Special Features

Attack on The United Churches of Christ

Attack on The United Methodist Church

"The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy", by Chip Berlet

Parts OneTwoThreeFourFive

"Taking Over The Republican Party", a four part series by Joan Bokaer

The Woman in A Mink CoatWhile We Were sleepingAngels On a PinheadUnder Cover of Night

Blogs

Bartholomew's Notes On ReligionChip BerletMax BlumenthalThe Panda's ThumbFrederick Clarkson Chuck Currie DefCon father Jake Stops The World John Gorenfeld Religion Clause Chris Mooney Religious Right Watch The Revealer Jesus Politics Majority Report Radio Blog Mainstream Baptist Orcinus Dispatches from the Culture Wars Ex-Gay Watch The Wall of Separation Blog From The Capital:a blog on religious liberty issues and the separation of church and state

CrossLeft: Organizing The Christian Left Dark Christianity The Daily Kos Booman TribuneePluribus Media My Left Wing Political Cortex Street Prophets

Organizations

American Booksellers Foundation for Freedom of ExpressionACLUAnti-Defamation LeagueAmerican Library AssociationChristian Alliance for ProgressCitizens ProjectDefCon: Campaign to Defend The ConstitutionFaithful America People For the American wayInstitute For Democracy StudiesInterfaith AllianceJews On First: Defending the First AmendmentAmerican Fundamentalists Americans United for Separation of Church and StateBaptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty The Clergy and laity Network Political Research Associates Theocracy Watch Media Matters for AmericaMilitary Religious Freedom FoundationMontana Human Rights NetworkNational Center For Science EducationReligious Coalition for Reproductive ChoiceThe RevealerSouthern Poverty Law CenterTexas Freedom NetworkCrossLeft: Organizing the Christian LeftTheocracy WatchTruth Wins Out"




And Still More Deception
John Dorhauer printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:59:36 AM EST
This won't take long, but it is an important disclosure.

My denomination, the United Church of Christ, is engaged in a campaign to strengthen and revitalize its churches. We're certainly not unusual - all denominations are engaged in this effort.

Our campaign is known as "Ready, Set, Grow!" and the resources for the campaign can be viewed and downloaded from the website www.uccvitality.org - or is it www.vitality.com?

It is often hard to remember which one to type into the search engine when looking for it - and it is a simple mistake to think it is one when it is actually the other. It's a mistake I make a few times every day with one website or email address or another.

www.ucctruths.org - a website ostensibly set up to offer an objective analysis of the United Church of Christ (that is, to tell the "truth" about the United Church of Christ), knows that. And they have taken advantage of it.

Type in www.uccvitality.org  and you will, in fact, go to the website set up by the UCC Vitality Campaign.

Type in www.uccvitality.com  and you will go to, you guessed it, www.ucctruths.org.

{UPDATE}

This was originally posted at about 7:45am central on Tuesday, Dec. 12. Three different people shared with me last week (after they saw my face pasted at the top of ucctruths next to their still ticking clock) about the confusion between the .com and .org. Before I posted this article, I tried this four times this morning, and each time I typed uccvitality.com, I was taken to ucctruths. Within an hour of the posting of this article, that no longer happens. It happened all last week; it happened four times this morning before the posting of this article. It does not happen now. I would anticpate that they are writing an article this very moment preparing to discredit me and what I have written here.

The good news, now that they have been found out and have stopped this sleazy manuever ( a favorite tactic of porno sites, by the way - buy a domain name that closely resembles something else that people think they are going to) is that no one will end up on their site unless they choose to go there; and no one who wanted to grow their UCC church and thinks they are heading to a website intended to help them do that will end up inadvertently at this ucctruths.

{END UPDATE}

Kind of ironic, isn't it? I mean, a website whose sole purpose is to tell the truth practicing such a deception. Kind of makes you wonder how truthful they really are, doesn't it?



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
And Still More Deception | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 hidden)
Like other websites... (5.00 / 1)
set up to share with us "the truth" about Mainline churches, Ucctruths has as its mission a dismantling of truth, or to be more precise a filtering of truth through a lens of denominational hatred and disgust that permits the omission of some truths, the distortion of truth, and the careful selection of other truths. They all combine to portray a denomination governed by malevolent, inept, and siniser leaders who are driving the denomination down a road to hell.

While it distorts rather than reports truth, it works for those who remain uninformed about their motives and methods.

Which is, in the end, why we write.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:05:52 AM EST

UCCtruths.com (none / 0)
John, I think you may be reading too much into this.  I've posted on UCCtruths.com for years now, as one of the "liberal weanie" voices that is a "UCC cheerleader" as named by one of the other posters-NOT JAMES HUTCINS.  I've disagreed vehemently on that site with James, and even so, when I've been attacked personally, James has defended my right to my beliefs and opinions, even when we disagree (which is probably 90% of the time!). i even broke off at one point after my first month therer, posting that this wasn't a place to be for me because it had gotten so nasty.  James reprimand the offending parties, and wrote me a personal email inviting me to come back, apologizing for not stopping it sooner, and promising to be  more viligant about it - and he has.  I've found him to be a man who does what he says, and says what he means - even if I do think he's wrong at times, and overreaching at others.

Since this weekend I was having all sorts of trouble getting to websites that I normally go to (yahoo.com came up a couple times as an "invalid address") including ucc.org, I'd give James the benefit of the doubt in this case.  James may be wrong on some things, and may at times be a little over the top, but I've yet to experience anything where he has been intentionally deceptive, or hasn't corrected something that was wrong.  
God's grace and peace, Deb K
by Pastordeb on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pastordeb (none / 0)
I think you should read John's post more carefully.  He reports that the matter was called to his attention last week by several others and was confirmed by his own experience well before any issues you have have had with yahoo. You character witness is encouraging, but it has nothing to do with the issue John has fairly raised.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pastor Deb (none / 0)
I appreciate your words about James. I don't know him, and have never met him. As Fred says, I am only reporting what was told to me, and confirmed by my own consistent actions throughout the last week or two. I have no doubt that someone - I don't know who - set it up to do just what I described.

I have not spent a lot of time on the site. It was brought to my attention two weeks ago at a gathering of colleagues in Florida, who pointed out the clock ticking next to my head. But the time I have spent leads me to draw the very conclusions I mention in my article: this site tells some truths, distorts others, and does not tell certain truths. For whatever reason, James feels the United Church of  Christ has gone astray, and feels that his site is set up to tell the truth about that. I find most of what he writes inaccurate - and I believe that much of that inaccuracy is intentional. And I find the manner in which he has been baiting me in recent days less than honorable. I have not  replied, and I will not.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

UCCtruths.com (none / 0)
John, this is where I think you are in error: yes James can be over the top (and the challenge he has with the ticking clock next to you is one example).  However, I think that your refusual to even respond doesn't hurt him or UCCtruths.com's credibility, it hurt yours. Not responding allows you to them be perceived/portrayed as making wild accussations, slanderous remarks, or making up wild lies to support some supposed evil agenda.  Look what happened when John Kerry refused to respond to the SwiftBoaters at first.  

As for what was reported to you - what was reported was that there was a link that redirected to UCCtruths.com.  There is nothing that is shown to say that this site did it, that James did it, or to even indicate that he has any relationship to this domain name.  I know Fred said you noticed this last Tuesday, but did you notify anyone of this until your posting here - especially James?  If you did, and James ignored it, that's one thing and supports that James did this intentionally wiht malice.  However if you didn't, and so you cannot say if James did or didn't know about it until your posting, well, that's strictly inuendo.  And isn't that part of the purpose of talk2action - to fight inuendos?

I believe James is of his word that if you post/answer him, he will not only allow it, but keep it on there.  I know that there are probably some posts of mine that he'd rather not have had there - but they are still there. He may disagree, he may see things different, he may even have some cases been paranoid or reading too much into something.  But he has left my postings, and anyone elses alone.  I invite you to come, post a response that shows the fallacy of James/ucctruths.com characterization of you and the situation with the IRD and other "reform" organizations, so that it will be there, and see what he does. Post it here at the same time as a check.   If he deletes it, or edits it, you have your proof.  If he doesn't, you receive another opportunity to spread the word about how the mainline is being undermined.  I don't see how you can lose in this situation.  

I have no love for IRD, BWF or many other so called reform movements in the mainline - but those of us who see the UCC as a "big tent" need more than just supposition and theories to be able to counter and protect our faith homes.
God's grace and peace, Deb K
by Pastordeb on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well now,... (none / 0)
I could not disagree more. I won't belabor this: but to reply is to give merit to their agenda and to dignify it beyond what it deserves. To the extent that their work clearly reveals a distortion of truth intended to reinforce their view of this denomination, I will write about them. I have no intention of letting them alter my agenda on this site. Your questions to me about whom I contacted when about this deflect the issue at hand: someone bought the domain name with the intention not only to deceive, but to do so in a way that benefitted James' sight. Whether he did it or not is of no concern or interest to me: someone did, and his site benefitted from it. It was not an accident, and it changed within an hour of my posting.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
John, I think you are wrong (none / 0)
John, it doesn't matter who did it?  All that does matter about this is prove your point that they are some nefarious dealings going on at UCCtruths or with James Hutchins as you allege in the original article?  Are you not aware that another tactic used on the internet is for someone who opposes someone's agenda is to buy a webname similar to theres, and then deflect it to the "opposition" to make it seem as if the opposition (check out the 2006 campaign that used this).  I would hope that as a Conference Minister and as one of the parties responsible for this website, that you are thorough in your statements about who does what and who is responsible for what.  Otherwise, it's just like the far-right saying that liberals are responsible for 9/11, the state of marriages, all ills in the world -  hot air that blows through misinformation, distrust and anger, not true justice or reform.

And yes, it does matter if you contacted James and he did nothing until you made it public.  It matters because it shows if James has a hidden agenda, or not.  It also illustrates if this site, talk2action, is really about that - "talk to action" to ferret out nefarious dealings on the extreme right and give us the basis to actually prevent and act against it, or just another web vehicle to have people "complain" and feel better because they are in a group that agrees with them.  

I guess I thought this site was intended to feret out and provide the factual basis to refute those on the far-right who are undermining the mainline.  If that is the case, then I hold that my question is valid.  If not, well, then I mis-understood what this was about.  
God's grace and peace, Deb K
by Pastordeb on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:36:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

pastordeb (none / 0)
You are making the classic error to seeking to kill the messenger, combined with a bit of back seat driving.

First, you are clearly less concerned with the disturbing fact that traffic to a legitimate UCC site was hijacked for the purpose of diverting traffic to UCC Truths. John's suspicion is well founded and you have offered no facts to suggest otherwise. Your priorities are clearly skewed in your kill the messenger critique.

Second, you are second guessing John's efforts and making them the issue rather than focusing your concern which is properly directed to who did this and why?  

It seems to me that John has done a service to the church he serves in exposing this matter.  UCC Truths does not need your hypothetical defense. They are perfectly capable of answering for themselves. I suggest you take your questions and concerns to them.

You have zero evidence on which to base your speculation that someone other than UCC Truths directed traffic to their web site. This is in line with the talking point raised by someone else on this thread that UCC Truths was "framed" and invoked the "mafia."

These are diversionary tactics that are now officially off topic.

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]



an additional, though not especially relevent fact (none / 0)
John,

When I tried it, after your posting, it was continuing to do what it had done before.  My experience, fwiw, was that it started to redirect to the .org site after I contacted Oneandone and apprised them of the situation.

Don Niederfrank

by Don Niederfrank on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]





Just reporting? (none / 0)
Fred,

This " I would anticpate that they are writing an article this very moment preparing to discredit me and what I have written here.

The good news, now that they have been found out and have stopped this sleazy manuever ( a favorite tactic of porno sites, by the way..."

Is hardly "just reporting" and has much to do with the character of James Hutchins, etc.  Surely you wouldn't say that the "they" in one paragraph is not to be understood as the "they" in another.  That's a clear accusation of malice and not re. some unknown owner of the domain in question.

by Don Niederfrank on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it is a well founded concern (none / 0)
and John had no idea who was beind the site, as it is someone who remains studiously anonymous. Rather, he had no idea of the mans's name until others brought it up here, if in fact that is his name.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)
Fred,

Exactly my point.  There was no reason to imply that J.H. or anyone at ucctruths was involved in the detailed sleazy practice, akin to that of porno site owners, etc. etc.  And the implication in John's opening note is clearly there.  In fact, it's more than implied.  This--"Kind of ironic, isn't it? I mean, a website whose sole purpose is to tell the truth practicing such a deception. Kind of makes you wonder how truthful they really are, doesn't it?"--is an accusation.  

My point isn't whether there are grounds for at least suspicion--obviously there are--but that saying that one is only "reporting" and to chastize others for speculation is...well, ironic at least.


by Don Niederfrank on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think, Don (none / 0)
that your interest here is in knee jerk defense of the indefensible. John's concerns are well founded. The only irony here is that you are clearly far less concerned about the hijacking of a legitimate UCC site to send traffic to UCC truths, than you are about diverting attention from the obvious suspect, and yet you have no exculpatory evidence.  If UCC Truths has anything to say, not being shy and retiring I am sure they will.  

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clarifying... (none / 0)
Fred,

You're wrong.  I am concerned.  Has anyone else, especially here, downloaded and run smartwhois in an effort to find out who owns the site?  Did anyone else bother to search out who owned associated phone numbers or to email the German corp that has provided this domain name?  Has anyone else researched this company?  What efforts have you or John made to find out if the accusations are true?

I have said that I believe there is evidence to support suspicion (or something to that affect) and would say so again.  My insides are not at ease over this at all.  James is a friend.  For me to consider that this is his responsibility does not sit well.  

My point was not in defending James, though I've known him for years, but to raise an objection to what is to me a clear accusation on his part and an effort on your part to paint as pejorative a picture as possible.

by Don Niederfrank on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your "concern" is misplaced (none / 0)
You are clearly in knee jerk defense of you friend, and your concern is misplaced. If you have some facts to offer, we are interested in hearing them. However your purported "concerns" are now off topic on this site.

Out here in the the blogopshere, what you are doing is defined as the behavior of what is called a "concern troll."  These are individuals who are all or partly disingenous and seek to hijack the purposes of a comment thread or web site out of their claimed "concern" about this or that.  Trolls of all kinds are banned without notice.  

The victim here is the UCC site devoted to growing the church, UCC Truths was the beneficiary of traffic that would have gone to the official church site. If you have any facts that can help illuminate the hijacking of a UCC site to drive traffic to UCC Truths, we are interested in hearing them.

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All this Gas ............... (none / 0)
I have the utmost respect of JD and his views, But ........... Gee, all this gas over a diverted URL.

You might note that Chuck Currie committed this "unpardonable" sin a year or so back when he secured UCCTruths.Org and diverted it to UCC.Org. He since did not renew (I guess) and it is a nondescript site by non-descript administrators. Then again, perhaps the names would mean something to you folks. Check it out.

I notice this stuff, well, because I am an online software and website developer. It is my business to notice.

And, as for another "why" the national UCC site uses keyword stuffing and thinks nothing of it. This one-up stuff seems to happen all the time and everywhere. Pervasive.

Really, if you want the info and contacts behind the site you can do a WHOIS or try this - http://www.domainsearch.com/ - outstanding site. If it is anonymous, then you may have a point of contention that something is ignoble and not transparent.

But, I actually find it business as usual and the best recourse is in-kind. I really cannot believe the number of posts on this article. It can do nothing more than boost UCCTruths PR rating.

You gotta pick your battles. This isn't one of them. William

by williambrandes on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 10:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ah, the big "if" (none / 0)
If it is anonymous, then you may have a point of contention that something is ignoble and not transparent.

Given your knowledge and skills, wiliambrandes, why don't you check it out and see for yourself, (as someone else did below) and let us know what you learn?

Seems to me, that when there is a malicious attack on a denominational web site, this would be of greater interest to the members and leaders of the UCC than has been expressed by some here.  

Here we have a national denomination that has been losing membership for some time. The church embarks on an ambitious outreach campaign to build membership. Then a web site that is part of this effort is the target of a diversion of traffic, that lo and behold, takes one to the site of a rather fierce critic of the church.  One does not have to believe that UCC Truths had anything to do with it to be concerned, even outraged.

Whether others have done this, or do it all the time, strikes me as a red herring.

by Frederick Clarkson on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 10:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking to the Choir (none / 0)
Frederick. You're talking to the choir. Like I said, pick your battles.

I don't need to look anything up. You are the ones with the beef. You do the work. I gave you the tool.

Red herring? Talk to the Chuck Currie about that. He obviously thought it a great idea. For that matter he can speak for himself.

This story is fluff. You know it. I know it. And, alot of your readers know it. John has written some great stories on this site and I link every single one of them on my blog. But this story gets an F-.

Hell, I got kicked off UCCTruths early on for exposing and blowing off their brain candy. They didn't like my in-the-face talk 'cause it didn't stick to party line. I don't need to be fed more brain candy here.

Stick to the issues that stick. This one is light weight. And, the only benefactor is UCCTruths: a PR gift. William

by williambrandes on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:25:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

gotta disagree (none / 0)
Thank you for telling us about the domain look-up site, William. That is useful.

But if you are going to say that you would agree this could be a concern under certain circumstances, then why don't you check?  Its your church, not mine. Talk to Action provides you with the tools to defend your church and a place to collaborate with others. I am glad to hear that you link to John's posts from your site. It is one way of putting his posts to good use.

As for your contention that is is not a real issue, I respectfully disagree. In the context of the wider efforts to divide and disrupt your church, I think this is an excellent example of how the church dies the death of a thousand cuts. This being just one. And while I don't expect you or any other friend of the site to agree with everything posted on this site, (I certainly don't!), I do think that characterizing someone's post as "gas" and "braincandy," is probably not the best argument you could have made.

As for UCC Truths, if they are proud of having been the beneficiary of the traffic siphoned off of an official UCC site in this way, then I guess this is great PR for them.

 

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:06:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]


William, I'm a bit confused ! (none / 0)
In less time than it took you to type up your last comment you could have looked up the ownership of the UCCvitality.com domain. You would have discovered that the ownership of the domain is anonymous. Indeed, that's already been discussed on this thread.

by Bruce Wilson on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:33:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0)
Don't be confused. This thread was/is a labor to follow. And, I have a vision disorder. So, I get a pass.

This story is a non-issue. Anonymous sign-up is legitimate. Some do it for less than ethical means. That doesn't mean you can whitewash in condemnation of the practice on anyone you want. Without facts.

Then again, we live in a less than perfect world. Stuff happens. We can spend the effort on real problems.

Just because the United Church of Christ is the denomination the congregation that I belong to is affiliated; that does not mean that I can/would/should agree with the context of this story.

