[quote author=“Wotansson”]Every time I read an article like this one that equates Republicanism with religious zealotry, I tend to dismiss it as the writings of a political hack. Although there certainly is Republican religious right, the suggestion of this kind of writing is that it would be more acceptable if it was put forth by the Democrats. If this were not so, then why does Nat just not address his criticism to religious zealotry?
There is, of course, a Democratic religious right which is eqaually as zealous and intrusive as the Republicans brand and has a strong presence in my locality. Perhaps Nat is more willing to dismiss this Democratic brand since it enjoys strong support within the African-American community. Nat would do better to improve his credibility by not confusing party affiliation with the root problem - religious zealotry.
That’s a very strange objection, given the article is specifically about the right wing religious reaction to the Democratic senate fillibuster as manifest on “ Justice Sunday ” and such. It’s kind of like accusatorily objecting that only a hack thinks all athletes are on steroids because an investigative journalist wrote an article specifically about athletes on steroids.
What’s up with that?
The very first sentence of the article says “If you are one of the die-hard, right-wing Republican religious zealots . . . ” not “If you are a Republican and therefore one of the die-hard, right-wing Republican religious zealots . . . ” Seems the author dealt with your objection right up front to me.
Byron
