I found his comments to be measured and moderate in tone.

What parts did you take issue with?

Dean,

One formulation not considered by many people (including you) is just what is the Religious Right. I see it as nothing more than an apocryphal bogeyman created by the socialist left in America to demonize Republicans or conservatives. After all, I have not met one single Republican, or even Libertarian for that matter, who refers to a “Religious Right.” One the contrary, they express confusion as to just what it means.

However, when listening to Chris Matthews, Geraldine Ferraro, Begala, Clintonistas, etc., you could swear that the Religious Right was a two-horned fire-breathing monster out to tell people what to do every single waking moment of your private life. This is merely hokum created by the American left. To add insult to injury, watch Matthews, Ferraro, Stephanopoulos, or Begala smile every time they mention the “Religious Right.” It appears as they already know this and are simply happy to get away with it again.

Ann Coulter discusses this issue at length in her book “Slander.” She does a good job with it, too.

After reading Frontline's interview with Jerry Falwell, I wondered how many followers he's influenced with what I consider a highly skewed world view. At the same time, I am not afraid of his harmless (and misguided) interpretation of the Bible and the role of organized fundamentalist Christianity. However, if God IS on their side, our intolerance and criticism of them shouldn't offend them. I find that fundamentalist groups are some of the most intolerant groups in society, therefore, I justify my intolerance of their intolerance. That double-edged sword makes me a hypocrite of sorts, but I still think the Landover site is funny as hell. (I'm gonna burn, I know.) And don't get all righteous on me. You know you laughed during "Fletch Lives" when they parodied Faith Healers. You gonna call that a "Hate Movie?" I just think that because the website provides "memory burn," it's more offensive to you.

Tim the Soldier

It's nothing big, Ara.

Problem here is there's a hitch in my gitalong. Part of my brain's saying "write about this" but when I turn the key it just goes "rrrr-rrr-rrr----klunk." So I go write something else, and then before you know it a week's gone by and I still haven't done it.

Rev. Brill is being perfectly reasonable, FWIW.

kevinb,

There are many conservative Republicans in my office and THEY refer to the religious right as, get this, "the religious right." So this is not just a term used by the "Clintonistas".

Read your own post and own up to the strong bias therein - the socialist left, Clintonistas, Ann Coulter. Whenever the "right" wants to demonize the left, they use terms like socialist, marxist, communist etc. This is simply intellectual dishonesty. I will venture that EVERY member of Congress, democrat, republican, and independant, has voted FOR a piece of legislation that has a socialist ideology behind it. Prove me wrong.
Tell me, has Ann Coulter written anything with a shrewd of political credibility?

Tim the Soldier

It's hard to express firmly held opinion without seeming, ohh, opinionated. There is a line, though. The key is to refrain from shooting or blowing up those with whom you disagree. Some in the world still fail to grasp that concept, among them, regrettably, a few Christians. But only a very few.

Other groups are more disproportionately represented in the "blowing up" school of theological discourse.

I'm more into the "bonk them on the head" theosophical tradition.

Disagree with Dean? DEAN SMASH!!!!!!

Well, Dean, I'd never object to a good knock on the head, administered to the right person. Not me, needless to say.

Part of my brain's saying "write about this" but when I turn the key it just goes "rrrr-rrr-rrr----klunk."

Maybe you don't feel so strongly about it after all.

Maybe some arguements are unwinnable. Both parties discuss till they're blue in the face and in the end: anything in it's extreme is bad, somethings in moderation aren't.

As you guys all know, I am basically intolerant. Not only that, I revel in it. (Sometimes even roll around in it, too.)

So I'm not one to put down some other gang of intolerables (intolerees? intolerators? whatever..)

If I'm expected to tolerate homosexuals, who I think practice a perversion of their sexual functions, or drug users, who I think practice a perversion of their blood chemistry, then why can't I tolerate right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who I think practice a perversion of the mind (along with all other believers in invisible spirits)?

Anyway, I get along with them mostly fine. They preach to me; I smile at them and get on with my life. They hear me mouth praises about nearly all the hardright holies: gun rights; limited government; limited US involvement in darkest anywhere; America out of the UN; dealth penalty; limitd taxation; home schooling; you name it.

Then they get a load of Arnold Harris on abortion rights, and they turn tail and run as if they were in the presence of Lucifer. Which makes me smile an even wider grin.

So here's Arnold's model in dealing with unbelievers/undesirables/unsuitables et all:

Genetically re-engineer them before birth, and if that doesn't work, abort them.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I know you won't believe this, but this is just the sort of thing that you wouldn't hear from the mainstream media - or from liberal christians, for that matter.

Two weeks ago, I listened to a southern baptist, inerrantist, conservative pastor mention the Laurence decision in his sermon and follow it with this sentence: "I don't have any problem with that decision, because I don't believe the government has any business in your bedroom."

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

Of course, he went on to mention that the bible is clearly against homosexual practice - among other sins - and the church has a responsibility to preach against those things.

But I think this shows how much of a twisted picture we get of people when we label them "religious right" or "fundamentalist."

You have to question the credibility of a website that takes its name from a quote Al Sharpton made.

In tune with what seems to pass for mainstream Christianity today, Brill spends the bulk of his "sermons(?)" giving marching orders of sorts to fight the evil Christian right demographic. Nothing about the value of studying the word of God, or any emphasis on prayer, or pursuing a relationship with Christ, or faith, or enduring hardships, you know, all those things that define what it means to be a Christian? Nope, it's just a hardline hammering of the Christian right, sprinkled by favourable views of abortion and who knows what else. Brill's approach is purely political with maybe a dash of religion. Such an approach has its proper place, but if all this guy ever talks about in his sermons at church are the evils of the Christian right, then I say the so called "Religious Right" is the LEAST of his problems. :-)

I have and do hear many libertarians and Republicans refer to the "religious right". I find them rather noxious and as bad as socialists. Get one going and he will rattle off all sorts of things that the state should dictate (read ban). It is also gets on my nerves that most of them I encounter claim libertarian is euphemism for libertine.

Dean,

Well that website that Brill links is entirely anti-Christian, horribly bigoted, generically heretical and mildly blasphemous. Brill does write a reasonable-sounding article, but underneath the raging, white-hot hatred of anyone who disagrees with him is easily discerned. He's a polite Leninist, but a Leninist nonetheless (by "Leninist" I don't necessary mean a quy who subscribes to Lenin's April Theses or something - but a guy who is a hate-filled, "baby out with the bathwater" fanatic).

1. The Constitution does not call for a seperation of Church and State. What it says, precisely, is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

At the time the Constitution was written, 7 of the original 13 colonies had official, established state churches. The Constitution specifically forbade CONGRESS from interfering in that. The Constitution specifically forbade CONGRESS from making any law PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion. If Congress wanted to make a law encouraging the free exercise of religion, that would be Constitutional.

2. The "Christian Right" is not right wing per se. They are fundamentalists whose values align more closely with the right than with any other group. They tend to support right wing politicians, but right wing politicians are nowhere near as far to the right as the Fundamentalists would like. These people are the Anglospheres version of the Wahabi, and like the Wahabi, they are going to have to GO, sooner or later.

Tim,

Clintonistas refer to themselves as Clintonistas. Google® it if you don't believe me.

Brill's comments were tendentious, and it's not all that below the surface. Under "bigoted" is a link to a story on Rev. Falwell where he talks about homosexual sex as being "sexual sin." Really? A Christian believes something is sinful? Shocking.

I ignore most of what is written about the religious right because I find most of it to be sanctimonious, moralizing, projecting, self-righteous claptrap. Brill's comments were a bit better than most, but still, clearly partisan.

Dean, by the way, I thought you asked excellent questions.

And the "it" in that second paragraph has an antecedent of "the criticism".

"These people are the Anglospheres version of the Wahabi, and like the Wahabi, they are going to have to GO, sooner or later."

Go where Gary? Are you suggesting that the "Religious Right" is on par with a sect of Islam that continually engages in violent acts of terror and destruction?

