Special Commentary: How the Religious Right lost its ‘Religion’, lost its way and went wrong

[EsclavoDeCristo]

This is a great commentary on politics from a Catholic perspective taking into account all aspects of social justice (not just poverty or pro-life, but all). I highly commend it to everyone. Deacon Keith, the author, has a gift for getting to the heart of the issues and making them understandable for us everyday people.

Let me know what you think of his commentary!

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26843

Here is an excerpt from the beginning:

Catholic Online

The “Religious Right” lost its religion when it began to identify with first being a “conservative” movement within one Political Party.

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - Several years back I wrote a controversial article entitled “Requiem for the Religious Right.” Some people were upset by the premise of the piece that the religious right was dead. Others agreed with my analysis.

One man whom I admire, an early founder of the movement that came to be called the “religious right”, wrote me a very thoughtful response. He suggested that many of my insights in the article were valid. However, he thought that my assessment that the movement was dead was premature.

Election 2008 has proven I was correct. If not yet dead, the “Religious Right” has at least lost its ‘Religion’ and, as a result, lost its way.

Before turning to an assessment of why the religious right lost its “religion” and then, how it went wrong, I think we need a bit of what is called in our common parlance a “reality check”. The impact of the movement called “the religious right” on politics and policy has been negligible.

 

[pnewton]

It might be a good article, but I quit after the second page produced more pop-up ads.

 

[scott1228]

You need a pop-up blocker!

I failed to see what point he was making.

If he was saying that the pro-life movement failed to be effective in the selection of presidential candidates in 2008, I would agree with that.

Scott

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

You need a pop-up blocker!

I failed to see what point he was making.

If he was saying that the pro-life movement failed to be effective in the selection of presidential candidates in 2008, I would agree with that.

Scott

I think his point is that the religious right has stopped following it’s original purpose of promoting pro-life, pro-Christian values and has changed into just another lobby group that pushes the laundry list of Republican issues (ex. gun control) that are not intrensically one way or another from a Christian perspective.

Did you read the entire article? I just pasted the first few paragraphs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think his point is that the religious right has stopped following it’s original purpose of promoting pro-life, pro-Christian values and has changed into just another lobby group that pushes the laundry list of Republican issues (ex. gun control) that are not intrensically one way or another from a Christian perspective.

Did you read the entire article? I just pasted the first few paragraphs.

On the other hand, we have the anti-religious left that pushes for things like taxpayer supported abortion on demand. And sadly enough, we have Catholics who will tie themselves in knots to believe that it’s okay to support pro-abortion candidates.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

On the other hand, we have the anti-religious left that pushes for things like taxpayer supported abortion on demand. And sadly enough, we have Catholics who will tie themselves in knots to believe that it’s okay to support pro-abortion candidates.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I think both sides do that and that is why I especially appreciate the deacon’s commentaries. I am sick of the left pushing their pro-death, pro-government dependance agendas and I am sick of the right taking my vote for granted, pretending to be pro-life while not doing anything substinative (or on doing barely enough to keep my vote).

 

[vern_humphrey]

I couldn’t agree with you more. I think both sides do that and that is why I especially appreciate the deacon’s commentaries. I am sick of the left pushing their pro-death, pro-government dependance agendas and I am sick of the right taking my vote for granted, pretending to be pro-life while not doing anything substinative (or on doing barely enough to keep my vote).

We need to be more pro-active. Let each of us work within a party to promote pro-life candidates and deny pro-choice candidates the nomination.

 

[pnewton]

I like the idea of a religious left.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I like the idea of a religious left.

Oxymoron. Socialism and Communism require the state to be all-powerful. They cannot tolerate people believing in something that is more powerful than the state.

 

[pnewton]

Oxymoron.

What did you call me???

(Yes, it’s a joke, if a bad and old one)

 

[vern_humphrey]

What did you call me???

(Yes, it’s a joke, if a bad and old one)

It’s a retarded ox.

 

[scott1228]

And sadly enough, we have Catholics who will tie themselves in knots to believe that it’s okay to support pro-abortion candidates.

Even worse when the “Catholic” is the pro-abortion candidate!

Scott

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

Even worse when the “Catholic” is the pro-abortion candidate!

Scott

True

 

[SpiritMeadow]

On the other hand, we have the anti-religious left that pushes for things like taxpayer supported abortion on demand. And sadly enough, we have Catholics who will tie themselves in knots to believe that it’s okay to support pro-abortion candidates.

You have no right to paint the left as anti-religious. It is not by a long shot. You can try all you like to marginalize the believing left, but the numbers are on our side. We are winning the evangelical vote, Catholics are overwhelmingly for Democrats this year. If you want dialogue, then simply stop trying to paint every liberal with your broadly inaccurate brush.

by the way, I am not tying myself in knots about anything. You are simply playing the usual dupe for the GOP neo-con agenda which uses you viciously and then laughingly walks away. Learn your history and then perhaps you will stop doing the bidding of the group that finds your vote oh so useful to them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Oxymoron. Socialism and Communism require the state to be all-powerful. They cannot tolerate people believing in something that is more powerful than the state.

Of course it is absurd to say that the left is composed of socialists and Oh my, we are still doing the red scare communists. How thoroughly 50’s of you. And that was only a few intellectuals…LOL…if that is the sum of your knowledge about these subjects I can see why you are so confused about nearly everything.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Seems like I got too close to the truth and touched a nerve here.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

I am seeing a lot of hostility here. Out of curiosity, how many of you have read the commentary, you know THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD

 

[Dale_M]

I am seeing a lot of hostility here. Out of curiosity, how many of you have read the commentary, you know THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD

Huh…?! Read the commentary? Did you realize it was five pages long? And that it didn’t have pictures? Well, okay… there were pictures on the pages but they weren’t related to the story. Still, five pages… and you expected us to read it? Sheesh!


Deacon Keith:

Some of the voices identified with the movement were first politically “conservative” and ended up verbally wrapping Christian language around their polemics and their politics. Unfortunately some leaders of the groups associated with the movement ended up putting biblical ‘proof texts’ on their own pet political ideas.

They failed to develop a hierarchy of values within which to posit which of their political positions were actually “Christian” (a position compelled by the Christian faith -like the right to life) and which ones were discretionary or fell within the large area of political concern properly left to the exercise of prudential judgment.

Whether any of this was intentional, I cannot say. It may have been due to a lack of a cohesive social teaching in the particular Christian tradition and formation of the leaders involved in the movement. However, the sad effect was that much of the rhetoric which emerged made it sound as all politically “conservative” ideas were somehow “Christian”.

Thus the movement lost its “religion” and became just another extension of the conservative movement. It also forgot that many political issues are properly a matter of the exercise of prudential judgment that lies at the heart of human freedom.

I don’t know whether he is correct in his analysis, but I do agree that we should premise our politics on our religion and not the other way around. One of the problems I saw with the religious right is that they made it sound as if homosexuality was one of the most important tenets of being Christian. What about loving one’s neighbor… why didn’t they develop political action around that? Yes, there is prudential judgement involved so issues wouldn’t be black/white, but surely what counts is that the value be a prominent part of our political discourse. Instead, it was marginalized and largely ignored.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

Huh…?! Read the commentary? Did you realize it was five pages long? And that it didn’t have pictures? Well, okay… there were pictures on the pages but they weren’t related to the story. Still, five pages… and you expected us to read it? Sheesh!



I don’t know whether he is correct in his analysis, but I do agree that we should premise our politics on our religion and not the other way around. One of the problems I saw with the religious right is that they made it sound as if homosexuality was one of the most important tenets of being Christian. What about loving one’s neighbor… why didn’t they develop political action around that? Yes, there is prudential judgement involved so issues wouldn’t be black/white, but surely what counts is that the value be a prominent part of our political discourse. Instead, it was marginalized and largely ignored.

Is ‘love’ the value you are talking about here? If so, I agree with you. We do indeed need to involve more charity within political discourse, but charity/love RIGHTLY understood. Love/charity is often confused with a counterfeit version, a blanket acceptance of whatever anyone wants to do as opposed to
works of mercy such as ‘admonishing the sinner’.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

Huh…?! Read the commentary? Did you realize it was five pages long? And that it didn’t have pictures? Well, okay… there were pictures on the pages but they weren’t related to the story. Still, five pages… and you expected us to read it? Sheesh!

.

Of course, what was I thinking. Why would people who spend hours debating back and forth have 10 minutes to read a 5 page commentary…