Worldview: Politics and Religion
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Worldview Menu
Retired on 31 December 2007
Table of Contents
Introduction
Jesus and the G.O.P.
Articles on the Religious Right
The Religious Left
Civil Liberties
Evolution & Creationism
Church Pedophile Scandal
Other Articles
Introduction
22 Oct 06: The question of politics and religion in the United States largely revolves around the influence of the Christian right on the government. We all know that conservative Christians exert considerable influence over the Republican party, but my eyes were opened by Joan Bokaer's video in the next section. Until I saw this video, I thought that those comparing the Republicans to the Taliban were America-hating idiots from the extreme left. Now, while we are still a long way from having a Taliban government, I am shocked that it ever got this far! See for yourself. Bokaer's research is well-presented and entirely credible, notwithstanding that she's clearly a Democrat. Even Democrats can present facts, and her facts have convinced me that there is a problem. I'm not just worried about Muslims anymore! (Of course, militant Islam is a far greater threat, but any domestic erosion of our constitutional principles requires careful vigilance.)
NOTE: Politics and religion with respect to India and the Muslim world are treated on my India and Islam pages, respectively. This page focuses on the United States of America.
Back to Politics & Religion Menu
Jesus and the G.O.P.
Back to Politics & Religion Menu
Theocracy in America? It's Worse Than You Might Think! (22 Oct 06): A serious looking website called Theocracy Watch clarifies the power of the religious right in America. First, it is important to realize that not all conservative Christians are the problem. Rather, there is a nefarious symbiosis between the Republican party and certain activist religious leaders to Christianize the G.O.P. from within in a way that traditional conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater, would have rejected. This is done stealthily at the grass roots level. Moreover, determined minorities can have quite a powerful effect on parties in the primaries. During general elections, when the electorate is evenly divided, the situation is trickier, as the same fringes may either put their party over the top or repel the crucial swing voters. At any rate, the aggressive religious right is not to be ignored, even though its numbers are modest compared to the US population. For example, Theocracy Watch shows how 42% of US senators recently received a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition, which means that they voted in lockstep with the Christian Coalition, even though only 22% of Americans identify with the Christian right. That sounds like undemocratic power amplification to me! With other data, the same website clearly reveals that the G.O.P is the party of the Christian right, in a disturbingly stark way. One must also factor in voter apathy, though that should be blamed on the voters! (Here is a convenient and informative video featuring Joan Bokaer, the founder of Theocracy Watch. It is summarized in detail here.)
NOTE (24 Oct 06): As of today, I endorse only Bokaer's video. That video seems mature, factual and credible to me. However, I do not necessarily endorse all the articles taken from her website and posted below. Clearly, the critics of 'incipient theocracy' in America include the gamut from moderate leftists, with whom I can feel comfortable, to others way out on the radical fringe. At any rate, the general policy of this entire website is to post interesting articles, regardless of whether I agree with everything in them. I am convinced that there are kernels of truth to be found in all parts of the political spectrum, but everything must be read with skepticism and an open mind. For instance, I have posted frequently from FrontPageMag, a very conservative website, because they publish on topics avoided by the MSM, but I hardly agree with everything they say! Likewise, the website Alternet fulfills a similar function from the leftist point of view. Indeed, there has been a curious tendency for the right to be justly concerned about Islamic militancy worldwide but oblivious to similar if milder Christian trends back home, while the left has been acutely aware of the latter but largely oblivious of the former. No doubt political prejudice leads to tunnel vision. Thus, I am skeptical of all ideologies and political parties.
NOTE: I have also written about America's Christian fundamentalists here.
Pro-Secular Websites
Pro-Christian Websites
Neutral Websites
Articles
Rebuttals
UPDATE (22 Oct 06): I just added the articles by conservatives Kurtz and Feder. I'll need to answer them here, which I'll do later, but a quick glance indicates that they are glib and unfair to Joan Bokaer of Theocracy Watch. Hence, I'll also need to discuss her research in much more detail. It's true that she spends some time on the wackiest Christian conservatives, but that is not the main point of her message. Indeed, one needs to state very carefully just what is worrisome about the thinking of some elements of the religious right, who have without doubt had a significant influence on the Republican party. One thing I must say now: the calm and polite Bokaer does not encourage liberal hatred of Christians. What a dirty Rovian smear! Stay tuned...
UPDATE (23 Oct 06): OK, I watched Joan Bokaer's video in full and took copious notes. Here they are:
A Bit of History
Bokaer begins with a bit of history:
Note that Bokaer insists that most of these people, many of whom she has met, are fine individuals, and there is nothing wrong with their form of worship either. Her talk is about the 'theocratic wing' of the Religious Right. Some critics lie about this, as a political dirty trick, by portraying all civil rights advocates as Christian-hating degenerate liberals, etc.
Other main characters:
Brilliant Tactics
"We think the Lord is going to give us this nation back one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time." Ralph Reed, Christianity Today, 3 Apr 'A90.
"We want ... as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians..." Pat Robertson, Denver Post, 26 Oct 'A92
"It's like guerilla warfare... It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under the cover of the night." Ralph Reed, LA Times, 22 Mar 'A92
Looking at it another way, 42% of senators received a 100% rating from Christian Coalition. But only 22% of the US population identify as the Christian Right. That is power amplification! It could well be criticized as 'undemocratic', even if it is not illegal. And remember the stealth campaigns, the guerilla takeover of primaries, the gerrymandering once in power... Also, these Christian activists often talk deceptively in public, as though centrists, according to Bokaer. (Just as missionaries in India pretend to be Hindus!)
Voter Apathy
"With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree." Pat Robertson, The Millennium, 1990
A record number of Americans voted in the 2004 election, yet as many as 100 million stayed home! Note that Democrats tend to be working people with rigid hours, and it is harder for them to get to the polling booths. You can be sure Republicans want to keep it that way!
The Theocratic Mentality
First, Bokaer provides some quotes from Ralph Reed:
"The surest antidote to tyranny is a free people who believe it owes allegiance to a Higher Power, not the government." Ralph Reed, Active Faith, 1996, p.8-9
"The consent of the governed rests upon faith in a sovereign God..." Ralph Reed, Active Faith, 1996, p.8-9
"... faith as a political force is the very essence of democracy." Ralph Reed, Active Faith, 1996, p.8-9
Violates the Spirit of the Constitution
The Constitution begins with "We the people" and God is never mentioned, not even once. The Declaration of Independence, which has the word 'Creator' is something else. Only the Constitution is the Law of the Land. The founders were well aware of European history, with its bloody religious wars, between Christians no less.
"Government ... is the minister of God..." Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, First Things, May 2002
The obvious question, says Bokaer, is "Whose God?" For example, what about Hindus, who have been called 'devil worshippers' by Jerry Falwell? Many on the religious right feel this way about non-monotheistic religions.
"We need common sense judges who understand that our rights are derived from God. Those are the kind of judges that I intend to put on the bench." George Bush, quoted in a fundraising letter, Traditional Values Coalition, March 2005
Why is this worrisome? Is it not democratic to vote for those laws which you think God would approve of? Of course, it is not illegal, perhaps not even immoral, but the problem is that one's thinking can easily slip into scriptural literacy, which could have disastrous effects with the Bible, Koran, etc. If the majority is so devout that scripture is taken as the word of God, then effectively we have a 'theocracy'. The real-life consequence is that a certain scripture ends up determining the laws. And most scriptures, epecially monotheistic scriptures, have barbaric passages that are immoral by any decent modern standards, e.g. the stoning of adulterers, homosexuals and apostates. To the light of reason, these scriptures are clearly the product of human beings and the times that they lived in, even if there is also arguably some divine influence. That is why theocrats everywhere have always been suspicious of reason. Indeed, religious piety has the effect of preventing people from thinking carefully and without preconceptions; it leads to blind faith and dogmatism. One might argue that there is bit of a dilemma here, in that democracy and theocracy are not as opposed as one might hope. We can always vote for what we want, provided it does not contradict the Bill of Rights. We must be candid that the real issue is partly psychological. The American Constitution was founded in a spirit of rationalism, free-will and individual responsibility, and this tradition should be kept alive, because we don't want to go back to the Middle Ages. At least, I hope most of us don't! (Am I an elitist?!!)
Few But Influential
Here are a few quotes from true Dominionists (though Thomas Ice left the movement):
"Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular Institutions until Christ returns..." Sara Diamond, Z Magazine, Feb 1995
"The army of God is to conquer the earth, to subdue it, to rule over it, to exercise dominion." George Grant, Bringing in the Sheaves, p.98
"... subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His law-word." R.J. Rushdoony (1916-2001) The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973
"Non-Christians cannot rule themselves and must be excluded from a government under God's law." Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? p.71
As Ice says in his book:
"The only legitimate functions of the state are:
Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? p.73
Texas Republican Party Platform
"Abolish the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor. We also call for the de-funding or abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts, and Public Broadcasting System." Texas Republican Party Platform of 2004 (if not later)
"A government controlled and funded welfare system is unbiblical." America's Providential History, p.27
"Scripture makes it clear that God is the provider, not the state." America's Providential History, p.187
Or, to return to Thomas Ice:
"Tax rates would be much less ... due to the shift in welfare burden away from government to ... the church." Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? p.74
"We will not try to reform the existing institutions. we only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them." Free Congress Foundation, 2001
So how important is this group? Well, every Wednesday, the White House has a high-ranking official going to their strategy sessions. Again, real conservatives may want to trim down institutions but not destroy them. These guys are radical.
"Only through ... Old Testament civil law can America — and the world — be saved from destruction." Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? p.15
Some Real-Life Effects
This is not just fringe theory. Here are some real effects:
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives."
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Lawrence vs. Texas, 26 June 2006
"If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex in your own home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery." Senator Rick Santorum, AP, April 2003.
He's saying that homosexuality and adultery should be crimes!
"Our party pledges to exert its influence to ... dispel the 'myth' of the separation of church and state." Texas Republican Party Platform, p.8
"The Republican Party of the Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian Nation." Texas Republican Party Platform, preamble 2004
Article 11: "... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."
A Long List of Real-Life Consequences
Bokaer then lists the following real-life consequences, in actual law, of the Dominionist-inspired agenda:
The Religious Right (as understood here) apparently hasn't done anything illegal or undemocratic, but it has clearly taken over the GOP. Americans at least need to be informed about this, and they can vote against it if they wish. The media has been either lazy or intimidated and has failed to educate us. However, upon closer inspection, the situation isn't quite so benign as a simple vote. Note the significant 'undemocratic' power amplification revealed by the Christian Coalition scorecards, as well as all the other tricks mentioned, such as covert operations, electoral shenanigans, and dissembling before the public. Not quite ethical if not illegal!
The American public is also to blame. Voter apathy has worked very well for the Religious Right in recent years, but this could backfire if too many people are annoyed! I guess democracy will (or may) start working once the majority realizes what it has lost. Let us not forget, we did have Prohibition once!
Then there is the question of 'inalienable rights' which can't be taken away. Can we make new ones? Of course we can, it the corresponding amendment can pass. Note that an amendment is difficult to pass but also difficult to revoke (which is generally a good thing but not always). What about gay marriage? Is it really 'unjust' if the majority rejects gay marriage? Is that a violation of any 'fundamental right'? Says who? Suppose Muslims were to become a majority. Could Sharia (Islamic law) be voted in? Note the very Sharia-sounding statements of, e.g., the highly influential Ralph Reed. That in itself is shocking! This is supposed to be America. But when does it become truly 'undemocratic'? Let us remember the issue of slavery. For centuries, many white Americans saw no problem with it, and it took a civil war to abolish it. Could we vote an amendment to abolish, say, freedom of speech?
Speaking of abolishing free speech, a likelier possibility is that a dominating majority, or militant minority, may intimidate the public into redefining 'free speech', as happened with the Muslims in Europe recently. All it took was a few riots over some silly Mohammed cartoons, and European politicians, educated at Oxford and the Sorbonne, went into full appeasement mode. So much for the staying power of Western Civilization. Shariah could slowly be imposed by intimidation, as it has in many parts of the world. Could the 'Dominionists' pull off something similar here?
One might argue that the very spirit of some of the quoted remarks by Reed and others is fundamentally undemocratic, substituting divine authority for reason and free will. But can reason and free will be enforced? Perhaps it would be best to educate and persuade the public not to vote for these people.
More alarming are Scalia's remarks. Also, Clarence Thomas has shown support for Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama, who refused to take down a stone monument to the Ten Commandments in his courthouse and was removed from office. The main danger of the Religious Right may be in putting 'theocracy-minded' judges on courts. It could take a long time to wash out that stain on our Constitution! I had a pretty good impression of Scalia. For example, he seemed strong on protecting free speech. But I must admit, I don't want to hear that our laws come from God! They come from the enlightened mind of man, and let us keep our mental faculties as sharp and vigorous as possible! That will take a big, healthy dose of secular humanism, in my opinion. Note that the Republicans have been giving judgeships to far-right candidates, who are out of step with the mainstream in this country, in order to placate the Christian far-right of their party. Given the importance of the judiciary, this should be considered dangerous and perhaps the best reason to vote against Republicans.
The Texas Republican Party Platform is quite disturbing. It certainly looks theocratic to me. And Texas is a large state! Theocracy in America starts to look somewhat plausible. Our current president was the governor of Texas, and he has been alarmingly stubborn about many issues dear to the Religious Right, such as the ban on stem cell research. What century are we in again? Is there a time warp swallowing up planet Earth?
Until Bokaer's talk, I never realized how important it is to keep government social programs secular. Education should also be kept as secular as possible. The more the churches control these programs, the more power and influence they have. For example, there will be a powerful tacit (if not overt) inclination to pressure poor recipients into conversion. Thus a religious power base can be built up to quite large proportions. The Catholic Church forms a huge voting block in many countries, and many Catholics, especially the less-educated, tend to follow the command of the Church. Religion impresses and intimidates little minds. Christianity and Islam have always been concerned with political power. But as I said, there is a problem: Government social services may indeed be too large, or poorly administered, or politically corrupt. So the traditional conservative argument against them is not without validity.
What about redefining 'religion'? Suppose non-monotheistic religions were classified as 'false'? Hindus and pagans would suddenly be deprived of their rights. On the other hand, wouldn't it be a good idea to classify militant Islam as a harmful ideology, much like fascism? Isn't it? Doesn't it present a grave danger to democracy? What is a religion anyway?
We must choose whether we are going to be an intelligent democracy or not. The main benefit of 'anti-theocracy' groups is to inform us. Suppose the GOP were to become dangerously theocratic (assuming it isn't yet). Will enough Americans vote against a theocratic GOP on principle, even if there is a price, such as taxes going up? Then again, will the taxes indeed go up, when the GOP has come to stand for tax breaks for the rich and out-of-control public spending? Taxes may go actually down with the Democrats!
Last but not least, Democrats and moderates should infiltrate and educate religious conservative communities! They should learn to play the same game that the GOP has played so brilliantly. Above all they should not ridicule the religious folks. That would be a most arrogant disaster. Both parties have become accustomed to thinking in terms of 'our people', which is highly polarizing. Principles should take priority over politics. That is the real solution. Let's get our democracy back!
HUMOR: Matthew 25:29: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. ... If that doesn't prove that God is a Republican, I don't know what does!
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Let's Not Exaggerate, But... (29 Aug 06): Ross Douthat rightly ridicules those who make paranoid claims about the supposed theocracy lurking beneath the surface of American life. However, he underestimates the potential power of the subtle psychological factors I have alluded to. For example, regarding Intelligent Design, he disdainfully writes that
First, he is wrong on a basic fact. There may have been only a few attempts to inject Intelligent Design into school curricula, but he ignores polls which report that 51% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form, while another 30% say that God guided the evolutionary process. This is an alarming rejection of evolution, and hence of the scientific spirit, on the part of Americans. Perhaps I cannot prove it, but I am convinced that the 'scientific spirit', with its skeptical rejection of authority, is intimately associated with the post-Renaissance rationalism which ultimately led to the Enlightenment and to democracy. (Note that the ancient Athenians, during their classical age, were also skeptical and rationalistic, and they also had democracy, howsoever limited.) I will grant that it is easy to concoct sweeping theories about the course of history, yet I believe that this postulated post-medieval change in European consciousness was a real phenomenon, which resulted in the blessings of modern life in the West, such as freedom and prosperity. The Muslim countries provide clear examples of what happens when humans cease to think and backslide into a religious torpor. Of course, not all religion is bad, but the danger is there, especially when mixed with politics.
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Liberal Moral Deficit (26 Oct 06): Amy Sullivan makes a good point that, although Americans agree with Democrats on many specific issues, they are put off by the general tone of amorality (if not immorality) emanating from 'typical' Democrats. For example, Americans don't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but they also don't accept that millions of abortions a year are the price we must pay for civil liberties. There must be a better solution. Another example would be the media. Most Americans aren't puritans or prudes, but they don't like having their children bombarded with vulgarity and materialism. If Democrats and liberals seemed as concerned about civilized behavior as they are about free speech, then the general public would be more sympathetic to them. In other words, the overall moral tone matters. I couldn't agree more. It goes without saying that all our democratic freedoms must be matched by civic responsibility and decent behavior. A great many swing voters are lost to Republicans when civil libertarians and degenerate Hollywood types seem so out of touch with family people. This in turn makes the archaically religious seem powerful than they should be. Frankly, I think most of the popular culture is garbage, and I write some more about this here.
