[Overpaid Slacker]

A few responses to a few random posts ...

First, I'm not a particularly religious person, and much of what I believe would rankle those people frequently painted with the "religious right" brush. However, to speak of their "ascension" or having "gained power" is to turn the situation on its head.

The political and sociological history of this country, in large part, has been founded in judeo-christian belief. Most of these people who you'd dismiss as "religious right" aren't the newcomers to the party, you and your secular ideas are.

These "personal liberties" of abortion and gay marriage were not personal liberties until the "religion" of this country loosened enough for these issues to become part of a national discourse. Were these "personal liberties" in the 1920's or 1930's? No. It's not that discourse and toleration of these issues is a bad thing, but it's not as though some paleolithic "right-wing religious nut" just jumped out of the ground and opposed it, either; rather, he represents the position much closer to the historical (and perhaps) current political mean.

It's not an ascension of the religious "right", therefore, it's that they're not going away fast enough... they're not compromising their principles quickly or sufficiently enough to please the secularists.

To the extent that they promote their ideas to the "exclusion of other peoples [sic] civil rights", it may be because such "civil rights" aren't civil rights. Murder of a fetus -- civil right? Well, if you believe it's murder, it's not a civil right. Gay marriage -- civil right? Well, gay unions may be one thing, but the Sacrament of Marriage is another.

Some Leftoids decry an indigenous culture's loss of its identity when new/foreign elements are introduced. Preservation of two millenia of culture and ethos -- which were a pillar of this country's founding -- is somehow not lamentable, but instead contemptible, when the Left disagrees with the parties at issue.

Separation of church and state has also been twisted to mean what it was not meant to mean -- freedom from forced, governmental religion, not freedom from mention or influence of religion in personal, social and/or political life.

Neoconservatism began as an exercise more in economic policy than foreign relations; though the former certainly affects the latter. Many of the early (late 50/early 60's) "neoconservatives" were indeed Liberals who had been mugged by reality.

JP