Marketing woes for the religious right
New name for an old image?
Marketing woes for the religious right
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In the annals of marketing, the "re-branding" concept is not new. Sometimes, when a company or organization is saddled with an image problem, it decides to change its brand name - in the hopes that, presto, all the nasty old connotations will be flushed down the memory hole.
Not long ago, for instance, Philip Morris was stuck with a bad image problem, due to the fact that its signature product helps to kill many thousands of Americans. The solution was not to do away with the killer product (heaven forbid). Rather, the solution was to dump the name that had become synonymous with death; Philip Morris Companies Inc. simply became Altria Group Inc.
Meanwhile, you may have heard about the image problems that have lately plagued Blackwater, the U.S.-based security outfit that killed 17 Iraqis in a crowded square back in '07, an incident that triggered congressional inquiries and recently prompted the Iraqi government to deny Blackwater a new operating license. Well, Blackwater has now decided to retool its image, and step one was to dump the name Blackwater. The company is now calling itself Xe (pronounced zee); presumably that will make all the difference.
The same kind of thing sometimes happens in politics; as I noted recently, liberals these days much prefer to be called progressives, having decided that the old label carries too much baggage, that perhaps Mike Dukakis ran over the word with his tank back in '88.
Which brings us (finally) to the article that appeared late last week in Christianity Today, informing us that the religious right is seeking to re-brand, having somehow decided that the term religious right has too many bad connotations, and that a new name would spiff up the religious right's image.
It's understandable that the religious right would want to do something for itself, given the fact that the movement has stalled so badly. Nine years ago, having played a pivotal role in electing George W. Bush, the religious right was riding high. A string of successes seemed in the offing: a ban on stem-cell research, the enshrinement of an abortion ban and a gay marriage ban in the U.S. constitution, all sorts of laws encoding the movement's God-ordained values. But today the outlook is bleak; having been rendered largely toothless by the '08 election results, the religious right is stuck on defense for the foreseeable future.
Hence the apparent need for a re-brand. What's most striking, however, is that religious right leaders don't believe they bear any responsibility for their own image problems. They simply trace their woes to the religious right term, and the Christianity Today article dismisses the term as just something that's "thrown around in journalism and academia."
As arguments go, blaming the media is not exactly original, but in this case it's fascinating nevertheless. Over the years I have used the term religious right - because it was a widely accepted shorthand for the movement. I knew it was widely accepted precisely because so many of my conservative Christian sources, and Republican strategist/pollster sources, and the ex-lobbyist for the Christian Coalition, all used it in conversations with me.
Among many others, Elmer Rumminger, a publisher of Christian textbooks and Bob Jones University professor, told me six months before the 1992 election that "the religious right may just decide stay home in November." Neil Newhouse, one of the most respected Republican pollsters often used to tell me, "Thirty percent of our voters are from the religious right." Conservative strategist/pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick told me during the 2000 Florida crisis that if Bush lost to Gore, the next GOP candidate "would shine a bigger light on the kinds of issues that the religious right, and the moral right, has been asking for."
Conservative scribes have frequently used the term without seeking to dispute it. Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas, co-authors of the 1998 book Blinded by Might, write at one point: "Before the presidential campaigns of 1980 and 1984, the Religious Right continued to lobby Congress and register new voters." Moreover, the late D. James Kennedy, in his 2008 book How Would Jesus Vote?, writes in passing on page 18: "Modern secularists often accuse the religious Right of calling for a theocracy in America. Despite these claims, I am not advocating theocracy."
The religious right should probably start by acknowledging that it has long used the term to describe itself (here's another, from a 2003 lecture by religious right blogger Stephen W. Carson: "I can pretty fairly be classified as a member of the Religious Right myself.") Then perhaps members of the movement can solicit ideas for a nice re-brand. Here's one idea from Gary Schneeberger, spokesman for Focus on the Family: "Terms like 'Religious Right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism. The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."
But would that really "do it"? In the end, the movement's image problem is perhaps traceable not to its terminology, but to its morally judgmental attitude. Put another way, a product doesn't necessarily benefit from a new name if the old ingredients remain.
Let's test my argument. Consider this factual sentence: On Sept. 13, 2001, religious right leader Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on "pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifetyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped make this happen." And religious right leader Pat Robertson, his co-guest on the TV appearance, replied, "I totally concur."
Now substitute Schneeberger's preferred terminology: On Sept. 13, 2001, socially conservative evangelical Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on "pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifetyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped make this happen." And socially conservative evangelical Pat Robertson, his co-guest on the TV appearance, replied, "I totally concur."
See the problem?
Comments (102)
Cherry picking the worst story about the religious right is disingenouous! Religious conservatives have a place in our society (that seems to be ok with anything) and in the GOP. Why is it alright to be atheist, gay, liberal, agnostic, etc., but not okay to be a christian conservative? It seems it is okay to be anything but a white christian conservative male in this country nowadays!— NEPhilly
"Over the years I have used the term religious right - because it was a widely accepted shorthand for the movement." It is? Have you ever used the term in anything other than a derogatory way?— jmc- Funny, Bill O'Reilly has been calling liberals "progressives" for the past 8 years.— p-diddy
- NEPhilly, have you contributed to the George W. Bush library? It's in funding trouble. He kept you safe from terrorism, so you say. You owe the guy!— Djoko Pritza
- Too bad the American Debate archives only go back to 2006. I recall Polman using some derogatory terms for the anti-Iraq War movement.— p-diddy
- NEPhilly. He did not use the "worst story" he could find. That is a very common type story from some of the so called "leaders" of the Christian religion. He is not saying that it's not ok to be Christian. (you are not a victim) He is saying that unless you actually do a little self-analysis and correct a few things, changing the "name" is not going to do anything.— Catalyst
- Djoko, I saw your posts, very funny! Are you hunting me down? If GWB had sold the country down the river to his business buddies, like the libs say, you would think they would donate more to his library:) Apparently that was not the case! When the economy bounces back, which should be any day now since the porkulus passed late on a Friday night of a holiday weekend, I will consider a donation and I will consider it an honor to do so:) I wish our former President well, with no ill will. Try it sometime, it won't hurt, I promise:)— NEPhilly
- If Evangalical Christians had the equivalent of the Jewish Anti Defamation League stories like this would never be published. Dick is a bigot of the worst sort when it comes to faith based issues.— vc bear
- "a rose by any other name....", "Who do you think you're foolin'" Two poets, two good words of wisdom.— tiredoftheBS
- Cat., that story about what brought on 9/11 is about as bad as it gets on the fringe right. If you believe the history of 9/11 as currently written (as I do) blaming it on unholy actions or people is as bad as some on the 'unholy left'(not a nice term used for effect) who blame it on our own govt. (Rosie ODonnell, etc)! I didn't play the victim role, I said it okay to be anything but, white christian conservative & male (or a dogfighter, sorry Mike Vick). Am I wrong? Everything else goes it seems! We need to draw 'some' lines, don't you think? Is it for the better or worse? We shall see:)— NEPhilly
I always thought Blackwater was a lame name for a company - - unless they are making septic tanks.— potus- What's bigoted about the truth, vc? The religious right is neither. For all their WWJD bumper stickers, they fail to do what Jesus would. They pretty much go against all of the 8 Beatitudes (look 'em up). And as for not publishing articles like this, are you advocating censorship, no free speech? That's why we have a separation of church and state.— mike l
Comment removed.- I must say, I happen to agree with Polman on this one. That being said, I realize that generalizing sweeps up some who are not at all like Jerry Falwell or the appalling Pat Robertson. Not necessarily for WHAT they believe (though I couldn't disagree with them more if I tried) but for the disdain they show all others. For the sanctimony and plain mean-spiritedness. That's not what I consider following Christ's teaching of kindness and understanding. Having been raised in the South, I got a heavy dose of the Robertson brand of religion. I was so opposed to religion as a result that I didn't go to church for years. If it hadn't been for the Quakers, I don't think I would ever have gone back.— NigeltheMastiff
- I prefer to use the phrase "Bible Thumper." It's got a Bambi-esque disarming charm to it.— Phrossty
- By the by, I was reading Time, which I'm cancelling after 15 out of 18 issues w/Prs. Obama on the cover, and they had a good story on the housing meltdown! Here goes. Banks were making a % of subprime loans to comply with the CRA and 1995 revision of same. Once written and fees received, the banks were then selling the subprime loans to Fannie/Freddie, thus getting rid of the risk (or so they thought)! Fannie/Freddie were buying these mortgages, bundling them with your's and mine, getting them rated AAA and selling them as AAA investments paying more interest than T-bills! The same banks (along with the rest of the world) were then 'buying back' these investments (thus reassuming the risk, they thought they had laundered, unintentionally) and were leveraged 30:1 doing so. They had insurance on them via AIG and were borrowing $$$ just to buy them! All with Conress' knowledge and even enticement. The whole thing is a 'bad banking & govt. 101' course and makes me sick to my stomach:(— NEPhilly
- Polman is right. The Religious Right should try to be more inclusive, like the liberals (I mean progressives). Let's just look at the inclusiveness of the stimulus bill. No federal money can be used to renovate, build, or rehabilitate any private or parochial school....it's for the kids. No federal money can be used on any college or university building where children of tuition paying parents and taxpayers meet for any type of religious activity. Only union labor can be used for any project funded by the stimulus bill, because as we know the non-union labor does not suffer from any unemployment. The stimulus bill includes money for a group to study cost/benefit analysis on medical treatments, because as Tom Daschle said, senior citizens need to be more accepting of the maladies they suffer as a result of growing old. Yes, the religious right needs to be more accepting, more tolerant, more concerned. After all, the liberals, I mean progressives, changed their way of thinking after they changed their name...right?— tjhaol
- If this stimulus bill was so important, why is it taking so long to sign it? Is Obama going to go on a "date night" every weekend? Is he more in love with the idea of being president than actually governing? And what is it with another "policy board"? This guy is all panels, boards, groups, commissions, and czars. Why do we need him?— tjhaol
- After looking at your CV at the begininng of the article I expected you can walk on water too, but that would make you a "conservative" too!— J. McClung
- After looking at your CV at the begininng of the article I expected you can walk on water too, but that would make you a "conservative" too!— J. McClung
- I suggest "God Botherers," but I'd settle for "Christaliban."— Irritated Prof
- how about the term "American Taliban"— potus
- Speaking of 9/11, I want to respond to swedesboromike. «SNIP» Posted by swedesboromike 11:47 AM, 02/14/2009 ...But FDR understood better than anyone the threat we faced from Germany, Italy, and Japan better than anyone. I wish there were still Democrats that can see evil for what it is instead of blaming themselves or their own country. «SNIP» Unlike the Religious Righties Polman mentioned, I don't blame pagans, gays, etc. for 9/11. But at the risk of sounding like Jeremiah Wright, I do blame US foreign policy. I went a-Googling one day to support an argument that bin Laden and the Mujahadeen were brought to you by their sponsors Reagan and Casey. I discovered that, while true, it was Carter and Brzezinski who lit that match. So both D's and R's had their hand in the pie in Afghanistan, which brought the bin Laden chickens home to roost on 11-Sep-2001. BTW JGD84, The war with the mujahideen was a big contributor to the fall of USSR. Maybe I'll pick up a copy of "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. Sources: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/our-first-line-of-defense-presidential-reflections-on-us-intelligence/reagan.html ••• https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/1999/dci_speech_111999gatesremarks.html ••• http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html ••• [Maybe next time I'll use tinyurl.com.]— Phrossty
- I gave up on all religionists years ago when I was told, because I was Roman Catholic, that I was a papist idolator and going straight to hell. They, the christian right but more to the point the southern Baptists, made it sound like I had a chute in the basement and when I died I was to go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00. It's also the attitude of the other denominations/sects of Christianity. They think they have all the answers but they fail to realize that sometimes the only Gospel some people will read will be your actions. My patron once said, preach the gospel and when necessary use words. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those on the right have let their message be perverted and corrupted by the Falwells, Robertsons, and Haggards of this world.
