of all, Islam does NOT promote murder. Neither do Christians.

Your criticism should really be directed at people who do bad things in the name of religion, but who aren't following the tenets of said religions.

Do some research on it.

These are the far right-wing factions of Christianity that WANT a return to Old Testament rule.

And it is condoned and praised every Sunday morning in lots of republican Christian churches. Perhaps you need to get out more.

Forgive me, but I doubt it.

I have no use or respect for Christians who rejoice in Iraqi deaths.

And that I, like you, should get out more? The logical assumption is that you had observed what you are talking about.

Vote Republican. The Republican Party has come to be the exact thing that Christ railed against at every opportunity.

People who are very sincere about evil religious beliefs are evil people. That can not be changed by using different terminology or by pretending that religious extremists are not religious extremists.

Nor are any of the mainstream religions.

If you are referring to people who 'start their own religion' that allows them to do whatever they please, then well, anyone can use that to judge anything they do. I don't those cults religions, nor do I believe it is fair to blame mainstream religion for their actions.

by the Reich wing fundamentalists is one of those religions.

For Centuries, mainstream Christianity regularly engaged in torturing people into confessing to heresy, burned people at the stake for being witches, and endorsed genocide against non-Christian "savages".

I have respect for Christianity, it has done alot of good as well, but let's not try to whitewash it's history or pretend that using it as an excuse to kill is just some sort of rare aberration.

of religion. But at no time have teachings of Christianity said it is OK to burn people at the stake or to kill folks coz they are Muslim. It's the same as if the pope starting growing marijuana in back of St. Peter's basilica and your saying 'The Catholic Church advocates growing pot"

a few bad apples doing bad things in the name of religion. We are talking about the entire institution of the Christian church, which was the dominant institution in Europe at the time, systematically doing all of these things over a period of centuries.

But at no time have teachings of Christianity said it is OK to burn people at the stake or to kill folks coz they are Muslim. The teachings of the Christain church at the time certainly did say those things were not only OK but necessary. Why don't you read a little history.

Oh, and the genocide I was talking about was of the Native Americans and various other newly discovered peoples whose killing was fully justified by the church. And you can include slavery along with that.

Again, please stop trying to dismiss this record as some sort of minor aberration. It was an intrinsic part of the Christian church for centuries.

It's the same as if the pope starting growing marijuana in back of St. Peter's basilica and your saying 'The Catholic Church advocates growing pot" If I was into that sort of strawman arguement, I would be going around saying that the Catholic Church advocates the buggering of boys. I'm not, so your arguement falls apart on that point as well.

and as such, do bad things sometimes. This included being influenced by the environment of which they are a part. There was a time in which it was widely believed that blacks and Indians were on the same plane as animals. It was the view of the times. I don't ever recall Jesus preaching that killing of groups was acceptable, so I don't see how you can tie these actions to the roots and foundation of Christianity.
People are not always advanced enough to see above the savagery that is the societal norm at the time. Case in point: today our society sanctions the destruction of very young human beings. Thankfully the Church is ahead of it's time denouncing that sort of savagery. I suspect in centuries hence, people will be asking how any society could have allowed such a barbaric procedure as abortion to occur.

the teachings of Jesus with those of the Christian religion. They are not the same thing, and actually seem to overlap rather infrequently.

Anyway, you have succeeded in significantly altering the original premise that you were arguing. Again, nice way of hijacking the language and twisting the arguements. We could learn alot from you about techniques for framing the debate.

If not, time to read up on them.

They are people who want a "Christian" theocracy in this country, but one that wouldn't be recognized by Jesus Christ. Jesus, after all, saved a woman from being stoned by a crowd for the sin of adultery, telling the crowd "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

The Reconstructionists want a society in which execution, usually by stoning, would be the punishment for adultery and many other sins. Freedom of religion would be obsolete, of course.

THOSE people are very scary, and they support the GOP and are courted by the GOP.

I defend religion at DU all the time, but we must recognize that there are totalitarians who purport to be faithful Christians and regard those of us not part of their group as heathens who should be killed.

just don't try to shove it down my throat, or hijack the government for purposes of shoving it down my throat. There's a huge difference between being passionate about your beliefs and being an extremist. Jimmy Carter is a Christian who is passionate about his beliefs and I don't think there is anyone who would accuse him of being an extremist.

Theocracy Watch is about religious extremists who are trying to hijack the machinery of government, and about the people who use them to advance their own political agendas. Not about religious people who are passionate about their beliefs.

Come to think of it, that's a fine example of the hijacking and twisting of language that the right wing is so good at.

belief. Some religions are pacifist. Some consider pacifism at all costs an 'extremist' position. Could it be said that by espousing that agenda, they are trying 'force their beliefs down the throats of everybody'? The Catholic Church is pro union; they are also anti-abortion. They advocate laws towards both of those causes. Many consider anti-abortion an extremist position.

See? The difference between a 'belief' and an 'extremist religious belief' is often in the eye of the beholder.

Because NO religion has all the answers, honey. When any religous group, sect, denomination, or whatever, starts espousing that they have the exclusive pass to Heaven and all others are going to Hell, you can pretty much discount that group of religious extremists as unenlightened folk who have so far failed to grasp the true meaning of life on Earth in a physical body with an eternal soul.

The spiritual is within you and without you and you don't need to do anything, say anything, or be anything to get to Heaven.

It's at hand, baby. We're IN eternity right now. Always were, always will be.

With Kansas," Thomas Frank does a good job of laying out the relationship between this group of voters and Republican politicians. It is really very frightening.

i agree. and we have had a long time to recognize this and we arent seeming to put a dent in this issue. how we will get another hilter on our u.s. soil

With equal enthusaism. Meaning that the only place most people of faith have a voice in politics is in the republican party.

If people don't feel welcome within a community, political or otherwise, then they don't. The fact that so many alienate religious folks by not being neutral, but decidedly and aggressively anti-religious means that that many more people are alienated from a political party that might more accurately reflect their political views.

No one is asking for religion to be a plank of a platform. That would go against what many religious people would even want. However, if the party makes us feel like our faith is on trail every time we turn around then it is alienating not strengthening. My point is not that the party should let religion shape policy, my point is that the party should do better at not alienating people who have the same political philosophy just because they are religious. This happens when all religious people are mass stereotyped and overgeneralizes, as well as when attitudes of disdain and disrespect rule the discourse.

religion makes them susceptible to other right wing nonsense.