To me it is just not a big deal. For that matter folks keep on talking about redirected traffic. Can anyone post the numbers? I doubt if I would base a discrediting campaign on them. Then again, YMMV. William

by williambrandes on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]















Cybersquatting (5.00 / 1)
is what this common sleazy tactic is called.  

It is used by those who want to draw traffic away from legitimate web site for their own purposes.  I hear about it most often as a dirty trick used by sleazy political operatives trying to undermine opposing candidates for public office.  And yes, porn sites are notorious for taking advantage of such opportunities.  In order for legitimate sites to guard themsevles against predatory opportunists, they generally have to register not one but several names, and their .com, .org and .net versions.

 

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:20:15 AM EST

and more (none / 0)
Google offers this brief definition and a further subsidiary definition:  
Cybersquatting is using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. Typosquatting is a form of cybersquatting, based on the probability that a certain number of Internet users will mistype the name of a URL when surfing.

Wikipedia has a detailed and very helpful discussion of typosquatting that puts this matter in perpsective.  Here is an excerpt:

Generally, the victim site of typosquatting will be a frequently visited website. The typosquatter's URL will usually be one of four kinds, all similar to the victim site address:

(In the following, the intended website is "example.com")

A common misspelling of the intended site: exemple.com
A misspelling based on typing errors: xample.com or exxample.com
A differently phrased domain name: examples.com

A different top-level domain: example.co.uk
Once in the typosquatter's site, the user may also be tricked into thinking that they are in fact in the real site; through the use of copied or similar logos, website layouts or content. Sometimes competitors of the victim site will do this.

Alternatively, the user will be forwarded to a site of a completely different nature to what they intended. This tactic was infamously used by John Zuccarini, who redirected domains targeting children to pornographic websites.

What seems to have been done in this instance is a classic instance of typosquatting.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:43:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]



Fixed (none / 0)
John, et al.,

I notified the host of www.vitality.com and now the .com address leads to the .org site.  Whether that has to do with me or not, I have no idea, but something got changed.  FWIW, I'm not convinced of any malice involved as much as just cyber mixup majic.

Advent peace,


by Don Niederfrank on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:44:26 PM EST

huh? (none / 0)
Don,

I run a couple of websites (including my church's website), and I can't imagine that it was just an odd concidence that someone purchased the domain name www.uccvitality.com and, oddly enough, had it re-directed to a site dedicated to questioning the leadership and direction of the UCC.  I don't think that kind of cyber mix-up magic exists...that was clearly intentional...and just not very ethical.    

So, who does owns www.uccvitality.COM?  You must know since you talked to them, though I am sure I can get that information easily enough.  I'm assuming it isn't the denomination.  Did the current owners  of the .COM domain name purchase it BEFORE the Vitality campaign began, without being aware of UCC's desire use of that domain name?  Maybe that it is the case...still, it doesn't explain why the owners would re-direct traffic they know was going towards another site to a website bent on a different understanding of UCC Congregational Vitality.

Any explanation?

I must ask: why would you think it was some sort of random, odd concidence?  

by PastorKev on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It would be service to everyone (none / 0)
if someone with the knowledge and skills would tell us about he provenance of the typosquatter address. Who established it? Who owns it?  

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another clue. (none / 0)
Whoever owns uccvitality.com has owned it since March 3, 2006.

http://whois.domaintools.com/uccvitality.com

domain:             uccvitality.com
created:             03-Mar-2006
last-changed:          03-Mar-2006
registration-expiration:     03-Mar-2007

This reminds me of the game mafia, where you don't know who is lying about whom and anybody could be the bad guy.

On the one hand, ucctruths could be malicious and are out to undermine uccvitality. On the other hand, somone may be trying to frame ucctruths by making a false linkup.

Just to get the claim right, are you saying that vitality.com redirected to ucctruths or are you saying that uccvitality.com redirected there?

Also, are you saying that "they" (ucctruths) are associated with IRD, or are you saying that "they" are just creepy? ( I agree, that it is creepy to redirect, whoever is doing it.)

And when you say "they" do you mean James Hutchins or do you mean the people who post on their forum, or do you mean someone else?

I think clarity is of the essence here, in order to determine who is really the mafia

by Concerned UCCer on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

silly speculations (none / 0)
Anything it possible, but it is important not to let speculations get too far out on a limb. Mafia? Frame-up? oh please.

The facts are these. The site was established and redirected people to UCC Truths. This was called to John's attention by responsible others and confirmed by his own experience, which he duly reported. Shortly after John posted, the redirect was removed.

If UCC Truths has something to say, I am sure they will say it, on their own web site.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 04:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]


I don't know... (none / 0)
who 'they' is, or whether it is he, she, or they.

As Fred has pointed out, I only know what I know: type in uccvitality.org and you go to the site you intended. Type in uccvitality.com and you go to ucctruths.com. An hour after I post this it stops.

That is all I know.

I am making no assumptions about the IRD - I have at this time no reason to believe that ucctruths and/or James Hutchins have any connection to them. Though we write often (and with good reason) about the IRD, we do not assume that everyone who is involved in and intent on the dismantling of our denominations connect directly to the IRD.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe you (none / 0)
John:

I believe you that there was a malicious redirect.

I believe you because I went to...

http://whois.domaintools.com/uccvitality.com

...and observed for myself, without anyone else's interpretation, that there is a thumbnail picture of UCCtruths (not uccvitality) that was captured by that neutral third party site on "2006-11-27." It used to point to UCCtruths, and now it does not.

It is evidence like this that convinces me (and that will convince others) that there are sinister unChristlike plots going on in the UCC.

I don't know if J. H. involved here, or if somone hijacked uccvitality towards his blog. All I know is what I have seen from the evidence. What we need is more evidence.

I would like you to define "dismantling" so that we can find more people "involved in and intent on the dismantling of our denominations."  You should say in what ways Hutchins is believed to be involved in this dismantling project so that we can smoke out undeniable cases of dismantling here and elsewhere. This reminds me of the theories of fourth generation warfare or the war on terror. Key US Counterterror strategies include the following:

  1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
  2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
  3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
  4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
  5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad

What kind of evidence of subversion and dismantling are we looking for here? subversive websites? agitprop or other artifacts espousing subversive slogans? Statistically improbible phrases used by operatives? secret strategy meetings? subversive agendae provided by external agencies? bomb plots? Literature that they read and rally around? Pamphlets or instruction manuals on how to subvert the theological agenda of your local church?

I'm serious... what kind of evidence should people be looking out for and where do we send it if/when we find it? talk2action?

The Laity aren't going to get involved in this unless they get specific guidance on what to look for and how to report cases of actual subversion/dismantling.  

Peace.

by Concerned UCCer on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

concerned UCCer (none / 0)
Thank you for your diligence in looking into the malicious diversion.  It is the responsbility of everyone who cares for the health and integrity of the UCC to take these matters seriously and to sort them out and to ensure that they do not happen again.

John Dorhauer can speak for himself, but I want to point out to you and others who are suddenly demanding "evidence," that John has been publishing short essays on this general subject for a year here. They are all archived on the site and you can find them by clicking on his byline. John is also not the only one writing about these matters. I have done some considerable investigation and analysis as well, as have others, over many years. We have done our best here at Talk to Action, to offer up good information and analysis. The role of the IRD and affiliated renewal groups is well established, and I invite you and others to do your homework. This site is set up in such a way that you should be able to find quite a bit right here. In addition to the material we post here ourselves, within our posts, we link to important articles that are available on the web by Andrew Weaver and Max Blumenthal and others. Here for example, is a link to my own recent overview of the attacks on the mainline churches.

John is providing much useful information and analysis and stories of how various congregations have responded to the challenges they face. I am sure he will continue to do so.
.

by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:41:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)
Mr. Clarkson,

Thanks for your continued investigation and analysis.

I believe that posting links will make it easier for others to do their homework and reach consensus on the the most compelling smoking guns.

I will review Mr. Dorhauer's other posts, which I believe can be found here:

http://www.talk2action.org/user/John%20Dorhauer/stories

Grace, and Peace.

by Concerned UCCer on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]




There are connections... (none / 0)
between UCCtruths.com and IRD.  For example, when UCCtruths went on the attack against John Thomas and his concerns about IRD the text of the speech they quoted came directly from IRD (the UCC had not yet published it).  UCCtruths has also been praised by Biblical Witness, the IRD's UCC affliated program.  IRD's website often links to UCCtruths for news about the UCC.  IRD does not control UCCtruths but they clearly coordinate.

by RevChuckCurrie on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, Chuck... (none / 0)
That is very helpful.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:24:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Say again .... (none / 0)
Then again, there is a connection between Rev Currie and "sleazy" redirection. And, that is a bonded, testable in a court of law, sworn on a stack of Bibles fact.

This is almost too funny. I wouldn't throw stones in glass houses Chuck. William

by williambrandes on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


I read this, and really wonder about Chuck (none / 0)
Chuck. The more I read this ..............

between UCCtruths.com and IRD.  For example, when UCCtruths went on the attack against John Thomas and his concerns about IRD the text of the speech they quoted came directly from IRD (the UCC had not yet published it).  UCCtruths has also been praised by Biblical Witness, the IRD's UCC affliated program.  IRD's website often links to UCCtruths for news about the UCC.  IRD does not control UCCtruths but they clearly coordinate. .............

the more I shake my head. Is this what I can expect from you doing exegesis? Your connecting of the dots is irrational.

Maybe James is a better reporter than the UCC and you put together. Maybe more creative. Maybe more source conscious. There is absolutely zero connection in this except what floats in your imagination. I still can't believe you wrote this. If the above passes for scholarship in the UCC, then the denomination really is in deep do-do. From within. William

by williambrandes on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 03:08:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]



Domains (none / 0)
It only proves that to be a good marketer you should secure the com/org and net extensions. Others are not even close in respectability. So you only have to secure 3. Biblical number /grin.

So, let that be a lesson. THE lesson. Instead of wringing hands over who/whom did what and where and why. And, speculating on the characters in this story. Unless this is a parlor game.

By the way, I think (just my personal observation) that UCC national has TOO MANY websites to keep it all straight. They can more than effectively group alot of that stuff under subdomains. Again, YMMV. William

by williambrandes on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

william (none / 0)
The UCC is under stystemic attack by people of malevolent intentions, as you well know.  

Someone took the time and the money to register a domain for the sole purpose of diverting traffic from an official church site devoted to church growth to a site operated by an ascerbic critic of the church, and spent the extra money to ensure anonynmity.  In the context of multifaceted and multisource attacks on the church, it is a matter of some concern.

In your opinion this is not a bit deal (but you don't say how or why). It is a view I do not share for the reasons I summarized here. The UCC is suffering the death of a thousand cuts. This but one. We may never know who was behind this, just as many crimes go unsolved or unfair rumors never traced to the source. But that does not alter the fact that someone committed this malevolent act, and sought to cover their tracks, and that people who were seeking the UCC, got UCC Truths instead.  

by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No big deal ............ (none / 0)
First of all, the UCC is not suffering a death. But, it is suffering cuts self-inflicted among others.

Why do I think this one can be put to bed? For the very reason you gave. No trail.

Plus, this stuff isn't rocket science. It is not expensive in time, effort or cost to host. Especially a redirect. Seven lines of code. Simple. Hosting costs are very competitive. $9 a year (or less) and you are in. It costs nothing more for the anonymity. You just leave the content blank. Or, heck, make it up.

No one has taken the time to speak to redirected traffic. Like stats. I doubt if anyone knows. I would guess most redirected from this story.

Lastly, Talk2Action has org/com/net. For reasons I gave. Before. Smart move and the UCC might learn the same. Once burned, lesson learned.

Bigger fish to fry Frederick. Put this one to bed. William

by williambrandes on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 02:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am frying the biggest fish of all, William (none / 0)
The fish of complacency and denial.

I think it is remarkable the many ways people find to ignore that there are actually people of malevolent intent taking specific actions aimed at the UCC. I like the example of the traffic diversion because it is small, clear, discrete.  One cannot dispute that the event took place and that traffic was deliberately diverted from a church growth web site to that of an ascerbic critic of the church leadership and that the perp paid money to cover his tracks.

This entire thread is an excellent example of the many ways that people who claim to care about their church, cast about for ways to avoid serious discussion of the ways that the church is, in fact, being undermined such that serious conversation about even a small incident is made impossible.

While it is possible that people have taken action and not indicated that here, in fact. no one on this comment tread really proposed to inquire further or indicated that they thought that anyone should. No one asked whether such things have been done to the UCC before (I hear they have.) No one really sought to rationally consider the implications of this. Rather a chorus of shouting down the messengers takes place.

These are all, IMO, symptoms of the depth of the denial of the problems facing the church.  

by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 01:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of Denial (none / 0)
I suspect there is plenty of denial to go around. Ask Rev. Currie.

The church might be increasingly irrelevant for many for many reasons, but, the redirection as outlined in this thread isn't one of them.

This thread has become another academic exercise without any substantive connection to perversion of the progressive stance of the UCC credibly offered. There is no trail, there are no stats, just conjecture. Maybe this is another of Rev. Currie's tricks /grin.

And, it has developed a life of its own way out of proportion to the effect created. If that was your intent, well, you have succeeded.

It amazes me how folks can take an incident, such as this, and widen it to such global proportions making it a centerpiece for how the "sky is falling" and then to whitewash those calling foul by saying they are in denial. Amazing. William

by williambrandes on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 06:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]








who owns vitality.com (none / 0)
PastorKev,

No, I don't know who own it because the 'them' I communicated to was oneandone, the provider of the domain name.  It's to them I sent a note.

I'm thinking this discussion may be broadening beyond the scope of this site and would be willing to begin a thread in the forums if there is interest.


by Don Niederfrank on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Revkev (none / 0)
Sorry, I missed this--
I must ask: why would you think it was some sort of random, odd concidence?

From knowing James.  It's inconsistent with what I know of him.  And it's foolishly impractical.  Ucctruths hardly has a lack of hits and/or participants and the vitality website is hardly a hotbed of activity.  

by Don Niederfrank on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks, Don, but... (none / 0)
Hi Don,

Thanks for the reply.  

I wasn't so much on commenting on whether or not James had done this or what kind of person he was/is.  I guess my question was more about your idea that this redirection thing seemed like a fluke to you, a weird accident of the magical internet.  I mean, that just seems highly unlikely and incredibly improbable.  I just wondered why you wouldn't go to a place where the evidence obviously leads--that someone did this thing purposely and, thus, unethically?  I'm not making an accusation towards James (don't know him from Adam)--I'm just wondering why you would make the leap over the huge chasm of obvious evidence about its purposefulness into landing in a place of "cyber accident/mix-up"?  

I must admit I think that your other argument about UCCTRUTHS not needing the web traffic (and the needless swipe at uccvitality.org), thus they wouldn't do such a thing, seems a little disingenous.  I don't think the person that did this was trying to help James with his hit meter...I think they were trying to direct folks seeking a denominational tool for church growth to a web site that questions and disdains the direction of that very denomination. That is not right and its not ethical.  And its fundamentally not playing fair...I suspect in the end God will not care WHAT our beliefs about doctrine were, but HOW we shared and lived out those beliefs about God, Christ, etc.  

Don, thanks for replying to that portion of my email.

Much peace,

PastorKev  

by PastorKev on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Further clarification, but probably not necessary. (none / 0)
PastorKev,

I was willing to believe in "cybermajic" because I didn't know how sending people to other sites was done.  I speculated that it was something on the ISP's end.  It is, I've learned, code entered in the header of the page (You probably already knew that. :-) )

I didn't mean to be disingenuous.  I just meant to say it seemed like a dumb thing for James to do.  He, like almost everyone else I know in cyberspace and reality, is less malicious than he appears.

I think that we often look for character flaws in those with whom we disagree.  But that's me.  For more --->www.uccunity.org (shameless plug)

by Don Niederfrank on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]






Still more deception? (none / 0)
John, I have been following Ucctruths.com for a couple of years.  James Hutchins has an edge, an opinion, but he back it up with facts.  From my observations, I have never met the man, James Hutchins is a truth seeker.  That is what he seeks from you.  If you have facts, send them, I expect he will honor his word of posting them.

Grace & Peace
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

by PassOut76 on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:08:05 PM EST

Brian (none / 0)
This discussion thread is all about facts. Many have been cited. Why not participate in the conversation ?

by Bruce Wilson on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a message from the site co-owner (none / 0)
listen, Mr.Bergs.  John has made it quite clear that he has no intention of posting to UCC Truths.

This matter is off topic on this site.

by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's right, Brian... (none / 0)
it ain't gonna happen.

And just for the record, and one more time, what is printed on UCCtruths is not the truth: as I have said a number of times, those who write their select pieces of the truth that fit their own version of the truth, and reinterpret them; they also leave out key portions of the truth that will not help their argument; and they distort other truths - again, to support their agenda.

If you believe that what you are reading their is truth, you are being mislead.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts (none / 0)
Well James Hutchins seems spot-on with this comment, "Clarkson and Dorhauer don't permit dissenting opinions on their site which is why the commentary there seems pretty chummy and it's impossible to challenge Dorhauer on his facts (Cheap Plug: All are welcome to comment on the UCCtruths.com message board whether you like this site or not)."

Mr. Clarkson certainly froze me out in his comment above.  It is your site and though one may be supportive of your purpose, your methods are rather heavy-handed.

Grace & Peace
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

by PassOut76 on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts (none / 0)
Dear PassOut76,

Here is a quote from the site guidelines:

Remember that when you register(ed) for the site, checking off the box means that you have read, understand, and agree with the purpose of the site and agree to abide by the guidelines.

Remember that the statement of purpose and guidelines, and the decisions of the site owners, administrators or moderators are not up for discussion and debate on the site; and that the statement of purpose and guidelines may be updated from time-to-time.

Don't be a troll. People who are offensive or abusive, are trolls. People who willfully hijack comment threads outside any reasonable discussion of the good work of the diarist, are trolls. People who write diaries or make comments obviously beyond the purposes of the site, are trolls. People who do not share the purposes of this site but join anyway, are trolls. Trolls and trollish behavior will not be tolerated.

In checking off he box when you registered for this site, you stated that you agreed with the site's purpose, and agreed to abide by the guidelines. Apparently you either 1) did not bother to read them 2) Did not understand or have forgotten them or 3) Lied when you checked off the box in order for you to make a comment promoting James Hutchins views.

You have made exactly two comments so far, both clearly violative of the simple site guidelines you said you would abide by. When you are a guest here or on any site, or in anyone else's institution,home, or country, most civilized people understand that you graciously seek to understand, accept, and try to abide by their rules.    


by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Methinks the guitly pig is squealing loudly! (none / 0)
II think that someone (fundamentalists trying to take over) got caught with their pants down.

