Replies

For one reason, on the whole, the Religious Right has obviously and patently become little more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party in general and for President G.W. Bush in particular.

This might be an interesting assertion to verify, if he would tell me who this "Religious Right" is. It's not clear.

Anyway, if this is the only complaint, there's nothing to see here. Seeing as how the Republican Party is the rightward of the two major parties, it would be hardly suprising if a group referred to as the "Religious Right" (whoever they are exactly) did not prefer them.

This is in spite of the fact that both Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have routinely ignored and even trampled the very principles which the Religious Right claims to represent.

How so? I always hear lots of complaints that they're in the "Religious Right"'s back pocket. Which is it?

Therefore, no longer does the Religious Right represent conservative, Christian values.

I don't even know who we're talking about! Here's the argument so far:

Some Vaguely Defined Shadowy Group scares me. They (SMDSG) are cheerleaders for the (R)s, but the (R)s don't represent their (SMDSG's) values. Therefore SMDSG doesn't represent conservative, Christian values.

There's no "there" to this argument yet. Is there anyone actually in this SMDSG? I'll read on....

It also appears painfully obvious to me that in order to sit at the king's table, the Religious Right is willing to compromise any principle, no matter how sacred.

Such... as...?

Sadly, the Religious Right is now a movement without a cause, except the cause of advancing the Republican Party.

It is huh? If he says so. But from what I can see he hasn't actually identified anyone in the "Religious Right". But he sure has proved that they are all self-serving, short-sighted, unprincipled, and so on. (The "Religious Right". Which has no definition.)

Beyond that, the Religious Right is actively assisting those who would destroy our freedoms.

Who are those?

On the whole, the Religious Right comports with those within the Bush administration and within the Republican Party who, in the name of "fighting terrorism," are actually terrorizing constitutional protections of our liberties.

Well as long as he's not vague or anything.

The Religious Right offered virtually no resistance to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act, or the recently created position of National Intelligence Director.

How could they have? They don't exist. Would Mr. Baldwin give us an example of a person who's in this "Religious Right", such that, if that person had said "I oppose the Patriot Act", then Baldwin would be forced to agree that the "Religious Right" did resist it?

Also, is he going to list his specific problems with these things, and why he thinks these policies (whether right or wrong) violate "conservative, Christian principles"? Because if not, then this is irrelevant.

Neither did the Religious Right offer even a whimper of protest as President Bush and Republicans in Congress created a first-ever national ID card in the new intelligence bill, which eerily has more in common with early Twentieth Century German and Russian intelligence institutions than anything envisioned by America's Founding Fathers.

Again - relevance? Anyway I haven't heard about this ID card thing and suspect Baldwin is misrepresenting it.

Another disconcerting feature of today's Religious Right is its attempt to Christianize political entities which it supports and to demonize political entities which it opposes. This trend is especially scary.

Um. That trend (if it exists) is especially democracy. For crying out loud. Here he's telling us that there's this identifiable group (the "Religious Right") which takes political positions and plays a role in politics. Then he explains (with other words) that this group favors some "political entities" and not others.

Dude, that's what political groups in democracies do. It's what AARP does. It's what Sierra Club does. What is this "Religious Right" supposed to do? Apparently if you're a group which is "Religious" you're prohibited from participating in regular, democratic politics?

When people are told that they are voting "Christian" by voting for Republican Party candidates, it is being intimated that they are voting non-Christian by voting for any other candidate.

"Christian" embodies a set of ideas. It is hardly surprising if one party or the other, in any given election, can be identified which adheres to those ideas better. It is hardly surprising for a faction which is nominally "Religious" (i.e. Christian) to urge people to vote, therefore, for that party. In fact it is the normal course of politics. Environmentalists tell people that the (D)s are "better on the environment", and people who say that the (R) candidate is the "Christian" candidate (if this ever actually happens - once again, Baldwin has no examples) are doing nothing more and nothing less.

This is not only silly on its face, it is downright dangerous!

Well maybe, but that's called "politics" ;-) Again, there is a way for "Religious" groups to avoid Baldwin's criticism here - abstain from politics. Is that what he's saying they must do?

I don't remember anyone saying people voted "Christian" when they elected the outspoken Christian candidate, Jimmy Carter, President.

That means it must never have happened!!

However, in spite of the fact that President Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have repeatedly supported copious unchristian (not to mention unconstitutional) programs and policies,

Such as...????

Again all he's listed are: Patriot Act, Homeland security department, National intelligence Czar + ID card(?). I might agree that one or all of those things were misguided. I might even agree that some of them are unconstitutional. But what does that have to do with "unchristian"?

Isn't Baldwin the one here who is labeling this or that policy "Christian"? Just think, he has in effect called voting against the Patriot Act the "Christian" thing to do. Isn't that "scary" and "dangerous", by his own criteria?

Christians act as if Bush and his fellow Republicans have ushered in the Millennial Kingdom.

They do? Name some Mr. Baldwin. Because I'm calling bulls**t on you here. This is pure straw-man.

More than that, the Religious Right appears to believe that G.W. Bush is the anointed vicar of Christ.

They do? Well they must be pretty stupid, whoever they are.

I'm still not sure that people fitting Baldwin's description of this "Religious Right" actually exist, however, and I must reiterate that he's given zero examples.

But instead of wearing the garb of a religious leader, he wears the shroud of a politico and a military commander-in-chief.

As he should. The complaint being...?

As such, in the minds of the Religious Right, Bush's war in Iraq is a holy crusade.

It is? Prove it Mr. Baldwin, or shut your trap with your phony strawmen.

America is fast taking on the shape of the old Holy Roman Empire and President Bush is quickly morphing into a modern day Caesar.

Heh. Baldwin is quickly morphing into self-parody. No need for me to pile on. I'll just let that quote stand in all its glory for people to marvel at.

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.

It would be, perhaps, if I could just figure out who these dang "Religious Right" people actually are. Because I still don't know who he's talking about.

Are we heading for a modern day religious inquisition, this one led not by the Catholic Church but by the Religious Right?

What a great question. Answer: no.

Are we witnessing the type of marriage between Church and State that America's founders originally feared?

No. Any other questions?

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

He's joined their paranoia, in other words. I must point out that he's given exactly ZERO examples of: (1) who he means by "Religious Right", (2) examples of their connivings etc. which he decries, and (3) examples of Bush doing their bidding.

Indeed, he's put forth here the paradoxical view that George Bush is simultaneously (a) ignoring "Religious" principles altogether, and (b) on the verge of setting up a theocracy ("marriage between Church and State") + Catholic-like inquisition. How a sane person can believe all that is an open question.

Unfortunately, when the seed of Bush's unconstitutional policies come to fruition, it will produce large scale fallout economically, socially, and politically.

Well, there's a prediction that's worth the paper it's printed on. Someone bookmark this and then shove it in his face in four years, eight years, and so forth.

And sadder still will be that, instead of blaming Bush's infidelity to constitutional government and conservative principles, people will blame Christianity and conservatism itself.

And they'll have Mr. Baldwin's silly ranting to point at as "evidence" for their view, of a "Religious Right" that's somehow unconservative and anti-Christian, on the verge of setting up a combined theocracy and Roman Empire....

The result of this miscalculation will doubtless be a massive tide of support for more and greater unconstitutional government, but only under a different name.

I guess that's why Bush won in November...

Whatever. What a worthless article.