Conservative Heritage Times

This is Chuck Baldwin’s latest. It actually died before Rev. Falwell passed away in my opinion.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070530.html

| | | | | |

4 Comments »

4 Responses to “Did the “religious right” die with Jerry Falwell?”

1. RedPhillips on 30 May 2007 at 10:01 pm #

   This is brilliant. I was just about to post it myself. The reason I like Baldwin is because he gets the religious right and is respectful of it. He is an Independent Baptist Preacher.

   Too many libertarians simply dismiss it as authoritarian, but Christians are first and foremost under an obligation to conform their thoughts and actions to the Bible, not some political philosophy.

   Too many paleos dismiss it because they do not like the Evangelical theology that drives it, especially the dispensationalism that they think causes excessive sympathy for Israel.

   But the religious right is neither authoritarian nor mindless. It is actually reactionary. It is not trying to perfect men using the State or stamp out sin. It is trying to preserve a traditional culture that was more sympathetic to Christianity against a liberal, secular modernity that is assaulting it.

   The RR has MANY flaws. It is too beholden to the GOP. It is too eager to support war. It is too forgiving of flaws in Christian candidates. (Bush I and Bush II for example.) It is too easily rolled. It is often shallow in its thought. etc. etc.

   But it is one thing that so many other elements of the conservative coalition aren’t. It ultimately really is trying to conserve something. Other than self-identified paleos/traditionalists and Constitutionalists, what other group can you say that of?

   There will be no conservative alternative to the current movement that does not include the RR.

   Patroon I think the RR still exists, but it is a less palpable entity. It lost its true identity when it became just another faction of the GOP.

2. ERIC on 30 May 2007 at 10:09 pm #

   Here are the most important and truthfull sentences.

   “Republicans after Reagan quickly used their considerable power and influence to bribe and bully the Religious Right. And the Religious Right did as so many battered spouses do; she took the abuse with little more than a whimper, which served only to encourage the bullies within the GOP machine.”

   “It has been money, not principles, that has always been at the heart of Republican and Democratic politics. Republicans have historically been the puppets of big-business, while Democrats have been the puppets of big-labor.”

   “Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority is very much alive and well–and waiting.”

   As a Calvinist, I agree with the white evangelicals/Falwell’s moral majority almost 100% of the time (racial/ethnic theology is only where I disagree), conservative Christians are alive and well but are fed up with so-called conservative politicians lying to and turning their backs on conservative Christians.
   Romney is a great example of what I just said.

3. Harold Crews on 30 May 2007 at 10:15 pm #

   It has been commented in several different places that the evangelical religous right (err) is undergoing a period of transition. That issues such as enviromentalism are becoming of secondary importance if not to the fore front in the rising leadership. Further homosexual rights are gaining wider acceptance in the err. Part of the reason is that a large part of the impetus of evangelical theology is culturally driven. The old guard that is fading away reached maturity during a period that traditional Christian morality still held wide sway in the broader culture. But unfortunately the rising leadership reached maturity during a period of moral revolution and upheaval. Whether this means that the err will whither away or become a mere adjunct of the Republican Party I would not venture a guess.

4. Patroon on 31 May 2007 at 3:05 pm #

   “But the religious right is neither authoritarian nor mindless. It is actually reactionary. It is not trying to perfect men using the State or stamp out sin. It is trying to preserve a traditional culture that was more sympathetic to Christianity against a liberal, secular modernity that is assaulting it.”

   You mean WAS reactionary. That was true when it first started had they remained a reactionary “leave us alone” movement, then politically they would be more viable and the conservative movement not a wreck. Unfortunately politics went straight to their heads and pretty soon we got unquestioning support for Israel, unquestioning support for the War in Iraq, faith-based government welfare programs and Mary Schaivo.

   Falwell’s influence had actually been declining for years. The last real influential political thing he did that made a difference was endorse George Bush I in 1988. Other than pedding Clinton conspiracy tapes in the 1990s, Falwell hadn’t been doing much on the political scene and to be fair for good reason, he had a university and church to run. That created a vacumn that allowed others emerge like Pat Robertson/Ralph Reed “Christian Coalition,” James Dobson/Gary Bauer “Focus on the Family” group, John Hagee/Tim LeHay/Hal Lindsey and the Dispensationalists who weren’t as politically savy or skilled as Falwell was and wound up embarassing themselves and the movement through their antics. Even Falwell himself got caught up in such hijinks when he took over the PTL ministry. He should have stayed away from it with 10-foot pole.

   So to answer Chuck Baldwin’s question, yes the movement is in decline but it presages Falwell’s death. Let’s face it, the fact that no GOP candidate running for president nor anyone connected with the White House showed up for his funeral is pretty telling. Not only that, but the younger generation of evangelicals like Rick Warren for example, seeing how politically limited the gains were from all the activism from the past 30 years, are going in different directions or working on different issues (like the environment). The Southern Baptists Richard Land is the only evangelical left with any credibility in GOP circles but he’s not a major figure.

   There’s a reason why Rudy Guliani has a lot of support in the party right now because there is a faction that wishes to be rid of the abortion issue altogether or downplay it.

   Do I think that any new conservative movement needs the religious right? First of all I do not like the term “religious right”, because it is a secular media term that’s a misnomer to begin with. If one’s religion or religious beliefs influenced or identified their poltiical thinking then almost all conservatives would be given the label “religious right”, so it is a meaningless term. Secondly, yes religious voters will be a part of any new political movments but only as a voting bloc of conservative, land-owning, working, community establishment citizens. Not as a special interest group looking to get goodies from Washington or the state capital, looking to influence policy or pick candidates with litmus tests. Thirdly, what would consitute a new conservative movement would have to be religiously conservative in sense of order, decorum and tradition. Snake handlers, heretics (i.e. dispensationalists) and mega-church coffee and gift shop devotee need not apply. This would then allow for a broad mass of voters from different demominations like the Orthodox, Catholics, traditional Protestants, Mormons, even Hasidic Jews for example, anyone who’s religion defines and identifies their community. This was true at first but unfortunately the Fundamentalists and Pentacostals allowed their doctrines to define the movment (creationism and dispensationalism for example) and thus very few wanted to associate themselves with them after a while. That’s why many GOP politicos didn’t show up at Falwell’s funeral, because they think what he stood for and represented is poisonous now to many U.S. voters and to a certain extent that’s true. Fundementalists and Pentacostals are going to pay for their support of the war and Israel and creationism down the road the same way Anglicanism was hurt in Great Britian for its strong support of World War I and Rule Britannia to which it has never recovered.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply