Daily Kos

The Weakest Link of the Christian Right

Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:11:49 PM PDT

How one looks at the strengths and weaknesses of any worthy opponent has everything to do with the strategy one adopts in any struggle. The principle is the same whether the matter at hand is a military battle, a business plan in a competitive marketplace, or even sizing up an opposing little league team. (Strong pitching? Weak defense? Power hitters? Good running game?) Like any movement, the Christian Right has its strengths and weaknesses.  Any competent counter-strategy, locally or nationally, has got to have at least a back-of-the-envelope analysis, grounded in facts, and presented in calm, rational language.  
One of the key ingredients in the ideology of the Christian Right is the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. And somehow this intention of the Founding Fathers has been thwarted by (pick one) -- liberals, judicial tyrants, the ACLU, secular humanists, all of the above.

This idea is tremendously powerful. It asserts that "the Christians," (however one may define Christians), are the intended rulers of the nation, because that's what The Founding Fathers, and by extension, by implication, the Constitution sought to accomplish. In some versions, God intended that America be a Christian nation. Its a powerful piece of political and religious mythology that feeds into another powerful myth -- that Christians are persecuted in the U.S. The effect is to make people feel that something has been unustly, unrighteously taken from them and that that something must be "restored" or "reclaimed." Its a powerful narrative and it flows quite naturally from the mouths of D. James Kennedy, David Barton, Roy Moore, Pat Robertson, and many more.  There is a large industry of text books, seminars, speech and power point presenters that inform and popularize the movement. Christian nationalism is integral to the political events sponsored by the Christian Coalition and it is a recurrent theme on Christian television and radio.

But for all of the work that has gone into crafting this narrative, and as popular a notion as it is, there is a problem: the facts of history do not support the myth of Christian nationalism.  This is one of many aspects of the Christian Right that has been largely ignored and has gone largely unanswered by the rest of society during its march to power.

I have written about this over the years, but since this turned out to be one of the main topics when Dr. D. James Kennedy and I appeared on the NPR interview show Fresh Air recently, arguably the issue is now on the national agenda, or at least pretty close.  

To some, the question of whether America was founded as a Christian nation, may seem academic, and perhaps even unimportant in the face of the urgent affairs of state in Washington, DC and elsewhere.  

But I think that it is very important and deserves our urgent attention. The reason is that Christian nationalism is a powerful ingredient of the political and religious identity of the theocratic Christian Right. It is a powerful, quasi-religious myth that helps to animate their politics.  It helps to prop up their attack on the separation of church and state and the idea that Christians, (only of the correct sort of course), should be our elected and appointed government officials -- among other things.  What if many members of the voters who support the Christian Right realize that they have been had? That history does not support Christian nationalism?  What if the rest of us, who support religious equality and separation of church and state are able to gain the upper hand in the telling of our story as a nation? It is a story that can be told by all of us, in our lives, in our writings, in our communities, in our medida.

There are many flaws in the argument for Christian nationalism, mostly because of lack of evidence. Advocates for Christian nationalism resort to two main tactics. One is to cherry pick quotes from various of the founding fathers (often out of context, sometimes fabricated), that tend to support their view. The other is to cite the Declaration of Independence, which invokes the "Creator."  Much is made of the Declaration for this reason. Given the importance of the Declaration in our history, and the way we revere the document, it is a shrewd choice. But the Declaration does not prove what D. James Kennedy sought to use it to prove -- that America was founded as a Christian nation.

The Declaration, written in 1776 was a revolutionary manifesto, a political document used to rally people to rise up in revolt against the king of England. But the Constitution makes no mention of God or of Christianity. In fact, the only mention of religion in the Constitution is to state in article 6 that there will be no religious tests for public office. What this meant was that one's religious orientation would not be a factor in determining criteria for public officials. By logical extension, it also meant that religion would be irrelevant to one's status as a citizen. It meant that for the first time in the history of the world, we would have a nation based on religious equality.

The Constitution was written and signed by many of the same men who wrote and signed the Declaration. If they had wanted to include God and Christianity in the nation's charter, they certainly could have done so. But they didn't, and for very good reasons. And this is the problem faced by the Christian nationalists. The Constitution and everything about its history and development belies the assertions of the Christian nationalists. They did not invoke God or declare a Christian nation, it starts out simply, "We the People of the United States" -- no deities, no higher law. There would only be what "we the people" decided would be our laws and our governing principles, and how they would evolve over time. And that's why the Christian Right invokes the Declaration to anchor their argument. They have no choice -- the Constitution does not suppor thier argument. Their argument is that weak, and they are that desperate. So far, they have pretty much gotten away with it.

The Christian Right of the 18th century opposed ratification of the Constitution when it was sent to the legislature for ratification. Part of the opposition centered on the lack of acknowledgement of God and Christianity in the Constitution.  The Christian Right of the 18th century didn't like the Constitution when it was written -- and they don't like it now. So they pretend.

It is long past time for a more concerted effort to challenge the Christian Right on its misrepresentations of our history. I talked alot about Christian nationalism and what's wrong with it in my book Eternal Hostility:  The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. (I also highly recommend The Godless Constitution, by Isaac Kramnick.) We have to challenge a form of historical revisionism that the late theocratic theologian R.J. Rushdoony called "Christian revisionism."  

We do not need to start from scratch. The battle has been underway for some time. Just today, blogger Bruce Prescott links to a story in the Houston Chronicle that details how mainstream Baptists are taking on Christian theocrat Rick Scarborough who heads the political organization, Vision America. "I think he's a very dangerous man," said [David] Currie, also a former pastor and a devout Baptist, in a recent interview. "That whole 'Christian nation' movement is attempting to undermine the absolute strength and genius of this country, and that's the First Amendment.... To make judges a religious issue is ludicrous."

Let's step into the fray. Let's start to see ourselves as part of the story of our nation -- and not allow the Christian Right to twist our history in support of their contemporary theocratic agenda.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 226 comments

  •  Let's start learning (3.98 / 64)

    to think about and talk about the Christian Righbt in new ways. Let's face it. What we have been doing and not doing for a long time has gotten us to where we are today. Lets be open to talking about new ideas and new ways of doing business.

    If you think you might be open to new ideas and new ways of doing business, you will probably appreciate Talk to Action, a new interactive web site being developed by pastordan, me and several other kossacks. You can visit us at our temporary site and watch us evolve, and maybe start to figure out if you would like to participate.

    •  Howzabout.... (3.33 / 3)

      ....we call them...wait for it...

      THE CHRISTIAN WRONG!!!

      Get it?!?!

      ...

      I'm sorry.  This was a great diary and I had nothing to add but cheap humor.  Recommended.

      "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

      by Raybin on Fri May 20, 2005 at 06:39:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not so sure (none / 0)

      You seem to assume that if supporters of the Christian Right just knew the facts, or heard the other side of the story, that their faith in their right-wing political leaders would melt away.

      You're talking about people who believe the earth was created exactly 6,000 years ago, who believe every word of the Bible is fact (despite the numerous contradictions in the Bible).

      What makes you so sure that they would change their views if we could communicate to them that the founders did not actually intend for the US to be a Christian nation? I think they would just live in denial.

      During the 1990s I felt that the GOP's main strategic failure was their belief that if they simply amassed more evidence that Clinton was a lying scumbag, that people would finally see through him and stop supporting him. They couldn't understand that no matter how much evidence they produced to show that Clinton was a liar and philanderer, it made no difference, because at some level Clinton supporters all knew that from the beginning.

      I think it's naive to count on logical, rational, history-based argument to win over these people.

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true of them all (none / 0)

        rE: You're talking about people who believe the earth was created exactly 6,000 years ago, who believe every word of the Bible is fact (despite the numerous contradictions in the Bible).

        Not all of them. The catholic wing of the Religious Right has no issues with evolution (or science in general) and does not hold to Scriptural literalism.

        •  The Catholic wing is divided (none / 0)

          I bet you that many of the Catholics who form part of the religious right also believe in a "young earth" and reject Evolution.

          Others may just be mostly anti-abortion.

          And many more, too naive to see through Bush's lies.

          Maybe not scriptural literalism, but many are "young earth".

          Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

          by Shockwave on Sat May 21, 2005 at 01:55:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um (none / 0)

            Popes have been saying they have no problem with evolution. Plus, Catholics understand that they would have no power in the nation envisioned by the born-agains. Catholics don't get born again. Catholics would be second-class citizens in the born-again "republic," expected to vote for the Christian Reich's candidates, but not to present any leadership of their own except to followers of their own church. Catholics would be roughly on par with Jews. Catholics have been there before in American, and few will want to go back.

            Myself, raised by lapsed protestants, I can recall being about six when my parents thought it important to warn me that the boy down the street I was recently playing with was Catholic. It didn't make much sense to me at the time, but it was a token of the broader attitude among the protestant culture in this country towards a religion mostly known to outsiders now for pedophile priests and for being the home of Italian mobsters and Hispanic menials. With most protestants looking at them in this light, the Christian Reich is not where most Catholics want to go.

            After all, what revisionism could go so far as to make out the Founding Fathers to be papists? Would Dobson share power with the Pope?

            •  Yes, but most Catholics think an encyclical (none / 0)

              is another word for encyclopedia.

              Those of us who are converts or whose parents were converts, or who come from Catholic academia, know this kind of thing.

              Joe Massgoer and Mrs. Joe don't have a clue. Neither do their kids. They don't even believe in the resurrection of the body - and don't have a clue that they're supposed to either. Most of the Catholics - and that includes older ones - I know who aren't theologically well read, think the saved become angels after they die.

              I know, because I taught CCD for several years, and worked in Catholic media. Even your ultra-devout daily massgoer may hold bizarre ultramontane heresies, believe in The Devil's Computer Chip and the Rapture rather than anything Catholic, not know that Bayside is a heretical sect, etc etc etc.

              (I learned about the Devil's Computer Chip and the Black Helicopters and the need to have pure beeswax candles in your house (50% parafin won't cut it) when the Eschaton comes, from answering phones at a conservative Catholic mail order firm and hanging out at conservative Catholic schools. It's amazing what they left out of the Catechism - darn liberal bishops!)

              The fact that anti-evolution rhetoric is being absorbed - along with the Left Behind mindset and a lot of other evangelical subculture - by modern Catholicism is very troubling to even conservative Catholics who are intellectual and science minded. But they're not saying anything to fight it. The Jesuits (who receintly had the boom lowered on them) had a recent article in America mag about why can't public schools just compromise and teach religion classes and science to keep everyone happy?

              And Rick Santorum is a) Catholic and noisy about it, and b) involved in fighting against modern biological teachings, too.

              Just because it's in the Catechism somewhere, or in a Papal Bull, doesn't mean that 90% of parishoners have ever heard of it, or believe it if you tell them about it.

              "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

              by bellatrys on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:18:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I think (none / 0)

        the point is not to win over the religious right, but the general public who may be somewhat ambivalent about these issues at times.
        •  Exactly! (none / 0)

          We cannot win over the hardcore religious right.
          But we can win over the fence sitters, the ones who are not quite comfortable with all the theology mixing with government, and those who are trying to reconcile their faith with politics but are confused which way to go. Because some of them would come over and join us but they are being told at every turn, how godless and unpatriotic and treasonous we all are. We can educated those folks.

          The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

          by wishingwell on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none / 0)

        I've traded posts with some people who used the same sort of arguments for why "The White Race" should be preserved in this country. "Just look in the Bible, it's all there," they say.  Oh yeah, right. Just like the Afrikaaners thought their claim to South Africa was written in the Bible.  This is a perversion of faith. But it isn't rational, and it won't be swayed by rational fact-filled arguments. They will read into whatever you show them and make it come out as small and twisted as they are.

        War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

        by Margot on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:31:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well with racists .... (none / 0)

          That is a whole other ballgame. The religious right are not necessarily all racists and all racists are not necessarily part of the religious right. But they both can pervert Christianity and cherry pick through the Bible to support their claims.

          I have studied racism and they all seem to also feel persecuted and misunderstood like the religious right. They both seem to display anger but with racists, there is a deep undercurrent of insecurity and paranoia that runs stronger than most of the religious right.

          The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

          by wishingwell on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:21:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've talked to (none / 0)

            People who hold these views (the persecuted Religious Right, I mean) for about 6 years now. Never once have  I made a dent in their persecution beliefs by offering them facts to show that they are dead wrong.
            They say, "Just LOOK at how much worse it is now for Christians!"  ???  They cleave to this belief like it was told to them from On High. I can see no end to it, really.  I wish I could, because it's dangerous.

            War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

            by Margot on Sat May 21, 2005 at 11:38:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I gotta agree... (none / 0)

        ...facts seem to hold no sway with these people. Clearly, FC, you're not only right, but accurate, which isn't always the sane thing. BUT what is being proposed is that, again, regardless of truth or accuracy, the PERCEPTION is that you're questioning their faith. And, since I'm a fundamentalist Christian myself, I know we/they respond, either internally or externally, by interpreting the proposed language as a "test" of their faith. Wonder who wins there. What HAPPENS, and ask PastorDan this, is that people, over time, adjust their faith life for a myriad of reasons. It's really that "test of time" that shows people if they are on the right spiritual track or not. (Again, God doesn't waver, but WE sure do, so WE'RE at "fault") And it's at one of those "adjusting" moments when someone, when challenged, (say, when they're asked if Jesus would lie about something just to go to war, even if it was to remove a "bad guy" from "power"), that some kind of transformation might take place, such as realizing, "Yeah, that Bush guy DID lie, didn't he, and Jesus sure wouldn't have lied OR waged a war like that. Maybe God wants me to look at this differently." The point is, and I DO have one (sorry, Ellen, but congrats on the Daytime Emmy!), is that all faith also is practical (it comes into actual use at some point or points in our lives) and it is much more likely to be tested and changed at that practical level. That's when it's REALLY OK to then "fix the facts" (or your faith) around your new policy. My approach to talking to/"converting" people (my "batting average" is about what a decent power hitter's should be -- about .280 or so) when it comes to faith and politics always has been more to the practical side of things, rather than trying to get them to intuit it through a logic and language immersion, --- although you cannot possibly have too many options/"weapons" to use when dealing with those folks. God knows, of course, how this all will turn out, but I ask that those of you who are so inclined (reclined?), to say a prayer for our country. I mean, after all, the way things are going, I don't think it can hurt. Besides, your prayer is just between you and Him. And I'm pretty sure He's not gonna be blabbin' away to anyone what Kos or Armando prayed to Him about last night...

        "Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth." Mondaugen's Law

        by Newton Snookers on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:40:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  creationism and Christian nation (none / 0)

        I don't think they are in the same category. The book of Genesis says that the world was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested.

        There is nothing in the Bible about the United States and the original intentions of the framers.  

        So I don't agree that debunking the Christian nation notion is necessarily challenging anyone's faith. Most people are smart enough to be able to disentangle these things given a chance. That is one of the challenges we face in our time.

        •  American exceptionalism (none / 0)

          American exceptionalism is an article of faith - whether in its humanist or Christian form. If you are Christian, the exceptionalism will be attributed to God. If you are a humanist, it will be attributed to something like "the frontier experience" - that is, a fresh slate, the melting pot, the optimism of a new opportunity for civilization.

          Now, we could give up on exceptionalism, and the way our nation is going we may have to. But at least historically we have been in many dimensions a better and luckier nation than most. If we keep exceptionalism, Christians will continue to interpret it as proof of the hand of God, and thus what they are talking about isn't so much the "Founding Fathers" as the "Founding Father." The good fortune of America is itself taken as undeniable proof of God's hand. By extension, whatever the Founding Fathers thought they were doing, they were actually doing God's will. So what they said and wrote - the historical evidence is actually secondary, to a Christian mind.

          Beyond some sort of evangelical humanism, I'm not sure of the way out of this. Either that, or Christianity itself needs to be dramatically reconfigured from within, and the Dobsons need to be cast into the metaphorical pit, where they belong, and where God will have them - along with the rest of us of our nation persists in following their diabolical directives.

        •  but by days.... (none / 0)

          God could mean a million years is one day.
          God could have created the earth over a billion years. Those who take it literally to mean one day are whom I refer to as the Strict Fundamentalists. As I have actually talked to some on the religious right who agree with my theory that a DAY to God is not like a DAY to mankind.  There are a few verses in the Bible about how time means something different to God than it does to human beings.

          But you are right, most believe the literal meaning of every word in the Bible. But I am pleased when some are in agreement that a DAY could mean thousands of years..or millions.

          The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

          by wishingwell on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:29:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The point isn't to (none / 0)

        persuade the kool-aid drinkers that they are wrong.  The point is to dissemble the fundies' arguments for the majority of people who are not extremists.  It is the sleeping masses who need to start moving.

        If they can be convinced that Kennedy, Dobson, et al are a real danger, perhaps more of them will move to the ballot boxes.

        "America when will we end the human war?" - Allen Ginsberg

        by Teacher Toni on Sat May 21, 2005 at 02:17:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The weakest like is obvious (none / 1)

      Having been thorugh arguements with these idiots before, I can tell you there is one simple way to stop them, and it is using their own principles against them. it works every time without fail: No matter what they are yapping about, simply ask,

      "What did Jesus teach us about this?"
      "Jesus said there are two commandments above all others- what are they?" (Love God, and treat you fellow man as you would yourself)
      "Didn't Jesus tell us to help those that are in need, and didn't he tell us that the rich should use their money to help those less fortunate than them?"
      "So why are you ignoring what Jesus told us to do?"
      (At this point they will sputter some weak support for their crap)
      Then reply, "Well, if you ignore the words of Jesus Christ and let someone else tell you what to do, then you are not a Christian. I will pray for you, that His words will come back into your heart, and you will come to love and help your fellow man"

      Works every time- this is the weakest link- their emphasis on Old Testament text above the words of Christ, who taught love and care for your fellow man. Catch them on this, and they will crumble or spew more hate, in which you reply, "you prove my point."

      Remember New Orleans!

      by azureblue on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you (none / 0)

        I think that's great advice.
        What do you do to counter something like this, where a discussion takes place about poverty, and whether Jesus was rich or poor?
        "I guess I have never read where it stated Jesus was not an owner of a home somewhere.  True, he stayed with people during his final ministry but it never states it was a full time thing.  I think there is an assumption that he was in poverty.  There is no evidence of that scriptually[sic]."

        The Eye of the Needle, and all that....

        War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

        by Margot on Sat May 21, 2005 at 11:55:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not only does The Constitution... (4.00 / 2)

      ... Of the United States of America not support the theocrats but neither does the Declaration. They can point to its reference to God and the Creator all they want but if you read the next line you the following words... word which are the most important part of this document and perhaps some of the most important words ever stated anywhere by anyone...

      "... That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

      This statement takes as part of its basis the words of the Christ, "Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers, give unto God that which is God's."

      Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from men and may consequently be abolished when they become destructive of the rights of men among men.

      They are not instituted by God, deriving their powers from God, which would obviously imply that they could not be abolished by man nor that they could possibly go astray.

      The theocrats are wrong from start to finish. They do not believe the founding principles of this nation and actively work to subvert those principles and The Constitution of the United States of America.

      They do not believe in America.

      Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

      by Andrew C White on Sat May 21, 2005 at 11:20:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I heard you on Fresh Air (none / 1)

    You were great, thanks :)

    WOw that Kennedy is scary :(

    We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

    by tiponeill on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:20:46 PM PDT

    •  thanks, TO (4.00 / 9)

      Kennedy is a formidable character, and his empire is considerable.
      •  Enough is enough! (4.00 / 3)

        Americans seem to get the power of things when they are quantified. A little something I'm working on over at ePluribus Media is to quantify the dollars behind tax-exempt religious groups like Kennedy, Dobson, et al.

        The collective Christian Nation enclave, of which Kennedy is but one, is formidable. Time to expose what the empire holds in assets.

      •  I heard you to Frederick . . . (none / 1)

        and learned a lot from the conversation. And yes, Kennedy's "empire" ought to be of concern for all.

        In your interview, is there a reason why you chose not to simply state the fallacies that the relgious right depends upon in their claims of Christian dominion? I mean, I heard it embedded in your argument, but Kennedy got away with essentially what those types all get away with; blanket statements about the "fact" that America is based in Christianity. Gross didn't challenge him at all on that front, either.

        I'm just asking . . . I'm sure the tendency is to be intellectual and reasonable in these situations (God knows I would try to be), but the radicalism of Kennedy is diminished by not clearly labeling his outrageous claims. And good people like you are going to have to carry a lot of water for the rest of us exposing these people for what they are.

        •  dominionism (4.00 / 5)

          Is at once a real enough idea, but it is also a catch-all buzz word. It is used loosely, and often unfairly to characterize alot of stuff and alot of people. Therefore I tend to use it sparingly.

          The interview was, as all such interviews are, edited down to 20 or 25 minutes from alot more conversation. We talked about Kennedy more explicitly in the interview, but my characterizing him or his views would have been rather unfair since he would have no opportunity to respond, or any opportunity to characterize me and my work.

          I think it is good that Fresh Air let our arguments stand on thier own merits.

          •  Heard the show too, (none / 1)

            Frederick.  I hope a lot of people heard it, because you made your case in a very compelling way, and people need to hear it.

            The one thing that disturbed me was the way in which Kennedy systematically evaded directly answering any of Terry Gross's questions, in particular the question of what Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and other Americans -- for, after all, America is not a monolith -- would think of the idea of an overtly Christian hold on the seat of power.  

            The only time Terry Gross put on the breaks with him at all was when he raised the notion that evolutionism leads directly to fascism.  He might want to check his history:  there's this little thing called The Enlightenment, and democratic rule is central to its legacy.  Indeed, it was in all probability the 17th century religious wars that gave people an incentive to think about the rule of law and rational principles of government as the alternative to the tyranny of religion as a founding support for the state.

            Your point about the weakness of Kennedy's argument on this point is crucial.  Over and beyond the question of whether or not one can locate "God" in this or that paragraph of some quasi-official founding document, the fact of the matter is that the structure of the Constitution -- its faith in rational procedure and the rule of law -- is fundamentally opposed to religious faith as a basis for the state.

            There is no rigor to the arguments put forward by the Dominionists about the nature of America as a Christian nation.  Unfortunately, for those who subscribe to its tenets, no such rigor is required.  To paraphrase the neocons, we rationalists are living in a hopelessly outmoded "reality-based community."

            Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

            by Dale on Fri May 20, 2005 at 07:24:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Great point on dominionism (none / 0)

            The first time I ever heard of dominionism was as a guest in a very conservative (Southern Baptist) Sunday School class in the mid-80's.  It was being discussed as an example of false doctrine.  That was certainly no liberal, moderate, or apolitcal congregation either. It is a mistake to think that all on the religious right accept dominionism or even realize it is the driving force or their movement.  Many support the movement over certain  Social Issues, but would balk at the extreme situation the Dominionists really want to bring about in the long term.
      •  Kennedy's empire... (none / 0)

        Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was Rousas J. Rushdoony and his main disciple Gary North's empire?

        We can't forget that folks like Kennedy, Dobson, Robertson, and Russell Johnson (who is leading the charge here in Ohio) are all dancing to the tune originally played by Rushdoony.

        NFTT Progressively supporting the troops

        by Timroff on Fri May 20, 2005 at 11:43:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am very familiar with Rousas and Gary (none / 0)

          and said alot about Rushdoony on Fresh Air. I was pleasantly surprized they wanted to talk about that. It was tricky trying to explain what it was about and be very concise at the same time!

          Anyway, in the context of what i was saying, no it is Kennedy's empire. Rushdoony and North had nothing to do with it as far as I know. Are Rushdoony and North signficant figures in the development of the Christian Right, and even an influence on Kennedy? Sure. Of course. Still not the same thing.  

          •  I bow to your expertise (none / 0)

            I'm just thinking that the houses that Kennedy and Dobson have built are done so upon foundations laid by Rushdoony.

            NFTT Progressively supporting the troops

            by Timroff on Sat May 21, 2005 at 09:06:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  maybe (none / 0)

              but I think I would want to see alot more of the foundation before making that assertion.

              Let me offer a perspective on this. Let's say one makes the charge that Kennedy's empire is built on the foundation laid by Rushdoony. And Kennedy comes back and says, that is preposterous. I come from a long line of the reformed presbyterian tradition. Rushdoony is a brilliant thinker, but he is but one among many. I do not agree with him on all things, and he most certainly is not responsible for Coral Ridge Ministries.

              What then?

              If one is going to make a sweeping generalization, then it has to be well supported by facts. Certainly enough facts to have a good comeback in the face of a denial.

              Rushdoony is important, but it is vital to be able to say exactly how. If we can't do that, then the point is lost, and perhaps some credibility as well.

  •  excellent diary (none / 0)

    This Christian Nation thing has been worrying me greatly for a long time now.

    What if many members of the voters who support the Christian Right realize that they have been had? That history does not support Christian nationalism?

    Do you think they'll care?  I think the main business at hand is to defend the gates against the hordes of "Christian" barbarians, not to try to convert any of them.

    Keep up the good work!

    Yes, there are still FEMINISTS on Daily Kos! Join the fabulous Supervixens every Thurs. night

    by hrh on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:21:57 PM PDT

    •  there are lots of good folks (none / 1)

      who believe what they hear, and would be open to different points of view if given a chance. Its not everyone to be sure. But one of the lessons I have learned over the years,is that the Christian right is not monolithic. The wider conservative Christian community even less so. We have alot to learn about alot of our fellow Americans.

      But among those on the fence, consider one phrase and its power. Cognitive dissononance.

      •  you've probably already thought of this (4.00 / 3)

        but I'm very disturbed by the Christian Nationalists' enthusiasm about homogeneity - that "Christian" is the norm in this country and everyone else is some kind of freak.  It gives me the willies.  It seems to me that those "on the fence" would find it problematic too.  It's completely alien to the key American value of religious tolerance.

        As a Protestant-turned-pagan-witch I can see the groundwork being laid to eliminate dangerous people like me from society.  Call me paranoid, but there it is.  

        Yes, there are still FEMINISTS on Daily Kos! Join the fabulous Supervixens every Thurs. night

        by hrh on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:40:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It Sounds Like the Klan (none / 0)

          It's warmed-over nativism, straight out of the teens and twenties.  

          I wonder if Mel Gibson will be their D.W. Griffiths?  The Crucifixion of a Nation?

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:42:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  this is indeed (none / 1)

            a variant of nativism. It has its own dynamics and contemporary twists. It's a fair analogy, but I also think that what we are seeing is different, and needs to be understood on its own terms.

            Depending on what society is like if we have an economic crash, what the next generation of Christian Right leaders are like (Dobson, Robertson, Wildmon, Kennedy, Schlafly, Tim & Bev LaHaye, etc, are all getting on in years and health), and what Ratzinger does to the Catholic Church we could end up living in some shockingly persecutory times.

            In the meantime, I am looking at proactive things that can be done. We need to get as good at best case scenarios -- and thinking about how to make them real -- as we are at seeing worst case scenarios.  

            And I think we can do it. If I didn't think so, I would hear those beaches and margaritas that I know are, calling out to me.

            •  Their real weak point is (none / 0)

              There is no next generation for them. That's why they are so shrill and panicky now. Their day is fading and in another generation their movement will be history.
              •  Never... (none / 0)

                ...count these folks out. There are plenty more wher they came from. Wildmon, for example, has been around for YEARS. When I first saw him, he looked ver much like a homeless person (that's my perception of about 25 years ago). But he stuck with his shtick and he's ridin' high these days. Make no mistake: There is someone teaching some Sunday School class somewhere who thinks that God just might want them to follow in Tim LaHaye's place. Of course, if they hear THAT "call", then it ain't gonna be God doing THAT talkin'...

                "Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth." Mondaugen's Law

                by Newton Snookers on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:48:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They will always be around (none / 0)

                  just as they have always been around throughout history. The question is will they always have the political power or be in the spotlight.
                  As the religious right has always existed in some form throughout American and World History. But,
                  they have not always been in a powerful position to influence government and politics.
                  The question for future generations will be if they can keep the religious right from ruling this country.

                  The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

                  by wishingwell on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe that there is no next generation (none / 0)

                for them.  The children of these people are learning by their parents words and actions and there most definitely will be a next generation (unfortunately). Just as there is always a next generation of racists.

                Funny story kind of off topic.  My high school aged son was talking about a "values" quiz in history this week.  Some of the other kids were amazed that even though they considered themselves Rebuplican (likely parents leanings), their values quiz labeled them on the very high end of Democrat!  

                His history teacher is to say the least, WONDERFUL!

                There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi

                by otis704 on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:13:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  This is no more a Christian nation.... (4.00 / 2)

          ...than it is a White nation.  

          America was no more founded on "Christian" principles than it was founded on white principles.  

          This comparison instantly exposes the fallacy and veiled bigotry of the Christian claims.  

        •  Re: paganism and politics (none / 1)

          Have you read Starhawk's The Fifth Sacred Thing?  The world she describes appears to be coming to pass.  It is a must-read for those interested in Christian nationalism, Dominionism etc.  She understood the two basic cultural trajectories years ago and projected them out several decades in this utopian/dystopian novel.

          May all beings be free from fear.

          by shakti on Fri May 20, 2005 at 08:17:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Which Christian Religion (4.00 / 2)

        This is such a good diary, Frederick.  When I read discussions of this topic, I always think to myself "If these people succeed in making this a "Christian" nation, which Christian dogma prevails?

        I have spent considerable time over the last several years researching my roots in this country.  And as I research my families, it's almost impossible to ignore the influence of early religious movements on the settlers and their lives.  The question above is, I think, exactly why our founding fathers did not want this nation to be governed by any religion.

        During the 1600s and 1700s, settlers dealt with all kinds of religious conflict.  Maryland, for example, was first settled by Calvert as a refuge for Catholics.  He, himself, was Catholic and had experienced persecution by the Church of England. Later after the death of Calvert, the Maryland colony reverted to an Anglican colony and persecuted Catholics were forced to pick up and move into more hospitable areas.

        Virginia, on the other hand, was dominated from the beginning by the Church of England, which was not only a state-sponsored religion but also a very political entity that attempted to control both the morals and the pocketbook of colonists.

        As I track my families, I can see them picking up and leaving early settlements in order to be able to follow the emerging religions such as the Baptist and Methodist denominations.  Other of my families in Virginia left the Church of England and became Quakers.

        I think it is safe to say that the Declaration of Independence was as much a statement of freedom from state-dominated religion as it was a statement of political emancipation.

        Today's right wing fundamentalists are just wrong.  They are rewriting history.  Anyone who looks into the lives of early settlers will see that, at a very personal and individual level, our ancestors were not looking for a Christian nation. They were lookiing for the right to practice their religion without the interference of government and, conversely, they were not driven by a need to impose their religious beliefs on their neighbors.

        I don't think people realize how many non-Christians populated the colonies in the earliest days.  Recent developments in tracking genealogy using DNA are turning up very interesting DNA road maps for some family lines, directing them not only to Jewish and middle-eastern ancestries, but also reminding them of how many of us are descendants of the original Americans -- the Indians.

        •  When I was a young lad .... (none / 0)

          studying American history, the message indelibly stamped into my young mind was that our founding fathers left their homelands for America in order to practice religious autonomy. Even though I grew up in a religious-based state, I don't remember much of a spin on the Christian meme.

          I can imagine, however, if they are successful and acheive an Christian-themed Orwellian government, their next battle, in the not-to-distant future, would be in-fighting over which brand of Christianity should be hoisted over the people.

          "Self-respect is the keystone of democracy"

          by neverontheright on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:51:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Iroquois Nation (4.00 / 4)

      The issue or the "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration of independance is interesting - while the "Christian" right naturally assumes that of course they meant the european "god" many of the Founding Fathers were very skeptical of the established european churches and their dogma. Also, remember that this was the time of the concept of Rousseau's Noble Savage - in fact there are many references to the idea that many of the founders, particularly Franklin, Jefferson and Tom Paine thought highly of the "noble savage" and believed that the native americans, particularly the Iroquois, had a pretty cool arrangement - a certain amount of cooperative relationships (the five nations), a lot of thought about communal activity and responsibility (the Long House) and an acknowledgement of a "creator". There are some who believe that Franklin and Jefferson used the word "creator" specifically as opposed to "god" as both a refutation of the european "god" (established religion) concepts and as an acknowledgement of their respect for the Iroquois sense of beijg close to nature.

      here's a great link to a discussion of the thinking of the time in this respect -

      Founding Fathers and Creator

      So, if you're facing the strict constructionist kind of argument, strict constitutional interpretation is only meaningful in the context of what the original authors were thinking when they specifically avoided the use of the word "god". Clearly they meant to separate state from, not spirituality, but Organized Religion, for the very reasons we are facing today. And if you're speaking with a "this is a christian nation" kind of person, explain to them that we perhaps are really another Iroquois nation....

      (I hope I got the link right - I'm new to this stuff)

      "red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson

      by blindcynic on Fri May 20, 2005 at 08:02:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That is the sort of thing... (none / 0)

    which would usually go unchallenged by progressives.

    Having at hand fact-filled retorts would likely sway a mind or two, provided they have what the Scriptures call "ears to hear."

    Republicans are afflicted by CHIDS-Chronic Humor and Irony Deficit Syndrome, pronounced 'kids' with a parental sigh.

    by stumpy on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:24:41 PM PDT

  •  Someone should print up cards, handouts... (none / 1)

    mass mailings...etc. with quotes like those in the link below, and FLOOD the nation with them (maybe include a web addy for more info too?), so that EVERYONE knows this stuff.

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/b40b3c54cbaf2f2f/27a0660 3a00d04a8?q=quotes+founding+fathers+religion&rnum=7&hl=en#27a06603a00d04a8

    "I was just too stubborn to ever be governed by enforced insanity" - Bob Dylan

    by alias on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:31:36 PM PDT

    •  Oh, and the quotes from the Treaty of Tripoli... (4.00 / 2)

      (US is not a Chritian nation), and many others (some from Tom Paine) that aren't on the linked page (I know many of you are familiar with them already).

      "I was just too stubborn to ever be governed by enforced insanity" - Bob Dylan

      by alias on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:36:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some more info ? (none / 0)

        I am aware of that Treaty mostly due to
        http://members.tripod.com/~candst/

        But I also remember that the authors above concluded that this is not the final word on USA not being a Christian Nation. So my question is: why not use that Treat whenever some Christian Nationalists makes the claim that the US was founded as a Christian Nation ? How much clearer could it be than the President saying "Not so!" ?

        Another fine point with regards to the Declaration:
        most Christian fundies have their "Jesus saves", "Trust in Jesus Christ" etc. stickers on their car. Obviously they like the (mythical) founder of their religion. Isn't it odd then, that the Declaration refers to "Creator" and not once to "Jesus" or "Christ" ?

        The only response I have received in religious debates is that "everyone" back in the good old days was Christian and obviously whenever there is a reference to a god or creator, it is implied that this is the Christian god.

        •  Well... (none / 1)

          ..."back in the day" it was also illegal to be a Baptist in Virginia, or to be a Catholic in most of the Colonies.  

          These morons are to historigraphy what the intellegent design people are to science.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:56:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Morons? (3.75 / 4)

            And how many votes do you think you will win from
            people when you call them morons? They know you call them morons, believe me. They know, and it is one of the reasons they don't want to hear anything you have to say.

            What we are seeing in small town America today is a combination of the failure of public education, the lack of social discourse, e. e., the old fashioned conversation over the back fence, that no longer exists, and the reversion of small town America to a kind of tribal mode of living, centered around the television set, the church, and the school. I have many times pointed out to such folk that, contrary to their belief, the founding fathers did not intend that this be a "Christian" nation, and I have said it in direct response to the words, "I don't care what any body says the founding fathers would be horrified to hear that our children can't pray in their schools!" And I find it necessary, if I happen  to run into the same people in six months or a year, and the same subject comes up, to say it all again, quoting Jefferson and Paine and Ben Franklin, etc.

            The conservatives repeat this phrase, as one might beat on a drum, the same note, over and over again (think Rush Limbaugh. Think Bill O'Reilly. And there are others. They are all over talk radio), and that drumbeat resounds in the heads of small town America. Small town America is pretty much the same as any tribal village, anywhere in the world today. The villager knows little of the outside world (there is not much of the real world in a reality show or a sitcom or a game show...) The villager fears what he doesn't understand. He fears gays, for he doesn't any (or doesn't know it if he does.) He fears intellectuals, as he doesn't read much. His parents read the newspapers from cover to cover, including the editorial page. They were political. His father was likely a union man. But he is not. He has the news on the tv, and it's all so easy to follow, downright entertaining, so that he doesn't have to make much effort. He is afraid of crime, not corporate crime, but the kind that affects him directly and immediately: break ins, robberies, random crime by addicts. It's crime he can understand, again without making a lot of effort. He has probably heard of Enron, but it's not close enough, not immediately threatening. He likely takes the home town paper, a weekly, and he reads that. He reads about the service station on the corner that was robbed last week. He knows the fellow who lives down the street, whose house was broken into, while he was on vacation. He hears about the gangs, something new in his town. He hears about AIDS and he hears about drugs, and he doesn't know quite how to deal with it all, so he turns on Fox news, and he is told that it is all the fault of the gays, and the druggies and the atheists, and the God hating liberals.

            He is disturbed by it all. He is a church goer, though no religious fanatic, and he returns, over and over again, to one point. "I don't care what anybody says, our founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew....."

            He is a simple soul, simpler than his father was, not as savvy, not as worldly wise, and he is easily taken in. But don't call him a moron.  Talk to him. Don't talk down to him. And then you can call him a democrat.

            Be a hope monger.

            by kpardue on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:28:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i.e. (none / 0)

              For e.e., read i.e. My vision get blurred, especially this late.

              Be a hope monger.

              by kpardue on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:30:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually one of the best comments (none / 0)

              I've ever read here.

              Hmmmm, how to get it more visibility? Why don't you add maybe 10 words and make it a diary? Title: Don't call him a moron.

              Be good to each other. It matters.

              by AllisonInSeattle on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:57:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Diary? (none / 0)

                Thanks, AllisoninSeattle. I have never done one. I may try it tomorrow, if my vision clears, enough that I can find which button to push.

                I know this guy. I grew up with him. I don't how it is that he has become such an enigma. He is really quite a simple soul. But you know him too, of course. I can tell.  

                Be a hope monger.

                by kpardue on Fri May 20, 2005 at 11:14:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. Morons. (none / 0)

              Nice comment, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.  Let's look at the relevant sentence.

              These morons are to historigraphy what the intellegent design people are to science.

              You wanted to talk about small town America, and how to win votes.  Something I know a bit about, have experience doing, have written quite a bit about, but wasn't addressing in my comment.  In fact, I was addressing, by mentioning historiagraphy, those dozens or maybe scores of people who produce the books and articles that develop the theories that Fredrick discussed in his diary.  I thought that was obvious.  Apparently it wasn't, but maybe this comment will make that more clear.  

