It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Since the late 1970s the religious right has steadily transformed the Republican Party from a basically secular, conservative, civic-minded party to become the public face of legitimacy for the otherwise alien values of the radical religious right.
For almost three decades the leaders of Christian fundamentalist groups have increasingly radicalized their followers by using certain explosively emotive issues. Principal among those has been the legality of abortion, which they consider to be the murder of unborn children.
As driven home by leaders of the radical religious right, any society that legally sanctions the murder of children must be unreservedly perverse. That conviction further hardens the position that no compromise is possible with the deluded mainstream, and that only radical change is acceptable.
Overt opposition will only radicalize the radical religious right even further. In fact, if they fail to get their way through legitimate political means, they might eventually turn to terrorism, as some have done in bombing abortion clinics and shooting physicians who practice abortion.
When groups become radicalized, they start to believe that the nobility of their ends justifies any means, and they slip into thinking that any action, including violence and lying, is necessary and appropriate.
The religious right is a grassroots movement as well as a national one. Local "cells" operating in churches run disciplined campaigns to win local offices by taking advantage of voter ignorance and apathy.
For the time being it's the leftist/socialist Democrats that are doing the most damage.
Forgive me if I disagree with your statement. While the people of this nation as a whole are more and more leaning Left, the people in charge, our representatives, are stuck in NeoCon mode and that includes the Left.
originally posted by: mOjOm
Regular people may not automatically put the pieces together but they see the Institutions of Religion becoming poisoned but know it's not true message that is the problem but a twisted political version of it that is causing the trouble. So they ditch the System in order to stay true to the message. That is what I find hopeful too. The more that the institutions lose their power I think the more truth will be brought back.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Klassified
I'm going to have to disagree with you there my friend.
The percentage of Fundamentalist Christians has been shrinking if anything as it was composed of mostly older people who have since been dying off.
I would be surprised if even 10% of Christians identified themselves as fundamentalist.
The much larger majority have been secularized and changed their theology to be compatible with today's world.
The only danger they pose is from a tiny group who feel lost in todays world; those with nothing to lose but feel they would be doing God's work by bombing an abortion clinic.
When was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed?
I rest my case.
The OP overgeneralizes in lumping Fundamentalists and evangelicals together; you also have Pentacostals and the various denominations; Assembly of God, Southern Baptist Convention, etc. They are by no means a monolithic group with similar values ,beliefs and political ambitions (if any).
The greatest danger to the country and Constitution are those with no roots, who go along to get along, who have no strong moral convictions and who have no reason to fight back against government oppression and overreach.
originally posted by: network dude
Just wait till the radical atheists come about. They are already organizing, putting up billboards, having meetings.....
I'm impressed by how accurate this essay is being that it was written in 2003 by some guy named Micheal Webb.
originally posted by: Seede
I am quite impressed that you would subscribe to a guy named Webb. Who is this Webb guy and what background check have you done on him?
Firstly, I don't hate on you at all but I do question why you would choose an article which a guy mixes religion with a political party and try's to sell it as radical. Not one word of Jesus and what Jesus teaches but substitutes his own understanding as a mixture of what he, in his confusion, calls radical. By his standards a democrat or a Jew or a Muslim is a righteous left winger saint who is out to save humanity from the god awful right winger Conservative Christians.
I had never understood Jesus as being a left winger democrat. I always understood that you believed in His covenant (doctrine) or you did not believe. I have never heard of a Conservative Christian high jacking any form of Christianity and don't really understand how a republican or democrat or independent political preference can get you any closer to heaven. Whether this applies to other countries would be fun to have explained by this Webb guy.
This fellow (whoever he is) reads like a confused person who really doesn't know what he he is talking about. In the first place he doesn't make clear which Christianity he is talking about. I know he is not talking about the first century Christians because they had no republican party or any such thing as a conservative liturgy. Even in this era there are many doctrines of Christianity and I am quite certain not all are of this bad republican (American) organization.
originally posted by: Seede
... an article which a guy mixes religion with a political party and try's to sell it as radical.
... I have never heard of a Conservative Christian high jacking any form of Christianity and don't really understand how a republican or democrat or independent political preference can get you any closer to heaven. ...
....Even in this era there are many doctrines of Christianity and I am quite certain not all are of this bad republican (American) organization.
There has always been a ‘religious right." Perhaps the first Christian instance of this phenomenon was the resistance of the Jerusalem Christians to Paul’s liberal tendencies, as recorded in Acts. Though Paul provided many proof texts for future conservatives, on the greatest issue of his time he was adventurously liberal, opening the church to the gentiles and traveling over half the known world to gather them.
On May 15 the National Council of Churches’ Governing Board, which consists of 266 delegates from 32 denominations, made one of the most courageous statements that I can remember coming from such a representative church body. It is clearly ahead of present public opinion, but I regard it as an early presentation of what will soon be widely recognized as true. The statement declared that the Reagan administration is trying to remake America, that it threatens "the vision of America as the model and embodiment of a just and, humane society" After many specific criticisms of policies, it says of the administration’s vision of America that "the fittest survive and prosper, and there is little room for public purpose since it interferes with private gain, . . . and government is at best a necessary evil which must be strong enough to protect privilege from assault but kept too weak to impose public responsibility on private prerogative." This is also a description of the vision of America held by the Moral Majority and the religious right.
These rightists appeal to the real anxieties of a great many Americans about some serious moral issues, but their prescriptions are not likely to help in dealing with those issues; moreover, they threaten other moral values. What is more serious, they either neglect or respond inappropriately to the most fateful moral problems facing all humanity: the problem of economic justice in this country and in others, and the struggle for peace ...
originally posted by: mOjOm
Rise of the Radical Religious Right by Mike Webb
Kruse's book investigates how the idea of America as a Christian nation was promoted in the 1930s and '40s when industrialists and business lobbies, chafing against the government regulations of the New Deal, recruited and funded conservative clergy to preach faith, freedom and free enterprise. He says this conflation of Christianity and capitalism moved to center stage in the '50s under Eisenhower's watch.
On the Rev. James Fifield
He takes over the pastorate at the First Congregational Church in Los Angeles, an elite church, literally ministering to millionaires in his pews. It's got some of the town's most wealthy citizens — the mayor attends service there, [Hollywood filmmaker] Cecil B. DeMille. He tells these millionaires what they want to hear, which is that their worldly success is a sign of heavenly blessing. He has a very loose approach to the Bible. He says that reading the Bible should be like eating fish: We take out the bones to enjoy the meat; all parts are not of equal value. Accordingly, he disregarded Christ's many injunctions about the dangers of wealth, and instead preached a philosophy that wedded capitalism to Christianity.
But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and slogans that come to mind when we consider whether this is a Christian nation. Our grandfathers did.
Back in the 1930s, business leaders found themselves on the defensive. Their public prestige had plummeted with the Great Crash; their private businesses were under attack by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal from above and labor from below. To regain the upper hand, corporate leaders fought back on all fronts. They waged a figurative war in statehouses and, occasionally, a literal one in the streets; their campaigns extended from courts of law to the court of public opinion. But nothing worked particularly well until they began an inspired public relations offensive that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity .
Accordingly, throughout the 1930s and ’40s, corporate leaders marketed a new ideology that combined elements of Christianity with an anti-federal libertarianism. Powerful business lobbies like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers led the way, promoting this ideology’s appeal in conferences and P.R. campaigns. Generous funding came from prominent businessmen, from household names like Harvey Firestone, Conrad Hilton, E. F. Hutton, Fred Maytag and Henry R. Luce to lesser-known leaders at U.S. Steel, General Motors and DuPont.
I am curious as to where you get those figures from.
Also you failed to understand that Christians in America are just not very religious to actually do this. We are the lite beer of the religious and typically extremism comes about when religions rules 100% of a person's life, here I give it 5%...lol