Understanding the "Christocrats"
Lorie Johnson printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:34:11 AM EST
Rev. Rod Parsley, a pastor of the World Harvest megachurch in Ohio...declared, "We're not Democrats. We're not Republicans. We're Christocrats!"

For those of you who might be new to a lot of these people and terms, Rev. Parsley is the pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, and creator of the "Patriot Pastors"- a movement in Ohio designed to turn that state- and ultimately our federal government- into a theocratic state.

How did this happen, and what can we do about it?

A new book by Rabbi James Rudin, entitled "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us" has just been released. In it, Rabbi Rudin uses the term "Christocrat" to describe a particular type of Christian who blends religion with politics in an aggressive way.

BuzzFlash interviewed  the author yesterday, and what he has to say is interesting- and alarming.

BuzzFlash: You use a phrase which received some comment in the reviews we read, and that was "Christocrats " (pronounced with a short "i"). What does that mean?

Rabbi James Rudin: I had to develop a term to describe the specific Christian conservatives who, in my judgment, are trying to change the basic structure of America after 220 years. I found that using words like "fundamentalist" or "extremist" or "Christian conservatives" or "Evangelicals" was inaccurate. In my own work - 35 years with the American Jewish Committee and Christian-Jewish relations - I've found that the overwhelming majority of Evangelical Christians are not committed to changing the basic relationship between church and state, and between government and religion. There's a small percentage who are, so I searched for a name that would set them apart from other Evangelicals or Christian conservatives.

Now, this is an excellent and insightful point- the "Christocrats" are a small minority in the Christian world, but they are very influential. A question we should be asking ourselves is how we can reach and teach the vast majority of Christians who prefer a wide space between church and state?

Rabbi Rudin makes another point:

BuzzFlash: What separates a "Christocrat" from someone who is a true believer in Christianity but also respects the separation of church and state?

Rabbi James Rudin: I use the concept of "deed, not the creed." Millions of our fellow American citizens are theologically conservative Christians. But they're not all actively seeking laws passed specifically on issues of church and state.

We can judge people by their deeds. The Christocrats' deeds are really an attack on public schools, on libraries, and the media. They attack the existing structures and then try to have them replaced with Christocratic libraries, Christocratic public schools or academies, or Christocratic media. It's kind of a shadow library, shadow schools, shadow everything. That's the strategy - to destroy the existing structure, or discredit it, and then try to replace it - using federal, state or local public money to  support their schools or their unique libraries. They've also tried to create a parallel media system of television, radio, magazines, newspapers, which reflect their point of view.

After 200 years of American history, it is an attempt to make this into, not just a country where 82% of the population say they're Christians, but instead to make America into a Christian nation in terms of its laws.

There have been several attempts in the past to put this into Constitutional amendments. They have all failed. There was one attempt in the mid-19th century and one in the 1950s - to make this legally a Christian nation. Now I think another attempt is being carried out, even though about one out of five Americans do not consider themselves to be Christian - they are agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, or whatever.

Deed, not creed. Observe what they actually do, not what they say or believe. It is this observation and understanding that is vital in uncloaking the often stealthy advance of the Christocratic elements in the various levels of our government. On paper, web, and television, they  often come across as apparently charming and harmless people of deep piety, who only want the best for the citizens. But if you bother to scratch the surface, dig deeper, listen to their sermons, attend meetings where their representatives deliberately hijack proceedings, and observe their deeds, the gloves come off. They will say things to put people off guard or direct their attention elsewhere, and then make their move.

Consider the Institute for Renewal and Democracy", for instance. Sounds fairly innocuous, on first glance. But scratch the surface, and you will find an organization intent on assimilating mainline and moderate churches into the Christocratic movement, emptying their coffers and turning their congregants into obedient foot soldiers.

If you read deeply into the Christocratic movement, you will discover a whole lexicon of apparently harmless sounding terms which are in reality code words for some very troublesome actions that they are taking. "Wedge issues", "Critical Analysis", "Renewal", "Restoration" "Family Values" (that's a big one) "Reconstruction"... all of them have specific meaning in their circles. Most of them  blow by non-Christocrats, seeming harmless.  

Let's look at what Rabbi Rudin says about reconstruction as interpreted by the Christocrats:

BuzzFlash: Let me ask you something about the Constitution. You mentioned that some people feel the Bible trumps the Constitution. But, actually, they've said that the Constitution was divinely inspired, and therefore they read into it certain religious qualities that were not put into the Constitution. Doesn't that defy the notion of strict constructionism, because you're really claiming the origin of the Constitution to be different than it was. It was created by men who debated a document. They say it was a gift from God. To me, that's not strict constructionism. That's a logical fallacy.

Rabbi James Rudin: It's a reconstruction. You're exactly right. One of the issues is that part of the Christocratic movement is saying, oh, well, in 1787 and in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence, it was an oversight. It was an accident that neither Christianity nor Jesus was mentioned in either document. I show that as the Constitution was being ratified by the various states, everyone was quite aware that there was an absence in the Constitution of any reference to Christianity or to God's law, or to the Bible as the supreme law of the country. There had been serious debates going on. I quote some of the critics of the Constitution of 1787 - and it took people like James Madison and an under-appreciated Southern Baptist minister named John Leland, who, along with Jefferson and others, were able to get the Constitution adopted.

It is very ironic to note that it was a Southern Baptist who was instrumental in keeping references to Christianity and God's Law out of the Constitution. Leland must be spinning in his grave over what has become of the SBC. Rabbi Rudin also notes this:

But it was neither an accident nor an oversight nor sloppy writing. There was a bitter debate in both North and South, by ministers and by lay people. It's another myth that is thrown up to confuse people - that somehow there was a mistake made, and they want to correct the mistake. There was no mistake. It was very clear.

Another sad part is that the second largest Christian body in America, the Southern Baptist Convention - second only to the Roman Catholic Church in population - were until recently one of the strongest advocates for the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, in the past twenty years the Southern Baptist Convention has moved completely away from their traditional position favoring strict separation. Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist, has written about it, Bill Moyers, Al Gore, Bill Clinton - all Southern Baptists - are very concerned.

One of the ironies is that in countries where there is an established church - for instance, England, Sweden, and France before the revolution - religion today is quite stagnant in many of those countries. Yet in America, because we've got a free market of ideas and freedom of religion, religion has thrived as in almost no other developed country of the world. If we were ever to make one religion the legal religion of America - call it America's religion - it would be a disaster. One reason the Constitution was so clear on this, both inside Article VI, which had no religious test for office, and in the First Amendment, was just what you said. There were so many different Christian groups vying for power and position that the answer was that none of those groups could be the established church, and let all be free. That's been the genius of America for 220 years.

I think one of the parts of the book that has captured a lot of attention is the little known debate between Patrick Henry, who was the Governor of Virginia, and Thomas Jefferson, both raised as Anglicans. Patrick Henry wanted to have a church tax in Virginia and have tax money go into the Anglican Church, which was the dominant church in Virginia. Jefferson fought it all the way with Madison, and he was successful. Out of it came this statute of religious liberty for Virginia. But it was a near thing, and had Patrick Henry had his way, we today might have taxes, as there are in other countries, to support specific churches.

Let me also be very clear. There is not a total separation of church and state in America. Religious institutions get a tax exemption on their property. If you and I give money to a specific religious institution, we get a tax deduction. I have no problems with that. The problem I wrote about is the drive to legitimize one specific group of Christians as the holders of the truth, and the right to impose their values on 300 million other Americans.

There you have it. The entire interview is worth a read.




Display:
Truthout on the Ohio Restoration Project

A Village Voice article about the Christocrats

USA Today article on Politics from the Pulpits

BuzzFlash's review of The Baptizing of America

Speaking of reviews, I would be very interested in reading and reviewing this book, and others like it, myself. I think that a review library would be a great thing to have on this site.

by Lorie Johnson on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:41:34 AM EST

Thanks for the links to the articles.  Upon reading the Village Voice article, I found that the apparent reference from which the cited "Christocrat" quote originally came is a quote from Benjamin Rush, the 18th century Philly doctor, to wit:

"I have been alternately called an Aristocrat and a Democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat."


by larry jones on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:40:38 PM EST
Parent



Thanks Lorie for the links and quotes. As someone with a Southern Baptist background, it was nice to see the author's Baptist references. It is hard to understand why the Baptist traditions of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state are not more of a critical influence on the Christian Right, but it is good to know that these historic Baptist principles are appreciated here and that one of our more active participants (Dr. Bruce Prescott) here is a Baptist minister.

by Carlos on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:26:22 PM EST
I once thought that Baptist= intolerant lout. That was probably because of my ill treatment at the hands of certain colleagues in the USAF.

I am happy to say that I have been thoroughly re-educated by folks like Dr. Prescott, and President Jimmy Carter, among others. Understanding the schism in the SBC has gone a long ways toward my making peace with the sect, and learning about the Baptist founders who fought to keep religion out of the new constitution has made me see them in a new light.

I wish I could work up the courage to possible Presidential candidate and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee what 'flavor' of Baptist he is- he's a Baptist minister. His actions point towards the mainstream sort, and Arkansas has been surprisingly free of the more overt posturing and puffery that plagues places like Texas and Ohio. I think that this is no accident.

by Lorie Johnson on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:13:27 PM EST
Parent

to see comments like this, Lorie.  

We are all learning a great deal from one another, (I know I do) and this is one of the main missions of Talk to Action.  

It is an action to break down barriers of stereotype, and for us to learn who our friends and allies really are.

 

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:31:41 PM EST
Parent


I went to Seminary with Huckabee.

He was a politician even then.

He was with the SBC takeover Fundamentalists from the beginning.

He only appears moderate because the SBC, along with the rest of the country, has moved so far to the right and he has been careful not to be too offensive to Clinton's political base.

I knew Huckabee before Dominionism became so influential within the SBC.  I don't know how deeply he is committed to that agenda, but, unless he's changed his stripes, he's committed to some form of Christian Nationalism.

In his seminary days, he was no friend of church/state separation.

by Mainstream Baptist on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:02:03 PM EST
Parent

Well, now I know- I appreciate your candidness. I've kept my ears open for the usual 'codewords' from him, but have heard few of them. Still, stealth is the watchword for the real Dominionists, such people don't hoist the Jolly Roger until they are truly in power.

by Lorie Johnson on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:35:34 PM EST
Parent
Lori,

It seems you missed this from last Valentine's day?

"On Valentine's Day 2005, approximately 8,000 people took a stand for marriage by attending the Arkansas Celebration of Marriage at Alltel Arena.

<snip>

"Governor Huckabee and the First Lady converted their marriage to a Covenant Marriage and challenged those attending to consider converting their marriages if they had not done so already. Arkansas' Covenant Marriage law allows couples the freedom to choose to be held to a higher level of marital commitment.

<snip>

"Act 1486 of 2001 created an option for couples in Arkansas to choose a Covenant Marriage. The couple entering into a Covenant Marriage agrees to be bound by two limitations on obtaining divorce or separation which do not apply to other couples married in Arkansas:

    1) The couple agrees to see marital counseling if problems develop during the marriage; and

    2) The couple can seek a divorce or legal separation only for limited reason, as set out in the Act, outlined in the following brochure.

"Additionally, couples bound by a Covenant Marriage, unless judicially separated, may only sue each other for certain causes of action. "

Covenant Marriage...a new codeword. Check it out. It seems there are now three states that have it on the books.

by Arkinsaw Heathern on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:33:44 PM EST
Parent

Follow the link in this diary to my 1999 study, Takin' It to the States. Focus on the Family's state level political affiliates were doing the political spadework in getting covenant marriage laws passed.


by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:07:56 PM EST
Parent

I totally forgot about that little mess. But I now recall that the ACLU or someone tried to get it cancelled because it was mixing religion with state stuff.

I don't understand what the big deal about 'saving marriage' and 'one man, one woman' really is. It's a legal merger of assets, meant to convey certain advantages (1040 of them, to be exact) to people who enter into this contract. Who cares what gender they are?

But that's me. It saddens me to see laws that curtail civil rights and induce prejudice and discrimination, especially for religious purposes. It's like we're starting to slide back into the dark ages.

by Lorie Johnson on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 12:32:30 PM EST
Parent







One thing to bear in mind is that these people use the term 'Christian' to refer to their belief system, but they have picked and chosen what works for their agenda and ignored what is inconvenient or uncomfortable [i.e., Matt. 25, the Sermon on the Mount].  

To a Christocrat, God sits at the door of a heavenly warehouse full of goodies and will drop asked-for resources on them if they 'pray' their cards right.  This amounts to a sort of spiritual lottery in which people keep buying tickets even though the chance of them becoming wealthy or being healed from a serious disease are slim because only the individuals and organizations to which they give their money are getting wealthy and have adequate health care; Rod Parsley [one among many others] does not live in poverty but in rather ostentatious surroundings paid for by his followers.

