What Do You Think Of The Religious Right?

[prisonchaplain]

As a rough and brief historic review of the modern religious right I offer the following summation: The Roe v. Wade decision of 1972 shocked many religious conservatives. Up until that point most of them askewed political involvement as "worldy." Suddenly lives were at stake. Rev. Jerry Falwell renounced his former sermon, "Why Christians should not be involved in politics," and started what became the Moral Majority. He hilighted several issues: Anti-abortion, anti-pornography, anti-gambling, pro-school prayer, and pro-Creationism. Ronald Reagan rode into power, at least in part, because of the New Right, or the Religious Right. Other groups have arisen with similar issues, including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family. Now, the focal point of the movement seems to remain the abortion battle.

So, what say you?

[Snow]

I am about as conservative as anyone (almost) and Utah is one of the strongholds of the religious right but I wouldn't want to be associated with people who I views and pretty screwy, at least in certain ways, like Fawell, Robertson and Dobson so I call myself conservative - not part of the religious right.

[pushka]

I'm pretty liberal and pretty moral too!!

I find it difficult to relate to over zealous people who shout too much!

I think we should aim for a happy medium in all things, considering each situation on its own merits rather than generalising, which is what I think the religious right seem to do too much.

[DisRuptive1]

The majority of the population tends not to agree with the religious right. The religious right, however, have a few people who shout a whole lot louder everyone else. Kind of like the youngest child in a family throwing a tantrum.

American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family

I think they on the wrong side in trying to fight for what they believe in.

[Serg]

I'm all for the freedom and rights of religion, but indeed believe after reading both the bible and the BoM that the only excuse for democracy to exist, is the danger of a mislead theocracy, so i stand pro-theocracy, of corse, not until the Lord comes, but now im sufficiently comformed to democracy(though its decay is impossible to avoid, for is another of a thousand ethiopic goverments)....lol.

Its incredible how it has survived this long...

[prisonchaplain]

What say I?

Abortion: I'm in total agreement with the movement's current goal: to elect Supreme Court justices who will interpret the law rather than creating. Of course, when past decision were blatant "legislation from the bench" (i.e., Roe v. Wade), then even 'strict constructionist' judges could vote to overturn a past precedent. This issue needs to return to local legislatures. The 'best case' forseable outcome? Abortion clinics will gradually become relegated to blue states, and most localities will require parental notification, and perhaps some form of counseling.

School Prayer: Frankly, this is almost a non-issue today. Ironically, it was President Bill Clinton's approval of "equal access" laws that made it largely irrelevent. Bible clubs and the like now have rights in public schools. The movement would do well to continue it's support of legal organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice and the Rutherford Institute, which offer pro bono legal representation in religious liberty cases.

Anti-porn and anti-gambling: These are generally local issues, and quite frankly, don't interest me as much. I do find it ironic though that local museums and university's have no problem sponsoring religious offensive "art" exhibits (think crucifixes in animal urine or dung) in the name of free expression, yet an international Burger King quickly pulls its ice cream cone wrappers because on customer said the ice cream design looked too much like the name of God in Arabic. Burger King is more sensitive than public universities? Go figure!

Creationism. This has morphed into the Intelligent Design's "Teach the Controversy" effort. I'm not so strong on this issue, but if the curriculum gains some traction in the scientific community, the battle could become hot. My own perception is that most scientists in the fields related to origins are non-theists, and that they are allowing the religious nonconvictions to cloud their judgment. The reaction against Intelligent Design has been little short of an intellectual jihad.

So, with these stands, I find myself in strong sympathy with the movement. I'm not currently a card carrying member, though I have been. If I were to allocate some funds to the cause, I would probably go with those legal organizations representing religious liberty cases.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: I am about as conservative as anyone (almost) and Utah is one of the strongholds of the religious right but I wouldn't want to be associated with people who I views and pretty screwy, at least in certain ways, like Fawell, Robertson and Dobson so I call myself conservative - not part of the religious right.

