Good argument for parliamentary government, especially German style, with part of Congress elected off a "national list." If the Religious Right didn't like the GOP, it could go take its ball to the Constitution Party, already a full Xn Right party.

Would force the Religious Right's leadership to put up or shut up about whether they're about principles or about "access." And, it would force GOP leadership to ask, what more do we want to do beyond lip service.

Every election cycle, the GOP would tell conservative evangelical activists that if they served as the foot-soldiers, the party would deliver on the agenda. The religious right is now starting to second guess the relationship.

The problem for the AmTaliban is that nobody else wants them and their backwards 15th century beliefs.
We're just not that into you.

Damn, don't those religious wingnuts ever learn? That's how the Reslugs roll, they promise anything for the vote and then say fu*k 'em after they get it. That's the foundation of the reslugs idealology. Use them for your cause and then throw them away. The reslugs do this to them every time. The religious right are too stupid to figure that out.

The Pope hasn't gone far enough:

Kick the Bishop out NOW--it's not nearly enough just to 'take back' his comments.

Holocaust Deniers are horrifically insane and off the charts anti-Semitic. Williamson should never be allowed such a position.

Steve, you may have missed this,with the economy collapsing and all.

New state gift disclosures show it cost Liberty Legal Institute and the two law firms working with it $185,000 to represent six Alaska legislators in an unsuccessful lawsuit to halt their colleagues' "troopergate" investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin acted improperly in firing the state's public safety director.

There are two types of Republicans: those who realize that "social conservatism" is a scam to cover up for a real program that emphasizes wealth protection for the rich, and those who get scammed by the fake messages. The vast majority of the Religious Right falls in the latter category and it's about time they woke up and realized it.

Look, I'm an agnostic, but this atheist 'campaign' is just as silly as the 'believers' campaign--they both look like school yard kids "I'm better because I don't believe...No--I'm better and your stupid because you don't believe.."

What a waste of money, time and energy. What do they hope to accomplish? To show how 'right' they are?

Whatever it is, it's not working. Round and round they go--just like the finger pointing Republicans and Democrats do...

If you want to increase awareness and educate folks, that's one thing. But this self-righteous make-wrong stuff does nothing but solidify your opponent's point of view and make you look age five.

Who cares if there is a God or not? It's rather a moot point so far as I'm concerned. We'll never know for sure, so be happy. That's what I'm putting on my bus.

But, 'Lucy holding the football' is the way Republicans are with everyone on Earth!

Why shouldn't they screw religious maniacs, too?

The story of the Shuller Empire crumbling was interesting. There is a theory (to which I am a strong believer) that Shakespeare wrote plays with double meanings, using metaphors and likenesses to real historical characters, for the purpose of criticizing the English Reformation. One of his repeated themes was that Catholics worship God, while Protestants worship ministers. By looking at what the characters represented, the Shuller phenomenom is consistent with Ophelia (Hamlet) losing her desire to live after Polonius dies, and why Kate (Taming of the Shrew) talking of the need to worship her lord, while referring to her abusive husband, Petrucchio.

And since the GOP is going to be grubbing for every vote to remain a viable party, we can expect a lot of door banging to ensue. Followed by surges in distilled God infused wingnuttery. Leading to more fiscal conservative GOOPERS (yet socially liberal) becoming independents or reluctant democrats.

Nothing changes for republicans, it just gets worse, then worser still.

Even if the holocaust-denying Catholic bishop recants his statements, that does not mean that he reverses or alters his belief that the holocaust never occurred. The pope, quite obviously, is utterly clueless; if he had any grasp of reality, he would never have reinstated Bishop Williams to the good graces of the church. Maybe the church should reverse its belief that the pope is infallible.

I do wonder what the Schuller "spat" is really about. Hope we find out sometime. I bet it's got gobs of dramatic potential. TV movie, here we come.

Or don't they do TV movies on the topic of the week any more?

As to the possibility of social conservatives separating themselves from the GOP, I have one word: horsehockey.

I mean, come on. Where else are they going to go?

My concern is that Steve's post makes it appear that the Relig Right may be smarter than Democrats.

I mean, so far it doesn't look like the Dems have caught on to Republicans' Lucy-esque ways enough for us to rethink that relationship. . .

The real question is why it took them so long to wise up. The GOP worships the pagan god Mammon.

Shalimar:Most are in the first catagory. Protecting the rich ties very snugly into the maintenance and promotion of rigid authoritarian structures which is their reason for existence.

i'm with who cares if there's a god or not. if you want to debate the existence of god, great, but don't force me to participate by disrupting bus service.

and it exacerbates the problem: god being inserted into every topic and situation under the sun.

i'd like to see godwin's law amended to include mention of god. argue your point but the minute you bring god (or jesus or allah or jehovah) into it, the debate is over and you lose.

I mean, so far it doesn't look like the Dems have caught on to Republicans' Lucy-esque ways enough for us to rethink that relationship. . .

Sorry Zeit, but this Lucy Football analogy really needs to be put to rest, at least as far as what's going on in Congress. It just doesn't apply anymore. It refers to when Republicans pretend to work with us and then at the last minute, they pull the plug and we get nothing for all our efforts. And they did that repeatedly in the past, leaving us looking like idiots after lots of pointless work. But...that's not what happened with the stimulus bill. Because we're getting the bill. Sure, it's compromised and more stupid than it should be, but we're still getting it and they're not happy about it.

The analogy here would be if Charlie Brown is trying to throw a touchdown against Lucy's team and Lucy kept fighting him and he only scores a field goal. Because Republicans WEREN'T pretending to work with us. They WEREN'T holding the football. They were on defense, opposing us. And we still scored.

And the only reason they were able to hold us to a field goal is because the refs insisted that we needed to be bipartisan, and didn't care if Republicans did the same. It's unfair, but you go with the rules you've got, and not the ones you want. Had we not tried to be bipartisan, we'd be in a much worse position moving forward. But again, this is nothing like the past situations. And had Congressional Dems been as proactive as their Republican counterparts, we would have scored more points.

Every election cycle, the GOP would tell conservative evangelical activists that if they served as the foot-soldiers, the party would deliver on the agenda. The religious right is now starting to second guess the relationship.

1) They may not have gotten everything they wanted, but they have gotten quite a bit. They've gotten a much more conservative Federal judiciary; they've gotten a host of restrictions on abortion rights; they got the Defense of Marriage Act, and a host of state laws banning gay marriage and civil unions, some of which go so far as to ban contracts among gay couples that any two random people would be free to enter into; they've got an Office of Faith-Based Initiatives which, during the Bush Administration, was really the Office of Religious Wingnut Welfare; for many years, U.S.-funded overseas family planning agencies couldn't so much as mention the word 'abortion'; the sex-ed debate in the U.S. is between abstinence as the primary means of contraception, and abstinence as the only acceptable, discussable means of contraception; and so on.

They may not be satisfied with their payoff, but they've sure as the devil gotten a payoff.

In the words of Proverbs 30:15-16:

"Three things there are which will never be satisfied, four which never say, 'Enough!':
The grave and a barren womb, a land thirsty for water, and fire that never says, 'Enough!' '

The Biblical writer didn't foresee the Religious Right.

2) As Julia Grey said above, where else are they going to go?

They're not going to vote Dem, and I'll believe a nontrivial religious wingnut third party when I see one. And at election time, their antipathy for libruls will, by and large, overcome their negative feelings about the GOP. Their turnout might be a few points less than it used to be, but that'll be the extent of it.

I do wonder what the Schuller "spat" is really about. -- Julia Grey, @13:07

From the MSNBC article:
The Schullers consider the church a family business,[...]

When being a pastor is no longer a calling but a business, then, probably, the same principles apply to it as to any other business. Namely, Papa has a head for business and builds up an empire but sonny-boy is a different kettle of Jesus fish -- all he knows is how to spend the profits, not how to increase them. The church is mired in debt. How did it get there?

I agree with you re the religious right wing: they can stomp and out and scream but... what are they gonna do? Take their toys and move to a different sandbox? Doubt it; there is no other sandbox to be had.

"..., which it said were 'unknown to the Holy Father at the time he revoked the excommunication.'"

The Pope further stated that even if he had known the facts, he still would have revoked the excommunication.

Shouldn't this week's This Week in God have said something about Obama's executive order regarding "faith-based" programs?

I happen to believe in and practice Spirituality in a form that fulfills my desire to recognize a Power Greater Than I Am as Source and Substance of All That Is. That is not to say that there isn't plenty of room for those who believe otherwise, or say they do not believe. We all believe in something and live our lives from that belief. This thread leaves out a huge number of people who are not stuck in dogma and rigid belief systems, and who follow a system of beliefs that includes all traditions and practices. I prefer my way of believing, and I intend to allow others theirs. I am not perfect in this intent, so every day I have opportunities to practice this intention until I get it right.

Please recognize that there are many more ways of believing and many more people who believe in compassion, cooperation and kindness than most recognize.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Williamson was excommunicated for allowing himself to be consecrated as a bishop with Vatican permission back in 1988. Holocaust denial had nothing to do with it. Benedict, as a gesture of good will to the splinter group which had consecrated Williamson and three others, lifted the excommunications against all four. This lifting of a penalty for one canonical offense has nothing to do with whether or not Williamson has committed another offense against canon law and how he should be punished for that, just as the governor pardoning someone for bank robbery won't prevent an investigation of murder allegations against that same person.

The problem is that the religious right is fast becoming irrelevant as a political entity. They opposed McCain...he got the nomination. They opposed Steele....he became the new chair of the GOP.

One of the great successes of the Obama campaign was its ability to peel evangelicals away from the GOP as well as convincing many other religious folks that the Democratic Party was not anti-religion.

Today's religious right is therefore nowhere near as unified an entity as it has been in the past, making threats from its' leaders less and less powerful.

An important detail from Perkins' interview:

There is not the strong connection to the Republican Party that there once was. I'm more representative of the younger generation and I don't have as strong allegiance to the Republican Party. (emphasis added)

Leaving aside the nonsensical idea that Perkins is "representative of the younger generation" (scoff! scoff!), Perkins isn't talking about the Republican party losing the Christianist right . . . he's talking about the Christianist right losing the next generation of Americans. All of the polling numbers indicate that the younger generation are a.) far less ideologically militant than, say, Tony Perkins, b.) don't really care about the "culture war," c.) are rather fond of this Barack Obama guy, and d.) sure as hell don't vote Republican.

The christian fundamentalists have been worried as hell over the new generation of Americans and their more tolerant views on reproductive rights and civil equality . . . never mind the growing trend towards disbelief! Perkins and Dobson (and Warren and Falwell and Robertson and etc. etc.) have their eye on the prize - the hearts and minds (and pocketbooks, natch) of Americans - and couldn't give a fig which political party will help them spread their message. Politics and public policy are a means, not an end.

I have little doubt that Mr. Perkins would continue to be an extremely partisan supporter of the Republican party if they were still in the majority and popular amongst the youth - even if the G.O.P. continued to give them nothing but policy crumbs for their support.