Skip to main content

View Diary: "Joel's Army" and omnicide in the name of God (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Frankly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think our best shot of getting any awareness of this is if somebody jumps the gun, one of the more out there groups decides the Signs have been revealed and it's time to claim their immortality.

    You start talking about this stuff in a room of intelligent people, and you can literally watch their opinion of you drop as the words come out of your mouth.  The idea that there's a literal conspiracy to take over the US government is just too out there, people drop their "tin foil" filters.  No matter how tangentially you approach it, sooner or later you have to start talking about the takeover of the SBC and the southern state GOP organizations, and at that point they hit their boggle limit.

    That is the biggest problem: The whole idea sounds fantastic.  Sure, there's plenty of documentation that shows them detailing exactly what their plans are, and plenty showing they've been executing it for the last 30 years.  But fundamentalist cultists conspiring to take over the government?  That's just too wierd to take seriously.

    •  People may be a bit more open now. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Vincent

      Compared to 1999 or 2000, people are actually rather more open to this than they have been in past--ironically, we may well have George W. Bush to thank for this, due to his overt sympathy with and overtures towards dominionists.

      Heck, it's actually fairly well acknowledged among exit counselors and researchers that "Bible-based" groups can go bad, increasingly well-acknowledged that a number of the groups at the heart of the neopente dominionist movement qualify as essentially "Bible-based" coercive religious groups, and it's now recognised that there are enough of us multigenerational walkaways out there (which is the big reason there is such a push for isolation in dominionist groups) that formal studies are being conducted on how our issues differ from those of walkaways at large.  That's a pretty big sea change right there.

      We're also finally having people write books about some of the creepier aspects of dominionism (like Sharlet's book about "The Family", or Matt Taibbi's expose of Hagee's church in "The Great Derangement").  There are no less than ten dedicated communities online to fighting dominionism--including at least two walkaway communities and two broader "fighting dominionism" communities on alone as well as Talk to Action, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and Jews On First--this is in addition to the longstanding groups like People for the American Way, Americans United, The Interfaith Alliance, and the more walkaway-focused communities and activist groups like,, Children's Safe Passage Foundation, RISE International...and that's not counting exit counselors doing specific research on coercive dominionist groups.

      ...when I first found out that I grew up in a potentially abusive group, when I was first working to educate people in the mid-90s about this stuff, there was all of one community (which is now defunct) focusing on this besides PFAW and Americans United--the old Institute for First Amendment Studies, which also operated what was de facto the first dedicated walkaway forum for escapees from neopentecostal dominionism.  

      This was an era where even exit counselors were only starting to recognise that "Bible-based" groups, especially neopente dominionist groups, could and did "go bad" in the same way Scientology could--and because I was an escapee from a major denomination in the movement, I sometimes found it hard for even walkaway forums to accept that my experience was NOT just a "bad church".  (I literally had people tell me I was exaggerating or had a "bad apple" at points; when info started coming out about the Council for National Policy (thanks to IFAS successfully infiltrating their meetings) and especially when info on the abuses in the "Brownsville Revival" (a "Joel's Army" revival in the 1990s) came out, people were more receptive--but even the CNP stuff tended to make people think of tinfoil-hattery.)

      So, we've come a long way.  Pity we had to survive eight years of Dubya to do that, but ironically the neopente dominionists dropping some of the "public face" once they sensed they had "friendlies" in the White House and Congress did as much to expose things as did stories from walkaways--people began to realise we weren't making this stuff up.

      My only wish is that it could've been stopped a lot earlier--like in the seventies, or in the 80s, or before Dubya got into office.  :P

      •  On The Other Hand (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Huckabee can make a serious run for the GOP nomination, and poise things for the GOP to be taken over entire by his people, and nobody looks into any of this stuff in the media.  Nobody even pays too much attention to Parsley and Hagee, or why McCain is willing to reach out to them so energetically.

        We need some serious, muck-raking investigative journalism.  And before 2012, because my read on the situation says things get really dicy then.

        •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

          Oh, I definitely agree that the time is short and there has been precious little attention paid in the MSM (hence why I write like a mofo on this stuff :D).

          And yeah, my ultimate hope is to educate so as to immunise the country against any further sillybuggers (and allow the national patient to recover, so to speak).

          So...anyone wanna forward this to Mr. Olbermann or any other folks with the cojones to bring this into the media? :D

    •  exactly! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No matter how well reasoned dogemperor, Frederick Clarkson, Chris Rodda,and others sound, it comes off too much like the liberal answer to paranoid conservative ranters like Limbaugh, Scarborough,et al. This could be the reason why the MSM hasn't given the subject a very thorough look.

      I'm at the junction of short, nerdy, and oddly attractive.

      by Pan Zareta on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site