Journalist Michelle Goldberg, a senior writer for the online magazine Salon, has written a new book entitled Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. Although she approaches the topic from a bit of an alarmist liberal view, she has obviously done her research. Check out the excellent interview with her on today’s Fresh Air.
One of her most interesting points is that the christian conservative movement is not just a political movement, but part of a "parallel culture" which has it’s own media, schools, think tanks, political organizations, and every other significant social organization that exists in mainstream culture.
In her interview and book, she covers such topics as Recontructionism/Dominionism (but not the related ideas of Kingdom Now and the Cultural Mandate), the increasing willingness of Congresspersons to be on the same conference platforms as some radical right people that they used to shun (like Rick Scarborough from Vision America), the influences of Pat Robertson and D. James Kennedy on politics, as well as many other players like Patrick Henry College that you may not have heard of, and the "demonization" of gays in order to have a common political enemy.
Some of this, of course, is liberal fear-mongering, but there is a lot of good information in the interview, and she mentions people and organizations that I have never heard of, and may need to join ;).
Yes, indeed, seeker comes out of the closet as an open and proud theocrat. I heard that interview and it confirms what I have been observing for a long time now. This is an evil which is worming its way into our culture. I sure hope normal people wake up to the threat before it's too late.
Louis, I give him credit for posting about a book that is obviously critical of the evangelical far right. I'm like the secularists in the big cities that Goldberg mentioned though, I didn't know that evangelicals feel its their right to have dominion over morality in the United States. Scary, like fascism achieved via legal means scary.
I didn't know that evangelicals feel its their right to have dominion over morality in the United States. Scary, like fascism achieved via legal means scary.
The comparison to fascism is partly accurate and partly fearmongering. As the admittedly liberal author noted, there really isn't any anti-semitism or racism in the religious right (RR), nor anti-black racism, though there is some anti-muslim sentiment – but not the kind that would outlaw it.
It's somewhat true in that, if you legislate without the consent of the people, you have something that feels fascist. That's why xians should do more education and preaching before doing too much legislation. And as I've said, the right stand to take on questionable issues is to neither condone nor condemn through legislation, but rather, remain neutral. Fascist xians want to criminalize homosexuality.
I'm sure that you could say that criminalizing abortion seems to be the same thing, but quite honestly, someone is being killed in an abortion. But that's another discussion.
But one reason why liberals see more dominionists than are out there is because they don't understand the gradient of beliefs that are out there, so it all looks like the worst possible scenario to them. Go back and read the cultural mandate link – that's where most of us are at – we don't want to institute OT law, and most of us don't think that we have to usher in God's kingdom on this earth through legislation before Jesus returns.
We just want to adjust culture to a different balance. The balances between social welfare and personal responsibility, between choice and the right to life, between taxes and spending (which Bush has not done), between freedom and protecting the weak, justice and mercy, etc.
there really isn't any anti-Semitism or racism in the religious right (RR)
I think gays would disagree. It's what the Republicans are running on to energize their party. Gay marriage. The right says not discrimination, the left says it is. Goldberg does say that gays are the "enemy" of evangelicals and this is why homosexuals are incensed. If you were in Louis's shoes I think you would feel persecuted by evangelicals as well.
No one has hegemony over morality. The people Goldberg speaks of are the self named "moral majority" they are moral hegemonists. As I said before, this term implicitly means everyone else is the "immoral minority." That's a problem. It's not fear mongering, this is real.
One of her most interesting points is that the Christian conservative movement is not just a political movement, but part of a "parallel culture" which has it's own media, schools, think tanks, political organizations, and every other significant social organization that exists in mainstream culture.
What the Christian conservative movement is trying to do is meld the rest of the nation into their parallel culture. THAT is what I think is scary. Our cultural schism was exemplified by Terri Shaivo. What was so outrageous about that situation was that the corrupt conservative Christian politicians (Delay, Frist and Company), who I despise, tried to interfere with our judiciary branch. I feel that's a vulgar and abusive usage of power.
If this is an example of the evangelical Cultural Mandate I am going to become active in opposing it. Why shouldn't I? It's a threat to the plurality of this great nation.
"They continue to be actively involved in the Rep. party in order to continue to influence it with Biblical ideas."
Yes, indeed, that's the christianist agenda: take over the Republican party to implement their religious dogmas in our gov't. And one of their techniques is to assume this mask of reasonableness which seeker puts on here. I don't trust them for one second (any more than I trust "moderate" Muslims). Given real power, people like Aaron and seeker would impose a christianist theocracy, in fact if not in name. They are on the road to it now: take over the Republican party, throw out or intimidate any moderate or liberal (gasp!) members, take over gov't (Congress, President) and then pack the courts with conservative Christianists so their agenda cannot be challenged. And one of the primary means to this nightmare is to demonize gays: Oh! the poor, endangered family! So beset by the evil gay agenda that a Constitutional amendment must be passed. Thus, churches can be mobilized around state anti-gay amendments to get ensure Republican victories and the triumph of Cromwellian theocracy. It certainly worked in Ohio.
This is nothing less than an attempt by a cult to take over the country.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM&search=ath…
Here is a presentation by author Sam Harris at IdeaCity 05. I think he addresses this issue rather well!
That human institution which is structured on the
principle, "…all men are endowed by their Creator with
…Liberty…," is a system with its roots in the natural
Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are
necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and
nature's God. Biblical principles are still today the
foundation under Western Civilization and the American
way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the
present generation and the "multitudes in the valley of
decision."
Let us proclaim it. Behold!
The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV
"Man cannot make or invent or contrive principles. He
can only discover them and he ought to look through the
discovery to the Author." — Thomas Paine 1797
"Got Criteria?" See Psalm 119:1-176
semper fidelis
Jim Baxter
Sgt. USMC
WWII & Korean War
Teacher, 5th Grade – 30 years
MERRY CHRISTMAS December 25, 2006 AD
“Man cannot make or invent or contrive principles. He
can only discover them and he ought to look through the
discovery to the Author.” — Thomas Paine 1797
Allah?
Nope. Nature and nature's God. And of course, we contend that God is the Judeo-Christian God. If you want to errantly believe it's Allah, you can build your country on his principles – o wait, they've already done that in the prosperous and free middle east. Yeah.
If you want to errantly believe it's Allah…
Don't you know by now that I don't think it's either God?
…we contend that God is the Judeo-Christian God
Evidence for your contention? How do you know it's the Christian God and not Allah, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster who Thomas Paine is referring to? You know full well Thomas Paine was most definitly was a Deist. Need I hit you over the head with his quotes again? Warning, that's one of my favorite past times!
Don't you know by now that I don't think it's either God?
I do, I was just playing Allah's advocate – OK, I was just being snide.
Evidence for your contention?
History. Archaeology. Principles of family, government, society, art, epistemology, that create freedom and happiness.
History. Archaeology. Principles of family, government, society, art, epistemology, that create freedom and happiness.
This applies to other religions as well. That's the trouble with positing a specific God for Paine's quote above. Anyone can do it.
Somewhat true, but I'd say that, comparing principles with those of other religions makes some look better than others.
I think the larger problem is with the idea that the summit of mankind's moral and ethical knowledge is somehow lodged in books with origins perhaps five thousand years ago. The issue I have with the 'revealed' truth of the Bible or the Koran or the Torah is the idea that truth is revealed rather than discovered. It makes the multiple claims (even the Mormons have their holy, 'revealed' and divinely inspired text) divine narratives concerning the nature of humanity rather than humanity's quest to understand the nature of divinity. The 'revealed' paradigm is arrogant, I think. It's a conversation stopper – "The Bible says". I grew up in the Religious Right. I was fortunate to get out. Now they just terrify me.
For my money, though, regardless of the founding of our nation, it's time to start looking forward rather than backward for our inspiration. Can we not choose Enlightenment over ancient superstition? And no, I'm not picking on the Christians. But do we really believe that Leviticus law is a proper and humane yardstick for our dealings with each other? The Bible is awe-inspiring to me because it represents mankind's first feeble attempts at asking moral questions. The answers aren't always wonderful, but the ancients were trying. But 5,000 years have passed and we're still arguing whether or not we should allow gays to be protected by the same laws that protect our heterosexual citizens. It seems the epochs have not changed us much. Or have they?
Hi All:
I have a contention: it is not our place as Christians to pass any legislation to make our fellow citizens behave morally. Using the coercion of government to moralize the world is contrary to the Gospel of Christ. But, it is objected, all laws legislate morality. We pass laws against murder because murder is immoral, we pass laws against stealing because stealing is immoral. IMO that oversimplifies things. It seems to me that the reason we legislate against those kinds of things ISN'T to make people moral, it is to protect the rest of us from being murdered, or being robbed. It's like this for any law against any action A–if a person has a right to do A then society has no right to prohibit it, but otherwise society has the right to pass whatever regulations are necessary for our protection. The purpose of the law is protection though, not making people be moral.
It seems to me that such is the error of the Christian dominionists–they want to force morality on other people. And if you don't agree with their ideas of morality then they want to use political power to punish you. Of course, the Christian dominionists have zero chance of gaining power in the US. I have serious problems with the Cheney/Bush administration–worst President ever I'd say–but the problem doesn't stem from Bush's religious beliefs. Bush isn't a James Kennedy or Pat Robertson. There really is a little bit of paranoia among some of us on the left.
your friend
keith
The 'revealed' paradigm is arrogant, I think. It's a conversation stopper – "The Bible says".
While people may be arrogant in wielding the revealed truth paradigm, in itself, I don't think it is.
In fact, what it does do is, like science, provide a possible unbiased and objective testimony to truth that stands up against our tendency to excuse wickedness, or to deceive ourselves.
And claims of revealed authority do not stand alone – as I explained in The Wesleyan Quadrangle, a mature approach to scripture is one in which, while we hold scripture as autoritative, we form our understanding of it in light of doctrine, experience, and reason.
While this explanation might not satisfy someone fearful of religion, or those unable to discriminate between religious claims (a typical anti-intellectual ploy of atheists and anti-religious secularists), it does preserve the value of revealed truth without giving it full sway (one extreme) or totally dismissing it (the other extreme).
It seems to me that such is the error of the Christian dominionists–they want to force morality on other people….Kennedy and Robertson…
I think that you are broadbrushing, and merely dragging the names of two popular evangelists out as if they are doing someting wrong.
First, the true "dominionists" who want to estabish old testament law are not even worth mentioning, they are so small. But even men like Kennedy, who wanted to create Christian legislators, and who believed that the founders were interested in creating a "Christian nation" are not really forcing morality on anyone, per se.
Just like you, they are arguing from an ethic of do no harm. When they want to block gay marriage, they are doing so because they believe that it is harmful to society to dilute marriage. Even if the data is not conclusive, they are not forcing morality, but preventing the gay lobby from forcing their lack of morality, with their lack of evidence, on society in a careless way. You may disagree with such analyses, but your so-called dominionists are not trying to force morality any more than anyone else – they are using public reason and ethics, not to mention caution, in establishing legislation.
Hi Seeker:
It seems to me that such is the error of the Christian dominionists–they want to force morality on other people….Kennedy and Robertson…
I think that you are broadbrushing, and merely dragging the names of two popular evangelists out as if they are doing someting wrong.
I didn't choose Robertson and Kennedy lightly. I have listened to both of them many times, Kennedy had a radio show that frequently appeared on my local Christian talk station and I watched the 700 Club about a zillion times. IMO Robertson is not honest; consider the way he lied about publicly calling for Hugo Chavez assassination. Kennedy's brand of Christian nationalism IMO corrupts the church. But my point in mentioning them was to distinguish their politics–which can be legitimately called Christian conservatism–from the conservatism of Cheney/Bush. None of Bush's politics can be blamed on his Christianity, there is no danger that Bush is going to breach the Wall of Separation between church and state. Neither Kennedy nor Robertson think there should be, I have no doubt that both would be happy if public schools actively promoted Christianity. That's not Bush's agenda, even though a lot of my friends on the left think so.
First, the true "dominionists" who want to estabish old testament law are not even worth mentioning, they are so small.
That was the point I wanted to make in my post; I have seen lots of scare writing from the left about the dangers of radical Christian conservatism; I think that is paranoia, the second cousin of the Red Scare in the 50s.
But even men like Kennedy, who wanted to create Christian legislators, and who believed that the founders were interested in creating a "Christian nation" are not really forcing morality on anyone, per se.
Just like you, they are arguing from an ethic of do no harm. When they want to block gay marriage, they are doing so because they believe that it is harmful to society to dilute marriage. Even if the data is not conclusive, they are not forcing morality, but preventing the gay lobby from forcing their lack of morality, with their lack of evidence, on society in a careless way. You may disagree with such analyses, but your so-called dominionists are not trying to force morality any more than anyone else – they are using public reason and ethics, not to mention caution, in establishing legislation.
I guess I am so unimpressed with their arguments that I suspect it is based more on their desire to eliminate sin from the face of the earth. If they were really concerned about protecting society they would spend 99% of their political energy on heterosexual divorce than they do on gay marriage. Certainly divorce has more impact on society that gay marriage would. The problem with divorce is that it affects "us" and not "them". They know they'd lose politically if they attacked half of the population; better to gang up on 2-5%.
yuor friend
Keith
y
Seeker, I think you're missing it here. I do not believe it's anyone's job to 'protect' society (other than, as someone previously stated – to protect our citizens from harm). If you do no harm to another citizen, then it's nobody's business what you do. As for gay people 'forcing' their 'lack of morality' on society by 'diluting' marriage, I almost don't know where to begin. First, I've never been clear on what people are concerned about with this issue. Gay people already live together in houses in your neighborhood and mine, so what does it matter if they're 'married' (or civilly joined – you can't force religions to marry gays, that's just as wrong as saying you can't allow them protection)? This business about 'diluting' marriage also doesn't stand up – it makes no difference to me (I'm married and have a child) if my gay neighbor has a piece of paper on it that gives him the same protection I have. What does it matter? And they're not 'forcing' anything on anyone. It's none of your business. They just want the same protection to see their loved ones in the hospital, have health insurance, etc. It has nothing to do with the Christian down the block. As for 'lack of morality', that idea goes back to the notion that they have a choice of sexual orientation, and nothing in the mainstream science would indicate that at all. So if they're born gay (as every gay person that I've ever met has claimed) what 'lack of morality' are we discussing? And who would choose to be ostracized from society? I think a few homophobic Christians (with homoerotic tendencies perhaps) think that it's such a delicious sin that they must 'choose' it. But 'lack of morality'? If they live in a committed relationship and treat their fellow man with dignity and courtesy, what 'lack of morality' are you indicating they possess? Unless, once again, you're choosing to tell everyone that a book written largely by tribal peasants can teach us everything we need to know about 'morality', which, in that case, women should keep their mouth shut in church (Paul), children who talk back to their parents should be stoned (Leviticus), and it goes on and on. Read Bishop Spong's book about scripture 'The Sins of Scripture' for a full reading of where the Bible doesn't give us a workable ethic any longer. I'm not saying there's nothing worth preserving in the Bible, not even a little, but to say we haven't outgrown much of it is also being disengeneous. Even from the Old Testament to the New Testament, some of the ethics changed. Do we really want to think like some first century fisherman, or can we not do better than that?
Troy
KEITH WROTE: Neither Kennedy nor Robertson think there should be, I have no doubt that both would be happy if public schools actively promoted Christianity.
Actually, my understanding is that, like myself, they support a biblical separation, which, like the founders and the Puritans believed in, was not as severe and absolute as secularists today desire.
They wanted a separation of power, but not values, morals, and ideas. This is why the founders could paradoxically create our Declaration of Independence and Constitution with overt references to God and a Creator, swearing officials into office on the Bible, referring to the Christian God in public addresses, public prayer, posting the commandments, etc.
While the bold rhetoric of Kennedy and the sometimes careless overstepping (in words only) of Robertson may alarm secularists and concerned Christians, I think it is a mistake to paint them as dominionists. They do believe in the same separation that brought the pilgrims and colonists here in the first place – but it was not the anti-religious secular humanistic state that they were seeking to establish, but a nation established on biblical principle.
KEITH WROTE: None of Bush’s politics can be blamed on his Christianity, there is no danger that Bush is going to breach the Wall of Separation between church and state.
Perhaps we agree on that. I would agree that Bush has not represented what I see as the best flavor of Christian conservatism, something more like Reagan (though he was not perfect either).
That was the point I wanted to make in my post; I have seen lots of scare writing from the left about the dangers of radical Christian conservatism; I think that is paranoia, the second cousin of the Red Scare in the 50s.
Good, then we agree. But to then turn around and say that Kennedy and Robertson ARE that type of Christian is, to me, to have bought into that paranoia. I think your assessment of them is based on impression, but not reality. But we can disagree on that. As I said, both may overstep their bounds a little in rhetoric, but when you get down to what they actually want to implement, I don’t think it’s the theocracy that secularists lose sleep over at night.
KEITH WROTE: If they were really concerned about protecting society they would spend 99% of their political energy on heterosexual divorce than they do on gay marriage.
Well, each person is called to the battle lines where they are called. The truth is, there are very many ministries that serve the family, not the least of which is Focus on the Family, arguably the most politically and socially influential evangelical organization out there.
Kennedy likes to fight the ideological battle out there where it is hottest – in the arenas of sexuality, Darwinism, secularism, etc. Also, it is a mistake to think that such cultural battles are Kennedy’s primary focus. In fact, the thing he is most remembered for is the great impact of his Evangelism Explosion – he also founded a seminary.
Same goes for Robertson – his organization is focused on cultural transformation – in fact, he’s not even really a pastor or preacher, but a broadcaster. But additionally, his Operation Blessing is doing great relief work around the world (and has a 4 star rating at Charity Navigator).
TROY WROTE: I do not believe it’s anyone’s job to ‘protect’ society (other than, as someone previously stated – to protect our citizens from harm).
I don’t think there is any difference. If I am protecting children from teachers who want to teach them promiscuity, I am also protecting society. There is little difference – society is people.
TROY WROTE: If you do no harm to another citizen, then it’s nobody’s business what you do.
I totally agree, which is why I am against criminalizing homosexuality through sodomy laws or worse. But I am also against socially condoning homosexuality by legally redefining marriage, because THAT can have negative impact on children, not to mention on freedom of religious speech.
TROY WROTE: it makes no difference to me (I’m married and have a child) if my gay neighbor has a piece of paper on it that gives him the same protection I have.
As I have explained previously, the impact and legal implications of legalized gay marriage go way beyond giving gays a piece of paper. Such a law would inevitably and inexorably lead to:
– enforced teaching of homosexuality as normative in our schools – a lifestyle choice that is statistically unhealthy, if not quite probably against nature and morally wrong. We need to exercise a lot more caution when children are involved.
– legal sanctions against organizations that teach that homosexuality is sinful or maladaptive
See:
Is Gay Marriage Destructive to Society?
Science Supports Hetero Parenting
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty
Legal liability of schools that teach a pro-homosexuality curriculum
EU adopts resolution outlawing homophobia
TROY WROTE: They just want the same protection to see their loved ones in the hospital, have health insurance, etc.
I believe that, and I think we need to make that happen. But redefining marriage has too many other negative impacts. I think we need other solutions.
TROY WROTE: that idea goes back to the notion that they have a choice of sexual orientation, and nothing in the mainstream science would indicate that at all.
Actually, mainstream science has little idea what causes homosexuality. And in the reparative therapy view of homosexuality, choice is not the issue either – in fact, they posit that developmental maladaptations are often NOT chosen consciously, but rather, they just form in resposne to the environment. But such coping mechanisms CAN be addressed through therapy and choice as an adult. And there is some evidence that homosexuality is envirnomental, as well as unhealthy:
Longitudinal Study Validates Ex-gay Therapy
Treatment of Male Homosexuality
Root Causes of Male Homosexuality
Can Gays Change? (Spitzer)
Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of Male Homosexuality
Homosexuality – Genetic or Environmental?
TROY WROTE: Read Bishop Spong’s book about scripture ‘The Sins of Scripture’ for a full reading of where the Bible doesn’t give us a workable ethic any longer.
I’ve skimmed his stuff, and I disagree with his approach to scripture, which of course, is so liberal it’s not even intellectually honest anymore. But he’s a smart guy.
TROY WROTE: Do we really want to think like some first century fisherman, or can we not do better than that?
Actually, I think that the teachings of Jesus are the most elevated and enlightened ever written down. Whom would you follow instead? What do they teach? He was and is more than just a fisherman. He is alive, and alive in me. He is the Creator, Redeemer (which you and I both need), and the coming King.
I do not believe I need a redeemer. I do not believe in the sacrificial atonement. I see Jesus not as the theistic incarnation of an external diety but the apotheosis of humanity. As Paul Tillich put it, the 'Ground of All Being'. But I believe in evolutionary biology, so do not believe that the 'first man' would have been intelligent enough to act out the mythological framework of the Garden of Eden narrative. Therefore I think Original Sin is irrevelant. But the 'knowledge of good and evil' is a heady concept for five millenia ago, and I think that's the crux of the Genesis story, that we have that knowledge, and we will inevitably fall short of the right choice from time to time. But the Calvanic notion of a creation in need of restoration is useless today. Evolution is still happening, so if you believe in creation, then the creator is creating yet today. If that's so then there was never a 'perfect creation' to foul up. By the by, I was not calling Jesus a first-century fisherman but making perhaps a too-casual generalization about the many writer's of the Bible, both the old and new testament. Their thoughts seem remarkably savage at times, at others striving for transcendence. I believe we've (in some ways, not all) come a long way from so-called Biblical ideals.
Who would I follow? I do not feel the need to 'follow' anyone. Morality and ethics, I believe, is largely innate. I understand the difference between right and wrong, and I would understand it without the Bible. Solidarity is obvious if you live in society. Don't hurt me, I won't hurt you. The idea that you've got to have religion to have a sense of morality is not only arrogant but wrong.