Do you consider yourself part of..

[Ishida]

This "Religious right" I hear about so much? A group that is guilty for so many sins and often I get compared to? I know in the end, the only thing I would consider myself a "part" of is HIS church, but could someone fill me in on what this group is? And does being theologically conservative automatically put myself in?

[Voegelin]

Its a new thing. Start really with the Democratic Convention of 1972. The party found a quarter to a third of the delegates self-identified as "secularists". Until then, there were, of course, Christians with very different political views but on the need for faith in the public square and on general principles, both parties were in pretty much agreement. When evangelicals started leaving the Democratic party because of Roe (which also drove out Catholics) and disappointment with Jimmy Carter, the secularists in the party started to play up the "religious right" as a threat to American values. Norman Lear founded People for the American Way for the express purpose of denying those who left his party political office. He and Ralph Neas have toned down the rhetoric in recent years but the early pamphlets on "How to defeat the religious right" were incendiary.

If you go back to the great populist and three time Democratic party candidate for president, William Jennings Bryan, much of what he wrote (check out "In his Image (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12744/12744-8.txt)") would today be considered from the "religious right".

There does seem to be a reaction to the secular drift within the Democratic party. The old pluralism seems to be coming back a little bit and they claim that a opinion formed because of ones faith has no business in politics receeding. This is a good thing. I hope liberal Christianity does make a comeback in the party.

[KarrieTex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right#History

After reading this, I have to say that those of us that are conservative in our faith, can be labled as such.

Save for a few things, I fit the group. No issue here to be labled as such.

[Criada]

Don't think that I would fit into this, but the crossover between Christianity and politics is more or less non-existent in the UK.
However, whilst I am conservative in my Christian beliefs, my politics are not right wing. I can also see a danger in trying to impose Christian principles and values on a largely secular society. We should be preaching the gospel to the non-Christians, rather than trying to impose Christian values and behaviours on unregenerate humans.

[Izdaari]

This "Religious right" I hear about so much? A group that is guilty for so many sins and often I get compared to? I know in the end, the only thing I would consider myself a "part" of is HIS church, but could someone fill me in on what this group is? And does being theologically conservative automatically put myself in?
Mmm, no. I'm theologically conservative, but socially moderate and politically neolibertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism). I can ally with the "Religious Right" on certain issues (i.e., on electing a Republican rather than a Democrat) but I'm not one of them.

I'm Christian, and I'm on the Right, but not the "Christian Right".

I can also see a danger in trying to impose Christian principles and values on a largely secular society. We should be preaching the gospel to the non-Christians, rather than trying to impose Christian values and behaviours on unregenerate humans.
:amen::amen::amen:

[ContentInHim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right#History

After reading this, I have to say that those of us that are conservative in our faith, can be labled as such.

Save for a few things, I fit the group. No issue here to be labled as such.
What she said! :thumbsup:

[BrBob]

Nope! The Christian Right is too much into imposition of moral priciples onto everyone. That involves legislating morality and as far as I'm concerned morality should come from society itself, not its politicians! To legislate morality is doing things upside down.

In addition, I do NOT want more legislation in this country. We have too many laws as it is and there is no freedom left.

I am very conservative socially but don't want it to come from the top down.

Bob
Spearfish, SD

[Lady Bug]

This "Religious right" I hear about so much? A group that is guilty for so many sins and often I get compared to? I know in the end, the only thing I would consider myself a "part" of is HIS church, but could someone fill me in on what this group is? And does being theologically conservative automatically put myself in?
No, not at all. I am very conservative, but I am by no means a Fundamentalist.

[Voegelin]

We should be preaching the gospel to the non-Christians, rather than trying to impose Christian values and behaviours on unregenerate humans.

HUH????

[SolomonVII]

To the extent that freedom to choose is too important to be left to government choice, it is less government interference that most conservatives are asking for. On most issues, this is what the Christian right stands for. From the economy and ownership rights, through educational choice, and through many other freedoms in which the government need not interfere, I am a part of the Christian right that does not want liberal morality imposed on citizens.