- Glad the 'religious right'(not gonna change my terminology, this fits them like a glove) have been deligated to fringe status. To them if your image of God or your view of what God would want is different than theirs then you are 'ungodly' or support Satan. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? I don't want a bunch of religious zealots running this country and making policy. The American people have rejected them. Obama is a religious man whether you realize it or not. He's just not in favor of ramming it down our throats.— James TL
- Why not call it what they believe it is? THE TRUTH !!— Talvenada
- What's next? Opus Dei will call themselves the Good Works Guys? I like the term liberal, which I associate with its origin in the 19th century as a movement considered extremist in its time while holding views that are now completely mainstream (women's rights, free markets, etc.). It is now so reviled that the handle "liberal' was completely available only a couple of years ago on Google. It seemed like a good way to annoy the conservatives who clog the blogs all over the internet. And as a philosophy it is still head and shoulders over all the nutty ideas from the right and left these days. As far as progressive goes, that's an upper class lady-bountiful do-gooder philosophy from circa 1900 that seems a little weak in its philosophic underpinnings.— liberal
- Frank, the Quakers have this saying: Let your life speak. And frankly, whether you want it to or not, it will. So we can all try to be kind and accepting of difference or we can rant, point fingers, spew hatred. How would most people want to be remembered?— NigeltheMastiff
- NePhilly, I want to hear from someone who supports the GOP just what is their "fault" in this current economic crisis. It's time to come clean on that or just admit that a vote for the GOP is a waste as the GOP was in charge for the past 8 years in the Oval Office and was in control of congress for most of the past 10 + years. In the past I have voted for both parties (and did vote for 1 GOP in the last election) but will not even consider another GOP vote while I see them giving the finger to the rest of us during these tough economic times. I want GOP who are more concerned with this country than their party and I think they owe Obama support in helping us get out of the Bush depression !— ModerateMarge
- Nigel - I agree with you. I have come to believe that as Gandhi said we must be the change we want to see in the world and alternately as Buddha said the world is so big we can't really change it but only our reaction to it. However by changing my reaction I can bring about the change I wish to see in my little corner of the world. I would rather be remembered as a soft hearted dolt who was taken advantage of from time to time than a fundie who wasn't. This little blurb and 4 bucks gets you a coffee at Starbucks! =)
- Marge, I don't think you really want to know, but since you asked, here goes! The GOP is at fault for cutting taxes while not cutting spending or the size of govt. the last 8 years and running up the natl. debt (like we were dems or something, though 9/11 had something to do with it). The GOP lost its conservative roots while trying to defend the country. The Dems are at fault for spurring the subprime lending industry through faulty legislation and govt programs! Luckily, it only took 1 overreach by the Dems in Congress to remind the GOP what it should stand for, less govt, lower spending, etc. & unite the party! You have to admit some of the things in the 'porkulus' bill and the way they passed it (late on Friday, waiting for a Sen. coming from his mom's wake) leave something to be desired as far as transparency and campaign rhetoric go! This bill also redoes the welfare reform that Clinton passed and goes back to the old way of doing business, good grief! The govt. will now give incentives to states for increasing the welfare rolls? And finally, the Dems always pass bills supposedly to try and help poor people, but the laws they pass (great society, housing for poor, public education, etc) always end up hurting the very people they try to help! Ironic isn't it:)— NEPhilly
- Dang! If they change the name, it will deprecate one of my favorite bumper stickers of all time - "The Religious Right is Neither". I do like the suggestions with Taliban in them, though - that's definitely the right sort of association for these people.— yoda
- The regilious-right problem would go away once people realized there is no God. Does anyone on this site believe in God? You know that's a supernatural being, right? If you believe in supernatural beings, why not believe in Santa Claus, ghosts, vampires, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?— Djoko Pritza
- Hey, tjhaol, why wait to sign? We're giving the Repubs time to read the bill. LOL— Djoko Pritza
- NEPhilly, if only you hadn’t been brainwashed as a kid, there might be hope for you: “The GOP lost its conservative roots while trying to defend the country.” What total horse pucky! The whole shtick of conservatives is national security. You can’t say they lost their way by doing what they advertise as their strength! “The GOP is at fault for cutting taxes while not cutting spending or the size of govt. the last 8 years and running up the natl. debt.” I’ll ask you the same question I asked SMike (which he has wisely avoided trying to answer): Why did they not cut spending? And don’t say “because they messed up.” Why did they mess up? If you can answer that, you may be on your way out of the fog you find yourself in. The rest of your post also merits challenge, but I’ll wait till you reply to this … if you do.— Djoko Pritza
- Story coming out now about how a Muslim TV guy has beheaded his wife in New York. Ah, religion; what would we do without it?— Djoko Pritza
- Djoko, belief in God encompasses a wide range of faith issues. It's something I struggle with myself. But one thing I do know. There are many things in this world that simply cannot be explained. So I try not to shut the door on them. And I think it's comforting for many people to believe that there is a benevolent, if non-interfering, guiding hand. Maybe some simply find that presence inside themselves to be conscience or ethics -- or in the case of Quakers, the inner Light. To me, the most important aspect of it is its influence for good, for understanding, for kindness. That's what really counts, in my opinion.— NigeltheMastiff
