Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

[Azathoth]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

Hyperbolic, mendacious nonsense.

How long did it take to start killing jews in Germany or homosexuals in Uganda ? the comment was hyperbolic but nonsense ? after all You are still using the rhetoric of the anti communist witch hunts .... hyperbolic much ?

[Feck]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

Hyperbolic, mendacious nonsense.

How long did it take to start killing jews in Germany or homosexuals in Uganda ? the comment was hyperbolic but nonsense ? after all You are still using the rhetoric of the anti communist witch hunts .... hyperbolic much ?

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate.
It was appropriate in this case .

[Pappa]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

Hyperbolic, mendacious nonsense.

How long did it take to start killing jews in Germany or homosexuals in Uganda ? the comment was hyperbolic but nonsense ? after all You are still using the rhetoric of the anti communist witch hunts .... hyperbolic much ?

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate.
It was appropriate in this case .

Quoting an excellent point made by Seraph elsewhere:

Have you actually ever looked at Godwin's law? Apart from being meant to be a joke, it's also meaningless. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." You may as well replace "Nazis or Hitler" with "X". And it doesn't say that therefore the thread is at its end, let alone why or how.

[Seth]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

Hyperbolic, mendacious nonsense.

How long did it take to start killing jews in Germany or homosexuals in Uganda ?

How long did it take who (or is it whom?) to do so?

the comment was hyperbolic but nonsense ? after all You are still using the rhetoric of the anti communist witch hunts .... hyperbolic much ?

God grant us a new anti-communist witch hunt or two, or three. We need another McCarthy to...oh wait, McCarthy didn't start it, Truman did. McCarthy just followed the law.

Communists are still just as dangerous, and perhaps more so, as they ever were in the 50's. I'd say they are more dangerous because their propaganda efforts have been fruitful and people are asleep to the danger they pose to liberty.

A new Red Scare is definitely in order.

[JimC]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

This argument would be more apt if it only focused in the truly fundamentalist believers; in their case, it certainly rings true. However, the majority of christian believers are not going to translate their somewhat warm and fuzzy belief system into religious fascism, if only because their belief systems are one, small, compartmentalised section of their lives...

[Geoff]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

This argument would be more apt if it only focused in the truly fundamentalist believers; in their case, it certainly rings true. However, the majority of christian believers are not going to translate their somewhat warm and fuzzy belief system into religious fascism, if only because their belief systems are one, small, compartmentalised section of their lives...

I'd agree with that in countries like the UK and Oz, but if polls are to be believed, they take their religion a lot more seriously in the US. For example, 61% still say they wouldn't vote for an openly atheist President.

The Pew Forum is a good resource for this and similar statistics: http://pewforum.org/

[JimC]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

This argument would be more apt if it only focused in the truly fundamentalist believers; in their case, it certainly rings true. However, the majority of christian believers are not going to translate their somewhat warm and fuzzy belief system into religious fascism, if only because their belief systems are one, small, compartmentalised section of their lives...

I'd agree with that in countries like the UK and Oz, but if polls are to be believed, they take their religion a lot more seriously in the US. For example, 61% still say they wouldn't vote for an openly atheist President.

The Pew Forum is a good resource for this and similar statistics: http://pewforum.org/

I suppose that this follows from the fact that a higher proportion of chistians in the US would be regarded as truly fundamentalist in their beliefs...

I was making a global point, but you are right, the US situation may be somewhat skewed...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

Hyperbolic, mendacious nonsense.

You okay? I mean that's just 1/1000th of your usual post. I hope you feel better soon.

[Hermit]

I'd agree with that in countries like the UK and Oz, but if polls are to be believed, they take their religion a lot more seriously in the US. For example, 61% still say they wouldn't vote for an openly atheist President.

And their INTENTIONS are pure and loving!

[apophenia]

I'd agree with that in countries like the UK and Oz, but if polls are to be believed, they take their religion a lot more seriously in the US. For example, 61% still say they wouldn't vote for an openly atheist President.

