Talk:Fascistic Christianity

Seems like good balance

After all, a page about Islamic fascism exists; and these terms are used on opposite sides of the same argument. I think they are both BS; but so long as one exists, so should the other. Weirdoactor 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this started as a legitimate issue. It was supposedly moved to neofascism but now has been reverted to a totally POV article. I am reverting to August, where factual information regrading christian fascists is made clear and opinion, political and editorial uses are so labelled. If you want to know about christian fascism research at the southern law poverty center or something. If you want to list arguments that try to link right wing christianity to fascism do so. There is a categorical difference between them. Mrdthree 03:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is one big POV, and should be deleted. Itake 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, and it shouldn't. Maybe you don't agree with the term "Christian fascism", or perhaps your own POV does not allow you see that others might find fault with the more extreme elements of Christianity. That doesn't mean that such elements don't exist. I don't like the word "trousers", but I find myself able to allow others to use the word, and discuss the issues surrounding trousers. Open your mind to the fact that there are those who disagree with you, and relax. Weirdoactor 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be retarded, don't compare trousers to "Christian Fascism". You don't disprove the fact, this entire article is one big POV and therefore should be deleted. Itake 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have an imaginary friend who rules your life, and *I'M* retarded? Heal thyself, you sad sack. Weirdoactor 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious: 84%. Non Religious: 16%. Pwned by the majority, you sad sack. Itake 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you currently being treated for your disease? Weirdoactor 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't speak minorityish. Itake 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are sorry. Weirdoactor 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just hyperbolic language?

The article seems to be using the term fascist a bit free-handedly. Not only is this not an article on an actual doctrine or movement, but market forces aren't free in a Fascist state. There may be an argument for an increasing amount of Patriotism in America, but no Fascism.

Patriotism? Or jingoism? In a country where having a magnetic ribbon on your car automatically makes you "patriotic", but dissent is discouraged (and even punished)...I'm thinking that jingoism is more accurate.Weirdoactor 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD

On May 10, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep (no consensus). See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christian fascism for a record of the discussion. Note that a kept article may still be merged or redirected; I am neither bold enough nor knowledgeable enough to make such a move myself. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite

There is material on both sides of this issue that can be cited to published text. That would make for a better article. But the version I have just edited was largely an incoherent collection of thoughts in which the ideas of fascism and Christianity had some sort of collision. I am sorry to be harsh, but most of the material I deleted is covered on existing pages on Wikipedia in much more detail and with better sourcing. The discussion of interwar relationships between Fascism/Nazism and Christianity does not belong here, and has been deleted. I have added links to the proper existing pages. If folks want to expand this page, proponents of the concept of Christian fascism can find cites in articles by Katherine Yurica, Carl Davidson, and David Neiwert. Opponents can find cites in the Washington Times, more quotes from the National Review article, etc. --Cberlet 03:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirect

I have created an overview page Neofascism_and_religion and am proposing that this page be redirected to this larger and more detailed article. --Cberlet 14:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think CBerlet is on the mark here. I think it will help (1) to get this out of the context of a particular religion and (2) to discuss the inappropriate use of epithets like this and (3) to discuss the several cases where adherents of various religions -- Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, possibly others -- have, at times, adopted ideologies that blend neo-fascism and religious sectarianism. There is a better chance of getting this all clear in a more broadly contextualized article than in one like this, which is an almost guaranteed perpetual battleground. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. This is an argument that we are having on Islamofascism. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. Mrdthree 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete, and do not re-direct. Keep as is. Weirdoactor 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. There are too many pages already that just define perjoratives used against Christians. This is not a doctionary. Yakuman 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Christians so afraid of so-called "perjoratives" (sic), that they would deny the right of others to catalog a huge religious movement in US and world politics? If you really want to edit the collected history of Christianity's various wrongs; you'll need to start a couple of thousand years thataway, Yakuman. Weirdoactor 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. My point is there's a bunch of references to various slurs with the same explination. "X" means that this or that Christian group is totalitarian. It is repetitive. I repeat, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Yakuman 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your talk page; it looks like it is *you* who needs to read those entries more than anyone else involved in this discussion. You also might think about installing a spell-checker (iespell.com is free), and/or proof your entries a bit more thoroughly. But I enjoyed the "It is repetitive. I repeat, please read" joke. Well, I'm assuming it was a joke... Weirdoactor 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, what does this personal attack have to do with the topic at hand? Read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you read my talk page, then you know I don't appreciate ad hominem.
Second, when I think of "Christian fascism," I think of the real ones: Charles Maurras, António de Oliveira Salazar, or Generalissimo Francisco Franco. None of these people have anything to do with Jerry Falwell. The Neofascism and religion article is a far more serious attempt to cover this subject. Compare the two articles. Yakuman 06:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arent they 'christian fascists' rather than representative of a christian fascism which seems to be the object of this article. Mrdthree 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Editorial, not suitable for encyclopedia article

Moving this editorial by 70.224.216.208 to Talk for now. --

A Third View

Is there a third view that can be taken on the rise of "Christian Fascism" especially in the United States? Though a precise definition of fascism can be debated, it is true that on the surface Christian Zionism and Kingdom Now theologies are supportive of those who stand strong for God and try to establish Christian states that seek to legislate morality as a way of advancing the Kingdom of God. The Christian Right in America is increasingly composed of members of authoritarian churches. These people are taught form start to finish to trust their leaders to make many decisions on their behalf. This is a distortion of the biblical teaching on spiritual leadership which is much less intrusive and more based upon actual demonstrations of Christian character and demonstrations of God's Spirit through miracles, prophecy and other "gifts of the Spirit." The Biblical model stresses the personal responsibility in discipleship and a respect for all people that has caused some modern groups to opt out of military service and largely break with the established church. A new movement called the Emergent Church is trying to find it's grounding in the informal style of the ministry of Jesus Himself and not in the formulaic approach taken by most denominational churches.

Understanding the strange influence President George W. Bush has over the Christian Right one must look at two factors. The conservative masses have been groomed over many years to see the world as a contrast between those who are in the congregational setting and therefore in the will of God and those who are outside, and not in the will of God. There is a very strong sense that anyone who opposes church doctrine (no matter the real intent of their action) must be an emissary of the devil intent on harming the flock. This tteaching is particularly useful to leaders who enjoy the control their position gives them in the lives of neophytes and sycophants. A mixture of social and psychological problems and distortions of the Bible result in a shutting out of that diversity of experience and teaching which actually promotes tolerance as an outrowth of Christian love and opens the door for communication between groups. Without communication no one has ever heard the gospel. With an atmosphere of fear already tying many far right Christians to their leaders (many of whom are not educated sufficiently, either intellectually or emotionally), an event like 9/11 was easily be magnified into a great rallying cry.

Sadly, with the advent of George W. Bush, the orthodox message that should have been understood by the church [that God was allowing a testing of America because of it's sinfulness or perhaps it's arrogance] was subverted. At least two factors contributed to this subversion. First many American Christians are also followers of the religion of blind consumerism. A false sense of blessing surrounding the luxuries of America caused millions of Christians to keep driving SUV's and advocating oil drilling in ANWAR despite all the best science, and therefore reason, pointing in opposite direction. The fear that was exploited by the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004 was that the Christian beacon of the world might be in danger of losing it's privileges. That these privileges had long been the privileges of capitalist empire and not necessarily obtained by Christian conduct of the United States or it's officers did not affect the listeners. Neither did it matter to those who voted in-fasci by the request of their leaders that the ultimate fruit that their children were being asked to die for (the Promised of American material excess) was sure to be denied to them. On the domestic front energy woes starting pinching corporations in uncomfortable ways. These corporations were the alter egos of elitist friends of the very man who was now pounding the drumbeat for war in Iraq to help stabilize the true breadbasket of America prosperity since WWII. By confusing the Christian base with the help of their leaders and claiming God had told him to invade Iraq, George W. Bush was able effectively to change the entire course of human history by playing on the apocalyptic and fatalistic fears of the masses.

The American electorate in the years 2000-2006 were the victims of the most subtle and diabolical delusion. A man who believed God was telling him to illegally invade foreign nations, enjoyed the full support of those who thought God had placed him in the Presidency precisely to handle 9/11 and the war on terror. This is the current example of emerging Christian fascism. Many suspect, and many are praying, that in the end Christians mindful of the teachings of Jesus will become aware of the deception and support for the Bush administration will waiver.

If, however the President had been able to put in place all of his desired policies, here is a list of the things that would be going on.

1) Americans spying on Americans: This is still happening illegally in the form of the NSA eavesdropping program and certain special agents in the Citizen Corps. Bush had intended just after 9/11 to enlist up to 24% of the population to act as citizen spies to report suspicious activity of any kind. This idea was shot down quickly.

2) Churches and churches leaders completely beholden to the federal government. By identifying strongly with a form of right-wing evangelical faith, Bush was able to blur the lines between church and state. This end had long been desired by many Christian ministers who also began recieving federal tax dollars through faith based initiatives.

3) Prisoners held without charge and torutred without recourse to legal counsel or representation in a court of law, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The ongoing debate about torture and interrogation represents a noble fight by rational Rebuplicans who have understood the real nature of the war on terror, it is a war about fear. Sadly America has suffered a second 9/11 of fear at the hands of George W. Bush.

4) Regime change in Iran, possibly Syria and North Korea. Seymour Hirsch reported faithfully in the spring of 2006 that the Bush Administration was planning an attack on Iran over it's nuclear programme and had sought the use of tactical nuclear weapons. He also informed America that the military is increasingly at odds with the ideological civilian control eminating from the White House.

Because Bush has been supported in just about everything he has intended to do and strongly by Christian Zionists, many in America have grown afraid that Christianity again may be distorted as it once was under Hitler. The offenses of Hitler against the Spirit of truth rose to such a level that many Germans neither knew about nor cared to know the real nature of Hitler's relocation of the Jews. The fears growing in this regard in the United States today are very real, because unlike an isolated terror attack, the acts of a totalitarian fascist state empowered by a distorted cult of personality, based upon service to country above all else, can be far more devistating. And this devastation of fascism (whatever religion it twists to it's own ends) is not limited to those within the blast radius of a car bomb. No, the acts of Hitler and Mussolini will echo down through the ages, horrible reminders of what all men are capable of.

So in this broad way, and because the Bush family has such strong connections to uber-capitalism and secret power elites both in the U.S. and Europe, some brave souls are stating that the Bush Presidency resembles the expected platform of the Antichrist more than Jesus who instructed us to love our enemy. Such considerations caused the late Pope John Paul II to openly wonder whether Mr. Bush might not be the little horn with the big mouth talked about in the Books of Daniel and Revelation.

The Christian Right in America is about to wake up with a very big hangover and a heaping helping of shame. Let us hope that America has the courage to right the ship once more, as it is badly listing and taking on water.

God Bless America.

[1]

-- Please discuss here on Talk before re-adding this to main page. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Term is misleading

Regardless of how one feels about Christian Fundamentalism, the term "christian fascist" can be applied to Neonazi organizations with a self-proclaimed Christian Ideology, but not other movements. Even Dominionists or reconstructionists are not fascists; theocrats would be much more appropriate.

Fascism is a very complex ideology, but most movements labled as Christian fascists lack beliefs in coroporatism, the unequalled power of the state, and the militant nationalism that define fascism.

This term is simply an "argument ad nazium", an attempt to tar a group not by contesting their ideas, but through appeals to emotion. This article should be amended to reflect this.

It should be deleted to reflect that. Itake 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled. Do you think the article should be amended, or deleted? Before, you claimed that your reason for deletion was POV issues...now you claim that the "term" (I'm assuming that you mean the article title) is "misleading"; so you've given up on POV as a reason for deletion? I’ll remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; so the term being "misleading" would not seem to be an issue, or for that matter, grounds for deletion.

As for the “term” itself, it applies to Christians (or those claiming to be Christians, who I imagine to be much like members of Al-Qaeda claiming to be Muslims) who attempt to legislate morality and force all citizens to follow the precepts of their religion. These so-called Christians are using the power of government to subvert the rights and beliefs of others, which is *textbook* fascism; not to mention highly un-Christian.

Can you please tell me the names of these "movements labled (sic) as Christian fascists" you claim "lack beliefs in coroporatism (sic), the unequalled power of the state, and the militant nationalism that define fascism"? I'm very curious.

Finally; I've asked you this in another area; but I'll ask again here: how do you feel about the information in the article being absorbed/redirected into Neo-Fascism? Or do you just want the information in the article purged from Wikipedia? Thank you for reading. Weirdoactor 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]