Religious Left Making Strides

[Smidlee]

It's really quite perplexing the way religion has such an effect on politics in the US. In Australia, there is no such thing as a "religious right" or "religious left" (with the exception of the new Families First Party). There are religious members in both major parties. Religion really isn't an indicator of how people vote.

IT's exactly the same here in USA. "The religious right" is really an illusion created by the media. I know too many people who has nothing to do with the church (non-religious) and is againest gay marriage (some are even drunks) at the same time the "gay agenda" is being pushed heavly by the church itself and I live in the heart of the bible belt.
What really happening in when the non-religious people happen to agree with the fundamentals churches on an issue which get noticed by politicians the lefted starts crying "the religious right is taken over." Politician including Bush has totally ignore the fundamentals churches since there isn't really enough of us. The only reason why Bush won the elections was because the Democrats pushed the "gay agenda" too hard and too fast (most people doesn't see boyscouts a real threat or evil) which cause many non-regilious people to vote with the fundamentalists. Most Americans just doesn't see "church goers" as a threat to Democracy as the media puts on. This in turn make the left look like bullies.
Sorry but I just don't see the sky falling like the left is claiming it is.

 

[blackheart]

Smidlee, you must be living in a vastly different America than I am, because I DO notice that there is a section of the population that is validly called the religious right.

And I laugh at your attempt to blame this on the media and "whining" leftists.

 

[ironduck]

What gay agenda?

 

[Smidlee]

I'm not saying the fundamentals churches don't have a voice but not big enough to move politicians. Bush is for nothing but big business. you got to be blind not to see that. The "religious right" has no more influence now than when Clinton was in office. In fact it's probably have less influence.

 

[.Shane.]

What gay agenda?

Yeah, I'm still waiting for someone to explain what this is.

 

[downtown]

You better believe fundamentalist churches can move politicians. They are the only guys giving money to Ken Blackwell (running for gov. of Ohio)...and he's raking in MILLIONS. Churches have some of the largest interest groups in the US

 

[blackheart]

I'm not saying the fundamentals churches don't have a voice but not big enough to move politicians. Bush is for nothing but the big business. you got to be blind not to see that. The "religious right" has no more pinfluence now than when Clinton was in office. In fact it's probably have less influence.

Right, that's why some churches rake in millions of dollars through donations. Or why there a lot of protests by the religious right are on the news. Most politicians are for big business, FYI.

 

[IglooDame]

What gay agenda?

Heck, I'm baffled as to why it is notable that some drunks are against gay marriage.

 

[De Lorimier]

What gay agenda?

Hummm... Let's see what good old Wiki has to say:

The term homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a talking point which those who support nuclear family structure and related laws that support that structure, and/or oppose what they term special rights for gay and lesbian people or changes in law to accommodate them, often use when discussing the efforts of LGBT groups. It is not definitively known who first coined the term, but it is most often used by Christian fundamentalist groups and social conservatives, especially in the United States. Users of the term "homosexual agenda" typically do not support gay rights.

Social conservatives assert that gay and lesbian leaders and their supporters intend to redefine religion, marriage, and the family through law, culture, and popular media, and that they are shifting society's focus away from biblical morality.

On the other hand, the similar term "gay agenda" is viewed by some as an attempt to make the argument more palatable to social moderates because most members of the LGBT community prefer "gay" to "homosexual" as "homosexual" appears clinical and recalls a time when homosexuality was viewed as an illness. Thus, the term "homosexual agenda" is often taken as an insult.

Good ol' fear mongering from the same fundie minority that spams CFC with their open and inclusive message of love!

 

[ironduck]

Nice quote by James Dobson on that page..

I guess when you can't blame it on the commies you gotta blame it on the gays.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Left, Right I don't care. If you want to impose your religious beliefs and morals on others you can go.....

Politics and religion is a big no no. It's been done, millions have died and billions suffered. Go away. If you want a religious following create a weird sect/cult and build some fortress in the forest.

 

[Smidlee]

Right, that's why some churches rake in millions of dollars through donations. Or why there a lot of protests by the religious right are on the news. Most politicians are for big business, FYI.

While the media shows .01% of protesters there the other 99.99% who doesn't protest. These big churches who rake in the millions as you say are most IMO "TV entertainment" churches. They can't rock the boat too hard or they will lose those millions of dollars.
Bush used the same strategy Clinton used by stay in the middle of the road but leaning just enough Right/Left to win their base.
Plus the republician party made sure we didn't elect someone like Helms by sticking Mrs. Dole in his spot. She was funded by oil companies while the other guy was funded by Wall street.

 

[.Shane.]

While the media shows .01% of protesters there the other 99.99% who doesn't protest. These big churches who rake in the millions as you say are most IMO "TV entertainment" churches. They can't rock the boat too hard or they will lose those millions of dollars.
Bush used the same strategy Clinton used by stay in the middle of the road but leaning just enough Right/Left to win their base.
Plus the republician party made sure we didn't elect someone like Helms by sticking Mrs. Dole in his spot. She was funded by oil companies while the other guy was funded by Wall street.

Please explain the "gay agenda". Are they out to turn you gay? Just your children? Will they force you do redo your home in lavender? Or simply require that your clothes be natty?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Please explain the "gay agenda". Are they out to turn you gay? Just your children? Will they force you do redo your home in lavender? Or simply require that your clothes be natty?

We will not be able to withstand their onslaught of track lighting and tasteful clothing!

Seriously, though, I am both conservative and religious, and I do not see government recognition of gay marriage as that big of a deal. I am more concerned about issues like abortion and the effect that social welfare programs are having, for good and ill.

 

[blackheart]

While the media shows .01% of protesters there the other 99.99% who doesn't protest. These big churches who rake in the millions as you say are most IMO "TV entertainment" churches. They can't rock the boat too hard or they will lose those millions of dollars.

Are you kidding me? The fundamentalists are rocking everything pretty damn hard, that's why they've riled up so much support by preying on the fears and hate of people. But then again, you're trying to posture it so that the religious right is an endangered minority.

 

[ironduck]

If they were rocking the boat like that here it would have capsized long ago.