Over the last several months I have read a number of books and various magazine and on-line articles, some here, concerning efforts of radical christian fundamentalists to create an American theocracy, a christian government ruled, not by our constitution, but by biblical law. A number of people who have commented here and elsewhere claim that I am being gullible, that to believe such a thing is, at least over-reacting, of being alarmist.
I have too often ineffectively countererd with, but, I mean, well, I mean, but... finally resorting to citing Hitler's rise to power while the world looked on but did nothing. It seems a tired argument. One that most people either reject or laugh off, saying, "Oh, man, that can't happen here. It's the 21st century. This is the good ole' US of A. Land of the free." Perhaps they are right. I would, in fact, like to think so.
But given the manner and direction in which things have progressed over the last 35 to 40 years or so regarding the inroads made by the aforementioned christian fundamentalists into virtually all walks of life, including government at all levels, the work place, our schools, the media, etc., it is impossible for me to simply shrug them off as nut cases, as fringe loonies.
The fact is that millions of our fair citizens have bought into the whole idea hook, line and communion wafers. Many of these people have been drawn into the fold, as it were, to escape broken, failed lives for which they cast blame on liberal society. They long for direction, for a strict, harshly defined and enforced moral code. They no longer wish to be free. They want to be led, to be reassured of a blissful life — if not here on earth, then for an eternity in heaven. To achieve this bliss, they must divest themselves of their personal lives and desires. They must devote themselves to their god. Ultimately, they must be ready and willing to fight to the death as warriors for their god.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Zedd
Baritone,
I would have agreed with you a year ago. I was over joyed to read Kevin Phillips then.
I think the climate has changed. The fall of Haggard, the destruction of the Republican mystique by Bush and Co, Dobson and Sponge Bob, Ralph Reed's scandal, the war, Pat Robertson's insane ramblings and Falwell's death have all sealed the demise of this movement. Who is left to lead? The top evangelical today, Rick Warren, apposes the ideals of this group and closeted decenters in the ministry are now coming out expressing their disdain for what has been taking place.
Perhaps my assessment is premature but I cant imagine where the momentum for the propagation of this groups views would come from.
People are tired of being frightened. The strength behind this group was fear. We've been told to be scared of so much lately that its gotten old. I think John Bambeck missed the memo though, he's still scared of everything.
2 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, if they are on the decline and under the gun, that makes these people MORE dangerous, not less. Maybe they will be driven out of the GOP as they should have been when Barry Goldwater first pointed out how dangerous they were in the 1970s, but that's not the only threat they pose.
Take a look at groups like Christian Identity and you see exactly the kind of group which when denied political power and pushed to the fringes where it belongs, is likely to have its members start to turn to terrorism.
I maintain now as I have for a long time that the real threat to America is not Islamic terrorism from outside the country, but domestic terrorism from religious and political fanatics.
Dave
3 - STM
Dave wrote: "I maintain now as I have for a long time that the real threat to America is not Islamic terrorism from outside the country, but domestic terrorism from religious and political fanatics".
Can't agree with you on that one Dave. While they undoubtedly DO pose a slight risk to good orderly conduct and the well-being of your country, they are nowhere near as dangerous as the other clowns. They might even be willing to talk before they act, which puts them on a different wavelength to the other idiots.
4 - Baritone
Dave,
Wow. I agree with you fully. I agree also with Zedd to the extent that things with the dominionists are presently in some disarray, but, frankly, just as with Al Qaida, the theocratic movement won't disappear owing to the loss of some of their leaders. Since its beginnings in the 1960s the movement toward an American theocracy has had its ups and downs, but has nevertheless weathered many storms, sometimes almost disappearing from sight, only to reappear usually bigger and stronger than before.
Think what could happen, say in the event of another successful terrorist attack. It might cause an instability that could change people's outlook and their willingness to allow dominionists to move forward at a much faster pace.
Such an attack could play right into the theocrat's hands. Couldn't you see Bush and company declaring marshal law, curtailing most civil rights? Suspending the election process, and that with the blessings of Congress, the courts, and, most importantly, the people? The fear would return in spades, would it not?
By the way, Dave. You suggested some reading to me some time ago of material written from the conservative perspective. I won't go into all of it now, but I did read all or part of 3 or 4 of the titles you mentioned. See. I want to be "fair and balanced." I must tell you though, I was not moved much. Again, I'll detail some of my response at a more propitious time.
Baritone
5 - Zedd
Dave
I was referring to the evangelicals. You are talking about people who consider themselves to be christian in general. You wont get the extreme fringe out of the the evangelical community unless you are talking about some mentally ill types who would go wacky no matter what ideology they have globed on to.
Evangelicals pride themselves in not being extreme. They don't typically do the tongues thing or anything gimmicky. Falwell is actually much more charismatic than most. It is the WASP-est version of Christianity that there is. Many evangelicals look at Methodists and such as extreme liberals :o).
Had Oklahoma City and 911 never happened, I would agree with you about the extremists in our midst. The Branch Davidians are rebuilding. Their suppression the first time around brought out a great deal of outcry from the conservative community and caused a lot of sympathy for such groups by paranoid Americans, conspiracy theorists and Libertarians. It was that point when things got dangerous. Those groups became even more paranoid and emboldened.
I think its uncool now to express an anti government position because ears perk up. We are no longer innocent. There will always be fringe groups just as there will always be the insane in society.
I hope I'm right.
6 - Clavos
Baritone,
Excellent article on a topic that needs to be illuminated and explored by everyone.
The Christian right has indeed acquired much too much influence in contemporary politics, and as you pointed out, the socially conservative Republicans ARE to blame for having pandered to them for votes...to the point that their influence now reaches into the WH.
Strong evidence of how much the country has regressed into mysticism and superstition is the return to prominence of the evolution vs creationism debate. We have literally slid back to the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
It's ironic that the dangers we face from both within and without have in common the characteristic of being fueled by religious fanaticism.
It's frightening that a significant portion of a modern, educated population can be so easily swayed by charismatic would-be demagogues.
And you're right; it IS dangerous.
7 - Baritone
Zedd,
If you are so inclined, I invite you to go back to an article I submitted in March titled "American Theocracy." Scroll down and read the lists of names and organizations that are identified as being in whole, or in part dedicated to the creation of a christian based theocratic government. We are not talking about cult crazies. We are talking about what are steadily becoming main stream individuals and organizations, many of which receive considerable "faith based" funding from the feds.
I am not talking about some wacko Waco type group venturing into guerrilla warfare. I'm talking about a patient and very methodical government take over, one job, one statehouse, one federal agency, one cabinet position, one Congressperson, one federal (or state, or local) judgeship, one presidency at a time.
Baritone
8 - Baritone
Hey Clavos,
Good to hear. Chris Hedges' opens his book with a bang with a thorough distillation of the theocratic movement and its attendant dangers. I just reviewed Christopher Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great which covers some of the same territory, but is more historically oriented.
The one problem I find is that after reading all of the books I listed in the post, I don't really have any idea how to effectively counter the dominionists beyond these little warning diatribes. I have no particular stature in my community, having lived most of my life in relative obscurity. Perhaps, at my age I just shouldn't give a shit. But things could almost literally turn on a dime given certain possible catastrophic events. And, of course, I have concern for my kids' future. What kind of a world will they be obliged to endure? If things here in the US go to hell in a hand basket, which I believe they could, what will their lives be like? One is an operatic tenor and one a poet. A fascist christian nation ruled by biblical law could be quite uncomfortable for them.
Baritone
9 - Arch Conservative
When I suggest that the ACLU has an ugly agenda and ulterior motives I get lambasted.
When someone else suggest that Christians have a suspicious agenda they get applauded.
Yet there's no bias at BC. No... there really isn't.
10 - Jesse
Would I be out of line if I argued a little complacency? In my little part of the world... both my geographical terrain (i.e. my friends in NYC and DC) and in my virtual terrain (i.e. people I associate with online)... there's very little fundamentalist, or "dominionist," sentiment. Too little, in fact, for me to really worry about it.
I have suspicions that this religious nut-job thing is less a social phenomenon and more a media phenomenon. I think people like Falwell and Phelps have learned to work magic with news agencies and talk shows, and the media, being obsessed with representing the supposedly "marginal" views of extremists, tend to give them disproportionate amounts of attention.
Don't get me wrong... I'll still be the first with a molotov if the WH decides to establish a state theocracy. Still, I see the problem as being more about misrepresentation and a confused media environment. I still have faith that if it comes down to the wire, the American public won't accept a truly fascist state.
11 - Dave Nalle
Such an attack could play right into the theocrat's hands. Couldn't you see Bush and company declaring marshal law, curtailing most civil rights? Suspending the election process, and that with the blessings of Congress, the courts, and, most importantly, the people? The fear would return in spades, would it not?
I don't see Bush doing any of this. Bush and his followers have a much more pragmatic perspective on terorism than you suggest, and too many of them have personal power based in state government and the national legislator for Bush to piss them off by riding roughshod over them. And I think it would take a hell of a lot more than another 9/11 to make the people scared enough to put up with anything radical from the government. The key thing about 9/11 is that while it was a real tragedy for all involved, it was the kind of attack which doesn't threaten the general population. A major biological attack is the only thing I can see as a real nationwide threat.
By the way, Dave. You suggested some reading to me some time ago of material written from the conservative perspective. I won't go into all of it now, but I did read all or part of 3 or 4 of the titles you mentioned. See. I want to be "fair and balanced." I must tell you though, I was not moved much. Again, I'll detail some of my response at a more propitious time.
I don't remember recommending any books, but if I did I hope they included some Friedman and some Hayek.
Dave
12 - MCH
"The key thing about 9/11 is that while it was a real tragedy for all involved, it was the kind of attack which doesn't threaten the general population. A major biological attack is the only thing I can see as a real nationwide threat."
If this occurs, the only safe place to live will be a fortified coumpound.
13 - MCH
"When I suggest that the ACLU has an ugly agenda and ulterior motives I get lambasted. When someone else suggest that Christians have a suspicious agenda they get applauded. Yet there's no bias at BC. No... there really isn't."
Perhaps they consider the source...
14 - Dave Nalle
Yet there's no bias at BC. No... there really isn't.
Archie, if you search the wider net for criticism of BC - and there is some out there - you will find that overwhelmingly the criticism of BC (wrongly I think) is that the Politics section slants too much towards a conservative perspective.
Dave
15 - Christopher Rose
No-one is free of bias Arch and anyone that thinks they are is either mistaken or not human. There is a big difference between bias and prejudice though...
As to your point, I know you find it hard to accept, but the ACLU simply tries to protect the US Constitution, a relatively simple document.
Christians, along with Muslims and Jews, campaign for their own private agendas, which are often based upon highly subjective interpretations of books that they purport to be written by a god, exactly the same god if I understand their dogmas correctly.
The facts that there is no evidence at all for the existence of this god or that humanity as a species predates the one god theory by thousands of years don't seem to cause these faithists to question the plausibility of their position.
I think that leaves plenty of room for doubt as to the motives or even good intentions of the believers.
That may well mean that I am biased against people of faith, but I think with good cause. On the other hand, if this god actually manifested itself, I would have no qualms in admitting the error of my ways.
Finally, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the excellent restraint you have shown recently. Please keep it up.
16 - SteveS
I maintain now as I have for a long time that the real threat to America is not Islamic terrorism from outside the country, but domestic terrorism from religious and political fanatics.
Dave
Wow, when I was here several years ago, I was a very vocal screamer about the dangers of the religious right. I even wrote an article about the rise of Christian extremism and their ties with homegrown terrorists. You dismissed me, Dave. Glad to see you've come around. Is it because your party no longer wants the price that comes along with their votes?
I agree with you that they are far more dangerous to this country than terrorists overseas. Someone who wants to blow us up, is a tangible enemy we can face and fight. Someone who slowly and secretly strips our freedoms and civil liberties from within is far more dangerous because we do not see them, and so do not fight them, and the end result is often the same.
We all know the analogy of the frog and boiling water. If a frog comes across boiling water, it knows it for what it is and saves itself. But if the frog is in the water and it gradually comes up to boiling, the frog doesn't know, doesn't react and perishes. The same principle applies to that which is slowly and gradually dismantling the U.S. Constitution. The greatest danger is always from within because you don't expect it.
17 - Graham McKnight
Dave writes that: '...you will find that overwhelmingly the criticism of BC (wrongly I think) is that the Politics section slants too much towards a conservative perspective.'
The critics are right to suggest this. The left wing is dead to many article readers that subscribe to the politics section. People like myself living outside of the US often view US politics as having no true choice between Right, Center and Left wing parties/ candidates; there are only Right or Right of Centre parties and candidates... at least this is the picture we recieve from mainstream American media channels that broadcast outside of the States.
18 - Baritone
Graham,
I think to a great degree, you are correct. There are damn few true liberal democrats, or liberal anything in government in the US. It stems largely, I believe, from the quantam shift to the right which took place with the initial election of George Bush. Left wingers had no purchase on which to stand. Consequently, the Dems have by and large drifted to the right. The paradigm has shifted. I noted after our mid-term elections that many of the Democrats who had won seats in congress were, on the whole far more conservative than many of their predecessors. Many claimed to be anti-abortion and/or anti-gay. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that was the only way to win an election. They were vocal against Bush's Iraq war, but maintained much more conservative stances on most social issues.
Still today, few Dems have the stomach for taking positions in favor of abortion or gay rights. And even fewer will voice opinions against the theocrats.
Baritone
19 - Graham McKnight
Thanks Baritone. What a scary place you describe!
20 - Arch Conservative
Finally, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the excellent restraint you have shown recently. Please keep it up.
I have been trying but i did find it quite annoying that Jet was allowed to call me a feeble minded dumbass several times on the post regarding the post regarding the young girl with the "god hates fags flyers," and he also aid that my attack on NAMBLA somehow meant I was implying that all gay men were pedohpiles........a sentiment I never even came close to expressing. But when I responded to him for some reason my comments were deleted.
21 - Baritone
Graham,
It is scary here. I think it's the worms.
Baritone
22 - SteveS
Arch Conservative, the organization you bring up (and if I recall from when I was here previously, you or someone else brought up on EVERY gay thread) is so 70's. The rest of society has moved on. It's time to quit dwelling on it.
23 - Baritone
Dave,
No Friedman or Hayak. Two titles you suggested were Dan Flynn's Why the Left Hates America
an York's The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
While I can't remember many specifics, I know my initial response was that they seemed both seemed to have their Fruit of the Looms in a twist about how the evil liberals were basically working through the electoral process, and without irony I might add given the unorthodox approach to campaigning developed by the great Mr. Rove.
None of the books you suggested dealt with the question of radical christians' efforts at creating a theocracy, rather they focussed on how evil and demonic anyone left of Attila the Hun is.
Baritone
24 - Zedd
Baritone,
As a member of the evangelical community, I have been concerned about what is taking place since I became politically aware (after high school). Many of us saw the diversion from the message of love to the message of power, control and the flag.
What I also noticed was just how manipulated this group was by politicians. Regan was the first who was more blatant in his efforts to woew them. They were being used and they just couldn't see it. His statement of a "religious experience" was expressed solely to make these guys feel as if he was one of them. For me it was clear then but for them, it was a sign from God. What was really odd was that for evangelicals, a "religious experience" is not by any means an indication of Christianity. Falwell and all of these guys had been courted by the Republicans as part of their entire slaughter and overtake strategy over the American mind. When Regan made that statement, they went nuts, he was the nearest thing to the messiah.
From that point on these guys were made love to and patted on the head on a regular bases by Newt and the Roves of the day. It is that closeness to power that became addictive and they thought they were part of a greater revolution. A revolution to take back America; an adjunct to Newts contract.
The reason that I believe that they are no longer as significant is because Newts contract collapsed this past year. The Republicans finally got the power that they have been seeking for decades and they failed miserably. They hand nothing to offer other than the fear mongering rhetoric that got them power. America saw just how spin driven this party was and got grossed out. It became clear that there was no substance left in the party, just tough talk about nothing. Rush was exposed to be a drug addict, the various legislators as crooks and perverts (apre family values campaign)and off course the list of exposures that I mentioned in the past post.
What we end up with is a movement that was REALLY created by politicians. They were made to think that they were controlling policy when actually they were being given mini treats to keep them coming to the polls and preaching Republican on the pulpit (a la Justice Sunday) The politicians that invented them, no longer exist. That type of politics is outmoded. In the past year, the public has grown up.
25 - Zedd
Grahm,
I think that in the US since the 80's when liberal became a bad word due to a very successful yet eventually destructive campaign, those with left wing views must mask their leanings in order to succeed. Hillary was clearly a left leaning individual during the first part of her husband's presidency. She was thoroughly chastised by the "vast right wing conspiracy" (the right spin machine) and made into a major villain.
Now Hillary is probably the most undefinable candidate of all the candidates. She learned the lesson of what it takes to play the game and she is playing it hard, much to our loss. She works hard at being ambiguous. Still to this day people are afraid to vote for her in the democratic primary because of her vilified legacy among the more right leaning Americans.
What is sad is that what is hated about her and liberalism is not anything tangible, just the idea or word itself.