Bush has yet to realize, but only because his is not the brightest bulb on the block, that the Republicans are now riding the tiger of the Christian Right, and dare not dismount. Karl Rove knows all about this but is arrogant enough to think he can handle the reins...
The Republicans saddled up on this tiger decades ago and have occasionally took a chance and jumped off when they realized that by being too closely associated with these rabid fanatics would be cutting into the true God of the Republicans: $$. During the 90s the Christian Right complained long and hard about being ignored by the Republicans when the latter realized they were alienating a lot of Mr & Mrs Middle America.
With Bush's first run for the White House the Republicans, desperate to wrest the WH from Democrats went out and made a LOT of promises to the CR trying to once again woo them. The Republicans were amazingly successful - too successful. They and the powers of the CR went out into America's "outback" to beat the bushes, driving out the ignorant, the poorly educated, the disenfranchised. People who find America moving on into the 21st century and desperately want to pull it back to the 1890s.
Now they have a monster on their hand. A monster that has been slavering for decades to rule over the lives of Americans and now sees it's time is finally at hand.
Such a semi-theocratic state would of course be absolutely disastrous for the Republicans true love - the almightly dollar. Tens, if not hundreds of billions could easily be lost if the Christian Right actually got a toe-hold in the courts, congress, etc. Wielding the big stick the CR will surge ahead at the State level attempting to start up little local theocracies.
If you think this can't happen ask yourself this - how the hell did the XVIII Amendment bringing about Prohibition ever happen?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Vic
Wow, so now Christians are monsters?
Vic
2 - Victor Plenty
Fanatics bent on theocracy are the target of the post, Vic. It's difficult to misunderstand the point Alethinos makes, without a deliberate and willful act of malicious word twisting on the part of the reader.
Plenty of Christians are not right wing aspiring theocrats, even though the fanatics may not accept such people as "true" Christians.
3 - Vic
the Republicans are now riding the tiger of the Christian Right
the ignorant, the poorly educated, the disenfranchised.
Now they have a monster on their hand.
Didn't take any word twisting there.
I don't believe that Christians (outside of fanatics, which exist in any group) want a theocracy.
What Christians want is the moral values of Christianity brought back into the mainstream and the same respect paid to the Christian religion as to say, the Muslim religion in the media and on sites like this.
Vic
4 - alethinos59
What Christians of this ilk want is to impose their WORLD VISION on the rest of America - regardless of what THEY want. It is an illusion that there was some "golden age" where everything was perfect.
I agree that there is a TERRIBLE lack of morality these days. I deplore it. What I deplore MORE is a group of people who think THEY have some RIGHT to impose their version of MORALITY on everyone else.
Yes it IS a monster that the Bush Adm., is trying to ride. Any group of people that begin to slide into such narrow-minded fanatical visions of a "perfect world" are terrifying.
As for RESPECT for Christianity... I respect and believe in Jesus Christ. I recognize those people who seem to be living the life Christ taught.
What I do NOT recognize as Christian are those with a deep psychosis that manifests itself in a burning desire to punish others into being "like me".
5 - boomcrashbaby
Regarding the contradictory statements in comment 3:
First: I don't believe that Christians....want a theocracy.
Second: What Christians want is the moral values of Christianity brought back into the mainstream
um, that IS a theocracy, to those of us who do not fit what the 'values of Christianity' then have to live under. There are non-law-breaking gay people, athiests, agnostics, all kinds of people who would have to live under the 'moral values' of Christianity, and who get punished for 'not fitting in'. Can't get more theocratic than that.
6 - Peter Duncan
Aren't christians americans? Don't they have the right to vote the way they feel? Why do you think 'your way' of life should be imposed on the rest of us. Why can't you just accept the fact that there are more of us than of you. Isn't this country built upon a majority rule? Although both candidates tried to idenify with the 'christians' the repubs just did a better job of it. What's wrong with that?
7 - Mark Saleski
Isn't this country built upon a majority rule?
uhm....no, it's not.
8 - boomcrashbaby
I don't want my way of life imposed upon you. My way of life consists of raising a child, working hard, not breaking laws, paying taxes, cleaning house, etc. I certainly don't want to impose any of this upon you.
9 - Peter Duncan
Well mark if the majority doesn't rule and you're in the minority then what are you belly-acheing about?
Gay one-just for the record....aren't you all about gay marriages and abortions? Don't you want to impose that lifestyle upon the rest of the nation?
10 - boomcrashbaby
Gay one-just for the record....aren't you all about gay marriages and abortions? Don't you want to impose that lifestyle upon the rest of the nation?
'gay one'? I guess that is to me.
Religious fanatic, you think I want to impose a lifestyle of abortion? Never heard of the concept, no that is not what I'm about.
Impose gay marriage on the rest of the nation? Not at all, if somebody doesn't want to be in a gay marriage, they don't have to be.
What I want is a separation of church and state. Peter, if you want to condemn my family, that is your perogative, but the state should not condemn or refuse to recognize my family because of your religious belief.
11 - Peter Duncan
Very slick!!!!
Impose gay marriage on the rest of the nation? Not at all, if somebody doesn't want to be in a gay marriage, they don't have to be.
Try speaking to the issues. One- we already have a separation between church and state. Second, most people in this nation, whether they are christian or otherwise don't want same sex marriage. Third-exactly who is pushing their values and life styles upon whom?
12 - Mark Saleski
ok, this has been repeated thousands of times before but...
so you're christian. say you're married.
now, how does the existence of a gay & married couple impose ANYTHING upon you?
13 - Distorted Angel
Mark, I have yet to see anyone actually offer an answer to that question, which speaks volumes. Similarly, the existence of safe, legal abortion doesn not impose abortion on those women who choose not to have one, but there are many in this country who would like to see their own personal choices forced upon the rest of us.
14 - boomcrashbaby
we already have a separation between church and state
And christians are working overtime to erode it. Now we have Federal National Parks stating that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood.
source
Second, most people in this nation, whether they are christian or otherwise don't want same sex marriage.
Who cares? Most people in the 50's didn't want desegration either. America isn't about pandering to the prejudiced, it is about equality for all.
Third-exactly who is pushing their values and life styles upon whom?
Can you tell me how I am pushing my lifestyle on you?
15 - Peter Duncan
we already have a separation between church and state
And christians are working overtime to erode it. Now we have Federal National Parks stating that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood.
Ok, to address point one- You agree with me that there already exists a separation between church and state. Why are you so afraid of some notion. If it is a silly notion then you have nothing to fear. Plus, it just strengthens the agrument for a separation of C & S.
Second, most people in this nation, whether they are christian or otherwise don't want same sex marriage.
Who cares? Most people in the 50's didn't want desegration either. America isn't about pandering to the prejudiced, it is about equality for all.
Well voters in eleven states cared enough to voted it down. Some of those voters were non-christians and some were democrats. And please don't compare your plight to desegration you do the blacks a disservice.
16 - boomcrashbaby
You agree with me that there already exists a separation between church and state
No, I don't agree. There isn't a complete mesh between religion and government but there is enough there to cause harm/oppression/violence to many people.
I wasn't comparing my 'plight' to desegration. I was stating that what is 'popular opinion' in this country isn't necessarily what equality for all is about.
And it's interesting to note, that not only did you not answer the question Mark posed, you left it out of your response to me as well, as to how it is imposing my lifestyle upon you. Perhaps you can't answer it because it doesn't exist?
17 - Mark Saleski
And please don't compare your plight to desegration you do the blacks a disservice.
that's not what the comparison was about.
it was about the idea that a majority of the citizens thought it was OK, despite the fact that it denied equality to a minority.
18 - Peter Duncan
I 'cherry-picked' the questions I chose to answer just like you and Mark did. I take good notice that you only chose toanswer the questions you wanted to. I also noticed how you immeadiately 'bent' the question to your liking instead of anwering it straight up.
Let's go thru it once more...
there is a separation of Church and State and your last answer is a bunch of gobblelly-goop.
In every state where the issue of same sex marriage was raised it was sounded defeated. It even happened in liberal states (Ma, Or). In some cases two thirds of the voters voted no to same sex marriages. You said who cares...well now you have your answer...almost everybody thats had the question put to them.
19 - Mark Saleski
our responses were attempting to answer your statements ("there is separation of church and state") by way of example.
twist away, then!
20 - boomcrashbaby
what question did I not answer?
21 - boomcrashbaby
In every state where the issue of same sex marriage was raised it was sounded defeated.
Yes, I know. When equality is put to a vote, it will usually lose.
You said who cares...well now you have your answer...almost everybody thats had the question put to them
You miss the point. When it comes to equality, who cares that the majority opposes it. Lady Liberty should overrule.
22 - Victor Plenty
Rights that can be voted away don't exist for anyone.
The very definition of a human right is something that is not open to majority rule. It is an area reserved for individuals or minorities to retain their differences from the majority. Majority opinions sometimes coincide with a coherent definition of rights, but it is never the majority opinion that tells us whether or not something is a right.
Thus the election results Mr. Duncan gleefully cites are meaningless in this discussion, except to indicate the rising power of those who would eviscerate the concept of rights by imposing their own theocratic morality on everyone else.
Seen in a coherent light, it is clear in this case that it is the Christian fundamentalists who wish to impose their values on others, and it is equally clear that the gay people merely wish to secure the freedom to live as they choose, without being forced to navigate through a legal system that is prejudiced against them.
23 - Peter Duncan
Victor,
You seem like an intelligent person.
The 'rights' you speak of are state-granted and do not come from the almighty. If you don't believe me then ask the California Supreme Court who ruled all of the marriage licences granted to same sex couples are null and void.
It is not glee that propels me to inform you of this fact but the realist in me.
24 - curt
peter,
are you homophobic?
just curious.
25 - alethinos59
The problem is that so many who align themselves with the "Christian Right" are so ignorant, not only about the history of Christianity itself but also about the founding of this country.
They assume (because they've been told) that the Founding Fathers were evangelical in their outlook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most did attend church but many were also more than a little untrusting of established denominations. They believed in God. Most believed in Jesus...
However, they would have run fast and hard from the Christian Right today...
As a point here: most the Founding Fathers were very, VERY leery of partisan politics, I.a., political parties. Some wanted to outlaw them altogether. But most realized that they were, unfortunately an evil that could not be eradicated. Most shared the outlook of Hume on parties. They recognized 3 broad categories of parties... Those of mutual interest - usually economic were obnoxious but understandable. The one they feared the most though were parties of "principal". (See Novus Ordo Seclorum, pp 162-163). The absolutely most destructive of these to modern democracy were parties based on religious principals which brought people to a certain "madness" (p. 163)
History has shown us that any time a group manages to gain power and feel they have a "mandate from God" as so many Christian Right pulpit pounders are saying today, a real danger looms for that society.
We all have a RIGHT to LIFE, to LIBERTY and to PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.
If the Christian Right really wishes to influence the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans they might try to bring forth the real message of Christ and patiently educate others on the spiritual values that are critical to finding a life of true happiness...
If they persist however in trying to bring on their own peculiar variation of the Inquisition... Things are going to get very ugly here in America.
That was not in any shape, fashion or form the Vision the Founding Fathers ever had for this country.
Lastly... Don't rely on what your preacher tells you on Sunday morning about the HISTORY of both your religion or this country's beginnings. Begin an independent investigation of the truth - find authors and works that are as BALANCED as possible.
Unless of course you are afraid of the reality of things...
Jim
La realtà morde... E non libererà uno