Hugh Hewitt has a great post that demonstrates that the term "religious right" cannot be well defined and is just a rhetorical device that allows speakers to attack anonymous, ambiguous people that the listeners can define for themselves.

Many e-mailers have tried to define "the religious right" thus far this morning, but their definitions are either ad hominem attacks or way too broad as they inevitably end up including folks like the African American pastors who oppose same-sex marriage even when those pastors are pretty reliable Democrats. Here's one example:

"A member of the Religious Right is a person who, for whatever reason, believes that his or her interpretation of a religious doctrine ought to be reflected in the laws that apply to all Americans - especially those who do not adhere to the proponent's personal belief system."

Not only too broad, but also applicable to pretty much every American who thinks polygamy ought to remain illegal. See Under the Banner of Heaven. The inability to define "religious right" reveals it is a term used rhetorically to allow the audience to hear whatever it wants to hear.

I think this sort of non-specific attack reflects that, more than ever, the left has lost its way. It'll probably take a very charismatic leader to pull the left together under whatever banner he chooses to raise, and then we'll have to listen to nonsense about how all the flip-flops were really what the Democrats have stood for all along.

(HT: Michelle Malkin.)

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Are the "Religious Right"?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

» Labels and other sins from A Goy and his Blog

Thoughtful Michael Williams has a post up that sort of speaks to the notion of "The contest is not between Us and Them..." And it points up something I'm still trying to avoid myself. Most of the dents I've found (and hopefully corrected) in my own h... Read More



Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info