4th Generation Atheist

Maybe a head covering, maybe not; but almost certainly skirts of a minimum length set by conservative standards. Any cross-dressing---including women wearing "menswear" shirts, boots & such---would be illegal in public, and possibly in private after the assumption that it's some kind of paraphilia. Needless to say male-to-female cross-dressing would be illegal in all circumstances, unless you're a high government official, in which case it's a "mere" mental illness.

As far as birth control, you're probably right, and any surgical procedure that might harm a woman's fertility---such as a hysterectomy---might require a special license and proof of medical need, and/or be outright banned for any woman who has not yet had children. A man's fertility doesn't seem to be something the fundies much worry about, though a vasectomy for birth control purposes would of course be illegal.

And last but not least, the specter of AIDS concentration camps isn't dead yet.

ksagnostic

Won't happen.

The Christian Right is, I think, a threat, but not sufficient to turn the entire government into a theocratic state. This country is too diverse, and even most Christians, even conservative ones, are not the kind of fundy activists who would support the nonsense that comes out of the Khristian Koalition Kooks. They would go too far, and be voted out.

In Kansas, for example, when the state school board went too far, most of the Christian Right Wingers were voted out in the Republican Primary. Also, the state rose up in rightous fury when a Khristian Konservative tried to unseat a popular (at the time) moderate republican governor. Their problem is, the Khristian right is deep down so damn mean that when they get power, they tend to take their vendettas too far. This angers the foul weather voters into voting them out. Our problem is, the foul weather voters then go back into hibernation until the right wingers piss them off again, which allows them to make a kind of "progress". The Khristian Koalition types vote in every election, including presinct politics.

The actual threat from the Khristian Right, in my opinion, arises from the following:

1) Their obsessive consistency has allowed them to take over the pundit/editorial media. Their bullshit claims about liberal bias be damned, they control the radio and most political discussion talk shows. The reason, Khristian Konservatives provide brand loyalty. As for mainstream political talk shows (those found on major networks on Sunday morning), they may not have the same bias, but they are dry, and tend to look at issues more as tools for handicapping American politics rather than as subjects in their own right. For that reason, I personally despise the likes of Cokie Roberts, Tim Russert, and Sam Donaldson.

2) American politics has moved substantially to the right, largely because of 1) above. They control the agenda simply by talking the most and the loudest.

3) I tend to worry less about genuine right wing Khristian types than I do about those politicians who cynically market to them. I tend to put Bush Lite in the latter category. Our foreign policy has been substantially fucked up by actions done to cynically appeal to anti-abortion/birth control fanatics, and worse, our level of cooperation on international environmental issues has been compromised by those who want to appeal to voters who see the UN and international cooperation as Satanic globalization plots. I think our foreign policy has been damaged more than our domestic policy because most Americans aren't paying attention to global issues. This means that actions taken to appeal to the Khristian Right on international issues are not as risky as they would be if taken domestically.

4) I am very concerned about the courts. Despite their whinings about judicial activism, I think the Khristian Koalition types are the ones who are as inclined as any to engage in it (I still remember the odious J. Breverand Hand actively assisting someone in bringing a suit before HIS court, I think on school prayer). Bush Lite I think will be content to pick nominees that the Democrats will attempt to block, so that he can portray the Dems as obstructionist.

Just my opinions...

BTW, the term Khristian should not in any way be construed as reflecting my opinion of people who hold Christian religious beliefs as a whole. I am referring to would be theocrats and, as pointed out so well by ex-preacher, those with extreme paranoia about those who are unlike them.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Buffman

IMHO, yours is a superb analysis!

Oxidizing Material

Jesus Christ. This thread is actually making me scared, knowing something like this could happen to our southern neihbours. My fingers are trembling.

4th Generation Atheist

ksagnostic, I think these are very good points. My most rational fears concerning the damage done by your well-named Khristian Koalition concern damage to the educational system. Voucher programs, gutting of topics like sex ed and evolution, and attention paid to faith-based politicking items like moments of silence and mandatory Pledges over our schools' real problems (violence, dropout rates, poor teaching) threaten to turn our educational "system" into a complete joke.

In many inner-city as well as far-rural areas, the public schools already are a joke. Recently, the public schools in our nation's capitol were delayed in opening by several weeks because of roof leaks. Plenty of students from public schools in our large cities report not having enough books, desks or teachers to go around. I personally have seen some of the results of D.C.'s public education problems as a chemistry teaching assistant at the University of Maryland. Students from difficult schools often go to "State" b/c the way these universities select students is by having lower admission standards, then making the early classes in any technical topic "flunk-out" courses. The kids get in, then discover that their skills in math and science aren't up to the task. Some lucky ones have enough talent to pick up in their first year, but that's no substitute on a societal level for having, say, adequate algebra skills at high school graduation time.

Private religious schools are often no better. Especially in science, where the U.S. ranks shamefully low for an indutrialized nation, religious schools often deliberately refuse to give kids the facts. (I suppose then at least the parents are "choosing" inadequacy---but really, folks! Do we really want to become a "Third World" country by default?) I think these educational issues are the most realistic form of danger from the fundamentalist assault on public policy.

Now I also have some "less rational" fears, as I think many on this board do. Next up on the realism-to-unrealism ordered list is homosexual and women's rights. I wouldn't want to live in a country where a guy with a high voice or a woman with short hair could be legally passed up for jobs or housing on that basis alone. And I wouldn't want to see a return to desperate women dying in "back-alley" abortions---what if it happened to my sister? My Mom? And all b/c some rubber broke, or a medical complication appeared, or worst of all, she was raped. I see the loss of reproductive rights, possibly even contraception in some states, and protection for those who seem gay---in addition to those who really are---to be a plausible risk.

Next up would be the quarantining-AIDS thing. Presently seems unlikely. But then again, ten years ago I would have thought that the response to guns in the schools would be something a little more substantial than a moment of silence. In my darkest hours I often have other "concentration camp" fears, thoug for now they tend to evaporate come morning.

I doubt we'll have a "fundie nation" by law in 2010. But then, this thread struck me as rather a "what-if" thing, and I suppose one could also talk about "what-if" in 2050, 2500, or 3000 once one's on the speculation wagon. Science fiction writers do it all the time.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

ksagnostic

Fourth Gen, you make a very good point that, for some reason, I completely forgot. One disturbing impact of the Khristian Right is their effect on science education. For every legal and legislative setback Konservative Khristians have on the evolution/creation issue, they gain in sheer intimidation. Many teachers and their principals don't want to bring the subject of evolution up. Evolution was a topic more openly discussed in biology class 25 to 30 years ago when I was in High School than it is, from what I can see, now. And even then, I remember one girl talking with the teacher after class because she objected to the talk about evolution. Most of our credible college campuses are still different, in that regard, but that makes it a rude awakening for kids when they go to college.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

DMB

As a non-American, I look on with some concern. From where I sit, this looks like one of the worst Administrations I can remember. For those of us outside the USA, the withdrawal from the UN and international agreements is disappointing and worrying. When you combine that with what I can only call the superpower-kick-ass syndrome, it gets worse, particularly when one recalls the intelligence failures that have been exposed recently and that are likely to matter if the US takes unilateral action against Iraq.

The increasing clout of the fundies tends to undermine America's boast of being the "land of the free". They don't want a free land; they want one under strict religious control -- the control of the smart and liberal by the unsmart and illiberal. To me it looks more and more like the unfortunate McCarthy episode.

During that period, many foreigners despaired of America, and indeed there was a diaspora of talented Americans who enriched the culture of other countries. Rotten as it must have been to live through McCarthyism, it didn't have a long duration. America climbed out of the pit, and decency and common sense reasserted themselves, even though the Cold War continued.

And so it may be with fundamentalism. When Shrub has gone, the picture may look different again. I do hope so.

4th Generation Atheist

Ya durn tootin', and that's my biggest worry. What ultimately we risk is this: an American education will in effect cease to qualify the student for further studies. College undergraduate programs will "dumb down" to the point that no one in world academia will take an American alumnus seriously (to an extent that is already true); our "better" schools will simply stop accepting American applicants, not as a matter of policy, but as result of American students not qualifying under any reasonably rigorous standard. Our graduate student programs are already doing this. I don't want to be "isolationist" or anything, not by a long shot; the academy runs on international discussion, and studying in a country other than that of one's birth is a venerable and ancient tradition. But I wonder how long the U.S. can remain successful if our populace doesn't have a basic understanding of math and science, and if we are unable to produce any significant number of leaders in these fields. With all the technological "junk" we have in this country, what does it mean for the world as a whole if we "fall"?

DMB brings up points that get me worried also, every time I pick up a newspaper. When I read the "world" and "nation" news sections, I often try to put myself into the shoes of someone who is reading the news from somewhere other than behind our several-layers-deep military fence, perhaps someone in a less "free" society who might want to come here, or who at least wants to benefit indirectly from the fact that this culture produces a "safety valve" by setting up an alternate image of a possible society, which is one of the reasons oppressive governments hate it so much. (It's not that everyone wants to be an American; it's that having such a successful culture that is not (yet) totalitarian causes the people of other nations to be that much less tolerant of despots in their own lands.) I'd hate to see those people lose that.

DMB is right that another "McCarthy" type period is the most likely of the "totalitarian" possible outcomes of this situation. And nutbags like the fundies with their fingers on nuclear triggers isn't a pleasant thought either; isn't that exactly what these complaints about "rogue" nations boil out to? And justly so.

But sitting here in America it's the education thing that gives me the most pause. A McCarthy period would indeed be unpleasant, but temporary; even Joe six-pack would tire of it before too long. But the educational area is the most susceptible to long-term damage; a generation of kids with a fundie education would have a ripple effect for a long time to come, if only out of incompetence.

wade-w

In 1941 (I think, it may have been 1940) R. A. Heinlein write a sci fi work called "If This Goes On..."

The premise of the story was that exactly the scenario you describe had happened 3 generations before. The US had been quickly turned into a theocracy.

Buffman

Speaking of court decisions, how would our Supreme Court rule if the U.S.Patriot Act of 2001 were challenged by speaking out against a government decision to pre-emptively attack Iraq? Or against the Official "God" of the United States? President Bush has declared that we are at war...under his God. The Congress and American public has concurred through their support or silence. Here is what happened during WW I.

<a href="http://ncnc.essortment.com/espionagehistor_rago.htm" target="_blank">http://ncnc.essortment.com/espionagehistor_rago.htm</a>

(Extract)
Nor did the Supreme Court defend the basic constitutional rights of those convicted under these repressive laws. In 1919 the Court upheld the convictions of three people who had been imprisoned for speaking out against the war. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., justified such repression by saying that when the exercise of free speech constituted a “clear and present danger” to the nation, then the government could suspend the right of free speech. Of course, the government got to decide what constituted a “clear and present danger,” and both the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were wielded like blunt instruments against anyone who dared to disagree with the government.
(End extract)


<a href="http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html" target="_blank">http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html</a>