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Can Religion in Politics Be Good? (29 Aug 06): An interesting claim could be made that religion in politics can also produce good, e.g. when Christian-inspired abolitionists worked to eliminate slavery. There may be some truth to this, but the important point is that recognition of the evil of slavery has nothing to do with Christianity per se. On the contrary, it proceeds from a rationalism which realizes that all humans are fundamentally the same and should be treated the same, at least in terms of their basic rights. The historical relationship of Christianity and slavery is complex. The Bible says little about it, and what it does say is often of an approving nature. One can argue that 'Christian love' had something to do with the abolitionist spirit, but this same 'Christian love' was also a driving force behind colonialism and the 'white man's burden'. It is better to stick to general, rationalistic principles, when deciding upon laws and public policies.
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Andrew Sullivan's 'Christianism' (22 Oct 06): Blogger Andrew Sullivan has been warning us for a while about the danger of 'Christianism' in American politics and how it has usurped his ideal of true conservatism. Now he has written a book on the subject, called The Conservative Soul. David Brooks of the New York Times reviews it here. The following excerpts outline Sullivan's position, as well as Brooks' too-dismissive response:
But over the past few years, he argues, something new has usurped conservatism and threatened the world — religious fundamentalism. It is a mindset more than a faith, Sullivan argues: "Its core is not the individual conscience, but God himself, and the decision of the individual to surrender himself to God entirely as the premise of every action he commits and every decision he makes."
The fundamentalist, Sullivan continues, is hostile to pluralism, feels alienated from society, surrenders to authority and is untroubled by doubt. "The fundamentalist does not tolerate a diversity of views. There is one truth; and all other pretenders are threats to it, or contradict it." Sullivan periodically distinguishes between the Muslim fundamentalism of the terrorists and the Christian fundamentalists he says now dominate the Republican Party, but he sees them as part of the same continuum, and often leaps between the two. He argues that Nazis, Communists, Wahhabists and certain orthodox Protestants, Catholics and Jews are all fundamentalists. He throws Osama bin Laden onto the fundamentalist pile, as well as the Princeton philosopher Robert George, the former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson, William Kristol and Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor ('the quintessential voice of fundamentalism'). Fundamentalists, he concludes, reject "the entire premise of secular democracy: that religion should be restricted to the private sphere."
Sullivan's antidote to fundamentalism is the conservatism of doubt. "The defining characteristic of the conservative is that he knows what he doesn't know," Sullivan writes. "As humans we can merely sense the existence of a higher truth, a greater coherence than ourselves, but we cannot see it face to face," he argues. So politics should be about acknowledging what we don't know, and being cautious in what we think we can achieve.
His first great guide is Montaigne, who wrote, Sullivan notes, that God is incomprehensible and that everything we think we know about him is a projection of ourselves. We need to acknowledge that he and his truth are beyond our categories.
Sullivan's next guide is Michael Oakeshott, the great British philosopher, who brilliantly exposed the limits of rationalism. As Sullivan says, "There is no way, Oakeshott argues, to generate a personal moral life from a book, a text, a theory. We live the way we have grown accustomed to live. Our morality is like a language we have learned and deploy in every new instant."
Politics is not an effort to find solutions and realize ideals, in this view. It is merely an effort to find practical ways to preserve one's balance in a complicated world. An Oakeshottian conservative will reject great crusades. He will not try to impose morality or base policy decisions on so-called eternal truths.
Of course neither would this kind of conservative write the Declaration of Independence.
The Conservative Soul is imbued with Sullivan's characteristic passion and clarity. And yet I must confess, if I hadn't been reviewing this book, I wouldn't have finished it. I have a rule, which has never failed me, that when a writer uses quotations from Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the Left Behind series to capture the religious and political currents in modern America, then I know I can put that piece of writing down because the author either doesn't know what he is talking about or is arguing in bad faith.
Don't forget that the influence of a 'political fringe' may be greatly magnified during primaries, as has been the case with the religious right in America. And let's not forget which American president banned stem-cell research. Call me extreme, but I think that the stem-cell research debate provides a good litmus test of who is a 'religious nut'. Apparently, many Republicans agree with me, but not our president. So Andrew Sullivan's concerns cannot be so glibly dismissed, even if they are overstated (and I'm not saying they are, since I haven't read his book).
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Jesus Camp (1 Nov 06): There is a movie out called Jesus Camp, which has been described as 'a documentary on kids who attend a summer camp hoping to become the next Billy Graham'. My gut feeling is that it is not right to indoctrinate kids like this. From a young age, they are brainwashed into thinking that only through Jesus can one be 'saved', and it is their duty to go out and proselytize and annoy the whole world. The following video gives a rather disturbing idea of where this can lead. Innocent children should not be manipulated in this way. No doubt the parents are sincere, but religious indoctrination of Christian children should limit itself to innocent matters, such as dressing up in robes and playing in nativity scenes. This is way too sinister!
NOTE: The video has been removed from YouTube. It featured two little girls, one of whom was trying to 'save' her friend by converting her to Jesus. The implication was that if she did not convert, she could not be 'saved'. Fortunately, the 'unsaved' girl was taking it with humor. What made it even more chilling for me is that the girl doing the saving seemed as innocent as her friend. She did not fully comprehend what she was doing.
New Jesus Camp Footage : Saving Holly
Actually, if you follow the website to this trailer, you will discover a more aggressive attitude than the impression one might get from the girls above. At these Jesus camps, the world is clearly divided into Christians and non-Christians, with the non-Christians being tantamount to the forces of degeneracy. There is talk of 'God's Army', and there is even a 'Christian flag'! Here is an excerpt from a review of the movie on the website:
The basic storyline follows a year in the lives of three children from evangelical Christian families in Missouri, and focuses considerably on their experience at an evangelical summer camp ("Kids on Fire" in Devil's Lake, ND). The kids, 12-year-old Levi, 10-year-old Tory, and 9-year-old Rachel are, of course, endearing in their cuteness, but frightening in their fervor. Levi thinks that he will become a pastor, and his preaching to kids is starkly reminiscent of the Bible thumpers of Sunday morning TV. At camp, Tory is shown several times with tears streaming down her face, not least when a pro-life leader comes and distributes miniature plastic fetuses to illustrate the evil of abortion and again when many kids at camp begin speaking in tongues. Rachel, a nine-year-old evangelist, walks up to perfect strangers to ask them if they believe they're going to heaven and whether they would like to talk about Jesus. In short, the kids are the perfect spokespeople for the Jesus movement.
The documentary goes beyond their experiences at camp and paints a vivid image of the evangelical subculture in middle America. From scenes with a mother home schooling her son on the lunacy of evolution to kids at camp praying fervently for a cardboard cutout of George W Bush, the tenacious beliefs of the subjects and their utter lack of doubt is striking. The infusion of politics into religion is also notable, as the children are told of the evils of homosexuality, that prayer in school is necessary for schools to teach effectively, and that America is responsible for the deaths of fifty million innocent children since 1973. The families even travel to Washington to protest in front of the Supreme Court building. ...
By 'pomonabrian' from Washington, DC This seems like a left-wing caricature of the evangelical movement, except that it is real! Talk about identity politics! Talk about reviving the spirit of the Middle Ages! Thomas Jefferson, please wake up — we need you.
UPDATE: Here are some more videos.
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Robertson Rejects Multiple Paths to God (2 Nov 06): Prominent televangelist Pat Robertson is 'appalled' that the Episcopal Church's new Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, has said that there may be other paths to God than Christianity. Here is a video:
Back to Jesus and the GOP
An Atypical Fanatic (13 Nov 06): Now let me be clear. This lady does not represent any significant number of Americans. Those who portray the Christian Right as being like her are indulging in a crude caricature. However, she does represent many Christians who lived during the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and even as recently as the last century or so. And she resembles many Muslims who live today, not to mention some of the worst missionaries who plague India and other countries. In this sense, she could be called a living relic. The cure is education and rational thought — though I must point out that this particular lady seems to have a law degree!
Yet her fundamentalism does live on in a milder form. Those many American Christians who, as we have seen, believe that the law comes from God and the Bible are not so different from this lady in principle, if not in intensity or style. After all, the Bible and Koran are full of passages proclaiming the wrath of God. Are we to suppose that true believers are not affected in some way? Nevertheless, the danger to modern American society is no longer from inquisitions but from the curtailment of civil liberties. Already, with the Mohammed cartoon controversy in Europe, we see renewed calls to suppress public criticism of religion. This must be steadfastly resisted.
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Anti-Christian Bloggers (17 Feb 07): The John Edwards campaign hit some turbulence when it hired two lefty bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who had written past articles critical of conservative Christians. McEwan had labeled them 'Christofascists' and Marcotte had written that the Catholic Church opposed birth control 'to force women to bear more tithing Catholics'. Recently, these two bloggers have separated from the Edwards campaign, and the Wall Street Journal lectures us that 'the spirit of the Edwards bloggers haunts Democrats'. That is, the Democrats already have a problem with religion in this pious country of ours, and such incidents only add to the perception, however unfair.
First, let me say that I dislike the vulgar language found on many of the left-leaning blogs. The conservative blogs can be abusive, but are not known for foul language, which is to their credit. I am referring to specifically scatological or sexual language. However, a term such as 'Christofascist' is not unlike the 'Islamofascist' used by President Bush, so conservatives have no right to be outraged over this word per se, even if they disagree with the idea behind it. So is there even a grain of truth to it? Let me attempt to address this delicate topic.
The McEwan post containing the term 'Christofascist' actually went on to make some good points, which vociferous critics like Bill Donohue would never bother to mention. She points out that Church serves a crucial social function for many Americans, especially those in small towns or rural areas, where it is often the only social game in town. This in turn fosters a strong sense of group identity, which Christianity has always exploited with its divisive theology of believers and non-believers (just like Islam). Of course, in modern America, a great many Christians are decent and friendly people who mind their own business, but many others are more in tune with the self-righteous and militant tradition of Christianity, which cannot simply be swept under the rug.
During later Roman days, the Church used state power to eliminate 'pagans', either by force or conversion. During the Middle Ages, the Church burned heretics and waged crusades. That pattern continued during the Inquisition and Reformation, and even the rebelling Prostestants often continued the tradition of persecution and intolerance, sometimes with even more gusto. Then, there is the sordid chapter of colonialism backed by a Christian 'civilizing mission', not to mention the Puritans and their spiritual descendants in America. All this amounts to a huge legacy, and Christians who simply ignore it are disingenuous or hypocritical. Indeed, aggressive missionary activity continues at the present time in poor countries, backed by Christian conservatives in America. The perceptive observer will note the distinctly theocratic strains in the Republican party of today, e.g. the Texas Republican platform declaring that America is a 'Christian nation', or all the palaver about our Constitution being founded on 'Judeo-Christian' values, when in fact it is founded on secular Enlightenment values that were often at odds with the Church. All this adds up to a distinct pattern that lives on, even today, with Pat Robertson calling Hindus 'demonic' or various preachers with huge followings calling for an America whose law should be based on the Bible.
At the same time, many Christians over the ages have taken the Sermon on the Mount to heart, by providing charity for the poor, by opposing slavery in the name of Christian love, by backing the Civil Rights movement, and in many other ways. I'll even concede that modern secular liberalism derived some of its strength from the Christian emphasis on conscience. Christianity is a curious mixture of light and dark, with the dark tending to be associated with organized Churches and conservative political parties and the light with individual dissidents.
So can one reasonably postulate that there might be a 'Christofascist' seed in conservative Christianity, lurking like a virus and waiting for the proper stressful conditions to erupt? I think so. Already, in the so-called War on Terror, we have seen, for example, an attack on the sacrosanct Habeas Corpus by the same Republicans who are so pious about their supposed Christian morality. It would be going much too far to say that our Constitution has been demolished, but such recent events are quite troubling. They represent a crack in the wall, which could grow over time, if intelligent and responsible Americans are not vigilant. The word 'fascism' may sound overblown and even pretentious, but it points to a basic fact of human nature: the power of group identity, which can swallow up conscience and decency in mass hysteria. Why did so many Republicans and conservatives simply believe President Bush on the flimsy WMD evidence or the equally flimsy links between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Because of the power of groupthink and of mindless devotion to a leader or to a party, both of which are hallmarks of 'fascism' and 'totalitarianism', when taken to an extreme. And wartime is precisely when such emotions are taken to an extreme. That is one reason that authoritarian and fascist-minded politicians like to keep the nation in a state of permanent war, which is what the War on Terror promises to be.
That being said, it is clear that that these two bloggers, who happen to be lesbian feminists, are perhaps a bit paranoid about the threat from Christian conservatives in America. The political process may be denying homosexuals marriage in most states, but that cannot compare to the lethal cruelty they experience in much of the Muslim world, based on the words of the Koran. The fact that the Bible has a similar horrendous view of homosexuals, which is no longer implemented in Western law, only makes my point that we have moved beyond theocracy. There may be a danger of backsliding, but no American official is persecuting gays other than by denying them marriage. That's a relatively mild form of 'persecution'. However, it must also be said that there is still scattered violence against gays by individuals, in America, and this is far more likely to happen in regions of the country strongly influenced by the Bible. So the gay paranoia is not entirely without foundation.
Marcotte even gives us a bit of political science about fascism in this post. She claims she has 'no love for any fundamentalists of any religion'. This reflects the common liberal view that fundamentalists are a phenomenon common to all religions, where they tend to form a dangerous fringe, thus conjuring a false parity between religions. In fact, Islam has far and away the greatest number of violent fundamentalists, followed by Christianity, while the Eastern religions are notably free of fundamentalists, notwithstanding the vicious anti-Hindu rhetoric in certain quarters. She takes issue with the conservative neologism 'Islamofascist' by arguing that Muslim terrorists like Al Qeada or Hezbollah do not count as 'fascists', since they are 'not centralized and ... don't have the vision of a corporate-government power merger that people like Mussolini advocated'. Not yet. However, I understand 'fascism' to mean more than this. When a group of people band together under an aggressive and fanatical ideology that fosters authoritarian government at home and war abroad, I am pleased to call that 'fascism' (or at least 'nascent fascism'). This has certainly been a dominant theme throughout Islamic history, and can also be found in the bloody history of the Christian West. More to the point, such a spirit animates many Muslims today, with consequences far more severe than in America. There may be some of the same spirit on the American Right, but the situation cannot compare to many Muslim countries. Indeed, Marcotte makes the valid point that the winners for the title of 'Islamofascist' are probably our friends the Saudis, whom Bush and Cheney never seem to criticize. Could it have something to do with oil?
In brief, there is a grain of truth to the term 'Christofascist', but using it to describe the Christian Right in America is a gross exaggeration that can only backfire and hurt the very people who feel persecuted. Such a word should surely not be used by anyone associated with a serious political campaign, though the idea may find its place in a serious journal of political science (and many not so serious journals). It should be considered a statement of tendency, based on dark historical currents in Christianity which still survive to some extent. While true, such ideas are far too complex for any electorate and can only lead to counterproductive resentment and misunderstanding. The best way to handle our less enlightened Christian brothers and sisters is to use the Sermon of the Mount against them. Jujutsu rather than a bludgeon!
Back to Jesus and the GOP
Articles on the Religious Right
Back to Politics & Religion Menu
General Articles
Before 2007
2007
As I was pondering whether any of these practices could be reconciled with rationality, the religious gloating of the conservative intelligentsia only grew louder. The onset of the Iraq war expanded the domain of religious triumphalism to transatlantic relations: what makes America superior to Europe, we were told by conservative opinionizers, is its religious faith and its willingness to invade Iraq. George Bush made the connection between religious beliefs and the Iraq war explicit, with his childlike claim that freedom was God's gift to humanity and that he was delivering that gift himself by invading Iraq.
I need not rehearse here how Bush's invocation of the divine gift of freedom overlooks the Bible, the persistence throughout history of hierarchical societies that have little use for personal autonomy, and the unique, centuries-long struggle in the West to create the institutions of limited government that underwrite our Western idea of freedom. Suffice it to say, the predictable outcome of the Iraq invasion did not convince me that religious belief was a particularly trustworthy ground for political action. I never thought a book by D'Souza, the aging enfant terrible of American conservatism, would, like the Stalinist apologetics of the popular front period, contain such a soft spot for radical evil. But in The Enemy at Home, D'Souza's cultural relativism hardly stops with bin Laden. He finds Ayatollah Khomeini still to be 'highly regarded for his modest demeanor, frugal lifestyle and soft-spoken manner'. Islamic punishment tends to be harsh — flogging adulterers and that sort of thing — but this, D'Souza says 'with only a hint of irony', simply puts Muslims 'in the Old Testament tradition'. Polygamy exists under Islamic law, but the sexual freedom produced by feminism in this country is, at least for men, 'even better than polygamy'. And the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that the West has a taboo against questioning the existence of the Holocaust, while 'pooh-poohed by Western commentators', was 'undoubtedly accurate'. Unlike President Bush, who once said he could not understand how anyone could hate America, D'Souza knows why Islamic radicals attack us. 'Painful though it may be to admit', he admits, 'some of what the critics or even enemies say about America and the West ... may be true.' Susan Sontag never said we brought Sept. 11 on ourselves. Dinesh D'Souza does say it.
Dreadful things happened to America on that day, but, truth be told, D'Souza is not all that upset by them. America is fighting two wars simultaneously, he argues, a war against terror abroad and a culture war at home. We should be using the former, less important, one to fight the latter, really crucial, one. The way to do so is to encourage a split between 'radical' Muslims like bin Laden, who engage in jihad, and 'traditional' Muslims who are conservative in their political views and deeply devout in their religious practices; understanding the radical Muslims, even being sympathetic to some of their complaints, is the best way to win the support of the traditionalists. We should stand with conservative Muslims in protest against the publication of the Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad rather than rallying to the liberal ideal of free speech. We should drop our alliance with decadent Europe and 'should openly ally' with 'governments that reflect Muslim interests, not ... Israeli interests'. And, most important of all, conservative religious believers in America should join forces with conservative religious believers in the Islamic world to combat their common enemy: the cultural left.
Back to Articles on the Religious Right
Theocratic Tendencies
In material given to conference attendees, [Kennedy] wrote: "As the viceregents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."
Kennedy, the Monitor noted, "regularly calls the United States a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders."
[. . .]
Moore became a cause celebre and a popular speaker at major gatherings of such organizations as the Christian Coalition and Eagle Forum. He was publicly courted to head the national ticket of the overtly theocratic Constitution Party in 2004 and he appeared at numerous state party conventions while being publicly coy about his intentions. (Founded in 1994, it was originally called the U.S. Taxpayers Party.) The GOP was rightfully concerned that Moore might divide Bush's conservative Christian constituency and threaten his reelection.
But he was able to use this leverage to move elements of the GOP in his direction. Moore and his attorney Herb Titus (vice-presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 1996) drafted the Constitution Restoration Act, which would allow local, state and federal officials to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" and prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from gagging them. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) signed on as the bill's main sponsors, and announced its introduction at a press conference in Montgomery, Ala., in February 2004.
Both the House and Senate held hearings on the bill in 2004, and Sen. Shelby reintroduced it in 2005 (S.520). As of September [2005], it had eight GOP [Senatorial] cosponsors. In the House (H.R.1070) Rep. Aderholt had 43 [House] cosponsors. It is a classic and pioneering 'court stripping' bill, stripping the Supreme Court of its power of oversight.
[. . .]
While Alabama has its distinctive politics, we can also see dominionist politics in the mix of the aggressive efforts to restrict access to abortion and to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians — and in the efforts to teach creationism and its variant 'intelligent design' in the public schools. 'We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state', it says.
Just off the convention floor, among the warren of booths selling buttons and T-shirts denouncing Democrats, the table for WallBuilders — founded by outgoing party vice chairman David Barton — was piled high with books and DVDs extolling religion in government. The Keys to Good Government was one DVD. America's Godly Heritage was another. [. . .]
The evangelicals knew which positions could affect their agenda, whom to replace, and whom they wanted appointed. This was true for the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health and Human Services — agencies that would rule on or administer matters dear to the evangelical causes.
The labyrinthine infiltration of the agencies was invisible to Americans outside the culture of the religious right. But even the high-profile appointments made it clear where Bush was taking the country. One of his first appointments, for the office of attorney general, was of the Pentecostal Christian John Ashcroft, a hero to the evangelicals, many of whom had earlier wanted him to run for president — Pat Robertson had put up money for his campaign. As a senator, Ashcroft had sponsored a bill to protect unborn life 'from [the moment of] fertilization'. As soon as he was nominated to be attorney general, the Family Research Council mobilized women to lobby at Senate offices for his confirmation. The evangelicals had long been familiar with Ashcroft's piety. He told an audience at Bob Jones University that 'we have no king but Jesus', and called the wall of separation between church and state a 'wall of religious oppression'.
After his nomination but before his confirmation, Ashcroft promised to put an end to the task force set up by Attorney General Janet Reno to deal with violence against abortion clinics — evangelicals oppose the very idea of hate crimes. The outcry of liberals against Ashcroft's promise made him back off from it during his confirmation hearings. In 2001, there was a spike in violence against the clinics — 790 incidents, as opposed to 209 the year before. That was because the anthrax alarms that year gave abortion opponents the idea of sending threatening powders to the clinics — 554 packets were sent. Nonetheless, Ashcroft refused for a long time to send marshals to quell the epidemic.
That was one of many signs that this administration thought of abortion as a sin, not as a right to be protected. The President himself called for an amendment to the Constitution outlawing abortion. He called evangelical leaders around him to celebrate the signing of the bill banning 'partial birth abortions'. The signing was not held, as usual, at the White House but in the Ronald Reagan Building, as a salute to the hero of younger evangelicals. Ashcroft moved enforcement of the ban to the Civil Rights Division, a signal that evangelicals appreciated, implying that the fetus is a person with civil rights to be protected. Then, in what was called a step toward enforcement, Ashcroft subpoenaed hospitals for their files on hundreds of women who had undergone abortions — Democrats in Congress called this a major invasion of privacy.
Ashcroft's use of the Civil Rights Division for religious purposes was broader than his putting partial-birth abortion under its jurisdiction. Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, two critics of Republican policies, write in One Party Country:
In a further step toward faith-based justice, President Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He had resisted this earlier, and his vice-president, Dick Cheney (whose daughter is a lesbian), had said that the matter should be left to the states; but in 2003 the Supreme Court knocked down the anti-sodomy law in Texas (Lawrence v. Texas), and the evangelicals responded to Antonin Scalia's ferocious dissent in ways typified by James Dobson, who said that this was 'our D-Day, or Gettysburg, or Stalingrad'. The pressure from the religious right was now too great for Bush to resist, and he began to speak out in support of banning gay marriage by constitutional amendment.
[. . .]
In his campaign for the presidency, Bush offered as a proof of his 'compassionate conservatism' the plan to give federal aid to church groups that perform social services — the so-called 'faith-based initiatives'. In feigned compliance with the First Amendment, the program claimed to have safeguards against using the money to proselytize. But since large grants went to people who do not believe there is any separation of church and state — Chuck Colson got $2 million and Pat Robertson $1.5 million — there was little will to follow the pro forma separation of preaching and aiding. Large grants went to abstinence-only forms of sex education, on the grounds that this was a secular cause, though only religious people were backing it.
The wisdom of the First Amendment was demonstrated by the political uses the faith-based program was put to. The program was largely targeted to benefit African-American ministers ...
[. . .]
When the President was unable to get his faith-based bill through Congress, he just put it into effect anyway by means of two executive orders, going to Philadelphia to sign the second one.
[. . .]
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush said that 'the jury is still out' on the merits of Darwinism. That is true only if the jury is not made up of reputable scientists. Bush meant to place religious figures on the jury, to decide a scientific question. As president, he urged that schools teach 'intelligent design' along with Darwinism — that is, teach religion alongside science in science classes.
[. . .]
One of George W. Bush's first acts as president — in fact, on his first day in office, signaling its importance to his evangelical supporters — was to restore a gag rule on aid to international organizations that counsel women on the subject of abortion.
[. . .]
Another concern of the religious right was the morning-after abortion pill
-- Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books, 16 Nov 06 issue Back to Articles on the Religious Right
Evangelicals & Foreign Policy
Theocracy in America?
Let's Not Exaggerate, But...
Liberal Moral Deficit
Can Religion in Politics Be Good?
Andrew Sullivan's 'Christianism'
Jesus Camp
Robertson Rejects Multiple Paths to God
An Atypical Fanatic
Anti-Christian Bloggers
Christian Broadcasting Network
Wikipedia: Christian Coalition
Theocracy Watch: Influence of the religious right in Congress
Joan Bokaer (Theocracy Watch): Are we becoming a theocracy? (video)
Joan Bokaer (Theocracy Watch): The rise of dominionism (video)
Robert Kuttner (Prospect): America as a One-Party State
ABC: The Most Powerful Conservative Group You've Never Heard Of
Beliefnet: Natural Resources and God's Bounty
Americans United: Who Is The Council For National Policy?
Erwin Chemerinsky (WP): Legislating Violations of the Constitution
Michelle Goldberg (Salon): In Theocracy They Trust
Bob Moser (Rolling Stone): The Crusaders
Stanley Kurtz: The Left runs with a wild theory
Don Feder: The Left's 'Dominionist' Demons
Amy Sullivan (USA Today): Why Democrats are losing the culture war
ARE WE BECOMING A THEOCRACY?
Joan Bokaer, Theocracy Watch, online video
Not a Theocracy ... Yet!
She starts out by making the point that we are not yet in a theocracy. This is important, because some critics try to smear her by putting outrageous claims in her mouth. In fact, Bokaer comes off as a most calm, moderate, informed and wise speaker, though she is evidently an activist Democrat, which is fair enough. Her facts and arguments are what matter.
However, Congressman Christopher Shays, R-CT has been quoted as saying, "The party of Lincoln has become the party of theocracy." (NYT, 24 Mar 05) That is a strong statement by a prominent Republican politician, so we know something is up.
After Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964, a group of Republican strategists (including Paul Weyrich) who had worked on his campaign decided to expand the party base by appealing to conservative Christians. Until then, the party had been primarily the party of the wealthy and the southern segregationists. Goldwater had 'nothing to do with the religious right'. He was 'just a good old-fashioned conservative'.
In 1973, Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation. Weyrich proposed targeting members of Fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches.
In 1979, Weyrich coined the term Moral Majority, which became a 'major organization with Jerry Falwell at the helm'.
In 1981, the Council for National Policy is formed as a 'kind of command and control center for the theocratic right'. They hold highly secretive meetings. The first president was the Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the 'wildly popular' (62 million+) Left Behind series. Rational Americans could be a bit worried about this, as these books take Biblical prophecy with a medieval-like literalism. Thus, such literalists have held key positions in a political organization that was crucial in changing our government, as we will see!
Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition during the 90's, and instrumental in its success, who was also a regional director of George Bush's campaign in 2004.
James Dobson, whose radio show Focus on the Family reaches 8 million daily, also founded the Family Research Council, the 'most powerful lobbying organization of the theocratic right today'.
Pat Robertson (also here), founder of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), host of the 700 Club, founder of the Christian Coalition and Regent University.
And the late Rousas Rushdoony, father of the Christian Reconstruction Movement, which is pure theocracy.
In 1989, the Moral Majority disbands and the Christian Coalition forms.
In 1988, TV preacher Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, running for president, actually beat vice-president George Bush in Iowa, in the primaries. He made a decision to take over the Republican party from the bottom up, precinct by precinct.
One Christian Coalition tactic was to attend local GOP meetings, tie them up for hours, and then, when most traditional Republicans had gone home, vote themselves in and set the agendas. Bit by bit, they took over the party leadership at the local level.
This led to real effects on state party platforms: e.g. the Washington State GOP platform, 1992, outlawed witchcraft and yoga classes.
Reed and Robertson told their candidates to use stealth, avoid publicity and take over at local level.
By election 1994, 40 million Family Values Voter Guides had been distributed in more than 100,000 churches. And 1994 was a political watershed year, with the GOP sweeping both houses of Congress, for the first time in 40 years. TIME magazine called Ralph Reed the 'Right Hand of God'.
In 2000, 70 million voter guides were sent to support George W. Bush.
The Christian Coalition keeps 'scorecards', which rate politicians according to how they vote. Bokaer took scorecards for 2004 and graphed them vs. political party. 41 out of 51 GOP senators got a score of 100%, which means that 100% of their votes were in accord with the wishes of the coalition. (The one Democrat was Zell Miller.) 31 out of 48 Democrats got 0. Clearly, there has arisen a drastic polarization, and it is fair to call the GOP the party of the religious right. (There were only a few GOP moderates with a middle-of-the-road score of 60%: Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins. None had less than this.)
However, their success is not entirely due to their brilliant, energetic and sometimes dubious electoral tactics. The American public is partly to blame. In particular, voter apathy, especially during the primaries, has worked very well for them:
Now Bokaer goes into more depth about the theocratic mentality that is behind the thinking of most of these powerful activists. It is important to understand that, even if they are not pushing for a full-fledged theocracy today, and even if they are not consciously planning on a full-fledged theocracy, such ideas clearly drive their gut instincts as an ideal, and the public must be aware of this. It is a warning sign, even if no laws have been violated. It is something to watch carefully. I realize that this warning could be viewed as paranoia, but it has enough basis in reality that one should at least remain alert.
These words are troubling. Their spirit clearly violates that of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Even more troubling is when a Supreme Court Justice says:
Or this from our very own President Bush:
Bokaer then makes the point that only a few Americans are true theocrats: these are the so-called 'Dominionists'. She is explicit that these people are very few in numbers, but their thinking has inspired, to some extent, many on the Religious Right. The boundaries are blurred, but there is reason to be apprehensive, especially since many aggressive tacticians on the right have used stealth and deception (as did Mohammed by the way).
(i) Restraining civil evil
(ii) Punishing evil
(iii) Protecting the law-abiding
(iv) Defending the nation"
Note that this means that social programs, education, protection of environment, workers, consumers, etc. are all eliminated under this view of government. This sounds like the GOP of recent decades, doesn't it? Bokaer may be an active Democrat, but even reasonable Republicans don't want all institutions and regulations abolished in this way.
To show the real-life power of this thinking, Bokaer refers to the Texas Republican Party Platform, which she calls a 'blueprint' for Dominionism. Now Texas is a rather large state. This is worrisome! One cannot say that Dominionism, which would truly be a theocracy, is merely a 'fringe' group, if it can have this kind if influence, albeit indirect. Just look at what would be abolished:
The Churches would take over social programs, thus giving power to Christians. Hence, the anti-tax mania of the Republican party, which is not just to benefit the rich, as I once thought. It's part of an overall ideology. Recipients of aid will feel pressure to convert (just as in India). (To be fair, traditional conservatives do have many valid complaints about social programs, or at least some of them: corruption, inefficiency, the unfairness of socialism, etc.)
Bokaer mentions the textbook called America's Providential History, 1989, by Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, widely used in home-schooling. According to her, this book 'totally revises' US history. Here are some quotes:
Note that taxes are indeed being slashed during a time of war and record deficits. Social programs are also being slashed. Bokaer opines, "I believe that the United States is beginning to fit the model of a reconstructed America." A problem with this view, as I just alluded to, is that social services may indeed sometimes be too bloated or poorly administered.
"I favor the death penalty for abortionists." Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, Associated Press, July 2003
U.S. Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy has been targeted for assassination. He was appointed by Reagan! Before June 26, 2003, consensual sex between couples of the same sex in the privacy of their homes was illegal in thirteen states. This was changed in a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court ruling, Lawrence vs. Texas, for which Kennedy wrote the majority opinion:
And here is Senator Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican (as elected by fellow Republican senators):
Another influential character is David Barton, Vice Chair of the Texas Republican Party. He is a Dominionist, who is 'reaching a lot of people', and who was also on the payroll of the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. He helped draft the following words in the Texas Republican Party Platform:
At this point, Bokaer reminds us of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, unanimously ratified by Congress, the same people who signed the Constitution:
January 22, 2001 - Global gag rule on international family planning assistance; 'overwhelmed the developing countries', forbidden from even mentioning the world 'abortion'.
August 9, 2001 - Ban on most kinds of stem cell research. Even many Republicans were outraged. Yet Bush has been so stubborn in this! Truly nutty, in my opinion.
March 2004 - Cut off the entire American contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, which among other goals, states that it wishes to 'ensure that every pregnancy is wanted'. In other words, it passes out birth control. It claims that it does not perform abortions, which is why the money was withdrawn.
November 5, 2003 - A partial birth abortion ban is legislated, which makes no exception for the life of the mother; hence, three federal courts have declared it unconstitutional.
Pharmacists around the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth-control or morning-after pills.
Michigan passed the Conscientious Objector Policy Act which 'provides doctors with legal protection if they refuse to treat a gay person'. Hippocrates is rolling in his grave!
Evolution - Biology teachers around the country, according to the NYT, are dropping the teaching of evolution, because they're scared of the controversy. A threat to science is a threat to our very civilization, not to mention the economy and defense!
A dozen IMAX theaters (science theaters) have banned movies having to do with evolution. Ridiculous!
1997 Oregon's Death with Dignity Law, which allows for doctor-assisted suicide in some cases. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft sued the state of Oregon to have the law repealed; his successor Alberto Gonzales is taking it to the Supreme Court.
Curiously, despite all of Jesus' love and forgiveness, these people are the strongest proponents of the death-penalty and the strongest opponents of any bans on guns. The ten year Ban on Assault Weapons expired on September 13, 2004. It was never even brought to the floor for a vote.
Kevin Martin, a vigorous opponent of any kind of 'indecency' is appointed chairman of the FCC. Please note: he understands 'indecency' to go way beyond pornography, into core free speech issues such as taking the Lord's name in vain, and so forth. The $500,000 penalty for 'broadcasting indecency' has had a 'chilling effect' on the braodcasting industry. For example, Saving Private Ryan, an academy award winning film, was pulled by 66 affiliates of CBS, because the Lord's name was taken in vain! God damn!
In many schools, sex education now teaches abstinence-only. That is, it not only encourages abstinence but teaches that abstinence is the only choice.
The cartoon character Spongebob Pants was accused of being a homosexual by James Dobson. The creator of Spongebob said: "But he's a sponge!"
Conclusions: That's the summary of the video, and here are my own views.
A few attempts to insert Intelligent Design into public school curricula constitute an 'insidious' plot to overturn the Enlightenment, while the campaign to allow voluntary prayer in public schools is an attempt 'to dismantle the First Amendment'.
"The conservatism I grew up around", Sullivan writes on the second page of the book, "was a combination of lower taxes, less government spending, freer trade, freer markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility and a strong anti-Communist foreign policy." His heroes were Thatcher, Reagan, Solzhenitsyn, Havel, Hayek and Orwell.
Brooks is a bit rash in dismissing what he considers fringe elements of the religious right. I have already posted in detail on material from the website Theocracy Watch, which seems professional and persuasive to me.
I saw this film at SilverDocs, a documentary film festival at the American Film Institute in Silver Spring. It's excellent, and I highly recommend it.
The Episcopalian Church does not have the sheer numbers of the evangelical movement represented by Robertson, but its members tend to be more highly educated. They used to dominate the the American elites, but those days are long gone. Robertson is equally disturbed that Jefferts-Schori does not exclude gays from religious services. Jefferts-Schori has said: 'If we insist that we know the one way to God, we've put God in a very small box.' The Hindus knew this a long time ago. However, that won't appeal to Robertson either. He considers all 'pagans' to be 'devil worshippers'. Jefferts-Schori has also referred to Jesus as our 'Mother'. This lady has definitely been influenced by Hinduism! Or maybe such thoughts about the Divine arise naturally to those without theological prejudice. Why wouldn't God be a mother as well as a father?
Click to enlarge
Froma Harrop: Edwards' bloggers attack Christians
Bonnie Erbe: Edwards' bloggers stepped over the line
WSJ: The spirit of the Edwards bloggers haunts Democrats
Amanda Marcotte: Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign
Catholic League: Vulgar remarks from lefty bloggers
Olberman video: Trash-talking bigot Bill Donohue
General Articles
Theocratic Tendencies
Evangelicals & Foreign Policy
Political Developments
Christian Fascism?
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.: Forgetting Reinhold Niebuhr
Heather MacDonald: Conservatives can be religious skeptics
Heather MacDonald: Piety doesn't belong in politics
10 QUESTIONS FOR HEATHER MAC DONALD
Gene Expression blog, 02 Jan 07
I also wondered at the narcissism of believers who credit their good fortune to God. A cancer survivor who claims that God cured him implies that his worthiness is so obvious that God had to act. It never occurs to him to ask what this explanation for his deliverance says about the cancer victim in the hospital bed next to his, who, despite the fervent prayers of her family, died anyway.
Robert Tracinski (Intellectual Activist): The Secular Right
Beliefnet: The Twelve Tribes of American Politics
Christian Science Monitor: Americans and the God question
Breitbart: Poll: Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists
Cathy Young: The Religious Divide
Chris Lehmann (Slate): Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Attack
Alternet: Top 10 Articles on the Christian Right for 2006
Stephen Prothero (Christianity Today): Sinning Boldly
D'SOUZA APOLOGIZES FOR TERRORISTS
by Alan Wolfe, NYT, 21 Jan 07
At first Dinesh D'Souza considered him 'a dark-eyed fanatic, a gun-toting extremist, a monster who laughs at the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians'. But once he learned how Osama bin Laden was viewed in the Muslim world, D'Souza changed his mind. Now he finds bin Laden to be 'a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person'. Despite being considered a friend of the Palestinians, he 'has not launched a single attack against Israel'. We denounce him as a terrorist, but he uses 'a different compass to assess America than Americans use to assess him'. Bin Laden killed only 3,000 of us, with 'every victim counted, every death mourned, every victim's family generously compensated'. But look what we did in return: many thousands of Muslims dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, 'and few Americans seem distressed over these numbers'.
Mother Jones: Pelosi daughter's documentary on evangelicals
Mad Magazine: Bush vs. Jesus campaign commercial (humor)
Steven Warshawsky: Atheists, Conservatives, and Christianity
Christopher Orlet: Skeptical conservatives emerging from closet
E.J. Dionne: The New Protestant Reformation
Cal Thomas: The Legacy Of Jerry Falwell
Bill Boyarsky: God and John McCain
Sara Diamond: The Christian Right Seeks Dominion
Chip Berlet: The Christian Right
Chip Berlet: Dances with Devils
REMAKING AMERICAN AS A CHRISTIAN NATION
Frederick Clarkson, Public Eye, Winter 2005
The three-shared Dominionist characteristics of religious supremacy, Christian nationalism, and theocratic visions are on vivid display in the politics of [Alabama 10-Commandments Chief Justice Roy] Moore's ally, Rev. D. James Kennedy, the prominent televangelist [whose audience numbers 3 million]. In early 2005, Kennedy displayed Roy's rock at his annual political conference, Reclaiming America for Christ in Ft. Lauderdale. "For more than 900 other Christians from across the United States," reported the Christian Science Monitor, "the monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation."
Katherine Yurica: Blackwell's Un-American Scheme
Katherine Yurica: Conquering by Stealth and Deception
John Sugg: Public Stoning: Not Just for the Taliban Anymore
Froma Harrop: McCain blew it by embracing Falwell
Kevin Phillips: Theocons and Theocrats
Leon Hadar: Review of Kevin Phillips's American Theocracy
Ross Douthat: Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy
SF Gate: 'Convert or die' game divides Christians
Dennis Prager: America Was Meant to Be Free, Not Secular
TEXAS GOP: AMERICA STILL A CHRISTIAN NATION
Dallas Morning News, 4 Jun 06
The party platform, adopted Saturday, declares 'America is a Christian nation' and affirms that 'God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom'.
Steven Waldman: Is George Bush the Christian's Christian?
Pierre Tristam: America Struggles With Its Own Evangelical Taliban
Armor of God pajamas: Make your kids proud Christian soldiers
Yahoo News: Schroeder: Bush's faith raised suspicion
A COUNTRY RULED BY FAITH
Frederick Clarkson, NYRB, 16 Nov 2006
The White House was alive with piety. Evangelical leaders were in and out on a regular basis. There were Bible study groups in the White House, as in John Ashcroft's Justice Department. Over half of the White House staff attended the meetings.
In 2002, the department established within its Civil Rights Division a separate 'religious rights' unit that added a significant new constituency to a division that had long focused on racial injustice. When the Salvation Army — which had been receiving millions of dollars in federal funds — was accused in a private lawsuit of violating federal antidiscrimination laws by requiring employees to embrace Jesus Christ to keep their jobs, the Civil Rights Division for the first time took the side of the alleged discriminators.
Joshua Muravchik: The Theocons: America Under Siege
Dennis Prager: Americans must swear on Bible
Don Feder: ADL sinks to new low on Dennis Prager
Robert Spencer: But It's Thomas Jefferson's Koran!
Christian Embassy: Christianism in the military [more] [more]
NOW: The Ten Commandments Judge
Breitbart: Pope: No human law can 'overturn that of Creator'
Robert Spencer: Beware the Christian Jihad? [more]
Rob Boston: Theocratic Agenda Heading for a Statehouse Near You
John McCain: Constitution Established a 'Christian Nation'
David Antoon: Air Force going Christian
Walter Russell Mead: Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy
ON PRESIDENT BUSH'S RELIGIOSITY
Robert Wright, NAF, 27 Oct 04
Some have marveled at Mr. Bush's refusal to admit any mistakes in Iraq other than 'catastrophic success'. But what looks like negative feedback to some of us — more than 1,100 dead Americans, more than 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians and the biggest incubator of anti-American terrorists in history — is, through Chambers's eyes, not cause for doubt. Indeed, seemingly negative feedback may be positive feedback, proof that God is there, testing your faith, strengthening your resolve. This, I think, is Mr. Bush's optimism: In the longest run, divinely guided decisions will be vindicated, and any gathering mountains of evidence to the contrary may themselves be signs of God's continuing involvement. It's all good.
Michelle Goldberg: Kingdom Coming: Rise of Christian Nationalism
Michael Weiss: The Jewish Jihad for Jesus
Truthdig: Congressman Suggests 'Jesus Surge' for Iraq
Americans Against World Empire, Inc: The Armageddon Lobby
Jon Basil Utley: Their Armageddonites, and Ours
Jon Basil Utley: The Brutal Christ of the Armageddonites
Gene Lyons: The Apocalypse Will Be Televised
Duane Oldfield: The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism
The Day I Prayed with George W. Bush to Receive Jesus!
Bill Barnwell: TV Evangelist John Hagee Wants War With Iran Now!
LA Times: Defeating Jihad new priority for evangelicals
Jon Basil Utley: America's Armageddonites
Chris Hedges: The Evangelical Rebellion
Back to Articles on the Religious Right
Political Developments
Evangelicals and GOP (2006)
Russell Cobb: Cracks in the Christian Ascendancy
John Dickerson: Christian Conservatives are Souring on the G.O.P.
Media Matters: Dobson says Foley messages a joke
KUO'S BOOK SAYS BUSH AIDES
DISMISSED CHRISTIAN ALLIES
New York Times, 12 Oct 06
A former deputy director of the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is charging that many members of the Bush administration privately dismiss its conservative Christian allies as 'boorish' and 'nuts'.The former deputy director, David Kuo, an evangelical Christian conservative, makes the accusations in a newly published memoir, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction (Free Press), about his frustration with what he described as the meager support and political exploitation of the program.
"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous', 'out of control', and just plain 'goofy'..." Mr. Kuo writes.
WHAT DO THEY REALLY BELIEVE?
Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily editor, 20 Oct 06
I didn't need a former Bush administration official to tell me that most White House political operatives don't really like the evangelical base that brought them to power. I've seen the evidence for myself, up close and personal. But the more astonishing phenomenon is how current high-level officials of the Bush administration daily go out of their way to insult this critical constituency just weeks before the vote.Here's an example: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, someone who claims to be a Christian herself, which, by definition, means you submit to the authority of Jesus and the Bible, last week swore in to the position of AIDS coordinator an open homosexual. The position carries the rank of ambassador. The photo accompanying this column shows the smiling first lady, Laura Bush, and Mark Dybul's partner, Jason Claire, leering at him.
During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire's mother and - sit yourself down for this one - called her Dybul's 'mother-in-law'. Do you get the picture? Do you believe God will honor an administration that behaves this way? Do you believe God will continue to protect a country that flagrantly disregards His laws? Do you believe God will be mocked like this without consequences? Do you believe God will bless a party that acts so duplicitously? Remember what I told you on the evening of Nov. 7...
Beliefnet editor: Why Evangelicals Are Abandoning Bush
Amy Sullivan: The Fallout from Ted Haggard
UPI: Texas Governor agrees non-Christians going to hell
Edwards' campaign bloggers flap (Feb 07)
Froma Harrop: Edwards' bloggers attack Christians
Bonnie Erbe: Edwards' bloggers stepped over the line
WSJ: The spirit of the Edwards bloggers haunts Democrats
Amanda Marcotte: Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign
Catholic League: Vulgar remarks from lefty bloggers
Olberman video: Trash-talking bigot Bill Donohue
Other Stories
Daniel Henninger (WSJ): Religion in the Modern Age
Astrid Storm (Slate): Episcopal split promises a stronger church
NPR: Is America Too Damn Religious?
Barna Group: Religious Americans are better people
PFAW: Supreme Court to Hear Case on Separation of Church and State
Victor Stenger: Let's end the free ride
Bruce Wilson: Time Magazine Plugs Bible In Schools
Bruce Wilson: Chuck Norris Wants To Kick Secularism's Ass
Robert Dreyfuss: Evangelicals in Exile
Matt Taibbi: Mike Huckabee Is Not a Sane Man
Back to Articles on the Religious Right
Christian Fascism?
AMERICA'S HOLY WARRIORS
Chris Hedges, Alternet, 4 Jan 07
One of the arguments used to assuage our fears that the mass movement being built by the Christian right is fascist at its core is that it has not yet created a Praetorian Guard, referring to the paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse and eventually plunged ancient Rome into tyranny and despotism. A paramilitary force that operates outside the law, one that sows fear among potential opponents and is capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors, is a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built paramilitary forces that operated beyond the reach of the law.And yet we may be further down this road than we care to admit. Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder of Blackwater, the private security firm that has built a formidable mercenary force in Iraq, champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U.S. military. His employees, in an act as cynical as it is deceitful, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. These mercenary units in Iraq, including Blackwater, contain some 20,000 fighters. They unleash indiscriminate and wanton violence against unarmed Iraqis, have no accountability and are beyond the reach of legitimate authority. The appearance of these paramilitary fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, gave us a grim taste of the future. It was a stark reminder that the tyranny we impose on others we will one day impose on ourselves.
THE RISE OF CHRISTIAN FASCISM
Chris Hedges, Alternet, 8 Feb 07
Adams understood that totalitarian movements are built out of deep personal and economic despair. He warned that the flight of manufacturing jobs, the impoverishment of the American working class, the physical obliteration of communities in the vast, soulless exurbs and decaying Rust Belt, were swiftly deforming our society. The current assault on the middle class, which now lives in a world in which anything that can be put on software can be outsourced, would have terrified him. The stories that many in this movement told me over the past two years as I worked on American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America were stories of this failure — personal, communal and often economic. This despair, Adams said, would empower dangerous dreamers — those who today bombard the airwaves with an idealistic and religious utopianism that promises, through violent apocalyptic purification, to eradicate the old, sinful world that has failed many Americans.These Christian utopians promise to replace this internal and external emptiness with a mythical world where time stops and all problems are solved. The mounting despair rippling across the United States, one I witnessed repeatedly as I traveled the country, remains unaddressed by the Democratic Party, which has abandoned the working class, like its Republican counterpart, for massive corporate funding.
The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic — to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. It creates a world where facts become interchangeable with opinions, where lies become true — the very essence of the totalitarian state. It includes a dark license to kill, to obliterate all those who do not conform to this vision, from Muslims in the Middle East to those at home who refuse to submit to the movement. And it conveniently empowers a rapacious oligarchy whose god is maximum profit at the expense of citizens.
We now live in a nation where the top 1 percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, where we have legalized torture and can lock up citizens without trial. Arthur Schlesinger, in The Cycles of American History, wrote that 'the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense — not only for their acquiescence in poverty, inequality and oppression, but for their enthusiastic justification of slavery, persecution, torture and genocide'.
COMMENT: Do not dismiss this article out of hand. It may be considered an exaggerated account of real developments, which may one day morph into the horror of this author's imagination. There is at least a kernel of truth here, e.g. that the Democrats have sold their souls to corporate America, or that religion combined with despair can lead to mass delusion and oppression. (At least, this has been the historical record for Christian and Muslim nations. The Buddhists and some others have fared better.)
Democracy Now: Video (46 min): Chris Hedges on American Fascism
Chris Hedges: The Christian Right's War on America (transcript)
Chris Hedges: Hedges does well on Colbert
Chris Hedges: The Radical Christian Right Is Built on Suburban Despair
Fritz Stern (In These Times): Hitler fused racism and religion
Don Feder: The Times, 'Fascists', and the Religious Right
Robert Spencer: Beware the Christian Jihad? [more]
Jeremy Scahill: Blackwater: Soldiers of Fortune
Chris Hedges: Praying for the Apocalypse
Rolling Stone: Teenage Holy War
Back to Articles on the Religious Right
The Religious Left
Back to Politics & Religion Menu
Religious Left and War (19 Jul 06): A FrontPageMag article rips the 'religious left' for advocating talks with Iran rather than military intervention. This is extreme and shows an unsavory side of the right. Many decent and experienced foreign policy experts are calling for talks, even with the reprehensible Iranian regime. I agree with much of FrontPageMag's criticism of the left, especially its record of whitewashing of Communism and militant Islam. However, one must also point out that the right has a lot of blowhards, and the backwardness of Intelligent Design, of the stem cell research ban, of the flag burning ban, and of other such right-wing foolishness worries me. Our founding fathers were steeped in Enlightenment rationalism, but we may be losing that to conservative Christian obscurantism. The Noam Chomskys and the Jerry Falwells are equally disturbing. That is where David Horowitz has a blind spot. He wants to pretend he is buddies with the religious right for the sake of Israel, but any Jew should know better. That is, although many conservative Christians are decent people who sincerely wish well towards Israel, the fact remains that conservative Christianity has potential monsters lurking beneath the surface, who surface whenever reason is suppressed by even mild fanaticism. Don't get me wrong. Even the most primitive people on the American religious right are way ahead of the militant Muslims, but still, there is a psychological kinship, which could grow over time, especially if nourished. Let's make America intelligent again. It's our God-given duty as a superpower!
Back to The Religious Left
Notable Voices
Back to The Religious Left
Other Articles
Religious Left and War
Notable Voices
Other Articles
Wikipedia: John B. Cobb: Process theologian
Wikipedia: David Ray Griffin: Process theologian (& conspiracy theorist)
Catherine Keller: Professor of Constructive Theology
NOTE: I post a lot of articles from arch-conservative website FrontPageMag. That is because they publish a lot, and I haven't yet found many original sources from the religious left. The conservative critiques are still full of interesting information, and you can edit out their opinions, if you please.
Mark Tooley (FPM): The Mullahs' Religious Left Allies
Mark Tooley (FPM): Episcopalians on Hiroshima
Barack Obama: The Connection Between Faith & Politics
E.J. Dionne (WaPo): Can Obama Help The Dems Find God?
Amy Sullivan (Slate): Democrats losing more religious voters
Amy Sullivan (USA Today): Why Democrats are losing the culture war