Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me re-state Betty's formulation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest

    I think you're correct if you are asserting that conservative Christians would exist no matter what. Maybe they would be a significant portion of the population. But the religious right is not really a religious movement, but a political movement.

     So, could a political movement based on religious extremism be influential absent substantial funding from the ultra-wealthy? I think it's hard to believe that it could in the modern era. Certainly such a phenomenon did exist a century ago.  That's how we got Prohibition. But it was badly discredited by a whole series of events, including the failure of Prohibition, the collapse of the attack on science, its ties to European fascism as in Franco's Spain, and so on.

    It was only possible for the political movement to make a comeback in the 1970s/80s thanks to very well-heeled people like Pat Robertson. They received substantial assistance from other wealthy people such as Joe Coors and Howard Ahmanson.

    Now, one can say that those plutocrats funding the religious right are religious conservatives, that their religious beliefs are driving their donations. But if that were so, one would expect that they would fund the religious left to some degree. Lots of people on the religious left are theologically conservative, but socially liberal. But somehow, the billionaires fund organizations whose financial viewpoints are consistent with those of the billionaires.  

    I'm delighted to hear you're writing a dissertation on this topic. I hope you'll listen to some old hands who have listened to the broadcasts, joined the mailing lists, talked to the people who get inducted into the movement, and traced the money.  

    •  Joe Coors and Howard Ahmanson... (0+ / 0-)

      ...were both fundamentalist Protestants.

      I don't dispute in the slightest bit that major money people funded the Christian Right, nor that the presence of big-money funding was what made them into a cohesive and potent political force.

      What I do dispute is Clermont's implication that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was somehow masterminding the whole thing, and I will continue to dispute it until sufficient evidence is provided to support such a claim.

      "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 02:24:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Asked and answered (0+ / 0-)

        I have answered this comment here.

        But I would like to add that the problem seems to be that you have failed to (a) quote--not paraphrase, but quote-- the specific comment by Clermont that you object to and (b) provide a specific refutation of it with a link.

        You keep demanding that she supply evidence. The requirements you place on her you must also place on yourself.  

      •  The Catholic hierarchy had NOTHING to do with (0+ / 0-)

        the formation of the religious right. I don't know how you can keep inaccurately restating my position without ever knowing what it is.

    •  Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority preceded Pat (0+ / 0-)

      Robertson, but otherwise, Charles II, unlike others who are talking out of the hats, you know the subject well.

      •  Thanks... (0+ / 0-)

        Pat Robertson and CBN date to 1960. Robertson, as the son of a Congressman/Senator, was politically well-connected.  

        As you say in your book, Falwell was basically a hired hand. While the Thomas Road church goes back a few years before Robertson, it's not clear to me that Jerry Falwell became a political actor before the 1970s and, as far as I know, he was never in the same financial league as Pat Robertson,

        So, both were in on the ground floor of the founding of the political movement.

        But my reason for mentioning Robertson is simply that he is a billionaire. One could have mentioned many other wealthy men who helped to found the religious right. Pat Robertson is interesting simply because he is both wealthy and a Christian Right macher.  

    •  excellent points, C2 (0+ / 0-)

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

      by SeaTurtle on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:30:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site