# Religious Right Didn't Polarize over Abortion



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

After participating in several contentious abortion threads, I started to think. Why is this issue so hot-button? It turns out, perhaps this issue was in fact manufactured. And to that end, where did the religious right come from, or had it always existed?
Abortion, believe it or not, was not that big of a deal. Baptists even endorsed it. It upset some people, sure, but what actually upset people and polarized them was racism. Specifically, Bob Jones University racism.

Christian right - Wikipedia



> The contemporary Christian right organized in reaction to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions, most notably Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States, which challenged the tax-exempt status of schools that discriminated against blacks. It has also engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education. It was long believed that the Supreme Court's decision to make abortion a Constitution-protected right in the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling was the driving force behind the New Christian Right Movement's rise in the 1970s.[25] Despite the large grassroots campaigns that were organized by the movement to protest the Roe decision, comments made by senior figures, including the movement's chief architect Paul Weyrich, have suggested that the New Christian Right Movement's rise was not centered around the issue of abortion, but rather Bob Jones University's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's 1971 Green v. Connally ruling that permitted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect penalty taxes from private religious schools that violated federal laws.[25]


In other words, people became upset over the rights of a private school to discriminate, and that anger was then channeled by a famous pastor onto other issues. Remember, the Bible was previosuly used to defend racism. Some denominations even have racism built right into their program by rewriting history and disseminating this history as "true" and "right."

The Real Origins of the Religious Right



> One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Courtâs 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.
> ...
> But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasnât until 1979âa full six years after Roeâthat evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? *Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious rightâs real motive: protecting segregated schools.* So much for the new abolitionism.


So, the religious right, as it were, evolved almost completely around segregationism and a pastor. After that, the abortion issue was essentially manufactured because said pastor became upset. Do we worship a god or those who dispense what He's supposedly saying? 
And we suppose to wonder why we have issues in this country.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I seek to align myself with the teachings of Christ. One of Christ's tenets is to treat others as good or better than you do yourself. When I ponder the realm of abortion, I understand what is going on. Christ Himself said to not prevent the children from coming to Him for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them. Matthew 19:14. 

This does not sound like it was in the Wiki definition, not saying it didn't happen but just that you cannot just identify someone as the "Christian Right" just because they abhor abortion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

What's interesting, though, is that there was no public outcry against abortion until years after Roe v. Wade.


----------



## Solar Geek (Mar 14, 2014)

I have to respectfully disagree with this idea that religious right including Catholics did not react with public outcry right away. 

Here are just 4 testimonies of Cardinals *at the first Senate committee* they could get to pay attention IN MARCH 1974. 

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...on/upload/Testimony-of-Cardinal-John-Cody.pdf

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...on/upload/Testimony-of-Cardinal-John-Krol.pdf

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...oad/Testimony-of-Cardinal-Timothy-Manning.pdf

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...d/Testimony-of-Cardinal-Humberto-Medeiros.pdf
So those are the heads of the Catholics from Boston, LA, Philidelphia, and Chicago. 

Finally, the Pope issued this definitive statement in early 1974, called "*Declaration on Procured Abortion" (1974), by the Vatican* - Here is a basic summary of his document. 

_Ratified on 28 June 1974 by Pope Paul VI and delivered by him on 18 November 1974 in Rome, Italy, the document addressed the idea of procured abortion from the point of faith, reason, morality, and law. In each assessment, the excuses and explanations for allowing elective abortions are found wanting, according to Catholic doctrine, largely because they violate the right to life that each human is entitled to simply by being a member of the human community.

With respect to faith, the document discusses some of the Churchâs historical viewpoints on abortion, acknowledging that at times there was disagreement as to whether abortions at particular stages killed a being with a human soul. After citing many of the principle Catholic viewpoints on abortion and ensoulment in the past (with references to Athenagoras, the Didache, Pope Innocent XI, Pope John XXIII, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Pope Sixtus V, Pope Stephen V, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Tertullian), the document declares that there was always agreement on the sinfulness of any procured abortion, which cannot be outweighed by excuses on behalf of the motherâs personal situation. It goes on to provide religious reasons why God must reject abortion, and reasons why faithful Christians must reject it in kind._

- See more at: https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/declaration-procured-abortion-1974-vatican#sthash.rK2OAiD9.dpuf

There are lots of other examples of writings of the Church contemporaneously with the ruling, but it is late and I have to get to be.

*No , the issue was NOT manufactured. * And yes, the Catholic Church has stood firm on it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> What's interesting, though, is that there was no public outcry against abortion until years after Roe v. Wade.


Isn't that funny. Ya think it could be the millions of unborn killed every year compared to b/4? Nah...

BTW, abortions were down 14% in TX.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

God Bless Texas!!!


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> God Bless Texas!!!


And put up a 40 ft high wall all the way around it!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> What's interesting, though, is that there was no public outcry against abortion until years after Roe v. Wade.


Maybe because pro abortion people weren't creating new threads mocking those who oppose killing babies on a daily basis?
Keep throwing it out there and people will naturally defend themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Isn't that funny. Ya think it could be the millions of unborn killed every year compared to b/4? Nah...
> 
> BTW, abortions were down 14% in TX.


That's abortions that were done *legally*, and therefore reported.
It doesn't mean the actual number of abortions changed that much.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I have some problems with the group, commonly referred to as the "Religious Right", but, to say that they resulted from the fight against segregation is laughable and, likely, a re-writing of history, which has become fashionable as of late when attacking Christians. 

As to no public outcry after Roe. V. Wade, that is silly. I saw a photo of my Mother, Grandmother and Great Grandmother protesting the Federal Power grabbing decision in 1974. They were protesting in public and there appeared to be many others with them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe because pro abortion people weren't creating new threads mocking those who oppose killing babies on a daily basis?
> Keep throwing it out there and people will naturally defend themselves.


What are you even talking about? The Internet didn't even exist in 1974.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

That wiki stuff in the OP is hooey. I remember those times, they were tumultuous and a lot of change was happening on a lot of fronts. The people opposed to abortion didn't align behind some so called Christian university, a lot of people were opposed to it at that time whether they were particularly religious or not. They were also trying to pass the ERA, get our troops out of Vietnam, there was the fallout over Watergate and Nixon resigning, etc.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Shine said:


> Christ Himself said to not prevent the children from coming to Him for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them. Matthew 19:14.


Is there more in the bible stating not to have abortions under any circumstances? (I DON"T need a list, lol)

From that passage I read "Don't stop children from choosing a Christian path, otherwise they won't go to heaven".


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> What are you even talking about? The Internet didn't even exist in 1974.


Well there ya go, answered your own question


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Cornhusker View Post
> Maybe because pro abortion people weren't creating new threads mocking those who oppose killing babies on a daily basis?
> Keep throwing it out there and people will naturally defend themselves.


No one does that now.
The majority of "abortion threads" are started by those who are against them.
They will even turn non-abortion threads around


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Christ Himself said to not prevent the children from coming to Him for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them. Matthew 19:14.


That doesn't apply to most of those having abortions.
That's just you wanting to force your standards on them


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The majority of "abortion threads" are started by those who are against them.


You might want to check that one out... I think you're mistaken.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't apply to most of those having abortions.
> That's just you wanting to force your standards on them


If you abort the children then it certainly does apply. How can Christ teach them His ways if you've already killed them?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Isn't that funny. Ya think it could be the millions of unborn killed every year compared to b/4? Nah...
> 
> BTW, abortions were down 14% in TX.


That doesn't count the do-it-yourself abortions, does it? 

"As many as 240,000 18- to 49-year-old women in Texas have attempted at-home abortions, according to survey data released this week from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. The surveys in question, which were meant to help assess how the state's restrictive reproduction practices are working out for female Texans, asked a representative sample of nearly 800 women if they or their close friends had ever tried to self-administer an abortion. Roughly two to four percentâwhich amounts to 100,000 to 240,000 women in the stateâhad either tried it themselves or knew a friend who had. Many used the drug Misoprostol; others used herbs, hormonal pills, or illicit drugs or alcohol; a few settled for being punched or hit in the abdomen."

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-la...e-diy-abortion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You might want to check that one out... I think you're mistaken.


Show your proof.



> If you abort the children then it certainly does apply. How can Christ teach them His ways if you've already killed them?


It's none of *your *business.
You don't get to force *your religion* on anyone.
That's what ISIS does


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Isn't that funny. Ya think it could be the millions of unborn killed every year compared to b/4? Nah...
> 
> BTW, abortions were down 14% in TX.


They were UP right next door:

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-abortion-laws-force-women-to-new-mexico-2016-3
Abortion laws in Texas are forcing women to out-of-state clinics



> Fewer residents are getting abortions in New Mexico, yet the number of abortions in the state has increased in recent years.
> 
> Driven by the restrictions placed on abortion clinics, Texas women are flocking to New Mexico to access the procedure, according to a state Department of Health data.
> 
> Nearly *20 percent* of the 4,500 abortions performed in New Mexico in 2014 involved women from out of state.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show your proof.
> 
> 
> It's none of *your *business.
> ...


You made the statement, show your proof. Not playing your game.

Show me where I am forcing my religion upon anyone. That's your "pat" accusation - "Oh, boo hoo, you're forcing me, you're forcing me..."

lol ISIS, the new "Hitler"


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were UP right next door:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-abortion-laws-force-women-to-new-mexico-2016-3
> Abortion laws in Texas are forcing women to out-of-state clinics


So, just what is it that you want to FORCE Texans to have to do??? 

I didn't even know that you live in Texas, isn't that "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"?

lol


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

This thread was intended to be about the origin of the RR, and it's place in politics, not another abortion thread. Thanks
-Sent from my iPad


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You made the statement, show your proof. Not playing your game.
> 
> Show me where I am forcing my religion upon anyone. That's your "pat" accusation - "Oh, boo hoo, you're forcing me, you're forcing me..."
> 
> lol ISIS, the new "Hitler"


You *want* to force your views on others

I've never said you were forcing anything on me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, just what is it that you want to FORCE Texans to have to do???
> 
> I didn't even know that you live in Texas, isn't that "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"?
> 
> lol


You're now being incoherent as well as unoriginal


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're now being incoherent as well as unoriginal


Well now, you got a taste of what you and your cohorts have been dishing out for weeks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Well now, you got a taste of what you and your cohorts have been dishing out for weeks.


Show some examples.
I'm betting you won't


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> This thread was intended to be about the origin of the RR, and it's place in politics, not another abortion thread. Thanks
> -Sent from my iPad


:hijacked: NO KIDDING !

Surely you can't be serious? Did you really expect it to not get hijacked into another topic about abortions like all the hundreds of other abortion topics before this??? :facepalm: 

Guess what. If somebody started a thread about rockets going into space and the phrase _"they aborted the mission"_ came up you can be 100% guaranteed it would immediately transform into a pages long thread about abortions of babies. Because a lot of people here are obsessed with talking about abortions. The word abort is a trigger word for them. It's like they're afflicted with a nervous, twitchy tic. :yuck:

I think if you wanted to avoid talk about abortions and your honest intent was to have a discussion about the religious right and its place in politics you should have posted it in the politics forum where it belongs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> So, just what is it that you want to FORCE Texans to have to do???
> 
> I didn't even know that you live in Texas, isn't that "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"?
> 
> lol


It's SCOTUS's business, and they'll take care of Texas infringing on a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> After participating in several contentious abortion threads, I started to think. *Why is this issue so hot-button?*


It is such a hot button issue because what one human sees as life, another human sees a blob. 
One side tries to force the other side to see it their way. One side tries to force the other side to see it their way. 
There is no middle ground. There never will be.



> It turns out, perhaps this issue was in fact manufactured. And to that end, where did the religious right come from, or had it always existed?
> Abortion, believe it or not, was not that big of a deal. Baptists even endorsed it. It upset some people, sure, but what actually upset people and polarized them was racism. Specifically, Bob Jones University racism.
> 
> Christian right - Wikipedia
> ...


I worship God Almighty, most certainly NOT the 'man' who speaks His Words.

We have issues in this country because;
1. We are humans.
2. Humans sin.
3. A lot of humans live in unrepented sin.
4. A lot of humans live a lie saying they have repented and haven't.
5. A few humans know the grips of sin, and stay far away from it (which means you will never see those people in an abortion debate trying to convince you to believe "their" way).

We have issues in this country because Ephesians 6:10-20

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> This thread was intended to be about the origin of the RR, and it's place in politics, not another abortion thread. Thanks
> -Sent from my iPad


Huh. You might want to take a look at your title then...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> Huh. You might want to take a look at your title then...


Yeah, I pretty much skipped over it due to the multiple abortion threads and the ensuing pandemonium. :catfight:

Right up there with sitting in on a discussion between Sunni and Shia on religion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> It is such a hot button issue because what one human sees as life, another human sees a blob.
> One side tries to force the other side to see it their way. One side tries to force the other side to see it their way.
> There is no middle ground. There never will be.
> 
> ...


I can definitely see it from your point of view, and especially the last part I agree with. I think non-religious folk can agree with it as well, since it just entails us fighting against the inherent evil built into our species, or the evil built into us through the Fall. Different explanations, same result, in my opinion.



Fennick said:


> :hijacked: NO KIDDING !
> 
> Surely you can't be serious? Did you really expect it to not get hijacked into another topic about abortions like all the hundreds of other abortion topics before this??? :facepalm:
> 
> ...


Well, it basically is a political thread, since I wanted to talk about the history of the religious political movement. It encompasses more than abortion - the main point I'm drawing is that the religious right simply wasn't this politically motivated until 1975 or thereabouts. It's also had the effect of stalling progress on other important issues such as climate change.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You *want* to force your views on others
> 
> I've never said you were forcing anything on me.


Same old, same old... It is foolish for you to say that because in reality, you seek the same end.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show some examples.
> I'm betting you won't


All the times where you guys ask for proof when tentative proof was already offered, like above, all the times where you guys tell someone that they are trying to force people to do this or that, all the times where you guys tell people that "it is none of your business" - you remember, don't you?

There are already plenty of this type of behavior in this thread, but you know that.

How does it sound when people say that back to your face?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> It is such a hot button issue because what one human sees as life, another human sees a blob.
> *One side tries to force the other side to see it their way*. One side tries to force the other side to see it their way.
> There is no middle ground. There never will be.
> 
> ...


Why is it you don't understand many people don't care what the Bible says any more than you care what the Koran states?

No one is trying to force anyone to have an abortion.
They just want to be left alone by the fanatics


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why is it you don't understand many people don't care what the Bible says any more than you care what the Koran states?
> 
> No one is trying to force anyone to have an abortion.
> They just want to be left alone by the fanatics


Just because YOU hate God doesn't mean those who Love Him are fanatics.
Maybe the fanatical Lovers of God don't want to be bothered by the fanatical HATERS of God?

Just a thought.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *All the times* where you guys ask for proof when tentative proof was already offered, like above, all the times where you guys tell someone that they are trying to force people to do this or that, all the times where you guys tell people that "it is none of your business" - you remember, don't you?
> 
> There are already plenty of this type of behavior in this thread, but you know that.
> 
> How does it sound when people say that back to your face?


As I predicted, you *show* no examples, and continue making vague allegations.
You're rambling aimlessly


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> As I predicted, you *show* no examples, and continue making vague allegations.
> You're rambling aimlessly


Ok, have you not said "I am not your google mommy?"
And when you are given and example or link, don't you tear it to shreds and puke out how it's not a reliable source? Adnauseam?

You need to change up your game.
You're pretty predictable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Just because YOU hate God doesn't mean those who Love Him are fanatics.
> Maybe the fanatical Lovers of God don't want to be bothered by the fanatical HATERS of God?
> 
> Just a thought.


Not all Christians are fanatics.
Many of them act the part, and mind their own business.
They *show* their beliefs through their actions and words

Most non believers don't "hate god"
That's an overreaction to those who simply follow different beliefs, and seems at odds with the whole "love thy neighbor" concept


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not all Christians are fanatics.
> Many of them act the part, and mind their own business.
> They *show* their beliefs through their actions and words
> 
> ...