- The big problem the repubs have in explaining themselves in the current situation is explaining why they have changed their minds that "deficits don't matter." (quote from Cheney). Especially since their deficit spending was the opposite of what economists recommend: deficits when the economy is bad (like now) and raising taxes to pay off the debt when times are good (llke 2003-2007), How can they give a coherent explanation why deficits are suddenly so frightful that the govt shouldn't spend money as unemployment rises? I'd like to get a coherent explanation of this from them--still waiting.— liberal
- The problem I always had with the religious right started when I was in college and some student evangelist tried to talk me into becoming a "christian." This offended me since I was at that time suffering under the burden of being Roman Catholic, thus a member of a church founded by Christ's apostles themselves, if not the man himself. Where did they get off calling the RCC 'non-christian?" Made me want to bring back the Inquisition. Old Torquemada would know what to do with some guy from a quonset hut church on the wrong side of the tracks founded by some redneck in 1962 who was claiming exclusive franchise to the Christian brand.— liberal
- Djoko- You are claiming I did not answer your question on why Republicans did not cut spending. I think the reason is because Bush is a liberal and pushed the presciption drug plan. He campaigned on that. Then 9-11 happened and he got pushed for passing the office of Homeland Security. This bloated beauracracy gave us color coded threat levels. All for several hundred billion dollars. My 11 year old could have come up with and he'd have charged a lot less. So to answer your question I disagree with the spending. But don't kid yourself, the democrats happily added pork to every piece of legistlation they could. Without a line item veto the president, regardless of political affiliation, is basically stuck with the whims of career politicians in congress. It's not about the country for any of these people. It's about getting re-elected.
- Djoko, the GOP didn't cut spending and the size of govt. for one simple reason, 9/11! GWB did cut taxes to spur the economy, which did work and helped us recover from 9/11 and the Clinton recession, the 1st part of a good conservative govt. He did not however cut spending as a direct result of 9/11, which is the 2nd part of a good conservative govt. Adding Homeland Security Dept, enforcing the Patriot Act, rebuilding our military decimated by Clinton, war in Afghan., war in Iraq, etc. all led to more govt. spending. Which actually was a giant spending bill, building tanks, outfitting Humvees, feeding troops, etc.! Add conservative compassionate, AIDS relief to Africa, Medicare drug program & No Child Left Behind, left no room for spending cuts, which is a shame and a main reason the GOP brand is tarnished today! The GOP should have taken on entitlements by slowing their growth (which is not a cut, if you slow the cola to less than inflation), enforced our borders, strengthened welfare reform, cut the size of govt. at all other federal departments other than defense, intelligence or the military. The GOP should have also not taken 'no' for an answer from Dem Reps. when trying to crack down on Fannie and slowed down the CRA instead of embracing it! It is all Monday Morning Quarterbacking now though and nothing unites the GOP like a spendthrift left leaning Congress with their own agenda:)— NEPhilly
- Nigel, you in your humanness have the ability to live your life by the principles you stated. I have no problem with that if you want to attribute it to something beyond knowing. It's the people who cut off the heads of their wives becauase the Koran says God says they have that right who I have a problem with. Or those who say 9/11 happened because gays angered God ...— Djoko Pritza
- SMike, the drug plan happened AFTER 9/11 and it was approved by all the Repubs in Congress, even though there were reports it would cost tens of billions more than was advertized. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what I think about the line-item veto. It makes sense in keeping spending down, but a whole new dynamic of the unitary presidency comes into play. Bush already has previewed some of those problems.— Djoko Pritza
- Chavez finnally suceeeded in ruling Venezuela for life. He kept having an election until he got the desired result. I wonder how long before the left clamors for the same thing in this country. Shut down the opposition through the "fairness doctrine", import enough poverty to forge and electable majority for years to come, Bring he census under presidential control. All the tell tale signs are starting to emerge that we are pointed towards a socialist tyranny.
- NEPhilly, thanks; it was a valiant effort to explain all the spending under Bush. The poor guy; he had no choice! Here's a simpler answer: Cutting spending is what you argue when you're out of power; spending is what you do when you're in power. What no one should do is launch a way the cut taxes. Duh!— Djoko Pritza
- ... launch a war, then cut taxes (sorry).— Djoko Pritza
- Djoko- I think you are partially missing my point. Bush was a very liberal president. Billions to fight aids in Africa, Prescription Drug Care, No Child left behind, creatiion of another Bureauracry etc. The spending is a good reason why Republicans are a minority. Provided Obama doesn't rule by decree forever I would rather the Republicans take a loss and revitalize themselves in the mold of a Bob Barr, Ross Perot, Steve Forbes etc. I think what you don't understand is we are conservatives before we are Republicans. None of us could stand the stupid money being spent. Quite honestly we need to cut spending to the bone so we run massive surpluses for decades to pay off this debt.
- SMike, there is a much, much, much greater likelihood that a right-wing governtment (see Germany, Japan, Iran) would campaign for a lifetime presidency. See FISA, the Patriot Act, curbing the media, outsourcing government to private business, etc ...— Djoko Pritza
- But, SMike, if Bush was a liberal, why did all those conservatives in Congress genuflect to him and approve everything he asked for? It was because they were in power. Power does strange things to people, even conservatives!— Djoko Pritza
- NePhilly - At least you tried. When I try and understand where someone else is coming from the thoughts go much better. I think that Bush's tax cuts were bogus for most if not all of us because the state and local taxes went up to pay for the services cut. Should programs be cut - then taxes could be cut - otherwise it's a shell game. Gov't is going to have to be reinvented at all levels and streamlined. The off budgeting budgeting for the Iraq war wasn't resolute it was reckless and we are left holding the bag much sooner than Bush expected but it was inevitable. Bush left a mess - and its incumbent on the GOP to help try and limit the suffering.— ModerateMarge
- Djoko- once again that is why they are no longer in Congress. It's called living up to the principles you espouse. For example, let's say a certain President says no lobbyists in my administration then nomintates former lobbyists. Eventually there is a political price to pay for being hypocritical. You'll see
- Well, Djoko, I have the same problem you do with such people. But I separate the human perversion of God and religious teachings from the principles themselves. To me, extremists are extremists, whether they call themselves Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or Donald Duck. They seem to twist the beliefs of a particular religion to suit their rage and justify their hatred. Personally, I don't think it has anything at all to do with faith, just with anger, fear and hate.— NigeltheMastiff
- Why don't they get back to their roots and call themselves cretins? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cretin— turdblossom
- SMike, we're talking past each other a little. I agree on hypocrisy, but my larger point is that principles are just for show. That’s why the Repubs didn’t follow conservative principles once in office, and why the Dems won’t follow liberal principles either. We keep arguing small government, spending, tax cuts, blah, blah, blah. What it really comes down to is performance. Bush and his crew didn’t perform. I hope Obama will. I think he has more substance than Bushie.— Djoko Pritza
- Nigelthemastiff- how do you lump Christian extremists in with Muslim extremists? Where is that moral equivalent?
- DP, I'm a believer also. I don't follow the preaching of Santa or the Easter Bunny (there are vampires who post on this site!) but I think there's something bigger than us. I don't try to convert anyone who doesn't believe and I let my actions do my preaching for me. I try not to make negative judgements on those who don't share my outlook. Please observe the same for those who hold a system that guides their life.— JimR
- SMike, I'm just saying that hatred, violence and rage are just that no matter what name you attach to it. And don't forget the "Christian" who killed a doctor outside an abortion clinic and bombed a clinic, seriously wounding a nurse. And quite frankly, I think the ideas about 9/11 from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are just sickening.— NigeltheMastiff
- First off, I am god-fearing and an antiabortionist. NEPhilly, I wonder how you suspect that it is christian conservatives who are being abused here. The agnostics, gays, liberals and athiests do not try to elect leaders that promise to actually take away the rights of others...they support leaders to expand rights towards a common equality. We, the conservative right are really the only significant group in this country with the primary focus of TAKING AWAY other American's rights...whether that be marrying someone of the same sex or being cured of a disease via stem cells. The rest of the country rolls their eyes at us because we come off as bullies...and b/c when we finally put "one of our own" into the white house, we forgot to check whether he was even remotely competent...we deserve to roam the desert for awhile...— TP87
- NigeltheMastiff and Djoko Pritza, you're both talking about an interesting topic... namely what is "right" and "wrong". Believe it or not, I think we have common ground on one topic! That our country needs to get back to a more ethical and moral place! CEOs and politicians lying, cheating and stealing... all the while people are not able to feed their families is despicable. Numerous Founding Fathers talked about the importance of religion and morals in a democracy... and now we're finding out why! BTW, I find reading several posts on the blog talking about ethics pretty funny considering Polman's article was a transparent attempt to demonize the "religious right". Of course if someone does something bad to a 'religious right nut' it wouldn't be funny... but Polman would vigorously deny his article was drumming up any hateful stereotypes.— JGD84
- Nigelthemastiff- How could one example of christian extremism possibly compare to muslim extremism? You are using one incident that happened a long time ago and giving it a moral equivalent to the type of terror that occurs every day in the middle east. Both are wrong, but sheesh, don't you see the difference. David Zucker did a parody of this nonsense in the movie "A Christmas Carol" exposing the nonsense of thinking Christian extremism is remotely as prevalent as muslim extremism
- I don't attend church. I was never much in to religion but I never thought I would see the day where Christians were so villified. Polman's article paints with a rather large brush. Amusing considering the left thinks they invented tolerance. Offend a Christian and at most you'll get a letter to the editor. Offend one of these far left groups and look out. They will attack you, throw things at you and be downright viscious
- What a silly, hate-filled entry.— CD75
- Our hero Richard Polman attacks Bill O'Reilly because it is a tactic many obsure liberal "journalists" do. Why? because they need some exposure and they hope that O'Reilly will mention them on his show and give them the publicity. However, Bill is too smart for this and never responds to two-bit, obsure journalists who do not even make a blip on the radar and are bottom feeders for the far left and other cuckoos and loons.— CD75
- MARGE: Reagan Commandment #1 is to never speak ill of another 'Pub. That means that the Obama scandal w/ Ayers has placed his failed presidency well below Hoover, Nixon and W.— Talvenada
- Newsflash: The so-called religous right does not care what most people think and it does not matter because they are not running for office. However, the religious right will always be there and will vote no matter how much people like Richard smear them. Richard and his sheep are just wasting time and talking to themselves.— CD75
- When I was very young (~7-8) I discovered the sharp discrepancy between religious doctrine and reality. I could never understand why anyone thinks someone/thing is in charge, allows things like cancer, war, famine, etc., and demands to be worshipped in spite of these deficiencies in our world. What the heck is "worship" anyway? And why does an omnipotent being (that could fix all this stuff if it wanted to) want us insignificant nonentities to genuflect to it? I guess I have a problem with authority - and a lot of this comes from what you might call the religious bureaucracies - Pope, imam, preacher, minister, whatever...anyway, I have found that the Golden Rule is pretty much all the guidance anyone needs. "Do unto others as you would be done by..." - if you review that maxim before everything you do you will never do wrong, and you don't need some bozo to split moral hairs for you. It is not good guidance for material success in the world - quite the reverse (capitalism would be the anti-Golden Rule, actually) - but one can sleep peacefully at night after obeying it.— yoda
- Swedesboro: It is true what you say. Look at how all the fruits, nuts and Democrats in California went crazy and terrorized people who supported Prop 8.— CD75
- 'Yoda', the major religions attempt to help bridge the gap between the mortal and divine. Somehow you got to the point (after reading your below comment, it MUST have been some journey!) of following the 'Golden Rule'... which is good as long as you're tolerant of people who like going to Church or other house of worship. The left has a problem w/ traditional Church goers... on one hand they need the votes... on the other hand they accuse them of being THE source of bigotry in this country. In other words, be tolerant of all things except if I disagree w/ you then I'll rip you... see Polman article on the 'Marketing woes for the Religious Right'.— JGD84
- Yoda, there's a big difference between the doctrine and the reality. A lot of the things you reffed are not examples of doctrine - they are things that the people put into/onto their god. Read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People"— JimR
- SMike, I'm not trying to argue. There are plenty of very good evangelicals. There also plenty of mean-spirited, judgmental ones. I consider an extremist one who is very rigid in his/her beliefs. In some cultures, the manifestation of that is more violent than in others. I don't really want to get into comparing whether Muslims are worse than Christians. Somehow that smacks of something unsavory. I happen to be tutoring a Jordanian high-school student in English. She's having a hard time passing the graduation test because her reading and vocabulary skills need building. She and her family are Muslims and they are the sweetest, most generous people you'd ever want to meet. So I don't like to generalize about people. And I don't like this tone of "all Muslims are evil" -- if that's what you're implying. (Maybe you're not, and I misunderstood.)— NigeltheMastiff
- JGD84,I don't understand your comment...progressives (including me) have no problem with people of faith. The problem is the self-appointed shepherds who would tell people how to live, and how to vote. This goes back to the Middle Ages, it's what drove Martin Luther to break the Catholic church - he thought he was creating a new, cleansed church - little did he know he was creating 1000 varieties of Protestantism! The genuinely religious people I have known were always tolerant of others - the main source of bigotry has always been the corrupt bureaucracy which is inevitably the power structure of any given religion. They are the ones that say you are on the express train to Hades if you don't agree with me - I think Obama is bringing a new openness to allow faith-based viewpoints to be heard in his administration, without insisting on adherence to some bureaucracy-ruled agenda.— yoda
- OK 'Yoda'... I'll play along. So liberals do not have a problem w/ Catholics that support traditional marriage and oppose gay rights... support pro-life and oppose abortion. I think if you were speaking for the Democratic Party that showed up at the convention, you would seriously be in the minority! I'm a Church going Catholic who supports the Pope... do you believe the Pope leads the Catholic Church's "corrupt bureaucracy" and is the source of evil in the world leading the fight against gay marriage and abortion?— JGD84
- Hey JDG, I disagree with you, and I take issue with a number of things about Catholicism. But that doesn't mean I think you are a horrible person. People can disagree without making the other side demonic. I don't think you're going to hell just because you don't agree with me. Do you see the difference? Some of the fundamentalists will tell you you are going to hell and are a horrible, sinful person if you don't agree with them.— NigeltheMastiff
- CD75/swedesboromike how can you compare angry prop 8 haters to christian right wingers who write letters to the editor?...you act as if there goals were at all comparable. There is nothing in the gay/athiest/anti prop 8 agenda that seeks to restrict other American's rights...restricting the rights of other Americans who are not like them is THE single unifyier for the christian right... repressor or repressee...who throughout history has gotten somewhat peeved? Come on, give them a break, it must suck to have others say/judge that the state won't recognize your bond to another human being...— TP87
- JimR, sorry, I didn't see your comment til just now - yes, you are right, a lot of that isn't built into the scriptural base, but that's kind of what I meant - it's like a pearl, people keep laying on their own interpretations, that bubbles up through the ruling religious hierarchy, and somehow it gets to be part of the creed. I guess if I were religious I would be an extreme evangelical - I would be a church of one, as would everyone else. My main point is that the church rulers take over and speak for everyone, whether everyone agrees with them or not - and then you end up with abominations like the Christian Coalition, or Focus on the Family, or all the other corrupt "leadership" organizations.— yoda
- Nigelthemastiff- So what you are saying is that judgemental evangelicals is why you are removing your shoes when you go to your gate at the airport?
- Yoda, Amen!— JimR
- TP87: You're dealing w/ Conse 'Pubs, which means that cut you a HUGH break by calling it a draw, as opposed to The Saints being only half as bad as the 8's.— Talvenada
- SMike: It's hard to believe you're actually labeling Bush as a Liberal. You might stretch & claim he was Fiscally Liberal, but there's too many examples of his poor management skills & lack of fiscal discipline being the bigger reason. If he had the same sense of discipline with the budget as he did in towing the Socially Conservative line, we'd be in much better shape today.— yobill626
- YO BILL: When Conse 'Pubs throw a guy under the bus, he's labeled a crook/criminal, a RINO, or a Lib. Ergo, Dems & Libs are forever linked/slimed, like Clinton to being impeached or Obama to Ayers/terrorism/traitor/evil. Conse 'Pubs, on the other hand, are forever free of Hoover, Nixon, or W, if they desire it. They are always successful, because failure is not tolerated. Their ideas have NEVER failed, ever. Bush is a Lib, no?— Talvenada
- yobil626- poor management skills know no political party. What does one have to do with the other? Messing around in the oval office with an intern is a poor management skill. On Domestic spending George Bush was as liberal as they come. Prescription Drug, Billions in foreign aid to Africa, creation of the Office of Homeland Security etc
- Honestly, Mike, I don't know how you can jump from my point re religious extremists to accusing me of thinking the reason we take off our shoes at airports is because of the religious right. Good grief. I suspect you've chosen to be purposely contrary.— NigeltheMastiff
- NigeltheMastiff, I understand exactly what you're saying. My point is that some people like to say they're tolerant without actually being tolerant. It's part of our 'sound bite' culture. Dick Polman, liberal columnist writes an article very critical of the religious right... and at some point in the future, he'll write an article about some liberal group and how 'evil' people are stereotyping them. Both sides need to play by the same rules. Each political party has certain characteristics... and being tolerant and inclusive is how the political left would describe itself. I worked at University of Penn in 'enemy territory' as a Conservative for 5 years. On a weekly basis someone would mock or criticize my conservative and/or religious beliefs while still proclaiming their tolerance and inclusiveness.You could imagine that I've become a little skeptical of people who proclaim their tolerance and inclusiveness because of my experiences.— JGD84
- I chipped in about $230 for Obama's campaign. Feels good to see my money well spent to see that he bought the election. The renaming of the religious right to something else comes off as desperate to me. A bad sign to cover up a bad message.
- And finally, former Astronaut Harrison Schmitt says scientists are being intimidated into not speaking out against man-made global warming theories. "They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming." Schmitt recently resigned from a non-profit space exploration organization known as the Planetary Society after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter he said the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." **Sorry, I woke up cranky:( ** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494104,00.html— NEPhilly
- Posted by Djoko Pritza 04:45 PM, 02/16/2009 The regilious-right problem would go away once people realized there is no God. Does anyone on this site believe in God? You know that's a supernatural being, right? If you believe in supernatural beings, why not believe in Santa Claus, ghosts, vampires, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny? ««---- I believe in God. Yes, God is supernatural. To me, that means there isn't a scientific proof for God. That is why it is called faith, not fact or proof. I find your post to be disingenuous. You're attempting to equate all unscientific entities in man's reasoning so you can discredit a belief in the Supreme Being. (Never mind there was a factual Saint Nicholas upon whom the supernatural Santa Claus is based.) My main point is that I BELIEVE in God. You state with certainty there is no God. Neither one of us is capable of a proof for our assertion. I respectfully request you reconsider your faith in the non-existence of God as just that, rather than a fact. It isn't a fact. It's an unproveable hypothesis. I can admit that I may be wrong and there is no God. Can you admit that you might be wrong and there is? If not, you're not as nearly open-minded as you've presented yourself.— Phrossty
- As for religious intolerance, well that's a hot-potato topic to beat them all. Extreme fundamentalism in whatever form (Judaism/Christianity/Muslim/Atheism) almost always results in some horrific holocaust behavior. I forget which poster made this observation, but it comes down to humankind's desire to obtain and retain power over others. For my system of beliefs that harkens back to our fallen state i.e., we're all sinners. If left to our own devices, we will ignore the Golden Rule or the two Greatest Commandments (Love God, Love people) and seek to impose our will on everyone around us - at all costs. In my view it's where the "Religious Right" falls down and goes boom. They should try to persuade by loving example, not impose by some form of Christian sharia law.— Phrossty
- Nigelthemastiff- We are not taking our shoes off at the airport because of judgmental evangelicals. What bothers me is when people lump judgemental evangelicals in with muslim extremists. There is a huge difference and to claim equal outrage with all religious extremisim as if the two are equal is disingenious at best. It's probably the worst that political correctness has to offer.
- There's a lot of inverted logic here when right-wingers suggest that "liberals" are guilty of intolerance because they object to laws restricting abortion or gay rights. Liberalism is a philosophy based on freedom, especially freedom of thought and speech. Religion, on the other hand, consists of institutions attempting to control thought and behavior toward a model of orthodoxy prescribed by religious doctrine imposed from above. This in itself does not collide with liberalism, as long as the attempts to control are restricted to church members who have freely chosen the particular religion. However, almost all religions believe that their own particular "truths" are universal, and most to some degree attempt to impose their views on the entire world.— liberal
- swedesboromike, I just did that. It wasn't out of political correctness. It was from a sense of history. I feel another FZ quote coming.... "Revenge the crusades!" ••• http://www.lyricstime.com/frank-zappa-dumb-all-over-lyrics.html— Phrossty
- Phrossty and Djoko--The idea of god or non-god is not provable one way or another, so strict atheism is as dogmatic as any religion. However, particular gods as described by various religions may not be plausible. Zeus is obviously part of an ancient fairy tale. The Judeo/Christian god is appealing, but how can one believe in a loving, compassionate god in light of the state of the world he allegedly controls? And so on. Nothing new about this debate--see Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods," circa 50BC.— liberal
- liberal How did the unmover move then? Everything is the result of cause and effect. At somepoint nothing moved. The first instance of movement causes all of the effects we see now. St Thomas Moore. Religion 101.— Fisher
- Liberal - That's my point exactly. Djoko's assertion "there is no God" is a statement of faith, not a proveable fact. As to YHWH's existence, the wretched state of the world he controls is because He gave dominion to Adam who gave it to Satan. I believe the world is in a fallen state due to sin, not because God isn't there. It's because we rejected His authority and continue to so do. As for the REASON behind my faith, I look to the nature of the universe and into my conscience and find the glory of God revealed to me there. I posit that anyone who honestly looks at those two things (creation & heart) will reach the same conclusion. I'm poorly read. (It's too easy to watch TV.) I doubt I will ever read Cicero, but I might. Thanks for the reference.— Phrossty
- Phrossty, your views and those of Quakers are very different. You believe that humankind chose sin and will always do so if left to its own devices. (At least, I think you said that in an earlier post.) Quakers believe in the perfectibility of the human soul. Some think us naive, but actually we're pretty practical. When I think of all the people who have influenced me, I remember those who were kind and encouraging as having more power and influence over my actions than those who were domineering and rigid and even mean-tempered. These are imponderables, but if a certain belief system comforts, directs and creates a better person, who am I to criticize? That's why having so many religions is really a good thing -- we all respond differently to stimuli, so we should chose the philosophy that suits us best and helps us evolve.— NigeltheMastiff
- Nigel - I did say that, in 9:36 post and again at 10:27. I subscribe to the "I'm a sinner in need of redemption" doctrine. I'm almost always encouraged by your observations. I like that you tend to see the good in others and look for affirming/respectful/kind behavior rather than destructive/hateful/mean manner - even within a blog full of conflict. I know very little about the Quaker faith, save William Penn was one.— Phrossty
- Phrossty, what a very nice compliment. Thank you.— NigeltheMastiff
- VC Bear (or whatever your real name is): evangelical Christians have SEVERAL "equivalent(s) of the Jewish Anti Defamation League (sic)." You probably know some of them -- the Christian Coalition, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights are the three that come most quickly to mind -- and not only do right-wingers like O'Reilly and Hannity give them more coverage than their ideas deserve, so does the "liberal" media. I get tired of right-wingers feeling so sorry for themselves all the time -- as if hearing what you don't want to hear some of the time is some elephantine burden you just can't bear. Our forebears fled real religious persecution -- you know, getting butchered, getting their property taken from them, like that. They could tell you a thing or two about real suffering.
Who cares what any of you believe as if your "belief system" gave you some authority over others - there are core tenants of behavior we know inherently are wrong - they have been codified in many different religions and secular laws. Give it a name if you must. The point is when you start to inflict your belief system on someone else you are going to get push back and bloodshed, because a "belief system" is an individual pursuit. You can not recruit, change, dictate to or entice the unwilling. Just because you think you are sooo correct in your assumptions so much so that you think they are fact doesn't mean somebody didn't sell you. You are free to practice your religion, lifestyle, philosophy, tenants and rituals but if you think you are more right than the next guy about the universal unknowable questions - all you are doing is forcing your opinion on someone. You see how well that works out on these blogs - right? Why would you try it in the streets or the political system? Disaster is the same end result and history both past and present bears that out quite clearly. Each individual life has it's own set of circumstances and it is up to the individual - and it is their god given right (if you will) to come to their own conclusions. We have been given brains and free will. Try to take that away from a person and they will become more than agitated. Finally I would suggest that unless you go by these two simple practices "live and let live", and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - you are the one doing the wrong thing.- Journey, I don't believe any of us were forcing our beliefs on anyone else. We were just expressing what we believe ourselves. Fundamentally, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our spiritual and corporeal lives are individual journeys. I just enjoy discussing it with others. And this is, after all, a blog where discussion and debate is the point.— NigeltheMastiff
- Though not religious myself, on this topic, I recommend Jim Wallis's God's Politics for a frank exploration of how both the religious right and progressive left have failed their values.— RunWrite
- Republican rhetoric about "family values" has never been anything but a PR slogan. We just had a Republican-appointed attorney general who wouldn't even admit that water boarding is torture. Think about that for a second. This position had wide popularity among congressional Republicans. I think the Bush years will be remembered as a time when our societal values were just rotten. Greed, easy money, debt spending, callow materialism and most of all, the outrageous willingness of our government, media and citizenry to acquiesce to the Iraq invasion. I'm still blown away that the Bush administration was able to garner widespread support for such a harebrained idea. Comfortable detachment was the driving force behind it all.— p-diddy
- They should change their name to "Bible Pusher". They're no better than drug pushers.— AHiredGun
1
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: