Religious Right: Credible Threat

Last month or so, Dan asked me to make my case that the Religious Right is a threat to the United States. His contention was not that the Religious Right was good, but rather that, while an "embarrassment" and a "nuisance", they weren't sufficiently influential to merit the epithet "threat" . While considering how to make my case (and with the help of a little cross-examination by Doug), I became overwhelmed by how much of the debate Dan and I have left undefined, so before I make any case, I'd like to refine what the case is, just so's we can have a good platform to wrestle on. Who knows, once we've done that, Dan and I may even find that we agree.

So, here is a breakdown of my thesis, "The Religious Right is a threat to this country", as I understand it.

1) When I say "the Religious Right", I am talking about a group of pundits, politicians, and political organizations - as well as the ordinary members of the electorate in their sway - who attempt to influence policy within the United States with the intention of turning their specific, Christian morality into the law of the land.

2) When I say "this country", I am referring to the set of Enlightenment ideas (as I understand them) that the founders had in mind as they declared their independence from Britain and as they debated, wrote, and signed the Constitution that was ratified by each of the United States and is accepted as the legal foundation of those United States. Chief among those beliefs is the idea of Liberty, the idea that an individual has the right to do whatever s/he wants as long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others, that consenting adults are best at determining what behavior is best for them.

3) When I say "threat", I am saying that I think the agenda of the Religious Right - banning abortion, keeping the morning after pill off the shelves, attempting to limit sex-education to abstinence-only, banning gay marriage - is antithetical to the ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, not the least of which is that the strength of this country, of a Democracy, is a free, independent, well-informed citizenry.

Now, if Dan is in agreement with those premises, then I would say this:

Any national movement whose aim is to enact legislation which is fundamentally at odds with the principles on which its host nation was founded and which, if enacted, would fundamentally change the nature and character of its host nation is, by definition, a threat to its host nation.


Now, I think that's a pretty good case, and I'm not anticipating any argument with it, but let me just say at this point that I'm certainly open to debating any of what I've written above.

However, if there is no argument with what I've said above, that the agenda of the Religious Right is inherently threatening to Enlightenment Ideals and that those Enlightenment Ideals are, in my opinion, essential to the character of the US as we know it, then let me allude finally to my post title and recast the terminology of the debate: I think, for the purposes of this argument, that my position is better represented by the phrase "Credible Threat" and Dan's position is more accurately represented by the phrase "Empty Threat".

And if all of that is kosher, then I ask Dan to weigh in on what it takes to make a Credible Threat. Perhaps some examples of Credible Threats in other areas?

We await Dan's response via comment or his blog...