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


Some Things Don't Change
This is a reprise of a piece I originally posted on May 16, 2007,titled: When Common Ground Means Capitulation -- to Falwell. It was......
By Frederick Clarkson (10 comments)
Adopting Bias: New Va. Rules Seek To Safeguard 'Faith-Based' Bigotry
Legislators and media pundits in Washington, D.C., continue to obsess over the birth control mandate in the new health care law and whether church-related......
By Rob Boston (4 comments)
GOP Candidates Embrace a Major Religious Right Narrative
Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney's demagogic claims that President Obama is engaged in a "war against religion" are as unsurprising as they are disturbing.......
By Frederick Clarkson (5 comments)
NAR Apostle Harold Caballeros Heads Guatemala Foreign Ministry
In January 2012, with the inauguration of former military general Otto Pérez Molina as Guatemala's president, NAR apostle Harold Caballeros took charge of Guatemala's......
By Bruce Wilson (2 comments)
As Eddie Long Controversy Grows, Video Emerges of 'Rabbi' Messer Wrapping Paula White in Torah
A Christian Post article dated February 5 is one of many reports of denials by televangelist Paula White and her attorney of any ties......
By Rachel Tabachnick (10 comments)
Garlow Introduced Gingrich, Called for Pastors Revolt Against IRS Rules at NAR Church in Nevada
On Friday night Newt Gingrich spoke at the "Prayer for America" event at the International Church of Las Vegas (ICLV) led by Apostle Paul......
By Rachel Tabachnick (3 comments)
A Must Read Book: "The Good News Club"
For anyone who wants to read a book that really goes inside the movement to indoctrinate children through our public schools, I highly recommend......
By Chris Rodda (3 comments)
More On Yale's Templeton-Funded "Spiritual Capital Initiative"
Should Chick-Fil-A be known for its extensive ties to, and funding of, some of the most aggressively anti-gay groups in America, as well as......
By Bruce Wilson (4 comments)
Gettting Well Versed
Michelle Boorstein at The Washington Post's "Under God" blog reports that Faithful America's petition calling for Kansas House Speaker Michael O'Neal to resign now......
By Frederick Clarkson (3 comments)
Alabama State Senator: Pay Increases for Teachers are Against 'Biblical Principle'
This is a new twist on "biblical economics" that I've not heard before.  According to Alabama State Sen. Shadrack McGill, a 62% pay increase......
By Rachel Tabachnick (5 comments)
Wagner Recognized by Delaware House for Commissioning Apostles (Copy of Tribute Included)
This morning I contacted the offices of Rep. Daniel B. Short and Chief Clerk of the House Richard Puffer and confirmed that C. Peter......
By Rachel Tabachnick (7 comments)
Trial Date Set for Bishop Finn
The trial date for Bishop Robert W. Finn,of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri will be September 24, 2012.  Finn and the diocese......
By Frank Cocozzelli (3 comments)
The Culture of Demonization and Imprecatory Prayer
We have written a great deal here at Talk to Action about the Religious Right culture of conspiracy theory, labeling and demonization as animating......
By Frederick Clarkson (3 comments)
To Bigotry No Sanction, to Persecution No Assistance
As the finale of our extended celebration of Religious Freedom Day, we are honored to welcome George Washington as a guest front pager.  ......
By George Washington (0 comments)
George Barna and the New Apostolic Reformation
Given the secretive nature of the movement, documenting the involvement of public figures in C. Peter Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation can be a time-consuming......
By Bruce Wilson (2 comments)

Harold Caballeros, October 5, 2006, #1
On October 5, 2006, Harold Cabballeros, founder and senior pastor of El Shaddai Church in Guatemala City, spoke at the "Spirit in the World: The Dynamics of Pentecostal Growth and Experience" symposium sponsored by......
Bruce Wilson (0 comments)
Truth Wins Out Reports on Exodus International's Attempt at Rebranding
An extensive report has been posted at Truth Wins Out (TWO) on the rebranding of Exodus International, the discredited and financially strapped pray-away-the-gay organization. The report is titled "The Exodus SmokeScreen" and subtitled, "Exodus......
Rachel Tabachnick (0 comments)
Breast cancer awareness T-shirt prompts dispute at skating rink
crossposted from The Clarion Ledger) http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012202040 349 ""I am offended as a mother; as the daughter of a cancer patient; as a Christian woman; as a fundraiser and donor of time and money to......
COinMS (0 comments)
Delaware state house Dems distance themselves from Wagner tribute
The Democrats in the Delaware state House of Representatives are in full damage control mode over a tribute given back in January to C. Peter Wagner, a prominent leader of the New Apostolic......
Christian Dem in NC (1 comment)
Is Peter Wagner lying about commendation from state of Delaware?
Those of us who have watched the New Apostolic Reformation have come to expect bizarre claims.  Well, today  C. Peter Wagner made one of the most bizarre claims yet.  He sent out an......
Christian Dem in NC (1 comment)
New dominionist effort to target Hollywood with prayer
In yet more proof that the New Apostolic Reformation is trying to make itself heard in a big way this year, late yesterday several leaders of that movement got together to announce a......
Christian Dem in NC (0 comments)
Santorum Accuses Colleges of Anti-Religious "Indoctrination" But Gingrich Said it First
CBS and other media outlets have pounced on a Rick Santorum claim, that America's colleges and universities are hotbeds of anti-religious "indoctrination", but Newt Gingrich has been saying that for years. As Santorum declared......
Bruce Wilson (2 comments)
Leader of NC gay marriage ban effort, in his own words
cross-posted at dKos One of the leaders of the effort to write a gay marriage ban into North Carolina's constitution is Patrick Wooden, the pastor of Upper Room Church of God in Christ in......
Christian Dem in NC (2 comments)
AFA endorses AIDS denialism
If Public Policy Polling's early numbers are accurate (and there's little reason to doubt they are) Newt Gingrich will likely take the lead in national polling this week.  In light of this, there's......
Christian Dem in NC (1 comment)
Family Research Council chaplain openly calls for non-Christians to be banned from public office
Anyone who's studied the religious right can't help but notice a pattern to how they've operated over the last three decades.  They get a little bit of power, only to overreach and get smacked......
Christian Dem in NC (4 comments)
Cindy Jacobs prophecies divine intervention unless we elect Repubs
Late last week, New Apostolic Reformation "prophetess" Cindy Jacobs announced the yearly "Word of the Lord" from the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders.  (h/t to PFAW's Right Wing Watch). This "Word" makes for......
Christian Dem in NC (3 comments)
Robert Jeffress: First Amendment protections invite wrath of God
We already knew that the religious right would like nothing better than to sweep away the First Amendment.  Well, one of its more prominent leaders just came out and said it in terms as......
Christian Dem in NC (3 comments)
Cindy Jacobs announces 2012 prayer initiative--and declares war on separation of church and state
Late last night, Cindy Jacobs announced the formation of a major prayer drive with the goal of influencing the election.  The campaign, called "FastForward," is sponsored by her newly formed United States Reformation Prayer......
Christian Dem in NC (2 comments)
Personhood returns
Having soundly been defeated at the ballot box, the Personhood initiative in Mississippi has been resurrected via the new governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant and his allies in the state government. For the first......
COinMS (0 comments)
Exposing The Dark Side Of Tupelo MS
It’s really ironic that the so-called Christian Religious Right (ie., AFA) are seemingly dedicated to the unnecessary bashing of Paganism when Pagans made such a well-documented historical contribution toward the rise of Christianity. For......
AlBratt (0 comments)

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