A few weeks ago, the NBC Nightly News reported on the The Family, featuring dramatic video of Family leader Doug Coe preaching about the kind of "covenant" that he says made Hitler among others, powerful -- commanding loyalty among his followers, and that this is what Jesus requires.

The Family is an elite fundamentalist network that seeks and weilds power behind the scenes in Washington, DC, and among the powerful around the world. It recruits both Democrats and Republicans, (but mostly Republicans) to its concentric circles of influence. Prominent among the Democrats has been Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has refused to discuss her involvement, the contemporary fashion among pols to discuss their "faith journey" not withstanding.

Jeff Sharlet's ground breaking, forthcoming book: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, will be published on May 20th by HarperCollins. It can be preordered from Powells, Amazon or your friendly local independent bookstore.

A few weeks ago, the NBC Nightly News reported on the The Family, featuring dramatic video of Family leader Doug Coe preaching about the kind of "covenant" that he says made Hitler among others, powerful -- commanding loyalty among his followers, and that this is what Jesus requires.

Over the past few days, I've done some writing expressing concern regarding some revelations that Jeff Sharlet will be discussing extensively in his new book "The Family"--including information regarding apparently widespread and systemic use of pyramid-scheme-esque "cell church" groups, of which Hillary Clinton would appear to have been inducted through at least one, possibly two, levels of indoctrination within at least two separate cells within the group.  There's also some real concern that some of the same "bad habits" of this particular type of religious pyramid scheme may be showing up in "The Family's" cells as well--one of which we'll discuss today.

The news re cell-church groups in "The Family" is probably not going to be the only bombshell released by Sharlet's upcoming book.  My question is, what has "The Family" so spooked that they've apparently sealed all recent records about the group even to their own members?

On Friday, news reports started coming out to the effect that Hillary Clinton may be a member of a cell-church group run by the secretive "Family" nee "Fellowship" org; as the import of this is underappreciated by most (even by some researchers into dominionism), I posted a diagram of how cell groups work in "The Family".

There are actually a number of reasons--besides the obvious--why it should be a matter of concern that Hillary Clinton would appear to have been recruited into a religious pyramid scheme with strong political aspirations.  One reason I am gravely concerned for her right now is info I've dug up on the other reported members of her "cell church"--almost all of whom have strong history with dominionists...and it doesn't help that Hillary has also made some statements that point to her possible involvement in something very dangerous.

A few days ago, I wrote a post expressing concern re Hillary Clinton's reported involvement in a cell-church group operated by the longest-running political dominionist group in existence--some folks considered this a wee bit controversial, in part because it was "OMG CANDIDATE DIARY" (to be honest, I'm worried about her) and partly because folks noted "there is no clear evidence this is coercive".

After some discussion with Jeff Sharlet over in Fred Clarkson's article on "The Family"--in which he's discussed info that will be included in his upcoming book--it would appear that not only does "The Family" use the same model as other coercive groups using pyramid-like structures, but may well have originated its use politically.

There has been quite a lot of writing recently on Talk to Action (and today in regards to a secretive political dominionist group known as "The Fellowship" or "The Family"--especially in relation to an upcoming book by Jeff Sharlet (titled The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power--you can pre-order here) which threatens to blow the  "Family Secret" wide open.

Frederick Clarkson here on DailyKos has recently reported on an NBC News report--along with a recent Mother Jones article re Sherlet's book--which give disturbing confirmation to something I've suspected for a time: Namely, that "The Family" uses a particularly abusive "discipling and shepherding" model common in neopentecostal dominionist cell churches.

The abusive tactics could have major implications politically--especially as Sharlet's book has noted that no less than Hillary Clinton is a member of one of the cell-churches linked to "The Family".

NBC News had a segment last night on the secretive, elite influence network, "The Family," featuring an interview with Jeff Sharlet, whose book by that title, will be published next month.

The segment also featured dramatic video of the elite fundamentalist "Family" leader Doug Coe preaching about the "covenant" that he says made Hitler among others, powerful -- commanding loyalty among his followers. The program transcript states:

Some media have been struggling with the explosion of controversies over statements by prominent religious supporters of Clinton, McCain and Obama.  Of these, Obama's progressive pastor has received the lion's share of attention. The extreme views of Religious Right leaders Doug Coe, John Hagee and Rod Parsley, and their relationship to candidates Clinton and McCain, much less so. (At Talk to Action we have been covering these guys for a long time and discussed these things well ahead of the curve. for example, my first (but not the last!) post picking-up on Jeff Sharlet and Kathryn Joyce's Mother Jones story about Hillary Clinton and The Family, was in December. Our reporting on Hagee and Parley is better measured in years. I was the first to point out, for example, based on the reports of my Talk to Action colleagues, that McCain had courted Hagee for more than a year prior to his scoring the endorsement. I say this not so much to toot our horn, (not that it couldn't use a good tooting once in awhile) but because I want to underscore the value of ongoing research and reporting on these things.

Over at Talk to Action, (and here on Daily Kos) I have highlighted the strange relationship between Hillary Clinton and the secretive Religious Right network known as "The Family." Jeff Sharlet and Kathryn Joyce wrote about this in Mother Jones and wanted to ask her about it, but she declined.

In the wake of the controversy over Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Barbara Erenreich, writing at The Nation, thinks it is only fair and reasonable to ask Hillary Clinton about her relationship with Doug Coe, the controversial leader of The Family, and for that matter, The Family itself.

Faith is in fashion this political season.  Presidential candidates in both parties, more perhaps than in any other election year, are positioning themselves in terms of "faith."  While candidates at all levels have always sought the votes of specific religious constituencies, and most have at least gone through the motions of public piety, whatever their personal beliefs may have been, perhaps more than at any time in our history, religious faith has become a political commodity.

One of the current crop of Democratic "faith gurus," Mara Vanderslice has always maintained that a pol's public articulations of how faith informs their life and politics should be "authentic."  Whatever our other differences, I agree with that. One of the problems with pols making a big show out of religion, as the framers of the Constitution well is understood, is that whether or not that faith is authentic or inauthentic, or the whether it is a matter of degree, is difficult for anyone to say.

People's religious beliefs and practices aren't typically of much concern to me.  As long as my neighbors aren't sacrificing small animals in the name of their beliefs, handling venomous reptiles on my lawn, advocating inequality for or violence towards those who have differing beliefs, and so on, I figure each to his or her own.   OTOH, when others attempt to press their beliefs on individuals or the citizenry at large through violence, legislation, and/or the exercise of their political power, it's time to be concerned and to act.  

The September-October issue of Mother Jones arrived in my mail two days ago.  An article entitled "Hillary's Prayer" wasn't high on my list to read immediately, but after I read it, I thought it's time to be concerned.  More below the fold...        

related news, just in: US Army Major shuts down atheist meeting at US base in Iraq. The problem addressed in this diary extends from the Pentagon on down to the level of ground forces in the field

Everyone in the blogosphere knows that the mainstream and even the alternative press ain't what it used to be. There is little investigative reporting, and even beat reporting on the affairs of government and other major institutions goes sadly lacking.

Many of us have taken to the blogosphere to try to reinvent the free press in America, as well as a more authenthically democratic and participatory political system and government.

Moving past the sermonette, this is a story about a story. Its one of those stories that might never have been told -- until a blogger (who is also a fine journalist) recognized it; did her homework and told the story this weekend in a way we could all understand.

I am writing this diary to encourage Kossacks to read the front-page essay in Harper's by Jeff Sharlet. The view advanced in the essay differs in illuminating ways from that which might be gleaned from reading Frederick Clarkson diaries. In particular Sharlet believes that Rushdoony is most important for proposing the view that there is a Christian view of history which promotes the right-wing causes of capitalism being Christian and the importance of Christians being prepared for war. Rushdoony is also important because Francis Schaeffer was his student (I didn't know this before).
Sharlet starts the article with a bang: we cannot assume that fundamentalists are the fundamentalists of the past. For two points, they are middle class and not willing to believe that heterosexual sex is intrinsically sinful. The view of history being peddled by influential fundamentalist sources is a clue to the relationship between fundamentalists and secular society. Please continue on the flip.