George Bush has revelation

[Durgan]

If you can't beat them, then join them.

Durgan.

The awakening

"President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening"

The White House did not release a transcript of Bush's remarks, but National Review posted highlights on its Web site.

[margrace]

If you can't beat them, then join them.

Durgan.

The awakening

"President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening"

The White House did not release a transcript of Bush's remarks, but National Review posted highlights on its Web site.

Some interesting statements.

" If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will become accustomed to believing it" Natzi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbals

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, kinda catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush

[kimmy]

If you can't beat them, then join them.

Durgan.

The awakening

"President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening"

The White House did not release a transcript of Bush's remarks, but National Review posted highlights on its Web site.

(why use a gigantic font size for your message when people have requested that you quit it? do you think your thoughts will be clearer if you write bigger? are you just such a special snowflake that you have to write differently from everybody else? Try distinguishing yourself with your ideas, rather than your font.)

Bush's statement is about as far opposite of "if you can't beat them, join them" as you can get.

The "Great Awakenings" refers to historical periods of religious activism in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening mentions three "Great Awakenings" that occured during 1730-1740, 1820-1830, and 1880-1900.

The book the article mentions, "The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism," by Robert Fogel, has a slightly different take on things: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/256626.html

He contends that a Fourth Great Awakening is already underway.

His summary of the "revival" phase of this awakening:

1960-?: Return to sensuous religion and reassertion of experiential content of the Bible; rapid growth of the enthusiastic religions (including fundamentalist, Pentacostal, and Protestant charismatic denominations, "born-again" Catholics, Mormons); reassertion of concept of personal sin; stress on an ethic of individual responsibility, hard work, a simple life, and dedication to family.

His summary of the resulting political effects:

1990-?: Attack on materialist corruption; rise of pro-life, pro-family, and media reform movements; campaign for more value-oriented school curriculum; expansion of tax revolt; attack on entitlements; return to a belief in equality of opportunity.

So... does anybody disagree?

His description has some obvious euphemisms (backlash against gay rights and single parents would be a better description than pro-family, and backlash against affirmative action would be more apt than "return to a belief in equality of opportunity") but other than that I think his description of the current political trend in the United States seems fairly accurate.

Conservative Christians in the United States have been throwing their weight around more and more during the past decade, and I think that if Dubya has made a mistake in predicting a new "great awakening", his mistake is only that he's about 10 years too late.

-k

[jdobbin]

Conservative Christians in the United States have been throwing their weight around more and more during the past decade, and I think that if Dubya has made a mistake in predicting a new "great awakening", his mistake is only that he's about 10 years too late.

There was another story about Christian environmentalists this week in the news. Another sign of the Great Awakening?

[kimmy]

There was another story about Christian environmentalists this week in the news. Another sign of the Great Awakening?

I didn't hear about that, but I'm a little skeptical that we're talking about the same kind of Awakening. Of all the characteristics of the rising political clout of US Christians, environmental concern doesn't seem to rate as much of a priority.

I think some people would consider the term "awakening" as a bit of a misnomer. To me, the idea of a "Christian Awakening" evokes the same response as when someone asked Gandhi what he thought about "Western Civilization."

What's actually been awoken? A cranky, surly giant that is going to stomp around and break stuff before it goes away.

-k

[geoffrey]

Some interesting statements.

" If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will become accustomed to believing it" Natzi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbals

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, kinda catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush

Hmm margrace, you can do better than that.

George Bush is also quoted in saying "God bless," which assumably Jesus did. Is he Jesus too?

[GostHacked]

Some interesting statements.

" If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will become accustomed to believing it" Natzi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbals

"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, kinda catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush

Hmm margrace, you can do better than that.

George Bush is also quoted in saying "God bless," which assumably Jesus did. Is he Jesus too?

Actually margrace did a great comparison there. The similarities are the same. You can compare the 'modern American democray' as facist in more than one way.

With us or against us.

Trust your governmet. ALL the time.

Different views? You must not be a patriot.

We can't tell you the reasons we think it is the right course of action, but again trust us.

As time goes on, the actions of the Bush Administration seem to bring us down the road of Facism. It may not have been easily seen at first, but 9/11 changed everything. Government wants more control (DHS, integrating local, state and fedeal law enforcement, NSA wiretapping) over everything the average American does. Phone, Internet and any communications in general are being monitored for terrorist activity. And now the rhetoric of 'the terrorists that are here at home...' tred dangerous waters.

The religious right must have a big role in this. Bush found religion again in his life and really patrons the religious right. Revisiting things like Roe Vs Wade and the possible reversal of this ruling will change how other things are handles. You can expect other major rulings to be revisited.

[jdobbin]

I didn't hear about that, but I'm a little skeptical that we're talking about the same kind of Awakening. Of all the characteristics of the rising political clout of US Christians, environmental concern doesn't seem to rate as much of a priority.

I think some people would consider the term "awakening" as a bit of a misnomer. To me, the idea of a "Christian Awakening" evokes the same response as when someone asked Gandhi what he thought about "Western Civilization."

That's how some Christians categorize their environmental activism, as part of the "awakening."

[kimmy]

That's how some Christians categorize their environmental activism, as part of the "awakening."

I dunno, I'm not really convinced. The term "Great Awakenings" seems to be used to refer to large social trends where increased religious activism caused shifts in the direction of social policy in the US.

There are probably a lot of trends you could look at to argue that such an "awakening" is occuring right now in the US. You could look at the last election, where "values voters" was the catchphrase of the election. The Democrats sensed the Christian vote was critical and made sure to present Kerry as a devout man; photo-ops of him attending church were as prominent as him duck-hunting or doing other "manly" stuff. And it wasn't enough; the Democrats' traditional support among black and hispanic voters largely went to the Republicans because the black and hispanic voters have a larger Christian conservative viewpoint than the general population. Black Dog has noted some polls on a general theme: Americans are getting dumber. There's an appearance that science is under attack in the US, both from the administration and from the populace at large-- increasing support and legal momentum behind "intelligent design" theories, increasing opposition to stem cell research and scientific theories on everything from the environment to fossil fuels to the formation of the universe. One could look at the Terri Schiavo fracas, where polls indicated that large numbers of Americans rejected medical fact in favor of faith-based fantasy drivel. One could look at popular culture, movies and television, to see increased fear of programming that's risque; the firestorm from Janet Jackson's dreaded nipple is probably the most notable popular culture event of the decade to this point. I think there are probably lots of areas in which one could look and see evidence to support the theory that Christians are throwing their weight around in the US, and one might anticipate that there'll be increasing political support behind conservative causes as a result.

In the US, it seems as though conservative Christians are getting pushy, and generally speaking, they're pushing in ways that you'd expect. And I believe that this religious-inspired political shift is what the historian is looking at when he speaks about the prior "Great Awakenings" in American history.

I don't see that environmental consciousness is a prominent characteristic of what the increased Christian political activity in the US is pushing towards. I'd suggest that among this movement, the primary thought on environmental issues is still the old "go forth and have dominion over the seas and the lands and the air" stuff, right from Genesis. By and large environmentalism is seen as a "liberal" issue or a "new age" value among the people that constitute the present supposed "Great Awakening".

-k

[August1991]

Actually margrace did a great comparison there. The similarities are the same. You can compare the 'modern American democray' as facist in more than one way.

Bush will not be president in 2009. The American people will elect a new president. You lose all credibility when you compare Bush to a fascist dictator.

The term "Great Awakenings" seems to be used to refer to large social trends where increased religious activism caused shifts in the direction of social policy in the US.

...blah, blah, social analytical blah...

Black Dog has noted some polls on a general theme: Americans are getting dumber. There's an appearance that science is under attack in the US, both from the administration and from the populace at large--

....more blah this, blah that...

One could look at popular culture, movies and television, to see increased fear of programming that's risque; the firestorm from Janet Jackson's dreaded nipple is probably the most notable popular culture event of the decade to this point....

As far back as I can remember, American so-called intellectuals have been discovering new trends or new awakenings or new grand changes - all opening a new era of some sort or another. It's no different than the latest pyschological self-help relation book that fill American bookstores. Dale Carnegie, Allan Bloom, Charles Reich, Dr. Phil. Same diff.

Are Americans getting dumber? Well, BD would say that wouldn't he. But on balance I'd say he's wrong. Americans are better educated than at any time in their history.

I'd even say that Americans are far less religious than 50 years ago or certainly 100 years ago. In 1900, church and religion played a central role in all people's lives. That is not the case today.

Always keep in mind that the US is largely a protestant country - about 20% of Americans are Catholic. That's not the case in Canada or even in English-Canada. It's one of the differences between the two countries.

Janet Jackson's nipple? Gimme a break.

[jdobbin]

I don't see that environmental consciousness is a prominent characteristic of what the increased Christian political activity in the US is pushing towards. I'd suggest that among this movement, the primary thought on environmental issues is still the old "go forth and have dominion over the seas and the lands and the air" stuff, right from Genesis. By and large environmentalism is seen as a "liberal" issue or a "new age" value among the people that constitute the present supposed "Great Awakening".

I'm not a Christian nor an American so can't attest to the fact that this happening but old time leaders of the evagelical movement seem to be knocking heads with the new evangelical right.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06260/722525-85.stm

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/c...1&cset=true

http://www.readingeagle.com/re/john_smith/15413426.asp

So am I wrong that there is a new turn by new evangelicals? These are all articles from the last week.

[Remiel]

I don't believe that you necessarily have to have a single fascist dictator for to be moving towards a dangerous fascist regime. A different Republican could easily continue the same trends, especially when on the surface, it doesn't seem like ol' Bush Jr. is actually forumlating most, or even any real policy decisions. A different president being run by the same machine would still qualify as fascism, and in that sense I don't think it is correct to dismiss the theory because Bush can't be re-elected.

Besides, there is still more than two years for them to manufacture a reason for him to remain. Not that I think he will, for the above reasons, but it could conceivably happen, especially if the US economy tanks.

[Black Dog]

Are Americans getting dumber? Well, BD would say that wouldn't he. But on balance I'd say he's wrong. Americans are better educated than at any time in their history.

Well, that all depends on what your measuring against. If you're comparing an average american in 2006 versus the average AMerican in 1906, there's littlr question about what the results would be. But if you compare the U.S. to Europe, you'd see the U.S. spends more on education, but gets worse results than any other industrial nation. American children consistently underperform their European peers in both literacy and numeracy.

But that's education. One can be educated and still be dumb.

[kimmy]

I'm not a Christian nor an American so can't attest to the fact that this happening but old time leaders of the evagelical movement seem to be knocking heads with the new evangelical right.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06260/722525-85.stm

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/c...1&cset=true

http://www.readingeagle.com/re/john_smith/15413426.asp

So am I wrong that there is a new turn by new evangelicals? These are all articles from the last week.

I wouldn't know either... but I don't see much evidence that this allegedly progressive group within the religious political activists constitutes anything other than a fringe. Two of your articles indicate that while some in the movement view the environment as a higher priority, the leadership wishes to remain focused on their "core issues", which doesn't include the environment. The third, the LA Times article, seems to suggest that the driving force behind embracing a broader range of causes than the traditional "core issues" is younger Christians... but from experience we can expect that a movement dependant on the political activism of young people is likely to fail, due to apathy.

It's late September 2006, which means that in 2 years US election campaign hijinx will be in high gear. I boldly predict that at that time, the term "values voters" will be as popular as it was 2 years ago, if not moreso. And I boldly predict that the values that the "values voters" are lining up behind are the same "core issues" (ie, fags, abortions) that Dr Dobson and friends care about, not Christian stewardship of the environment or Christian care of the less fortunate or any of the other broader goals that the younger Christian leaders wish to be part of the agenda.

-k

[kimmy]

The term "Great Awakenings" seems to be used to refer to large social trends where increased religious activism caused shifts in the direction of social policy in the US.

...blah, blah, social analytical blah...

As far back as I can remember, American so-called intellectuals have been discovering new trends or new awakenings or new grand changes - all opening a new era of some sort or another. It's no different than the latest pyschological self-help relation book that fill American bookstores. Dale Carnegie, Allan Bloom, Charles Reich, Dr. Phil. Same diff.

The contention isn't that a "new era" is beginning.

The contention is that there are 3 periods in American history that can be characterized as having prominent religious activism in US politics, with identifiable effect on legislation.

This Robert Fogel fellow contends that we are currently in a fourth such period.

I'd even say that Americans are far less religious than 50 years ago or certainly 100 years ago. In 1900, church and religion played a central role in all people's lives. That is not the case today.

But the theory of these "great awakenings" isn't concerned with how much time people spend with their Bibles or at church socials. It seems to be concerned only with how much influence organized religion has on political process.

Always keep in mind that the US is largely a protestant country - about 20% of Americans are Catholic. That's not the case in Canada or even in English-Canada. It's one of the differences between the two countries.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but why does that matter? This is a discussion of US politics and religious activism, not Canadian. And in the US, the driving force behind the "religious right" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Catholicism.

Fogel refers to "the rapid growth of the enthusiastic religions (including fundamentalist, Pentacostal, and Protestant charismatic denominations, "born-again" Catholics, Mormons)". (is "enthusiastic" being used as a euphemism for "evangelical"?)

I don't have any up to date statistics on which denominations are growing and which are not, but I do recall that our departed friend Eureka lectured me that the pentacostals were growing faster than other Christian denominations, and in fact, faster than any other religion period.

One could look at popular culture, movies and television, to see increased fear of programming that's risque; the firestorm from Janet Jackson's dreaded nipple is probably the most notable popular culture event of the decade to this point....

Janet Jackson's nipple? Gimme a break.

I'm actually pretty serious. The nipple itself was of no consequence, but the resulting fallout had implications for all broadcasters in the United States. The "nipple" incident resulted in an unprecidented response from angry viewers, resulting in action by legislators and by the FCC. In response to the incident, the FCC became far more aggressive in dishing out fines for "obscenity" and far stricter in interpretting what "obscenity" actually means. And the government drastically increased the severity of fines that could be imposed on broadcasters. The result has been self-censorship by networks, and self-censorship by producers and writers who now realize that they won't be able to sell shows that are controversial or contain anything that red-state cranks might get upset about.

And the massive angry viewer response to the "nipple incident" was largely the result of an organized campaign led by the same religious leaders who likewise try to influence policy in other areas.

I believe that the fallout resulting from the "nipple incident" has been influential on the direction of broadcasting in the past couple of years, and I believe it's a good example of religious activists influencing public policy.

-k

[August1991]

The contention isn't that a "new era" is beginning.

The contention is that there are 3 periods in American history that can be characterized as having prominent religious activism in US politics, with identifiable effect on legislation.

This Robert Fogel fellow contends that we are currently in a fourth such period.

In his book, Robert Fogel contends that religious movements in the past have ushered in major progressive social changes such as abolition of slavery, protection of workers' rights and welfare. It is ironic that Bush Jnr would respond to the idea of another such "progressive" social change.

Quite apart from his grand theory explaining the sweeping movement of history, Fogel is also of that ilk (common in the 1950s) who believe in the perfectibility of man. Fogel may have won a Nobel Prize in economics (for his pionering work in using data analysis in studying history) but I find "wave theories" of history vaguely Marxist and ultimately arbitrary. The idea is fine in Broadway musicals (This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius... ) but otherwise I'll have none of it.

BTW, Fogel's major contribution was a statistical survey of US slavery arne riving at the general conclusion that slaves had a pretty good life. Fogel himself appears to be a Henry Wallace type Democrat.

Always keep in mind that the US is largely a protestant country - about 20% of Americans are Catholic. That's not the case in Canada or even in English-Canada. It's one of the differences between the two countries.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but why does that matter? This is a discussion of US politics and religious activism, not Canadian. And in the US, the driving force behind the "religious right" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Catholicism.

It matters because the US was founded by puritans and the US has always had a strong streak of protestantism. Kennedy was the only Catholic ever elected president. All of the others have been protestant. In Canada, Harper is the first protestant since Pearson.

As a result, we approach moral issues differently. Catholics have always had a sense that protestants were confusing sects following strange practices. The Washington Post article, and comments to this thread, had that same sense of foreboding. To a Catholic ear, the word "evangelical" has the sound of apostasy.

Most Americans are protestant prudes, with all the hypocrisy that implies. So what?

Janet Jackson's nipple? Gimme a break.

I'm actually pretty serious. The nipple itself was of no consequence, but the resulting fallout had implications for all broadcasters in the United States. The "nipple" incident resulted in an unprecidented response from angry viewers, resulting in action by legislators and by the FCC.

In 1919, the Women's Christian Temperance Movement managed to get a US constitutional amendment passed forbidding the sale of alcohol. If this current crew of holy rollers is only worried about nipples on TV or making sure gays can't marry, then I'd say they're a pale imitation of their former self.