Is demonizing the "religious right" counterpoductive?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2021, 04:30:33 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is demonizing the "religious right" counterpoductive?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is demonizing the "religious right" counterpoductive?  (Read 696 times)
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,401
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 16, 2021, 10:42:24 AM »
« edited: July 16, 2021, 01:58:00 PM by Torie »

The opinion piece touches on the gay theme cake issue, and as a matter of full disclosure, I regret that confectioneries are proscribed from refusing to accommodate my consumer desires, and I would prefer in any event not to patronize such establishments, so we can both be happy.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/563347-linda-greenhouse-and-the-religious-right
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,695
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2021, 12:04:46 PM »

A thoughtful and enjoyable article; thank you for sharing, Torie.
The left does demonise these people - and paint them with an overly broad brush - very often. (No doubt it is mutual.)  As he notes, this is not just harmful to the Democratic Party, but to society at large. It is a little rich for the same people to complain about how "divisive" Trump is. To be honest, I think it has largely arisen from viewing these types as a sort of alien species: people like to have a bÍte noire they can think of as stupid or attribute the country's problems to, and it is much easier if you don't really know them - for Trumpians the equivalent is "job-stealing"/"rapist" immigrants.
Logged
Ferguson97
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,105
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2021, 12:46:44 PM »

This article did nothing to make me more sympathetic to the religious right.

And the notion that the LGBT movement should "meet the other side halfway" is disgusting and offensive.
Logged
Slouching Towards Phrygia
discovolante
Atlas Politician
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 2,210
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2021, 09:05:03 PM »

Quote from: Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,963
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2021, 10:15:57 PM »

the notion that the LGBT movement should "meet the other side halfway" is disgusting and offensive.
Logged
Anaphoric-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,113
Antarctica


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2021, 02:08:37 AM »

No, but the religious right's power is waning. This isn't the 2000s GOP and the Republicans' opponents need to realize that in order to make relevant criticism. Less policy gets made nowadays on Christian appeals alone.
Logged
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2021, 08:54:07 AM »
« Edited: July 20, 2021, 08:57:23 AM by Frank »

The Nazis killed 6 million Jews.  The Jews didn't want any to be killed.  If only they could have accommodated each other by agreeing that the Nazis could kill 3 million Jews everybody could have gotten along. Sad

Seriously, this article is pablum.  I might agree with the cake makers that they can decide if they want to limit their businesses, I mean, I imagine some cake makers might specialize in serving Catholic ceremonies for instance.  But, by and large, choices have to be made in these areas: it's either one way or the other, and no compromises are available. (Blacks can be served in white areas Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and alternate Sundays....)

Does this necessarily mean 'demonizing' the religious right?  I don't think so.  But, it is interesting that nowhere in that article does the author state concretely what it is that they might like to be accommodated on, only vague abstractions are mentioned.
Logged
Республиканский бандит
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,718
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2021, 09:09:23 AM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.
Logged
A College Girl in a Light Blue Dress
progressive85
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,272
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2021, 09:23:15 PM »

It's strange - this whole conversation with the religious right and the culture wars - because I do feel religion encompasses so many things.  There are so many themes and issues in the Christian Bible - so much there to talk about...

and yet when we talk about it nowadays it feels to me that it has become almost entirely consumed with gay marriage, gay intimacy, trans kids, etc.

Very odd to me how strongly associated Christianity is now with that community because they have been characterized as enemies in the culture war for so long... and yet there are so many Christians, millions of them actually, who truly believe in marriage equality, in the rights of trans kids, and so forth... but their voices are drowned out by the media's obsession with the leading antigay evangelical leaders.
Logged
The Timorous May Stay At Home
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,948
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2021, 09:53:11 PM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.

Except that the religious right is real rather than fictional, an organization rather than an individual, and incredibly politically powerful rather than a fake boogeyman used to scare the masses. But sure, otherwise this is LITERALLY 1984.
Logged
IíM GONNA TOOOOOOOOM
TheTarHeelGent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2021, 11:32:24 PM »

The religious right has no power anymore. Shame, because while they were corny, we see the more negative effects of secularism in our society today.
Logged
Республиканский бандит
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,718
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2021, 06:45:01 AM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.

Except that the religious right is real rather than fictional, an organization rather than an individual, and incredibly politically powerful rather than a fake boogeyman used to scare the masses. But sure, otherwise this is LITERALLY 1984.

What decade do you live in?
Logged
IíM GONNA TOOOOOOOOM
TheTarHeelGent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2021, 07:36:21 AM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.

Except that the religious right is real rather than fictional, an organization rather than an individual, and incredibly politically powerful rather than a fake boogeyman used to scare the masses. But sure, otherwise this is LITERALLY 1984.

What decade do you live in?

Apparently Mr Dule still thinks it is the 1980ís.

I wish it was!
Logged
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2021, 09:10:08 AM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.

Except that the religious right is real rather than fictional, an organization rather than an individual, and incredibly politically powerful rather than a fake boogeyman used to scare the masses. But sure, otherwise this is LITERALLY 1984.

What decade do you live in?

Apparently Mr Dule still thinks it is the 1980ís.

I wish it was!

I guess I must have just imagined all those stories about states trying to ban abortion and
restrict LGBTQ+ rights.

According to data collected by the American Civil Liberties Union and analyzed by The Washington Post, the number of bills introduced has increased steadily each year. In the first half of 2017 alone, at least 70 bills that could limit LGBT rights have been introduced, a steep increase from previous years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/lgbt-legislation/
Logged
Anaphoric-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,113
Antarctica


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2021, 10:24:53 AM »
« Edited: July 22, 2021, 10:31:56 AM by Antarctic-Statism »

I guess I must have just imagined all those stories about states trying to ban abortion and
restrict LGBTQ+ rights.

According to data collected by the American Civil Liberties Union and analyzed by The Washington Post, the number of bills introduced has increased steadily each year. In the first half of 2017 alone, at least 70 bills that could limit LGBT rights have been introduced, a steep increase from previous years.

And that's true, but the thing is that attacks on LGBT+ (primarily T) are no longer coming entirely from the religious right. It's actually more secular people who "don't want that in their face" nowadays. Don't get me wrong, traditionalism is as big a force as ever, but it's become "preserving the traditions of our/American/white (if they're confident enough to say it) civilization" or "stopping this crazy cancel culture" (translated: they're prejudiced against LGBT and minorities and don't want to see them in media) just as much as "because the Bible said so". You have to make the distinction or they'll use that perceived ignorance against you.
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,184
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2021, 06:40:16 PM »

No, not really. Having the religious right and right-wing nationalists acting as their main foil constitutes a foundational stake that keeps the big tent buttressed. Opposing the agenda of such forces is one of the best arguments Democrats have at their disposal for persuading people to pull their ticket at the polls.  
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,366
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2021, 04:31:01 AM »

No, especially not in the US where they still have a strong position in society and regulate the relations of private individuals through brainwashing techniques.
Logged
A College Girl in a Light Blue Dress
progressive85
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,272
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2021, 04:40:24 PM »

The religious right has so much power in the Republican Party that even though its a laughable menace and quite weakened, it's still a threat so it has to be assailed at every opportunity.  It's that dangerous.  Religious fundamentalism is a cancer on the world.
Logged
HisGrace
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,864
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2021, 01:05:19 PM »

As others have said, the religious right is over as a cultural force. 70-80% of people want abortion legal in a significant capacity and are pro gay. Weed will probably be legal nationwide at some point. Most media being produced today is things they would find deeply offensive and no one cares because they're not a demographic anyone's interested in courting. The war's over, they lost. The only issue where you might say they've made "progress" is anti pornography activism but that's only because it's been co-opted by the left and elites feel like they have to give them a hearing, not SoCons.

The threat from the right is the alt-right which is a very different thing (and far worse).

The Nazis killed 6 million Jews.  The Jews didn't want any to be killed.  If only they could have accommodated each other by agreeing that the Nazis could kill 3 million Jews everybody could have gotten along. Sad

One business not selling someone a cake when there are likely numerous other ones in any given area that would is not remotely comparable to genocide. Stupid analogy and insulting to those who suffered under the Nazis. People on the right get cancelled for bad Nazi analogies but you probably get a pass.
Logged
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2021, 05:00:07 PM »
« Edited: August 08, 2021, 06:17:30 PM by Frank »

As others have said, the religious right is over as a cultural force. 70-80% of people want abortion legal in a significant capacity and are pro gay. Weed will probably be legal nationwide at some point. Most media being produced today is things they would find deeply offensive and no one cares because they're not a demographic anyone's interested in courting. The war's over, they lost. The only issue where you might say they've made "progress" is anti pornography activism but that's only because it's been co-opted by the left and elites feel like they have to give them a hearing, not SoCons.

