The Origins of the Christian Right

Albion said:

Is that your interpretation of the term when it is used by some political activists on the fringes of the political spectrum?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the term "Christian Nationalist" is pretty widely understood that way.

Speedwell said:

Yes, I think the term "Christian Nationalist" is pretty widely understood that way.

Click to expand...

Let's say that that is the answer. What's wrong with the concept, then?

Offhand, the supposed intention of such people is hardly any different from Pelosi et al saying that walls are IMMORAL, or the pols who claim that whatever the social legislation might be that they want passed into law is what our nation's spiritual heritage demands--more welfare, free medical care, etc. Immigration for amnesty seekers or just because the immigrants are "strangers" or "neighbors" is, for example, often defended as Biblical (and therefore, to be recommended) by advocates of open borders.

Albion said:

Let's say that that is the answer. What's wrong with the concept, then?

Offhand, the supposed intention of such people is hardly any different from Pelosi et al saying that walls are IMMORAL, or the pols who claim that whatever the social legislation might be that they want passed into law is what our nation's spiritual heritage demands--more welfare, free medical care, etc. Immigration for amnesty seekers or just because the immigrants are "strangers" or "neighbors" is, for example, often defended as Biblical (and therefore, to be recommended) by advocates of open borders.

Click to expand...

In a very real sense we all vote our "values". But there are subtle differences. The Religious Right (Moral Majority or what have you) usually advocate for legislation that limits rights from people. For instance;

1. The right of a woman to do with her body what she feels is right is limited by making abortion illegal
2. Legislation against marriage equality for gay people limits them to a secondary classification

The conversation gets a bit more complex when you see the Left supporting limits on how cheaply one can get ahold of even access to super-giant sugary drinks or tobacco etc. That becomes more restrictive and more in line with the Religious Right's view that no one should be free of the religious limitations their faith holds. But these positions are usually underlain by data and reason rather than commands from a god.

Albion said:

Let's say that that is the answer. What's wrong with the concept, then?

Offhand, the supposed intention of such people is hardly any different from Pelosi et al saying that walls are IMMORAL, or the pols who claim that whatever the social legislation might be that they want passed into law is what our nation's spiritual heritage demands--more welfare, free medical care, etc. Immigration for amnesty seekers or just because the immigrants are "strangers" or "neighbors" is, for example, often defended as Biblical (and therefore, to be recommended) by advocates of open borders.

Click to expand...

People can advocate for what they want to happen, based on whatever religious sentiments they happen to have. But whatever those religious sentiments happen to be, they have no more standing as such before the law than anyone else's. If we are moved by our religious belief to advocate for a certain policy and we have the votes to enact it--which will, of practical necessity include convincing individuals from other religions to support it--then it will become the policy of a secular state and its religious origin does not turn the state into a religious state. If, on the other hand, the state declares that one particular religious sect will have greater status before the law than any other, then it has become a religious state.

GlabrousDory4 said:

In a very real sense we all vote our "values". But there are subtle differences. The Religious Right (Moral Majority or what have you) usually advocate for legislation that limits rights from people. For instance;

1. The right of a woman to do with her body what she feels is right is limited by making abortion illegal
2. Legislation against marriage equality for gay people limits them to a secondary classification

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know about that. The Left advocates for legislation that limits rights too:

1. Limit the Constitutional right to own a gun
2. Criminalize figures of speech, including pronouns that are not PC, etc.
3. Eliminate private health insurance



and so on. No, I don't think there's a real difference there.

Albion said:

Oh, I don't know about that. The Left advocates for legislation that limits rights too:

3. Eliminate private health insurance

Click to expand...

I can't resist going off topic here. Are you really conflating private health insurance with rights? That's like saying there's a right to fentanyl. The product has a niche. But if it's not closely regulated, it does more harm than good.

Albion said:

Oh, I don't know about that. The Left advocates for legislation that limits rights too:

1. Limit the Constitutional right to own a gun
2. Criminalize figures of speech, including pronouns that are not PC, etc.
3. Eliminate private health insurance



and so on. No, I don't think there's a real difference there.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that the left wants to eliminate private health insurance. Generally speaking,many on the left are in favor of "medicare for all" which would leave a market at least for medicare supplement plans.

Speedwell said:

What explains the fact that after abortion and gay marriage, the hot-button issues for the Christian Right are things like anti-gun control, anti-global warming, anti-asylum seekers, positions which have no support in Christian doctrine? When I hear heroes of the Christian Right like Judge Roy Moore waxing nostalgic on the campaign trail about antebellum days, it makes me wonder if Christian conservatism isn't more about the Lost Cause than the Gospel.

Click to expand...

Of course it is about a lost cause, just like Trump was a response to the realization of the death of that cause.

We are supposed to pretend we don't know this, though, and just stick with debating the historical and modern status quo (no marginal or critical thinking necessary).

jayem said:

I can't resist going off topic here. Are you really conflating private health insurance with rights? That's like saying there's a right to fentanyl. The product has a niche. But if it's not closely regulated, it does more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Taking out insurance is like taking fentanyl? I really don't think so. Anyway, it is easy to show that limiting rights is not confined to one side of the political spectrum.

Speedwell said:

I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that the left wants to eliminate private health insurance.

Click to expand...

The notion is something of a rage among the Democratic aspirants to the presidency and other party leaders.

Albion said:

The notion is something of a rage among the Democratic aspirants to the presidency and other party leaders.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Bills have already been introduced by Democrats in both houses of Congress during this young session that would do exactly that.

You may want to do some catching up before calling "nonsense" to the facts.

Senators Sanders, Gillibrand, and Warren co-sponsored the bill in the Senate...and they are all in the race for the party nomination for president in 2020. Senator Kamala Harris has gotten even more press than them for her own call for an end to private health insurance. The Hill, a center-left news service, reports that Senator Cory Booker, another announced candidate for president supports the Sanders bill also.

Albion said:

Bills have already been introduced by Democrats in both houses of Congress during this young session that would do exactly that.

You may want to do some catching up before calling "nonsense" to the facts.

Click to expand...

That would outlaw private health insurance? I think you are the one who needs to "catch up."

Yes. Outlaw private health insurance.

Albion said:

Yes. Outlaw private health insurance.

Click to expand...

Citation, please. BTW, AOC's Green New Deal wish list is not a bill nor does it call for the outlawing of private health insurance, so that one doesn't count.

Albion said:

Taking out insurance is like taking fentanyl? I really don't think so. Anyway, it is easy to show that limiting rights is not confined to one side of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

It’s just an analogy. Private health insurance, as a product, is like a drug that can have harmful effects. It has a use, but it must be carefully regulated.

Discussing this further must be in a new thread.

GlabrousDory4 said:

Just so long as the Christian Right is willing to ignore Christ in Matthew 26:52.

Click to expand...

Relating that verse to a gun control policy indicates a lack of understanding of gun ownership, and also of that verse. His disciples had been carrying around two swords for an indeterminate amount of time before his arrest, and Jesus would have known about them. He didn't approve of using them in that situation, but the fact that he allowed them to carry them (possibly for their entire tenure with him) indicates that he was fine with their owning them, and carrying them, and even using them on non-human targets. Otherwise, why would he have permitted them to keep them? Furthermore, none of Jesus' commands were about state, national, or even local policy, but personal obedience.

GlabrousDory4 said:

Just one little correction: almost no legitimate scientist who is involved in earth and atmospheric studies says global warming isn't happening. Almost all scientists who work in the field say it's happening.

Click to expand...

And if the "climate change" people would provide links to the actual studies that they allegedly build their case on rather than appealing to the authority of a large bandwagon and leaving it at that, they might actually convice some skeptics.

GlabrousDory4 said:

There's a great quote in the Bible as well related to a group being overly confident in their own ignorance of a subject: Proverbs 16:18.

Click to expand...

That doesn't describe the climate change skepticism that I have run across. What I have seen is literally an attitude of, "Scientists disagree, and the dust hasn't settled, I'm not seeing a good reason to panic."

GlabrousDory4 said:

I understand that some on the Religious Right "distrust"...ummm...scientists? I mean of course they benefit every single day from the science, much of which they later turn and decree is false, but again, one should always go humbly before information they don't fully understand.

Click to expand...

That's "some," and there are some irreligious hippies out there who also distrust science, medical science in particular. It's a subset of the homeopathy movement, which will include some anti-vaxxers. Point is, it's not a feature exclusive to the Right.

GlabrousDory4 said:

Trump has a long history of some rather more progressive positions before he realized that he'd have a better chance if he switched sides and pandered to the extreme Right.

I see Trump less as an ideologue than as a narcissist who will take whatever position he can with minimum effort that will keep people interested in looking at him. He doesn't care about the "ideas" so much as he cares about the Trump.

The GOP was an easy mark for that kind of approach. They had developed a lower-information voter who devalued education through 30+ years of attacking the "east coast elites" (while usually electing them but only after they hid their intelligence) and the GOP voter on average seems to value a "strong hand on the tiller of state" if you will (what the rest of us would call a "strong-man"). Leadership that offers simple answers that "feel right" even when they don't have any support in reality. Leadership that offers fear to unite us against a common enemy even when no such enemy is present.

I don't even think Trump was strategic about that! I think he's like all natural predators: can smell where the cheap eats are at and gravitates to them through instinct.

Click to expand...

Many of those low-information voters were blue-collar folks who voted Clinton into office. The Democrats left them with NAFTA, and Trump swept them up.

Speedwell said:

Now you have piqued my curiosity. Distrust implies an intention to deceive. How has the Left attempted to deceive you?

Click to expand...

By continually not telling the whole truth (and sometimes lying outright) on many issues.

Speedwell said:

But where does the idea come from that gun control = disarming?

Click to expand...

From Democrats who want to ban classes of weapons, and Democrats who want to disarm people.

Speedwell said:

Oh, I'm not referring to the kiddie-fiddling. For all I know that kind of thing is considered acceptable in a place like Alabama.

Click to expand...

Which is why it was against the law at the time, as well as today?

Speedwell said:

I am more concerned about his stance on church-state separation and how widely it is shared by the Christian Right.

Click to expand...

How much better do you feel about Dennis Praeger's and Ben Shapiro's views on the subject? They're on the Right, and they're not Christians. Yet many on the Christian Right have similar views to the ones they have expressed.

Sketcher said:

By continually not telling the whole truth (and sometimes lying outright) on many issues.

Click to expand...

In other words, you have no specific examples.

From Democrats who want to ban classes of weapons, and Democrats who want to disarm people.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are some Democrats who want to ban pretend army guns. There are also a few who would like to eliminate private gun ownership. Most want background checks and registration, which does not amount to "disarming."

Which is why it was against the law at the time, as well as today?

Click to expand...

As I said, I don't care very much. He's your hero, you can figure it out.

How much better do you feel about Dennis Praeger's and Ben Shapiro's views on the subject? They're on the Right, and they're not Christians. Yet many on the Christian Right have similar views to the ones they have expressed.

Click to expand...

It's not necessary to be Christian to advance such disgusting and un-American views as those two. My question is why any Christian would want to.