Not all non believers are fanatics.
MANY of the act the part, and mind their own business.
They *show* their lack of fantaticism by their words and actions.

Most Believers are not fanatics.
Calling any adhereance to the Word of God, fanatical, is an overreaction by non believers who seem to be at odds with the whole "John 3:16".
Thereby, making those non believers by their actions and words, look pretty darn fanatical........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not all non believers are fanatics.
> MANY of the act the part, and mind their own business.
> They *show* their lack of fantaticism by their words and actions.
> 
> ...


Evidently you didn't understand anything I said


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Maybe they came about because of abortion, maybe they came about because of segregation, but they stuck around because they wanted power to dictate how everyone should behave and think.......just like all these other groups that start with good intentions and then turn into obnoxious in-you-face jerks that want to control other people and be dictators. 

The religious right, green peace, global warming nuts, planned parenthood, the gay rights movement, and all the other groups be they on the left or right, they are all the same and they just want to control people and run the world.

Toss in all the religions also because they are even worse offenders when it comes to abusing and controlling people.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

City Bound said:


> Maybe they came about because of abortion, maybe they came about because of segregation, but they stuck around because they wanted power to dictate how everyone should behave and think.......just like all these other groups that start with good intentions and then turn into obnoxious in-you-face jerks that want to control other people and be dictators.
> 
> The religious right, green peace, global warming nuts, planned parenthood, the gay rights movement, and all the other groups be they on the left or right, they are all the same and they just want to control people and run the world.
> 
> Toss in all the religions also because they are even worse offenders when it comes to abusing and controlling people.


I agree, except for climate change, which I consider is a valid problem, but sometimes blown out of proportion.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> This thread was intended to be about the origin of the RR, and it's place in politics, not another abortion thread. Thanks
> -Sent from my iPad


Judging by recent threads it seems like doesn't really matter what you want for a thread after posting it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sumatra said:


> Judging by recent threads it seems like doesn't really matter what you want for a thread after posting it.


My thread, my baby! The HT posters ate my baby!:sob:

ANyways, on a related note, here's why liberals and conservatives actually are wired differently:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...wired-differently-and-what-means-our-politics



> Over a dozen different studies have come to the same conclusion: liberals and conservatives are simply wired differently. The differences are numerous, from sleep patterns (liberals have zanier dreams and more fitful sleep) to conflict resolution (progressives are more likely to alter their behavior in response to cues) to social judgments (conservatives show more brain activity in making complex social evaluations.)
> 
> But by far the biggest and most often-studied difference between the conservative and liberal brain is their response to stimuli invoking fear and disgust. Conservatives tend to react much more viscerally to negative stimuli than do liberals, and they are likelier to interpret new information as having a negative or dangerous effect on their lives.


This explains, partially, why I sleep lightly and have way weirder dreams than my (conservative) freinds.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> My thread, my baby! The HT posters ate my baby!:sob:
> 
> ANyways, on a related note, here's why liberals and conservatives actually are wired differently:
> 
> ...



OMG!!! I don't really fit in the description of either, maybe that explains some things


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

The info in the OP doesn't pass the smell test. If there was no significant anti-abortion sentiment at the time, there would have been no reason for Roe v. Wade because abortion would already have been legal. The reason it was illegal in a majority of states is that there was widespread opposition to it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> OMG!!! I don't really fit in the description of either, maybe that explains some things


Considering many of the studies are based on self-proclaimed "liberals" and self-proclaimed "conservatives," it's probably no wonder they got different results. However, I think the overall postulate is accurate - we're wired different.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> My thread, my baby! The HT posters ate my baby!:sob:
> 
> ANyways, on a related note, here's why liberals and conservatives actually are wired differently:
> 
> ...


Ah, yup. Many different people think differently. How shocking.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sumatra said:


> Ah, yup. Many different people think differently. How shocking.


Yeah, but conservatives are wire differently. They're unimaginative, which explains the easy sleep pattern, and driven by fear, which explains why they use guns as pacifiers. Oh. Was that insulting? Well, just to be fair, liberals tend to be idealistic and have lived easier lives than conservatives.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yeah, but conservatives are wire differently. They're unimaginative, which explains the easy sleep pattern, and driven by fear, which explains why they use guns as pacifiers. Oh. Was that insulting? Well, just to be fair, liberals tend to be idealistic and have lived easier lives than conservatives.


Nope, not insulted at all. After seeing many skewed studies on various subjects, that article holds little to no credence with me and is just another on top of the list. Good luck with your idealism. I hope it works for you as well as it did Jacque Fresco.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Sumatra said:


> Nope, not insulted at all. After seeing many skewed studies on various subjects, that article holds little to no credence with me and is just another on top of the list. Good luck with your idealism. I hope it works for you as well as it did Jacque Fresco.


I look at this study as just another us versus them thing. Lets keep the division going great for people, divide them into tribes, some study to prove differences that just seems to point to we are all human with our own thoughts. Yep, I'm being sarcastic.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sumatra said:


> Nope, not insulted at all. After seeing many skewed studies on various subjects, that article holds little to no credence with me and is just another on top of the list. Good luck with your idealism. I hope it works for you as well as it did Jacque Fresco.


Then here's a different version of the article from a more reputable source. Is your last comment supposed to be snarky?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ideology-of-no/



> Most strikingly, both studies showed that this negativity dominance was especially true for conservative students. In other words, those on the political right showed more of a âbad is stronger than goodâ bias than those on the left. Surprisingly, the political difference wasnât to be found in the negative images, which had a strong effect on everyone across the board. If you can wrap your mind around psych study jujitsu for a moment: the differences stemmed from participantsâ responses to the positive images, which carried more weight with liberal students. For example, if viewing two hypothetical television adsâone featuring an impoverished village in shambles after a failed food distribution program, and one showing clean, happy children after a successful well installationâliberals may be more likely to be convinced of the potential success of future aid programs.
> 
> This finding fits with previous studies showing conservatives (relative to liberals) to be more responsive to threats, more resistant to change, and more likely to see the world as a dangerous place â all of which involve some form of negative attitudes, be they about the past, present, or future. But the new studies stand out for two reasons. First, the attitudes being formed were not about political figures, or the role of government, or moral values, or anything else one could conceivably expect liberals and conservatives to argue about; they were about Chinese characters flashed on a computer screen with pictures of puppies or garbage.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yeah, but conservatives are wire differently. They're unimaginative, which explains the easy sleep pattern, and driven by fear, which explains why they use guns as pacifiers. Oh. Was that insulting? Well, just to be fair, liberals tend to be idealistic and have lived easier lives than conservatives.



Let me get this straight driven by fear equals easy sleep pattern? 

Liberals are idealistic, yes so are children. Hmmm, was that insulting?

What one of my professors told us, there is a yin/yang working with the liberal verse conservative positions, mindsets. He was a self proclaimed liberal. He never denigrated or suggested either of the "sides" were better than the other, but in normal situations should compliment each other. But in the hyper political system some countries have they become adversaries. 

IMHO it is just another game to divide and conquer. A game to many enjoy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> Let me get this straight driven by fear equals easy sleep pattern?
> 
> Liberals are idealistic, yes so are children. Hmmm, was that insulting?
> 
> ...


I think you're reading too much into what I've put here. Differences in mindsets should actually be celebrated. I'm just pointing them out, hoping someone will find it interesting instead of getting their knickers in a knot a claiming I'm trying to add to partisan divisions. Guess I'm hoping for too much. And you made the connection in the first statement, not me, and most likely you're wrong.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I think you're reading too much into what I've put here. Differences in mindsets should actually be celebrated. I'm just pointing them out, hoping someone will find it interesting instead of getting their knickers in a knot a claiming I'm trying to add to partisan divisions. Guess I'm hoping for too much. And you made the connection in the first statement, not me, and most likely you're wrong.


If they should be celebrated why does the study come across as partisan? How am I wrong in the first statement, it doesn't make any sense. 

Don't really have my knickers in a knot, I feel a bit uncomfortable with the assumptions reached in the study. I also like to see the numbers of individuals that took part in the study, demographics, education level and a bit more of how the results were reached.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> If they should be celebrated why does the study come across as partisan? How am I wrong in the first statement, it doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Don't really have my knickers in a knot, I feel a bit uncomfortable with the assumptions reached in the study. I also like to see the numbers of individuals that took part in the study, demographics, education level and a bit more of how the results were reached.


Many scientists are more liberal than average. There are probably studies that skew in the conservative direction, however. The key findings are not that liberals are better or conservatives are, but rather the differences in mindsets. It's actually very interesting, so I don't know why it's making you unconfortable. Possibly your problem is with the idea that ideological differences can actually stem from different wiring in the brain. Further, I postulate these ideals are inheritable.

Nobody's stopping you from trying to find that information yourself. I'm not about to find all of that for you, but the Scientific American is a pretty reputable source. Which I already said.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Then here's a different version of the article from a more reputable source. Is your last comment supposed to be snarky?
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ideology-of-no/


Okay, on the off chance that you're right, does it really matter? The psychological processes that thought up the method is of little consequence if the political effects work. If such methods were used to discredit people throughout history, we wouldn't have half the advancements we do now.
Only if your post was meant to be insulting.




no really said:


> I look at this study as just another us versus them thing. Lets keep the division going great for people, divide them into tribes, some study to prove differences that just seems to point to we are all human with our own thoughts. Yep, I'm being sarcastic.


Yep, that's a good way to look at it. I really should leave GC to the experts.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sumatra said:


> Okay, on the off chance that you're right, does it really matter?


I'm pretty sure science didn't advance with an apathetic attitude like that. Political theories are rarely correct or incorrect - humans are too complicated for that. What works for one culture fails dismally in another.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm pretty sure science didn't advance with an apathetic attitude like that. Political theories are rarely correct or incorrect - humans are too complicated for that. What works for one culture fails dismally in another.


No, science didn't. But politics often do bypass things so simply. I agree that they're far too complicated for that- which is precisely why it's dangerous to categorize the people holding one political theory or another with labels that many would commonly consider as being strange or wrong.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sumatra said:


> No, science didn't. But politics often do bypass things so simply. I agree that they're far too complicated for that- which is precisely why it's dangerous to categorize the people holding one political theory or another with labels that many would commonly consider as being strange or wrong.


You mean like "liberal" or "conservative?" Seriously, what does that even mean? I don't know anyone I would call exclusively either category. Scientifically making assessment of both groups, however, shows clear differences in thought processes. And, this isn't categorizing people. It attempting to learn things about them based on their aggregate belief systems.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> You mean like "liberal" or "conservative?" Seriously, what does that even mean? I don't know anyone I would call exclusively either category. Scientifically making assessment of both groups, however, shows clear differences in thought processes. And, this isn't categorizing people. It attempting to learn things about them based on their aggregate belief systems.


