The United States is a [White] Nation and always has been. This great nation was founded by hard working [White] People for [White] People. The vast majority of the population is [White] and espouses [White] values. The US Constitution was written by [White] People of various backgrounds so that all [White] People could live freely in a diverse [White] Culture. The vast majority of the population then, as now, was and is [WHITE]. Ergo; it's a fact that America is a [White] Nation ..."
What ... you think that's prejudicial, insensitive, bigoted, distorted, antiquated ... ? But, but ... isn't it also technically accurate? Read on for the snark-line.
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the [White] people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-[White] people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening ..."
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a [White] nation."
Now substitute "Christian" in there for "White" and you'll see the dreck spewed by the likes of Pat Robertson and Randall Terry and other pundits of the Religious Right in a whole new fucking light: A self-serving, neo-fascist circle jerk.
(snark) Yes, Pat and Randy, I see your points here: Over the last one-hundred years the US has gone to seed, as religion has lost it's death grip on the public. Why back then we were a second-rate Agrarian Economy and now we've sunk to the largest, wealthiest, superpower in the world rivaling the dominance of ancient Rome. We're doomed if it keeps up! DOOOOoooomeed ....(/snark)
Let's look at what a couple of thoughtful Christians say about the Christian Nation/Values concept:
From the right, JollyBlogger's The One True Christian Nation explaining that Christian Churches share some characteristics with nations, but that that doesn't mean America is or should be referred to as a Christian Nation:
In the Old Testament there was a distinction between THE Nation (of Israel) and the nations and I think it is important that we maintain the distinction between the "Christian" nation of today and the other nations. And for this reason I think we err today when we refer to America as a "Christian" nation or try to recover some golden era of the past when we were supposedly a "Christian" nation ...
I also think we need to reconsider what it means to be a blessing to the nations. I am quite sure I don't know all of what it means but I am also quite sure that, at least here in America, we've been more concerned about gaining power than being a blessing.
In any case, we need to distinguish the Holy Christian Nation, which is the church, from the nations. Then we need to wrestle harder with what it means for this holy nation to be a blessing to the nations.
JollyBlogger gets it right imo-and bear in mind that's coming from a Godless atheist who disagrees with a great deal of Jollyblogger's views and has had more than one choice e-mail and comment board flame-war with the owner.
From the left, Howard Dean's NAACP Speech:
It is a moral value to balance the budget. It's a moral value not to leave massive debt to our children and grandchildren...It's a moral value to ensure basic economic security for every family. It's not acceptable that hard working people, some working two jobs, live one paycheck away from financial disaster, or don't have health care, or have to choose between sending their child to college or caring for their elderly parents ... It is a moral value to expand economic opportunity, create good paying jobs and keep them [from]China.
... All of a sudden the woman from Texas popped up and said "Governor, I don't agree with you on that, I'm an evangelical Christian. We don't believe there ought to be separation of church and state. We believe this is a Christian nation."
... I asked her how it is that she happened to support me when she couldn't possibly agree with my views ...
[She said] "The first reason is that our child has kidney disease and in Texas that means we cannot get health insurance for our child or for anybody in our family. We think everybody ought to have health insurance. But the real reason we support you is that evangelicals are people of deep conviction and you are a person of deep conviction. What we look at more than anything else is not if you will agree with every single one of our convictions, but - if something happens to our family or our community or our country - whether or not the people who are going to be making decisions affect us will make those decisions out of deep convictions, not based on focus groups."
Howard Dean gets it right imo. And bear in mind that that's coming from an atheist who is definitely not a classical liberal.
As someone who is often skeptical and outspoken concerning religion, I must at times nevertheless defend the faithful and point out that the average Republican theist has no wish to be unfairly perceived as a Medieval creep harboring extremist/racist hatred. Nor imo do they.
Which is why I argue that the GOPs greatest strength in the past couple of elections is their greatest weakness going forward. The coalition between the clerics and the traditional conservative leaders is fragile. Neither side trusts the other with good reason:
One has elements which are not only batshit insane at times but also easily outraged, which the rationalists privately and sometimes publicly abhor. And the working class Christian Caucus been sold down the river to the likes of Enron and Communist Chinese by the corporatist arm of the coalition.
Robertson and his ilk OTOH are right in there with some of the writings of the Ku Klux Klan and some of the propaganda circulated by Islamofascists. That prejudice is ugly, it's un-American, and most folks don't like it one bit. Even a significant portion of the religious right are repulsed by that extremist side.
And the spokesmen for the fundies who do sympathize, the Robertsons and Randalls, are some unsavory characters indeed.
Gosh, those nasty quotes would make a great target ad, huh? And yeah some purists might see that as hitting below the belt. Well, when it comes to campaigning, Karl Bush is like Orwell's Napoleon to the DNC's Snowball. And we all remember how that Animal Farm allegory ended.
Newsflash: This isn't a boxing match. It's a back-alley brawl with a gangster behind the bar at 3:00 AM. The thug is going to hit below the belt, stab you, shoot you, hit you when you're down, his friends are going to join in, and they're all going to stomp your head until it's flatter than a pancake and brains are oozing out of your shattered skull like Play-do. Then they're going to cut up the body into little pieces, feed it into the East River, and make it home in time to put on a respectable suit for Sunday Mass.
Properly and delicately played this could wield huge benefits not just for the democrats .. but way more importantly it could benefit the whole country and the entire world which has been reamed and screwed up by BushCo. They're vulnerable. And that vulnerability in the GOP voting machine is not just a potential wedge issue, that's a gossamer thin, glass house waiting for someone with enough imagination and courage to throw a rock at and see what happens.