Skip to main content

View Diary: Putin to Meet with Pope Francis (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please summarize. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, vcmvo2
    you have to ask yourself why it did not exist as an adjunct of the Republican Party before 1980 and how it became so powerful afterwards.
    I have asked that question, as have many other credible cultural, political, and religious historians writing well-sourced academic histories of the movement. They outline a number of cultural, political, social, and economic reasons that the Christian Right did not emerge as a political movement until the late 1970s, and how it rose to power within the Republican Party—and I have yet to read one such history that suggests that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was the real force behind the rise of the Christian Right, particularly since there are no obvious signs of any kind of that level of involvement by the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

    Given that the movement was, at its beginnings, led by and composed of primarily Protestants, and more particularly fundamentalist and neo-evangelical Protestants (who tend to be somewhat distrustful of the Roman Catholic Church), I'm even more suspicious of any theory that would suggest that it was the Roman Catholic Church, and not fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, who were the roots of the Christian Right.

    Since you're citing your book as support for your claim in this thread, could you please summarize your argument and the evidence you have to support it, rather than simply asking me and the remainder of the reading audience to buy it?

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 10:55:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The religious right was an artificial construct of (0+ / 0-)

      the neocons in the 1970s. Using historical precedents of the successful alliances of church and state, they intentionally created a coalition of conservative Protestant and Catholic voters because:
      1. Religious figures were/are respected and so it is more difficult to oppose them.
      2. Religions are 501(3) organizations not required to make financial disclosures and donations are tax deductibles. Perfect organization for "dark money."
      3. It is easier to rouse people to vote for issues such as abortion, homosexuality and - at that time - the survival of the Biblical state of Israel.

      Paul Weyrich, Ed Fuelner (Catholics) were the masterminds. They hired and paid Jerry Falwell (Moral Majority) and other evangelicals to pitch for them. They founded the Heritage Foundation, ALEC and other neocom "echo chambers" to get their message out.

      Read Martin E. Lee's Mother Jones article "Their Will Be Done" for how the papacy was delivered to John Paul II for for the plutocracy.  http://www.motherjones.com/...

      I can't do more in a few sentences. My book is free on google is you want to read it.

      REVIEWS

      “Offers a well-documented thesis that you have an explosive mixture when you mix a
      powerful hierarchical church with political neo-conservatism’s elitist view that the
      rich and powerful always know what is best.  This is what [Clermont] chronicles
      early in the work, explaining that fundamentalist theological leanings and ultlra-
      conservative political ideology combined to create a Catholic Movement which was
      at ease working with rightwing Protestants. This coalition virtually created Ronald
      Reagan and set itself up as a bulwark against the purported liberalism, relativism
      and moral excess of liberals in the 1960s… These players were instrumental in
      finding common ground with the Protestant Religious Right, which was then
      assimilated into what Clermont calls “a common religious discourse, political
      sympathy and sense of priorities.”  This analysis is largely ignored in other works
      and represents the first eye-opener for even those who think they are well attuned to
      the machinations of right-wing dogmatists.  A second major contribution is the
      extraordinarily detailed description of how the Catholic hierarchy, in Rome and in the
      United States, became deeply involved in the past three presidential campaigns…A
      third topic rarely covered in detail before is the strong neo-Catholic support for—
      and benefits received from—President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives, his effort to
      give religious charities and even local churches federal dollars for their ostensibly
      secular programs dealing with hunger, homelessness, addiction and other social
      crises… The Neo-Catholics is a fine resource for persons interested and
      concerned about the unsettling union of church and state which always seems
      poised to enter the neighborhood—any neighborhood. She uses a dazzling array of
      sources and the endnotes are an invitation to further reading in this area.”   Barry
      Lynn, Director of American United for the Separation of Church and State,
      reviewed in Conscience Magazine, September 2010

      "Neo-Catholics and Neo-Cons:  An Unholy Alliance (Satire)"
      by William Hughes, Media Monitors Network

      "Betty Clermont helps us recall, in excruciating detail, a history of the U.S. Catholic
      right and its tremendous influence in the U.S. government since Ronald Reagan
      began forging ties with the Vatican. In vivid scene after scene, Ms. Clermont lets the
      documented facts tell the story, of how the American bishops diverted our money
      (not theirs) away from programs promoting social justice into political action that
      could only make Republicans smile. A darn well written study in the abuse of power
      by lordly bishops who rest assured because they rest assured."  ROBERT BLAIR
      KAISER covered Vatican II for Time magazine. He is the author of Cardinal
      Mahony: A Novel.

      "Betty Clermont's The Neo Catholics tracks the links of Republican politics, big
      money and Catholic ideologues with a muckraker's zeal. Even those who do not
      share Clermont's every position will be pulled along by her relentless scrutiny of
      how the pro-life agenda turned into a hothouse for war-mongering and the endless
      money-hunt."  JASON BERRY, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the
      Papacy of John Paul II and Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the
      Sexual Abuse of Children

      "Now a new book lets us place the attack on CCHD in the larger context of a
      conspiracy by historic conservative lay groups within the Catholic Church, their allies
      in the Catholic hierarchy, and conservative Catholic business elites to defeat the
      welfare state, strengthen corporate power, and align public policy with socially
      conservative, individual morality theology.  Author Betty Clermont, herself a lay
      Catholic and former employee of the Atlanta Diocese, makes this case in the Neo-
      Catholics:  Implementing Christian Nationalism in America.  It is well worth
      reading..."  MIKE MILLER, Social Policy

      •  Money makes everything copacetic, not so? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Betty Clermont, Don midwest

        I can understand why JamesGG is so astonished to learn that evangelicals and fundamentalists were cavorting with what they were simultaneously calling the Whore of Babylon. And why the Catholic Church would cavort with people they called apostates and heretics.

        But money puts everything into such a soft, warm glow that who can resist?  

        •  Especially when transferring the wealth of the US (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest

          into the pockets of the 1% was actually accomplished.

        •  Astonished? Hardly. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't dispute that Roman Catholics were involved in some of the earliest stages of the Christian Right; in fact, much of my dissertation is about the ways in which the fundamentalists and evangelicals in the Christian Right have had to alter their narrative worldviews to allow for cobelligerence not only with Roman Catholics, but also with Mormons.

          I also don't dispute that many of the resources used by the Christian Right were provided by people who had other agendas, who were interested in using the energy of frustrated Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists to push for people who would fulfill their own political aims.

          But Clermont also goes to pains to point out that a few of those involved in the foundations of the Christian Right were Roman Catholic, and paints them as the masterminds of the movement—completely overlooking that many, if not most, of those who provided the intellectual, political, and monetary resources for the movement were not Roman Catholic, and some were vehemently anti-Catholic.

          To suggest that it was the Catholics pulling the strings with the fundamentalists and evangelicals as their puppets or dupes is, in my opinion, inaccurate at best; in fact, from the evidence I've seen, I'd say that particularly at the beginnings of the movement, the official Roman Catholic Church was a junior partner in a movement whose intellectual, political, economic, and personnel resources came almost entirely from Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals.

          And until Ms. Clermont presents the evidence to support her claim (which I requested in the above comment), rather than simply presenting reviews of her book, I will continue to side with the academic historians, who do not present the Roman Catholic hierarchy as playing nearly as significant and dominant a role in the Christian Right as does Ms. Clermont.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:45:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are misstating what she said (0+ / 0-)

            Betty said:

            The religious right was an artificial construct of
            the neocons in the 1970s. Using historical precedents of the successful alliances of church and state, they intentionally created a coalition of conservative Protestant and Catholic voters...

            Her book (Chapter 4) clearly states who she was referring to. Some are Catholic. Some are Protestant. Sun Myung Moon was neither. She names certain Catholics who had important leadership positions

            You said

            Clermont also goes to pains to point out that a few of those involved in the foundations of the Christian Right were Roman Catholic, and paints them as the masterminds of the movement
            except that she's clear these "masterminds" (actually, movement managers) were using money provided by non-Catholics like Olin and Scaife.

            and

            I have come across no evidence that the movement is "an artificial construct of the plutocracy."
            a statement which is well contradicted by Clermont's book.

            You are misstating her position, probably conflating neo-conservative with neo-Catholic, shifting the basis of the discussion, and trying to pass yourself off as an expert based on an unwritten dissertation that I suspect I would not accept were I on your committee.  

            People who have taken the trouble to write books have a right to find annoying people who won't take the time to even look at what they have said before making pronouncements on it.

    •  Basically this diary is a bunch (0+ / 0-)

      of anti-catholic bigotry and CT. Pope John Paul II elected GWBush to his second term? wtf?

      Honestly, why is this diary on dkos?

      They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

      by vcmvo2 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 04:26:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Basically the above comment is nonsense (0+ / 0-)

        There isn't any anti-Catholic bigotry in the diary, which is focused on the behavior of the hierarchy, not on the religion or the ordinary member. If you could have provided some examples of that, presumably you would have.

        There isn't any conspiracy theorizing. The diary includes numerous links mostly to standard sources. The diarist has written a book commended by one of the top right-wing watchers in the country, the Rev. Barry Lynn.  

        The diary very much belongs on DK. It's your comment that deserves an HR, for making an outrageous, unsubstantiated, and false accusation against a well-regarded Kossack.

        •  No it's not (0+ / 0-)

          Nothing in this diary is convincing at all.

          They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

          by vcmvo2 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 07:36:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Like I said... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeaTurtle

            If you could prove your case by quoting a statement that constitutes bigotry, you would have done so. Instead, you're attempting to shift your complaint onto the ground that the diary isn't convincing. But of course the diary is convincing to all of us who recced it. It's just not convincing to you. And you are... some guy on the Internet.  

            As for what constitutes an HR-able comment, you have made two accusations that amount to a statement that the diary should be HRed, since guidelines forbid conspiracy theory and bigotry.

            Had you actually issued an HR, I would have flagged it as an inappropriate HR. Since you didn't actually do so, I haven't actually done so.

            But heaven knows, your false and unsubstantiated accusations deserve it.  

            •  The whole diary (0+ / 0-)

              But for starters how about the statement that John Paul II somehow managed to elect GW Bush to his second term? Pure Hogwash!

              I'm sure Karl Rove and a bunch of criminal republicans would find that very interesting!

              When President Kennedy was running, his speech on the papacy and running for President was wonderful, time to crack it out for another viewing
              JFK: Separation of Church & State

              They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

              by vcmvo2 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 05:45:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like I said... (0+ / 0-)

                You haven't quoted--and can't quote-- a statement that is bigoted. Indeed, the diary does not state, as you falsely allege, that JP II elected GW Bush. It notes that Bush visited him 5 times.

                If you really want to promote and defend the Catholic Church, how about reviewing the Eighth Commandment?    

        •  Oh then report me (0+ / 0-)

          I am allowed to comment just as you are doing since this garbled mess Was Actually posted on Dkos.

          They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

          by vcmvo2 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 07:39:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Reading comprehension is a real problem for so (0+ / 0-)

        many.

        •  Especially you (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          SeaTurtle

          Try using proven history, not ct allegations. Your diary does not belong on Dkos.

          They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

          by vcmvo2 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 07:37:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  DBAD* (0+ / 0-)

            you are not presenting arguments but have resorted to name calling and are alleging CT when you cannot make a logical case for it.  Your comment is just argumentative, insulting and in short, YOU ARE BEING A DICK

            We Must DISARM THE NRA The next life you save may be ONE OF YOUR OWN!

            by SeaTurtle on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:29:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No I'm not I disagree vehemently with this diary (0+ / 0-)

              and have said why. you just want to hr me for disagreement

              They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

              by vcmvo2 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:58:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with SeaTurtle (0+ / 0-)

                I agree with SeaTurtle. I don't know ST, nor have I requested anyone to visit this thread, which is long past dead. I've only continued this conversation because it's clear to me that your zeal to defend the Church has overwhelmed your reason.  

                I haven't HRed you because you haven't been so much of a dick as to make a phony HR against the diary.

                But your behavior deserves it. It's comparable to someone saying, "The United States is evil" and, when being asked why s/he thinks so, simply saying, "The whole thing is evil! I don't have to give an example" or--equivalent to what you have done--claiming that the US invasion of Canada in 2012 proves America to be evil.

                There was no US invasion of Canada in 2012. The diary did not, as you have asserted, claim that John Paul II elected George Bush to his second term.

                On a theological level--I say this as a committed and quite knowledgeable Christian-- adhering to falsehood after it has been demonstrated is a very dangerous road. It is a sin against the Spirit of Truth.On a DK community level, it's just dickish.  

                •  Nonsense! (0+ / 0-)

                  My "zeal" to defend the church? Where did I defend it? I just stated categorically that this diary was packed full of CT which I specified one example on JOhn Paul II supposedly re-electing GW Bush in 2004. I stand by that. It's nonsense!

                  They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

                  by vcmvo2 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:36:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site