I too am embarrassed by some of Falwell's past gaffes. Robertson seems to be particularly prone to "over the top" statements, lately. On the other hand, I cannot ignore the years that these men have put into "fighting the good fight." As for Dobson, he seems to have avoided most of the unnecessary controversies that are associated with thoughtless commentary. All this to say, I pray for Christian leaders who speak commentary that is usually righteous and godly. They are not prophets, but they do tend to speak 'prophetically.' They are not inerrant, but they are more often wise than not. I'll not disavow them for occasional getting things wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

Pushka says: I'm pretty liberal and pretty moral too!!

I find it difficult to relate to over zealous people who shout too much!

Forgive me, but this is too easy. You don't like zeal and shouting, but you used three exclammation points in two sentences.

I think we should aim for a happy medium in all things, considering each situation on its own merits rather than generalising, which is what I think the religious right seem to do too much.

In Revelation 3 we are told that the Laodicean church was luke warm (read happy medium). When it comes to moral truths, God told them to be hot or cold. The luke warm would be spit out. Sometimes a little righteous indignation is healthy.

For example, on homosexual marriage, it is outrageous that 1-2% of the population who choose to engage in behavior that human society has counted as immoral for 6000 years, can demand governmental endorsement and legal recognition--not just for marriage, but to have the 'normalcy' of their sexual behavior taught as fact in public schools. All these social changes are likely to occur in the next generation or so, because we're all trying to be "happy medium." The other side isn't. So, we keep moving halfway closer to them. Eventually the divide is insignificant.

[prisonchaplain]

DisRuptive1 says: The majority of the population tends not to agree with the religious right. The religious right, however, have a few people who shout a whole lot louder everyone else. Kind of like the youngest child in a family throwing a tantrum.

What a brilliant observation. The Rlg. Right is not a majority. So, I guess they should just close down shop, and be quiet? I'm not interested in controlling the government--just of being able to speak righteousness in the public square. In the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, God said that if there had been just 10 righteous, the cities would have been spared. We have more than that going for us in America, so though we only represent about 20%, we will continue to speak the truth to power. Occasionally power listens, and we've proven ourselves a blessing.

BTW: Homosexuals represent 2-4% of the population, and those interested in marriage are probably less than half that. Yet, through the courts and media, their voices blare. I doubt they'll be shutting down soon just because they don't represent a majority.

[BenRaines]

I do dislike generalizations. Everyone, all, almost everyone, everybody, no one, none, etc.

I know that there are those that call themselves the moral majority. I consider myself a person of the moral majority but do not belong to any group other than those that believe we should, and they do, practice morality. I am not just talking about sexual morality but a morality in the way we live our lives. I have known non-christians that practice a very moral way of life and I would consider part of the moral majority. Now if we are talking about the Christian Right that is another story or so I believe.

If someone would like to better define the Moral Majority other than the group of Falwell, Robertson, Swaggert and the rest. Oh and don't forget my TV favorite, the Reverend Robert Tilton. What a hoot.

[Outshined]

I didn't see anything in Disruptive1's post that said the religious right should "close down shop and be quiet". Could be that someone jumped to a bit of a conclusion there, eh? B)

I'm sure Disruptive dislikes having words put in his mouth as much as anyone else does.

[pushka]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 29 2005, 09:52 PM

Pushka says:  I'm pretty liberal and pretty moral too!! 

I find it difficult to relate to over zealous people who shout too much!

Forgive me, but this is too easy.  You don't like zeal and shouting, but you used three exclammation points in two sentences. 

I think we should aim for a happy medium in all things, considering each situation on its own merits rather than generalising, which is what I think the religious right seem to do too much.

In Revelation 3 we are told that the Laodicean church was luke warm (read happy medium).  When it comes to moral truths, God told them to be hot or cold.  The luke warm would be spit out.  Sometimes a little righteous indignation is healthy.

For example, on homosexual marriage, it is outrageous that 1-2% of the population who choose to engage in behavior that human society has counted as immoral for 6000 years, can demand governmental endorsement and legal recognition--not just for marriage, but to have the 'normalcy' of their sexual behavior taught as fact in public schools.  All these social changes are likely to occur in the next generation or so, because we're all trying to be "happy medium."  The other side isn't.  So, we keep moving halfway closer to them.  Eventually the divide is insignificant.

←

LOL, what a silly Pushka I am...Yes, I do tend to go overboard with those exclamation marks, without even thinking about it...sorry

I was really a little confused about which option to tick for this thread, as I do despise those TV Evangelists who try to encourage their audiences to give them money, make empty promises to them, such as that they will receive money back 'From God' a hundredfold if they donate to their cause, and yet I don't disagree with everything that religious people aim for in society.

I'm afraid I do disagree with your views regarding homosexuals and their rights. I know that religious people see it as a moral compromise to allow other types of relationships, however I feel that it is up to those people what they practise in their bedrooms, and if they are in a loving relationship in which they live together, depend on each other and such, then they should be given the same rights as anybody else in a partnership/marriage. I do not disagree with teaching children in school that there is more than 1 type of loving relationship either. Some children are homosexual, the schools are not teaching them to go out and practise their homosexuality, they are just acknowledging that these relationships do exist and that we should not discriminate against those people in those relationships.

I am not against religious freedom, I am for freedom of choice, with responsibility to yourself and others.

I'm sorry if this is still too lukewarm, perhaps that's just my personality showing thru...

Anyway, I've tried to avoid using any exclamation marks

[prisonchaplain]

If someone would like to better define the Moral Majority other than the group of Falwell, Robertson, Swaggert and the rest. Oh and don't forget my TV favorite, the Reverend Robert Tilton. What a hoot.

Forget the term Moral Majority. Many made fun or expressed disapproval of the name. However, it disbanded in the late 1980s. This string is specifically about the "religious right." There are several organizations that come to mind--but the conversation here is not about televangelists, but about religious conservatives, primarily advocating against abortion, pornography, and gambling, and in favor of school prayer, religious liberty (i.e. nativity scenes in public), and Intelligent Design. See post #1 for more clarification.

[Winnie G]

They remind me of the young girl at my door this Halloween with a flowerpot on her head. My son said what are you? She said “A pothead of course”. They must be smoking something

I think there in it for their own agendas and not in it for the good of all man kind.

Some of you wont remember the "All in the Family" sitcom but there was a show were Archie the lead and a bigot, told his son-in-law that missioners had it right and in the name of God took those savages down to the river and “Held them under till they saw the light”!

That’s the Religious Right" I rather have nothing to do with them or would affiliate with them.

[sgallan]

I'm not interested in controlling the government--just of being able to speak righteousness in the public square..... so though we only represent about 20%, we will continue to speak the truth to power.

Yet ironically I consider you every bit as immoral in your stands as you find me.

Occasionally power listens, and we've proven ourselves a blessing.

Or a curse depending on ones perspective.

[Winnie G]

Depending on ones, perspective is the tricky point.

In Canada, up until I was 13 the Lords prayer was said in schools every morning and a scripter read by a student.

Then it stopped, why? because as immigration became the norm since birth control became ready available family sizes dropped and to keep up with the need for population the growth immigration opened up the door to what is now called multi-cultureisum.

The US has the melting pot Canada has multi-cultureisum.

This transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought has complimented Canada in so many ways.

With that things things must changed,

I like it teaches tolerance for others belief and their way of life. Canada is a Very and I mean Very tolerant of others beliefs and culture.

I was not happy when legislation regarding same sex marriage litigation nor was I surprised. I think the same result could have been managed with a “registration of a union” instead of a marriage. They could have done a better job. Hack they do that with firearms why not a homosexual union that covers all those legal issues.

All governments must see their countries as not just America or Canadian anymore we truly live in a Global village. This has to change. I think Moral change is the only right we have as human kind have, not who is Christian and who’s faith is right or wrong.

One of the nicest things was said to me once year ago. I worked with a family from Iran. The uncle of one of my co-workers complemented me on having a large family. “You do not see that any more” he asked if I had daughters. Moreover, what size family I was planning on having? I told him I have had cancer and was no longer able to have children.

He said not to worry that for a couple who truly loved each other each time they joined a child was born in to the Well of Soles. The Well of Soles is heavens nursery. (The Guff)

Now how bad can that be. Being different is not always bad. We must respect others no matter what they believe. I think once governments stop taking advice from so-called religious right organization the better off we will be.

Thinking of others and moral law and tolerance is the answer.

The government of Canada is headed for another election the 23 of January in the New Year. A vote of none-confidence happened in Parliament on Monday. Therefore, the government, the legislative body closed down work until after the elation.

Canadian election’s take only 34 days give or take.

I am so ticked about the whole thing I will vote liberal again just because the other party has pulled this vote on the citizens of Canada.

This last Prim Minster was finely making headway to spend money were it was needed and refusing to be bullied by Parliament.

They did not like it so the other party’s has pulled this non-confidence vote. I think it will blow up in their faces.

[prisonchaplain]

Yet ironically I consider you every bit as immoral in your stands as you find me.

It's okay to disagree with me. We can still be friends. Hey, sometimes I even disagree with myself.

Occasionally power listens, and we've proven ourselves a blessing.

Or a curse depending on ones perspective.

Come on now! I don't think my perspective is that narrow.

[BenRaines]

PrisonChaplin,

Based on your definition then I would say absolutely I am a part of the religious right.

We have a state senator here in Las Vegas, Harry Reid, he is the senate majority leader. He is a card carrying member of the LDS Church. How someone can be a leading Democrat and espouse their agenda and a good Later-Day Saint is beyond me.

Now before we get in to politics here that is not the thread and I may have voted in the past for something that my party didn't agree with but how do you support the whole liberal agenda and be a good member of most any church?

Ok enough of my rambling. Religious Right I am. Not by any affiliation but by beliefs.

[Guest sugarbay]

There must needs be opposition in all things.

[sgallan]

Come on now! I don't think my perspective is that narrow.

It would probably depend on the subject.

[sgallan]

We have a state senator here in Las Vegas, Harry Reid, he is the senate majority leader. He is a card carrying member of the LDS Church. How someone can be a leading Democrat and espouse their agenda and a good Later-Day Saint is beyond me.

So are you saying that in order to be a 'good' LDS, and by extension a good Christian, one would have to be a Republican? Can you understand where somebody like me might see that kind of attitude as a little odd? Though I do not believe in a god, the concept of any possible god basically being an Conservative American Republican strikes me a strange on more levels than I could even touch on. And man..... talk about sending me to an eternity in hell.... an eternity with the religious right.... heck give me lakes of lava... PLEASE!

[Fiannan]

I can understand where BenRaines is coming from. Reid says he is a democrat due to it being the working man's party. That I can understand as my parents were conservative, pro-union and old-fashioned Democrats. So to see Reid (who says he is pro life and has a voting record to prove it) go after judges nominated by Bush (when we all know the overriding issue, more important than anything else, to liberal Democrats is abortion) is beyond me.

So if Reid cannot give any particular reasons why he has been opposing judges nominated by Bush then all I can guess is that he is merely joining the flock of liberals who want abortion to be allowed for any and all reasons. In that case I would join Ben in questioning Mr. Reid.

[sgallan]

Yet even the LDS faith allows abortions in certain situations. I dunno, I just find it amazing when a person can't be a member in good standing because he doesn't support and American President? I guess I thought it was a religion.... not a political party. Am I wrong in this?