The threat from the right is the alt-right which is a very different thing (and far worse).

The Nazis killed 6 million Jews.  The Jews didn't want any to be killed.  If only they could have accommodated each other by agreeing that the Nazis could kill 3 million Jews everybody could have gotten along. Sad

One business not selling someone a cake when there are likely numerous other ones in any given area that would is not remotely comparable to genocide. Stupid analogy and insulting to those who suffered under the Nazis. People on the right get cancelled for bad Nazi analogies but you probably get a pass.

If you had posted the rest of what I said there, which I assume you also read, you know that I completely qualified and explained the analogy.  

This is the rest of what I wrote:
Seriously, this article is pablum.  I might agree with the cake makers that they can decide if they want to limit their businesses, I mean, I imagine some cake makers might specialize in serving Catholic ceremonies for instance.  But, by and large, choices have to be made in these areas: it's either one way or the other, and no compromises are available. (Blacks can be served in white areas Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and alternate Sundays....)

Does this necessarily mean 'demonizing' the religious right?  I don't think so.  But, it is interesting that nowhere in that article does the author state concretely what it is that they might like to be accommodated on, only vague abstractions are mentioned.

So I said:
1.It was not meant as a serious analogy.

2.That I actually sympathized with the cake maker.

3.That the reason I  used such an extreme analogy was because there was nothing concrete for me to use in that article and to point out that compromises in areas of principle/morality are usually not available. People ideally don't compromise on their principles.



Also, I don't know how far back you're referring, but so-cons have had no problem getting taken seriously in the mainstream media, at least not until Donald Trump when so-cons abandoned pretty much everything they claimed to believe in.

A while back to be sure, but you should look into the history of Reagan Education Secretary, H.W Bush drug czar and self-appointed American morals chief, William Bennett. No matter how nonsensical his utterances were or how little evidence he had to back up his arguments, the mainstream media prostrated at his feet for a number of years.  

While Bennett's moral superiority armor was pierced when it was revealed that he was a gambling addict, what finally led the mainstream media to realize he was nothing more than a partisan hack, was when he refused to condemn George W Bush for lying to lead the nation into war against Iraq, after strongly calling out President Clinton for lying about sex.

Just to add: much of the older mainstream media during George W Bush were in some agreement with Bennett on this.  The dean of the Washington Press Corps in the early 2000s, David Broder, argued that Bill Clinton lying about sex was worse than George W Bush lying to lead the U.S into war, because, as he explained, 'Iraq was a public policy issue and journalists expect politicians to lie about policy.'

However, as no WMD were found so that it became clear to all that the W Bush Administration had lied and as Iraq became a quagmire, these journalists no longer made these arguments publicly, and Bennet's days of being taken seriously along with the simple passage of time making his time of significance as a public figure more in the rear view mirror marked the end of his days as America's self appointed morals chief.

Just to make it clear: I thought what President Clinton did was tawdry and wrong, but what George W Bush did was pure evil.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,581
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2021, 05:17:21 PM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.

Except that the religious right is real rather than fictional, an organization rather than an individual, and incredibly politically powerful rather than a fake boogeyman used to scare the masses. But sure, otherwise this is LITERALLY 1984.

What decade do you live in?

The religious right elected a President in 2016. And just last year the religious right got one of their favourite justices appointed to SCOTUS, replacing a liberal.
Logged
TheReckoning
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,753
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2021, 06:53:27 PM »

The religious right functions like Emmanuel Goldstein in much of the social liberal rhetoric we hear today.

Except that the religious right is real rather than fictional, an organization rather than an individual, and incredibly politically powerful rather than a fake boogeyman used to scare the masses. But sure, otherwise this is LITERALLY 1984.

Emmanuel Goldstein is real, and could very well lead a powerful organization.

Not that this is relevant, but I love 1984, so I will correct those who donít get the story right.
Logged
Hammy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,308
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2021, 12:56:10 AM »

The Hill is not journalism, just centrist hacks who want middle ground for the sake of middle ground, even if one side is fundamentally wrong.

So to the question, no--demonizing a group who seeks to limit people's rights because they want to play moral police is perfectly acceptable.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.