Is demonizing the "religious right" counterpoductive? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2021, 04:47:28 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is demonizing the "religious right" counterpoductive? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is demonizing the "religious right" counterpoductive?  (Read 698 times)
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200


« 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
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200


« Reply #1 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
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200


« Reply #2 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.021 seconds with 13 queries.