I would certainly like to see those on the "atheistic left" GO, but why should they? They have a constitutional right to their beliefs, and just because I strongly oppose their beliefs doesn't mean I think they should be packed into a boat and shipped to Greenland. Although I would like to see that happen to Alec Baldwin. :-D

No power should run unopposed. The left's gripe about the so called religious right is that they are always there challenging every leftist agenda. But the left is there to challenge our agenda as well. It's the balance of power from which the constitution is founded on, and it has sustained our way of life for over 200 years. God help us all if we revert to a monolithic political structure that completely shuts out the voice of millions of Americans, regardless of what ideology they prescribe to.

I wonder if anyone would put forth such a reasonable, thought-out reply as Mac's, should a conservative Christian say that any group of people had "to GO." Somehow, I doubt it.

Not as though it matters; conservative Christians are accused of making such statements and lambasted for them, whether they actually make them or not.

Mac Swift makes a good point. I'd add this : It's the conservative Christians who've been on the defensive for decades. They've been trying to stop people from imposing their secular views on themselves and from realigning society from Christian values to secular ones.

And they've been losing one battle after another for decades. Any attempt at a rollback of social liberalism has gotten them tarred as bigots and intolerant. And now we have people who are so anti-Christian and so intolerant in mindset that they're saying the religious right has to GO.

Arnold, I think we get along fine, but I certainly won't turn tail and run if we get to discussing abortion.

As for Genetically re-engineer them before birth, and if that doesn't work, abort them., how far will you go with that approach? Even Peter Singer won't try to "post-abort" me at 42 years old (I'd hit him with my hockey stick if he tried; naturally, my stick is a right curve).

Gary, your "separation of church and state" comment was welcome. I'm still trying to figure out the fundamentalist/Wahabi comparison in point 2, though. Are you restricting the "Fundamentalist" label to the handful of psycho abortion clinic bombers, or are you actually asserting that there are thousands of Americans willing to kill, maim and destroy in the name of Christ? I think you're way off on this one.

Acts 10:42 (from the obscure Bible cite too long to be quoted) He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead

That's all there is to it. I have always felt that the so called Christian Right is basically a core of born again Christians, and people who believe as they do on certain important issues like prayer in schools, abortion on demand, Christmas plays in public schools, and other issues where the believer, whoever they might be, feels their belief, or right to believe, or right to act (pray) has been threatened by the government. My leanings are towards any group that is opposed to government interference, whether it is with the right to pray before a football game, or the right of an unborn child to live. Thanks for listening.

Thanks for the compliments regarding my recent comment here. :-D

I'll quote Dean, too:
"included two questions:

1) Is fear OF and prejudice TOWARD the Christian right as dangerous as some of the paranoia and prejudice we sometimes accuse the Christian Right of?

2) Is "separation of church and state" sometimes simply a way to invalidate the legitimate
political goals and democratic rights of believers?"

The second question is clearly yes, and the US is becoming a "believer unfriendly" environment; at least Christian believer. So, one is yes, too.

*** And it's dangerous especially because faith works *** Alcoholics anon.; faith based prisoner programs, etc. Helping the poor, by helping them become believers, is one of, if not the best, ways of helping them help themselves.

This is an objective, fact based statement. Faith helps poor folk live better lives.

Go where Gary? Are you suggesting that the "Religious Right" is on par with a sect of Islam that continually engages in violent acts of terror and destruction?

No, I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it flat out. They aren't into terrorism yet, but they haven't been around as long as the Wahabi.

Of course, extremist Christian groups, unlike the Wahabi, tend to die out. I have a feeling that modern communications are going to enable them to continue to grow in this century, though.

Let me clarify a bit...

There are hardline, militant, born again Christians (the type that reads the Landover site and believes it true). I am familiar with a group of them, and I know that they are one group of many.

They are pretty much indistinguisable from White Supremacist groups in the way they act and the way they think, but thier bigotry is expressed towards anyone outside thier own sects.

I have no problem with either conservatives or religious people (I am conservative, AND religious, although not Christian, Muslim or Jewish).

But it is dangerous to consider ALL conservative Christians to be "hard right". The "hard right" are a seperate, and dangerous, group.

But it is dangerous to consider ALL conservative Christians to be "hard right". The "hard right" are a seperate, and dangerous, group.

Gary, I think you just exempted me. I think.

They are pretty much indistinguisable from White Supremacist groups in the way they act and the way they think

Then I would say they are not real Christians--perhaps cultural "Christians" in some sort of vague "God, mother, apple pie and I ain't no raghead" the-South-will-rise-again way, but they're not Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ who said in Matthew 5:43-44, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."

Yawn....wake me up when Pat Robertson gets a clue...looks like I'll be sleeping for quite awhile....

"...and this man went to Yale." -Al Franken

Tim the Soldier

Randy,

I won't turn tail and run either, if you and I get together and discuss bible. Which I can read to a great degree in its original Hebrew that I studied for about 18 months in Israel, a long time ago.

Nevertheless, I am almost certain never to agree with you about religion. First, I read such stuff as interesting literature, not as an object of worship. I simply could never come to the conclusion that a dead man could be brought to life, evacuate his own grave, and hover around the world or universe to service earthly expectations of his return. Therefore, so much for Christianity. The other religions, to one degree or another, have not-dissimilar miraculous origins in which practictioners must suspend scientific logic based on empirical observation, measurement and other fundaments of modern science. You either believe all this stuff or you do not. And I don't.

Do I favor a conservatively-designed and operated culture that protects private and individual rights of person and property, with impartiality and equality under law? You betcha. Do I favor abandonment of most government social programs and interference in private life? Ring the bell again. Am I ever likely to support modern Democrat liberaldom just because I support unlimited abortion rights? Not even a ghost of a chance.

Anyway, if I ever sit down with you across the table in a poker game, all I'll give a damn about is what cards you're likely holding and how you intend to bet them. And if it's chess, another of my minor passions, I'll only care about how many moves ahead your mind can handle, and whether or not you have the guts to try a strong attack that might backfire you into chessmate if you miscalculate.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold,

But, of course, all science provides us is some useful assumptions - it can't explain away religion any more than religion can explain away science. Its been 10,000 years of human history. Two points:

1. We still don't know.

2. We'll never know for sure.

Randy,

Cultural in the sense of "cult".

Every religious group has some people who pursue a political agenda, but we only bitch about the Christians, perhaps because they are the majority.

Lileks had a nice column on Friiday where he talked about "lumpers", people who lump ALL Christians into one massive bloc of opinion, ALL Republicans into one massive bloc of opinion, all Liberals into one massive bloc of opinion, or behaviour, or what have you.

It's particularly common with reference to Christians.

Gary,

Ironically, even within Christianity there are lumpers that lump variations of Christianity into unrealistically broad collections. However, the human mind can't handle all of the detail in the world without resorting to some generalizations, so what can you do?

Bottom line--I'm no right wing terrorist even though I believe the Bible is God's Word to man. I don't know any terrorists, either.

Arnold,

Chess sounds fun, although I don't play nearly as much as I should anymore. I was the geek in 8th grade that carried around a notebook with the results of every game. I recall having just over 400 wins, 50 or so draws, and about a dozen losses that year (losing mostly to my best friend, who was the second-best chess player in our town). Yes, I played regularly back then. I don't play poker, so I concede to you there already.

I'm curious as to why you studied Hebrew. Sounds fascinating. I've always had more of a bent to Greek, although I'm far from proficient yet.

I simply could never come to the conclusion that a dead man could be brought to life, evacuate his own grave

And you're quite right--that is the key to Christianity. Without the resurrection, Christianity is just a social club. I'm curious as to what grounds you use to dispense with the historical data favoring the resurrection. Simply saying that it is unlikely or impossible is insufficient--after all, Christians agree, and that's why we call it a miracle and believe that it validated Christ's claims to deity.

I with I could make it to Dean's next Saturday--unfortunately it's far from Denver and we have a big carnival day at my childcare. I guess, we'll have to settle for blogging.

>>Read your own post and own up to the strong bias therein - the socialist left, Clintonistas, Ann Coulter. Whenever the "right" wants to demonize the left, they use terms like socialist, Marxist, communist etc.

Tim,

Bias does not mean inaccurate or untruthful. I admit using the creative term Clintonista is biased. It is also meant to be humorous and descriptive. Clintonistas are decidedly socialist. After all, they are the ones who either created or defended Hillayrcare. Government ownership of 1/3 of our entire economy is out and out socialism, period. Therefore, using the term socialism when describing Democrats and Clintonistas is nothing short of accurate.

I guess you can make a case that Ann Coulter is biased. Every single American columnist is biased. That is the art of writing political columns. Hers columns feature satire, sarcasm, exaggerations (to humorously illustrate her point), and accurate stories.

I admit she is not accurate every time. I sometimes wish she would cool it with her sarcastic remarks, too. In “Treason”, she makes the comment that when sitting next to an Arab you get asphyxiated. This tasteless remark furthers nothing whatsoever. I can tell you that without even reading her book, which I will read. It is unfortunate uberbabe Anne chooses such remarks. This trope is beneath such good writers as her. She is fully capable of writing better than this. I am waiting for her to write a serious policy book instead of simply bashing the media and Democrats.

Ann Coulter actually does write credible books and columns. You are instead lost in her off-handed remarks. If you ever read “Slander” you would see that she over documents everything she writes with over 740 footnotes. I suppose you never read “Slander.” That is why you can be so expert in criticizing her writing.

As for using the word “communist” incorrectly, American conservatives are really not that far off the mark. America either has or has approximated some planks in the Communist Party platform written by Karl Marx in “The Communist Manifesto”. Marx’s fourth plank was a highly progressive Income Tax. Well, America has had an Income Tax for 91 years, and it gets more progressive every single Democratic administration. Marx’s platform also featured “free” education for all. Well, we have “free” education in America, or the closest approximation you can have. I can easily make the case that there is no free lunch and that education is not actually “free.” But that frivolous point gets away from my main topic.

By the way, education in America becomes less education and more indoctrination and job training all the time. Compare American students’ test scores to student in other nations, especially industrial nations. We do very poorly indeed.

>>"...and this man went to Yale." -Al Franken

*********************************************

Tim,

You can say the exact same thing about all the Clintonistas who manned the Clinton White House, Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Hillary, Clinton himself, Robert Reich, etc. All these clowns attended Yale or Yale Law at some time or another, although you cannot tell it with the adolescent way they argue on talk shows, you know. The negative precedent has replaced burden of proof with this crowd.

>>Lileks had a nice column on Friday where he talked about "lumpers", people who lump ALL Christians into one massive bloc of opinion, ALL Republicans into one massive bloc of opinion, all Liberals into one massive bloc of opinion, or behavior, or what have you.
Gary,

There are two groups of people in the world. Those who group people into two different groups and those who don’t. -- KevinB

>>They are pretty much indistinguishable from White Supremacist groups in the way they act and the way they think, but their bigotry is expressed towards anyone outside their own sects.

Gary,

I had much experience with these people in Georgia when I worked with the Republican Party there. I do not believe these people are “dangerous” as you make them seem. They are not indistinguishable from White Supremacist groups.

They are, however, very narrow-minded people who can see through one keyhole with both eyes at the same time. They simply cannot tolerate anybody who thinks. Therefore, if you agree with them on any topic, but for the wrong reason, you are the asshole of the universe for opening your stupid mouth. You must agree with them for their exact same reasons, period. They are simply intolerant of any expressed opinion not in complete alignment with theirs. This is not bigotry. It is narrow-minded stupidity.

These folks are not interested in party politics or even politics in general. They are simple, intolerant ideologues. They see a solution to our problems, THEIRS. They are hostile to people who dare disagree. You will also receive a hostile response from any one them if you dare ask him/her the last time he has read a book. They have no reason to read.

One person told me at the 2001 Georgia state GOP convention at the Cobb Galleria Center “I do not need to read any books. I already know everything I need to know already.” You talk about narrow-minded!