The myth of "far right Christian fundamentalism"

[Pogo]

Answer to what? You are dismissed as a moron. You obviously think a lot more of your intelligence than you should.

Carry on.

Meanwhile, I made my point..which is that the myth of the fundie takeover of the Republican party is just a myth.

Thanks for that clarification; I must needs update: reversalist history about left-right contemporary trends clumsily coupled with a 'poor me' martyr-complex propaganda, and a launching pad for the usual self-righteous ad hominem.

The currency of religious zealotry: "everybody's a stoopid idiot except us".

 

[koshergrl]

Oh the irony.

 

[koshergrl]

So I take it you're dismissing the study cuz you know better, eh?

Irony x 2.

 

[Pogo]

So I take it you're dismissing the study cuz you know better, eh?

Irony x 2.

It isn't a "study" -- what you linked me to is an essay postulating a position, that position being apparently that religious based politics is not a monolithic movement. It quotes a study to support its thesis, but what it all has to do with your OP I don't know.

Are you just unable to articulate what your point is? I mean other than "they're all out to get us and you're a moron"?

 

[t_polkow]

So much for the myth of "fundies taking over" right wing politics.

 

[koshergrl]

So I take it you're dismissing the study cuz you know better, eh?

Irony x 2.

It isn't a "study" -- what you linked me to is an essay postulating a position, that position being apparently that religious based politics is not a monolithic movement. It quotes a study to support its thesis, but what it all has to do with your OP I don't know.

Are you just unable to articulate what your point is? I mean other than "they're all out to get us and you're a moron"?

No, I articulated my point. Are you not capable of understanding it? It appears to be beyond your paygrade. Be that as it may, I'm not dumbing it down further for you.

The study is a study, extremist:

"
Religious Orthodoxy in American Society: The Myth of a Monolithic Camp Author(s): Nancy J. Davis and Robert V. Robinson Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 229-245 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Stable URL: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386553 [/FONT][/FONT]Accessed: 15/02/2009 20:44 "

"Through an analysis of national survey data, we test several hypotheses regarding the extent to which the religiously orthodox constitute a monolithic conservative front. We find that the orthodox generally are conservative on social issues of sexuality, reproduction, and schooling of children, but are moderate or liberal on gender, racial, and economic issues. There is little tendency for the orthodox to cohere around a single ideological position or, as individuals, to take stances that are consistent across a broad range of issues. The religiously orthodox are also internally divided on many social and economic issues along the lines of race, sex, class, and age. We suggest that these factors may explain the weak support that the religiously orthodox historically have given to organized political movements of the Religious Right."

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/i...m 2009/Davis-ScientificStudyReligion-1996.pdf

 

[Truthmatters]

the village idiots

 

[Pogo]

So I take it you're dismissing the study cuz you know better, eh?

Irony x 2.

It isn't a "study" -- what you linked me to is an essay postulating a position, that position being apparently that religious based politics is not a monolithic movement. It quotes a study to support its thesis, but what it all has to do with your OP I don't know.

Are you just unable to articulate what your point is? I mean other than "they're all out to get us and you're a moron"?

No, I articulated my point. Are you not capable of understanding it? It appears to be beyond your paygrade. Be that as it may, I'm not dumbing it down further for you.

The study is a study, extremist:

"
Religious Orthodoxy in American Society: The Myth of a Monolithic Camp Author(s): Nancy J. Davis and Robert V. Robinson Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 229-245 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Stable URL: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386553 [/FONT][/FONT]Accessed: 15/02/2009 20:44 "

"Through an analysis of national survey data, we test several hypotheses regarding the extent to which the religiously orthodox constitute a monolithic conservative front. We find that the orthodox generally are conservative on social issues of sexuality, reproduction, and schooling of children, but are moderate or liberal on gender, racial, and economic issues. There is little tendency for the orthodox to cohere around a single ideological position or, as individuals, to take stances that are consistent across a broad range of issues. The religiously orthodox are also internally divided on many social and economic issues along the lines of race, sex, class, and age. We suggest that these factors may explain the weak support that the religiously orthodox historically have given to organized political movements of the Religious Right."

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/i...m 2009/Davis-ScientificStudyReligion-1996.pdf

You just linked the same link again.

See the words "we test several hypotheses"? I could bold them for you. Oh wait, you already did. Maybe you could read them.

It's still got squat to do with your OP. Are you hijacking your own thread? Do you understand what your own link's point is?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Answer to what? You are dismissed as a moron. You obviously think a lot more of your intelligence than you should.

