Interesting Article at History News Network

[Minimalist]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

[mordant]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

It was Goldwater who, in '64, predicted that the evangelicals were "going to be a big goddamned problem for the party" if they were allowed to obtain control of it, and he was right. In fact they now ARE the party and the party is them.

To be clear, not all evangelicals are Rushdoony / North dominionists, but the influence of dominionism and reconstructionism are so pervasive that most of them probably are so influenced by it that they don't even realize it.

[Dancefortwo]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

It was Goldwater who, in '64, predicted that the evangelicals were "going to be a big goddamned problem for the party" if they were allowed to obtain control of it, and he was right. In fact they now ARE the party and the party is them.

To be clear, not all evangelicals are Rushdoony / North dominionists, but the influence of dominionism and reconstructionism are so pervasive that most of them probably are so influenced by it that they don't even realize it.

That Goldwater quote is one of my favorite quotes.   I've posted it here a couple of times.  The Religious right is so far to the right that even ultra conservative Goldwater would be too liberal for them.  We live in sad times.

[Minimalist]

they don't even realize it.

Bingo.  That's the real problem.  On an individual basis they are probably not so bad but put them together in a group and hold on to your butt.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

they don't even realize it.

Bingo.  That's the real problem.  On an individual basis they are probably not so bad but put them together in a group and hold on to your butt.

"The IQ of a mob is that of the lowest IQ in the mob."

[Minimalist]

Yes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes.

Prof. Eugene Jackson, Psych. Dept., Purdue, taught me that one.

[Minimalist]

Seems like a good man.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seems like a good man.

Well, he used the movie "Slapshot" in class.

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[jerry mcmasters]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

Beware of simplistic interpretations of very complex dynamics.  The article doesn't demonstrate at all the America's religious right isn't at least in some degree a social and cultural movement, representing a reaction to modern secular culture and preoccupied with issues of concern to the family.  Nor does it at all demonstrate that it is exclusively a political movement with the ultimate aim of replacing our modern constitutional Republic with a "biblical" order.  Nor does it, even if it could demonstrate that it is exclusively a political movement with etc etc, does it adequately explain how it got that way, the article just describes a particularly important religious leader named Rushdoony (?) and ascribes him near magical and mythical influence and power.  I don't buy it.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, I know.  Take it up with the author.

[jerry mcmasters]

Sorry Min. Creep back into your bubble.

[Free]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

Separation of church and state?

As long as religion is allowed a voice in politics the separation of church and state is not even going to add up to so much as a pipe dream.

They need strong laws that provide grave consequences to any clergy member of any religious body who publicly speaks out in support or against any political party or candidate, otherwise it's a fucking joke.

[Minimalist]

We had separation of church and state, Free.  Fully enshrined in the law but the law can't stand up to the chisels being wielded by the chiselers!  They chip a flake off here and there and pretty soon fucking jesus is everywhere.

And fuck him.

[mordant]

they don't even realize it.

Bingo.  That's the real problem.  On an individual basis they are probably not so bad but put them together in a group and hold on to your butt.

Charlie Chaplin said that he loved individual people but hated crowds because they are like headless monsters, lurching from one thing to the next without thought.

[mordant]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

Beware of simplistic interpretations of very complex dynamics.  The article doesn't demonstrate at all the America's religious right isn't at least in some degree a social and cultural movement, representing a reaction to modern secular culture and preoccupied with issues of concern to the family.  Nor does it at all demonstrate that it is exclusively a political movement with the ultimate aim of replacing our modern constitutional Republic with a "biblical" order.  Nor does it, even if it could demonstrate that it is exclusively a political movement with etc etc, does it adequately explain how it got that way, the article just describes a particularly important religious leader named Rushdoony (?) and ascribes him near magical and mythical influence and power.  I don't buy it.

The thesis of the article is not that evangelicalism is solely a particular kind of quasi-theocratic political movement. Rather it is that it is NOT solely a cultural and social movement with the typically attributed motivations. I think it is correct that you misunderstand modern evangelicalism if you do not understand its dominionist / reconstructionist influences, which are significant if not, in fact, substantial.

Rushdoony is not presented as a mythical figure, simply a seminal and influential figure who is revered by those who follow his thinking. North and others, one could argue, were ultimately more influential than Rushdoony. Gary North was outside my theological circle jerk back in the day but I remember him pushing personal independence from a corrupt and failing economic system by purchasing gold and silver and learning how to barter, and engaging in survival stockpiling. He (back then at least) made much of his income off Christian preppers, before prepping was a thing. His attitude was that we'd get to the desired theocracy through government collapse and survival of the fittest. He was, conveniently for such notions, based in Texas. I wonder if that's still what he's flogging, or if he's evolved a bit.

[Minimalist]

It's the kind of jesus freak stupidity evident in this painting:

[Dancefortwo]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

Separation of church and state?

As long as religion is allowed a voice in politics the separation of church and state is not even going to add up to so much as a pipe dream.

They need strong laws that provide grave consequences to any clergy member of any religious body who publicly speaks out in support or against any political party or candidate, otherwise it's a fucking joke.

 If any pastor/priest/minister says anything about politics in his/her pulpit then they have overstepped the separation of church and state and should be taxed like hell!  Tax em, I say!

[Minimalist]

Who is going to enforce it?  The handful of IRS agents still working?

[jerry mcmasters]

On the origins of modern xtian fucktardery!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174498


And it was Reagan who sold out to the scumbags long before the Orange Shitgibbon.

Beware of simplistic interpretations of very complex dynamics.  The article doesn't demonstrate at all the America's religious right isn't at least in some degree a social and cultural movement, representing a reaction to modern secular culture and preoccupied with issues of concern to the family.  Nor does it at all demonstrate that it is exclusively a political movement with the ultimate aim of replacing our modern constitutional Republic with a "biblical" order.  Nor does it, even if it could demonstrate that it is exclusively a political movement with etc etc, does it adequately explain how it got that way, the article just describes a particularly important religious leader named Rushdoony (?) and ascribes him near magical and mythical influence and power.  I don't buy it.

The thesis of the article is not that evangelicalism is solely a particular kind of quasi-theocratic political movement. Rather it is that it is NOT solely a cultural and social movement with the typically attributed motivations. I think it is correct that you misunderstand modern evangelicalism if you do not understand its dominionist / reconstructionist influences, which are significant if not, in fact, substantial.

You're giving it a subtlety and nuance it doesn't have.  The actual quote seems to be setting it up in more of a dichotomy, as in "It is generally thought of as this thing (social and cultural) but actually it is this other thing (political)."  If it were merely saying that to properly understand the phenomenon it is not only this first thing (social and cultural) but also this other thing (political) I would have fewer criticisms of it.  And it wouldn't really be very provocative- because of course most social and cultural movements bleed over in varying degrees into the political world, the interesting question then becomes to what degree and how exactly did it get that way (enter the Rushdoony stuff).  It seems to be negating the first description (social and cultural), presumably for the purpose of negating any actual sincerity, honest concerns, or good will on the part of the Christian right in favor of a motivation of pure grubby power grabbing.  (Thus raw meat for someone like Min to copy, paste, and feel superior- as if he read more than the title)

Rushdoony is not presented as a mythical figure, simply a seminal and influential figure who is revered by those who follow his thinking. North and others, one could argue, were ultimately more influential than Rushdoony. Gary North was outside my theological circle jerk back in the day but I remember him pushing personal independence from a corrupt and failing economic system by purchasing gold and silver and learning how to barter, and engaging in survival stockpiling. He (back then at least) made much of his income off Christian preppers, before prepping was a thing. His attitude was that we'd get to the desired theocracy through government collapse and survival of the fittest. He was, conveniently for such notions, based in Texas. I wonder if that's still what he's flogging, or if he's evolved a bit.

I'm unfamiliar with these individuals, my point in saying Rushdoony's influence and power seem mythical (not the man himself!) is that the writer ascribes great influence and power to him in creating the modern day Christian right, but without much evidence.  It may all be perfectly true, but not demonstrated in this short little article.  Cause and effect is never that clean and simple (and rarely so singular).

[Dancefortwo]

Who is going to enforce it?  The handful of IRS agents still working?

True, but there was a time when churches weren't so political.  At one time no one really knew how a pastor voted but nowadays people go the church that has the pastor that fits their political views, perhaps even moreso than their religious views.

[Minimalist]

I'm unfamiliar with these individuals, my point in saying Rushdoony's influence and power seem mythical (not the man himself!) is that the writer ascribes great influence and power to him in creating the modern day Christian right, but without much evidence.

How many people know of the influence of Dietrich Eckardt and Alfred Rosenberg on Adolf Hitler?  How many republicunts understand the impact of Ayn Rand on the party?  Alfred Ruge was a significant influence on a young Karl Marx.  Georgy Plekhanov was an early influence on Lenin.  No one exists in a vacuum.

Just because you never heard of someone doesn't mean they were unimportant.  Sometimes its all a matter of timing and who listens to them.

[jerry mcmasters]

I'm unfamiliar with these individuals, my point in saying Rushdoony's influence and power seem mythical (not the man himself!) is that the writer ascribes great influence and power to him in creating the modern day Christian right, but without much evidence.

How many people know of the influence of Dietrich Eckardt and Alfred Rosenberg on Adolf Hitler?  How many republicunts understand the impact of Ayn Rand on the party?  Alfred Ruge was a significant influence on a young Karl Marx.   Georgy Plekhanov was an early influence on Lenin.  No one exists in a vacuum.

Just because you never heard of someone doesn't mean they were unimportant.  Sometimes its all a matter of timing and who listens to them.

Sure but you can't just make wild speculations, giant cause and effect leaps, without making a case with some evidence and demonstration.  Unless you're just throwing click bait out for trolls to gobble up. 

Can you deal with the other 95% of my criticism, or was that it?