I would support those elements of the Christian right that place value on life from conception to death. This will no doubt be seen as imposing morality, but more positively is involves bringing one's own moral ideals into the public domain.
For once it is seen that one's humanity is indivisible at all stages of life, it becomes a duty to fight for the rights of the most vulnerable.
So I agree with the Christian right that one should not abandon one's own moral sense once entering the public sphere.

I would not support legislation that would make one's own sexual choices illegal. To the extent that the Christian right would make mutually agreeed upon sexual choices illegal, I would not find myself in support.
This is not an absolute of course. To the extent that one's sexual choices have an effect on other people, on one's family and one's spouse, and on the vulnerable who are subject to sexual exploitation, there is a morality that is required to be imposed.

There is in short a minimal standard of behavior that a society has a right to expect from its citizens. This is always a balancing act. Neither individual rights nor family values can negate each other, but both must be struggled with in the public domain.
and as I find myself getting older, I tend to be more conservative in this regard, more likely to strees an individual obligations as much as individual rights.

To the extent that government would impose a morality on citizens though, through hate speech laws, or requiring that private institutions not be able to make choices for who they will associate based on lifestyle choices, then I am back on the side of the Christian Right.

[JPPT1974]

I try not to argue nor debate
As despite being a Conservertive
With Christian beliefs, though I may
Not agree, I still support your beliefs.

[BAFRIEND]

As unattractive as the RR seems, I will throw in with them as they are the best shot at ending abortion.

Thems and the Moral Majority.

You have to draw the line somewheres.

[No Swansong]

I am conservative and a Christian whatever that makes me.


As for politicians I have only met two that I might trust to park my car.The rest, and there have been at least a few more, I wouldn't trust to clean out a septic tank.

[TexasSky]

Oh yes, the "Christian" right.

I was an individual who was very politically active. To the point of being elected to serve the party several times in public elections, and as delegate to various conventions, and to serve as an officer of the convention.

I am also a outspoken Christian.

So the "Christian Coalition" who most consider the "leadership" of the religious right, approached me. Eager to have me push their cause and their candidates.

That was a very eye opening experience for me.

I discovered that:
1) The local spearheaded of the Christian Coalition who was rallying all the troops every day - was in fact - not a professing Christian.

Once she felt confident around me she freely confessed to me that she didn't think it mattered if you called yourself a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian, that as long as you worshipped something you were fine.

She had no church home.

She knew almost no scripture.

Yet, Christians were FLOCKING to her beck and call to do whatever she told them God would want them to do.

2) That this group believed it was perfectly justifiable to spread lies about others. Not just gossip they thought was true, but things they KNEW were flat out lies, if it would "elect the right man."

3) That a "moderate Christian minister who personally would never have an abortion, marry a gay, or sleep with someone out of marriage" was "a bad man" if he said, "We need to focus less on Roe vs Wade and more on the current economic situation of our nation", but a man who freely admits, "I am not a Christian. I am, in fact, a Shaman for the Apache indian tribe, but it doesn't matter because I agree with the Christians," was a "good man".

4) That it was okay to "twist" democracy and democractic procedure if "your cause was just."
For instance. If the rules of debate were: 3 people in support, 3 opposing, each person gets 3 minutes." It was perfectly ethical and Christian, according to them, to hold a meeting and say, "Okay, we need three people to pretend to support the opposing view who can make it to their microphone before their top speakers do and use up their time. You don't really have to support their view, you just have to hem and haw until the Chair calls that your time is up. Just don't let them get to their mic."

5) That the biggest "anti-abortion" leaders both had daughters who had abortions, at their urgings. This coming from the daughter in one case, the father himself in the other case. And no, they had not had a change of heart, no there were no lives or health or rape issues involved. They simply did not want the world to know their daughters got pregnant out of wedlock so they paid for abortions, but they felt they could never elect their candidates if the world knew that, so they lied.

So, my last great Christian political endeavor, I reminded them that God's word says, "Thou shalt not bear false wittness against thy neighbor," and that there is no "unless it fits your cause" clause. I also reminded them that when they get to heaven, they will have to face Christ and explain to Him why they think electing a non-Christian in the name of Christ is better than electing a Christian in the name of Christ.

And I've done nothing but vote since then.

[Ishida]

Thank you for sharing that. We must always be on guard...

[No Swansong]

5) That the biggest "anti-abortion" leaders both had daughters who had abortions, at their urgings. This coming from the daughter in one case, the father himself in the other case. And no, they had not had a change of heart, no there were no lives or health or rape issues involved. They simply did not want the world to know their daughters got pregnant out of wedlock so they paid for abortions, but they felt they could never elect their candidates if the world knew that, so they lied.



My distrust of politicians if fairly well known but I must ask do you have documentation of this particular accusation?

[TexasSky]

My distrust of politicians if fairly well known but I must ask do you have documentation of this particular accusation?
Documentation that the Local Republican Executive Committe Chairman in 1980, and that the regional campaign manager for Ronald Reagan both had daughter's who had abortions?

I suppose if I tried hard enough I could find it, but given that both men, and one of the daughters, is deceased I see no reason to. In the case of one of them, the daughter died at a very young age, in what they think was suicide. So what purpose would it serve? When the information came directly from the daughter and directly from the man in question, I saw no reason to ask them to prove it to me.

I did not, as others in the coalition were doing, tell others in the local area the secrets these family members had shared with me. I simply stopped supporting them politically, and when asked, told people the truth in so far as saying, "I have a lot of trouble with a lot of things going on." Some of it was blatant enough, like the meetings to steal the opposing speakers time, that I didn't have to say much more.

[Rhamiel]

there really is no "religious right" in the fact that the political group inside the republican party

there are a lot of republicans who are christian and some of them are promenant politicians or pastors, there are libertaians and an over estemated neo-conservitave parts to the republican party.
The "religous right" is not a group and does not have any single goals, it would be like saying "African american left" like all black democrats were working together for the same end, now since they are democrats and african americans they might have many of the same goals and interests but it is not a hierarchical group that is pulling the strings of the democratic party, the "religious right" can be seen in a simerlar way, we might have a bit in common but it is not really structured.
I often joke that I am not part of the religous right because I am catholic and they won't let me join, lol like there is a place to sign up to be part of the religious right.

[Rhamiel]

really if there was a "religous right" and it had even half of the power liberals like to imagine it does the abortion would be illegal in the midwest and southern states

[Ishida]

really if there was a "religous right" and it had even half of the power liberals like to imagine it does the abortion would be illegal in the midwest and southern states
You're right..

[Simon_Templar]

Oh yes, the "Christian" right.

I was an individual who was very politically active. To the point of being elected to serve the party several times in public elections, and as delegate to various conventions, and to serve as an officer of the convention.

I am also a outspoken Christian.

So the "Christian Coalition" who most consider the "leadership" of the religious right, approached me. Eager to have me push their cause and their candidates.

That was a very eye opening experience for me.

I discovered that:
1) The local spearheaded of the Christian Coalition who was rallying all the troops every day - was in fact - not a professing Christian.

Once she felt confident around me she freely confessed to me that she didn't think it mattered if you called yourself a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian, that as long as you worshipped something you were fine.

She had no church home.

She knew almost no scripture.

Yet, Christians were FLOCKING to her beck and call to do whatever she told them God would want them to do.

2) That this group believed it was perfectly justifiable to spread lies about others. Not just gossip they thought was true, but things they KNEW were flat out lies, if it would "elect the right man."

3) That a "moderate Christian minister who personally would never have an abortion, marry a gay, or sleep with someone out of marriage" was "a bad man" if he said, "We need to focus less on Roe vs Wade and more on the current economic situation of our nation", but a man who freely admits, "I am not a Christian. I am, in fact, a Shaman for the Apache indian tribe, but it doesn't matter because I agree with the Christians," was a "good man".

4) That it was okay to "twist" democracy and democractic procedure if "your cause was just."
For instance. If the rules of debate were: 3 people in support, 3 opposing, each person gets 3 minutes." It was perfectly ethical and Christian, according to them, to hold a meeting and say, "Okay, we need three people to pretend to support the opposing view who can make it to their microphone before their top speakers do and use up their time. You don't really have to support their view, you just have to hem and haw until the Chair calls that your time is up. Just don't let them get to their mic."

5) That the biggest "anti-abortion" leaders both had daughters who had abortions, at their urgings. This coming from the daughter in one case, the father himself in the other case. And no, they had not had a change of heart, no there were no lives or health or rape issues involved. They simply did not want the world to know their daughters got pregnant out of wedlock so they paid for abortions, but they felt they could never elect their candidates if the world knew that, so they lied.

So, my last great Christian political endeavor, I reminded them that God's word says, "Thou shalt not bear false wittness against thy neighbor," and that there is no "unless it fits your cause" clause. I also reminded them that when they get to heaven, they will have to face Christ and explain to Him why they think electing a non-Christian in the name of Christ is better than electing a Christian in the name of Christ.

And I've done nothing but vote since then.
I obviously disagree with the lying and such. However, I would have to say that an Apache Shaman who opposes abortion is probably a better person than a christian minister who doesn't.

I'm not remotely trying to defend the Christian Coalition. However, I think the entire "I wouldn't do it personally BUT..." line is a crock of **** and a cop out of epic proportions.

Put it in real terms without the euphamisms...

I personally wouldn't slaughter innocent babies, but I think we have more important issues to focus on.

I personally wouldn't slaughter innocent children, but I don't think I have the right to force my beliefs on others.

I would not want to be in the shoes of such people when they give account to a righteous and holy God for why they didn't speak for those who have no voice and defend those who can't defend themselves.

[Albion]

I suppose I'd call myself part of the Religious Right since I'm religious and politically right-wing, but as others have noted...

1. there's no way of controlling other people who say that they are part of the Religious Right and don't really seem to be such, and

2. there's no litmus test for joining. This term is essentially without definition.

[WannaWitness]

I am neither Republican nor Democrat, neither right nor left, neither red nor blue.

I may not be part of the "Religious Right", but I do follow the right religion -- which is called Christianity.

[Chococat]

Oh yes, the "Christian" right.

I was an individual who was very politically active. To the point of being elected to serve the party several times in public elections, and as delegate to various conventions, and to serve as an officer of the convention.

I am also a outspoken Christian.

So the "Christian Coalition" who most consider the "leadership" of the religious right, approached me. Eager to have me push their cause and their candidates.

That was a very eye opening experience for me.

I discovered that:
1) The local spearheaded of the Christian Coalition who was rallying all the troops every day - was in fact - not a professing Christian.

Once she felt confident around me she freely confessed to me that she didn't think it mattered if you called yourself a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian, that as long as you worshipped something you were fine.

She had no church home.

She knew almost no scripture.

Yet, Christians were FLOCKING to her beck and call to do whatever she told them God would want them to do.

2) That this group believed it was perfectly justifiable to spread lies about others. Not just gossip they thought was true, but things they KNEW were flat out lies, if it would "elect the right man."

3) That a "moderate Christian minister who personally would never have an abortion, marry a gay, or sleep with someone out of marriage" was "a bad man" if he said, "We need to focus less on Roe vs Wade and more on the current economic situation of our nation", but a man who freely admits, "I am not a Christian. I am, in fact, a Shaman for the Apache indian tribe, but it doesn't matter because I agree with the Christians," was a "good man".

4) That it was okay to "twist" democracy and democractic procedure if "your cause was just."
For instance. If the rules of debate were: 3 people in support, 3 opposing, each person gets 3 minutes." It was perfectly ethical and Christian, according to them, to hold a meeting and say, "Okay, we need three people to pretend to support the opposing view who can make it to their microphone before their top speakers do and use up their time. You don't really have to support their view, you just have to hem and haw until the Chair calls that your time is up. Just don't let them get to their mic."

5) That the biggest "anti-abortion" leaders both had daughters who had abortions, at their urgings. This coming from the daughter in one case, the father himself in the other case. And no, they had not had a change of heart, no there were no lives or health or rape issues involved. They simply did not want the world to know their daughters got pregnant out of wedlock so they paid for abortions, but they felt they could never elect their candidates if the world knew that, so they lied.

So, my last great Christian political endeavor, I reminded them that God's word says, "Thou shalt not bear false wittness against thy neighbor," and that there is no "unless it fits your cause" clause. I also reminded them that when they get to heaven, they will have to face Christ and explain to Him why they think electing a non-Christian in the name of Christ is better than electing a Christian in the name of Christ.

And I've done nothing but vote since then.

There was a time when that would have shocked me but I've sadly come to the conclusion that most "Christians" in the public eye are hypocrites.:sigh: :(

[JPPT1974]

I am neither Republican nor Democrat, neither right nor left, neither red nor blue.

I may not be part of the "Religious Right", but I do follow the right religion -- which is called Christianity.

Amen to that my friend!:amen:

[Albion]

There was a time when that would have shocked me but I've sadly come to the conclusion that most "Christians" in the public eye are hypocrites.:sigh: :(

But no moreso than those "in the public eye" who do not make an issue of their religion.

[Chococat]

True but if someone comes out publicly and says they are a Christian I don't expect them to plot the death of their own grandchild in order to save their own skin while telling the rest of us we are going to burn in Hell!:mad: Sorry if that sounds harsh but I have had it up to here with self righteous Pharisees who wag the finger at other people's sins while conveniently ignoring their own! Having said that I have also had it with Christians who take the line that while they would not personally abort others have the "right to choose" to abort their unborn children.:sigh: IMO it is like someone 200 years ago saying they would personally not keep slaves other people have "the right to choose" to do so. Still what gives the "Religious Right" the right to say such people are "evil". Yes they are morally confused but obviously no more than many RR members and anyway only God knows a person's heart.:bow:

[Albion]

True but if someone comes out publicly and says they are a Christian I don't expect them to plot the death of their own grandchild in order to save their own skin while telling the rest of us we are going to burn in Hell!:mad: Sorry if that sounds harsh but I have had it up to here with self righteous Pharisees who wag the finger at other people's sins while conveniently ignoring their own!

As I said, this kind of behavior afflicts Christians and non-Christians alike. We hope for more from those who have higher standards, which means the religious people, but human nature being what it is, there are no perfect people.

Still what gives the "Religious Right" the right to say such people are "evil".

The same right as those who pour red dye on other people's fur coats, or those who demand that everyone freeze in the dark because the Earth is their God, or those who insist that free enterprise is morally wrong.

In brief, you may be particularly offended by the people you identified, but they're no different from others who get under the skin of the members of some alternate group in society.

[Chococat]

As I said, this kind of behavior afflicts Christians and non-Christians alike. We hope for more from those who have higher standards, which means the religious people, but human nature being what it is, there are no perfect people.

Well I no longer have the energy or inclination to argue with anyone. All I'll say is I wish people would be so understanding of me when I mess up instead of wagging the finger and questioning my walk with the Lord if not my salvation.:sigh: :( :cry: :mad: (not you Albion).

[Tenebrae]

theologically conservative

Socially moderate and politically social democrat. Seen too much of the decimation and division caused by conservative and liberal politics. Our social welfare system may not be perfect by a long shot, however at least I know that if I get hit by a car and unable to work, I'm not going to need to take out a second morgate on the house to pay the hospital bill or end up homeless because I dont qualify for government assistance due to not being able to work

[Albion]

[/size]

Well I no longer have the energy or inclination to argue with anyone. All I'll say is I wish people would be so understanding of me when I mess up instead of wagging the finger and questioning my walk with the Lord if not my salvation. (not you Albion).

For what it's worth (which is little), I'm right with you about that!