I don't know all that much about internet programming, but I DO know a fair amount about computer systems and programming in general.  An "accident" of code just wouldn't have that sort of effect- the usual is an error message or system crash.  The chances of an error of that magnitude are rather slim, especially since it benefits a fundie group that is trying to damage the UCC.

Most programmers are VERY careful in their coding, and check their work multiple times!  The chances of this being an error are quite small.

The chances of this being a fundie group breaking the law and the rules for their benefit, however, almost reach certainty.  We've seen that happen time and time again.

BTW... Frederick, I really appreciate the moderation of this site!!!

(slightly off topic- could I email you about running a highly restricted and moderated blog?)

by ArchaeoBob on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 10:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks, Bob (none / 0)
And sure, drop me a note. I'll help if I can.

by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:02:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]



gosh, now I'm playing dodge ball and in the middle (none / 0)
Well, if UCCTruths NOW allows all talk, opinion, hearsay and yada-yada as well as what they call the gospel truth, well, that is a breath of fresh air. Good for James.

In fact, James sent me an E-mail "exposing" a white lie of mine - getting "kicked off" his site - yeah, I left, but, James seems to forget the whole thread over time in which I was warned to shut-up or face the consequences. Well, what do you know, I left on my own accord.

And, now, Praise the Lord, I am on the **list of sorts on both UCCTruths and Talk2Action. I doubt if anyone will be calling me up for an interview or book signing /grin. Who knows. Maybe the truth is somewhat in the middle and I'm standing there. Goofier things have happened /double grin.

Again, this redirect story is fluff. I really doubt that many folks have made the mistake since the UCC blog-ad-links obviously go where they should. And, if we really, as a denomination, are so wound up over misdirection, you might want to sit down and listen to how many times a month I have to correct folks on the mistaken identity of us as the "Church of Christ" another red herring I suppose, but, the problems of identity are so pervasive that this redirect story is just a drop in the bucket.

For a real head scratcher go to http://www.martinlutherking.com - some folks have too much time on their hands. William

by williambrandes on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

william (none / 0)
You are not on any **list around here. But one thing that is clear to me, is that you are not in the "middle" of anything because you have staked out the view that you would be concerned if X is true and then refuse to find out. Since then, Bruce Wilson has determined that X is  in fact true.

There is no middle to a blind eye.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Hey, Bill, (none / 0)
You're always welcome in our neighborhood.  I usually get criticized for not banning people! :-)

by Don Niederfrank on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 06:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]






And Still More Deception | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action


Netanyahu and Hagee, Serial Obstructionists
Last week I wrote about Prime Minister Netanyahu's participation at John Hagee's CUFI rally held in Jerusalem on the evening of Joe Biden's arrival......
By Rachel Tabachnick (0 comments)
Bill Donohue: Defender of Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck's recent admonition that people who attend a church that teaches social justice should leave -- was anti-Catholicism. This was obvious from a......
By Frank Cocozzelli (4 comments)
Blog Against Theocracy!
It's that time a year again.  It's time for the annual Blog Against Theocracy, April 2-4, 2010.   The prime mover of this blogtacular......
By Frederick Clarkson (1 comment)
Creeping Religious Rightism in the Democratic Party, Cont.
  Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has an op-ed today at AOL News discussing how, campaign......
By Frederick Clarkson (6 comments)
Invoking Intolerance: Religious Right Throws Fit Over Islamic Prayer In Virginia
Today an imam delivered the opening prayer before the Virginia House of Delegates - and once again the Religious Right is having kittens. Three......
By Rob Boston (1 comment)
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and John Hagee Share Stage as Biden Arrives in Israel
Yesterday (Monday) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to hundreds of Christian Zionists in Jerusalem at an event organized by John Hagee and Christians......
By Rachel Tabachnick (6 comments)
When the Truth Is Shown to Be Lies
It's been a year since President Obama lifted the Bush administration's restrictions on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Nevertheless, religious opponents......
By Frank Cocozzelli (7 comments)
Repent Amarillo's Spiritual Mapping and Vigilantism
Repent Amarillo, a Texas ministry which refers to itself as an "Army of God,"  is making news for its spiritual warfare and vigilante tactics.......
By Rachel Tabachnick (17 comments)
Whale Tale: AFA Staffer Says Bible Mandates Death For SeaWorld Orca
On Feb. 24, a tragedy occurred at SeaWorld in Orlando, Fla. A six-ton killer whale known as Tillikum pulled trainer Dawn Brancheau underwater to......
By Rob Boston (5 comments)
A Call to Censor the Religion Blogosphere
Some time ago, I filled out a survey from the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) in connection with an academic study they were doing......
By Frederick Clarkson (8 comments)
Prayer Warriors of the New Apostolic Reformation Getting Some Exposure
Yesterday Alternet published an article by Bill Berkowitz including an interview with me about the New Apostolic Reformation, or the "largest religious movement you......
By Rachel Tabachnick (8 comments)
Role Models of Remonstrance
I recently called for mainstream Catholics to offer remonstrance -- an earnest presentation of reasons for opposition or grievance against the reactionaries now fomenting......
By Frank Cocozzelli (8 comments)
Ken Starr and Baylor
A few years back I received a letter from Baylor University stating it decided to discontinue its "unclothed anatomical figurine drawing class".  It was......
By wilkyjr (2 comments)
Albert Mohler Is Worried. And He Should Be.
Yesterday, I published a commentary at Women's eNews titled: U.S. Religions Quietly Launch a Sexual Revolution. Its about how the Religious Institute, a progressive......
By Frederick Clarkson (1 comment)
Street Fight: Ohio Clergy Seeks End Of Tax Exemption For D.C. Structure Owned By `The Family'
The infamous "C Street house" is back in the news. A group of clergy in Ohio, aided by a tax lawyer, has written to......
By Rob Boston (3 comments)

School Board, State and school prayer
Now both the Polk County School Board and the state of Florida are trying to push prayers in the schools! ......
ArchaeoBob (0 comments)
City in trouble for sectarian prayers
The city of Lakeland, Florida has been challenged by Atheists of Florida and the local synagogue for having sectarian prayers before public meetings. ......
ArchaeoBob (0 comments)
The Blind Side's Blind Spot
The hit movie, The Blind Side, is all about the Christian values of being your "brother's keeper." Or is it? ......
John Sheirer (3 comments)
When Christianity is Un-American
Just thought readers might be interested in linking to this article at The Yurica Report: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/Murray_WhenChristianityIs UnAmerican.html ......
TMurray (1 comment)
Violence increasing
I think people should read this article- and realize that the dominionists are becoming more and more violent.  If something isn't done to counter their hate, this country is in deep trouble! ......
ArchaeoBob (3 comments)
His "Freedom" Means Denying Yours - With Your Own Taxes
Referring to recent political skirmishes over the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, Cardinal Francis George called five rocks thrown at empty buildings and the theft of a few lawn signs "quasi-fascism."  He......
bettyclermont (0 comments)
Rome has spoken....Man the lifeboats!
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, it was widely reported that he preferred a smaller, more obedient flock in his Church. Once again, he is proving those reports to......
bettyclermont (0 comments)
Your children will be forced to shower with gays! (says the AFA)
I've just received the following American Family Association email, which claims that the Obama administration has a nefarious plan to force gays and straights in the US military to shower together ! Donald Wildmon......
Bruce Wilson (3 comments)
Pope John Paul II's Penitential Practices: The Opus Dei Connection
We are pleased to once again welcome theologian William Lindsey as a guest front pager. This piece is crossposted from the new progressive Catholic group blog, The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody. -- FC......
William Lindsey (0 comments)
WallBuilders, Inc., Promoting a dominionist "Christian Nation"
Cherry Hill Seminary Supports Patrick McCollum in 9th Circuit Case Against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation http://snipurl.com/u8kcj ......
Dragonzmajick (2 comments)
Roeder verdict sparks fears of more anti-abortion violence
cross-posted at dKos Scott Roeder is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison for the murder of George Tiller.  At the very least, he'll by 75 years old before he can......
Christian Dem in NC (0 comments)
The dark underside of the Latter Rain--a walkaway's view
cross-posted at dKos I read Bruce Wilson's posts on dKos and Talk To Action regarding the "Pray For Newark" initiative with particular alarm.  While Pray for Newark appears to espouse an admirable goal--community empowerment--it's......
Christian Dem in NC (2 comments)
Bishops as Provocateurs
In a thinly-veiled reference to the campaign of President Barack Obama, Archbishop Emeritus of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, charged that Americans are "embracing a totalitarianism which masks itself as the 'hope,' the 'future' of......
bettyclermont (0 comments)
The Vatican v. Children
Yesterday was not a good day for children seeking justice from the Roman Catholic Church. The internet brought the following news: ......
bettyclermont (0 comments)
Religious bigots control supermarket chain
Well, they've won again.  The religious bigots have forced Publix Supermarkets into bowing to their wishes. ......
ArchaeoBob (11 comments)
Manhattan Declaration is to Theology what Fox is to Journalism
The December 20, 2009, New York Times ran a lengthy article by David D. Kirkpatrick about Robert P. George, "The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker." The occasion was release of George's "Manhattan Declaration" signed by the......
bettyclermont (2 comments)
Merry Freakin' Christmas: I'm Taking Your Stuff, and you Can't Stop Me!
A humorous look at the larger implications of a seemingly harmless holiday tradition. ......
John Sheirer (1 comment)
Lou Engle, September 25, 2007, Los Angeles: "Holywood"
[This is a partial transcription of a sermon/speech Lou Engle, Founder of TheCall gave on September 25, 2007, in Los Angeles. The full sermon is slightly over 63 minutes. This partial transcript is of......
Bruce Wilson (0 comments)
Rick Warren Tweet complains my videos of his "Hitler/Lenin/Mao" speech are unfair
It's gratifying to know "America's most powerful pastor" seems to have taken notice of my videos, showcasing Rick Warren's 2005 speech at California's Anaheim Angels Stadium, during which Warren outlined a "stealth" program to......
Bruce Wilson (4 comments)
Blurring Reproductive Rights and the Religious Right
The principle of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted federal funds from paying for abortion back in 1976 -- is now seen as an acceptable, "abortion neutral" position for the prochoice Democratic Party. How did......
Frederick Clarkson (0 comments)
Rick Warren Calls on Followers To Be Dedicated as Followers of Lenin and Mao
[note: for more recent news on Rick Warren, see Rick Warren's Dissertation Advisor Leads Network Promoting Uganda Anti-Gay Bill] Video, below contains audio recording, photos, and transcript from Rick Warren's April 17, 2005 speech......
Bruce Wilson (6 comments)
Julius Oyet Touts The College of Prayer
A new Talk To Action story identifies Apostle and bishop Julius Oyet as a major player in the recent effort in the Ugandan parliament to pass a draconian anti-gay bill. In this video [transcript......
Bruce Wilson (1 comment)
Mark Silk on the Hagee / Rodriguez Entente
Mark Silk, at Spiritual Politics has picked up on my notice of the Hagee-Rodriguez embrace and zeroes in on what's certainly one of the most notable aspects: "The key thing to understand about the......
Bruce Wilson (1 comment)
Inscribing Christian Values in our Children Before Birth?
Following the evolution of evangelical discourse as it re-defines homosexuality as evidence of "fallen creation", Terri Murray looks at how the Christian right have shifted their rhetoric to adapt to empirical research showing that......
TMurray (0 comments)
US News & World Report Showcases Creationist Ray Comfort
US News and World Report's Dan Gilgoff has charitably provided evangelist Ray Comfort a media platform in the form of a US News & World "exclusive" through which Comfort defends his efforts to distribute,......
Bruce Wilson (0 comments)
Atheist billboard in Central Florida
The organization "Atheists of Florida" sponsored a billboard promoting atheism in Lakeland, Florida.  I, however, have some concerns. ......
ArchaeoBob (4 comments)
Transcript: Billy Graham and Richard Nixon, February 21, 1973
The following is my own transcript of a 20 minute phone conversation between Richard Nixon and Billy Graham, on February 23, 1973. As far as I am aware this is the only publicly available,......
Bruce Wilson (0 comments)
Rifqa Bary being sent back to Ohio now
Well, there's a change in this case.  After the judge gets immigration documents and so on from the parents, he will send her back. ......
ArchaeoBob (2 comments)
The War on The War on Christmas Goes To Pot
The first day of Fall could be considered the official launch date for the annual war on the war on Christmas, which represents a significant part of the the American Family Association business model......
Bruce Wilson (1 comment)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC. Powered by Scoop