Carry on.

Meanwhile, I made my point..which is that the myth of the fundie takeover of the Republican party is just a myth.

Fundie myth? Preachers are now endorsing candidates from the pulpit and telling their sheep who to vote for... all while keeping tax exempt status. This is illegal, by the way. And there is no way shrub would have been voted for even once if it wasn't for all of the the bible thumpers.

Pulpit politics: Pastors endorse candidates, thumbing noses at the IRS - U.S. News

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=280881&page=1

 

[koshergrl]

And the authors of the study are:

"Nancy Davis teaches courses in sociology, including "Sexuality, Culture, and Power” that is cross-listed with Women’s Studies. Her course “Protest, Activism, and Change” highlights feminist activism as one of seven major movements considered, as well as the role of women in other movements for change. In previous years, she has taught “Gender & Society” and a senior seminar in sociology focused on cultural conflict, including struggles between feminists and anti-feminists over issues of reproductive rights, sexuality, and school curriculum.
One of the founding mothers of the Women's Studies program at DePauw, she has chaired and served on the Women's Studies committee and worked in Greencastle to reduce domestic violence and establish services for abused women and their children.
Her research includes publications in The American Journal of Sociology, The American Sociological Review, and other journals on incorporating women into sociological conceptions of class; perceptions of gender inequality and support for government intervention to reduce it; and, the connections between religious orthodoxy and gender attitudes in Western Europe and the U.S. "
Nancy Davis - DePauw University

and

"Robert V. Robinson is the Class of 1964 Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology at Indiana University, where he served as chair of the Department of Sociology from 2000 to 2006. Rob came to IU in 1979 after completing his Ph.D. at Yale University and his A.B. at Brown University. He has published articles in such journals as the American Sociological Review, the American Journal of Sociology and Social Forces using comparative and historical methods to address questions in social stratification, economic history, the sociology of religion, and political sociology:"

IU Sociology: Rob Robinson

 

[koshergrl]

I will stand by for Pogo to maintain that they're fundie nutcases.

It's hard to debate with people who can't even get the basic premise straight in the first place.

 

[koshergrl]

Answer to what? You are dismissed as a moron. You obviously think a lot more of your intelligence than you should.

Carry on.

Meanwhile, I made my point..which is that the myth of the fundie takeover of the Republican party is just a myth.

Fundie myth? Preachers are now endorsing candidates from the pulpit and telling their sheep who to vote for... all while keeping tax exempt status. This is illegal, by the way. And there is no way shrub would have been voted for even once if it wasn't for all of the the bible thumpers.

Pulpit politics: Pastors endorse candidates, thumbing noses at the IRS - U.S. News

How odd that I've been in church for the majority of my life and never had a preacher tell me who to vote for.

Interesting.

 

[Truthmatters]

the OP is a member of the factless sociopathic party.

what can be gained from people who have no respect for verifiable facts?

Nothing.

 

[koshergrl]

My facts are verified...do you have something to add? Maybe add a citation or something, tdm...show that you at least can pretend to be an adult.

 

[Truthmatters]

Was our president born in this country?

 

[koshergrl]

What an intelligent response!

 

[Pogo]

I will stand by for Pogo to maintain that they're fundie nutcases.

It's hard to debate with people who can't even get the basic premise straight in the first place.

No shit. That's why I gave up; you post one thing in the OP and then keep linking this essay on something else unrelated.

Let me know when you decide wtf your point is.

 

[koshergrl]

My point, which is supported by the study I linked and quoted, and which I have re-iterated at least a couple of times for the dimwitted, is that the idea that the Republican Party has been taken over by religious fundamentalists is a complete lie.

 

[koshergrl]

That is the point I made in the OP.

I'm sure it doesn't jibe with whatever you've got going on in YOUR head, but I can't help that.

 

[konradv]

the base your speaking of didnt used to vote.

they were courted by the republican party

Now they are harming the very party that courted their vote.

Christians did not vote? Since when?

By the way, a little reality for you, Reagan courted the evangelicals, and promptly screwed them over after he won the election. That has been the pattern since that time, which is why Robertson decided to run for President in 1988. If the Christian right had actually taken over the Republican Party he would have won, but he didn't.

I was all a political power play by the evangelicals, because in 1980 they voted against a man who professed to be "born again" and went to church regularly in favor of a man who down played his religion and rarely went to church.