              And saying people in small town America "is a simple soul" is, while maybe not a way to talk down to him, is certainly a way to look down on him.  My belief is that people who think of the "common man" as a simple soul need to screw the culture war and get out and meet voters instead.  My dad lived in a small town.  My grandparents' childhood home still didn't have plumbing or electricity in the late 1960's.  Neither of my parents graduted from high school.  But none of them were or are "simple souls."  Thinking of them as such is a dumb way to try to understand how to get their votes.  They're not a bunch of fucking rubes, and thinking of them as noble rubes is insulting.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by DHinMI on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:42:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Neither.... (none / 0)

                I would certainly not call anyone a rube, for I suspect I am one.

                I think the phrase, simple soul,is a gentle one, and is not,in my opinion, derogatory.

                These people are my neighbors. I certainly don't consider them to be my inferiors. I am speaking, here, of people who simply don't spend a lot of their time wrestling with ideas. Many of them are better people than I am, in all kinds of of ways. I don't count them among my enemies, by any means.

                My entire point is that I think we need to spend more time talking to them, and less time talking about them. I think we would all learn something, and we might just gain some democratic voters. What is wrong with that?

                Be a hope monger.

                by kpardue on Sat May 21, 2005 at 12:14:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  They Can't Have It Both Ways (none / 0)

    These people are the absolute opponents of Antonin Scalia and the Federalist Society/strict constructionalist school of jurisprudence, and should thus oppose almost every one of Dubya's judicial appointees.  Why?  Because the reason Scalia and others are so enraged at Anthony Kennedy and why they're fighting against the more expansive interpretation of the role of the federal government ushered in by the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr and other jurists is that they claim these jurists and their progeny are looking beyond what's specifically written in the Constitution.  Thus, recourse to the Declaration of Independence for jurisprudence is, from this view, completely bogus and with about as much validity as using the Articles of Confederation.  

    But intellectual consistency has never been a strong point of the reactionary right, so I'm not holding my breath for the constructionalists to disavow the Christian Rightists or the Christian Nationalists to repudiate Antonin Scalia.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by DHinMI on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:34:21 PM PDT

  •  Some questions... (4.00 / 5)

    Are we considering the Christian Right as a monolith?

    Or as Leaders and Flock?

    If the latter--what is our goal?

    Seems to me that what we really want to do is split the flock from their leaders.

    If the leaders lose credibility, all of their arguments will suffer.

    Which leads me to wonder: what is the source of their credibility?  Does the flock buy the message first and the leaders second, or vice versa?

    It's possible that, like battered women and battering men (and yes, I know that is an over-generalization of battering relationships) that the flock follow leaders like the earliest leaders they imprinted upon while growing up?

    If so, what advice do the battering-recovery support people have for us as we attempt to break these toxic relationships?  And do we, as a society, need to provide some sort of recovery program for these people if we are going to de-cultify them?

    •  Yes indeed. (none / 0)

      What to call them ? ( you asked ) :

      Well, call specific leaders different labels appropriate to their specific behaviors ( or misbehaviors ) .

      So maybe Kennedy is a religious supremacist, yes,

      But I doubt even 10% of Americans would self-identifiy themselves as that if that label were clearly defined to them.

      It works better, in my opinion, to call Kennedy out on his behavior and leave it to Americans to decide whether they choose to side with the likes of Kennedy or not.

      •  I didn't ask that.... (none / 0)

        And I do not want to name-call the leadership.

        I feel that is counter-productive.

        Were you responding to something else besides my post?

        •  Wait a minute!!! (3.00 / 2)

          You don't want to call their leadership names?!?! What do you think they call us?

          Let's see, where has taking the high road taken us in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004?

          NOWHERE!!!!

          How do you think liberal has become such a dirty word that Democrats shy away from it? Now "intellectual" is being redefined in the same way. Yes, stupidity is being glorified in this country.

          We are letting them define us. No more.

          We need to smear them before they smear us.

          •  Of course not.... (none / 0)

            I do not wish to use the attack methods of the average 4-year-old.  THEY may use those tactics, but I have more finesse....

            Take a look at this diary

            Professor "X" posted at Rockridge.  I think I did a pretty neat job of nailing him to the wall and I still

            1. avoided getting trapped in arguing out each minor detail, and
            2. didn't call him a single name.

            You see, name-calling is the nursery-school behavior that grade-schoolers resort to when their logic hits a wall.  

            As the good Doctor used to say:  We can do BETTER than that!

  •  Power fight (none / 0)

    The religious right have banned together to take power of our govt.  Once they get that, then it will be "Iron Religion of America".  Whose religion reigns supreme.  They will battle themselves to the death.

    They may have joined together in this fight, but each thinks their religion is the only right one.  The fact that if they get their way, we will be no different than Iran, doesn't seem to get through many people's heads.  While we fight a war to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East, we are turning into the very thing we are supposed to be fighting for over there.

    People need to read history.  They seem to have forgotten why people fled their homelands to come here.  It's like we are reliving the days of the Puritans.  We can only hope the new Puritans go the way of the old.

  •  A favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson: (4.00 / 4)

    It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    Nice diary.  Thanks.

    Why, no ... I'm not voting for John McCain.

    by by foot on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:50:25 PM PDT

  •  They have a bigger problem, really (none / 0)

    Which "Christian".  Protestants? Catholica?  Fundamentalists?  Which sect?  I think that's what is going to tear them apart.  When they work together, they can sort of agree that "Christianity is Good", but when it comes down to working out the details, what they really mean is "My flavor of Christianity is Good, Yours is Not so Good And You're Going to Hell".  
    •  n/t (none / 0)

      Then the best approach to deal with this problem would be a divide & conquer. You are correct that eventually they would go denomination against denomination, but if that only happens after the USA have become the Theocratic States of America it might be too late.
    •  They may have a problem, but... (none / 0)

      They have many things in common. Power and money and influence. It may be true that evil cannot coexist, but these guys will find a way, just like the capitalists and fundamentalists find a way as modern day republicans.

      We keep waiting for the infighting to tear them apart. It's not going to happen untill every external enemy is extinguished. Only in their quest for new enemies will they turn their guns inward.

      •  Look to..... (none / 1)

        The Social Gospel.

        : That historical Christian political tradition could bury the American theocratic right, for it is derived very closely from the New Testament - a radical Christian document that the would-be theocrats tend to run away from.

      •  You're right -we shouldn't wait for them... (none / 0)

        to tear themselves apart through infighting.  We need to drive wedges the way the republicans are always driving wedges through our party.
      •  Who is They? They, they, they - (none / 0)

        if we are talking about "they" all the time, we make the case of the Christian right for it - because it shows us to be the pointy-headed atheistic intellectuals divorced from real life that the Christian Right loves to talk about.  Now, that's not me.  It may be other people on this thread.  But if you want to talk about how to talk to Christians about religion and American society (and isn't that a lot of what has to be about, given that something like 80% of American citizens identify themselves as Christians?), then true dialogue begins with being able to talk about "us." Allow me to controversially suggest that people who have ZERO familiarity with Christianity in all its diversity, historic depth, spiritual roots, and relevance to the daily life of millions of Americans should probably not be opining about what will and will not work to counteract what is not only an argument in American civil society but also a very real and longstanding argument among, by, and between Christians.

        "From all that terror teaches, from lies of tongue and pen, from all the easy speeches that comfort cruel men . . . deliver us, good Lord."

        by md jeffersonian on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:28:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They have 2 weaknesses (none / 0)

    1. They don't have a leg to stand on
    2. They are too afraid to engage in open debate, and therefore must control all fora in which they appear.

    If we can break through #2, we hit the mother lode, #1. Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryant was a great example of this. There haven't been too many since.
  •  I am reading a book (4.00 / 13)

    on the Federalist Papers, and the truth is somehow lost on those who seek to make this nation one wrapped in "god."  

    Those who were AGAINST the forming of our country as it was formed, were called Anti-federalists, and they were the ones who thought that government was responsible to regulate and promote morality, virtue and religion.  "Many Anit-Federalists ....were shocked at the Constitution's totally secular tone and its general lack of any religious content in the Federalists arguments made for the Constitution." (page 58 of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay The Federalist Papers)

    The reality is that those who sought nation based on religion were not those who formed our country, instead they were the ones who fought against that which we now live by.

    AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

    by SanJoseLady on Fri May 20, 2005 at 06:04:37 PM PDT

    •  exactly! (4.00 / 2)

      And this is just the kind of sourcing and argument that needs to be front and center in our public life.
      •  The issue is (4.00 / 4)

        that people will listen to opinions on how this country was created, but they won't read it for themselves.

        I would encourage everyone to pick up books on the Federalist Papers and actually read for themselves what was discussed and why, by our founding fathers. Further, to write letters to the editor and use exact quotes from our founders.  

        If one reads the papers, letters and other writings of our founders there is no doubt that these men wanted a secular nation and one that also had checks and balances to prevent power in all branches by one group(another great quote from the book, by Madison, from Federalist no.47 "The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

        As a nation we are now, under Madison's definition, living in a tyranny.

        Truth is somehow lost on those who would promote an agenda with no regard to reality.

        AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

        by SanJoseLady on Fri May 20, 2005 at 06:20:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  YES! (none / 0)

        Most people won't read books on this, but we need to get these ideas into the mainstream debate (see my post above).  But HOW???

        "I was just too stubborn to ever be governed by enforced insanity" - Bob Dylan

        by alias on Fri May 20, 2005 at 06:45:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We start small (4.00 / 2)

          with friends, family and others, we write letters to the editor, and we should also submit editorials ("real people" do sometimes get published).

          We have to keep on, and keep on.  The reality is that many moderate Republicans see that our direction is also ruining this country, and we should learn to work together with them as well.

          The thing is that we have to work on this, as the truth has to win.

          AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

          by SanJoseLady on Fri May 20, 2005 at 07:12:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Filmakers (none / 0)

          ...need to grab this one by the horns and make a liberal American "Passion" -- the story of our Founding Fathers.  I think it would do exceptionally well if done right.  Can anyone ask for more interesting characters than Washington, Paine,  Jefferson, Franklin (the last 2 the sex), Madison, Adams... all these guys were nontheists.

          "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

          by eyeswideopen on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:38:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tacking onto SanJoseLady's "Homework' idea... (3.50 / 2)

            ...small, neighborhood-type groups who read and discuss the Federalist Papers. You can't get more grassroots than that, can you? Maybe organize one at you local library?? "WANT TO KNOW HOW OUR COUNTRY GOT STARTED?" Start VERY slowly -- it'd be best to have someone lead who hasn't read them yet, so possible joiners don't feel threatened or out of place. Always keep it simple and short, but keep at it. I'll be starting one at my library where I live after Memorial Day, in part because I spend WAY too much time reading DKos...

            "Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth." Mondaugen's Law

            by Newton Snookers on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:59:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We're in the arts (none / 0)

              ...and thus think in terms of providing content.  In fact, I was researching podcasting today -- How about dailyKos radio?  Folks who are able record themselves reading their diaries (or others record the reading for them) and post the MP3 files, which folks could subscribe to.  At least all the recommended diaries should be audio so folks who work can listen and multitask.  The comments would not be able to be rendered into audio, but that's OK -- if someone really liked a diary, they could jump into the fray as we do now.  

              Filmakers need to take note, as there is no other avenue of mass media left uncontrolled.

              "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

              by eyeswideopen on Sat May 21, 2005 at 01:13:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  not true (none / 0)

            All those guys were not non-theists.  This is the misunderstanding on which the left starts losing the argument.
            It is important to understand that most of those guys were theists... who also believed in secular government.
            •  I think you will be surprised (none / 0)

              ...at just how much true hostility to religion these great men actually show in some of their writings.  Tom Paine, for example, wrote "The Age of Reason" and was reviled by the religious reich of his day as a raging atheist.  Adams decried the bloodshed religions caused.  Washington was reputed to be an agnostic.  Deists are interesting -- read the definition on Wikipedia.  They believe that either god created the universe and left or disappeared.  Thus, nontheism would describe the (non)approach to a deity missing in action.

              "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

              by eyeswideopen on Sun May 22, 2005 at 12:03:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  What's the title (none / 0)

      and author of the book you're reading?

      The Moe Sizlak Experience, featuring Homer Simpson.

      by lepermessiah on Fri May 20, 2005 at 06:33:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Speaking of reading (none / 1)

      The Carpetbagger Report had an interesting heads up about The New York Times Sunday Magazine cover story on Rick Santorum(R-PA VA). Turns out this champion of the christian right has never actually read the bible.

      "I've never read the Bible cover to cover; maybe I should have," Santorum said.

      This begs the question: If he is 1/2 as pious as he claims, what's stopping him from reading it now?

      Sayeth the Carpetbagger:

      I nevertheless find it a little odd that a senator, who frequently offers his religious perspective on political issues, has shaped his entire life, worldview, and governing philosophy on a book he hasn't read.

      It's one thing to accept the idea that Scripture offers believers a guide on how best to lead one's life. It's another thing to accept that belief while relying on magazines to tell you what Scripture says.

      I have no idea who writes The Carpetbagger Report but it's become a must read blog for me.