51 votes

Goldwater on Religious Right

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with the loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism."

-Senator Barry Goldwater




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

Religion is a business, Max. How did churches become so wealthy?

Posted right at the top of CBN:
[This is scary, selling "Blessings" for money.]
"Become a CBN Partner and receive The 700 Club's The Three Blessings on DVD.
Give through Pledge Express and receive Power for Life teaching CDs.
CBN Partners are making a difference sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Find out how..."
http://www.cbn.com/

The Business of Religion
by Bolder Landry

The number of people who drift from one new quackery to another, wasting their income in futile search of health and happiness, will probably never be known. Instead of preventing mental growth, religions should teach love of life. The feeling of life's preciousness and the desire to foster and further it should be the goal.

Origin of Church Wealth
To know how organized religion has become big business, one has to look back to antiquity. Religious exceptions and preferences were first claimed by those who represented the supernatural powers that they alone were empowered to oversee. Churches, synagogues, and temples pay no taxes because of a variety of gimmicks. Here are a few examples of how the monetary power of churches originated:
More at:
http://www.truthseekerjournal.com/1995archive/122_3/35busine...

How would you like it if

How would you like it if Roman Catholicism, Islam, or Mormonism, etc. was forced on you? Now put yourself in their shoes and imagine how they'd like evangelical Christianity forced on them.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

Steve is the original

Steve is the original Illuminati anti-christ group. *

He wants to do one thing, and one thing only right now. Keep you from listening to me that using labels like religious right is intended to divide. They are meaningless unless you can differentiate the founders who were very religious from "religious right", and explain why the religious left isn't equally as bad or even what any of that means.

* Steve - really, that is how the illuminati was defined at that time. An anti-christ movement of which Paine might be a part of.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Oh, Max . . . I am a Christian, and I can see what . . .

both Goldwater and Steve are saying.

There is NO threat to Christianity from the constitution, none at all. There is threat to Christianity from Christianity controlling the government.

I do not say that Christians following Christ are a threat; that is the best way to ensure freedom/liberty. But to turn Christianity into the state religion, even in a subtle way by using laws to promote the values of a particular sect or creed (even among Christian thought)--

is dangerous.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Ok, that is bizarre

Actually, that is bizarre.

There is a great deal of threat from this government against Christianity, and as it turns more totalitarianism. You must not be living on the same planet as I am.

Will it work? No, Jesus Christ will prevail. But you aren't looking at the real world or reading the Bible or believing it if you think "there is no threat" to Christianity.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

SteveMT's picture

From your extreme standpoint, all comments are bizarre...

whether they are from me, 1988vote, or anyone else who doesn't agree exactly as you believe. You sound paranoid, Max. You attack people as if every differing comment was directed against only you. They are not.

Is there a threat from this government to Christians? No, IMO. Aren't the Ten Commandments etched in stone around the Supreme Court? Is there not a threat from this government to Muslims with about 8 undeclared wars going on in their countries at present and two more wars with Syria and Iran in the offing? Hasn't our government already demonstrated threats against other People's religions with our focused attacks against these people in the past i.e., Japanese (Buddhism and Shinto), Native Americans (panentheism), Vietnam (Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism). You need to differentiate between hard threats versus soft threats. These soft threat that you allude to can in no way compare to these 3 examples of outright annihilation.

How many county court houses have been forced

to remove the 10 Commandments from their premises? Answer: a lot.

Our military was responsible for the destruction of many hundreds of very old Christian churches in the Balkans in the 90's.

The Christians of the Middle East are having a rough go of it. Conditions were sorta ok for them for centuries, but when the American military began destabilizing the governments in the Middle East, the Christians had to begin emigrating. There are not very many Christians left in Iraq, a place where they have lived for nigh onto 2,000 years.

The Coptics in Egypt are having a much worse time since we helped bring in Arab Spring there.

Nagasaki had a much higher percentage of Christians than anywhere in Japan.

what *I* see here is collectivism . . .

as in "Christians" are a block, a solid block, with the same beliefs.

I believe there are evil people and good people in all religions, and when *we* collectivize we negate the potential for any religious extremism to do harm.

But that is just my opinion--

Generally speaking, it is true believers in any religion who are not war-like who will be destroyed--

and that is sad.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

That is incorrect

There are over 300 denominations of Christianity in the USA, meaning, they are not a solid block but have many different takes, including different Bibles, they believe in.

I think we are saying the same thing--

I used the wrong word above; I intended to say that collectivism promotes extremism and reactions to extremism within religious groups--

How many times on here have *you*/*we*/*I* read:

Christians do/think/believe/say this

Muslims do/think/believe/say this

Bhuddists, Jews, Hindus, etc.--

or Catholics believe/think/do/say this--

the fact is that each individual (the idea of the individual is what drives Ron Paul's influence in the country/world, I believe)--

is unique. You can take two faithful Baptists, Bhuddists, Catholics, Jews, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims--

and stand them up side by side and there will be some divergence in thought or practice--

collectivism is used to persecute religious groups and is used by fanatics, both.

That is what I meant, and you either didn't understand, because it happens all the time--or you don't agree.

As a Catholic, do you honestly believe that all Catholics wanted Jews to convert under force? As a Christian who is not Catholic I don't believe that EVERY Christian had it in his/her heart to kill or convert Muslims and Jews--

Putting a label on someone creates all sorts of opportunities for abuse and division--

and yet we do label ourselves. I call myself a Christian, and I am not a Catholic, and I believe it is repugnant that Catholics were persecuted in the late 1800s and early 1900s and that laws were formed in various places trying to keep them out of office and that public education was established to keep Catholicism from having an influence in American society; to me that was almost the equivalent of social warfare--

and what price has "America" paid with public education--

But if you don't understand, oh well--

Everyone needs a community; I have a Christian faith community of my own, but I don't think that I agree with everyone inside my community; sometimes there is violent political disagreement, for example, though I keep my own mouth shut--

within each of those denominations, if people will value the autonomy of his/her own mind . . . there are differences--

a base for belief, yes, but beyond that--

the idea of the individual is sacred.

Jesus wasn't/isn't a collective. He was/is an Individual.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Yes, I agree with you

Thank you for the well written explaination. I agree with everything except I do believe Jesus established a collective with the apostles.

you know . . .

I hadn't thought of that, but I think that is true, too--

:)

But then there was Judas--

:(

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

LOL

Seems to be a Judas in every collective.

Well even if that is true,

Well even if that is true, Christians must remember to not be totalitarians.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

I somehow don't think that's

I somehow don't think that's the problem hortulanus. Not even remotely.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

SteveMT's picture

Have you heard of the 400 years of the Crusades?

The Salem Witch Hunts of 1692,..How about those? The Christians have the same potential for evil as any other group whether religious of not.

The problem with using the term religious right

The problem with using the term religious right is its used by some like in the media to mean us - conservatives or libertarians who have beliefs similar to the founding fathers, who were religious.

Religious right is virtually meaningless as a term, unless you can differentiate between religious right, religious left, and religious conservative or religious libertarian.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Religious RIght is not offensive

I'm a fairly devout Christian, and I use the term Religious Right. When I use it I'm thinking of those Zionist, warmonger, social conservatives who want to force their morals (drug war, marriage definition, etc.) on everyone else. They also typically worship the state, to some degree with hyper-nationalism.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

Yes, and if you notice, the

Yes, and if you notice, the media and some on here use the term for you. In fact, it's only been a few weeks the media specifically mentioned Daily Paul as an example of a hot bed of Christian religious right-ism. I'm being a little sarcastic, but yes, they did in fact run those articles.

The term is undefined, and means pretty much whatever anyone wants it to mean.

Being on the right - or in the Republican party, and Christian is pretty much all the term by itself means. And if it doesn't, what is someone who is religious and on the right and not religious right mean?

It's impossible to be separated from the label and be religious - because the label means anyone that is religious that is on the right and in the Republican party.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I understand

what you mean about labels. Certainly is it undefined and all that. Libertarians I thought were beyond the left vs. right spectrum,though. Why do we need to consider ourselves part of the Right? I don't. We're in the midst of redefining the Republican party, with our infiltration. In time perhaps "Republican party and Christian" won't have the same negative connotations as it does today.

I'm a Christian, as I stated earlier and this term "Religious Right" does not offend me. But if you're so upset with it, I suppose I can change the title of this post to "Goldwater on Social Conservatism".

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

with this I do agree--

but laws that favor Christians--

THAT is scary, and many Christians would have that, if they could (and I am a Christian who does not want that)--

All men/women of all religions should be safe under the constitution--

even if it was written by men who believed in God (though they were not all the same sect/creed)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The right to form your own colony - isn't scary - It's American.

If you think so.

However, actually, we have a lot less laws that favor Christianity, because in the first part of this country ->you couldn't hold office or became a naturalized citizen unless you were a Christian. Laws that our founders passed.

Would it work now? Not likely. Too many people aren't Christians. Did it work then? Yes. Was it fair? Well, considering most of the colonies were founded as religious communities, yes, it was fair. Same reason any group has a right to form a government among themselves, and be left alone. These were people who they and their ancestors had left Europe to get away from its infidels, and for that exact purpose. That wasn't fair? Maybe you should just leave people alone that want to be left alone! And you can have more than one government in a geographic area. Isn't any excuse to tell anyone they have to live under a mob rule - and a mob that hates them at that.

We still have that right. If you want to form an atheist community, and I want to form a Christian community - your group has no business trying to government in my group or mine yours. It's a basic right of government, and one that a lot of our early constitutions recognized. It's voluntary.

When I see these messages, what I see is our country couldn't be settled the way it was. And as far as religious right goes, the founders must have been hyper-religious right, because most of what I see is luke-warm Christianity.

It's senseless, unless you define "religious right", "religious left", "founders religiousism", etc. Words just emoting some emotion of pc labels, without thought. "Religious right" - we're against them! Yes, and who are the religious right? Blank stare. "Bad!". But define it. No answer.

The media calls anything conservative and Christian the religious right. That's not reason. Define it, or be more careful in the thinking.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I certainly know that . . .

Catholics were treated badly, even persecuted. I'm not a Catholic, and I do realize that most groups that have been persecuted end up persecuting others (or the opposite; the inquisition having been a bad situation for liberty)--

Public education began because of anti-Catholicism, and look what has happened to America as a result of that.

All I am saying is that religious zeal can turn on itself and become self-destructive, not to mention the destruction it causes to others.

I see plenty of witch hunting going on now, though much of it is secular--

and I don't agree with secular humanism either. I guess that until Christians themselves 'straighten up and fly right' liberty won't work.

And that is sad.

I don't expect secular humanists to know better; I do expect Christians to know better, but *we* don't--

I suppose we are saying two different things here--

Puritans destroyed themselves or were destroyed from zealots and extremists within--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Several votes against the

Several votes against the Pilgrims and Puritans so far.

You have two possible beliefs here. There are infiltrators on Daily Paul that don't know America. Or this is why Ron Paul loses. Or maybe both.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Here's an example of the

Here's an example of the above fyi:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.

Here's a naturalization oath for the State of Maryland, administrered by one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, requiring a belief in Christianity to become a citizen. Maryland was a break away colony - Catholics separating themselves "ie Mary land".

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=22348

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I haven't downvoted you--

and it would be good if this could work; I do understand what you are trying to say--

I would not live in a state, if I could help it, that fostered my own religion, though--

I would always prefer to live where my own religion is a minority--because religious belief and religious government often conflict--

but this is just my personal experience, so I suppose I'm not contributing to the discussion--

I suppose the separation of church and state can be interpreted in many different ways, just as many of *our* discussions get caught up in the "what does this word really mean?" conundrum.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Two people that don't like

Two people that don't like truth (facts) so far.

It's always irritating to see when people down vote facts well-sourced and not opinions; and not just on my posts or one subject.

When I see that, I know a lot of people aren't liberty minded at all. They are posers. Consider it, I'm sure I'm not the only one that has seen the desire to "edit facts" from some. The idea of unapproved facts shows an authoritarian mindset.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Good Point

The label "Religious Right" is a very effective tool for division.

It instills fear and keeps us from forming coalitions with natural allies.

Its easier to understand the lies that some people parrot about Ron Paul because I've seen the reverse happen here.

Goldwater made a very good point, but it mostly applies to leader/infiltrators on the right and not the people themselves.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep. The term only means someone who is religious and on the right or in the Republican party. It usefully does not mean the religious left, which I suppose would include the social gospel and welfare state.

I get real tired of this term being used whenever I witness or talk about Christianity in anyway. Its clearly used as a broad brush term that divides.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

This is true

and Goldwater would agree with me that government also does not dictate morality. This is the crux of the issue. Government (defined by the monopoly of force) makes no one moral. To the contrary, government IS immorality.

Either way, Goldwater also warned about the Trilateral Commission's effect on the consolidation of the ecclesiarchy within the take over of the 3 branches of society... that is why it is called 'trilateral' as in a trilateral take over.

I want my faith to be as far away from the immoral United States as far as possible. God does not give sanction to the US for killing innocents.

My Pastor also laments that people confuse the modern political 'Israel' with the ancient confederacy.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius