LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This article talks about the pressure that the Religious Right is putting on corporations who have any kind of inclusive regulations:

The New Blacklist
Corporate America is bowing to anti-gay Christian groups’ boycott demands
by DOUG IRELAND

Spurred on by a biblical injunction evangelicals call “The Great Commission,” and emboldened by George W. Bush’s re-election, which is perceived as a “mandate from God,” the Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America — and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities the Christers don’t like. [This writer uses 'Christer' instead of 'Dominionist' or 'Christocrat'. -ed]

And it’s working. Just three weeks ago, the Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association (AFA) announced it was ending its boycott of corporate giant Procter & Gamble — maker of household staples like Tide and Crest — for being pro-gay. Why? Because the AFA’s boycott (which the organization says enlisted 400,000 families) had succeeded in getting P&G to pull its millions of dollars in advertising from TV shows like Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. P&G also ended its advertising in gay magazines and on gay Web sites. And a P&G executive who had been given a leave of absence to work on a successful Cincinnati, Ohio, referendum that repealed a ban on any measures protecting gays from discrimination was shown the door.

“We cannot say they are 100 percent clean, and we ask our supporters to let us know if they discover P&G again being involved in pushing the homosexual lifestyle,” growls the AFA’s statement of victory over the corporate behemoth, “but judging by all that we found in our research, it appears that our concerns have been addressed.” The Wall Street Journal reported on May 11 that “P&G officials won’t talk publicly about the boycott. But privately, they acknowledge the [Christer] groups turned out to be larger, better funded, better organized, and more sophisticated than the company had imagined.”( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

TruthOut has an excellent, in-depth five part series on the Religious Right. It's excellent background on the movement.

Alternet has a George Lakoff article about the language of the different political parties, how it involves or excludes women, and how we can reclaim certain ideas.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

"US religious right sees Senate compromise on judges as 'betrayal'"

"Religious right vows payback for brokers of filibuster pact"

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY brigidsblest)

Just the Beginning

Forcing a rule change on filibusters is only the start of the GOP’s radical judicial agenda

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Eleanor Clift

Newsweek

Updated: 4:59 p.m. ET May 20, 2005

May 20 - A Jewish friend after making her first trip to Israel said, “This would be a great place if they could figure out how to separate government and religion.” I was reminded of her sentiments this week as the U.S. Senate began debate on two of President Bush’s judicial nominees, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, hostages in the ongoing culture war between born-again religionists and the more-or-less secular society the Founding Fathers envisioned.

When Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist accuses Democrats who oppose Owen and Brown of wanting to “kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees,” he transforms political rhetoric into an apocalyptic vision that is better suited to Bible class than the floor of the Senate. What’s behind his passion is naked ambition. He wants to be president and he’s courting the religious right. The scary part is that this over-the-top wooing of God-obsessed Christians is embraced by a growing number of Republican senators, all apparently sincere in their religiosity and some, like Frist, with presidential aspirations.

( Read the rest... )

The article can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924870/site/newsweek/

Some very good points here.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

Time Magazine discusses the Religious Right's interest in the filibuster debate and politics in general.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Here's another article that compares the Religious Right to addiction.

An excerpt:

For my purposes, the distinction between fundamentalist Christianity and Dominionism is incidental because what is most important to understand is that any religion, philosophy, or belief system can be addictive, fear-based, and terrorizing, and if it is used to justify changing the Constitution of the United States and creating a society in which the laws of that system are also fear-based and terrorizing, then regardless of the label, fundamentalist or Dominionist, that system is both terrorist and tyrannical. Whether one wishes to debate the differences between fundamentalist Christianity and Dominionism or not, both systems are about domination, power, control, right/wrong; win/lose. Moreover, as in my last article, I am reiterating that terrorism and tyranny, like the word addiction, have much broader definitions than crashing planes into buildings, establishing a superior race, or forcing women to cover their faces.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

There is an ongoing forum about Spiritual Progressives that has a great many interesting topics under the 'religion' category. One of them asks if we should treat Right Wing Religion as an addiction. It's a fascinating discussion.

An excerpt:

"Treat Right Wing Religion as an Addiction"
Religion Professor Says

(Kansas City, MO) In his latest national monthly column, Dr. Robert N. Minor, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas, charges that much of the religious right wing is addicted to their religion. "Dealing with the right-wing's religious/political lifestyle and its evangelistic agenda," says Minor, "is like dealing with an alcoholic or hard drug user."

"Like all addictions, when right-wing religion dominates one's life obsessively, it tells people how to feel rather than getting in touch with their real problems," says Minor. "It also prevents the addicts from understanding the harm they are doing to those around them."

Minor advises readers in his "Minor Details" column that "no matter how hard this might be to accept, strategies that try to embrace, excuse, or move toward the religious right-wing are the actions of enablers." Enabling is a common response by family members to addicts that reinforces their addiction.

"While addicts are expected to be in denial about their addiction, creating a mythological view of the world to maintain it and 'protecting their stash,'" Minor said in an interview about his column, "enablers are the ones making excuses, arguing with the addict, covering up for their addiction, and refusing to do the unpopular, confrontational work of intervention."

This could serve as a means to deal with them- especially the more virulent ones. Thoughts? Can one be 'addicted' to religion?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY deridetenebras)

Frank Rich had a great editorial in yesterday's NYTimes giving a summary of the Conservative Right's campaign against homosexuals, including accounts of closeted anti-gay activists.

Today's judge-bashing firebrands often say that it isn't homosexuality per se that riles them, only the potential legalization of same-sex marriage by the courts. That's a sham. These people have been attacking gay people since well before Massachusetts judges took up the issue of marriage, Vermont legalized civil unions or Gavin Newsom was in grade school. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, characterizes the religious right's anti-gay campaign as a 30-year war, dating back to the late 1970's, when the Miss America runner-up Anita Bryant championed the overturning of an anti-discrimination law protecting gay men and lesbians in Dade County, Fla., and the Rev. Jerry Falwell's newly formed Moral Majority issued a "Declaration of War" against homosexuality. A quarter-century later these views remained so unreconstructed that Mr. Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson would go so far as to pin the 9/11 attacks in part on gay men and lesbians - a charge they later withdrew but that Mr. Robertson repositioned just two weeks ago. In response to a question from George Stephanopoulos, he said he now believes that activist judges are a more serious threat than Al Qaeda. [...] Which judges do these people admire? Their patron saint is the former Alabama chief justice Roy S. Moore, best known for his activism in displaying the Ten Commandments; in a ruling against a lesbian mother in a custody case, Mr. Moore deemed homosexuality "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature" and suggested that the state had the power to prohibit homosexual "conduct" with penalties including "confinement and even execution."

( full text of article )

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/opinion/15rich.html

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

The article 'Getting Your Religious Terms Straight' was useful in outlining the major beliefs and lexicon of Evangelicals. I'm repeating it here for your education:

Getting Your Religious Terms Right
Can't tell the difference between the evangelicals and the seekers? Confused by the prosperity gospel? Here's a glossary to help you

Christian
Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of Americans are Christians. The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches reports that 163 million Americans belong to some 200 major, national Christian churches (This tally does not include those who belong to the growing numbers of independent, non-denominational churches). By far the largest is the U.S. Catholic Church, with more than 66 million members. The evangelical Southern Baptist Convention is second, with more than 16 million members.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Christopher Hitchens talks about the Religious Right:

Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right
Save the Republic from shallow, demagogic sectarians.

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m.

I hope and believe that, by identifying itself with "faith" in general and the Ten Commandments in particular, a runaway element in the Republican leadership has made a career-ending mistake. In support of this, let me quote two authorities:

* The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Chip Berlet has some great words of advice for those of us engaged with the Religious Right.

More than a decade ago I sat in a conference room in Washington D.C. and was told I had to start using the phrase “religious political extremist.” This was the new way for people on the political left to frame our opponents on the political right. It made me unhappy. I already had problems with language such as “radical religious right,” “lunatic fringe,” and “wing-nut.” This new phrase just seemed wrong to me.

I'm uncomfortable when I hear people of sincere religious faith described as religious political extremists. What does that term mean? I worry that many people hear it as a term of derision that says we're good and they're bad. There is no topical content. It’s a label that says folks are outside the mainstream; and it lumps together leaders and followers, and blurs distinctions within the Christian Right that I think are important. Most conservative Christian evangelicals do not want to impose a theocracy on our country. I’d like to be able to talk to them about the issue of Christian dominionism within the Christian Right.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Guardian article explains how big businesses who support anti-discrimination laws are under pressure from the Religious Right:

David Teather explains how US companies supporting anti-discriminatory legislation are under pressure from the religious right

David Teather
Wednesday May 4, 2005

Guardian Unlimited
Last week, Microsoft unwittingly found itself caught in the crosshairs of America's culture wars.

The software company is widely regarded as a progressive employer, and has offered benefits to the partners of its gay and lesbian workers since 1993. Earlier this year, it toughened up its anti-discrimination policy still further to cover "gender identity or expression", including transsexuals and transvestites.

It took Wal-Mart, the biggest employer in the US, until 2003 to even include a clause covering gays and lesbians in its anti-discrimination rules, although this was a welcome enough move from what is an otherwise deeply conservative company.

But in a widely reported decision, Microsoft recently withdrew its support for a bill that would have made it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in its home state of Washington.

The company had supported a similar bill a year earlier, and its decision to take a "neutral" position caused uproar and drew accusations that it had bowed to the demands of religious conservatives.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY meta4life)

Apparently our various appearances on the "Loose Canon" miniboard at Beliefnet.com has had an effect -- Ms. Hayes has run to some pretty safe and unchallenging sources (for her, anyway) in an attempt to get informed:

Loose Canon is trying to fathom why the fixation on the religious right is more intense than ever. I hope it's a primal scream: Democrats are beginning to realize they need the votes of "these people;" but they still find them unspeakably tacky. But the intensity and irrationality of the hatred directed at the religious right is distressing.

Read more here...

meta4life.blogspot.com

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Everyone who is planning to attend the NY Open Center conference on the Religious Right's Agenda, this is your final call to get in touch with me. You can contact me at sunfell at livejournal dot com.

Thanks!

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Truth Out is on part 3 of a five-part series about America's religious right. Very interesting reading.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

The Times has an article about the upcoming Crusade film, "Kingdom of Heaven" directed by Ridley Scott. It doesn't cast the Crusaders in a good light, and of course the Religious Right is outraged:

CHRISTIAN conservatives in America are marshalling their forces against Sir Ridley Scott’s forthcoming crusader epic, The Kingdom of Heaven, claiming the film is insulting and unfair.

Scott, 67, received death threats from Muslim fundamentalists during filming in Morocco two years ago when King Mohammed VI, who admired his earlier work, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, lent him troops from the royal bodyguard.

Yet it is Christian hostility that may ultimately prove more damaging at the box office. A spate of hostile reviews that are due to appear in the increasingly influential religious press this week will urge America’s 80m born-again believers to avoid the £100m film. ( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This article from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette talks about Sen. Mark Pryor's criticism of the evangelical attack on the US judiciary. Here's an excerpt:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Mark Pryor lashed out Wednesday at the Christian evangelicals who have joined the attack on Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Their tactics threaten "to make the followers of Jesus Christ just another special-interest group," Pryor said in a conference call with Arkansas reporters.
"It is presumptuous of them to think that they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians," added Pryor, 42, a first-term Democrat who has considered himself an evangelical Christian for 25 years.
The term generally refers to members of conservative Christian denominations that believe that proselytizing is an essential part of the religious experience.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Salon article goes into detail about the new Pope and the President, and how they would like to run the world:

The new pope's burning passion is to resurrect medieval authority. He equates the Western liberal tradition, that is, the Enlightenment, with Nazism, and denigrates it as "moral relativism." He suppresses all dissent, discussion and debate within the church and concentrates power within the Vatican bureaucracy. His abhorrence of change runs past 1968 (an abhorrence he shares with George W. Bush) to the revolutions of 1848, the "springtime of nations," and 1789, the French Revolution. But, even more momentously, the alignment of the pope's Kulturkampf with the U.S. president's culture war has also set up a conflict with the American Revolution.

For the first time, an American president is politically allied with the Vatican in its doctrinal mission (except, of course, on capital punishment). In the messages and papers of the presidents from George Washington until well into those of the 20th century, there was not a single mention of the pope, except in one minor footnote. Bush's lobbying trip last year to the Vatican reflects an utterly novel turn, and Ratzinger's direct political intervention in American electoral politics ratified it.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

The NYC Open Center conference on the Religious Right's agenda is two weeks from today. I've already got my tickets to go- who else plans to be there? One of my personal journal friends is going- and I believe someone on this board. Please let me know- I'd like to arrange a meet-up. With all the Religious Right craziness in the news- especially the thing next weekend, this conference is a great opportunity to learn what is going on, and what we can do about it.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

jahbulon sent me this link:

How To Fight The Religious Right

Here's an interesting paragraph:

Fundamentalist Christians use the Bible as their sole authority. Anything else is suspect at best - satanic at worst. If you wish to mount a good defense, you must use their own "authoritative" book against them. You might think such a defense would be impossible, but it's not. Remember, Fundamentalists use a made-truth, one of their own creation, and despite their claims to the contrary, the Bible often contradicts their point of view. It happens because most Fundamentalists don't actually read it for themselves. The Bible, therefore, becomes the perfect weapon to use against them.

I've done that more than once myself, and am slowly amassing a small library of theological and historical rebuttals of many of the things they claim as The Truth ™. The irony of the whole thing is that in some of these encounters, it's clear that I know more about the history and internal workings of Christianity than most Christians- including seminary graduates. I always remember that True Believers ™ do not want you to think for yourself- heck, they don't want you to think at all unless it is to promote their particular cause- be it religious, political, or whatever. Any more, though, I don't want to waste time, thought or breath with them, and prefer to walk away. Keeps the blood pressure down.