I am not inclined to write off churches or some similar organisations merely because members of them behave badly, in violation of the principles of their own institutions.

And I am not inclined to criticise some individuals who do not do what their fellows do merely because they both belong to the same organisations or causes.

You can see why I made the comments I did earlier--because you wrote that "most Christians" are hypocrites. My objection was that it's not most Christians, I honestly don't think, and that this is not something peculiar to Christianity.

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that what the bad apples do on their own is not deserving of criticism. You obviously have been the recipient of some of their "two-facedness," and I understand that.

[Spudgrandma]

Thank you Albion, for your well though out responses in this thread. I agree with what you have said.

I would be considered conservative in almost everything. I also, don't like to see people, churches, and politics painted with a broad brush. We do ourselves a real disservice when we say I'm not going to participate anymore, or believe in a particular political parties stance, or go to a certain church because someone in a position of authority did not live their life as they professed to believe. I, like them, am human and while I am saved by God's grace I am certainly not perfect. I live in a fallen world and I have no doubt that I will make mistakes and not live as I should up until the day I go to be with my Lord. All I can do is my best and that is all I can expect of others.

God Bless
Spudgrandma

[Chococat]

For what it's worth (which is little), I'm right with you about that!

I am not inclined to write off churches or some similar organisations merely because members of them behave badly, in violation of the principles of their own institutions.

And I am not inclined to criticise some individuals who do not do what their fellows do merely because they both belong to the same organisations or causes.

You can see why I made the comments I did earlier--because you wrote that "most Christians" are hypocrites. My objection was that it's not most Christians, I honestly don't think, and that this is not something peculiar to Christianity.

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that what the bad apples do on their own is not deserving of criticism. You obviously have been the recipient of some of their "two-facedness," and I understand that.

Thanks for the post Albion. Actually what I said was something along the line of "most Christians in public are hypocrites". On reflection that was overly harsh but I have seen two facedness in certain public preachers and evangelists. (I won't name any names here as it is up to God to expose people not me as only He truly knows what is in a person's heart). Also I had just been hurt by the harshness of a couple of Christians on another site and was just about ready to give up on my fellow believers (not on Christ I hasten to add). I stil have some anger and hurt towards these people but with God's help I'll work through it and for that I would appreciate prayer:pray: :prayer: Oops I've gone off the subject sorry.:blush: :doh:

[Albion]

I know. In my experience on CF and other forums, I've run into some simply nasty posters who, in addition to everything else they write, proclaim their Christian "credentials." But just as I feel that I can no longer abide these types and might give up...along come a few others who are the opposite, and they restore my feelings. That's probably why I wrote what I did here--because although the former group deserves what you noted, the latter group certainly is not the same. Put another way, maybe finding hypocrites is not as remarkable a thing as is finding people who actually DO live up to their Christian calling.

[SolomonVII]

Thanks for the post Albion. Actually what I said was something along the line of "most Christians in public are hypocrites". On reflection that was overly harsh ....


Not just harsh, but to the extent that you yourself actually are a Christian with a public voice, what you are doing is actually counter-productive to your own Christian cause.

By saying 'most' Christians, you are setting up expectations that typically Christians are hypocrites.
If most Christians are really hypocrites, then people will assume so, and automatically all Christians are put on the defensive, and must first prove that this is not the case.
In a court of law, innocence is presumed, but in the court of public opinion, it is a question of going with what is perceived to be the best probability.

So when even Christians insiders are saying so, this justifies everybody else in their already anti-Christian biases. Ie the argument becomes 'even Christians who ought to know understand that most that Chritians are mainly a bunch of hypocrites, or a bunch of .. etc.,etc.'
And if even Christians themselves do not believe in the policies that they are advocating, then the policy itself has no good argument for it.

Rule of thumb: Self-criticism can be a good thing-it is a form of repentance. But talking about a group of Christians that does not include yourself is not really self-criticism at all, is it? It is a classic case of binding yourself to your own judgement of the other.

[Chococat]

whatever :sigh: