American Fascists

So someone is claiming Christians are fascists, eh? Well taking the very definition of fascism it becomes obvious that Christianity in America for the most part is not and never was fascist. So the whole premise of this person's book falls apart based upon his faulty base.

One of the definitions for fascism is "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism"

Looking at many recent events of conservatives being shouted down by extreme liberals at speaking engagements and forced cancellations of conservatives' public appearances by extreme liberal organizations it becomes more apparent that more liberals are exhibiting fascist behavior in the suppressing opposition and criticism. I guess in Mr. Hedges' world, liberal facism is acceptable whereas an imaginary Christian fascism is not.

The double standard astounds.

Well lets see. During the last terror event we gave Bush dictatorial powers. We eliminated the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. We legalized torture. We invaded a country that was no threat to us. And let us not forget that Bush said that God told him to do it.

Well, I guess Mark chose not to respond to the book's assertions, but instead go on an unrelated rant. But I'll respond to Carl:

So someone is claiming Christians are fascists, eh? Well taking the very definition of fascism it becomes obvious that Christianity in America for the most part is not and never was fascist. So the whole premise of this person's book falls apart based upon his faulty base.

Well, no, he's not claiming that Christians are fascists. I don't expect too many people around here to be sympathic to his argument, but he's stating that the leadership of the Christian right is using evangelical base to promote an ideology totally un-Christian. Those wielding power in Washington right now are not doing so by appealing to the public with soliloquies of the "unitary executive" or other tenets of neo-conservatism - they are relying on token social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

So if anyone is interested with what the book's topic actually is, agree or not, you can read an interview of Hedges here.

"All it will take, Hedges writes, is one more national crisis on the order of September 11 for the Christian Right to make a concerted drive to destroy American democracy. The movement awaits a crisis."

Translation: It's almost like those fascist Christians think a crisis like 9/11 is a reason to change the way our government works. How dare they!

Carl -

Please list these examples of "extreme liberals" forcing cancellations and shouting down conservatives. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I am willing to bet that for every "extreme liberal" case of censoring a conservative there is a case of "extreme conservative" elements doing the same to liberals.

So don't talk about a double standard as if it isn't applicable to your side.

And Mark, I don't see where this man's book premise connects with the recent Democratic majority in a cultural context.

Willow is right; you don't address his main argument about the narrowing of the evangelical cause. But to echo his assertion, I doubt most liberals are going as far as Hedges, but do agree that extreme elements of the Christian movement are using a biblical basis to distort the good will of reasonable Christian people. As he says:

There is enough hatred, bigotry and lust for violence in the pages of the Bible to satisfy anyone bent on justifying cruelty and violence. Religion, as H. Richard Niebuhr said, is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people.

Just as the KKK is a distorted Christian-based organization and just how jihadists distort Islam; there are plenty of people willing to use their interpretation of ancient texts to accomplish immoral goals and persecute others.

I read the chapter excerpt on the S&S web site and good grief, the author's head is full of conspiracies, mischaracterizations, fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible and a perchance of seeing demons around every corner. He takes a grain of information and turns it into a gigantic conspiracy, a plot that is so whacky that I had to read it twice to even understand it.

From the excerpt, the author draws on Orwell, Goebbels, homeschooling materials (oooh, look out!) Augustine and his own ignorance of what the Bible actually says to concoct a movement of brewing revolution.

This author SERIOUSLY believes that evangelical Christians are in the infancy statge of "destroying America."

I am a youth minister volunteer, have been for years, and am an evangelical Christian (LCMS). While I stand askance at the "Left Behind" stuff (I am not a premilenial dispensationalist, which is one of the few grains of truth the author builds his whacky theory around), I must say that this guy is chasing phantoms. There is no more chance of what he is arguing coming to pass than there is for Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy becoming die-hard conservatives tomorrow.

What utter rubbish.

This Chris Hedges is a certifiable kook--I've heard his name and hes commentary quoted many times over the last three or four years. His soul is beyond salvation; he'd serve us best by becoming a human shield when we get attacked again.

BTW, in fascism, there is no religion--the state is God. This is one fact that the kooks just don't understand...

Fascism (IPA: [ˈfæː.ʃɪ.zm̩]) is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.

Fascism is pretty hard to define in more specific terms because it has been used so frequently over the years. Also, different "fascist" governments over time have all been quite different from each other...

If we are to follow the above quote from wikipedia as a good definition, religion can definitely be used as a unifying factor in a fascist system. All one would have to do would be to define the nation exclusively as one particular religion and make people pledge loyalty to that religious state, then voila... fascist...

Needless to say... the definition is far from complete...

There certainly are people who seem somewhat "fascist" on both sides of the spectrum... let's not define the whole by the extremes, shall we?

Winnow- c'mon no-one would buy that Dubya is doing anti-Christian acts by killing all the Iraqis for some un-known, un-verifiable, and un-just reason. naaa

Gee on the one hand we have Righty screaming to the top of their lungs.."no abortions" "no stem cell research( new devolpments BTW)"

And yet when righty is confronted with Iraq and the slaying of innocent civilians, men, women and children, probably un-born in their womds along with their mothers. Righty simply follows suit and claims W is da man.

Gee something about thier continuity of killing and slaying of innocent life that doesn't seem so.... contiguous?

imagine that. not another righty contradiciton.

"you can't kill that way" "let us show you the correct way to kill"

duuuuubya

oh- and let us not forget the 3000 plus americans now KIILED by the ANTI-KILLING platform.

"hu hu hu- we just kill 'em are way. too bad ther Umerkun kidz"

could someone on the right explain to me how you can pick and choose who to kill and how to kill them? And why is GOD on your side while you do this Killing that you preach not to do in the first place?

"our" not "are"

you see i do have some knowledge of the English language. I had to...couldn't let W make a third grader like me look dumb!

but in all honesty i think and type in two different planes of existance.

you see i do have some knowledge of the English language. I had to...couldn't let W make a third grader like me look dumb!

You need to re-read your post, Bill, and count the various errors. You'll need to remove your shoes, or get a calculator. Believe me, son, you don't need "W's" help--you're doing fine on your own...

And yet when righty is confronted with Iraq and the slaying of innocent civilians, men, women and children, probably un-born in their womds along with their mothers.

How about confronting lefty with the fact that it's not our troops, but Islamic extremists and sectarian thugs who are doing most of the killing of "innocent civilians"? When our troops kill, it's been mostly terrorists, whom we charitably call "insurgents". Of course, seeing a lefty blame ALL these deaths on the U.S., regardless of who is precisely killing whom, doesn't surprise me very much. (No, I'm not saying that's true of ALL lefties, but certainly some seem to have this viewpoint.) This is not to discount the unintended civilian deaths that armies almost inevitably inflict in war. But when we judge our troops concerning this matter, we should take into account our enemies' propensity for using innocent civilians as human shields.

no stem cell research

Anyone who has actually taken time to learn the real effect of Bush's veto knows that this is incorrect. That veto only prevents public funds (i.e., your and my tax dollars) from going to embryonic stem cell research. It does NOT prevent those funds from going to research on adult or umbilical cord stem cells. It also does NOT forbid embryonic stem cell research, as long as the dollars come from somewhere other than the government. Of course, it would not have been a bad idea for Dubya to veto some of those porcine spending bills, but that's another story. (Yes, B.S., some of us righties will actually criticize Bush where we think it's due. Imagine that!)

could someone on the right explain to me how you can pick and choose who to kill and how to kill them?

It's really not too complicated. The distinction is between innocent life and non-innocent life. A fetus, an unborn baby, or whatever you want to call him/her, is innocent. He/she has done nothing to forfeit his/her rights, including the right to life conferred by the Creator. (See the Declaration of Independence.) On the other hand, killing terrorists and sentencing murderers to death are justified because these are done in DEFENSE of innocent life. Likewise, if someone threatens to kill you or a family member, and you can't get him to go away, you're justified in hurting and sometimes even killing him because you're DEFENDING innocent life. By threatening the innocent with death, the terrorist or criminal forfeits his right to life by his behavior. That's how I see the distinction, anyway.

why is GOD on your side while you do this Killing that you preach not to do in the first place?

I don't recall Bush or anyone in his administration saying such a thing. On the other hand, "God is on our side" is precisely the attitude of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

Well, that was an interesting tangent to go out onto. OK, everyone, enjoy the football game.

Thanks Bigfoot... I will... as long as Florida loses... :o)

Deleted - pointless leftwing rant.

terrorists, whom we charitably call "insurgents".

This statement shows you really don't understand what's happening in Iraq, instead relying on facile definitions, like "if they're opposing us, they're terrorists."

No, they really are insurgents. A lot of them were ambivalent to U.S. presence in Iraq, but things like Abu Ghraib, excessive use of force, arrest dragnets, violations of honor (a huge deal in Iraqi society--and something that demands retaliation), and, well, treating Iraqis as the enemy instead of the people we're trying to win over turned them from ambivalent to anti-U.S.

Sees,
Remember, they're not just terrorists because anyone who's against us must be a terrorist. They're terrorists because they've been given a voice in a government but rather than act peacefully according to their Constitution, they're out blowing up policemen. If someone did that in the U.S., I'd call them terrorists too.
GF,
That definition you give of fascism talks about placing a nation above all other sources of loyalty...like religion. Loyalty to a religion by your own definition is not capable of being fascist. But remember that being a fascist in itself isn't the problem, it's what fascists tend to do that's the problem. And a fascism founded upon the peaceful principles of Christianity would probably look completely different from any fascism in history. And I doubt that's any accident, as Christianity because of its emphasis on compassion would want to be responsive to its people. The very way Christianity has spread democracy is by the compassion of Christianity's philosophical opposition to governments which do not respond to their people. It's tough to love your neighbor and watch them get kicked around by your government.

Morris,

And I doubt that's any accident, as Christianity because of its emphasis on compassion would want to be responsive to its people. The very way Christianity has spread democracy is by the compassion of Christianity's philosophical opposition to governments which do not respond to their people. It's tough to love your neighbor and watch them get kicked around by your government.

And that, I think, is precisely the problem. Christianity is being perverted to support a political ideology at odds with itself. As long as the neo-cons can distract people with inconsequential ideas like the phony "war on Christmas" or the gays out to destroy their way of life, people have an outlet for their frustrations that should be placed elsewhere - on their lack of economic security, lack of solid community, lack of privacy, and on and on. All issues that if Christ were alive today, he would be more interested in than whether or not the old dude at Walmart greeted him with "Happy Holidays," or if a gay person can make medical decisions for their lifelong partner on their death bed.

Winnow,

Well,we Christians aren't quite as stupid as you seem to think.

For those of us who have economic insecurity, we know whence it comes: from the residual effects of liberal Democratic attempts to end poverty coupled with a gigantic, corrupt tax code designed to reward and punish rather than raise necessary revenues.

For those of us worried about our social ills, we know whence it comes: from the residual effects of liberal Democratic attempts to remake America as a relentlessly secular society. It wasn't conservatives out there arguing that pornography and gangster rap is protected speech - nor was it conservatives arguing that sex is just a thing and all healthy people engage in it regardless of marital ties.

We Christians have never been too enamoured of privacy - we know that the primary desire of those demanding, say, internet privacy is so that no one will find out how often they're clicking into Jugs.com. Privacy is the right of people to view dirty pictures, butcher their unborn children and solicit sex with minors. Privacy is for when you're using the bathroom, engaging in sex with your legitimate partner and have to adjust your underwear after a long day.

Also, we're not worried that our gay brothers and sisters are out to get us - especially as a very large number of them are our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. No, not at all - but marriage is for one man and one woman, period.

Mark, the social issues that you speak of, if you want to place the blame somewhere, should be placed on the effects of a free market economy selling things that people want - whether it be pornography (on cave walls of France), prostitution (the oldest business), or contraception (not created by feminists at UC-Berkeley, but produced and marketed by pharmacutical companies).

If these are all ills you wish you cure, focus on what societal factors lead people to them - don't simply try to ban things that people either want or think they need.

For those of us who have economic insecurity, we know whence it comes: from the residual effects of liberal Democratic attempts to end poverty coupled with a gigantic, corrupt tax code designed to reward and punish rather than raise necessary revenues.

Those attempts that (generously) started to be dismantled 30 years ago? Last I checked, the New Deal and GI bill created the vast middle class of the 20th century, and the decline of the middle class since then has pretty closely matched up with the rise in moral absolutism that you represent.

Winnow,

Always hearing that it was the New Deal and the GI Bill which created the middle class - thing is, America has always been a middle class nation. My great-grandfather was middle class - and he was the son of an illiterate Irish peasant...and, nope, not a whiff of New Deal or GI Bill back there in the 1880's and 1890's when he rose up into the middle class (eventually into the upper middle class as a Justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court - amazing how America works, huh?).

No,Winnow,what made the American middle class so large and predominant - first noted in a serious way by Toqueville waaay the heck back there in pre-Civil War days - were the factors of a low population density (fewer workers therefor able to demand and receive higher wages), a willingness to apply new technology (once again, scarce labor made America early on willing to employ mechanical replacements for human muscle-power) and a Christian ethic which strongly emphasised family, frugality and sobriety.

What you're thinking off is an odd bit of happensenstance: a huge influx of low skilled immigrants who, therefor, could not easily bargain for higher wages capped off by a First World War which ate up wealth even faster than it ate up lives, and which left a gigantic hole in consumption which peaked, wouldn't you know it, about ten years after the war ended...just in time to be the real trigger of the Great Depression.

What was a really bad economic time was made worse first by bone-headed GOPers who passed high tarrifs (essentially a tax upon wealth creation at a time when wealth creation was the only way out), then by bone-headed New Dealers who supposed that you could command the Depression to end. What really got us out of it, of course, was the fact that after WWII we had literally blown our strongest economic competitors to pieces and this left the world open to the only nation still capable of producing masses of consumer goods quickly and cheaply - the United States. This, coupled with a an unforseen boom in population due to increased food supplies and better preventative medical care compensated for the massive loss of life and wealth during the Second World War.

And, of course, no one disputes that people had pornography and illicit sex prior to the modern time - but it took modern liberals so say that it was a positive moral good to have pornography and illicit sex. Humans are wicked, as we all know, but only a liberal could think you'd get better humans by encouraging bad behaviour.

"Those wielding power in Washington right now are not doing so by appealing to the public with soliloquies of the "unitary executive" or other tenets of neo-conservatism - they are relying on token social issues such as gay marriage and abortion."

Preservation of family values and sanctity of life (innocent life) are conservative values.

Complaining that Republicans are relying on token social issues such as gay marriage and abortion is simply hyperbole. The left uses it to assert that Christians shouldn't vote based on religious beliefs (ya know, there's seperation of church and state), and barring that working they say that these are only "token social issues" or "wedge issues".

If that is the case, why do the liberals fight tooth and nail whenever those topics are brought up. If they are token issues for us, they are token issues for you too. Funny, I don't see that happening.