In following people who teach this philosophy, variously called `latter rain', 'name it and claim it' or 'seed-faith', people take the attendant political machinations in stride because they are distracted by and encouraged to keep playing the Christocrat lotto game.  

Christocrats believe in strongly hierarchical church organizations (for some of the reasons why, read Elaine Pagels) with the same hierarchy reflected in society and the home, some of which stems from the influence of Plato's great chain of being theory which implies that there is a natural ranking for all individuals from the ruler on down to the slave.  This works out to be very convenient for keeping women in their place, justifying getting rid of affirmative action and programs that help the poor, etc. as everyone has their place in the great chain of being and rising above your station (women asking for equal rights and the right to choose their reproductive strategy, minorities asking for the right to have the same opportunities as whites, the poor asking for and receiving a living wage, adequate healthcare, etc.) is thus contrary to the supposed will of God.  

One of the best cures for Christocracy is education, but you can lead a believer to water and still have them refuse to drink; very few of the followers of a Christocrat will entertain the idea that their leader is not going by the Book.

by Browsercat on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:18:00 PM EST


I hesitate to post this because it will probably offend some. However, I think it needs to be said. This is not a minority view in Christianity. The full-blown Theocrat who wants to rewrite the Constitution may be relatively rare, but nearly all Christians are attempting to impose their religious beliefs through law to one degree or another. I also do not subscribe to the theory that mainstream and liberal churches are being "taken over" by a well-managed conspiracy of ultraconservative pastors. First, these pastors only gain power in UCC and other churches because there aren't enough liberal pastors to go around. And second, even if there was such a conspiracy, it would fail unless the congregations at these churches were receptive to the message. Progressives often rightly dismiss conservative conspiracy theories which attribute all the complex cultural changes of the last 50 years to a small group of liberal elites, but we now seem to be falling in to the same trap. The religious right is making progress because of the simple and obvious reality that most Christians are conservative. As the article, The Enigma of the Politically Active Conservative Christian, points out; 83% of megachurch members are conservative, only 11% are moderates and a mere 6% are liberal. This may not be representative of all churches, but these are some of the largest and fastest growing churches in the country. And although they might not be politically active, a pastor with a political agenda would have little trouble galvanizing these folks around conservative Theocratic issues. This next sentence is the one that's going to get people upset, but I'm going to write it anyway. Any strategy to defeat the Theocratic right must include ideas on reducing the number of churchgoers, and diminishing the importance of religion in people's lives. I'm not talking about a country of atheists. Western Europeans consider Christianity an important part of their national identity and heritage, but religion is less critical in their personal lives. This is a big part of why these countries are so progressive and don't have the Theocratic problems we do. One reason America got off to such a good start is because the Enlightenment helped pull people away from traditional religion. We have to figure out why folks in Europe don't have the need for religion that Americans do. We also need an Enlightenment-style educational system that teaches people to think logically and critically. This will cause people to be more likely to question authority, and to approach their religious beliefs reasonably instead of fanatically. If we remain the highly religious and poorly educated nation we are now, I don't think there will be enough reasonable Christians to keep the Theocrats out of power.


by Dave on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 12:33:28 AM EST
"Nearly all Christians are attempting to impose their religious beliefs through las to one degree or another."

I don't agree with this. All people - perhaps the extreme anarchists and libertarians excepted - have values they want maintained and enforced with the authority of law. Many of these values are clear: murder, rape, and stealing are among the laws almost universally supported. That they are is as much a piece of one's Christian upbringing as would be the case of one's Jewish, Muslim, or "Enlightenment" upbrining. They are the result in our culture less of religious principle than they would be recognition of each person's inalienable constitutional rights. I am a staunch believer in the separation of church and state, and have fought for a long time against the grayer areas of enforcing one's moral sensitivities. It is possible to be religious and not intent on enforcing the dogmas of your particular variety of faith on the citizens of the state. It is also possible to fight for the passage of just laws while being Christian, Jewish, and Muslim and to do so because you also recognize your responsibilities as a citizen. Which is to say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims can fight for just laws without the principle reason being because their Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam told them to; their scritpure told them to; or they heard God tell them to. In some ways, this is a post hoc, propter hoc argument: I see a Christian supprting a law and or advocating the passage of another, and it is because she is attempting force her religion upon the broader public. Theocrats, on the other hand, are a very different breed entirely. That is clearly their intent, and their is as much opposition to such tactics from within the church as from without.

"Pastors only gain power in UCC and other churches because there aren't enough liberal pastors to go around."

