If that's the take away, lobbying must seem like a Dan Brown novel.

The author does seem to have a conspiratorial edge to her writings.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Good-News-.../dp/1586488430

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/074328..._dp_mdsc?dsc=1

Seems to be par for the course. It's what one would expect at the bottom of the slippery slope of divergent paradigms.

As far as conspiracies go, there isn't one. It's lobbying and movements simple as can be. One has a goal and various methods to get there, be it the business interests in climate change (deny climate change and then claim it can't be stopped), the struggle between local politicians and power players and the Federal government (States rights), pro life (fetal personhood and pain threshold), atheist lobbying (lawsuits claiming 1st amendment violations) , etc. No need to imagine intergenerational cloak and dagger conspiracies to imagine how these lobbies came up with the strategies, that's what conferences, think tanks, publications, etc are for.

Just to be clear, are you equating what is happening at the Supreme Court level with "lobbying"? In the US, lobbying is understood to happen at the level of Congress. It's one thing to say that a lobby has won something as a result of a court ruling, it's quite another to say that the court was lobbied.

No, lobbying in the colloquial sense. Pushing lawsuits to attempt to get the legal precident changed, writing amicus briefs, etc. In a wider context of social movements, groups try and get their ideas into the legal millieu to be drawn upon.

Anyways it's a bit of a derail. Just because a judicial decision fits a groups "agenda" (most big ones do in some way or another) doesn't invalidate it on its merits.

We can find religion supremacists on the record about destroying public schools dating back years. When I say destroy I mean destroy the part that makes them public. This is done by forcing the teaching of their doctrines and practices, either overtly or implied, as being supreme; thus marginalizing the rest of the public.

This isn't really a conspiracy of the usual sort, more a reflection of supremacists successfully asserting dogmatic interpretations of supremacy from influential place and people accepting them. Follow me and you will rule over all is quite the mighty appeal to vanity.

I don't doubt this at all. You can find people on the record saying all sorts of things.

But do you think that this particular ruling (or any specific ruling about prayer) is connected in any form to such persons or such a movement?

Sure. A religious doctrine cannot by itself change the world without people in groups to support it. Any denomination, group, or individual that holds supremacy over everyone else as a dogmatic interpretation of their doctrine lends to the appeal to tradition found in the kind of rulings at keep sectarian prayer on the public podium in halls of power.

cliffs: The religious right is nothing new.

I don't really see this as being an argument based on anything specifically tied to anything, but that's okay.

Well, is an Alabama Supreme Court Justice's opinion a suitable authority to cite as presence of this mindset in society? I could just cite the rightwing watch website. The SLPC has a bunch of supremacist protesting in front of their offices today! Any case that can be typified as "more specific religion in government" generally has these peoples' support.

We have had religion supremacists probably as long as we have had religion. Escaping supremacy and having the freedom of mutual supremacy are among the motives behind the colonization of the New World and the founding of the United States. So this is not really new just keeps updating as the centuries and decades pass.

In my view this mindset has always been a point of spiritual weakness for organizations as well individuals. This is why people like Roy Moore are freaking out and asserting only Christians have rights. They really have no power to stop different ideas and interpretations, so people have a choice based on the quality ideas, rather than out of a sense of obligation to authority. This threatens their sense of supremacy and leads them to grasp for power.

But this isn't the question I asked. I can set up a soapbox in the middle of the desert and yell about how income inequality is an important issue. Anything that can be typified as "movement towards income equality" would have my support. But that doesn't really tie my soapbox to the events that occur in the larger system.

I don't claim that religious perspectives have NOT (edit) had an influence. The question is whether this influence is somehow different from other influences. If it's all just different versions of the same thing, ie "A political perspective cannot by itself change the world without people in groups to support it," then I don't really see how you're saying something meaningful.

The question is obvious. Religion supremacy is it's own distinct thing, with it's own distinct ideas and networks of people and organizations working to make it happen. Take whatever meaning from what I say that you wish.

Do you know much about The Good News Club? It would seem to match that tone, conspiracy, rather well (the main charge against the group is that of deception).

What if you changed your soapbox message to, oh I don't know, "traditional marriage". Anything that supported one man and one woman would have your support too. But the only significant direction that support is coming from is from a well funded network of other people on soapboxes with the same message as you.

More importantly, it's less about the particular message you might be hearing on any particular day, but about inserting the underlying ideology (or here, an extreme theology) into government itself. You don't need people on soapboxes when you have those people in government.

I don't know what happened to freteloo but he didn't seem to understand the extent of influence from the religious right in the USA, but I'm curious what your view is (I don't you support, but you still may have a different perspective on their degree of influence, compared to someone on the totally opposite side).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5296409.html

Anybody not see this coming?

I'm a little confused. The idea of a soapbox is a literal box that I set up on a corner and start staying whatever I want and hope people hear me. If I changed my soapbox message to that, there's no real expectation that suddenly I'm getting funded by anyone.

Okay. But now I have no idea where this conversation is.

I certainly think that the religious right has an influence, but I don't think that influence is nearly as strong as it was in the 1980s-2000s. This doesn't mean that the influence is gone. The religious right has become increasingly disjointed as the next generation of young religious folks have come to the table. They're not the voting bloc that they used to be.

This is actually a good point. You could say the same about the far left.

But this, either needs some clarification for it to apply to reality. You think the religious right is splitting its vote? That doesn't seem to be in accordance with reality.

If you mean that the religious young are a bit less right-leaning, I don't know. I'd like to see more on that if you have data.

If you mean that the religious right and the libertarian right have a rift, that would make a bit of sense. Seems to apply more to the 1992-1996 period though than today.

No, the religious right is not splitting the vote.

My understanding comes from my experience of interacting with religious people who are around my age and slightly younger. It's hard to get straight data on this because of the categories that are used in most national surveys. Here's the best that I can get without spending real time digging around:

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/02/17/r...e-millennials/

It's not so much that there's a rift, but there's no leader for the religious right. Pat Robertson doesn't have the influence he used to have. James Dobson doesn't have it. Jerry Falwell... well... he's dead. The lack of leadership to drive the ship in a singular direction is creating the disjointedness. So don't take that disjointedness as conflict. Think of it more as a lack of focus.

This is what the christians pulling for this outcome essentially wanted right? The chancefor everybody to be able to express their views in prayer before council meetings (as long as the number of people exercising this right remains 98% Christian)

Anecdotal evidence is fine. I often wonder what ever happened to the religious left... As someone who has actually read the bible, it seems more in tune with it.

I always thought that Robertson and Falwell were trying to run Christianity off a cliff. Of course, I was brought up mainline protestant, not evangelical protestant.

I gave an example of an unintended consequence. For some reason the Christian right seems to be incapable of seeing the inevitable mocking and aping that will occur.

I always liked the real old time religion of William Jennings Bryan. The following is just a teaser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan

William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was a leading American politician from the 1890s until his death. He was a dominant force in the populist wing of the Democratic Party, standing three times as the Party's candidate for President of the United States (1896, 1900 and 1908). He served two terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Nebraska and was the United States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1915), resigning because of his pacifist position on the World War. Bryan was a devout Presbyterian, a strong advocate of popular democracy, and an enemy of the banks and their gold standard. He demanded "Free Silver" (because it reduced power attributed to money and put more money in the hands of the people). He was a peace advocate, a prohibitionist, and an opponent of Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds. With his deep, commanding voice and wide travels, he was one of the best known orators and lecturers of the era. Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, he was called "The Great Commoner."
*******************************
The new fangled dudes just can't cut it up like Bryan. And Billy was a Democrat - just so much smarter than those Republican Reptiles.

_______________________________________

We need more prayer. Everywhere. I believe that dilution is the best solution. Of course Jesus said otherwise and regarded prayer a solitary and personal thing, and practiced what he preached.



Matthew 6: v 5 & 6 ESV

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Mark 1:35 ESV

And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he [Jesus] departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed.

lol i wonder whether the guy's free silver bit makes him a libertarian hero today or villian cause of switching the dems to the FRD style liberalism


edit: oops nope free silver is not what you might think it is. Its a pretty huge trick to inflate the money supply artificially, the libertarians would hate it. A better term would be "chained silver".