In an age when the mass slaughters on campuses are now an almost monthly occurance,and the bodies of female students kidnapped from their dorms in the night turn up on an almost weekly basis, miss Susan wraps her arms around all this youthful blood,with eyes closed shut,while declaring that it is kids who are members of "campus crusade" that are part of a "dangerous delusion".
It is very apparent to me just whom is dangerously deluded.

Great Article, I just watched the interview Bill Moyer had with Susan Jacoby on PBS. She brings to light the dumbing down of American Society by Politics , Media, religion and the actions of unreason. Plus I enjoyed Charles Barkley's statement "Fake Christians" on CNN. The religious right are not real believers, they should go read Adams book "God's Debris". The religious right supports big business and tax cuts for the rich. Jesus Christ most likely would be a Socialist. Honesty I wouldn't want full blown Socialism. Capitalism can't survive when wealth leans on one side. Jesus called for the re-distribution of wealth in times when the balance is to extreme degrees like today. But Conservatives can't understand economics much as they do the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The best thing this country can hope for is a Obama victory , and he picks free thinkers like Susan Jacoby as an adviser to educate this national back to reality.

Freestinker--- This is the problem with your logic. An atheists opinions have no force behind them besides their own opinion. Thus, there really is no reason for people like Jacoby and yourself to object to the "personal opinions" and beliefs of Hitler or Stalin. They both believed what they did was right in their own minds. If you believe that there is no absolute truth outside each person's brain then there is absolutely no reason expect everyone else to believe in human rights and justice. A significant portion of the population is going to be for power, money, and racism.

Anonymous,
Good post. It was needed. I agree with everything in your post, and yes, everyone that cares about the future of this country should read "American Fascists." They should also read Susan Jacoby, Christopher Hitchens, David Neiwert among others. I read and follow all of them and have for many years. I also happen to live within a five minute drive of Rod Parsely's World Harvest Church - which I have attended several times to observe. I also was raised in an evangelical background (I'm approaching 50).

What I can tell you about this movement, in my opinion, is this...The most radical people people in this movement are Boomers with some overlap into older Xers. The Party generation - the Recovery generation. So much of this movement is wrapped up in guilt, shame and "redemption" regarding reckless choices made in youth and young adulthood. Go into any one of these evangelical churches, anywhere in the nation, and you'll see refugees from the party culture of the last 40 years or so...ex - hippies, club kids, druggies, alcoholics, sexual atheletes, serial divorcees, etc. It plays a big part in this picture. I know (and know of) scores and scores of people that I came of age with that were essentially liberal, rational, secular - even anti-religious that are now just the opposite. They attend fundamentalist churches, socialize only with others that believe as they do and embrace the whole irrational right-wing agenda. Talk or reference of their lives before their conversion is strictly off-limits. Their lives begin at the point of their conversion. They live in their own world with its own rules - and question any of it, and you are accused of persecution and cut off. It's been a totally surreal experience to watch this transformation of people I though I knew so well. So these particular people are not victims of a failed educational system. This is something else. An internal psychodrama that involves deep denial, suspension of rational, crtical thinking in order to function in the strict, highly structured world they inhabit. They need their highly structured world, because they were so out of control and unstructured as youth and young adults.

In 2004 or 2005 I was very concerned. It really did seem like we were about to become some sort of Christofascist nation. With George Bush being swept into office with a huge evangelical turnout and the possibility of Ken Blackwell as our governor, it really did seem like there would be no end in sight for the Republican hegemony. I had always thought for years the evangelical movement would burn itself out like so many movements before - but it didn't seem like it was happening. I thought perhaps that the events of 9/11 had something to do with it. The amplification of fear and turning to the tribal mythologies for comfort. But then cracks started to appear - and then more cracks. I noticed particularly that many evangelicals felt they had gained nothing from the Republican Party except a couple of ambiguously conservative Supreme Court Judges. Their desire to implement a Christian agenda in public education and government was not panning out as they had anticipated. Rhetoric and symbolic gesture were wearing thin and disillusionment seemed to be setting in. At the same time many saw the policies of the Republican Party affecting their communities and families negatively. On top of that, they saw many of their own leaders caught up in corruption and scandal while many of their young people were leaving the church for the more liberal-minded "emergent church."

That's what I see happening. The energy that was so much a part of this movement for so long doesn't seem to be there anymore. People are wandering off - some coming to their senses, others proclaiming politics is not worthy of a true christian. The energy that is left is angry and feels ripped-off. Certainly not enthusiastic and anticipatory. The enthusiaism and anticipation is on the Left now. Rational people are speaking up - becoming conscious of exactly what is happening to our culture and starting to take action. I really think this will build upon itself in the next few years. I think it is also quite possible that 20 or 30 years from now irrational fundamentalism will be as discredited as it was in the mid-20th century. That is much more likely than a theocracy, in my opinion.

We're doomed.

Dear Susan, just one more thing I failed to mention in my last message. I too am a Christian and a follower of Our Lord Jesus. Those who believe in Christ, whether they are Black or White, Gay or Straight, Male or Female, are as Paul said: "One before God." I enjoin you radicals, be you on the Left or the Right, to read Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" and to think, and think hard. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, are we not? He came to spread Mercy, Compassion, Tolerance and Love, and NOT Righteousness and Hate. Old Soldier, Frank Libbon

Susan Jacoby - you are indeed a fine Lady. Thank you for your article and for telling the Truth. The Christian Right Radicals are indeed a danger to be aware of and to be countered. I served 43 years in and with the US Army, taking the Oath to Defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic. The public should be aware that those of the Radical Right who would subvert and change our Constitution for their own selfish and bigotted aims - are in essence "the domestic enemies." Frank Libbon

Susan Jacoby - you are indeed a fine Lady. Thank you for your article and for telling the Truth. The Christian Right Radicals are indeed a danger to be aware of and to be countered. I served 43 years in and with the US Army, taking the Oath to Defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic. The public should be aware that those of the Radical Right who would subvert and change our Constitution for their own selfish and bigotted aims - are in essence "the domestic enemies." Frank Libbon

Susan Jacoby - you are indeed a fine Lady. Thank you for your article and for telling the Truth. The Christian Right Radicals are indeed a danger to be aware of and to be countered. I served 43 years in and with the US Army, taking the Oath to Defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic. The public should be aware that those of the Radical Right who would subvert and change our Constitution for their own selfish and bigotted aims - are in essence "the domestic enemies." Frank Libbon

Chris Hedges, a graduate from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, in his book, American Fascists, gives a chilling account of the Christian Right’s frightening goals and a dire warning to everyone not take them lightly:

What is happening in America is revolutionary. A group of religious utopians, with the sympathy and support of tens of millions of Americans, are slowly dismantling democratic institutions to establish a religious tyranny, the springboard to an American fascism. [39]

The power brokers in the radical Christian Right have already moved from the fringes of society to the executive branch, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the courts. The movement has seized control of the Republican Party. Christian fundamentalists now hold majority of seats in 36 percent of all Republican Party state committees, or 18 of 50 states, along with large minorities in the remaining states. Forty five senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives earned approval ratings of 80 to 100 percent from the three most influential Christian Right advocacy groups: the Christian coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. [23]

Dominionism, born out of a theology known as Christian reconstructionism, seeks to politicize faith. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians. [11]

The dominionist movement, like all totalitarian movements, seeks to appropriate not only our religious and patriotic language but also our stories, to deny the validity of stories other than their own, to deny that there are other acceptable ways of living and being. There becomes, in their rhetoric, only one way to be a Christian and only one way to be and American.

Dominionism is a theocratic sect with its roots in a radical Calvinism… It teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. A decades-long refusal by most American fundamentalists to engage in politics at all following the 1925 Scopes trial has been replaced by a call for Christian “dominion” over the nation and eventually over the earth itself. Dominionism preaches that Jesus has called on Christians to build the kingdom of God in the here and now, whereas previously it was thought that we would have to wait for it. America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan. Under Christian dominion, America will be no longer a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 commandments form the basis of our legal system, creationism and “Christian values” form the basis of our educational system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. [12]

The racist and brutal intolerance of the intellectual godfathers of today’s Christian Reconstructionism is a chilling reminder of the movement’s lust for repression. The Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdoony, written in 1973, is the most important book for the dominionist movement. Rushdoony calls for a Christian society that is harsh, unforgiving and violent. His work draws heavily on the calls for a repressive theocratic society laid out by Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536 and one of the most important works of the Protestant Reformation. Christians are, Rushdoony argues the new chosen people of God and are called to do what Adam and Eve failed to do: create a godly, Christian state. The Jews, who neglected to fulfill God’s commands in the Hebrew Scriptures, have in this belief system, forfeited their place as God’s chosen people and have been replaced by Christians. The death penalty is to be imposed not only for offenses such as rape, kidnapping and murder, but also for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, “unchastity before marriage.” The world is to be subdued and ruled by a Christian United States. [13]

This ideology, made more palatable for the mainstream by later disciples such as Francis Schaeffer and Pat Robertson, remains at the heart of the movement. Many of its tenets are being enacted through the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, currently channeling billions in federal funds to groups such as National Right to Life and Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing, as well as to innumerable Christian charities and organizations that do everything from running drug and pregnancy clinics to promoting sexual abstinence-only programs in schools.

While traditional fundamentalism shares many of the darker traits of the new movement-such as blind obedience to a male hierarchy that often claims to speak for God, intolerance toward nonbelievers, and disdain for rational, intellectual inquiry-it has never attempted to impose its belief system on the rest of the nation. And it has never tried to transform government, as well as all other secular institutions, into an extension of the church. The new radical fundamentalisms amount to a huge and disastrous mutation. Dominionists and their wealthy, right-wing sponsors speak in terms and phrases that are familiar and comforting to most Americans, but they no longer use words to mean what they meant in the past. They engage in a slow process of “logocide,” the killing of words. The old definitions of words are replaced by new ones. Code words of the old belief system are deconstructed and assigned diametrically opposed meanings. Words such as “truth,” “wisdom,” “death,” “liberty,” “life,” and “love” no longer mean what they mean in the secular world. “Life” and “death” mean life in Christ or death to Christ, and are used to signal belief or unbelief in the risen Lord. “Wisdom” has little to do with human wisdom but refers to the level of commitment and obedience to the systems of belief. “Liberty” is not about freedom, but the “liberty” found when one accepts Jesus Christ and is liberated from the world to obey him. But perhaps the most pernicious distortion comes with the word “love,” the word used to lure into the movement many who seek a warm, loving community to counter their isolation and alienation. “Love” is distorted to mean an unquestioned obedience to those who claim to speak for God in return for the promise of everlasting life. The blind, human love, the acceptable of the other, is attacked as inferior love, dangerous and untrustworthy. [14]

While the radical Christian movement’s leaders pay lip service to traditional justice, they call among their own for a legal system that promotes what they define as “Christian principles.” The movement thus is able to preserve the appearance of law and respect for democracy even as its leaders condemn all opponents-dismissed as “atheists,” “nonbelievers” or “secular humanists”-to moral and legal oblivion. Justice, under this process of logocide, is perverted to carry out injustice and becomes a mirage of law and order. The moral calculus no longer revolves around the concept of universal human rights. Its center is the well-being, protection and promotion of “bible-believing Christians.” Logocide slowly and stealthily removes whole segments of society from the moral map. As Joseph Goebbels wrote: “The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.” [17]

Followers in the movement are locked within closed systems of information and indoctrination that cater to their hates and prejudices. Tens of millions of Americans rely exclusively on Christian broadcasters for their news, health, entertainment and devotional programs. [26]

As American history and the fundamentalist movement itself have changed, so have the objects of fundamentalist hatred. Believers were told a few decades ago that communists were behind the civil-rights movement, the antiwar movement and liberal groups such as the ACLU. They were racist and intolerant of African Americans, Jews and Catholics. Now the battle against communism has been reconfigured. The seat of Satan is no longer in the Kremlin. It has been assumed by individuals and institutions promoting a rival religion called “secular humanism.” [27]

Visions of a holy war at once terrify and delight followers. Such visions peddle a bizarre spiritual Darwinism. True Christians will rise to heaven and be saved, and all lesser faiths and nonbelievers will be viciously destroyed by an angry God in an orgy of horrific, apocalyptic violence. The yearning for this final battle runs through the movement like an electric current. Christian Right firebrands employ the language of war, speak in the metaphors of battle, and paint graphic and chilling scenes of the violence and mayhem that will envelop the earth. War is the final aesthetic of the movement. [33]

Radical Christian dominionists have no religious legitimacy. They are manipulating Christianity, and millions of sincere believers, to build a frightening political mass movement with many similarities with other mass movements, from fascism to communism to the ethnic nationalist parties in the former Yugoslavia. [38]

They see criticism of their belief system, whether from scientists or judges, as vicious attempts by Satan to lure them back into the morass. [39]

They attacked liberalism because it seemed to them the principal premise of modern society; everything they dreaded seemed to spring from it: the bourgeois life, Manchesterism, materialism, parliament and the parties, the lack of political leadership. Even more, they sensed in liberalism the source of all their inner sufferings. Theirs was a resentment of loneliness; their one desire was for a new faith, a new community of believers, a world with fixed standards and no doubts, a new national religion that would bind all Germans together. All this, liberalism denied. Hence, they hated liberalism, blamed it for making outcasts of them, for uprooting them from their imaginary past, and from faith.
Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the German Ideology. [40]

In interview after interview, those in the movement spoke of desires for suicide before finding Jesus. Even if the feelings were fleeting and never acted upon, they indicate how terrible life had become before conversion. Despair is the most powerful force driving people into the movement. [49]

“Backsliding” is a sin. Doubt is a sin. Questioning is a sin. The only proper relationship is submission to those above you, the abandonment of critical thought and the mouthing of religious jargon that is morally charged and instantly identifies believers as part of the same, hermetic community. The psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton describes this heavily loaded language, the words and phrases that allow believers to speak in code, as “thought-terminating clichés.” “Jesus is my personal Lord and savior” or “ The wages of sin are death” are used , in this instance, to end all discussion. [57]

Dr. James Kennedy is one of America’s most public and vocal dominionists. [60]

He is fond of quoting John Jay, the Chief Justice of the first U.S. Supreme Court, who said that “God in His providence has given to us a Christian nation, and it behooves us as Christians to prefer and select Christians to rule over us.” Kennedy argues that this “was the Christian perspective of most of the founding fathers in the beginning of this country.

“Our Job is to proclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy has said. “As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors-in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.” [61]

There is a calculated destruction of individual conscience. All must submit to the will of those godly men who define the communal good. Sin, in short, is anything the leaders do not like. [71]

Kennedy insists that America was founded as a “Christian nation.” The denial of the Christian roots of the nation, he says, is a “great deception [that] has been used to destroy much of the religious freedom and liberty this country has enjoyed since its inception.” And Kennedy’s crusade is well funded and well organized. He is backed by with grants, often for millions of dollars, from conservative trusts such as the Orville D. and Ruth A. Merillat Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. [73]

Believers are driven into a primitive state, a prenatal existence, a return to the womb and a life of submission. The assault on freedom, human equality and reason, however, also engenders feeling of omnipotence. [82]

“The goal of the movement is to create a theocracy, but they must dominate women first to keep the system in place.” Roberta Pughe says. “They want to have one nation under God, based on their view of God and on their interpretation of the rules that this peculiar God puts in place. They are doing this underground. They have huge networks. They are deeply connected, and they’re connecting with people who are very smart and savvy. They know how to put forward a public front that hides the private agenda… Their ticket to power is family values. That’s the hook. People are hungry for that. But with this church family comes the imposition of an extreme male power structure. First, they use this power structure to control the family, then the church, and finally the nation.” [89]

Those who adopt the belief system, who find in the dictates of the church and its male leaders a binary world of right and wrong, build an exclusive and intolerant comradeship that that subtly or overtly shuns and condemns the “unsaved.” People are no longer judged by their intrinsic qualities, by their actions or capacity for self-sacrifice and compassion, but by the rigidity of their obedience. This defines the good and the bad, the Christian and the infidel. [91]

The male leader governs through a divine mandate, a mandate that cannot be challenged since it comes from God. And these leaders speak often about taking their cues directly form God. [93]

The televangelists Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson rule their fiefdoms as despotic potentates. They travel on private jets, have huge personal fortunes and descend on the faithful in limousines and surrounded by a small retinue of burly bodyguards. These tiny kingdoms, awash in the leadership cult, mirror on a smaller scale the America they seek to create. There is no questioning. Followers surrender their personal and political power, in much the same way women and children surrender their power to the male at home. The divinely anointed male leader rules a flock of obedient and submissive sheep. All must hand over their freedom. All must cease to think independently.

The earnestness on the part of believers often gives the mass movement its air of honesty, sincerity and decency. Believers are not brainwashed. They are not mindless automatons. They are convinced that what they are doing is godly, moral and good. They work with the passion of the converted to bring this Christian goodness to everyone, even those who resist. They believe that what they promote is moral and beneficial. And just as they fear for their own souls, they fear for the souls of those around them who remain unsaved. This often well-intended earnestness, although employed for frightening ends, is a powerful engine within the movement. These idealists are willing to make great personal sacrifices for the cause of Christ. They justify the disempowerment and eradication of whole peoples, such as Muslims or those castigate as secular humanists, as mandated by God. Nonbelievers have no place on the moral map. It is a small step from this toxic rhetoric and exclusive belief system to the disempowerment and eradication of nonbelievers, a step frightened and enraged population could well demand during a period of prolonged instability or national crisis.

The ruling elite of the movement, the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons, are at the same time very distant from the masses. They assume higher intelligence and understanding that give them a divine right to rule. These men are-writ large-the powerful, all-knowing father. Those they direct become as powerless, credulous and submissive as children. [94-95]

The Christian Right, with its constant need for scapegoats and satanic enemies to be defeated, use the state referendums to mobilize and energize followers, even as the most pressing social ills of the country are ignored. [110]

I facts can’t be made to fit, they are discarded or treated as misguided opinions. When facts are treated as if they were opinions, when there is no universal standard by which to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in the reporting of the events of the day, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe, where there is no possibility of reaching any conclusion not predetermined by those who interpret the official, divinely inspired text…This insistence on the primacy of personal opinion regardless of facts destabilizes and destroys the primacy of all fact. This process leads inevitably to the big lie. Facts are useful only if they bolster the message. [118]

All attempts to seek truth, however elusive and difficult, challenge the blind obedience and suppression of conscience championed by those who teach one “truth” and one way of being. When only one “truth” is allowed, empirical data becomes irrelevant. Intellectual, scientific and moral inquiry becomes unnecessary. In this new world followers are robbed of the capacity to think. The lies , however enormous and absurd, defy criticism and unmasking because the rational world is discredited and finally silenced. [131]

To tell men that they are equal has a certain sentimental appeal. But this appeal is small compared with that made by a propaganda that tells them they are superior to others, and that others are inferior to them
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1 [132]

The convention has brought together some 5,500 Christian broadcasters from radio and television, who reach, according to their figures, an estimated 141 million listeners and viewers across America. And they see themselves as both the persecuted and the powerful. [132]

Wealth, fame and power are manifestations of God’s work, proof that God has a plan and design for believers. [136]

And then he [Frank Wright] warns his listeners about the enemies at the gate, saying that “calls for diversity and multiculturalism are nothing more than thinly veiled attacks on anyone who is willing or desirous or compelled to proclaim Christian truth. Today, calls for tolerance are often a subterfuge, because they’ll tolerate just about anything except Christian truth.” [142]

The emphasis on personal renewal and commitment to Christ-the staples message of evangelists such as Billy Graham and Luis Palau-is and anachronism to the new class. While speakers demand that followers give their lives to Christ, and while the born-again experience is considered the dividing line between believers and nonbelievers, the conversion experience is no longer the dominant theme pounded home from the pulpit or across the airwaves. It has been replaced by the rhetoric of war, the demands of a warrior God who promises blood and vengeance, and by the rhetoric of persecution, by the belief that there are sinister forces that seek the destruction of believers. It has also been replaced by a conspicuous and unapologetic infatuation with wealth, power and fame. As the movement has shifted away from the focus on personal salvation to a focus on power, it has incorporated into its theology the values, or lack of them, of flagrant consumer society. [145]

In this version of the Christian Gospel, the exploitation and abuse of other human beings is a good. Homosexuality is an evil. And this global, heartless system of economic rationalism has morphed in the rhetoric of the Christian Right into a test of faith. The ideology it espouses is a radical evil, an ideology of death. It calls for wanton destruction of human beings, of the environment, of communities and neighborhoods, of labor unions, of a free press, of Iraqis, Palestinians or others in the Middle East who would deny us oil fields and hegemony, of federal regulatory agencies, social welfare programs, public education-in short, the destruction of all people and programs that stand in the way of a Christian America and its God-given right to dominate the rest of the planet. The movement offers, in return, the absurd but seductive promise that those who are right with God will rise to become spiritual and material oligarchs. They will become the new class. Those who are not right with God, be they poor or Muslims or unsaved, deserve what they get. In the rational world none of this makes sense. But believers have been removed from a reality-based world. They believe that through Jesus all is possible. It has become a Christian duty to embrace the exploitation of others, to build a Christian America where freedom means the freedom of the powerful to dominate the weak. [149]

They are energized by hate campaigns against gays or Muslims or liberals or immigrants. They walk willingly into a totalitarian prison they are helping to construct. They yearn for it. They work for it with passion, self sacrifice and a blinding self righteousness. “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty,” Simon Weil wrote in Gravity and Grace. And it is the duty of the Christian foot soldiers to bring about the Christian utopia. When it is finished, when all have been stripped of legal and social protection, it will be too late to resist. This is the genius of totalitarian movements. They convince the masses to agitate for their own incarceration. [150]

And those outside the Christian community are effectively made strangers. They are no longer worthy of being loved. The distinction creates a world where there are only two types of people. There are godly men and women who advance Christian values, and there are nonbelievers-many of them liberal Christians-who peddle the filth and evil of secular humanism. This dividing line is nothing other than the distinction between human and nonhuman, between the worthy and those unworthy of life, between saved and unsaved, between friend and foe. [154]

In this new binary world segments of the human race are disqualified from moral and ethical consideration. And because fundamentalist followers live in a binary universe, they are incapable of seeing others as anything more than inverted reflections of themselves. If they seek to destroy nonbelievers to create a Christian America, then nonbelievers must be seeking to destroy them. This belief system negates the possibility of the ethical life. It fails to grasp that goodness must be sought outside the self and that the best defense against evil is to seek it within. When people come to believe that they are immune from evil, that there is no resemblance between themselves and those they define as the enemy, they will inevitably grow to embody the evil they claim to fight. It is only by grasping our own capacity for evil, our own darkness, that we hold our own capacity for evil at bay. When evil is purely external, then moral purification always entails the eradication of others. [154]

Extremists never begin as extremists. They become extremists gradually. They move gingerly forward in an open society. They advance only so far as they fail to meet resistance. And no society is immune from this moral catastrophe.

The Christian Right, for now, is forced to function within the political system it seeks to destroy. Judges continue to judge. Teachers continue to teach. The media continues to report. Politicians continue to campaign. But in the world of fundamentalist rhetoric, only “bible-believing” judges are worthy of respect. Only Christian teachers are true educators. And only the pseudo-reporters seen and heard on Christian broadcasts, who portray the course of historical and world events as conforming to purported biblical prophecies, report the real news. Finally, it is only the men of God, those who champion the Christian state, who have the right to rule. The movement is creating a parallel system, complete with Christian organizations, to replace the old one. It is a slow and often imperceptible process. [155]

The accelerated Christian Education curriculum, one of the country’s three major publishers of Christian textbooks, defines “liberal” in its schoolbooks as “referring to philosophy not supported by Scripture” and “conservative” as “dedicated to the preserving of Scriptural principles.” [155]

In textbooks published by A Beka, one of the big fundamentalist publishing houses, African religious beliefs are described as “false.” Hinduism is “pagan” and evil.” The lack of Christian conversion among Africans is blamed on “Satan’s strong hold on these people,” according to Bob Jones University Press history textbook for seventh graders. A Beka’s high school world history textbook blames the poverty and political chaos in most of Africa on a lack of faith. It skips over the repressive colonial European regimes that exploited the continent and decimated the population in countries such as Congo. [156]

Rod Parsley says that liberals defend homosexuality to erode the moral fiber of the nation. Islam, he says, is “an anti-Christ religion” that intends to use violence to conquer the world. Allah, Parsley contends, is a demon spirit. And Christian America has been mandated by God to do battle and defeat all demons to usher in the reign of Christ. [161]

[Rod Parsley] collects his millions of dollars by promoting the gospel of prosperity, the promise that if his followers, mostly of modest means, tithe 10 percent of their salaries, God will reward them a hundredfold. This money is in addition to the collection he often solicits tow or three times during a service. He has, in the past urged followers to burn their household bills and give the money to him to be free from desbt.

“I just love to talk about money,” Parsley once said. “I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear-I want your money. I deserve it. The church deserves it.”

He peddles “covenant sword” and “prayer cloths” that he claims will bring the buyer freedom from financial troubles as well as from physical or emotional ailments. He has written that “one of the first reasons for poverty is a lack of knowledge of God and his Word”, and that “the Bible says that to withhold the tithe is to rob God.” Parsley lives lavishly in a 7,500-square-foot house valued at more than $ 1 million. He refuses to disclose information about the church’s income or expenditures and has fought off several allegations from former employees charging gross misuses of church funds.

Parsley is one of the masters at peddling this message of greed, hatred and intolerance as gospel truth. The Christian rhetoric, on the surface, is often the same. It is comfortable and predictable. The gestures are familiar. The reverence to God and nation, the deference to the authority of the Bible, do not appear to have changed. But the heart of the Christian religion, all that is good and compassionate within it, has been tossed aside, ruthlessly gouged out and thrown into a heap with all the other inner organs. Only the shell, the form, remains, its empty carcass wrapped around these wolves like a cloak. Christianity is of no use to Parsley, Blackwell and the others. In its name they kill it. [166]

To put trust in secular institutions is to lack faith, to give up on God’s magic and miracles. The message being preached is one that dovetails with the message of neoconservatives who want to gut and destroy federal programs, free themselves from government regulations and taxes and break the back of all organizations, such as labor unions, that seek to impede maximum profit.

The popular Christian textbook America’s Providential History cites Genesis, which calls for mankind to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26-27) as evidence that the Bible calls for “bible-believing Christians” to take dominion of America and the world: “When God brings Noah through the flood to a new earth, he reestablishes the Dominion Mandate but now delegates to man the responsibility for governing other men.” The authors write that God has called the United States to become a Christian nation and “makes disciples of all nations.”

The book fuses the Christian message with the celebration of unrestricted capitalism. It denounces income tax as “idolatry” and property tax as “theft,” and in a chapter titles “Christian Economics,” calls for the abolishment of inheritance taxes. This indoctrination is designed to form a cadre of young believers who will follow biblical rather than secular law. They are told that when the two laws clash, they as believers must defy secular authorities. And they are taught to judge others not by what they do but by their fidelity to Christian doctrine. [183]

The book also teaches students that a Christian’s primary responsibility is to create material wealth. God will oversee the increase and protection of natural resources. America’s Providential History belittles secular environmentalists, who see natural resources as fragile and limited, and says of those who hold these concerns that they “lack faith in God’s providence and consequently, men will find fewer natural resources…. The Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God’s earth.” The book blithely dismisses the global warming and overpopulation, saying , “Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all the people.” [183]

In the totalitarian world, there are those worthy of love and those unworthy of it. In the totalitarian world, the private sphere becomes the concern of the state. This final restriction of the freedom to love-the freedom of a Christian to love a Muslim or the freedom to of love those branded by the state as the enemy-heralds the death of the open society. The promises of Christian harmony, unity, happiness-in short a utopia-held forth by the dominionists have a seductive quality that will never be countered by the tepid offerings of democrats, who at best can offer citizens the opportunity to seek their own happiness and construct their own meaning. [200]

Those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength. And those in the movement often speak about such a moment with gleeful anticipation. [205]

This movement is bent on our destruction. The attempts by many liberals to make peace would be humorous if the stakes were not so deadly. These dominionists hate the liberal, enlightened world formed by the Constitution, a world they blame for the debacle of their lives. They have one goal-its destruction. [205]

The hate-crimes legislation now stalled in Congress because of bitter opposition from the Christian Right must be made law. [206]

The accelerated rate of global warming could, within a decade, bring about epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves. To face this challenge, to do something about it, is to embrace a theology of hope, of life. To do nothing about it, to paint these ecological catastrophes as messages from an angry God rather than the folly of humankind, to believe blithely that global warming is a fiction and God alone determines human fate, is to accept this theology of despair, this radical evil. [206]

The radical Christian Right calls for exclusion, cruelty and intolerance in the name of God. Its members do not commit evil for evil’s sake. They commit evil to make a better world. To attain this better world, they believe, some must suffer and be silenced, and at the end of time all those who oppose them must be destroyed. The worst suffering in human history has been carried out by those who preach such grand, utopian visions, those who seek to implant by force their narrow, particular version of goodness. This is true for all doctrines of personal salvation, from Christianity to ethnic nationalism to communism to fascism. Dreams of universal good create hells of persecution, suffering and slaughter. [209]

I do not deny the right of Christian radicals to be, to believe and worship as they choose. But I will not engage in a dialogue with those who deny my right to be, who delegitimize my faith and denounce my struggle before God as worthless. All dialogue must include respect and tolerance for the beliefs, worth and dignity of others, including those outside the nation and the faith. When this respect is denied, this clash of ideologies ceases to be merely a difference of opinion and becomes a fight for survival. This movement seeks, in the name of Christianity and American democracy to destroy that which it claims to defend. [211]

The attacks by this movement on the rights and beliefs of Muslims, Jews, immigrants, gays, lesbians, women, scholars, scientists, those the dismiss as “nominal Christians,” and those they brand with the curse of “secular humanist” are an attack on all of us, on our values, our freedom and ultimately our democracy. Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance coupled with passivity is a vice. [211]

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument; but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnap, or to the revival of the salve trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies. [1]

Buy the book.

Excellent post Mr. Brynes - great analysis. I also must take issue that social order is necessarily linked to an organized religious faith. Just because many Western European countries have state churches doesn't mean that their post WWII social order is based on "faith."

I truly think this issue will resolve itself in time and will be seen as yet another attempt by a reactionary right-wing movement to dominate it's culture. Reactionaries never win - the last time they did, it was called the Dark Ages. In over 500 years of Western history - and especially since the Enlightenment, the status quo has never held. The clock has never been turned back. Rightist reactionaries most always carry within them the seed of their own corruption and destruction. The Pharisees, Avignon, the Puritans, Prohibitionists....it's archetypical. That's no reason for secularists not to be vocal and vigilant, though. It all works together in the process.

I would also caution those who are using a pre -1960s template to define their conception of morality (which is quite natural for those born before 1963 or so). Like the old Victorians in the 1920s, you may be convinced that the moral code has broken down completely and irrecoverably since the 1890s. And you would be right - to a point. The structure (social order, values) is destroyed, but the basic moral foundation remains. A new social order is built on the foundation. The counter culture won the Culture War. The Reaction is waning and we are left with the result..a new order. A new social order requires us to revisit, amend and redefine the parameters of social experience. That's where we are at now. We are all contributing to this dialouge that will define the values of this new social order. That's why it's so noisy. That's what makes our peculiar democracy so dynamic and fascinating! Unfortunately for Boomers and those older, it will be young people who ultimately decide what the result will be . They have no stake in the old order and within the next 15 or 20 years will be fully in charge. They are already reshaping the institutions of their age level to reflect this new order. If you look there - at these youngster's institutions and culture - you can catch a glimpse of the values of the new social order. If you persist in holding up the 1950s as your moral template, though, you may be disappointed - even scandalized - just as a Victorian would have been by many aspects of the 1950s. ;)

Good article. It's nice to see a ration article on the dangers of the religious right, rather than the irrational rantings of people like Dan. Liberals are not close minder. Conservatives are. In fact close mindedness is the greatest trait of conservatives as Dan has demonstrated.

The writer is sooo predictably liberal and close-minded in her thinking that she accuses anyone that does not share her opinions, likes and dislikes as being "anti-rational". soooo cliche. Ms. Jacoby, stick to your athiest tea parties.

Tom Byrnes:

Thanks for an excellent and thoughtful comment. I only have two additional points.

I've just completed "Broken Government" by John Dean, who as a lifelong Republican merits a read regarding that demonstration of morals and the supposed ethical running of our government, beginning with the Republican dominance with Nixon onward. It's a saddening, but frightening read. We would all do well to know of the machinery and mechanisms of the Republican party.

Second, as far as ultimately "faith" being the foundation upon which a moral society runs, I would really need to be convinced with numbers, according to the world we live in today, to coorelate those governments and nations where faith is a major component compared to those who are more secular. At least in past readings, on almost every measurable index of life quality, those nations with more "faithful" adherents fell far below those with more "secular" adherents.

It's a good question, and at this time in our history I think it should really be addressed. We probably have the means to accomplish finally answering whether or not a more intentional separation of church and state really is better.

A response to Brian's comment on accurate reporting: According to the Better Business Bureau, Campus Crusade has 6463 paid employees.

Dear Kevin Perrotta,

I'm sure Ms. Jacoby appreciated your feedback.

As a teacher, I thought I might point out that "ususally" is normally spelled "usually."

--Mama Bear
Ohio

I grew up in the 50's when the moral center was anchored in the Sermon on the Mount. The New-Left of the 60's was grounded in the Sermon, the old Left Marxists believed in Das Kapital. The New Left was spiritual, the Old Left was all about system.

After the social revolution of the late 60's, particularly after 1973, the Christian Right moved its center to the Book of Revelations and ignored or perverted the meaning of the Sermon.

After Roe v. Wade the Republicans took advantage of the religious to press their economic and foreign policy agendas; the Democrats just gave them the back of their hands. My guess is that the majority of Christians in this country prefer the Sermon with its hopeful road-map to a better world over a dark and gloomy Apocalypse.

If moderate religious believers and secularists need to form an alliance they can't be the same people, which means that the true secularists are in a small minority in a society where most people claim to have some religious belief, moderate or not. At that rate, why should the secularists' views be so privileged? I consider myself a massively moderate religious, but I think that the complete separation of Church and State is not entirely achievable. Zionism, with which I do not agree, is only partly a religious movement, though I agree that Christian Zionism has become an important force on the religious right and deserves some attention from those who share Susan's point of view. But even as a non-Zionist I'm sorry to see suggestions that Jews are greedier than the rest of us and suchlike undesirable words. Jews are just like the rest of us in moral merit and fault. So are Arabs.

Ms Jacoby notes (quite rightly in my opinion) the social turmoil and excesses of the 60’s as creating the soil from which the fundamentalists and evangelicals took root. One can argue that both the religious right and the republican dominance of the past 50 years are outgrowths of the remarkable social upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s. Nixon’s Silent Majority paved the way for Falwell and Weyrich’s Moral Majority. The turmoil of the 60’s and effrontery of the counterculture helped create the palpable discomfort with dissent and what was widely seen as moral dissipation and social chaos. Unlike other fears which have been the staple of conservatives (communism, terrorism, or the threats posed by immigrants), this threat is neither external nor easily identifiable. The seeds of the entropic 60’s and 70’s lay somewhere within ourselves and our own society. Despite the irrationality of the response by the cultural right, there is still a discernable rationale. The implicit reasoning is that social order presumes morality, and morality implies religious faith. And in times of social tumult, faith should by literal, straightforward, moralistic, severe, simplistic, or in a word, like theirs.

The point is that the underlying conditions which fed the growth of the religious right have to do with a vague fear (warranted or not) of declining morality and collapsing social order. And to that extent, I agree that the response to the Christian right need not be a countervailing religious left. Still, it is a good thing that the faithful of liberal persuasion are now challenging the facile equating of moral order with the Christian right’s loopy moralism, or of faith with their sheer abandonment of rationality. At this point the most ardent of the Christian right are not likely to be persuaded either by secularists or the liberal faithful. Yet for many in the middle, both seculars and the faithful, their sympathies with the Christian ideologues has been with some sense of predictable order and stability. Accordingly, liberals will have to demonstrate greater care in presenting their social policies as sustaining order and upholding moral behavior. As importantly, liberals have failed to indicate how the “Christian” and Republican programs could lead to irresponsible and immoral policies, or to significant departures from hallowed American traditions.

Ms Jacoby is undoubtedly correct that much of the institutional infrastructure created by the religious right remains. My optimism that the apex of the Christian right has passed is in part the service rendered by George W. Bush (and to a lesser extent, Tom Delay, Jack Abramhoff, Mark Foley etc) in showing how disastrous, socially irresponsible and at times distressingly immoral their policies could be. The task of liberals in demonstrating the potential disruption to social order or disregard of significant moral dimensions of contemporary life is considerably easier now.

Erik asks:
"This is what I want to understand. As an atheist, what right does she have to say anybody's beliefs are good or bad. There is no morality. Why is it wrong for the religious right to want to take over America? In an atheist world, no one's actions should be criticized because there is no moral basis for opposition based on anything more than Jacoby's own opinion."

Erik,

She has the same right to free speech as everyone else, that's what right she has! Her morality is based on her opinions just like yours is based on your opinions. All morals are based on someone's opinion. So of course atheists have morals, they just aren't derived from religious opinions. What's so hard to understand about that?

Johnny Come Lately...

Let me tell you a story, one not told much YET... but well known and simmering.

Carl Rove, from day one in the administration,
made it his goal to build a "republican majority"
to last for 100 years.

Part of his plan was to get the Jewish money...the huge amount of campaign money used to buy the democratic party for years. In many years it was the single most amount of money given in an election cycle. AIPAC, etc.Also well known.

He has been somewhat successful, has he not? But he and the administration had to pay alot,
had to give AIPAC, the neocons, the Israel Firsters whever they wanted...

He did, the Iraq war, plans for Iran, still, billions for Israel, including cluster bombs they used in Lebanon, and arms that would stagger the US taxpayer (making Americans world hatred and in deep peril, still)...
Laws regarding the greedy Wall Street types were absolutely suspended...the cabinet agencies ignoring all kinds of rules on allk kinds of things (you see the result)..on and on. No punishment for those leaking classified stuff to Israel.

But of course Rove had partnered with an ancient experienced and greedy bunch. History is full of it.
Got out of his control
And there we are today.

But, just like in history, everybody knows. Americans detest the war, and know who conned us into it. They detest by 3-1 the Bush admnistration, and congress ad the media...they know well why Wall Street and their mortgages have blown up. THey know, polls show, and they are not happy.

The WAPO and Times are running around in circles with pro israel stories and columns. But most posts, unless they are censured like GANDHI, show it to be backfiring.

Anybody disagree?

Brian Mann:

Well said, well done. It is good to know that decent journalism has not yet been killed off by major news organizations like CNN and Fox turning into tabloids.

Arminius

This is what I want to understand. As an atheist, what right does she have to say anybody's beliefs are good or bad. There is no morality. Why is it wrong for the religious right to want to take over America? In an atheist world, no one's actions should be criticized because there is no moral basis for opposition based on anything more than Jacoby's own opinion.

This is what I want to understand. As an atheist, what right does she have to say anybody's beliefs are good or bad. There is no morality. Why is it wrong for the religious right to want to take over America? In an atheist world, no one's actions should be criticized because there is no moral basis for opposition based on anything more than Jacoby's own opinion.

My name is Brian Mann. I'm a journalist and often cover conservative culture -- Christian and otherwise.

One of the things that dismays me is the generally crummy quality of journalism that even the best journals bring to religion.

I mention it in the context of your essay because of this assertion:

"The group, which had only 109 employees in 1960, is now a proselytizing international organization with more than 27.000 paid staff members and 225,000 volunteers."

It's possible that I'm mistaken, but my first blush response is -- nonsense.

You're suggesting that this organization is an employer on par with Citigroup?

Journalists often inflate (or accept inflated) numbers involving "mega-churches" and other Christian movements.

Big numbers suggest Big relevance.

But when you put forward an assertion that dizzying, we need footnotes or attribution.

Brian

Donttypelies,

And just how did liberalism almost kill you? Do tell.

Maybe you just weren't doing it right?

HEY HOFFER!

I am a recovering agnostic left wing liberal.

Spent most of my life as one.

Liberalism almost killed me. I am done with it. You will be mugged soon too.

Anonymous,

Please enlighten us, what are the ambitions of the religious left?

Is this similar to the "homosexual agenda"?

I'm betting that you think it is. LOL!

Anonymous,

Do you have an actual point to make or do you just enjoy calling people names instead of making a substantive argument?

Exactly what ambitions do the "left religious" have that you object to?

WEll, we have a very angry little jewess, (zionist, neocon, whatever) writing here.

Or is angry an oxymoron in this case?

Is it arrogance to the enth degree, or funny that she proposes to give "enlightnment" and nobody comes.

I am second to none in dismay at the far right religious. THE ONLY thing more
disgusting and frightening in their political
ambitions are the ms. jacoby's of the world, the "left religious".

Jeff,

You are spot on regarding the Republican Congress. They let decades of playing second fiddle morph itself into a frenzy of spending and revenge. Not unlike ourselves, they should be held accountable for their actions, and they were, with a number of them thrown out of office. Their failure was so bad that they were replaced by Democratic opponents who, for the most part, could only offer a platform of "change" and "end the Iraq war", neither of which has happened to any degree.

The wisdom of our founders (those who created our Constitution) was the realization that in order to protect any church, ALL churches must be protected. That was their goal, to PROTECT religious expression, not BAN it. They rightly saw that the original colonists came to America to escape religious persecution, only to practice it here from the majority position.
I read recently that there are some 20,000 individual Christian denominations, each claiming exclusive rights to salvation. Personally, my definition of Hell would be to spend a weekend, let alone Eternity, with very many of these people, but that is just my opinion.
Meanwhile, regarding religion, I am struck by the number of times that I find the "Christian Right" to be neither. I am still looking for the chapter and verse where Jesus says "go out and KILL for me".

Att: "B-MAN"
att: PAGANPlace,
att: ARMENIUS,
Att: PAGANS,
Att: WiCHES,
Att: WICCANS,
Att: VOODOO MAN & MOMS, etc

Semiramis [B-MAN, et al} was the instigator in forming the false religion aimed at supporting their rule,

Semiramis [ARMENiUS, et al] was the instigator in forming the false religion aimed at supporting their rule,

Semiramis [PAGANPLACE, et al] was the instigator in forming the false religion aimed at supporting their rule,....

Shame Disgusting Shame!

===
Friday, December 21, 2007

Excerpt: "Michael Polk [neo-PAGAN/WICCAN LEADER] is serving time for aggravated assault and robbery. He filed a lawsuit against corrections officials in federal court, accusing them of denying him religious items that he says are necessary to practice the Asatru religion.

Polk says he has been a member of the Asatru faith since 2005, and in order to properly practice it he needs items including: a Thor's Hammer, a prayer cloth, a Mead Horn used for drinking Wassail, a drum made of wood and boar skin, a rune staff and a sword.

http://altreligion.about.com/b/2007/06/05/inmate-may-sue-for-thors-hammer.htm
===

Please See your PAGAN's & WICCANS 'Mother Of HARLOTS" of which ye know now what ye worship suckers, on two Links. Thank You.

1); http://reclaiming.org/

Excerpt: "Welcome to Reclaiming: a Community of People, a Tradition of Witchcraft, and a 501(c)3 non-profit Religious Organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. [caters mostly to lost Homosexuals & lost Lesbians (PEDEPHILES) or those who No Church, Synogogue, temple accepts them for their careless Life-Syles, that affects Us STRAIGHTS!).

Reclaiming is a community of women and men working to unify spirit and politics. Our vision is rooted in the religion and magic of the Goddess, the Immanent Life Force. We see our work as teaching and making magic; the art of empowering ourselves and each other. In our classes, workshops, and public rituals, we train our voices, bodies, energy, intuition, and minds. We use the skills we learn to deepen our strength, both as individuals and as community, to voice our concerns about the world in which we live, and bring to birth a vision of a new culture.

AND:

Brambleton,

Thanks for sharing your efforts for our community. I am grateful for those, and although I am not a believer, I too have served in many of those same endeavors over the years. I'm glad people of good will can come together to help the unfortunate regardless of creed (or lack thereof.)

I was raised in Republican country with an extremely Republican family, but over the years I've found the party generally very self-serving, so it is refreshing to see there are still some genuine conservatives out there who care about people.

However I will argue one point: it is not up to some future generation to determine whether or not our government functions adequately, ethically, and with justice, following the spirit of the Constitution with an adequate balance of powers. It's up to us, now.

The Republican Congress was open for business two days a week during their tenure. I think there's absolutely no excuse for that, it's a crime--it was an opportunity to rubber-stamp legislation without debate, consideration, and thought. It didn't allow representation of the people of the United States. We will be paying the cost of the mistakes of this administration for years to come. Carter hasn't cost my loved ones a thing.

Susan Jacoby is performing an invaluable service with her columns and is part of the process of the diminishment of the Radical Right - as are all of the comments and other discussions on this board and the discussions all across the country concerning this issue. It's really hard to see this diminishment happening when you are in the thick of it, so to speak. It's hard to be objective when you are part of anything. Many people mistake the rallying and thrashings of a dying movement as signs of strength when in reality the opposite is true.

Mike Huckabee's "strength" in the Republican primaries only underscores the marginalzation the Radical Right is undergoing. Moderates and independents are flocking to the Democrats - leaving the very conservative base of Republicans to duke it out among themselves. Of course, the base is conflicted and split among various social, fiscal and martial radicals - yes, radicals. This infighting only goes to show how radicalized the Republican party has become. The fact that John McCain is considerd "liberal" by the base only underscores this fact. If John McCain is liberal, then what was Ronald Reagan? Like I said, it's hard to be objective when you are part of something. The radicalzation of the Republicans happened slowly, but surely. Those of us who were adults as this happened were, to some extent desensitized, distracted or deluded into thinking this was nothing to worry about. Slowly, but surely, the crtical mass of our society accepted this radicalism and allowed it to thrive. We legitimized the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reily, Hannity, Coulter, Ingram, etc, etc by allowing them into the national discourse. The fact that these radicals are howling so loudly tells me they are on the run.

Another thing is that younger people - those under 30 especially, haven't grown accoustomed to the radicalzation of The Republican party. They have a different perspective. They can objectively compare this time period to that which came before and draw some obvious conclusions that maybe those of us who are older can't really see because we are entagled in the facilitation and rationalzation of what happened to the Republican party. Younger people, generally, sense and feel a real threat to our secular republic. That's why they are so involved in this election. They are the catalyst in the diminishment of the Radical Right.

Lastly, the Radical Right isn't going to curl up and die and go away on some strict timetable. A post-Radical Right world isn't going to be free of radicals within a year or so. It took many years for this phenomenon to develop - and it will take many years to it to wane. An example I like to use is the Prohibition movement. It was also a radical Christian fundamentalist movement. It took several decades to become a dominant force by the time the Volstead Act was passed. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933 prohibitionists didn't give up and just walk away. Indeed, they fought on and fielded a candidate......until the 1960 election. It took the '60s to finally kill the movement. So from begining to end, the movement lasted 80 to 90 years. So, I think our expectations should fall in line with other, similar historical movements in the past rather than with our "instant gratification" culture we inhabit today. Although, I would say it's possible that communication and technology could possibly shorten this particular movement's lifespan in ways that wasn't possible before. In the end, I believe the climax of the Radical Right was 2004-2005 and we will see their power diminish slowly but surely over the next few years as a more rational, more modern generation enters the public discourse.

Langs,

You said, "Clinton caught and prosecuted the terrorist that attacked us under his watch."

Really, I don't know whether this is comical or sad. Congrats on catching the guy that carried out the crime. Unfortunately, we completely ignored the people that funded and trained the culprit. And we ignored the same people who were arming and training thousands of others to commit the exact same crime. Good job!

And can you recall President Clinton's response to the AMERICAN embassies being bombed in Kenya and Tanzania? Yeah, he fired a single cruise missile at a pharmaceutical plant in Egypt. Wow! Way to strike a blow against terrorism. You can attack and kill american citizens, but be prepared to lose a textile plant or other vacant building!!

ARrgghh! Woof! Woof! Awooo! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Arf! Arf! Grrrrrrr! AWFUL CHRISTIANS! Arf! Woof! Arf! Frothhh! CHRISTIANS BAD! Woof! Woof! ATHEISTS GOOD! Arf! Arf! Huff! Huff! Pant! Pant! RELIGIOUS NO LOGICAL ATHEIST VERY LOGICAL YOU BETCHA! Awoooooooo!

Talley,

You might end up being right about President Bush, but only someone who is incredibly naive would think they could judge the legacy of a President while he/she was still in office. Ever heard of Abraham Lincoln?

And how did President Carter work out for you?

A Carr:

I'm not sure Susan advocates separation of religion from culture--it can't and shouldn't be done (I've read her writings and think her main hero, Robert Ingersoll, embodies what she aspires to in her works.) I think she advocates separation of religion from politics. That CAN and SHOULD be done.

This whole political climate of the last years has escalated to the point where "belief" becomes the first qualification from any potential politician's mouth. Thus, it should follow that the voting public be shown exactly what the "belief" entails.

Huckabee's "Jesus wouldn't have been involved with politics" is patently false, and an attempt to skirt many issues he's been asked. Thus McCain running away with the delegates by more than a 3-1 margin. People are generally smart, when cards are laid on the table.

Young people will follow their hearts to any number of "truths," and those truths will evolve with life experiences, confirmations, and sometimes harsh realities.

this scares the hell out of me. we could become the targets of the new 21st century witch hunts.
we need to be strong in our convictions to antitheism.

Paganplace

Call it- disagreement- tension- mental struggle- argument- debate- politics- or what you will, it’s all the same. Strip it down and call it what it is, People trying to impose their will on other people.

Ms. Jacoby proposed an alliance with Christians to stop… in her own words “Many warriors of today’s Christian right”. So Paganplace … just who is fomenting so called war here? Are you playing the double standard here?
I wrote metaphorically to make the point, and believe the commentator probably did also.

Also Paganplace so what if I am as you say monotheist. Is there a problem with that, does that diminish my value, are my kids something less than your children because their faith is in the one Christian God? Does their simple faith transform them into the small town Wisconsin girls you mention, is that cruelty you describe exclusive to Christian hearts only?

Sincerely

The political power of the Christian Right must not be underestimated. And because of that, it behooves any person in office or striving for public office, to put them in their place. Remember, folks, American democracy is for everyone, including non-Christians and atheists. I, for one, am sick and tired of being dictated to by people who can't be bothered to think so they decide to believe instead. "Their" presidents, namely Reagan and this latest Bush, have been disasters for the country. Saint Ronnie was a disgusting person who supported some of the most violent regimes in Latin America and elsewhere. As for W, he is to date the worst president we have ever had, I think he is even too dumb to be really corrupt. He leaves the country an economic mess, with a few rich people happy, and he has set the world on fire with his idiotic intervention in Iraq. He has singlehandedly legitimized terrorists. So I would suggest that the religious right act with a little more humility. Recognizing one's errors is also Christian. It's atheist, too, by the way.

Paganplace,

I think I finally found the disconnect. I use words like "responsibility" and "accountability" and you interpret them to mean "scornful" and "without compassion". Maybe that's the problem? If so, let me briefly expound on those sentiments.

I have compassion for those who are struggling to meet basic needs which is why I give so much to our local food banks and our church pantry. I have compassion for children who live in a home environment that lacks any focus on education, so I tutor underprivileged children through a program at work. I have compassion for people living in decaying and decrepid homes but who can't afford to make any repairs - which is why I volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. I have compassion for people who can't make heads or tails of our tax system so I prepare individual tax returns on a pro bono basis.

I don't have compassion for people who want a $500,000 house, like their friends live in, and will do anything to get one despite their $32,000 a year salary. I don't have compassion for people who are "house poor" and are gambling that the price of their house will escalate enough that they can refinance before their balloon payment comes due.

You're off target on the assumptions about the "big financing" behind groups like Campus Crusade. They raise their funds one church at a time, just like missionaries going to the foreign field. The campus director raises funds separately from individuals and churches in their region. There aren't large corporations with bottomless pits of money syphoning off to "these people."

Rather, individuals like me pass on $25, $50 and $100 donations to the couple with the little baby who have dedicated themselves to a life of modest living to reach truth-seeking college kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that nearly 8 times as many kids were more interested and found hope in the power of God in a man who has overcome an agregious sin in his life, than the discussion of people who want to separate God from culture.

Kacoo,

The fuss? It's about putting someone on power who believes the fiction that they are guided by an unseen, unknowable, infallible force.

Actually, I don't know why I'm responding to your post - it's the dumbest question I've read in this entire series of comments.

Why does the "On Faith" column repeatedly feature articles written by those without any faith?

This is the second time I have read an article here by an atheist/secularist.

You should seriously think about changing the name of the column to "Without Faith"

We've had seperation of church and state for hundreds of years. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, American have not had to pay a tax to support the Anglican Church of England. Huckabee isn't suggesting a return to paying the salaries of those who advocate British colonial rule in America. So what's all the fuss about?

I went to my first (and only) Campus Crusade meeting as a college student in the mid 60's. It was the shallowist, most superfucial, cheapest expression of faith I had ever encountered up to that time. My experiences since have not changed my view. While I had not thought about the role of Pope John XXIII, you understanding of the role of the RR is on target. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the RR pronouncd dead. It's easy to forget that they are a people of the resurection! The Puritan strain of religion they represent is woven into the fabic of this country. They will never go away. Like turmites they do their desructive work from the inside out. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I would like to think that there is a constructive counter balance. Lately, however, I have been encourged by a resurgence of social consciousness rooted to a spirituality that is less preoccupied with Christo-American triumphantalism. Secularism is not all bad. After all, the Apostle Paul did admonish us Christians to be "in" the world as what Jesus called "salt" and "leaven." Sure beats pick axes and clubs!

Who are you speaking to DontTypeLies? Have you failed to notice the "educated secular elite", whatever that is, seem to wish the disappearance of fundamenatliast Islam with the same vigor and hope that they wish the disappearance of fundamentalist Christianity?

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance."

Fundamentalism is the disease, Islam or Christianity are only variants.

Well since the so called "educated" and "secular" elite have to ask these questions, I would have to ask them to put their nose in the books and study the questions they ask. After all, isn't it them who claim that everyone except them are "uneducated"? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to read the writing on the wall.

Please take your heads out of the sand and stop asking silly questions and making up excuses for Islam.

And I would recommend those liberal Christians to examine Liberation Theology.

The religious right and those people that are opposed to or reject evolution are hilarious, although in a poor, uneducated way. I feel sorry for those of you. It must be difficult to be absolutely unaware of your surroundings.

Brambleton: Clinton caught and prosecuted the terrorist that attacked us under his watch.

The Cole Bombing happened at the end of his term.
They informed Bush and as we all know terrorism was not that important to him and Condi.

Something about Bin Laden Determined to attack America just wasn't that important.

How Bush has ruined the country.

Iraq, How about leaving Afghan before the job was done. Guantanomo, the DOJ.

LIES LIES LIES. How stupid are you to still believe.

We've already lost the Iraq war.

We lost our honor which we will never get back.

Bush has done more damage than Bin laden could have ever hoped.

He's turned us into the terror and police state.

That's his history.

keep burning brightly Susan

"During this period, religious conservatives in the South created a new kindergarten-through-college system of right-wing Protestant schools—first in response to public school desegregation"

How can something good come from something evil.

It can't.

All they did was change there name.

They are still racist. It fueled there existence.

Jeff P:
I remember as a teenager contributing to a Billy Graham crusade, something on the order of about 10 dollars or so (which was substantial at my age then.) For over a year, I'd receive monthly mailings that described how much MORE was needed from me to do the work of the Lord.
February 12, 2008 10:13 AM

Interesting comment above. For folks like Ms Jacoby and her peers, liberal politics is their faith. I can still remember when $10 was huge too, but Ms Jacoby's faith group is in the same practice. That's why they release major press bulletins when their candidate brings in millions over the weekend. Trust me, you give once to one of those political priests and you'll be contacted again and again to send your tithe to their political religion.

Jeff P:
I remember as a teenager contributing to a Billy Graham crusade, something on the order of about 10 dollars or so (which was substantial at my age then.) For over a year, I'd receive monthly mailings that described how much MORE was needed from me to do the work of the Lord.
February 12, 2008 10:13 AM

Interesting comment above. For folks like Ms Jacoby and her peers, liberal politics is their faith. I can still remember when $10 was huge too, but Ms Jacoby's faith group is in the same practice. That's why release major press bulletins when their candidate brings in millions over the weekend. Trust me, you give once to one of those political priests and you'll be contacted again and again to send your tithe to their political religion.

I happen to be Black and a reluctant Republican. For all intents and purposes, I have been labled an ultra-right wing nut. Why? Well, not because of the work I have done for many years working with inner-city youth. Not because I write checks for many charitable causes. Mainly because I believe that abortion is genocide against the Black race in particular and other less fit in general. Because I believe that as a Black man, I no longer need special rights and I do not believe gays need them. Because I have no problem with civil unions but draw the line at marriage.

I am also irrational. Not because I took 3 years to get my 4 year degree from MIT. But because I believe in the Bible, creation and that the Jewish Messiah has already come in the person of Jesus Christ.

YoYo posted that religion is just learned because of how we are raised. That is true with most religions. But not Christians. Jesus was a Jew. Ditto the 12 apostles. The debate in the early church was do you have to become a Jew to be a Christian? It is true that Christians fall into several camps. There is a camp where they are Christian by tradition. Jesus spoke about some who claimed to know Him but he tells them He never knew them. But the prostitutes, drug users, ex-pedophiles, ex-racists, etc. are the ones Jesus came to save.

AFR wrote:
"Does that mean today's evolutionists, who no longer believe in Darwinism, are also anti-intellectual?"

Huh? Who told you this? Whatever makes you think that today's "evolutionists" no longer believe in "Darwinism"?

Neither of those words have any actual meaning, but I take you to mean that those who understand and accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation currently available to explain the diversity of life on Earth, no longer accept the theory of natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution takes place. Is that about right?

If so, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm curious as to what makes you think so.

Alex

You are incredibly wrong. 65 percent of all pregnancies are terminated spontaneously. That means that for every child you have fathered you have caused the demise of two. And you did it willingly and knowingly.

Susan

You fail to realize why Huckabee is surviving in the primaries and McCain is pandering to the far right at a time when people are sick of the far right - seen the turn-out numbers for the dems primaries? The GOP has so lost the moderates in their party that all that is left are radical right evangelicals. When their political power is gone they will have zero appeal.

Susan

You fail to realize why Huckabee is surviving in the primaries and McCain is pandering to the far right at a time when people are sick of the far right - seen the turn-out numbers for the dems primaries? The GOP has so lost the moderates in their party that all that is left are radical right evangelicals.

You should at least defend your thesis. Where was the defense?

Abortion facts:

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.

More than 3,300 abortions are performed in the United States every day. 93% occur because the child is "unwanted or inconvenient."

One final note:

For a column in the nation's premiere political newspaper that might have some aspirations of starting a dialogue, beginning with a thinly-veiled insult won't win the author any friends. Not that it matters to her, particularly.

One further comment: it is in fact the secular left in this country that is currently doing its utmost to establish series of newly messianic movements, from Global Warming to Barack Obama. Look at his website, with the wispy halos of clouds and his exhortations for the masses to believe. Huckabee may be a baptist, but even he manages to say more of substance on the campaign trail than Barack Obama, who *really* looks like the candidate that's trying to tap into a quasi-religious fervor in this race with his website and his grandiose and vapid public pronouncements. And liberals have the guts to talk about anti-rationality here, at the Washington Post.

Good treatise, Ms. Jacoby, as usual.

Life is becoming stranger than fiction. I strongly urge everyone to read the book "Blackwater," where you will discover the rise of private armies with a religious agenda.

Visit the website infragard.net and learn about a marriage between private corporations and the FBI in which those corporations are given terror threat warnings not issued to private citizens, and authorized to use deadly force against citizens in the event of martial law.

I am not a conspiritorial theorist, but there are dangerous movements afoot that threaten our freedoms now and perhaps our lives in the near future. Sad to say, most have a religious or quasi-religious fervor. Ferocious beasts are dangerous, but pale in comparison to men killing in the name of God.

Isn't the premise of your last paragraph more than a little alarmist and specious? I personally find it laughable that anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of modern liberals and modern liberalism could ever worry, much less caution readers to avoid, allowing religious liberals to ever marginalize the secularists. I think the case is precisely the opposite of the way you present it: people of faith quite properly feel marginalized and excluded by the secularist mainstream of the Democratic party, and that is what might causing them to leave.

There is no such thing as a "moderate" religious believer. They're really just religious believers who cherry pick scripture to provide cover for the work of religious fundamentalists. And that is why they're actually more dangerous than the fundamentalists... without the so-called "moderates" putting a kinder, gentler face on the bigotry of blind faith, there wouldn't be ANY pandering to religion done by our politicians.

The only thing this alliance will accomplish is to keep America on the treadmill for another generation. What REALLY needs to be done is for America to respect the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by demanding that America's politicians turn a deaf ear to ANYONE who wants to pass legislation which stems from a faith based ideology.

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.

This does not simply mean that America cannot establish of a national religion. It goes far beyond that.

The key phrase is “respecting an establishment”…

Many Christians believe that every fetus is a human soul and belongs to god, not to the individual. So they create a moral code to which their followers must proscribe...

Thus, “thou shalt not have an abortion” is an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, and anything forced into law by Christians which would ban abortion is a law RESPECTING that establishment.

The wording was deliberate and precise. It not only covers the establishment of a state religion but ANY establishment which is a pillar of a given belief system.

"Establishment" doesn’t just mean a large group or organization. It covers MUCH more ground than that…

Main Entry: es•tab•lish•ment
Pronunciation: i-'sta-blish-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century

1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution

2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group

3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

The First Amendment clearly prohibits any law being passed which is derived from a code of laws (as per 1a) or settled arrangement (as per 1a) which is part of the framework of any religious belief system.

IMO it's well past time that the People got around to respecting this establishment of the Constitution of the United States of America...

Peace

Francine,
To my amazement, we are in the minority.

Keep fighting the good fight. I'm not a right-wing Christian myself, but I do deplore the duplicity I see from some of Wash Post's columnists. Don't worry, you're not alone. Not everyone out there is an "abortion on demand", open borders, sodomite.

I think it's pretty obvious where Ms. Jacoby's sympathies lie. She's the liberal incarnation of a neoconservative. Rather than digress into a pointless ad hominem, I'd like to pose a question to the group. Susan Jacoby polemic against right-wing Christianity is perfectly palatable to the readers of the Washington Post. What if I turned around and said that I think Zionism is an equal, if not more powerful force in American politics today.

My argument is simple. The Christian Right is a subset of the Zionist umbrella. When you combine the dispensationalists, free market idealogues, and powerful neoconservative and neoliberal luminaries you're left with a far larger and more powerful entity than just the Christian right. Yes, I know everyone's radar just went off. They need to label me a jew-hater. Please go on right ahead, it doesn't weaken my argument. If the Christian Right is so omnipotent and dangerous, why is it only verboten to debate the merits and drawbacks of America's current Zionist bent?

Riddle me this, and please try to use reason rather than the standard, "you're an anti-semite" retort.

One of the very funniest jokes of our time, the "Christian Right." Weren't those the folks Hitler depended upon, until it became expedient to exterminate them? They don't learn from experience, do they? Especially when led by Oxycontin addicts like Lush Rimjob, how could they??

Happy Halloween, Christers!

For those not intending to spam, hitting 'post' once almost always does the trick.

For the rest, religion is not a 'war.'

Who IS this person? The columnist above?

"...dangerous delusion based on wishful thinking.

"...profound anti-rational influence.

"...preferred a (reformed) pediphile to me (who just wanted to tell them of enlightenment).
(Well, THAT at least we understand)

...225,000 international proselytizers counterprogramming against left wing religion and secularists." (left wing must mean Jewish, Mainstream is Presbyterian and Episcopalian)

And, like, do you mind sweetie? That's what proselytizers do.
Get your own quarter million should you wish to prevail.

And Jacoby is sooo upset by the kindergarten through college right-wing religious training. But Jewish version of same, avoiding all nasty goyim, is desirable, right?

But the part about the "liberal religious leaders" who must keep the right wing religious believers IN CHECK is a last straw.

Recall that the editors of On Religion censured Gandhi, who wasn't PC enough. But this nasty, anti-Christian, raving little twit raves on.
Says it all. And it is disgusting.

Who IS this person? The columnist above?

"...dangerous delusion based on wishful thinking.

"...profound anti-rational influence.

"...preferred a (reformed) pediphile to me (who just wanted to tell them of enlightenment).
(Well, THAT at least we understand)

...225,000 international proselytizers counterprogramming against left wing religion and secularists." (left wing must mean Jewish, Mainstream is Presbyterian and Episcopalian)

And, like, do you mind sweetie? That's what proselytizers do.
Get your own quarter million should you wish to prevail.

And Jacoby is sooo upset by the kindergarten through college right-wing religious training. But Jewish version of same, avoiding all nasty goyim, is desirable, right?

But the part about the "liberal religious leaders" who must keep the right wing religious believers IN CHECK is a last straw.

Recall that the editors of On Religion censured Gandhi, who wasn't PC enough. But this nasty, anti-Christian, raving little twit raves on.
Says it all. And it is disgusting.

Understand:

This?

Not a war. We're talking about like *small town Wisconsin* thinking they're in a *war,* saying horrible warlike things about...well, me, thinking the queer Pagan girl they're spouting hate at is 'good clean straight Christian girl' ...so I can be all impressed at their straight Christian homophobic virtuousness...

It's not a *war,* it's *imagining enemies.*

And Gods know you don't leave what you want to do to enemies much to the imagination.

We're better than this.

This is not a war.

You're scared.

And you're scaring the piss out of me, too.

But not in any kind of good way.

Remember America?

I mean, hey, I know to monotheists that everything is some kind of 'war' ...generally metaphorical unless of course you're on the wrong end of the comfy violence...

But... War?

No, this isn't a war. Takes two to war.

Having fun quoting characters from the show 'Firefly,' but, this isn't a war:

"I start fighting a war, I guarantee you'll see something new."

Kindly don't act like this is a war, Christians, I know you like to, but really. It's all in your mind, this idea I'm fighting a 'war' with you.

Gods know you've *hit* me and *shot* at me, and *....well,done things best not mentioned, but the only people talking *war* are monotheists. I had some none-too-flexible intention of living in peace in America.

Go figure.

Neighbor.

I find it strange that the Christian right does not object to secular shopping malls, or the secular amusement park, Disney World (or Disney Land). Okay, yes they've boycotted Disney, but they found it didn't make a difference among their own people. But that may be a byproduct of who we think of as the religious right. I think of southern evangelicals. I don't think of mid-Atlantic Catholics.

I was raised in an observant Catholic household. My parents were always Democrats, went to church weekly (now my elderly mother attends Mass daily).

She is not for abortion, but she is also not a pro-lifer. She views them as over the top. She also made the comment to me once that some of the women in our church who were adamantly anti-abortion also had small families. As a mother of a large family, I think she always had sympathy for the overburdened mothers who faced unplanned pregnancies.

She thinks the Church is wrong to try to dictate her voting (which they try to do).

I think the problem with articles about the religious right is that it focuses too much on the pandering politicians and not the actual circumstances of the people who are considered "right wing."

Yes, there are closed minded conservatives, but there are also open-minded people who look like they're conservative. Maybe they're churchgoing, long-time married, large families, etc. But they're not the judgmental jerks that their leaders happen to be!

"Your plan places Moderate believers in the crossfire at best, or plans to use them as human shields at worst. Either way the body count in the middle is always highest."

I know it may be an exotic, foreign, and probably dangerously-heretical religious concept to monotheists... but here's a wacky idea:

What if religion isn't a fricking war?

Go figure.

To Hoffer:

Your point about my choice of words is a good one. My Christianity does color how I view others, in this case evolutionists. I do think in terms of "belief" about many things, but especially the idea of origins. It is a difficult habit to rid oneself of, but I meant no harm. I appreciate your insight.

Gosh, Susan, shame on those mean, religious, right-wing nuts! They weren't impressed with you OR your credentials! Then the pain of being humiliated by, of all things, KENTUCKIANS. Imagine, people with a point of view daring to oppose you. Tsk! Tsk! What is this world coming to?

The problem with teaching creationism in public schools, is that it is the religious right's attempt to indoctrinate my children with their beliefs, as if my beliefs should not be carried on by my children. I have no problem with ignorant people teaching ignorance to their children in Sunday school or over dinner, but why must they insist on trying to teach my children their silliness?

I understand that the religious right is insecure in knowing that there are others that believe differently than them, but they should just get used to it. It is a diverse world. Really, what religion is all about is using a tool to make sure everyone else looks and acts "just like me." Nothing else.

AFR's post well illustrates why people who are rational gnash their teeth in frustration at some of the utterances of "Christians." Religion is not rational. It may be many wonderful things, but it is not rational. That's why religionists argue that you must have "faith" to believe some of the things religion wants you to believe.

AFR declares: "For years, Darwinism was taught as fact in our schools, and when the Christians opposed that, we were labeled anti-intellectual." Well, yes you were. That's because you were anti-intellectual. If you want to be dimwitted, be my guest, but don't prattle on about how rational thinking is somehow to be avoided.

None of us is all that rational. We're driven by feelings and subconcious urges more than by logical reasoning. This has served us pretty well for the last 200,000 years (6,000, if you prefer), so we shouldn't try to run away from our non-rational side. Perhaps the "fundamentalists" are on to something. They may perceive aspects of reality that "secularists" find it hard to perceive, even if the reverse is also true. If we listened to each other, we might learn something.

Ms. Jacoby

It is a dangerous alliance you propose, one that places moderate religious believers in harms way. Actually alliance is the wrong word here, battle plan better describes it.

Let’s consider the combatants; draw up the battle lines, then everyone can reach their own conclusion.

Combatants
1. Unapologetic secularist..note (unapologetic) is refusal to compromise beliefs.
Standing their ground.

2. Moderate religious believers.. Middle of the road stance on important issues.

3. Christian right.. Unapologetic in their own right. Advancing on secularist strongholds aka (important social issues of our day).

Your plan places Moderate believers in the crossfire at best, or plans to use them as human shields at worst. Either way the body count in the middle is always highest.

Since you offer no compromises to moderate Christians a simple cost benefit analysis reveals this offer to be …lacking.

As a "Fundie" I find it it amusing that the common thread here seems to be that Christianity is responsible for any and all evils and even going back BC, certainly need to inclue the Jews in the mix, for Jesus was a Jew. The few Christians who have commented here have, in my humble opinion, held their tongues MUCH better than the vast majority of the people on this blog. Why is it that so many who are not christians are often violently opposed to those who believe in it? As the other Christian mentioned above, I believe what I do through study on my own (not having been "brainwashed" as a youngster) and like to share it with others, but we are told not to throw the pearl before the swine (no offense intended - after all, I am quoting). Just as most of those on this blog are tired of "fundies", so too are we, at least I am, of being told that time has passed for us to have a say.

Just as the Constitution assures you the right to say what you wish in any manner you want to, don't use it as a lever or springboard to try and keep us from being able to exercise the same right. After all, according to some here, we should all be locked up. For your info, that IS happening in many, many parts of the world, as well as torture and murder (we call it martyrdom). The very scary thing is that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the three stooges all persecuted committed Christians (you say that Hitler was a Christian - read again, familiar with Dietrich Boenhoffer - a man HItler had killed for his faith?) and that is what a few hinted at here. Are we to take it seriously, or just the ravings of a few?

As a Christian I agree that we need to be that at home first with our family and friends, then the marketplace. There needs to be honesty and integrity or there is no credibility.

Got to go, some of the local kiddos showed up, so got to go. The bottom line is can't we co-exist yet agree to disagree and treat each other with respect and dignity?

As a "Fundie" I find it it amusing that the common thread here seems to be that Christianity is responsible for any and all evils and even going back BC, certainly need to inclue the Jews in the mix, for Jesus was a Jew. The few Christians who have commented here have, in my humble opinion, held their tongues MUCH better than the vast majority of the people on this blog. Why is it that so many who are not christians are often violently opposed to those who believe in it? As the other Christian mentioned above, I believe what I do through study on my own (not having been "brainwashed" as a youngster) and like to share it with others, but we are told not to throw the pearl before the swine (no offense intended - after all, I am quoting). Just as most of those on this blog are tired of "fundies", so too are we, at least I am, of being told that time has passed for us to have a say.

Just as the Constitution assures you the right to say what you wish in any manner you want to, don't use it as a lever or springboard to try and keep us from being able to exercise the same right. After all, according to some here, we should all be locked up. For your info, that IS happening in many, many parts of the world, as well as torture and murder (we call it martyrdom). The very scary thing is that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the three stooges all persecuted committed Christians (you say that Hitler was a Christian - read again, familiar with Dietrich Boenhoffer - a man HItler had killed for his faith?) and that is what a few hinted at here. Are we to take it seriously, or just the ravings of a few?

As a Christian I agree that we need to be that at home first with our family and friends, then the marketplace. There needs to be honesty and integrity or there is no credibility.

Got to go, some of the local kiddos showed up, so got to go. The bottom line is can't we co-exist yet agree to disagree and treat each other with respect and dignity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

Why don't we get a hardcore fundamentalist Christian to comment on athiests? Seems to make as much sense as listening to Jacoby the hardcore athiest comment on the Christian right.

Huckabee is the biggest horse's ass since George W. Bush. What exactly is it about conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, born-again republicans that generates that familiar gag reflex??

Now I don't mind those liberal Christians so much because their heart's in the right place, but these reactionary right-wing knee-jerk yahoos really get my goat. No sympathy and no empathy for their fellow humans if you ask me. But Oh how they love Jesus! Here comes that old familiar feeling again.

"Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!"

And they say we can't find a national consensus. :)

Fundamaentalist Christians are more of a danger to democracy than "Islamofacism". As the writer describes, facism is alive and well within the Christian wrong.

How America can continue to thrive, with extremists vying to create a theocracy out of our weakened democracy, is a mystery not even the "Creator" would be able to solve. The contradictions of the right and the "Word" are so obvious, even the blind can see.

Until we rid this Country of the wolves in sheeps clothing, like Reed, Dobson, Perkins, and other religious bigots/hypocrites, we are doomed to struggle for the hearts and minds of our own people, much less the rest of the world.

Fundamaentalist Christians are more of a danger to democracy than "Islamofacism". As the writer describes, facism is alive and well within the Christian wrong.

How America can continue to thrive, with extremists vying to create a theocracy out of our weakened democracy, is a mystery not even the "Creator" would be able to solve. The contradictions of the right and the "Word" are so obvious, even the blind can see.

Until we rid this Country of the wolves in sheeps clothing, like Reed, Dobson, Perkins, and other religious bigots/hypocrites, we are doomed to struggle for the hearts and minds of our own people, much less the rest of the world.

Fundamaentalist Christians are more of a danger to democracy than "Islamofacism". As the writer describes, facism is alive and well within the Christian wrong.

How America can continue to thrive, with extremists vying to create a theocracy out of our weakened democracy, is a mystery not even the "Creator" would be able to solve. The contradictions of the right and the "Word" are so obvious, even the blind can see.

Until we rid this Country of the wolves in sheeps clothing, like Reed, Dobson, Perkins, and other religious bigots/hypocrites, we are doomed to struggle for the hearts and minds of our own people, much less the rest of the world.

AFR, it's not your disagreement with the theory of evolution that marks you as anti-rational, it's what you propose in its place that marks you as such. You insist that your faith provides the answer, that your god did it all. A god you cannot rationally prove to exist. Your insisting that your faith is fact, is anti-rational, irrational.

And uh, nobody "believes in" evolution. Let me use your way of speaking here - Why must you faithists label anybody who accepts a current theory as believing in it?

You are free to deny evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the diversity of species on earth. Give us some rational reason for doing so, ok?

Moral progress is secular. Progress in religion is a myth. Western progress has nothing to do with religion.

Why must you label Christians things like "anti-rational" or "ultra-conservative fundamentalists"? Such labels are not only inaccurate, they are demeaning; but, of course, that is why you use them.

Why must a Christian be anti-rational if they don't think your particular idea about evolution is correct? For years, Darwinism was taught as fact in our schools, and when the Christians opposed that, we were labeled anti-intellectual. Does that mean today's evolutionists, who no longer believe in Darwinism, are also anti-intellectual? What you really object to is anybody who doesn't see things your way, and so they must be labeled, and if the label is a scary one, then all the better.

No doubt, labeling is done by both sides in a discussion like this one, but such behavior never helps. It only polarizes people even more.

I totally agree with comments on R.M.Nixon. I'm
sure he's not the first presidential candidate to
"cash in" on the Baptist State Convention's money
machine. My husband and I made our decision to cut
all ties with BSC shortly after 9-11 and we current-
ly belong to an independent church. I would like to
address "commonsense" and direct attention to the
definition of Secularism: noun #1 religious skep-
ticism or indifference. #2 the view that religious
considerations sould be excluded from civil affairs
or public education. -secularist noun/secularistic
is an adjective.
I would like to leave you with some beloved verses
to ponder over and also to let you know that I am
probably the most liberal, the most moderate republican in my family.
1 John 2:18
Dear children,(John didn't title this letter but
it was sent to various gentile churches), this is
the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming even now many antichrists
have come. This is how we(gentiles) know it is
the last hour. 19 They(false teachers/church
ordained faux deacons) did not really belong to
us. For if they had belonged to us, they would
have remained with us,(spiritually-as when we list
prayer requests); but their going showed that none
of them belonged to us(gentiles).
20 But you(gentiles who remained spiritually
grounded) have an anointing from the HOLY ONE, and
all of you know the truth(spiritually). 21 Who
is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus
is the CHRIST. Such a man is the antichrist---he
denies the FATHER and the SON. v27 As for you,
the anointing you received from Him(Jesus' Holy
Sprirt) remains in you(gentile), and you don't
need anyone to teach you.
As a deacon's wife and Sundayschool teacher I have
seen first hand what happens when ordained officers of the church start craving worldly power
and position. My rule of thumb is to vote for the
person not the party. History has proved that
people will do or say anything to be elected.

DontTypeLies shows us the interchangeability of religious fanaticism. To this poster apparently all people will be religious extremists of one sort or another, and we should protect ourselves from becoming Muslim fanatics by becoming Christian fanatics.

DontTypeLies, do you know anybody who doesn't believe, do you ever leave your church?

I wholeheartedly agree with Tom B. Despite the "little successes" of the right-wing Christians in their culture war on America, we aren't going to fall for their extremism. Why does DontTypeLies think we're going to fall for Islam?

today on BBC Radio, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband broke with the country’s American ally, citing “some concerns” over the use of torture evidence:

Speaking on a BBC programme in response to a question from a listener, Miliband confirmed that the UK defined water-boarding as torture, adding: “We don’t … we would never use water-boarding.” […]

“And I think it’s very, very important that we always assert that our system of values is different from those who attacked the US and killed British citizens on September 11, and that’s something we’d always want to stand up for.”

Asked whether the trial of Mohammed would respect his legal rights, Miliband replied: “We have some concerns about that.”

It is strange that so many Americans are so concerned about 'the Muslims among us' when an equally fundamentalist political movement is gradually extending its grip throughout the United States. Islam will never take root in the U.S. and is no threat to American freedoms. Not so Christian fundamentalists who seek to enforce their theology, ethics, and right-wing political agenda on the rest of us using the power of Big Government. Like all 'movements' Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals know that they don't need to convince the majority of their ideas. They simply need to capture the levers of power and use them to control those of us who are neither Protestants nor 'born agains' nor Biblical literalists.

I don't think much of people who believe in astrology, who run their lives by the latest newspaper forecast. That's a literal description, I don't spend time thinking about them.
They aren't trying to amend the constitution to bring it in line with their beliefs. They aren't denying those who live differently their own place in our society.
They aren't trying to force anybody to live their lives as the astrology believers feel a life must be lived.

I still think they are utterly silly people for believing this primitive nonsense, but hey - it's their choice to do so. I offer no resistance whatsoever to them and their choice of belief.

I think the Christians are silly in the same way, and I would feel the same disinterest in their choice of belief if it weren't for the fact that so many *are* trying to amend the constitution, so many *are* trying to prevent others from having their place in society, so many are trying to force others to believe as they do.

Human life amendment, Protection of marriage amendment, sticking your 10 commandments into the government court rooms, suppressing science education in favor of creationist dogma in the classroom, refusal to allow stem cell research.

On and on, Christians seem to be in a war against the freedoms of choice and of conscience and of religion that we the people so treasure.

Of course it's not all the Christians, probably less than half in fact. I still the freedom-loving Christians who aren't trying to force me to live their way are silly for believing what they believe, but hey - you think I'm going to hell. We can agree to disagree, I've seen it work.
But that hard-core social conservative drudge who populates the republicans at this current point in history, this Christian is trying to destroy our country and I feel compelled to defend my country against them. I will use sarcasm, insult, my vote, I will make fun of him .. I will do whatever I can to see this Christian loses his ability to influence the destruction of our country.

There, a manifesto.

DONTTYPELIES, Ms. Jacoby isn't beholden to the standards of Islam, the immutable contradictions of which guarantee hypocrisy, but it seems you are. Why?

Wow

That's a terrific title for this article.

I'm in part interested in trying to discover the broad thinking systems the 'Christian right' borrows or inherits from. I indeed think it's the very same thinking system as the Nazi's borrowed from - not to mention many other resurfacings of this mindset.

What is it REALLY about though - I mean, is it a necessary part of civilization ? or society to have this thinking system that again and again shows up at the picnin of humanity ?

Who is the distant relative that seeks to cause trouble at the picnic called fundamentalism. When it comes to fundamentalism, I detect absolutism in disguise. The branch that does not bend - will break- again and again. There is a paradox to absolutism in thinking I find, once you adhere to a thinking system and say - this IS the ideal system, AND that system says all thoughts must adhere to its model ? One has to ask - how is it one was ever without this system ? It's close to Hawking on commenting that when and if a grand unified theory shows up on the doorstep of theoretical physics ? It will have to explain why it was not showing up prior. Christian - and other religious fundamentalists often can not explain any causal factor in how it was one day - they were coming out of a womb, and on some other day ? A holder of some faith - unbending, and no doubt -like an egg, ready to break at some point.

I don't know what's so bad about Huckabee. He's a social conservative, but every thing about his record indicates a progressive attitude on economic issues. He's more or less pro-environment (certainly more pro-environment than the average Republican Senator). All in all Huckabee seems to me to have more in common with European Christian Democrats than he does with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. To me the fact that Huckabee is the darling of the religious right and not a knuckle dragger like Fred Thompson indicates progress. I loathe what he says about gay rights, his absolute moral certainty about abortion is offputting, and I don't like the extent he wants to bring his religion into politics; but he's honestly the least objectionable serious Republican presidential candidate I've seen in my life time.
More than serious political thought, Jacoby's article (little more than a rehash of her book with Mike Huckabee's name cut and pasted in it would seem) strikes me as more smug condescension from "a freethinker" in the mold of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, though it certainly doesn't have the fun factor of a Hitchens article. He's at least good for some Evelyn Waugh level nasty humor. I suppose I shouldn't expect anything like academic rigor from our self-styled philosophs-- I'm quite used to Sam Harris getting accolades for arguments that would earn him a C+ in a philosophy 101 class-- but Jacoby's comments about Graham go beyond shallowness and border on sheer dishonesty. I don't like his theology and there's a part of that's tempted to sneer about cadillacs in heaven, but he was an unwavering opponent of segregation and an influential one at that. Which means not only wasn't the reactionary Jacoby makes him out to be, but in that alone he almost certainly did more for human progress than Jacoby, Harris, or Dawkins ever will.
As I final note I should add that Jacoby manages to be dreadfully dull and misleading at the same time. I don't mind being bored if I learn something, and I don't mind sorting through a less than scrupulous account of the facts if I'm entertained, but to be misinformed and bored at the same time . . . well I see no value in that whatsoever. Given Jacoby or the pedophile I'd stay home, but if someone held a gun to my head and made me go to one I'd choose the later; likely he's a nut and a loathsome one at that, but at least he'd be a good show.

Fred Evil. Did you know that the western world goes by the "Christian" calendar? Do you know what year it is in the Middle East?

Do you also know that "In God We Trust" is written on our dollar bills and other currency? Do you realize that it was Christians who set up the system of laws based on the Ten Commandments? Do you also realize that when they stopped teaching the Bible in our public schools, that is when sex and drugs and rock and roll replaced the Bible? Is it fine with you that our daughters role models are prostitutes?

Do you realize that there is a reason we celebrate Christmas in the whole western world?

Or do you think you can talk the muslims into cooperating with your secular ideas? The secularist fundamentalists that are hostile to our roots and traditions are tolerant of those who wish us harm, but are hostile to those who gave them shelter and a chance to have a decent life.

How arrogant and rude of them to trample our history.

Well, you called them rednecks and claimed they were "uneducated". Well, it is 2008 and the Christians can read and write just like you. And they will not let you trample on their rights.

Fred Evil. Did you know that the western world goes by the "Christian" calendar? Do you know what year it is in the Middle East?

Do you also know that "In God We Trust" is written on our dollar bills and other currency? Do you realize that it was Christians who set up the system of laws based on the Ten Commandments? Do you also realize that when they stopped teaching the Bible in our public schools, that is when sex and drugs and rock and roll replaced the Bible? Is it fine with you that our daughters role models are prostitutes?

Do you realize that there is a reason we celebrate Christmas in the whole western world?

Or do you think you can talk the muslims into cooperating with your secular ideas? The secularist fundamentalists that are hostile to our roots and traditions are tolerant of those who wish us harm, but are hostile to those who gave them shelter and a chance to have a decent life.

How arrogant and rude of them to trample our history.

Well, you called them rednecks and claimed they were "uneducated". Well, it is 2008 and the Christians can read and write just like you. And they will not let you trample on their rights.

Fred Evil. Did you know that the western world goes by the "Christian" calendar? Do you know what year it is in the Middle East?

Do you also know that "In God We Trust" is written on our dollar bills and other currency? Do you realize that it was Christians who set up the system of laws based on the Ten Commandments? Do you also realize that when they stopped teaching the Bible in our public schools, that is when sex and drugs and rock and roll replaced the Bible? Is it fine with you that our daughters role models are prostitutes?

Do you realize that there is a reason we celebrate Christmas in the whole western world?

Or do you think you can talk the muslims into cooperating with your secular ideas? The secularist fundamentalists that are hostile to our roots and traditions are tolerant of those who wish us harm, but are hostile to those who gave them shelter and a chance to have a decent life.

How arrogant and rude of them to trample our history.

Well, you called them rednecks and claimed they were "uneducated". Well, it is 2008 and the Christians can read and write just like you. And they will not let you trample on their rights.

Tatianna - Then clearly you haven;t been paying attention. Huckabee himself has stated he intends to "Take back the Constitution for Christ"

If you don't get that that's hate speech, then you got some learning to do.

I'd sooner elect a block of wood....

See:

A*N*O*N*Y*M*O*U*S on Heels of Tom Cruise & His TOP-GUNS!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eiUqewgQqBI&feature=related

--
See:
--

TOM CRUISE & His TOP-GUNS Chasing A*N*O*N*Y*M*O*U*S on the EHERNET!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hh7tF3PkUio&feature=related

--
--

STOP! In the Name Of HILLARY CLINTON! STOP In The Name of THE-LAW! STOP WE Say Stop!

Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN! Thank You HUMATE>

Ms. Jacoby, as always, offers her astute observations in an honest chronicle. Does it not seem that secularists have lately been cast in the role that Hitler reserved for Germany's Jews? How chilling that Romney in his "JFK speech" did the opposite of JFK. Were it not for the wisdom of our founders in prohibiting religious tests for public office, we secularists wouldn't have a prayer, which is to say, we'd have more than few shoved down our throats.

The only intolerance I see are from anti-God leftists who spew hatred with just about every comment on this thread. It's amazing so many people who claim to be "enlightened" are afraid of people that claim Christ as their Savior.. rather pathetic.

AP Press Release
updated 11:33 a.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 12, 2008
SINGAPORE - "A cosmetics range with cheeky taglines that extolled the virtues of "Looking Good for Jesus" has been pulled from stores in Singapore after some Roman Catholics complained the items were disrespectful, a newspaper reported Tuesday.

Promising to "Redeem your reputation and more," the product line included a "virtuous vanilla"-flavored lip balm and a "Get Tight with Christ" hand and body cream, as well as bags and other items sold by British retailer Topshop and produced by Blue Q, The Straits Times said."

....well, it made national news tonight!
DontTypeLies--go over there and straighten them out!

Ms. Jacoby according to Islamic standards is a hypocrit and infidel.

Just as one can not be sort of a Christian, one can not be sort of pregnant. You either are, or you are not.

Secularists want to be "sort of" Christians because they would rather be scourged by Islam than admit they are hypocrits and change their ways.

Dear Lord I pray, please save me from your followers.

Ken,

Good report there. 'Compassionate Conservative' is an oxymoron. At least as far as the current administration is concerned. In their view, protecting the unborn at all costs is vital - until it impacts big business. And after babies come into the world - well, they don't give a damn.

Arminius

Fake christians all of them that vomit "christian" values yet cause suffering in America and around the world. There is NOTHING christian about these people.

Court strikes down EPA's plan on mercury
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 8, 6:08 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court said Friday the Bush administration ignored the law when it imposed less stringent requirements on power plants to reduce mercury pollution, which scientists fear could cause neurological problems in 60,000 newborns a year.

AND MORE LIES

Conflicting Assessments of War in Afghanistan
By Peter Baker
Monday, February 11, 2008

President Bush famously doesn't like long memos. So if retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones hoped to get Bush's attention with the report he produced on Afghanistan, he was clever enough to be blunt from the start. "Make no mistake," the report says in its first line. "NATO is not winning in Afghanistan."

If Bush read that far into the report, he evidently disagrees. During his speech Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the president offered a far rosier view of the situation in Afghanistan than even his own top military and civilian advisers hold. "The Taliban, al-Qaeda and their allies are on the run," Bush declared to the audience of supporters.

Lest he be accused of making a "last throes" type of statement, much as Vice President Cheney once declared of the insurgents in Iraq, Bush went on to note that "Afghanistan has a long road ahead." But that was the end of the pessimism for him. The rest of his assessment was upbeat. Democracy is on the march, he reported. Roads and bridges are being built. Girls are going to school. No mention of his decision to send 3,200 more Marines because of spiking violence.

Alan Wolfe, PhD in political science and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College:

" Liberals, while enjoying the perquisites of office, also want to be in a position to use government to solve problems. But conservatives have different motives for wanting power. One is to prevent liberals from doing so; if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. The other is to build a political machine in which business and the Republican Party can exchange mutual favors; business will lavish cash on politicians (called campaign contributions) while politicians will throw the money back at business (called public policy). Conservatism will always attract its share of young idealists. And young idealists will always be disillusioned by the sheer amount of corruption that people like Gingrich and DeLay generate. If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork."

God or no, I couldn't agree more.

Pedophiles or those with a history of pedophilia are those who are the true social outcasts -- neither secularists or Christians can compare on that level. For argument's sake, if someone has been genuinely healed from such a proclivity (by however means), should we not celebrate that?
I believe that Jim Wallis is right about the post-religious right, as James Dobson, et al's influence is severely waning (hence their whining).

Jesus once said " Let the dead bury their dead".

God calls the unbelievers as the "dead", or the undead or zombies in our current lingo.

Ms. Jacoby should learn this piece of info.

And they say I don't know from the spirit of the Founding Fathers. ;)

Paganplace,

Wow, did I laugh in agreement! Remind me never to get you mad at me!

Arminius

"Paganplace,

Hang tough, lady, hang tough. I'm with you on this one. "

Hey, they'd better hang me a long time, cause I have full intention of being a bit gamey, otherwise. ;)

Paganplace,

Hang tough, lady, hang tough. I'm with you on this one.

Have Brambleton and his wanna-be robber baron compatriots ever been unemployed? I have, and I am now. Laid off for lack of work. 64 years old. Job market bad. Nobody hires old guys unless they are CEO types, which, thank God, I am not. I have two kids in college and am divorced. Gonna lose my house. But Brambleton will contend that it is all my fault. Just like the poor bloke, making 20K a year, with no health insurance - his kid gets cancer, and he can't pay for it. Financial ruin. Any help from the 'compassionate' conservatives? Just some yelling about how they should have saved a million dollars somehow.

Brambleton, you make we want to vomit.

Arminius
(mad as hell)

" PDW:

I'm one of the "Christian fundementalists" so many in this thread seem to hate. I'm an idiot for believing in a God, and I'm the main problem in the world. And you wonder why "we" are paranoid and you accuse "us" of not being able to have a reasonable dialogue? Who, I ask, is really the most closed minded."

Hey, I believe in *lots* of Gods, I'm just tired of being called a Commie by people who sold my mortgage to China. :)

I'm one of the "Christian fundementalists" so many in this thread seem to hate. I'm an idiot for believing in a God, and I'm the main problem in the world. And you wonder why "we" are paranoid and you accuse "us" of not being able to have a reasonable dialogue? Who, I ask, is really the most closed minded.

The problem I see is that Chritianity has been under attack for several decades. And many, though not all, of you want to marginalize my belief structure and use our Government/courts/culture to impose your view, rather acknowledge differring views. In my child's Christian school she's taught the "bronze age" concept of creationism, as well as the theory of evolution. In the Government school, you can't even mention creationism.

One person in this thread speaks as if religion is the root of all evil in our society and history. Does he not realize that Harvard and many of our institutions of higher learning were founded as seminaries, does he forget that many of our hospitals were first founded by Christian organizations, does he forget that the Church provided welfare long before the Government did, does he forget that it was Christian leaders who first opposed slavery? Is his view "rational" while mine is not? Go read the Mayflower Compact and tell me that Christianity hasn't been a positive force (though not always perfect) in this country from it's very beginning.

So yes, what I and many others see is a secular attempt at cultural indoctrination, and what you see in Campus Crusades, the explosion in Christian education, and the open conversation about faith in the political process is push back. I have no desire to force my views on others, but I do have a problem when I'm told I shouldn't freely express my view.

"I agree wholeheartedly. What I am talking about it our national debt of $9Trillion. Not someone losing their house."

People losing their houses is about someone *selling* them houses with reasonable expectation of keeping them, and then taking them away cause for some reason corporate financing wasn't actually so stable as corporations said.

That's not about taxes, (which pay to 'bail out' profiteers who took advantage of people, but which Christian conservatives scream about a dime of going to... not make the richest nation in the world among the worst as regards health care for people who could be working) ...that's about policy.

Pardon if I find it to be about the taxeswepay.

It's all well and good to be a 'cash on the barrelhead' type in RL.

You may scorn the poor and the sick and the hungry, but the fact is we're all told that if Wall Street and Halliburton aren't making a certain amount more this year compared to last, that we obviously aren't giving enough power to outsourcing Bible-wavers.

Guess what doesn't work?

And guess what a lot of people were *sold* and don't get to keep?

Homes. The American Dream.

Robert,

In large part, I'm sure I agree with you on the debt. But I don't believe I was talking about that in my earlier posts.

Pagan,

People went after housing that they couldn't afford for one simple reason - they were greedy. It has nothing to do with republicans or democrats. There has yet to be a case of any individual claiming that a mortgage broker held a gun to the borrower's head and forced him to sign the contract. And to claim ignorance or that the borrower could not have foreseen the collapse of the housing market is laughable.

A phoenix is a mythical bird with beautiful gold and red plumage. At the end of its life-cycle the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises. The bird was also said to regenerate when hurt or wounded by a foe, thus being almost immortal and invincible — a symbol of fire and divinity. "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand", Job 29:18. Seldom that a prophecy and mythology intertwine but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Let the unbelievers test the pudding. Let them taste the truthfulness of the prophecy.

"Death to America" is a staple in Arab mouths. The mythology states that "the bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes". The prophecy will happen and parts of America will burn. God will allow it because of America's growing secularism and liberalism. But those responsible are equally hypocrites. They too will all burn and Im not sure if they will be able to recover unlike the phoenix which is described as almost "immortal and invincible". People should be careful in picking America as their enemy coz as the prophecy foretells, that may spell the end of their civilization or their history. Believe it.

AMEN Brambleton! I am so tired of people crying foul and wanting the government to bail them out for their own irresponsible spending.

Enough already. The sense of entitlement is what is ruining our country. I think about 60% of our budget goes to these entitlements-why don't we balance thhe budget by getting rid of these instead of taxing more.

Wrong, Ms. Jacoby. Liberalism is on the way out coz that is the prophecy. The days of liberalism is almost over and enjoy it while it last.

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions [ Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism ] and some major false christian religions like catholicism) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

The U.S. did not start WW2 but that was the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy and WW3 would establish it fully even though the U.S. won't start it.

That is the prophecy and those who would challenge it (there would be many) may temporarily win but in the final showdown, the prophecy would still prevail.

A lot of people will be "vaporized".

America has been protected by God from two World Wars but not this time because of the increasing liberalism and secularism among its people.

Salvation is personal and being a member of a religion would not save a person. But Eph. 2:8-10 and Jn 3:16 sums it all and those who live these verses in their hearts are the holders of true religion.

The history of this world is pretty much laid out already. Parts of America is liberal and secular and that will be destroyed by its enemies. But the bigger story is, America's enemies will be wiped off the surface of the earth.

America is not invincible and it could be defeated. But the irony of it is that it's a lot more stronger the second time around. Remember the famous phrase "I shall return"? In WW2, it did returned and pulverized it's enemy like powder.

The same will happen in WW3. The point is, it's not a good thing that America gets defeated coz the next episode will be the annihilation of its enemies. Believe it.

Contrary to this article's views, it's really the liberals who are leaving and the evangelical Christians which from the time of the early settlers upto "kingdom come" will stay and inherit this earth, if not the universe.

Mr. Brambleton,

Thanks for making my point in your response to Pagan.

You said it yourself: "WHO is responsible for being in debt? The debtor. Period."

I agree wholeheartedly. What I am talking about it our national debt of $9Trillion. Not someone losing their house.

Who do we blame for that? I say you blame the party that controlled the House of Reps, Senate and the Executive Branch.

Actually, Brambleton, that's not really true. Certainly, (in fact *as* a Pagan,) I have been a non-participant in the 'debtor society,' (and often suffered for it, having 'zero' is actually a lot harder on you than being in debt) but the way the corporate economy that the Religious Right has favored in the name of 'Personal responsibility' goes, it's actually been against a lot of people's better interests to stay square, especially while they were selling people variable-rate mortgages under some assurance of 'conservative prosperity,'

But the 'conservative Religious Right' government hasn't reduced debt, it turned 'surplus' into *collossal debt,* while giving every incentive *not* to save money, but rather to try and own property amid false promises while actually undermining the workers' standards of living to the point they can't *pay* for it when the prime rate goes up, (Interest rates again not reflected in any savings accounts such that income you don't spend loses value according to inflation...)

'Conservatives' will screw the poor, readily enough, ..Gods know 'Compassionate conservatism' turned my 'road to recovery' into a desperate struggle to survive without health care that's left me crying out in arthritic pain at way too young an age, despite the fact that my family worked their whole lives working for *you* and paying into the social security system against just such an eventuality.....

Fact is, it's the Red states who screw the people who should be building them, all the while villifying the 'liberals' who pay for their roads.

Don't lecture me about responsibility.

I paid my taxes without complaint, and I'm not counting myself out of the workforce *yet.*

But conservatives wailing about 'higher taxes' never manage to reduce the burden on the working folk, ...it's the very-rich who tell us to identify with *them* who divert the common wealth to their own coffers and tell us to blame the poor.

Half the expenses of every hospital in the nation is doing paperwork for the profits of *insurance* companies, ...probably at *least* half of the trillion-dollar expense of this war that was supposed to 'pay for itself' is in the diversion of public monies to private contractors.

Don't wave the flag of 'Not supporting Our Divine Candidates is Tax And Spend,'

They're just about 'Spend And Spend.'

Guess who suffers.

No Alex, they replaced it with THEIR religion.

Brambleton, I'm sorry but you're way past learning.

Dear Susan Jacoby,
Thanks for your article. As an editor, I thought I might point out that generally the definite article is not used with Campus Crusade. It is ususally spoken of as "Campus Crusade," or simply "Crusade."
--Kevin Perrotta
Ann Arbor, MI

Pagan,

"Rather than put all the citizens in debt up to their eyeballs." This is so absurd. WHO is responsible for being in debt? The debtor. Period.

"everyone's losing their houses." This comment is actually more absurd than the first. WHO is responsible for losing their house? THE HOMEOWNER. Here's something my father taught me when I was maybe five years of age - DON'T BUY WHAT YOU CAN'T AFFORD.

You're crippling people and you're too blind to even see it. If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime. Get it? This whole repugnant Democratic mantra of "It's not your fault, blame the boogeyman" makes me sick.

To Brambleton, this administration has more than doubled our national debt in 6 years from $4Trillion to over $9Trillion with roughly the same size economy ($13Trillion).

Another six years of this and we are bankrupt. Yet you ask what I believe is the dumb question: "Maybe you would rather pay higher taxes?"

Well, either I'm going to be paying for it or my kids will have to. What a truly sad state that we are in.

And to McCain backers, I will say to you that I voted for him in the 2000 primaries. I am a moderate republican. But remember that Mr. Straight Talk has told us that we have "more wars that we have to fight". All of this with Mr. Leiberman standing behind him. Who do you think they are talking about?

The appeal of McCain was that he was a fiscal conservative and pragmatist who called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance". Now he is kissing their behinds and claiming he was a baptist all along.

Third, the question really reflected a different question. It should have been, "Do you, as a Christian, see a disconnect between following the teachings of Jesus and advocating the death penalty?" Now that is a question which iscertainly fair game for Huckabee or any Christian candidate and deserves an honest answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huckabee answered:
He answered that Jesus was too smart to run for political office.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Assuming the bible account is somewhat accurate, Jesus has no problem using government institutions to assist in his "Sacrifice" for our sins. Unless his death really was not part of his plan then his death is just a sad tale of church/state complicity.

"As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred.

"Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sacred.

"While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.

"An' though the rules of the road have been lodged
IT'S ONLY PEOPLE'S GAMES THAT YOU GOT TO DODGE
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it.

"...

"Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.

"For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in.

from "It's Alright, Ma" by Bob Dylan.

IT'S ONLY PEOPLE'S GAMES THAT YOU GOT TO DODGE -- in other words, organized religion.

It is absurd but true that an American president and the political party he represents can remain as irrational as these Republicans. I say "these" because Republicans in Lincoln's time were certainly informed by religious beliefs--much of abolitionist fervor came from a sense of moral superiority over slave owner greed whose depravity brought God's children into bondage--current Republicans exhibit a sense of moral superiority that comes from rhetorical rather than actual truths. "Because the Bible tells me so," is rhetoric as explanation for observable scientific reality. I think that as the rest of the world passes by American achievement that sobering event may eclipse religious fervor and spark a change, hopefully a renaissance. If Obama does win and lasts and awakes the country, perhaps, our "dark ages" will end sooner than later.

Phil,

Too funny! Christians shouldn't listen to a born again Christian (who happens to be a pedophile - which I would heartily agree is a very difficult subject matter) but the ACLU and all the liberal socialists can defend any and all attacks on the liberties of these same people? Which is it man? Or do you just believe that it is okay for pedophiles to commit their crimes just as long as they don't get a speaking engagement out of it?

"Maybe you would rather pay higher taxes?"

Rather than put all the citizens in debt up to their eyeballs and crash the currency so only the rich have anything worth owning and everyone's losing their houses, if they can get to them cause we're in debt up to our national eyeballs over foreign adventurism, outsourcing, and importing all manner of crap to divert ourselves from the declining standard of living and coprorations get tax breaks for profiteering off the sick while the bridges fall down?

In a word, yeah. Think I'd rather pay some taxes.

Romani wrote, "How many different reasons were there for stoning someone to death in those days? Didn't we inherit that in the OT?"

I realize there were a number of practices in the Old Testament, such as killing an offspring who was a non-believer and a lot of weird eccentricities that we can point out from the OT. However, there were some odd problems with condemning someone to death using Jewish Law in the 1st Century. Like I said, that is why the NT claims the Jewish powers of the day took Jesus to the romans. What those oddities were, is an entirely different topic that I won't go into here as it's not relevant. It was just a brief aside from my main point anyway.

It's not hard to imagine why they wanted to listen to a pedophile speak instead of an intellectual. We will never know how many repressed deviants populate the ranks of the Christian Reich in America.

Adrasteia,

How exactly has the current President "darn near ruined the country"? Let me guess. Iraq? Fine. If you're willing to concede that President Bush "ruined the country" because he made an over-reaching attempt to fight terrorism, then I suggest you also come to terms with the fact that President Clinton "ruined the country" because he failed to do anything to stop terrorism. And not only did President Clinton sit on his *ss and do nothing, he did so after the American people were attacked on our own homeland!

Or maybe you were against President Bush vetoing a child healthcare bill that targeted "high income" families and "adults" at a substantial cost to taxpayers?

Maybe you would rather pay higher taxes?

Bryan Lucas writes:"Surely the day must come when the indoctrination of our children into believing in the supernatural will be seen as a kind of obscenity, a kind of mind tampering, a kind of hypnosis that results in grown-ups who believe in irrational mumbo-jumbo as if it was scientific reality"

yes, this has already been tried a number of times in the 20th century, Most recently, Stalin and Mao both purged religion from the state and replaced it with rational scientific government for all.

Bryan Lucas writes:"Surely the day must come when the indoctrination of our children into believing in the supernatural will be seen as a kind of obscenity, a kind of mind tampering, a kind of hypnosis that results in grown-ups who believe in irrational mumbo-jumbo as if it was scientific reality"

yes, this has already been tried a number of times in the 20th century, Most recently, Stalin and Mao both purged religion from the state and replaced it with rational scientific government for all.

Bryan Lucas writes:"Surely the day must come when the indoctrination of our children into believing in the supernatural will be seen as a kind of obscenity, a kind of mind tampering, a kind of hypnosis that results in grown-ups who believe in irrational mumbo-jumbo as if it was scientific reality"

yes, this has alread been tried a number of times in the 20th century, Most recently, Stalin and Mao both purged religion from the state and replaced it with rational scientic government for all.

We think of the marriage of Christian conservative and the Republican Party as beginning in 1979. This was the year the Moral Majority was founded by Jerry Falwell and the un-holy union was consecrated. The marriage has become abusive with neither participant knowing how to get out.... The Republicans and the conservative evangelicals each slugged a tar baby....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/07/evangelicals-republicans-two-tar-babies/

Well, 'Reasonable not hateful,' (If you have to say either, here's my guess neither really applies)

'Strict constructionism' is just Fundie code for 'Churches get to enforce their will over women's bodies,' ...I'm sure McCain will pander to these, even if I *suspect* he'll be against torture-and-deny-you-torture, and might just want to restore habeas corpus and posse comitatus.

He's seen some of why we are supposed to have those latter rights firsthand.

Let them eat cake !

Well, Chuck, your know how predictions work. They are seldom correct.

McCain, if elected, would appoint strict constructionists more than likely. Now that is a predication

Today is 212

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) http://\\VOTEhttp://\\ < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) http://\\VOTEhttp://\\ < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) http://\\VOTEhttp://\\ < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

If McCain is the Republican nominee, the fundamentalist right will be seriously weakened in influence. In regard to such a situation, their only power will be to stay away from the polls, giving the Democratic candidate a land slide victory. They will only have the power to do ill,i.e, take their ball and go home. This loss of immediate influence will result in devastation for them; in all likelihood, even if McCain is elected, the next supreme court nominees will be, at the most extreme, slightly right of center; no creationists, homophones or right to lifers. The next president will probably set the tenor of the court for several decades, and it won't be a Scalia like court. This is a fact regardless of their rantings and protestations; they will become a footnote to history such as became the populists.

There you go Will, you hit the nail on the head there. You don't care what the extremists do as long as they agree with your basic stuff. You don't care how much evil they add to the belief as long as the have the minimal part of it too.

That is evil itself. The extremists would have no power whatsoever if the believers such as yourself insisted they leave everybody alone.

That's the thing Harris was talking about. The moderates are as guilty as the extremists when they let the extremists claim the same religion. You know better!

As I near the end of my 6th decade as believing, practicing, Christian (and also as a confirmed Darwinist) I sometime find myself saying as I contemplate the so-called religious right 'What the eff was I thinking? Why do I want to be associated in any way with these people?'

Yet for me the question, and the answer, is more Christian than political. I find common cause with all those who follow Jesus's central teaching: That our search for the experience of the divine is fulfilled by the active love of the all the rest of humanity. For those who follow this, I care little how much (crud) or how little they add. With those who think Jesus taught something else, I have no faith in common. I suspect that there are self-centered hard ass secularist and love-centered Darwin-hating "ultra-conservative fundamentalists".

Arminius and ZZim:
As a liberal Christian secularist and former Roman Catholic, I was about to suggest the Episcopal Church to ZZim, when I saw your response, Arminius. The Episcopal Church has been my home for 20 years now, and its ability to keep (most) people in the conversation, despite strongly defended disagreements, has been, and continues to be, transformative for me.

"... Second, it was very difficult in 1st Century Judaism to justify putting someone to death"

What!

How many different reasons were there for stoning someone to death in those days? Didn't we inherit that in the OT?

The Christian right needs to start practising a little more Christianity at home and in public rather than trying to vote it into office. When did this happen? This idea that people can behave like cretins but as long as we vote a Christian into office or plaster the Ten Commandments in public places, then we are truly moral and Christian.

The Christian right voted their Christian president into office and it has darn near ruined the country. Christianity begins at home. Try living a Christ centered life and voting for someone qualified to be president.

Mortal, maybe you are correct because the question was whether "Jesus" would approve the death penalty. I still contend that my view of the situation is correct, however.

First, as above writers mentioned, Jesus may not have been running for office, but Huckabee is.

Second, it was very difficult in 1st Century Judaism to justify putting someone to death (hence, Jesus being taken to the Romans). I feel confident that the character portrayed in the New Testament would have renounced such a thing as the death penalty. It is not about being a judge for a particular case, it is about an idea and whether its practice should be considered moral. That is something Jesus definitely chimed in a time or two.

Third, the question really reflected a different question. It should have been, "Do you, as a Christian, see a disconnect between following the teachings of Jesus and advocating the death penalty?" Now that is a question which iscertainly fair game for Huckabee or any Christian candidate and deserves an honest answer.

Mortal:

I'd also recommend reading some of the literature from Marcus Borg (who is one of the panelists of On Faith) as well as John Crossan, who would both beg to differ with your opinion that Jesus wasn't a political figure.

I think you'd be fairly convinced after reading them that his entire ministry was enormously political, especially for his day.

Huckabee's "dodge" was just that, having the cake and wanting to eat it too.

Is this a paradoy of how someone completely unfamiliar with "ultra-conservative fundamentalists" would write about their motivations? That's how it reads...

Well, Mortal, there's a problem here:

"Although I am most definitely NOT a Huckabee supporter, I'll have to say he was right on the money with his answer to that question. Read Luke, chapter 12, where it says "Someone in the crowd said to [Jesus], ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But he said to him, ‘Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?’". Seems to me from this that Jesus had no intention of weighing in on political disputes."

While that's all well and good theologically, it's kind of totally-at-odds with running as a Christian leader who wants to change the Constitution to be 'in accord with Jesus' will' or however he phrased it.

Claiming he wants this, and then refusing to answer how the death penalty would square up with it is just too convenient for someone who wants to impose his interpretation of his religious belief on a pluralistic nation.

If it's a 'feature,' then it shouldn't also be a dodge.

Oort:

A few of us liberal Christians are very much aware that you are right: we are under the same threat as you. This is why an alliance is so important.

Arminius

Mortal:
"Although I am most definitely NOT a Huckabee supporter, I'll have to say he was right on the money with his answer to that question."

The problem is that Huckabee is not running for Messiah - but president, and this is a legitimate question for a presidential candidate - which he choose not to answer with some fancy footwork.

I kind of have to go along with Sam Harris on this one.

The atheists and non-Christian religious are not going to be able to do anything about the religious right taking over the political parties in our country.

It will have to be the left-leaning and the moderate Christians who have to remind themselves that they will be accused of and guilty of a religious crime we atheists are incapable of committing - apostasy.

You have more to lose by siding with them than we do. All we want is freedom from religion, you want freedom OF religion. Do you think they're going to let you have that when they are amending the constitution? How long will you think it, what will it take to get you to see the great danger you yourselves are in?

We'll at least be strangled before they burn us at the stake, you're going to have to face the fire alive.

Mike G. posted "For example, in one of the early Republican debates [Huckabee] was asked if Jesus would have supported the death penalty. He answered that Jesus was too smart to run for political office. That is a brush off to a question that seems legitimate given his religious background and area of so-called expertise." Although I am most definitely NOT a Huckabee supporter, I'll have to say he was right on the money with his answer to that question. Read Luke, chapter 12, where it says "Someone in the crowd said to [Jesus], ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But he said to him, ‘Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?’". Seems to me from this that Jesus had no intention of weighing in on political disputes.

ZZim,

With all due respect, the Roman Catholic church is not for me - I am a die-hard Episcopalian. I do realize that many, many RCs are open minded, and I respect that.

Arminius

I am a 47 Y/O Male American Indian and this is the first time I have experienced this sort of political race. My father who recently passed away voted democratic primaraly but he did know that even the Dems arn’t going to give up the land etc.

Tribal Nations often dont endorse or vote as a block. What I have seen is the Fox Talking Head Sean H made a point to call into Question Obama’s church mainly the pastors associations with the Black Muslum leadership >>>——-> ardently supported Mitt and like most of the Media he Ignored the Issues of his faith and the Serious historical unresolved issues of the church Mitt attends. From a former majority point of view and now a minority living in the USA I can sense that the addition of Mitt had he been the Winner would have created the impression that the GOP was secular not christian. Ones Religion rightly is not a litnus test for Office but I think his additon to the GOP was creating some fundemental Questions or where the Religous right stood in the GOP.

It amazes me that the talking heads did not forsee this split simmering under the surface for many americans who call themselves christian. I would appear that to do so would have led to charges of a religous linus test since nearly all of the mainstream churches do not consider mormons christians. The often mentioned missunderstanding of the mormons seem to center on how they do not have multiple wives any more. Yet the Ignore the rest of the story. The focused on the Black block voting for Obama yet ignored the Block votes for Mitt generally speaking the State of utah and the vote in mass in some districts that were for Mitt.

It seems that the dominant culture and even SH did not see this or care that the addition of Mitt likely would have lost the election is the Gop had not already enough issues to address to the American People.

The Conerative Movement is not so right wing christian after all as Mitt Proved and yet the Dems Seem to stand for nearly every freedom and appear to stand for nothing in doing so. Also Questions need to be asked at why there are still race issues in the GOP and the DEM. the answer of course is that people are racist to some degree in both parties and that in both parties there are people who are not. I am concerned about the Democratic retreat in the middle east and if this is good for the country Im not sure it will be.

It is very sad that Huggabee called himself and his followers christian but dont even understand the meaning of the word. Christians are those who follow the teachings of Christ. They talk like Christ, they behave like Christ and they think of other people like Christ and treat them likewise. If you dont have those qualities, then you are not christians. A real test if you are a christian is to look at yourself and see if you are behaving like Christ. True followers of Christ are those who reach out to the poor and the needy, treat others the same way they want to be treated.Spoken words in anger means nothing. It just shows your weakness. Talking bad about other religeon is a sign of a small mind. When a leader of any faith talk bad and influence his followers to hate somebody else religion it makes you wonder what type of leader he is. It shows he has a long way to go in learning how to be a christian leader. May the good Lord help you.

It is very sad that Huggabee called himself and his followers christian but dont even understand the meaning of the word. Christians are those who follow the teachings of Christ. They talk like Christ, they behave like Christ and they think of other people like Christ and treat them likewise. If you dont have those qualities, then you are not christians. A real test if you are a christian is to look at yourself and see if you are behaving like Christ. True followers of Christ are those who reach out to the poor and the needy, treat others the same way they want to be treated.Spoken words in anger means nothing. It just shows your weakness. Talking bad about other religeon is a sign of a small mind. When a leader of any faith talk bad and influence his followers to hate somebody else religion it makes you wonder what type of leader he is. It shows he has a long way to go in learning how to be a christian leader. May the good Lord help you.

It is very sad that Huggabee called himself and his followers christian but dont even understand the meaning of the word. Christians are those who follow the teachings of Christ. They talk like Christ, they behave like Christ and they think of other people like Christ and treat them likewise. If you dont have those qualities, then you are not christians. A real test if you are a christian is to look at yourself and see if you are behaving like Christ. True followers of Christ are those who reach out to the poor and the needy, treat others the same way they want to be treated.Spoken words in anger means nothing. It just shows your weakness. Talking bad about other religeon is a sign of a small mind. When a leader of any faith talk bad and influence his followers to hate somebody else religion it makes you wonder what type of leader he is. It shows he has a long way to go in learning how to be a christian leader. May the good Lord help you.

Arminius said: "True, the term 'secular' should, in this context, mean separation of church and state. I think that Susan might agree. In her defense, she made a very significant point, that liberal Christians and the 'secular' bunch should unite. As a liberal and secular Christian, I agree."

A very good point. I guess that makes me a conservative and secular Catholic. I remember in public school when they tried to represent creationism, Darwinian evolution, and Lamarckian evolution as equally valid hypotheses. Heh, is was a political compromise forced by creationist politicians. Doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that creationism is just Bronze Age science. It was state of the art scientific thinking 4,000 years ago, but I think we should update the text book more often than that.

Arminius, you should research converting to Catholicism. The Catholic Church is a lot more open-minded than our critics think.

ZZim

The American Taliban will turn to widespread terror and violence against the "unholy" just as their close counterparts in Islam have. Get ready for suicide murderers from jesusland.

The American Taliban will turn to widespread terror and violence against the "unholy" just as their close counterparts in Islam have. Get ready for suicide murderers from jesusland.

The only way to deal with the religious right is the Soviet way: put all of them in mental institutions. Religion is a serious mental disorder.

Wallpass: the point Ms. Jacoby was making was not that the university students should have attended her talk rather than the Campus Crusade event. The point she was making was that Campus Crusade is behaving systematically as if they are afraid to allow the students the opportunity to hear another point of view. They are not playing fair. They want everyone to give their religious message a fair hearing, but they don't want to accord the same opportunity to students to hear other viewpoints. That is indeed sinister and paranoid behavior-- not healthy for developing the minds of students, either.

What the religious right is doing is very scary. it is suggestive of a life style advocated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. It is a mind set there as it is here.
I believe the world looks up to the US as a moral compass because structrually, the US has enshrined Western (ie secular) thought/practices into its institutions despite intolerance propagated by advocates of values (religion).

Susan,

Next time, go to Notre Dame and/or Catholic U. Both universities have some great liberal theologians/professors.

Kentucky is "red neck" Christian territory and not good for a discussion about secularism or atheism. And the other speaker that evening probably also had the word "sex" in his speech description. That will always get the "red necks'" attention. If you go again, entitle your speech, "Sex and Secularism" and a large crowd is guaranteed.

The religious right is more dangerous to our democracy and our freedom than any terrorist group or foreign country. They are bound and determined to turn this country into a Christian facist dictatorship. They care nothing for the principles of tolerance and secular government that are enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Under their leadership this nation will go the way of Germany in the 1930s.

There is nothing christian about christian funamentalism. There is nowhere in the bible where it says that it is OK to inforce christianity, or the morals and values you derive from your christiantiy on others. To attempt to do so through the political process is unthinkable to real christians. It has been difficult for me to understand that some people cannot function without some type of artificial structure or meaning for their lives, and so many find that in religion, without ever wondering where religion came from. So many are under the mistaken idea that god created religion, and therefor fall victim to it's users. Religion was created by the ancient powers that be to manipulate and control. Man created religion, and wrote every word in every religious text on the planet. There may be some good philosophy in some of those writings but they are not devine in any way. God never wrote anything. Religion has nothing to do with god. God is that inate belief in a power greater than ourselvs that the creators of religion have taken advantage of for millenia. Some carismatic figure claims to have been in contact with god, and those that have no explanation for their innate belief, but are looking for one start to listen. Next thing you know, you have a religion with someone asking for your obedience and money. Over the millennia it has been honed and perfected to manipulate and control huge masses of people to try and impose the will of the few on the many. Unfortunatly there are far too many of simple mind that continue to buy the deception, and the few continue to work their will on the many. I can only hope that mankind will one day wake up, and see religion for what it really is. A lie. No one, no matter what they say or do, knows the true nature of god. That is for each of us to decide for ourselvs.

Commonsense:

"...what is needed today is not a “return to religion” on the left but an alliance of moderate religious believers with unapologetic secularists on the most important social issues of our day. Together, we can restrain the harmful political influence of the religious right."

Looks like she's converted by about the last paragraph.

Commonsense:

True, the term 'secular' should, in this context, mean separation of church and state. I think that Susan might agree. In her defense, she made a very significant point, that liberal Christians and the 'secular' bunch should unite. As a liberal and secular Christian, I agree.

Arminius

RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!!

Nice essay. Just an interesting note. Ms. Jacoby uses securalist in the sense that it excludes all religious believers. This is in contradiction to a better essay yesterday which offered the premise that "secular" is not a synonym for agnostic or deist.

If Ms. Jacoby could be converted to this view, then her editorial would be even better, and the convergence of main stream religion with "secularists" (when did it become a noun?) already largely accomplished.

Yes, religious folk behave like robots, even at university, whether they are Muslim or Christian.

It's the numbers which impress them. If everyone in your group believes there's a skygod, then it must be true. Who are YOU to disagree?

Surely the day must come when the indoctrination of our children into believing in the supernatural will be seen as a kind of obscenity, a kind of mind tampering, a kind of hypnosis that results in grown-ups who believe in irrational mumbo-jumbo as if it was scientific reality. There is nothing noble or virtuous in believing religious twaddle.

I believe Bertrand Russell had it right when he wrote;

"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education;
religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce
doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age, but if it is so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion".

Bertrand Russell. "Why I Am Not A Christian".page 47.

Thanks for a nice little history of the (most recent) neo-Nazi movement in this country. I'm not going to bother praying for these jerks, because they're mostly too busy worshiping themselves to care about anyone else, anyway. They're too busy murdering Muslims, starting wars, bashing queers, molesting kids and destroying our freedoms, intellectual achievements and culture. They're also the reason we as a country are so despised and hated by everyone with the IQ of a hubcap the world over. The "christian" right is very alive, although very sick, indeed.

Personally, I'll be quite happy when Christ returns and tells them what he REALLY thinks. But in the meantime, keep fighting the good fight before all the decent people of this country are locked away in FEMA's prison camps, serving our judeo-christian masters.

How dare those 500 students choose to listen to a Campus Crusade for Christ speaker over you. What could they have been thinking.

Heil, Jacoby!

I definitely agree with your main point. Rational thought has been usurped in this country in favor of religious pandering. It astonishes me that when a real, honest, thought-provoking question is asked of someone like Mike Huckabee, he declines to comment. For example, in one of the early Republican debates he was asked if Jesus would have supported the death penalty. He answered that Jesus was too smart to run for political office. That is a brush off to a question that seems legitimate given his religious background and area of so-called expertise. There are a number of obvious gaps, such as that one, and our country would rather laugh it off than go into a logical examination. As an athiest, I am not optimistic enough to believe that someone like myself could become elected. However, I am astonished that we allow the opposite extreme to hold our favor in the modern age.

Its like we're all computers
and our religious beliefs are programed into us
throughout our childhoods.
What we end up believing has nothing to do with truth,
and everything to do with the program.
A different program means a different religion.
If I had been born and raised in a Muslim country,
I'd be praying 5 times a day facing Mecca,
and would consider Christians to be infidels.
Had I been raised a Hindu,today I might be
burning incense and praying to Vishnu. Had I been
raised in Utah by Mormons,I'd now be a Mormon.
Had I been raised in Ireland,I'd likely be a devout catholic.
We all believe what we were raised to believe;
and what our community believes.
Why don't we get it?
Religions are just passed-on customs and beliefs
from ancient times that cannot all claim to be true.
The likelyhood is none of it is true.
If it wasn't programed into our heads as kids,
we'd never believe it as intelligent adults.
Hearing about God,or Allah,or Vishnu,for the first time as adults
would sound absolutely ridiculous,
simply because it is.

All true, but with this year's crop of presidential candidates feeling it necessary to confess their personal faith at the drop of a hat (or, a drop in the polls, as the case may be), I fear that Susan has been cast in the role of a modern-day Cassandra.

Thank you for an excellent post. I've been waiting for your next book!

Yep, this year instead of a Christmas card from my former college roommate, I received a forwarded e-mail from the American Family Association that suggested we boycott Ford Motor Company because they supported (within their health plan) sex-change operations, and counseling to gay people. Merry Christmas.

I remember as a teenager contributing to a Billy Graham crusade, something on the order of about 10 dollars or so (which was substantial at my age then.) For over a year, I'd receive monthly mailings that described how much MORE was needed from me to do the work of the Lord.

I hope in the new book there are suggestions for how we might change the situation. It seems that the best we might do presently is vote for the candidate that appears to have a secular vision for the nation, or at least an appearance to support separation of church and state.

And I would echo your call to liberal Christians: take your religion back from the hijackers!

Thank you! Religion has an important place in culture...it is about individual faith and belief.
Government is about rational, ethical decisions which affect/effect all people reguardless of their religious beliefs. Each has an important part to play in civilization. However, it is critically important to keep these two instiutions separate...for the benefit and success of each.