The Religious Right Movement

[LightSpectra]

Unfortunately, Reagan did it because he was old and senile.

http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/

This website just quotes a large amount of "gaffes" Reagan made. Some were intentional, some were jokes that Salon doesn't pick up on, such as the one about the Russian word for freedom. Regardless, calling him old and senile is ridiculous, considering not even Gorbachev -- his arch enemy -- stooped to that level. It just shows that you've run out of arguments and you have to resort to emotional attacks to win, and you're hoping for that slip chance that some pedestrian that isn't informed will buy it.

But I guess you've given up on that "facts or you're deluded" drive, eh? Since right now, you're resorting to posting opinion articles.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yeah. Not remembering he was a B-actor who never left the Hollywood lots during WWII instead of an actual soldier who risked his life in the war is a 'gaffe', according to you.

Not knowing that he couldn't recall ICBMs is a 'gaffe', according to you.

Ronald Reagan and GWB proved to the world that any idiot could be president if you don't really care what happens as a result.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'd like to see actual documentation of these gaffes before I actually judge if Reagan was getting senile. i.e., not an editorial from a liberal opinion site.

But you know, it's funny that you call Reagan an idiot. You still have yet to disprove any of my claims about his foreign policy's effect on the end of the Cold War. Every time I ask for it, you just keep proclaiming me deluded, as if wanting the facts is a sign of delusion. (Was Albert Einstein a neoconservative, too?)

 

[Formaldehyde]

You still wouldn't be convinced because you made up your mind what the facts were long ago, just as you did with whether or not Reagan took frequent naps while being the president.

 

[LightSpectra]

You still wouldn't be convinced because you made up your mind what the facts were long ago, just as you did with whether or not Reagan took frequent naps while being the president.

And once more, you ignore my challenge. Look, I'm not asking for much. If you want to call me an idiot, please back up your claims. If I'm such a loony that's so delusional, it shouldn't be hard to refute my claims about Reagan's foreign policy, right? Make me look like an idiot and get the whole board to side with you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's just it. I already have and you don't even know it - numerous times. Good luck with that life of yours.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's just it. I already have and you don't even know it - numerous times. Good luck with that life of yours.

You copy/pasted a few blocks from Wikipedia, and when I asked for what relevance they had (for the Southern Strategy) and how they supported your point (for the end of the U.S.S.R.), you just called me deluded.

Please, tell me: if you did a school paper where you provided no argument at all for your thesis but a copy/paste from an encyclopedia, what grade would you get?

 

[MobBoss]

Another campaign promise fulfilled. Now if they will only subsidize gay marriage.

Obama is against gay marriage. On the record saying that several times. Since it wasnt a campaign promise, dont expect much.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I guess comedy remains to be hard - at least with certain individuals.

And I think you are picking nits, or you don't really understand his views which is much more likely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

 

[Mowque]

irregardless of what Obama or anyone politician wants/thinks...pro-gay legislation is on the rise for a very good reason. People mostly support 'gay rights' these days, and ti will only drift to the left. So, in that sphere at least, the Religious Right is losing power.

 

[MobBoss]

I guess comedy remains to be hard - at least with certain individuals.

And I think you are picking nits, or you don't really understand his views which is much more likely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

So, how likely do you think a congressional amendment to legalize gay marriage is?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean Constitutional? About as likely as one banning it. Hooray for freedom, liberty, and common sense over bigotry and stupidity, and ignorance.

 

[MobBoss]

You mean Constitutional? About as likely as one banning it. Hooray for freedom, liberty, and common sense over bigotry and stupidity, and ignorance.

Yeah, because considering marriage to be between a man and a woman is so stupid, bigoted and ignorant.

Riiiiight.

 

[Perfection]

So, how likely do you think a congressional amendment to legalize gay marriage is?

When? Now, or after the Sodomites have taken over?

 

[BasketCase]

When Reagan came into power, his election represented the revival of the religious right (lotta r's there). So, will it (if ever) subside? When do you think it will end?

Dude. Seriously. This is the TWENTY-FIRST century. If this or any other religious movement hasn't ended in an age when we've got the Internet and cell phones and XBox 360, IT NEVER WILL. Deal with it.

Oh, and by the way, what you just read was an atheist talking.

Speaking of which, did you hear the US tax dollars are already subsidizing abortions all over the world again?

Which, of course, is going to piss off religious radicals in the Middle East, thereby producing terrorists. Note that when the topic is abortion instead of Iraq War #2, nobody gives a crap. Which just goes to show that the whole "the Iraq war is producing terrorists" line was bullcrap from the beginning. They never actually cared, the "producing terrorists" line was just made up in order to scare people.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For the US. Why are strict religious people more right-wing than left-wing? Why are non- and less religious people more left-wing than right-wing? How come moral issues like abortion, gay marriage are left and right issues? Isn't it odd, that by being right wing because of those moral issues, one also adapts the economical issues? By gutfeeling they should have been reversed. Or at least divided equally amongst both sides.

I'm sure this is one of those grown by history sort of thing, but it's odd nonetheless.

 

[PeteAtoms]

For the US. Why are strict religious people more right-wing than left-wing? Why are non- and less religious people more left-wing than right-wing? How come moral issues like abortion, gay marriage are left and right issues? Isn't it odd, that by being right wing because of those moral issues, one also adapts the economical issues? By gutfeeling they should have been reversed. Or at least divided equally amongst both sides.

I'm sure this is one of those grown by history sort of thing, but it's odd nonetheless.

I guess that could be considered one of the biggest downfalls to the two-party politics we got going on in America. Chances are, you aren't going to find a party that fits your personal ideals 100%, so you have to go with the closest thing you can find.

For me that would be the Libertarian party, but everyone I know just tells me I am throwing my vote away.

As for the religious movement idea, I think the environmentalist movement is as much as a "religious" movement as Christianity. Environmentalism is obviously not a religion, but for right wing pundits or commentators, the analogy is often made.

 

[Icaria909]

Unfortunately, the religious right does have a point. If you are going to believe that there is a correct way to live, whether it be based on a god, a spiritual belief, or logic, then the government should make laws to support these moral ideals. Most of america's basic laws come from the morals originally dictated by religion, and why not the rest? If I believe murder is wrong because of a religion then why not believe abortion is wrong etc.., and make sure that the government protects "the rights of the unborn" just as every living person. If one is to believe there are absolute principles with which man must act upon, then the government should act the same way, as the government is just a body of men who govern in a way that is a projection of man's moral convictions or lackthereof.

Hopefully, people will one day realize this and rid the government of all moral values that were originally espoused by one religion or another and replace it with a moral value that was deduced by reason and logic. The world and especially America would be a truly better place to live. Maybe the fall of the religious right will occur sooner rather than later; time will tell.

 

[mitsho]

Yeah, because considering marriage to be between a man and a woman is so stupid, bigoted and ignorant.

Riiiiight.

I'm not so sure about stupid or bigoted, but it certainly ignores reality.

But that's not the point here. As for the thread topic, the religious right will exist for a foreseeable future, it does exist in every society i heard of and is similar to other social movements (regulating family, kids, daily life, dos and don'ts) and political at the same time: at its core lie certain ideas, certain assumptions, certain ideologies. Like for example with the Green movement or the LGBT community. What it separates itself from these is the history and the all-encompassing nature of their belief which is - together with sometimes a bit of authoritarian behaviour to its own members - why it will stay with us for I don't know how long.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Which, of course, is going to piss off religious radicals in the Middle East, thereby producing terrorists.

Yeah. The Muslim terrorists hate our abortions instead of our absurd foreign policies which continue to kill thousands of completely innocent Muslims nearly every month, right? Is that your final answer?