Religious Right Could Win This Election Just by Playing Their Anti-Muslim Card

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-mel-white/religious-right-could-win-this-election-just-by-playing-their-anti-muslim-card_b_1888749.html

Rev. Mel White
Author, 'Holy Terror: Lies the Christian Right Tells Us to Deny Gay Equality'

Posted: 09/24/2012 7:35 pm

On the weekend of Sept. 14-16, 2012, while President Obama and Secretary Clinton struggled to put out fires ignited by a crude, anti-Muslim video made in California, just minutes from the White House high-profile "holy terrorists" were stoking those same flames with anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Gathered at the Values Voters Summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel was a collection of America's most infamous Islamophobes: fundamentalist Christian Americans who are using "the Muslim threat" as they once used "the gay threat," to raise money, mobilize volunteers, and scare the American public into voting Republican on Nov. 6, 2012. These "holy terrorists," who see themselves as called by God to "champion traditional values" and "protect America," are the real threat to our nation's relationship with Muslims at home and abroad (and the real threat to the future of our democracy, as well).

If you ever wondered who the Christian right would blame for undermining "traditional values" once the "gay threat" was found to be a hoax, now it's certain. Here's the list of gay bashers turned Muslim bashers who sponsored the Value Voters Summit: the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins, President), the American Family Association (Tim Wildmon, President), American Values (Gary Bauer, President), the Heritage Foundation (Ed Feulner, President), Liberty University (Jerry Falwell, Jr., Chancellor), and Liberty Counsel (Matt Staver, Chairman).

These are the most powerful fundamentalist Christian organizations in the country, whose leaders are trusted by millions of Americans. At this moment, they share this primary goal: to find ways to defeat Barack Obama and purge Washington, D.C., of the "liberal, godless, socialists" who are "undermining traditional family values" and "steering the nation towards total ruin." It looks like anti-Muslim rhetoric will be a favorite tactic of the Christian right to see their goals reached in 2012, just as anti-gay rhetoric was used to confuse voters in 2010. In her speech at the Value Voters Summit, Michele Bachmann demonstrated how "holy terrorists" will play the anti-Muslim card: "What we're watching develop before our eyes today are the direct consequences of this administration's policy of apology and appeasement across the globe."

more at link

[MineralMan]

1. No, actually the Religious Right couldn't win on those grounds.

As we will all see in November. The Religious Right and its allied Tea Party movement do not represent a large enough voting block to win any national election on their account. "Rev" Mel White is simply incorrect in overstating the influence of the Religious Right.

[cbayer]

2. I honestly thought that in 2000 and 2004, but was wrong.

I don't think they should be underestimated or that we should take our eyes off of them.

We dismissed them at our own peril previously.

[MineralMan]

5. What we did, in reality, was to enable them.

In our overweening tolerance for anything having the label "Religion" attached to it, we allowed them to build a movement without opposition from the very sectors where the opposition could be influential. What that did was give credence to the bizarre social conservatism they represented. That tolerance also allowed the media to pick up on the sensationalism of the issues of the Religious Right. Selling media depends on interesting stories.

I believe the Religious Right movement, and its associated fellow travelers, have outlived their own novelty at this point, and that they will fade into the shadows once again to re-emerge at some point. I believe 2008 demonstrated that.

Today, we have growing acceptance of some things that have been abhorrent to the Religious Right, and I believe that will grow.

However, it is no thanks to the mainstream Protestant church leaders that this has happened. Their tolerance and failure to speak out sharply and strongly against the Religious Right was partly the thing that enabled that ugly movement. In the name of being uncontroversial and tolerant, those leaders failed to lead, for the most part.

This is my perception, of course, and we will see if it is correct over time.

[cbayer]

8. That could be even more of a problem this time around.

Paul Ryan is even more extreme than anyone before him, imo.

I disagree about the the mainstream protestant churches, particularly those with progressive/liberal agendas. There is little sensationalism in their positions or actions and they have been routinely ignored by the media, which can drive the politic as you point out.

But we will most likely just need to agree to disagree about that.

[MineralMan]

10. And even Paul Ryan is pulling away from

reinstating DADT, much to the discomfiture of the Religious Right and Teabaggers. You see, the tide has turned a bit, and even scurrilous rascals like Ryan have had to back away from the extremism of the Religious Right.

As for mainstream protestant churches, their leadership has been lukewarm at best when it comes to these pressing human rights issues. Those issues are uncomfortable ones, even in more progressive churches. So, they speak with thin voices and keep their objections low key. Of course they don't get media coverage, nor do they want media coverage for their objections. When called on it, they'll show you some time when they objected weakly and say, "No, see. I said this on this date. Isn't that enough for you?" Well, no, good Reverend, it is not. Not by a long shot.

I'll refrain from quoting scripture to you, but lukewarm opposition isn't of much use to anyone. In many cases it is tantamount to no opposition at all. We saw what lukewarm objections accomplished in the late 1930s and 1940s. And so it goes.

Sometimes, avoiding controversy is not a good thing. Again, I could quote scripture and provide examples making that perfectly clear, but I won't. Sometimes, religious leaders need to stand up and speak loudly and forcefully against abuses by their fellows. If they do not, they silently acquiesce. It's an old story.

[dmallind]

3. In a larger context I disagree

As any breakdown of voting practice by religiosity shows, without organized Christianist influence, the Dem majorities in all levels of government would be overwhelming. Religion is the biggest reason we have for an obstrutionist House of Representatives and a fillibuster-armed Senate minority. Take away the fear of "godlessness" anent abortion, gays and Islam and we'd flip 100 house seats easily in the Southwest and Midwest, even if you cede the band of racist states.

[MineralMan]

7. If the mainstream Christian churches would speak with

a single voice regarding those things, it would be done. The ELCA, for example, took their sweet time in embracing marriage equality as a body. There still is no open endorsement of reproductive choice among the mainstream churches, although there is some tacit support. We need an equivalent body of religious leaders to speak out against the irrationality and untruth from the Religious Right. No such body exists with a voice loud enough to compete.

[Jim__]

4. The religious right is a highly organized minority. Energized, they become powerful.

Our real problem is to energize the progressive block. An energized progressive block can defeat the religious right.

[MineralMan]

6. Perhaps. I'd prefer a broader-based opposition to the

Religious Right, though. I think it's forming quietly on its own, and that this election will provide some evidence of that.

[cbayer]

9. Agree, and that progressive block can be composed of both religious and secular groups.

The way to combat them, as MM points out, is to speak up loudly and frequently against them.

Unfortunately, that has often been thwarted from within, a repetitive problem on the left where diversity is embraced but often used to divide.

[dimbear]

11. President Obama's UN speech was a powerful counterweight to that strategy.

Even the most biased listener would have to admit that rather than placate, he is essentially daring the Muslim world to stand up and act right.

Ditto Ms. Clinton.

Only the ultrawackos will try to spin it, they will fail IMHO.