Conservative Christian fears the Religious Right

[Cartumandua]

As a spiritslammer, I can confirm that Chants is highly irregular.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yeah. I can tell you the same thing from chattin' with the guy iRL more than once. He's a great guy to have Dim Sum with though.

[Chants Evensong]

This guy is a walking-talking definition of a political crank. Whatever Bush does, he is against it, regardless of internal inconsistencies which emerge from asserting that poisition reflexively over time.

I have read his article several times and some of his previous articles and I can't figure out just where he stands, except that Bush is wrong.

In the article linked above, the author starts out by pushing his conservatives credentials. Fair enough. He then complains that Bush fialed to be driven by his Christian values when he let the new intelligence reforms pass. OK, again, fair enough. I don't see the connection as clearly as he does, but so far in his article, he is being internally consistent.

But later in his article, he complains that the Bush administration is pushing the country to the point where there is no separation between church and state. Yes. First Bush is not allowing Christ to guide his executive decisions enough. He is too secular. Then, somehow, somewhere, by being too secular he, Bush, threatens the separation of chuch and state.

How does this tranformation occur, one might ask. "Chants," some one asks, "Can you tell us how Bush threatens the separation of church and state yet also remain too secular because to me, this makes no sense?"

I can't. But I can tell you how Chuck Baldwin, the author of the above-linked article, arrived at that conclusion. According to Baldwin, a transformation occurred in the religious right. The christian right has substituted christian values with republican values. Thus, to be anti-republican you are by definition anti-christian. Republicans now have the force of God to help them push thier governmental agenda. So says Balwin.

"Chants," you may ask right now, "but if Bush pushes Balwin's agenda won't he be doing the same thing, perhaps even more so? And if he does, won't there be an even stronger argument that to be anti-republican one would also be anti-christian?"

Yes, that is correct.

"Chants, why does Baldwin make these stupid arguments?"

Because Baldwin is a walking-talking definition of a political crank.

[Partha]

But later in his article, he complains that the Bush administration is pushing the country to the point where there is no separation between church and state. Yes. First Bush is not allowing Christ to guide his executive decisions enough. He is too secular. Then, somehow, somewhere, by being too secular he, Bush, threatens the separation of chuch and state.

Actually, the thrust of his article is that the 'Religious Right' has become too secular. They are using Bush as the vehicle to gain secular power. His point, as I noted at least twice in the article, was that the 'Religious Right' was working with Bush (who is not promoting 'Christian' values), which is in contradiction with their stated values, in pursuit of that secular power. It puts me much in the mind of 'We had to burn the village to save it.'

[Eidolon Faer]

Well said, Chants.

Of course, the same sort of bizarre whipsawing can be seen from the mainstream left as well:

I voted to authorize the war in Iraq THREE TIMES, the final time just as the invasion was starting...but I was voting for the authority to go to war not the war itself...and I firmly believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place...I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it...I support the troops...but I don't support them enough to get them body armor or stop badmouthing their allies...but I will blast Rumsfeld at every opportunity for not getting the humvees armored instantly with the money I voted against him having...I am not a petty little Bush-Administration-hating bitch...and how scandalous, Rumsfeld has an Autopen sign his condolance letters just like they've done for the past 60 years...

I find it amusing to note who on this board finds the author of that article to be credible.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh, and Partha, you do realize that "We had to burn the village to save it" was a purely-fictitious quote made up by Peter Arnett, the ORIGINAL Dan Rather, as part of a nastily false story intended to smear the Army and the Administration in support of Vietnam Antiwar protests, don't you?

The same Peter Arnett who went on SaddamTV and started reading anti-American propaganda at the beginning of the current Iraq conflict and got his sorry ass fired from yet another journalism job.

Your comparison is startlingly apt.

[Partha]

Well said, Chants.

Of course, the same sort of bizarre whipsawing can be seen from the mainstream left as well:

I voted to authorize the war in Iraq THREE TIMES, the final time just as the invasion was starting...but I was voting for the authority to go to war not the war itself...and I firmly believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place...I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it...I support the troops...but I don't support them enough to get them body armor or stop badmouthing their allies...but I will blast Rumsfeld at every opportunity for not getting the humvees armored instantly with the money I voted against him having...I am not a petty little Bush-Administration-hating bitch...and how scandalous, Rumsfeld has an Autopen sign his condolance letters just like they've done for the past 60 years...

I find it amusing to note who on this board finds the author of that article to be credible.

As Kerry has noted, the entirety of his voting for (and then against) the funding was based on the source of said funding (tax increases, paying as you go versus borrowing). If you wish to blame anyone, blame Bush for wanting to pay for this war on Mastercard.

As far as the village quote, I think it's apt on at least two levels, myself.

[Chants Evensong]

No, Partha. Baldwin is just pissed that Bush is taking religion out of the republican agenda. He runs into trouble when he argues that this somehow threatens the separation of church and state.

[Eidolon Faer]

Actually, I think it's more that Bush is taking religion out of the Republican agenda and the Religious Right is still backing him, Chants.

Of course, given how the Left is blasting Bush for how religious his Administration is, it's not like the Moral Majority has any real alternative on that score. It's real easy for "King Bush" to keep the Televangelist Pharisees bowing and scraping when the alternative is a Democrat Party that, in California, is objecting to the Declaration of Independence because it contains the word "God".

Frankly, Pastor Chuck is too screwed up to be a coincidence. His segue to a "separation of Church and State" argument, in light of the recent ACLU cases, the flap over "Merry Christmas" being offensive to some guy somewhere, and the California history teacher debacle, is simply unfathomable. Right now it's not that the church is attempting to grab temporal power...and in fact Pastor Chuck complains that Bush ISN'T grabbing temporal power for the church...the tenor of the debate is now that the state is trying to outright destroy, silence, and intimidate the church and its' members in an effort to "separate" it.

This guy is a total idiot.

What I find entertaining however, is that without fail, any Conservative (no matter how much of a crackpot or idiot) who criticizes other Conservatives INSTANTLY gains this amazing aura of credibility and mystical insight in the eyes of the Left.

Look at John McCain, famed short-list candidate for Democratic VP and co-author of the stupidest federal law of the past 20 years. Two words criticizing Rumsfeld and suddenly the jackass who brought us the last election goes from wearing a dunce cap to a papal miter. If only he had this aura of cosmic omniscience when he was stumping for Dubya.

[Relbeek Einre]

Chants, I must disagree with you.

There's no contradiction in accusing Bush of abandoning his Christian values and also accusing Bush policies of breaking down the wall between church and state are two very different things.

For one, church is not faith. They are very, very different things Also, it is a core Christian value (at least in the modern era) that people cannot be coerced into joining the faith, one must come to it of his own free will. Wanting to include some expressions of faith (part of the original Moral Majority's agenda) or to act on one's faith is not the same as breaking down the wall between church and state.

For another, he's been pretty clear that the "church" being merged with the state is a pretty damn secular one, according to his opinion. It's the Church of Republicanism - the neocon values that in the author's opinion are far more concerned with the acquisition and retention of ephemeral power than with any of the tenets of the Christian faith. And to compound this, they are using God and faith as as tools to push that agenda.

Forgive my impertinence as an agnostic, but it's been my understanding that a Christian lives his life to please God, he does not use God to please himself. What's the old saying, the one quoted by John Kerry at the DNC? "We should not proudly proclaim that God is on our side, we should humbly pray that we are on his."

It could be that the author would be happy to create a theocracy of Christian values - his Christian values. I don't know. But he clearly feels that Bush is pushing a pseudo-theocracy of very different values. And he opposes that.

Or maybe he feels that power corrupts, regardless of one's faith, and has thought better of his previous affiliation with the Moral Majority, and understands the vital importance of church-state separation.

[Eidolon Faer]

Or maybe he's a complete nitwit.

Relbeek, the goal of a POLITICAL PARTY is to advance an agenda and it acquires "ephemeral" (the word is "temporal") power as a means to that goal.

The author is deliberately trying to confuse the issue and cast George Bush as a Religious leader and not a politicial. He then moves from this patently absurd premise to an attempt to make the case that the Republicans should not advance their political agenda because they're really a church, up is down, black is white, all hail Cardinal Rove.

Last I checked, George Bush was a politician. He's also a religious man in his personal life, but he's kept that to his personal life. If Dubya was a Baptist Preacher, then Pastor Chuck would have a point when he argues that Bush's agenda is too secular. But Bush is not a priest, and Pastor Chuck should lay off the communion wine when writing his column.

[Relbeek Einre]

"Ephemeral" was a deliberate choice of words, Eid. And yes, the goal of a political party is to advance an agenda. But if that agenda is blatantly against a set of principles, that party should not claim adherence to those principles, because, well, it's not "who they are" even if the power is "what they want."

Since you've groundlessly assigned some, well, odd motives to the author and have drawn some inferences that I frankly can't dollow, I have no response to the remainder of what you said.

[Chants Evensong]

Relbeek astutely observed:

For another, he's [Baldwin's] been pretty clear that the "church" being merged with the state is a pretty damn secular one. . . .

Exactly. End of analysis. Baldwin recognizes that Bush's agenda is secular. He cannot then bemoan some percieved deterioration between church and state.

As you indicated, he may be speaking metaphorically. He may see the Bush agenda as the "Church of Republicanism" because the religious right backs him with thier own faith. He may also beleive that Bush is actively encouraging people to see the Bush way as God's way. Here is what Baldwin says:

More than that, the Religious Right appears to believe that G.W. Bush is the anointed vicar of Christ. But instead of wearing the garb of a religious leader, he wears the shroud of a politico and a military commander-in-chief.

As such, in the minds of the Religious Right, Bush's war in Iraq is a holy crusade. America is fast taking on the shape of the old Holy Roman Empire and President Bush is quickly morphing into a modern day Caesar.

The willingness of the Religious Right to give President Bush king-like subservience is easily seen in the way they demonize anyone who dares to oppose him. This is very unnerving.

Are we heading for a modern day religious inquisition, this one led not by the Catholic Church but by the Religious Right? Are we witnessing the type of marriage between Church and State that America's founders originally feared?

I used to believe that liberals were paranoid for being fearful of conservative Christians gaining political power. Now, I share their trepidation.

Even if true, that is not a violation of the separation between church and state.

But for it to be true, one must take a pretty dim view of the religious right. Has it occured to Mr. Baldwin that members of the religious right support aspects of the Bush agenda for perfectly secular reasons? Has is occured to Mr. Baldwin that members of the religious right are not all unthinking drones incapable of making secular political decisions? Has it occured to Mr. Baldwin that the religious right is not so stupid that they can't tel the difference between our operations in Iraq and a religious crusade?

Apparently, it has not. For he simply makes these assertions as fact in a conclusory fashion with absolutely no supporting argument whatsoever. What evidence does he present to make the claim that the religious right sees Bush as the vicar of Christ? What evidence does he have to make the claim that the religious right literally sees the Iraq war as a crusade? He presents none. For his "Church of Republicanism" metaphor to carry water, he must because it assumes that this rather insulting and highly dubious view of them is actually correct.

The fact is this. Baldwin reached too far with this establishmetn clause objection, both legally and metaphorically. And if he had his way there would be no need to perceive metaphorical violoations of the establishment clause. The ALCU would be overtaxed filing suit over real ones. Therein lies the contradiction.

[Eidolon Faer]

And yes, the goal of a political party is to advance an agenda. But if that agenda is blatantly against a set of principles, that party should not claim adherence to those principles, because, well, it's not "who they are" even if the power is "what they want."

You mean things like peace riots, or pro-life murders, or censorship in the name of diversity and tolerance, or playing political theater with military funding while claiming to support the troops?

I wholeheartedly agree. If only BOTH sides' real principles matched the actions they take to achieve their agendas, the world would be a much better place. But then, I think I've been making this same point in other threads...

Besides, in this particular instance, I think you've got the roadsigns backwards. The Religious Right espouses a certain set of principles and holds to them, but they're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils when they vote...and according to their principles, Bush is that lesser evil, much as Kerry was the lesser evil according to your worldview. Voting Bush doesn't make me secular any more than voting Kerry makes you Catholic. Bush isn't so much controlling the religious right as Bush is being himself and they're choosing to support him until someone better comes along.

[Relbeek Einre]

Then the Religious Right is effectively meaningless as to its stated aims. They shouldn't be backing either candidate - they should be pushing whoever's in office to promote their agenda. But instead they're sniffing Bush's throne, and rendering themselves politically to be nothing more than an arm of the RNC.

[Eidolon Faer]

Just like the NAACP, NOW, and the AFL-CIO on the left?

[Relbeek Einre]

If your only defense is "they do it too!" I accept your concession.

[Eidolon Faer]

That's not so much a "they do it too" as an "all organizations endorsing a candidate do the same thing, and I think you're either missing the point or deliberately trying to sling mud".

You see, Relbeek, until Jerry Falwell's Orbital Mind Control Laser goes into operation next year and bathes the White House in a blazing beam of Christian Values, EVERYONE is stuck with the same dilemma: you vote for the guy you think will be best for your agenda. You don't get to give him orders once he gets elected.

Is your issue that you don't understand this, or are you simply so consumed with anti-Bush hatred that you assume that even contemplating a non-Democrat vote is incompatible with Christianity? Or, for that matter, sanity and basic human decency.

Anyone who endorses a candidate, be it a union, a charity, a church, a newspaper editorial staff, or an individual voter, goes through the same process of judging the available candidates and picking the one that is the least objectionable. Calling the Religious Right hypocritical for doing exactly what you yourself did when choosing to vote Kerry doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Either I'm missing your point completely, or your point is pointless. And given that you're arguing from a foundation of Pastor Chuck's moronic article and attempting to construe some sort of defense for the indefensible there, I'm unsure which it is.

[Relbeek Einre]

Hm. I knew it was a mistake to give you another chance on this forum.

[Partha]

That's not so much a "they do it too" as an "all organizations endorsing a candidate do the same thing, and I think you're either missing the point or deliberately trying to sling mud".

If you could name the implicit principles the NAACP or the AFL-CIO sell out when they campaign for Democrats, it would be much easier to argue this. Plus, you'd have to argue that when they do campaign for Republicans (Hard to believe, but organized labor likes some of them), they're doing the same thing the 'Religious Right' is doing, even though I can't name a single Democrat they've campaigned for over a Republican.