Don't let the statistics fool you. Granted I live in a very liberal northern state, but in America, religion is much as JimC suggests, rather compartmentalized. As much as Americans love their religion, they love their freedom more. While it is true that because of the high religiosity on the whole, there is a much larger minority that holds to extreme religious views such as dominion theology, it is also true that the overt liberalism -- even among conservative elements -- means that their effect is largely mooted. Take Mitt Romney for example. It's a well known fact that he's a mormon, and the bulk of the Christians in the U.S. are mainline Protestant or Catholic, but nobody cares about his religion. It's about as close to a non-issue as you can get.

(And as long as you're quoting Pew Research polls, you might as well quote the one where American Christians are woefully ignorant on matters of religion. Even after controlling for levels of education, Americans are on the whole rather blase about their religion.)

[Ian]

I'd agree with that in countries like the UK and Oz, but if polls are to be believed, they take their religion a lot more seriously in the US. For example, 61% still say they wouldn't vote for an openly atheist President.

Don't let the statistics fool you. Granted I live in a very liberal northern state, but in America, religion is much as JimC suggests, rather compartmentalized. As much as Americans love their religion, they love their freedom more. While it is true that because of the high religiosity on the whole, there is a much larger minority that holds to extreme religious views such as dominion theology, it is also true that the overt liberalism -- even among conservative elements -- means that their effect is largely mooted. Take Mitt Romney for example. It's a well known fact that he's a mormon, and the bulk of the Christians in the U.S. are mainline Protestant or Catholic, but nobody cares about his religion. It's about as close to a non-issue as you can get.

(And as long as you're quoting Pew Research polls, you might as well quote the one where American Christians are woefully ignorant on matters of religion. Even after controlling for levels of education, Americans are on the whole rather blase about their religion.)

Moreover, the percentages of those identifying themselves and atheist, agnostic or nonreligious are growing faster than all the other categories. Moreover, those identifying themselves as "Christian" are very often nowhere close to Christian. My wife used to call herself one, only because she went to church a bit as a kid and celebrated Christmas, but didn't believe in Christ's divinity or that anything else in the Bible should be believed. But it simply hadn't occured to her that she was otherwise, so when asked, she was a Christian.

[JimC]

I'd agree with that in countries like the UK and Oz, but if polls are to be believed, they take their religion a lot more seriously in the US. For example, 61% still say they wouldn't vote for an openly atheist President.

Don't let the statistics fool you. Granted I live in a very liberal northern state, but in America, religion is much as JimC suggests, rather compartmentalized. As much as Americans love their religion, they love their freedom more. While it is true that because of the high religiosity on the whole, there is a much larger minority that holds to extreme religious views such as dominion theology, it is also true that the overt liberalism -- even among conservative elements -- means that their effect is largely mooted. Take Mitt Romney for example. It's a well known fact that he's a mormon, and the bulk of the Christians in the U.S. are mainline Protestant or Catholic, but nobody cares about his religion. It's about as close to a non-issue as you can get.

(And as long as you're quoting Pew Research polls, you might as well quote the one where American Christians are woefully ignorant on matters of religion. Even after controlling for levels of education, Americans are on the whole rather blase about their religion.)

I would think that being openly atheist, as opposed to openly Mormon, would be a whole new ball game in America. A reasonable number of "blase" religious people would think of Mitt Romney "well, his religion is a little weird, but it's sort of christian, and at least he believes in God..."

We have an atheist Prime Minister here, which has never been a serious issue in the polls (although her government is heading for disaster for other reasons)

[Schneibster]

WTF? Your political affiliation is on your voting card?

Sure. But it's not a card. You show up and give your name and address and they look you up on the role to make sure you're registered, and to figure out what kind of ballot to give you. They're different for the different parties, in some circumstances. Saves money when you know how many to print, too.

The "voter ID" laws are laws to require people to show ID, instead of just stating their name and address. People here who aren't fucking rabid Nazis (thread is already godwinized, too late! Suffer, motherfuckers) don't like it because poor people are more likely to have no fixed address and no state ID, and minorities are more likely to be poor. Forms of voter ID law that don't take that into account are liable to be declared unconstitutional, unless the Reprehensible Party gets to appoint a couple more Nazi justices to the Supreme Court.

Is this compulsory or is it like being a member of a political party in the UK.

It's voluntary to register to vote, but if you don't you don't get to vote. And in some states, you get a different ballot depending on which party you're a member of; for example, if you don't register as a Democrat you don't get to vote in the Democratic Primary, and so forth. It differs from state to state; some have so-called "open primaries" where everybody can vote for one candidate without regard to party, and the two or three highest vote-getters move on to the general election.

Even so it defeats the object of a secret ballot if your card proclaims the way you are expected to vote.

In the general election you can vote for whoever you want; it's just in the primary that you're limited to a particular party's candidates, and again, only in some states.

It's kind of like (IIRC) the way you guys select the PM: whichever party has the majority in the lower house of Parliament gets to vote on it from among their members (the details may vary; I'm no expert on British election law). You could equally say this is unfair because they can't select someone from another party. But it's a quibble.

[Audley Strange]

Yes it does. By believing in Jehovah or Jesus one believes that there is a Ultimate Authority who is in charge of everything. Oh they might pretend to support the idea of democracy but they would turn in a second given a charismatic political leader with some cash moxy and major media support the U.S. would be burning witches again within the fortnight.

This argument would be more apt if it only focused in the truly fundamentalist believers; in their case, it certainly rings true. However, the majority of christian believers are not going to translate their somewhat warm and fuzzy belief system into religious fascism, if only because their belief systems are one, small, compartmentalised section of their lives...

As pointed out accurately, I was being hyperbolic.

Actually much of the Fundamentalist movement in the U.K. and the U.S. are deeply suspicious of the Dominionist Movement, more accurately the Christian Reconstructionists, who do actually believe in a Theocracy and who have since (overtly at least) the 1980's have been an active political and social force in which they have encouraged their fanatics to insinuate themselves in every position of authority they can muster. From School Boards and Local Councils Health Boards and Central Government, not to mention Media, Police, Military as well as other Dominionist and Fundamentalist churches. They have crept in from the trivial margins (I.E. those positions that people generally don't give a fuck about because they are not part of the Spectacle. Over 30 odd years this has given them a lot more influence than they should have to the extent that they are now trying to usurp both the Republican Party and the more tolerant mainstream churches.

When you get people like this fucking Scumbag being lauded by people like Huckabee (in the past) Bachmann and Perry seeking the favour of such a lunatic, you might want to worry. It's like David Cameron suddenly courting Al Qaeda sympathisers (which would not surprise me tbh). When you get people (like Palin) who are devout Eschatologists and think they have been chosen to bring about Judgement Day, with the Potential to High Office, then you have a serious issue and perhaps extreme action should be taken to eradicate what is essentially a fascistic Antinomianist death cult.




Much of the Evangelical and Dominionist movement is apolitical and unlike most moderate groups who do not seem to understand the difference, they have been VERY active in challenging these fucking dangerous lunatics. The Mad Bitch above has already been kicked off a radio show by the Voice of Christian Youth for spouting such dangerous radical and divisive bollocks.

A lot of these groups recognise the threat even if most others think they are semi-harmless whackos.

[Schneibster]

There's a good sized contingent of Dominionists in the US military. I could dig up articles if anyone's google-fu is weak.

This thread makes me think of the Heinlein book Revolt in 2100, which appears in his Future History as If This Goes On.... He also foreshadows it in Stranger In A Strange Land, much more intelligibly in the long version published after his death. Much of the most interesting material simply could not be published in a book in the US at the time of the original release. He thought the Dominionists were just as insane as we do today. And they were. And they hadn't even managed to insert penetration agents in the military.