I guess that study might not work for people like me who feel they don't fit in either category. Some things I come off as liberal others conservative.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> I guess that study might not work for people like me who feel they don't fit in either category. Some things I come off as liberal others conservative.


Fine for you, but that doesn't negate the findings. Their are always anomalies and outliers in any study. I also have left wing and right wing views.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

As a source Wikipedia is laughable and Politico is so biased as to be in the same class as Wikipedia. Serious sources would actually engender some serious observation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> What's interesting, though, is that there was no public outcry against abortion until years after Roe v. Wade.


I don't think they expected Roe v Wade to go the way it did. I know that I didn't. As it turns out, Roe V Wade was a sweeping decision that caught most everyone off guard. The religious right was probably waiting to see if abortion clinics would really materialize, and how states would deal with abortion.

The bigger reason was that the religious right didn't exist as a political movement at the time. That didn't happen until Jerry Falwell organized the "moral majority" movement to maintain tax exempt status for churches, which wasn't officially founded until 1979.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't think they expected Roe v Wade to go the way it did. I know that I didn't. As it turns out, Roe V Wade was a sweeping decision that caught most everyone off guard. The religious right was probably waiting to see if abortion clinics would really materialize.
> 
> The bigger reason was that the religious right didn't exist as a political movement at the time. That didn't happen until Jerry Falwell organized the "moral majority" movement to maintain tax exempt status for churches, which wasn't officially founded until 1979.


The moral majority is neither.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> As a source Wikipedia is laughable and Politico is so biased as to be in the same class as Wikipedia. Serious sources would actually engender some serious observation.


Oh, please. I hate playing Google Mommy. Or in my case, Google Daddy. Most of the articles reinforce my OP, while I didn't find any that disagreed.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/religiousliberty/tp/Religious-Right-History-Timeline.htm



> The Religious Right can be loosely defined as a cultural movement that responds to changing sexual mores by asserting a radical, socially conservative model of government. The movement's natural enemies are feminism and lesbian and gay rights, both of which promote a broader and more flexible concept of personal autonomy.
> 1962
> While the Supreme Court's controversial school prayer ruling in Engel v. Vitale didn't technically create the Religious Right, it certainly galvanized social conservatives who felt that society had become unacceptably secular.





> 1973
> The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion, very likely created the Religious Right as we know it today. The anger of conservatives, who often characterize the ruling as a rejection of human life in favor of sexual liberation, has motivated the movement's base for four decades.
> 1979
> Semi-reformed segregationist fireband Jerry Falwell co-founded the Moral Majority, the first national modern Religious Right organization, in 1979.






Nevada said:


> I don't think they expected Roe v Wade to go the way it did. I know that I didn't. As it turns out, Roe V Wade was a sweeping decision that caught most everyone off guard. The religious right was probably waiting to see if abortion clinics would really materialize, and how states would deal with abortion.
> 
> The bigger reason was that the religious right didn't exist as a political movement at the time. That didn't happen until Jerry Falwell organized the "moral majority" movement to maintain tax exempt status for churches, which wasn't officially founded until 1979.


Yes, that is covered in the articles.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Again you can't reference material that is not left leaning. Tom Head the author of the latest referenced article is admittedly left libertarian. I have not seen a reasonable definition of "Religious Right". I think the "Religious Right"
is a strawman creation of the left. Jerry Falwell is often depicted as a founder with his moral majority. Falwell was rejected as often as he was accepted. What is the Religious Right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> Falwell was rejected as often as he was accepted. What is the Religious Right?


Falwell was controversial, but he worked along with Reagan. Reagan probably did more to promote the religious right than even Falwell because of Reagan's acceptance.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Falwell was controversial, but he worked along with Reagan. Reagan probably did more to promote the religious right than even Falwell because of Reagan's acceptance.


Define the Religious Right if you can.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Again you can't reference material that is not left leaning. Tom Head the author of the latest referenced article is admittedly left libertarian. I have not seen a reasonable definition of "Religious Right". I think the "Religious Right"
> is a strawman creation of the left. Jerry Falwell is often depicted as a founder with his moral majority. Falwell was rejected as often as he was accepted. What is the Religious Right?


Religious right already had a definition. Demanding a different one is a red herring.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Religious right already had a definition. Demanding a different one is a red herring.


The definition referenced is like asking Bull Conner to define civil rights. Biased definitions reflect an agenda and are less than useful if not disingenuous.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> The definition referenced is like asking Bull Conner to define civil rights. Biased definitions reflect an agenda and are less than useful if not disingenuous.


Bias does not indicate an untruth. Religious right is very self explanatory - right leaning religious people, but it implies more of a movement than anything, due to their more organized nature now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Religious right is very self explanatory - right leaning religious people


In this country it also means Christian values.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> In this country it also means Christian values.


Most developed nations lose religiosity. Ours is an anomaly.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Bias does not indicate an untruth. Religious right is very self explanatory - right leaning religious people, but it implies more of a movement than anything, due to their more organized nature now.


Bias indicates an opinion that colors what is being said. Skewed definitions are useless. As defined and described so far "Religious Right" is nothing more than a strawman construct used to bash the religious who disagree with a left world view.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> Bias indicates an opinion that colors what is being said. Skewed definitions are useless. As defined and described so far "Religious Right" is nothing more than a strawman construct used to bash the religious who disagree with a left world view.


That ship sailed over 35 years ago when Jerry Falwell & Ronald Reagan turned it into a political movement. The religious right is well organized, well funded, and has a lot of support. It's frivolous to pretend that it doesn't exist.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That ship sailed over 35 years ago when Jerry Falwell & Ronald Reagan turned it into a political movement. The religious right is well organized, well funded, and has a lot of support. It's frivolous to pretend that it doesn't exist.


Falwell was rejected by as many as accepted him. The religious right is nothing more than another conspiracy theory postulating an imaginary boogey man the left must protect "us" from. It is another "great right wing conspiracy Bill and Hillary Clinton have been warning about for years. 
No one has been able to tell me who or what the Religious Right consists of who funds it or who its' leaders are. You keep talking about Reagan and Falwell both dead and without direct influence for many, many years. Without leadership and organization there is nothing to fear other than a straw man created as a distraction from the real issues.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> Falwell was rejected by as many as accepted him. The religious right is nothing more than another conspiracy theory postulating an imaginary boogey man the left must protect "us" from. It is another "great right wing conspiracy Bill and Hillary Clinton have been warning about for years.
> No one has been able to tell me who or what the Religious Right consists of who funds it or who its' leaders are. You keep talking about Reagan and Falwell both dead and without direct influence for many, many years. Without leadership and organization there is nothing to fear other than a straw man created as a distraction from the real issues.


Consider this:

_In December 2015, several dozen religious right leaders gathered yet againâthis time in secret, at a Sheraton hotel outside Washington, D.C.âto determine which candidate would earn their endorsement._
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...religious-right-give-ted-cruz-the-win/421563/

Read on to find out who they are.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Consider this:
> 
> _In December 2015, several dozen religious right leaders gathered yet againâthis time in secret, at a Sheraton hotel outside Washington, D.C.âto determine which candidate would earn their endorsement._
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...religious-right-give-ted-cruz-the-win/421563/
> ...


If there is a Religious Right movement as you claim why aren't representatives of major religious movements represented in the so called leadership as named by Mr. Merrit in his vague and less than informative screed. Mr. Merrit refers to "In December 2015, several dozen religious right leaders gathered yet againâthis time in secret, at a Sheraton hotel outside Washington, D.C." and names no one but Rafael Cruz and a litany of mostly unknown and powerless figures who supposedly reign supreme over the millions of Evangelicals and conservative sects. It seems he has created the Illuminati of Christendom. 
Where are the facts and figures of a powerful Religious Right. There are only shadowy inferences, unsubstantiated claims, vitriolic rhetoric, and precious little else.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken
Mr Menckens' statement is proven out by the left insistence there is some great and powerful yet hidden organization conspiring to enslave them in a theocracy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

No one is trying to go after the religious here. That's simply too large of a group. 

Here's the main definition:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right



> Christian right or religious right is a term used - mainly in the United States - to label right-wing Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and to public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public


I'm going to implode if someone brings up the Wikipedia thing again. In other words, it's the religious who believe that their morality should be applied to government, which is utimately little different than liberals applying their agenda to government. Liberals, however, can't tell their followers that God told them to do something.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> No one is trying to go after the religious here. That's simply too large of a group.


*Amy Farrah Fowler:* I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.
*Sheldon Cooper:* Well then, you might want to avoid East Texas.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1627740/quotes

Religion is certainly a big part of our society, but I never understood what society gained from it.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> No one is trying to go after the religious here. That's simply too large of a group.
> 
> Here's the main definition:
> 
> ...


Implode away wikipedia is not and under current guidelines and usage will never be a credible source. If you are unable to use credible research sources then just opine.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> *Amy Farrah Fowler:* I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.
> *Sheldon Cooper:* Well then, you might want to avoid East Texas.
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1627740/quotes
> 
> Religion is certainly a big part of our society, but I never understood what society gained from it.


Change the subject and dash away then. There are millions who would disagree. 
That does not alter that "Religious Right" is a construct of the left used to frighten the uninformed for solely political purposes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

bjba said:


> Change the subject and dash away then. There are millions who would disagree.
> *That does not alter that "Religious Right" is a construct of the left used to frighten the uninformed for solely political purposes*.


Opine away... 

ETA: There is nothing wrong with wiki for use on a forum, it's not like writing a dissertation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> That does not alter that "Religious Right" is a construct of the left used to frighten the uninformed for solely political purposes.


Strangely, Ted Cruz is banking on support of the religious right, and he's getting it. You wouldn't think that something that didn't exist would help him so much.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Opine away...
> 
> ETA: There is nothing wrong with wiki for use on a forum, it's not like writing a dissertation.


Credible sources are necessary to conversation otherwise The Star, The National Enquirer are as valid as the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Are you asserting the dialogue on this and other forums is so inconsequential that lies, opinion, and rhetoric are as acceptable as fact and recognized truth? If that is the case why bother?


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Strangely, Ted Cruz is banking on support of the religious right, and he's getting it. You wouldn't think that something that didn't exist would help him so much.


Mr. Cruz has unabashedly courted the Evangelicals. I didn't know Evangelicals are the religious right. Do you have sources and only credible sources are acceptable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

bjba said:


> Credible sources are necessary to conversation otherwise The Star, The National Enquirer are as valid as the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Are you asserting the dialogue on this and other forums is so inconsequential that lies, opinion, and rhetoric are as acceptable as fact and recognized truth? If that is the case why bother?


It always has been... misinformation as well. At least from a certain type of poster. If you want to be a such a stickler for "creditable sources" you might be talking to yourself. Just sayin'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Strangely, Ted Cruz is banking on support of the religious right, and he's getting it. You wouldn't think that something that didn't exist would help him so much.


Yup. I agree.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> I didn't know Evangelicals are the religious right.


Why wouldn't they be?


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Why wouldn't they be?


Why would they be? Seems to me painting several tens of millions with such a broad brush smacks of bigotry. Sheer speculation on your part.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> It always has been... misinformation as well. At least from a certain type of poster. If you want to be a such a stickler for "creditable sources" you might be talking to yourself. Just sayin'.


Interesting thought that. 
Merriam Webster defines misinformation: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.
Be perfectly clear, is lying, distortion, and misinformation acceptable to you?
Yes I would prefer talking to myself to conversing with liars and cheats.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Why would they be? Seems to me painting several tens of millions with such a broad brush smacks of bigotry. Sheer speculation on your part.


Why is a label bigotry? I'm willing to warrant you have no problem labeling a bunch of people "liberals" and possibly feeling that somehow then you know more about them. 

As for Wikipedia, if the information in the article is correct, than it fails to negate the article. We're not exactly operating at AAAS Science level here, after all.
Religious right is a valid term. Trying to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't make it disappear.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...rump_and_the_fate_of_the_religious_right.html



> Last Wednesday evening, a few hundred Christian conservatives gathered at Noahâs Event Venue in suburban Des Moines for a rally with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. It featured leading figures from both the *local and national religious right,* there to make the case that the movement must unite behind Cruz. âTed Cruz is one of us,â said Bob Vander Plaats, head of the FAMiLY Leader, Iowaâs most influential evangelical organization. âHeâs trustworthy. He hates dishonest gain.â Vander Plaats was both referencing Exodus 18:21 (âBut select capable men from all the peopleâmen who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gainâ) and taking a dig at Donald Trump.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> Why would they be? Seems to me painting several tens of millions with such a broad brush smacks of bigotry. Sheer speculation on your part.


They resist being branded as "religious?"


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> *Amy Farrah Fowler:* I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.
> *Sheldon Cooper:* Well then, you might want to avoid East Texas.
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1627740/quotes
> 
> Religion is certainly a big part of our society, but I never understood what society gained from it.


I've never thought going to church would make a person better. People have to want to become better, to do so. Simply going to church, I believe, doesn't accomplish this.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

bjba said:


> Interesting thought that.
> Merriam Webster defines misinformation: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.
> Be perfectly clear, is lying, distortion, and misinformation acceptable to you?
> Yes I would prefer talking to myself to conversing with liars and cheats.


Huh. Nope lying, distortion, and misinformation is not acceptable to me. How are you going to force people to provide acceptable-to-you links? Can you explain?


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why is a label bigotry? I'm willing to warrant you have no problem labeling a bunch of people "liberals" and possibly feeling that somehow then you know more about them.
> 
> As for Wikipedia, if the information in the article is correct, than it fails to negate the article. We're not exactly operating at AAAS Science level here, after all.
> Religious right is a valid term. Trying to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't make it disappear.
> ...


Liberal/conservative are labels I avoid because they are meaningless. Seems those labels are most often used by those who follow a party line
rather than think things through. As an example, the idea man can and should govern him/herself is perhaps the most liberal and radical political
thought ever conceived. The concept of self government is common to both liberal and conservative. How to get to that self government is where the contention lies.
Wikipedia is the Keystone Kops of sources and for that reason useless.
I agree there are those among the religious community who are right of center and those who are left of center. There is however no powerful, malevolent organization whose purpose is to make the USA a theocracy.
Such a belief places one in the top tier of Conspiracy Theorists.
When all your sources are left of center that alone paints you as left of center.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh. Nope lying, distortion, and misinformation is not acceptable to me. How are you going to force people to provide acceptable-to-you links? Can you explain?


Not my job to force anyone to do anything. Pointing out the ridiculousness of some sources does seem to get some folks attention. I see little point in conversing with liars and cheats other than to call them out for their lies, culmany and misinformation. Fact, truth and logic are the only things that matter in general forum conversation otherwise there are just squeals from the monkey cage.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> They resist being branded as "religious?"


When you have nothing to say, say nothing huh brother.:cowboy:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

bjba said:


> Not my job to force anyone to do anything. Pointing out the ridiculousness of some sources does seem to get some folks attention. I see little point in conversing with liars and cheats other than to call them out for their lies, culmany and misinformation. Fact, truth and logic are the only things that matter in general forum conversation otherwise there are just squeals from the monkey cage.


Good for you, we all need goals. Now pat yourself on back and keep on, keepin' on.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Liberal/conservative are labels I avoid because they are meaningless. Seems those labels are most often used by those who follow a party line
> rather than think things through. As an example, the idea man can and should govern him/herself is perhaps the most liberal and radical political
> thought ever conceived. The concept of self government is common to both liberal and conservative. How to get to that self government is where the contention lies.
> Wikipedia is the Keystone Kops of sources and for that reason useless.
> ...


The main idea driving my ideology is to enable freedom and personal empowerment to individuals, but also to promote social progress and address environmental and social issues. Clearly, there are things lacking when people try to govern themselves. Some people are better at being in charge, and there's nothing wrong with that. The area of contention perhaps exists in defining where people's personal decisions are more justifiable than externalized decisions procured with the common or end good in mind.


----------

