James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


Wow! Although this story is a real eye-opener, perhaps it's not so surprising after all.


> Excerpt from the May 27, 2014 Politico magazine feature story by Randall Balmer entitled:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.



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 Court’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.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti-Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979 —— a full six years after Roe —— 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 Right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the "new abolitionism."

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy.

In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe v. Wade, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas —— also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century —— was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”


Rev. W.A. Criswell

{Point of Information from Wikipedia: Criswell's preaching also reflected his culture as societal attitudes evolved on the issue of racial integration. While he never spoke in support of segregation from the pulpit, Criswell was at first privately critical of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and of federal intervention against de jure southern segregation. In 1953, he made a Curse of Ham address denouncing forced integration to a South Carolina evangelism conference, and a day later to the South Carolina legislature. (His "Curse of Ham" speech also entailed that God ordained for the races to be remain separate and that African Americans, the cursed descendants of Ham, Noah's son, should not expect to be treated with the same rights as whites.) Taken aback by negative reactions and distorted accounts of his remarks in the press, Criswell did not publicly address the issue again for over a decade, claiming he was "a pastor, not a politician." However, upon his 1968 election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the SBC's endorsement of racial equality and desegregation, Criswell announced to the press, "Every Southern Baptist in the land should support the spirit of that statement. We Southern Baptists have definitely turned away from racism, from segregation, from anything and everything that speaks of a separation of people in the body of Christ." Criswell's first sermon after his election as SBC president in 1968 was titled "The Church of the Open Door," emphasizing that his church already had many non-white members and was open to all regardless of race. He asserted publicly, "I don't think that segregation could have been or was at any time intelligently, seriously supported by the Bible." In 1987, however, when asked by a British documentarian why Dallas Southern Baptist Churches hadn't mainstreamed any English-speaking Hispanic Baptists into their all-white churches, Criswell responded, "Well, they have their churches and we have ours." Criswell's candor can be attributed to his presumption that the documentary being filmed would only be shown in England. When the documentary aired on PBS in 1987, Criswell was unable to satisfactory reconcile his own filmed words during a live post-show discussion hour.]


Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

So what then were the real origins of the Religious Right?

It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools.

Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not —— by definition —— “charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

_________________________________________


The story continues at: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-rig...



5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How many other forums do you spam are you actively involved in like this?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


GameCrossing wrote:
How many other forums do you spam are you actively involved in like this?

This is the only one.

I have a more personal connection to this story though: It was the influence of the likes of Rev. W.A. Criswell and others of his ilk who dominated the Southern Baptist Association that caused a retired Southern Baptist missionary in the early 1980s to dissuade me from entering the mission field. He told me that when I expressed my regret about how some Hispanic friends of mine had felt a somewhat chilly reception by my home church's congregation. Said that retired missionary, "If you feel that disappointed about the way your church treated your Hispanic friends, then I would most certainly not advise you to consider entering the Southern Baptist mission field." Unfortunately, because he didn't deign to elaborate further, he inadvertently left me with the impression that something was wrong with my attitude about the way my home church had made my Hispanic friends feel so cooly received.

Several years later, I would learn for myself when I saw the two-part British documentary "Thy Kingdom Come, They Will Be Done" which was filmed in/around Dallas, Texas in 1986 when W.A. Criswell was a big wheel in both Dallas' Baptist community, Southwest Theological Seminary, and the Southern Baptist Association. When the British documentarian asked Criswell why Criswell's own church hadn't mainstreamed any English-speaking Hispanics into his all-white congregation, Criswell said, "Well, they have their churches and we have ours."

Criswell had been a lot more forthright with that British documentarian because he hadn't suspected that the documentary would ever be shown in America. Therefore, when the show was broadcast on PBS in 1987, it was followed by a live discussion show featuring Rev. W.A. Criswell who was beside himself in trying to reconcile and explain away his irreconcilably racist remarks.

Indeed, it wouldn't be until after his death that the full truth came out: W.A. Criswell had been one of the leading advocates of racial segregation in the Southern Baptist Association both during and after the Civil Rights Era. Of course, that revelation prompted me to research the history of how the Southern Baptist denomination came to be.

When I learn this stuff, I was a bit more disillusioned because it all made a sad sort of sense.


> Excerpt from the book review by Curtis Wilkie entitled "How The Baptists Won The Soul of Dixie" about the book "SOUTHERN CROSS: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt" by Christine Leigh Heyrman (Knopf, 336 pp.)

"Southern Cross" tells how the Baptists -- and to a lesser extent their evangelical cousins, the Methodists -- won supremacy in Dixie.....

Heyrman, a history professor at the University of Delaware, has conducted some diligent research, and while she concentrates on a period 200 years ago, she provides a study of the early forces that swelled into the influential behemoth known as the "religious right" by the eve of the 21st century.

These Protestant fundamentalists, believing that spiritual rebirth is essential to salvation, were clever at reading political winds from the time they set foot in the South. While ties to England cost the Episcopal Church loyalty at the time of the Revolution, and the Presbyterian Church "fell far behind in the competition for new members" because of its insistence that ministers obtain a classical education, Heyrman writes that the "Baptists and Methodists refashioned their faiths to win greater acceptance among whites."

When the Baptists and Methodists first sought to proselytize the South, they were represented by itinerant circuit-riding pastors and boy preachers, known as "young gifts," bearing dire messages of dancing in Hell "in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." They frowned on such worldly pleasures as "horse races and taverns, barbecues and balls," and their charismatic services not only attracted many black worshippers but also allowed women to "prophesy, pray and exhort at mixed gatherings."

It did not fit into a Southern society where the white man was the principal figure. The evangelical zealots were mocked by large portions of the population, and sometimes they were set upon physically. Clearly, adjustments were necessary.

"All preachers shared the concern that attacks on slavery would alienate both members and prospective converts," Heyrman writes, and church leaders also feared that practices that empowered women had the effect of antagonizing men.

To convert slaveholders as well as "humbler folk," she says, the churches drastically altered "many earlier evangelical teachings and practices concerning the proper roles of men and women, old and young, white and black."

The evangelicals "shaped their behavior to the reigning norms of white southern manhood," she writes. Those who once put church over the family began tailoring their teachings to assert the authority of male heads of households and masters of slaves.

By the early 1800s, Heyrman writes, the evangelical churches that had held out hope "to the poor, the young, the female, the black... had retreated from those promises of liberation and invested their energies in upholding the equality and honor of all white men."

Ministers even adopted macho poses. A new breed of male evangelicals began to claim "red-blooded impulses" in order to connect with their target audience, Heyrman says. "The youthful dissipations to which the clergy confessed ran the predictable gamut of male passions -- swearing and gambling, dancing and drinking, fighting and hunting."

Plantation patriarchs joined the Baptist and Methodist flocks. Women were silenced, and blacks took their religious passions to their own segregated churches.

The ultimate triumph of the evangelicals in the South, Heyrman concludes, "lay in appealing to those who confined the devil to hell, esteemed maturity more than youth, put family before religious fellowship, upheld the superiority of white over black and of men over women, and prized their honor above all else."

The irony is not lost on Heyrman, who writes that the changing themes "transformed the early Baptist and Methodist movements into the evangelical culture that later generations of Americans would identify as epitomizing 'Family Values.'"

__________________________________________________



Baptists living in the antebellum South eventually formed their own denomination as the result of a schism over slavery. That breakaway began in 1845 when the then National Baptist Convention refused to ordain the son of a slave-holding southern plantation owner because of the inherant hypocrisy of sending a missionary overseas to witness and proselytize to internationals whose very own relatives might well be held in captivity by slave holders like that missionary's own slave-holding father.


That's why I'm prone to paraphrase comedian Steve Martin in saying that History is NOT pretty.


7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is some reason to think that indeed the growth of the religious right in America is linked to it's racist past. I think however this is over stated here.

Much like the Occupy movement, the anti-globalization movement, the animal rights movement and the Tea Party it is far to disparate to really have a single "genesis" issue. It is far more a case of teh enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus rather than "defining" the religious right those who are not looking back to the halcyon days of segregation turn a blind eye to those in the movement who do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
There is some reason to think that indeed the growth of the religious right in America is linked to it's racist past. I think however this is over stated here.

Much like the Occupy movement, the anti-globalization movement, the animal rights movement and the Tea Party it is far to disparate to really have a single "genesis" issue. It is far more a case of teh enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus rather than "defining" the religious right those who are not looking back to the halcyon days of segregation turn a blind eye to those in the movement who do.

How can it be "overstated" when it's never been prior brought to light or acknowledged as the actual origin of the Religious Right?

If anything, when properly collected, sorted by dated and collated -- as the author of the work has done -- the historical documents of those times and the publicly spoken and written words of members of the nascent Religious Right speak quite eloquently and damningly for themselves.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


GameCrossing wrote:
How many other forums do you spam are you actively involved in like this?

This is the only one.



Just so you know, this is where I stopped. I asked a question, you answered, and the rest was.... spam. But thank you for answering my question in one sentence, and making that one sentence easy to find by separating it from the rest of whatever you copied.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:


Just so you know, this is where I stopped. I asked a question, you answered, and the rest was.... spam. But thank you for answering my question in one sentence, and making that one sentence easy to find by separating it from the rest of whatever you copied.


Actually there were 7 paragraphs of his own authored text, giving insight onto why his OP was not spam, but a (P)olitical and (R)eligious article that hit close to home for him. You may want to do your own research on the definition of Spam. I'm sure that you can find one that is one sentence long so it doesn't overwhelm your reading comprehension capacity.
7 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


Just so you know, this is where I stopped. I asked a question, you answered, and the rest was.... spam. But thank you for answering my question in one sentence, and making that one sentence easy to find by separating it from the rest of whatever you copied.


Actually there were 7 paragraphs of his own authored text, giving insight onto why his OP was not spam, but a (P)olitical and (R)eligious article that hit close to home for him. You may want to do your own research on the definition of Spam. I'm sure that you can find one that is one sentence long so it doesn't overwhelm your reading comprehension capacity.


Are you admitting to fully reading ShrevePosts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lfisher wrote:

Are you admitting to fully reading ShrevePosts?


Yep, and I have admitted it in the past. I find them interesting reads with some actual content as opposed to a link and three words of snark that goes for some people's ideas of thread starters.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
lfisher wrote:

Are you admitting to fully reading ShrevePosts?


Yep, and I have admitted it in the past. I find them interesting reads with some actual content as opposed to a link and three words of snark that goes for some people's ideas of thread starters.



Needs more metal videos.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lfisher wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
lfisher wrote:

Are you admitting to fully reading ShrevePosts?


Yep, and I have admitted it in the past. I find them interesting reads with some actual content as opposed to a link and three words of snark that goes for some people's ideas of thread starters.



Needs more metal videos.


Pretty much the universal sentiment for just about everything.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


Just so you know, this is where I stopped. I asked a question, you answered, and the rest was.... spam. But thank you for answering my question in one sentence, and making that one sentence easy to find by separating it from the rest of whatever you copied.


Actually there were 7 paragraphs of his own authored text, giving insight onto why his OP was not spam, but a (P)olitical and (R)eligious article that hit close to home for him. You may want to do your own research on the definition of Spam. I'm sure that you can find one that is one sentence long so it doesn't overwhelm your reading comprehension capacity.


Sorry, but when so much of his content has been screen-flooding copypasta, it makes me really unwilling to wade through more screens of text to see if there is something relevant to me or not. I just assume the "not" option and if I miss out on one or two percent because of it, I think I can live with that tradeoff.

He refuses to change his posting style. That's his choice. But he can't control the reactions of others, and if that reaction is that people ignore his stuff wholesale, so be it.

EDIT: Oops. I misread your post. For some reason I took "hit close to him" to imply that it was written by him and applied to him. Looking at it, I can see that I was wrong. So I will instead take umbrage with your "hit close to him" portrayal. I don't think "the last thing to pop up on his newsfeed" qualifies as hitting close to home. The sheer volume of things that supposedly "hit close to home" would mean he wore his heart on his sleeve so readily that he would openly week at the ribbon-cutting of a new neighborhood grocery store. The reason people don't like spam isn't because it is marketing, but because it interrupts the flow of what people want to see. So while it isn't telling me about dick-enhancing pills, it is intrusive enough that I stand by my "spam" assertion. It's not perfect, but it's close.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

GameCrossing wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
How many other forums do you spam are you actively involved in like this?

This is the only one.

Just so you know, this is where I stopped. I asked a question, you answered, and the rest was.... spam. But thank you for answering my question in one sentence, and making that one sentence easy to find by separating it from the rest of whatever you copied.

Since you've given an all-new definition of "Spam" that relates to one's religion, I'll be certain to cite it if/whenever you write about matters related to your own religious denomination.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

GameCrossing wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
How many other forums do you spam are you actively involved in like this?

This is the only one.

Just so you know, this is where I stopped. I asked a question, you answered, and the rest was.... spam. But thank you for answering my question in one sentence, and making that one sentence easy to find by separating it from the rest of whatever you copied.

Since you've given an all-new definition of "Spam" that relates to one's religion, I'll be certain to cite it if/whenever you write about matters related to your own religious denomination.



Oh, you've already done that a few times. I noticed, I just brushed it off, taking your efforts with all the seriousness they merit. But what I fail to pick up on is how my definition of "spam" relates to my religion. I mention it when it's relevant to a discussion. What I -don't- do is clutter up the page with thread after thread of trying to cram my faith in other people's ear.

I would ask if you understood the distinction, but I know your defense mechanism won't let you see it, so I won't bother asking.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
There is some reason to think that indeed the growth of the religious right in America is linked to it's racist past. I think however this is over stated here.

Much like the Occupy movement, the anti-globalization movement, the animal rights movement and the Tea Party it is far to disparate to really have a single "genesis" issue. It is far more a case of teh enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus rather than "defining" the religious right those who are not looking back to the halcyon days of segregation turn a blind eye to those in the movement who do.

How can it be "overstated" when it's never been prior brought to light or acknowledged as the actual origin of the Religious Right?

If anything, when properly collected, sorted by dated and collated -- as the author of the work has done -- the historical documents of those times and the publicly spoken and written words of members of the nascent Religious Right speak quite eloquently and damningly for themselves.

A. Sorry this is not that new. I can remember reading about this idea years ago.

B. An article can overstate something and still be a new thought.

Did you know that posting too long walls of text causes cancer (ever heard that before?), now do you think that is not overstating the dangers of walls of text?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


Koldfoot wrote:
I read enough to question if you know what the southern baptist convention is. Then you claimed something about rejecting being a southern baptist missionary. I went back to find it but drowned in text.

I tentatively call bullshit.

You are not at all clear on the point of what the southern baptist convention is.

On the contrary, I never spoke about "rejection" at all. Rather, I spoke about a then-recently retired Southern Baptist missionary who politely expressed his opinion that if I had misgivings about the way my Hispanic friends had been so coolly received at my own former Southern Baptist Church, then I should perhaps reconsider any notion of going into mission work for the Southern Baptist Association -- period.

While he didn't elaborate about the then politics of the Southern Baptist Convention or Association, within several years, I would discover that for myself when I saw the two-part "Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done" documentary on PBS. When I saw that documentary, I had no idea at the time that Rev. W.A. Criswell, one of the most dominant leaders of the Southern Baptist Association in the 1980s, had been a racial segregationist during the Civil Rights Era. So, years later after I learned that fact after reading his obituary, it was a delayed-reaction sort of whammy of a revelation because it gave his prior statement -- "Well, we [white Southern Baptists] have our churches and they [Hispanics, Engish- and Spanish-speaking alike] have their own churches" -- in reply to the British documentarian's question about why they hadn't mainstreamed (made an outreach to include in their white churches) English-speaking Hispanics -- a disturbing historical perspective, namely, that Criswell still held to his racial-segregationist beliefs that God meant for the races to remain separate. (Again, Criswell never suspected when answering that British documentarian's questions in 1986 that the documentary would be shown in America.)

Furthermore, I was prompted to learn more about the history of how the Southern Baptist Association/Convention got started after it delivered in June 1995 a public apology for having as an institution supported slavery; for having supported Jim Crow Laws; and for opposing Civil Rights for African Americans during its history. Once I researched their history, although I'd been appalled by what I discovered, it nonetheless made a sad sort of sense. Indeed, it also helps one better comprehend the rightwing politicalization of the Southern Baptist Association/Convention, the intolerant purges of their seminaries' faculty (including the firing of women seminary professors and administration), and the growing prevelance of Dominionist theology in the denomination.

So, I consider it very much a godsend that I learned what I learned when I learned it because I would most certainly not have wanted to find all that out after the fact (after going into the ministry). Indeed, I would dissuade anybody from entering any religious denomination's ministry without having first researched its history and how it's reconciled and/or redeemed itself (or not) as an institution over time in rectifying wrongs and/or unethical practices as well as ascertaining its track record for promoting social justice.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

slatersteven wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
There is some reason to think that indeed the growth of the religious right in America is linked to it's racist past. I think however this is over stated here.

Much like the Occupy movement, the anti-globalization movement, the animal rights movement and the Tea Party it is far to disparate to really have a single "genesis" issue. It is far more a case of teh enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus rather than "defining" the religious right those who are not looking back to the halcyon days of segregation turn a blind eye to those in the movement who do.

How can it be "overstated" when it's never been prior brought to light or acknowledged as the actual origin of the Religious Right?

If anything, when properly collected, sorted by dated and collated -- as the author of the work has done -- the historical documents of those times and the publicly spoken and written words of members of the nascent Religious Right speak quite eloquently and damningly for themselves.

A. Sorry this is not that new. I can remember reading about this idea years ago.

You might have read as I had how the Religious Right got its start over the issue of abortion -- which *had* been the original story -- but I've never read any article or news story that connected the dots to racial segregation per se.

Please cite your prior source. (If it does exist, then I would have to infer that it apparently wasn't well researched enough to make or have any meaningfully lasting impact.)


slatersteven wrote:
B. An article can overstate something and still be a new thought.

I think it's fair to say that the article more than made its case; however, since it's proposing a new historical perspective and given the gravity of the original issue, it has to make an open-and-shut case for itself.


slatersteven wrote:
Did you know that posting too long walls of text causes cancer (ever heard that before?), now do you think that is not overstating the dangers of walls of text?

No, not at all, because words have meaning. If you choose not to read the words, you have only yourself to blame for imposing such an unreasonable standard on yourself.

Otherwise, you should subscribe to Reader's Digest. (There's no guarantee, however, that the referenced article will appear in it though.)



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

slatersteven wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
There is some reason to think that indeed the growth of the religious right in America is linked to it's racist past. I think however this is over stated here.

Much like the Occupy movement, the anti-globalization movement, the animal rights movement and the Tea Party it is far to disparate to really have a single "genesis" issue. It is far more a case of teh enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus rather than "defining" the religious right those who are not looking back to the halcyon days of segregation turn a blind eye to those in the movement who do.

How can it be "overstated" when it's never been prior brought to light or acknowledged as the actual origin of the Religious Right?

If anything, when properly collected, sorted by dated and collated -- as the author of the work has done -- the historical documents of those times and the publicly spoken and written words of members of the nascent Religious Right speak quite eloquently and damningly for themselves.

A. Sorry this is not that new. I can remember reading about this idea years ago.

You might have read as I had how the Religious Right got its start over the issue of abortion -- which *had* been the original story -- but I've never read any article or news story that connected the dots to racial segregation per se.

Please cite your prior source. (If it does exist, then I would have to infer that it apparently wasn't well researched enough to make or have any meaningfully lasting impact.)
2013 http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/real-story-relig..., or 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785, not this is just articles linking abortion and segregation, not those just claiming the new right was born out of opposition to the ending of segregation.
Quote:


slatersteven wrote:
B. An article can overstate something and still be a new thought.

I think it's fair to say that the article more than made its case; however, since it's proposing a new historical perspective and given the gravity of the original issue, it has to make an open-and-shut case for itself.


slatersteven wrote:
Did you know that posting too long walls of text causes cancer (ever heard that before?), now do you think that is not overstating the dangers of walls of text?

No, not at all, because words have meaning. If you choose not to read the words, you have only yourself to blame for imposing such an unreasonable standard on yourself.

