Is there Anyone On this Forum who LIKES Pres. Bush?

[jgants]

Because I don't believe that the majority of the Religious Right is as radical as I'm sure you do.  Many of them simply want a return to how they perceived things as being 50-100 years ago.  They aren't looking for the racism and are probably looking at that period through rose-tinged glasses to one degree or another, but what they are looking for is a return to family-friendly public spaces, Christian expression in the public without lawsuits or ridicule, and schools to teach morality to children that reflect what they consider Christian values.  Opposition to abortion is also a huge part of that and is probably a big part of the reason why Democrats lost so much power.

But what you need to bear in mind to put that all into perspective is that all of those things, for the most part, existed in one form or another in the United States for at least a century without it turning into a theocracy.  The public spaces were more family friendly, there was Christian expression in public without ridicule, children said prayers in school and held Christmas plays, and children weren't taught about sex in schools.  And abortion was illegal in every state, even though the laws were liberalized in 4 states before Roe v. Wade.  Sure, things weren't perfect (the racism of the period was shameful) but in many ways, it was better than today, especially for parents with children.  ADDED:  And with the exception of particularly awful racial violence in some places and periods during that time, life in America was not comparable to life on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, nor modern Iran or Saudi Arabia for that matter.  Given the choice, I think most American women would rather live in 1930s or 1950s America than Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, modern Iran, or modern Saudi Arabia.

So, basically, America has already been pretty much the way the Religious Right wants it to be, for decades, and didn't turn into a theocracy or fall apart.  Perhaps you think that would all be a step backwards but they see a lot of the changes since then as a step backward, and would like things to be more like the way they once were.  And if you want to raise the specter of racism, I'd be happy to talk about mixed-race Evangelical congregations and about the overt segregation in progressive Democrat states like New Jersey and Vermont.  That's not what most on the Religious Right are looking for at all.

Ah yes, the "Good Old Days" theory.  Those glasses aren't just rose-colored, they're solid red.

The fact is, life in the 1950's was most certainly not like a Leave it to Beaver episode.

First, let's talk race relations.  If you weren't white, you were a second-class citizen.  Period.  Particularly in the south, where not only were you treated poorly, but you had to worry about white people lynching you just because they had a bad day and felt like blowing off some steam.

If you were a woman, you were also a second-class citizen.  Domestic abuse was considered normal behavior and your husband effectively owned you.  Sexual harrassment was considered standard practice if you were able to get a job.  You had no say over what to do with your own body with regards to pregnancy.  And if you were young and got pregnant, you were practically guaranteed to be sent away and more-or-less disowned by your family (as opposed to the even older days, when women would get married off at age 14 to some guy in his 20's or older).    Sure, it's not as bad as Afghanistan or Iran or whatever - but it's still terrible.

If you weren't Christian, you were practically a second-class citizen.  You and your family would be forced to suffer through the constant assailment of Christian propoganda at school or work.  You would be discriminated against, and might have trouble getting a job or even finding a place to live.  And your kids would actively be discriminated against at school or be forced to participate in activities that went against their core religious beliefs.

If you were gay, you weren't just a second-class citizen, but considered to be mentally insane.  People would either want to lock you up and "treat" you, lock you up for having illegal sex, or just beat you to death on the street for fun.  And certainly the police didn't care.  They'd put more effort into trying to solve the lynching of a black man than they would a gay man (which is to say, none at all).

If you were young, you were 100% the property of your parents.  They could do whatever they wanted to you.  Verbal abuse, physical abuse, even sexual abuse - no one is going to interfere.  And it doesn't even have to be your actual parents, every other adult in the world has the right to pretty much do whatever they want to you, too.  Unless your parents actually object.

If you were poor, that was just too fucking bad.  If you were lucky enough, you got to break your fucking back working at a dead end job for the rest of your life.  Don't get sick, though, 'cause there's no health plan.  And watch out for all the hazards at work - because there's no reason for the company to make the place safe.  If you weren't lucky, you ended up on skid row were you and your family can starve and live on the streets.

And whatever you do, don't be communist.  Or know any communists.  Or even look like you might be communist or know a communist.  Or even disagree with the methods of finding the communists.  Those pinko bastards are everywhere, and we should try and expose them all so their lives can be ruined and/or have them killed (even if we don't have much in the way of hard evidence).

But yeah, if you were an older white rich pro-Democracy Christian male, those days fucking rocked.  Everyone else was pretty much your indentured servant, and if you had a stressful day at work, you had your choice of how to release your tension - you could beat your wife, your kids, some black guy, a gay guy, or a suspected commie pinko.

Oddly enough, the 50's had pretty much the same problems we do today.  Things like school violence, gangs, teen sex, drug use, venereal diseases, teen pregnancy, etc - they were all there.  Actually, those all go back to the 19th century.  There were no real "good old days"  - because despite the problems we have today, we're living in them.

Finally, I'd like to add that in some ways, Muslim extremists are already exercising more power than Christian Fundamentalists, at least over free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  How many American papers were willing to publish the drawings of Muhammad, most of them relatively benign, that caused such an uproar in Europe to illustrate the controversy?  Weren't the creators of South Park prohibited from showing Muhammad in an episode that mercilessly mocks Jesus?  Didn't Newsweek yank an article off of their website about old alternate manuscripts of the Quran found in the Sanaa mosque in Yemen after complaints by Muslim groups?  Haven't authors like Rushdie been given death threats and don't authors like ibn Warraq have to publish anonymously, out of fear of being killed?  Wasn't Theo van Gogh slaughtered on the streets of Amsterdam for his movie critical of Islam?  

I'm not talking about Muslim countries but about the West -- Europe and the United States.  Can you think of any comparable acts perpetrated by Christian Fundamentalists, simply for insulting Jesus or questioning Christianity?  Have the boycotts against movies like the Last Temptation of Christ really stopped people from seeing them or, more importantly, stopped them from being made?  Do the creators of Southpark need 7/24 bodyguards to protect them from Christians outraged over their mocking of Jesus?  

And given how much you claim to love free speech, I'm surprised that you don't have more of a problem with that.

Uh, how about the "Christians" who advocate bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors?  Does that count?  Or how about the ones advocating killing gay people?

Maybe the reason that the radical Christians aren't going after the people who mock Jesus, yet, is they want to be sure to kill off everyone involved in abortions or anal sex first (in the Muslim countries, they've already stoned all those people to death, so they have more time to focus on blasphemy).

I actually do agree somewhat with what you are saying, though.  Muslim religious nuts are somewhat worse than Christian religious nuts.  But at least they are further away from me and don't impact my daily life.  And if they become the majority in 2150 or whatever, it really won't matter to me because I'll be long dead by then.  I'm worried about the forces effecting me today, and that's the nut job evangelicals.

[John Morrow]

Ah yes, the "Good Old Days" theory.  Those glasses aren't just rose-colored, they're solid red.

And yours are painted black.

The fact is, life in the 1950's was most certainly not like a Leave it to Beaver episode.

Of course real life is never as clean as a TV show but where did you get your information about the 1950s?

First, let's talk race relations.  If you weren't white, you were a second-class citizen.  Period.  Particularly in the south, where not only were you treated poorly, but you had to worry about white people lynching you just because they had a bad day and felt like blowing off some steam.

I've acknowledged that race relations were a problem.  And while there has been great progress in many areas of race relations, things have also gone backward in other areas.  And if you think that discrimination and segregation is dead and that some things haven't gotten worse for blacks, then I think you have a Leave it to Beaver view of the modern world.  

If you were a woman, you were also a second-class citizen.  Domestic abuse was considered normal behavior and your husband effectively owned you.  Sexual harrassment was considered standard practice if you were able to get a job.

Was there sexual discrimination?  Sure.  And there has been some good progress there, too.  But upon what do you base your claims that domestic abuse was considered normal (not in my family or in any family I know of from that period, and there are certainly others with experiences far different than the one you paint) and what kind of sexual harassment was "standard practice"?  Do you really think that men had no love or compassion for their wives, sisters, and daughters until the 1960s and that there were no gentlemen in the 1950s?

You had no say over what to do with your own body with regards to pregnancy.  And if you were young and got pregnant, you were practically guaranteed to be sent away and more-or-less disowned by your family (as opposed to the even older days, when women would get married off at age 14 to some guy in his 20's or older).    Sure, it's not as bad as Afghanistan or Iran or whatever - but it's still terrible.

Instead, we now have young women who are expected to perform for their boyfriends or they think their is something wrong with them, even if they feel guilty or depressed afterward, leading to high STD rates and a host of psychological problems (but we aren't allowed to talk about that).  Yes, being expected to be unpaid whores for guys who want hook-ups rather that commitment is a big step up, right?  And you should visit a fertility clinic sometimes and see how happy all those women who waited until their late 30s to get married and start a family are when they find out that they can no longer have children.

If you weren't Christian, you were practically a second-class citizen.  You and your family would be forced to suffer through the constant assailment of Christian propoganda at school or work.  You would be discriminated against, and might have trouble getting a job or even finding a place to live.  And your kids would actively be discriminated against at school or be forced to participate in activities that went against their core religious beliefs.

It depends on where you lived and where you wanted to work.  There were also fields that Christians could have trouble entering and the issue was often more one of ethnicity than religion (remember, in 1960, John F. Kennedy's Catholicism was still an issue).  

As for the "propaganda" , my experience is that it doesn't bother many people nearly as much as you assume it does.  If it did, Muslim and Hindu parents wouldn't send their children to Catholic schools today, yet they do.  One of my Muslim friends celebrated Christmas as a child -- as an economic holiday.  A Jewish friend's family video taped the Yule Log program because they loved Christmas music but felt guilty about buying it.  I lived in Japan near a Shinto shrine and they had Shinto and Buddhist festivals on the streets.  I never considered it "propaganda" or an affront to my Christianity.

If you were gay, you weren't just a second-class citizen, but considered to be mentally insane.  People would either want to lock you up and "treat" you, lock you up for having illegal sex, or just beat you to death on the street for fun.  And certainly the police didn't care.  They'd put more effort into trying to solve the lynching of a black man than they would a gay man (which is to say, none at all).

How many gays were beaten to death on the street for fun in the 1950s?  Names?  Places?

I'm going to pass on any other analysis of this topic because it seems to be such a hot-button issue these days except to say that I think that the improvements in the way that gays are treated in general has been good.

If you were young, you were 100% the property of your parents.  They could do whatever they wanted to you.  Verbal abuse, physical abuse, even sexual abuse - no one is going to interfere.  And it doesn't even have to be your actual parents, every other adult in the world has the right to pretty much do whatever they want to you, too.  Unless your parents actually object.

I presume this means that you think that love and compassion for children was also invented in the 1960s?  Were there abusive parents?  Sure.  And there are still abusive parents.  Do you have any evidence that real abuse was more prevalent?

If you were poor, that was just too fucking bad.  If you were lucky enough, you got to break your fucking back working at a dead end job for the rest of your life.  Don't get sick, though, 'cause there's no health plan.  And watch out for all the hazards at work - because there's no reason for the company to make the place safe.  If you weren't lucky, you ended up on skid row were you and your family can starve and live on the streets.

And the skid rows were just full of homeless families during the 1950s, right?  Did you ever hear of charitable organizations?  

And whatever you do, don't be communist.  Or know any communists.  Or even look like you might be communist or know a communist.  Or even disagree with the methods of finding the communists.  Those pinko bastards are everywhere, and we should try and expose them all so their lives can be ruined and/or have them killed (even if we don't have much in the way of hard evidence).

Maybe that's because the American communist groups were often tied to the Soviet Union and quite a few communists actually did, gasp, leak secrets to the Soviet Union?  And maybe the reason why some communists suffered so much is that they tried to lie about their affiliations instead of admitting them?

But yeah, if you were an older white rich pro-Democracy Christian male, those days fucking rocked.  Everyone else was pretty much your indentured servant, and if you had a stressful day at work, you had your choice of how to release your tension - you could beat your wife, your kids, some black guy, a gay guy, or a suspected commie pinko.

That's because older white rich pro-Democracy Christian male love nothing more than to kick the crap out of innocent people, right?  

Oddly enough, the 50's had pretty much the same problems we do today.

The old, "It as always just as bad as it is today," argument.

Things like school violence, gangs, teen sex, drug use, venereal diseases, teen pregnancy, etc - they were all there.

Have you actually looked at the numbers or are you just guessing here?

Actually, those all go back to the 19th century.  There were no real "good old days"  - because despite the problems we have today, we're living in them.

What does that mean?

Uh, how about the "Christians" who advocate bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors?  Does that count?  Or how about the ones advocating killing gay people?

How many people have been killed in clinic bombings or doctor shootings?  How do the mainstream Christian and pro-life organizations react to such activities?

How many Christians are advocating the killing of gays and how many gays have been killed by them?  How do the mainstream Christian organizations, even Fundamentalist Christian ones, react to such talk?

Maybe the reason that the radical Christians aren't going after the people who mock Jesus, yet, is they want to be sure to kill off everyone involved in abortions or anal sex first (in the Muslim countries, they've already stoned all those people to death, so they have more time to focus on blasphemy).

I was wondering if you were just making this up as you go.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I actually do agree somewhat with what you are saying, though.  Muslim religious nuts are somewhat worse than Christian religious nuts.  But at least they are further away from me and don't impact my daily life.  And if they become the majority in 2150 or whatever, it really won't matter to me because I'll be long dead by then.  I'm worried about the forces effecting me today, and that's the nut job evangelicals.

So you only really care about discrimination, abuse, and so on when it has an impact on you personally?