Originally posted by Ford Prefect
He's not talking about the Republican party. He's talking about a faction in the US that seeks to impose a militant code of ethics on the population at the inevitable expense of all opposing viewpoints. Now, I will not make any inflammatory claims regarding this faction's size or level of influence, but I do agree with Kazan that the religious right in this country is a fascist movement.
Well, call them facists then. I'm sorry, but every time I've seen christo-facist used, it's been seemingly as a veiled insult intended to basically annoy rather than provide factual context, etc. To me - and I agree US fundamentalists are a destructive force that I'm glad to be thousands of miles from - the whole meaning of the word (intentional or not) is to insinuate christianity is synonymous facism and thus insult both, and to me that's inaccurate and detracts from the core of the arguement. I'd apply the same to islamofacist, etc.
And from another perspective, using it also implies religion is a valid base for that sort of, well, facism, which to me is the first part of that ideology you have to remove. Otherwise attacking, say, the fundamentalists will look as much an attack on the validity their religion as upon their political beliefs, which is divisive; it's no wonder these guys try to characterise what they don't like as aetheistic.
I think if you keep launching attacks about christo-facist this, christo-facist that, it just causes confusion about what you're attacking - facism or christianity?