Otherwise, you should subscribe to Reader's Digest. (There's no guarantee, however, that the referenced article will appear in it though.)



I was making the point that being "new" does not mean anything. Something can be "new" and still be a pile of toss.

Ironically this is not new, it's well documented (and at about a decade old, at least) http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/right_south.h..., http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/04/weekinreview/the-christian.... It's hard to see how anyone steeped (as you claim) in the southern Baptists movement was not aware of these allegations until an article published a few weeks ago.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


slatersteven wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
There is some reason to think that indeed the growth of the religious right in America is linked to it's racist past. I think however this is over stated here.

Much like the Occupy movement, the anti-globalization movement, the animal rights movement and the Tea Party it is far to disparate to really have a single "genesis" issue. It is far more a case of teh enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus rather than "defining" the religious right those who are not looking back to the halcyon days of segregation turn a blind eye to those in the movement who do.

How can it be "overstated" when it's never been prior brought to light or acknowledged as the actual origin of the Religious Right?

If anything, when properly collected, sorted by dated and collated -- as the author of the work has done -- the historical documents of those times and the publicly spoken and written words of members of the nascent Religious Right speak quite eloquently and damningly for themselves.

A. Sorry this is not that new. I can remember reading about this idea years ago.

You might have read as I had how the Religious Right got its start over the issue of abortion -- which *had* been the original story -- but I've never read any article or news story that connected the dots to racial segregation per se.

Please cite your prior source. (If it does exist, then I would have to infer that it apparently wasn't well researched enough to make or have any meaningfully lasting impact.)
2013 http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/real-story-relig..., or 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785, not this is just articles linking abortion and segregation, not those just claiming the new right was born out of opposition to the ending of segregation.

While I myself might otherwise have only speculated along those lines, I'm surprised that this information has already been verified and came to light.


slatersteven wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
B. An article can overstate something and still be a new thought.

I think it's fair to say that the article more than made its case; however, since it's proposing a new historical perspective and given the gravity of the original issue, it has to make an open-and-shut case for itself.

I was making the point that being "new" does not mean anything. Something can be "new" and still be a pile of toss.

Since the article I cited was not such, its being new and compelling made it above that sort of dismissive consideration.

At the same time, however, it's apparent now that the story I discovered only constituted further research into the matter and as such, combined with the previous stories, is beginning to curb and more effectively debunk the abortion issue as the supposed origin of today's Religious Right.


slatersteven wrote:
Ironically this is not new, it's well documented (and at about a decade old, at least) http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/right_south.h..., http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/04/weekinreview/the-christian.... It's hard to see how anyone steeped (as you claim) in the southern Baptists movement was not aware of these allegations until an article published a few weeks ago.

There are a plenty of stories published that both you and I have never read on their first publication that we only learn about much later down the line. So, I'm hardly an exception in that respect.

However, since I was unfamiliar with those earlier stories, I had no reason to go looking for them in the first place. After all, I too had bought into the abortion-as-origin-of-today's-Religious-Right story that has long prevailed.

Now, however, that the preponderance of research is evidently starting to reach a critical mass, it should be a lot easier to disabuse the preconceptions of those who bought into the original abortion-as-origin-of-today's-Religious-Right story, especially since there are multiple reliable sources to cite to rebut and/or correct such misperceptions and erroneous information.


And for that, I am most grateful to learn about other prior-existing reliable sources to use for futture reference.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
I read the article that the OP linked to myself. The author makes some good points, especially on how in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade, the Evangelical community still saw abortion as primarily 'That Catholic Issue' and felt that Roe v. Wade did a good job of protecting religious liberty. It wasn't until the late 1970's that there was a shift of emphasis from other issues- including racial segregation- over to abortion.

Now, to be fair, the author wasn't responsible for the pieces crappy title- he doesn't argue in the piece that racialist ideology was the primary thing that motivated the political religious right. If anything, the piece makes the case that individuals of the religious right, looking for an issue, drifted from topic to topic until finally settling on abortion- for a variety of reasons, but in large due to the explosion of the number of abortions in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade as well as a general disgust with the tenor of the overall culture of America in the 1970's.

Its a good piece.

Darilian
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.