It is precisely this notion that I write to dispel. That is simply not true. Are there conservative pastors serving UCC churches who have no link to the kinds of conspiratorial efforts about which we write on this site? To be sure, and most of them are as committed to the mission and vision of this denomination as any liberal pastors I know. The UCC itself is neither a liberal nor a conservative church - in spite of great efforts by others to paste that label to them. But your claim is somewhat specious and without merit. I don't know what evidence you would present to defend the claim that these churches are leaving because there are not enough liberals to go around. I wouldn't even know how to measure such a claim: no pastor I have ever know has been asked to self identify as liberal or conservative. The label would be applied arbitrarily, and with too much subjective relativism to carry any meaning with it whatsoever. And though your own experience may not admit to it, or cannot because you have not seen this happen, my own experience leaves no doubt that in fact much of what we are talking about here is the direct result of conspiracies intended precisely to destroy, destabilize, and "take out" churches. I will continue to write in ways that make that point clearly.

"Most Christians are Conservative." I don't know how one even goes about defining or defending such a claim. I have heard this, and find no reasonable way to make sense of it. I have served churches as a parish pastor for 16 years: I have seen sefl-identified conservatives who supported both a woman's right to choose and gay rights. I have seen self-identified liberals who fought me when I wanted to remove the flag from the sanctuary. These designations just don't work that easily.

About the Enlightenment, I am as big a fan as you are of this Age of reason and logic: but am very interested in the writings of deconstructionists such as Derrida and others, and the emerging school of Post-Modern thought whose principles of relativism and the value of experiencial knowledge are beginning to shake the foundations of the Age of the Enlightenment. Events such as the Holocaust, Viet Nam, the dropping of the Nuclear Bombs and the stockpiling of a nuclear aresenal capable of obliterating the planet have been direct assaults on most of the assumptions of the Enlightenment. Feminists, Black Theologies, and Liberation Theologies present a strong challenge to ANY school of thought birthed largely - if not solely - from the morass of white patriarchal authority. I find their writings fascinating, and am open to hearing their challenge while I also know that I am a student and ardent, passionate defender of most of my Enlightenment suppositions and principles.

Thank you for writing.

and hey, let's go Cards!


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 Feb 17, 2006 at 10:52:06 PM EST
Parent

There is resistance in the church to true theocracy, but there is great support for Christianizing the law to some extent. Many Christians who don't want an official state religion nevertheless support prayer in schools, teaching intelligent design, censorship of the arts, laws against homosexuality, abortion etc. And they often justify all of it with the Bible. I find most of their arguments to be scripturally invalid. For instance, there's nothing definitive in the Bible about abortion, and Exodus suggests that God values the unborn less than the born since you only pay a fine when you kill an unborn, but you die when you kill someone who's born. There's no law to restrict the arts. In fact, Jesus says that if your eye, (not the thing you're looking at), causes you to sin, pluck out your eye. He never says destroy the thing you're looking at, and make it illegal for anyone else to see it. Homosexuality is condemned, but so is second marriage (except for unchastity) among heterosexuals. And there's no big movement against these adulterous marriages even though they're totally legal and far more common than gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is simply being used as a tool to try to raise plain old bigotry to a high moral ground. But this is all beside the point. Whether Biblical or not, they think they're defending Christian ideals. And being the majority faith, they consider it perfectly acceptable for these ideals to be written in to law. These same people however, still claim to believe in religious freedom. Don't ask me how they reconcile these ideas. Many moderate and apolitical churches have recently become more conservative and theocratic. At the same time, few churches other than the UCC have actually openly opposed the Theocrats. Perhaps I misunderstood your article on The Role Of The Pastor In An Attack, but you seemed to say that there is a shortage of UCC pastors and the church was filling positions with outsiders. Why else would a man like George Dohm have a position of power in so many congregations? He's clearly shown hostility to the denomination in every post he's held. When I say most Christians are conservative, I'm mainly going on how they describe themselves. We must not dismiss individual differences, however, we have to generalize when talking about millions of people. And the fact that you would point out conservatives you know who support gay rights for example, tells me that you're fully aware that these are exceptions to the rule. If conservatives were not generally opposed to gay rights, why point these people  out? In spite of our differences, I think we're pretty close together in general and would agree on most issues.

by Dave on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:23:13 PM EST
Parent




WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (374 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (195 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (110 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (250 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (64 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (176 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (211 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (156 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (329 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (148 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 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.