New Apostolic Reformation Calls For Critics To Be Silenced
Bill Berkowitz printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:08:31 PM EST
Last month I wrote a piece for BuzzFlash (which was re-posted here)  called "The Not So Stealth Campaign to Silence Critics of Religious Extremism" (http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13036). The essence of the piece was to call attention to a column in USA Today by Mark Pinsky attacking researchers, writers, reporters and critics of two trending developments on the Christian right, Dominionism and the New Apostolic Reformation.

The liberal Pinsky -- as several conservative writers had done previously -- asserted that the NAR and other Dominionists were neither broad-based movements embraced by the evangelical community, nor, as some on the left were claiming - a particular political threat. In developing his argument, Pinsky not only demeaned NAR critics, but he made the bizarre assertion that Pastor John Hagee and conservative Christian historian David Barton were marginal figures on the conservative evangelical landscape.

Now, leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation have targeted this website, where some of the most incisive reporting on the NAR has been published.

Pinsky's column, and a subsequent endorsement of his views by the Rev. Jim Wallis, the president of Sojourners and a person associated with more liberal religious leaders, led to the writing of an "An Open Letter to Jim Wallis from Writers about American Religion and Politics." The letter was signed onto by fourteen authors, journalists and bloggers that have written about these issues for years (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/10/6/11493/4209).

That letter resulted in a lively, albeit largely sequestered discussion on a number of websites.

A recent piece by Bruce Wilson, a co-founder of this website who along with Rachel Tabachnick have been writing about the NAR and related issues over the past few years, pointed out that it wasn't "altogether surprising that a spokesperson for the personal ministries of the man [C. Peter Wagner] who named the New Apostolic Reformation and, more than any other leader, has helped shape and organize the evolving NAR, ... has called upon believers to pray that Talk To Action be 'silenced.'"

Wilson acknowledged that since September 2008, Talk To Action has provided "probably the most extensive in-depth coverage of, and research on, the New Apostolic Reformation among secular media."

The call to "silence" Talk To Action -- and for prayer that as reporters and talk show hosts "edit and put together the interviews [on this subject] ... that the enemy will not get any foothold during this process" -- contrasts sharply with some of the comments that C. Peter Wagner made during his recent interview with NPR's Terry Gross on her program Fresh Air, most notably his claim that he believes in and respects a pluralistic society.

Wilson noted that a communiqué sent out in behalf of Peter and Doris Wagner by Prayer Coordinator Rebecca Greenwood, stated that: "For those of you who would like to know more of the type of things that are being said and portrayed concerning Peter and Doris, Cindy Jacobs and Lou Engle, and many others, you can go to talk2action (www.talk2action.org). This gives a clear representation of what is being discussed even in conservative Christian arenas.  We need to pray that all false accusations and the voice of the accuser of the brethren be silenced in the name of Jesus!"

Wilson explained that, "the 'accuser of the brethren' is commonly taken within Christianity to refer to Satan, so Greenwood's construction clearly suggests that Talk To Action is either publishing 'false accusations' or is in fact channeling the voice of the devil. There is nothing 'moderate' about painting one's critics in this manner or encouraging one's believers to pray that such demonized critics be 'silenced.'"

Greenwood teaches for the Wagner Leadership Institute, and, according to Wilson is "considered an authority" on "Spiritual Warfare Prayer. She is the author of the book "Breaking the Bonds of Evil: How to Set People Free from Demonic Oppression" (2006, Chosen books).

"It is remarkable how in the letter to prayer warriors, after the health of the Wagners, the focus is on media coverage," said Talk to Action co-founder Fred Clarkson in an e-mail exchange. "The warriors are asked to pray that editors slant coverage their way, and that anything less is viewed as a victory for "the enemy.

"Fortunately, we live in a pluralist society in which those who pray for us or otherwise support us in the way of their choosing are free to do so and to say so. And those who are not religious are free to support us in the ways of their choosing.  I am grateful that Talk to Action has plenty of both."

At his blog Debating Obama, Greg Metzger, an independent writer whose work has appeared in Christian Century, Commonweal, and Books & Culture, also weighed in on NAR's attack on Talk To Action: "... there is something so jarring and spiritually disturbing about his [C. Peter Wagner] decision to cast Talk To Action as the 'voice of the accuser' that I really was surprised when I saw it.

"Unlike the other objects and ideas that Wagner has consistently and literally demonized, I know many of the writers at Talk To Action. While I do not agree with everything at their website, I have come to value their work and admire their dogged determination to explain what NAR is and why it matters.

"If NAR were an ordinary Christian organization I would have expected them to respond to the criticisms and concerns expressed by Talk To Action with facts and counterarguments. I would have expected them to contact the writers personally and present their responses to whatever reporting they disagree with. I have had lengthy correspondence and even phone conversations with writers at Talk To Action and I can attest that it is possible to reach them without much trouble. But NAR is anything but a normal Christian organization.

"... any one or any institution that criticizes it [is] not merely wrong or mistaken, but the voice of the devil. And since we defeat the devil by prayer, the perfect way to alert people of the sinister works of the devil through Talk To Action is the tried and true form of the prayer letter."

"I do think that this call to silence Talk to Action is indicative of the kind of theocratic society envisioned by NAR leaders, should they ever gain significant political and governmental power," Fred Clarkson added. "We can see from this letter to prayer warriors, that deviance from official views and doctrines is already viewed as the embodiment of 'the enemy.'  Theirs is a dark, Manichean vision in which religious pluralism, reasoned debate, respect for opposing political views, and indeed, democracy itself, are viewed as demonic obstacles to be overcome."

If C. Peter Wagner's interview with Terry Gross was an attempt to mainstream or smooth over the growing public perception of the dangers of the NAR, he negated any good will that might have accrued to the movement by having his supporters launch an attack on Talk To Action and other reporters.

Meanwhile, here at Talk to Action as you can see for yourself, the research and writing about the NAR continues apace.




Display:
Having caught up with Pinksy's editorial and T2A's rebuttal, I find myself somewhere in between the two positions. I haven't been around here much in the last few months, but you might recall I got quite a reaction to my assertion that I believed that many years from now, we'll be looking back on the first decade of the 21st century as the high water mark for the influence of the religious right in America.

I think that people misconstrued my position somewhat, thinking that I believed that the religious right was going to sink into insignificance within a short few years, which is not likely to be the case. They will probably be able to cause a lot of mischief for many years to come--decades even, but like Pinsky I see little chance that Dominionist will go on capture more influence and power than they have today.

Having said that, clearly John Hagee, and especially David Barton are not marginal figures -- not when Barton's "research" is routinely trotted out in the halls of Congress and there is a chance that it might end up in high school history text books. Those efforts must be robustly opposed, and T2A deserves credit for playing their part in that opposition.

I have, however, seen the occasional overreach on these blog pages too. I can't remember which city it was, but I recall a series of articles about a local mayor endorsing an inner-city conservative ministry's attempt to divide up the city into blocks and then assign prayer warriors to each to pray for the restoration of morals and fortune (or something like that). I didn't disagree with the facts, but when I looked into it myself, the effort's web site clearly showed that the whole program had foundered in the first few weeks, and by the time T2A had written about it, the program had been moribund for at least a year. Thus the hype didn't really match up with the reality.

But, I'm not back just to bash T2A (and I hope you don't mistake criticism for some of the things you do with bashing), but to say that I think that reality lies somewhere between the positions taken by T2A and by Pinker.

I do think there is a hard core set of movers and shakers in the evangelical movement that deserves the attention you give them -- Barton, Hagee, Sekulow, Dobson, etc. -- because individually they do have significant sway with conservative politicians (in both parties). These people bear watching, and called on their actions.

However, I also agree with Pinker that they have far less influence on bringing the public -- the millions of conservative evangelicals who would be necessary for a true reconstructionist or dominionist movement to take root -- along for the ride.

Yes, the 2010 Republican victory at the polls (on an almost purely economic message) has brought with it a raft of state legislation against abortion, which is clearly a victory for the religious right, but that's been about it. Liberal and progressive causes have been set back in places like Wisconsin and Ohio, but they are political in nature (attempts to disadvantage Democratic core supporters) rather than religious, and already a big push back has begun.

We also see it with Rick Perry's total failure to capitalize on the anointing he receive from the leaders of the religious right. Sure, he's bungled the campaign so far, (as did Michelle Bachmann before him) but the speed at which he was abandoned shows how fickle the Republican base currently is. Herman Cain is hardly the poster child for the religious right. He can't even stay on message about abortion.

The odds are now the Republicans will either end up with moderate Mormon Mitt Romney or a wounded, unimpressive Rick Perry. That's not what was supposed to happen when the leaders gathered in Houston several months ago.

I also believe that demographics are working against the religious right. We've seen it with gay marriage, and we've also seen it with all attitudes towards sex outside marriage, including cohabiting before tying the knot. Young people are becoming less socially conservative as the generations go by, and thus the leadership's grip on them weakens.

Also I just saw a news article which said that more high-school only educated Christians are dropping away from the churches than college education ones. They are no longer turning to the church in times of economic trouble as they used to. This is likely to scare the religious right, and it should, since it's likely to erode their base significantly, if the trend continues.

So, to sum up. I do believe that the leadership of the religious right warrants close attention and should be opposed where possible, but mostly because of the damage their personal influence in the corridors of power can inflict, and not because there is any great risk (or any risk at all really) that their efforts will catch fire amongst the millions of religious conservatives and herald the dawn of a dominionist American. I do believe that would be descending into paranoia.

Comments welcome :-)

by tacitus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:54:31 PM EST

I recall that you are talking about a discussion held about the Pray Newark initiative.  The program that you claim "foundered" is at this website.  
http://www.prayfornewark.org/

Select media and watch the video title "The International Perspective."  While I can not vouch for all of their claims, I can vouch for the fact media campaigns are being used to promote Pray Newark's model to other cities through Ed Silvoso's International Transformation Network (ITN), some of which are mentioned in the video.  And I can vouch for the fact that some of these cities have implemented the program.  

You will also find that Silvoso has completely reworked his ITN and Harvest Evangelism websites and that the old ITN site is no longer accessible. (Tracking these organizations is indeed a challenge.) The San Antonio program is based on the Newark model, although they also have a relatively new website and have scrubbed all the references to their ITN roots.  You can still read about the background in this testimony Apostle Alice Patterson, the woman who was standing by Rick Perry while he spoke at The Response.

Jacksonville is another city which is following the Newark model and Bishop Vaughan McLaughlin is now actively part of Silvoso's "transformation" efforts.  The city and McLaughlin's Potter's House Christian Fellowship was the headquarters of this year's Global Day of Prayer, an event founded by ITN's Graham Power. Jacksonville recently elected Apostle Kimberly Daniels to the city council - as a Democrat.

The discussion over Pray Newark took place at the time when they were reworking their website. I'm surprised that you would make a judgment call based on Pray Newark temporarily letting their website become outdated. And I would not dismiss Rick Perry's chances so quickly either.

by Rachel Tabachnick on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:26:23 AM EST
Parent

Hi Rachel, thanks for reminding me of the details. I don't recall anyone saying that they were reworking their site at the time we had the conversation, but no worries.

I've just spent a few minutes looking at their new site, and I can't say that I'm terribly impressed, even now. They have added some slicker animations (not that they are terribly well designed, more like thrown together), but when you look a little closer, there is still very little there.

Yes, we have an intro video which claims over a thousand people are involved, but go to YouTube and look at the video counts -- three dozen for the majority of the videos, and none more than 200, and they've all been up there for over a year.

Yes, too, their calendar finally has a couple of Pray for Newark related meetings (last month and next month) in it (first time ever, I think) but even there the location is TBD (for last month!) so who knows it even happened?

They still say the maps will be updated quarterly (no they are not) and their "lastest" downloads are still from January 2010.

Perhaps, as I think I said last time, they are an old-fashioned group which eschews the Internet, but to me this still looks like an operation that is merely a small collection of local leaders who haphazardly get together on occasion to pray for their city. But even if they are having regular meetings and some organization success, they are certainly no threat when it comes to promoting dominionist policies.

I don't have much time, but a quick look at Silvoso's site does show some examples of similar efforts in other cities, and I would not be surprised if some of them were more successful than the Pray of Newark one seems to be, but I still don't see any effort catching fire with a large number of people in a way that would drive any populist dominionist effort forward to any great degree.

Yes, as I said, individual leaders can and do cause mischief, and such things need to be opposed, but there is no evidence that they can successfully use efforts like "Pray for Newark" to create any degree of mass support for their political aims.

by tacitus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:16:31 PM EST
Parent



Let me mention just one problem I have with your analysis. You speak of religion, politics, and economics as though they were distinct categories. The strength of the Religious Right, you suggest, has little to do with the second two of these. Thus you say the 2010 GOP victory was economics-based. And the setbacks in Wisconsin and Ohio? All political, you say. For those concerned with Religious Right influence, not to worry.

When speaking of the Religious Right, I believe this is a big mistake. Sacred and secular  are part of a single spectrum. The Tea Party movement needs to be seen as a huge victory for the Religious Right. The demonization of ungodly government, the fierce line against taxation, the frontal attack on economic regulations: these are all out of the Christian Worldview playbook (try reading the Texas GOP Platform some day, a creature of David Barton's). Above all, the emphasis on warfare against the secular establishment, the targeting of enemies (especially Obama), and the refusal of congressional Republicans to compromise on ANYTHING. The attitude is perfectly represented by Michele Bachmann, who is a walking talking representative of those COR worldview papers of the 1980's.

Cal it whatever you want. If "dominionist influence" doesn't float your boat, so be it. But please, let's focus on what's going on in front of our noses.

by JSanford on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:19:02 AM EST
Parent

Sacred and secular - there is no secular; all falls under the category of sacred.

And one of the reasons that some may think that the NAR's representatives are marginal is that the entire 7 mountains mandate is designed to capitalize on just a few being able to control outcomes. No majority is required.

We see this when we learn of school board takeovers - a very small number of people now control what a much larger number of people are taught.

We see this in politics at the city, county, state, and federal level. What percentage of voters are driving the GOP primary right now? Something like 4% of total voters?

And we see this most dramatically right now in state governments. How is it that so many states just happen to be pushing similar changes to law affecting voting, unions, benefits, and abortion?

ALEC

ALEC is a perfect example of a few attempting to control many in sinister and nefarious ways. And how many individuals does it take to control ALEC? I'll wager only a very few.

I think that documentation of what ALEC is doing, who is behind it, and which politicians are responding to its call is currently the surest way to make mainstream media and the public in general realize just how much influence a very small number of radical individuals is currently exerting on the American political system. And since politics, economics, and social issues are all part of the equation and all considered sacred by these extremists, it is important that everyone should learn exactly what it is that these few have in mind for the many.

Kind of a rant. Hope it makes some sense.

by rahilliard on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:19:58 AM EST
Parent

has been the tendency I occasionally see in people to try to separate out religion, politics, and money from each other.  The worldview of the dominionists does not really separate them.

Everything they do will mix the three.  A purely political-looking move will have religious foundations.  A seemingly purely religious activity will actually have strong political connections.  And so on.

You need to look at their worldview and their thinking about things.  There are admittedly charlatans and cynical people just using the movement for personal profit or power, but most are True Believers and you have to try to look at the whole picture, which includes their motivations and ways of approaching things.

by ArchaeoBob on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 05:00:13 PM EST
Parent



I am well aware that the Tea Party is made up of the same people who went to the polls in previous elections to vote down gay rights -- all the polling of this group says they are one and the same.

The point I was trying to make is that they made important electoral gains only through capitalizing on the populist economic message that had caught fire in the previous few months. Sure, when they won, they starting attacking abortion, and unions, and other liberal causes, but the majority of those things have always been targets of conservative Republicans, even before the Religious Right started flexing its muscle.

And look at how quickly the Tea Party popularity has faded. They are now one of the most mistrusted groups in politics today. Even though the group has minimized social conservative message, they have not yet made any significant advances outside their base.

Remember, 2010 was an off-Presidential year election, in the middle of a jobless recovery after the deepest recession and the worst financial crisis of the last 80 years. I have no doubt that the conservative base of the Republican party was far more energized than the Democrats (who held all branches of government, remember) and that the Tea Party helped, but it would have been shocking if they hadn't won back the House, and in fact, the Tea Party may have cost the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

So lets not oversell the impact of the Tea Party either. If they sweep to power in 2012 I will stand corrected, but as it is, the voting public is not sold on anything the Republicans are doing, even though President Obama isn't exactly winning them over.

by tacitus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:33:34 PM EST
Parent



...I see with this analysis is in regards to the following statement: "...and not because there is any great risk (or any risk at all really) that their efforts will catch fire amongst the millions of religious conservatives and herald the dawn of a dominionist American. I do believe that would be descending into paranoia."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has never been the goal of these dominionist groups to rally the masses behind their doctrine.  Instead, their MO has typically been to place a select number of operatives in key positions of power - the will of the majority (religious or otherwise) be damned.  

by LupusGreywalker on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:37:38 AM EST
Parent

And that's how they run things once they get in power.

Rick Scott is a good example.  There are several others who are attempting the same thing (but seem to have a harder time of it than Scott).

The training the Assemblies of God "Ministry Students" that I used to hang out with back when I was in the cult was to get involved with a church, then start volunteering and make themselves very useful (they're also taught exactly what to say and what NOT to say in the denominations they were taught to infiltrate), and then get into "positions" of authority, where they could start pushing the local church towards Pentecostalism.  They were taught to infiltrate churches as teams... usually two students, but sometimes more.  Once they were in place, if you didn't go along with their plans/goals, they worked to get you kicked or driven out.

I had the "professors" doing the teaching pointed out to me, along with very strong language never to reveal what was actually being taught at their "College".  The students wanted me to go to school and have that training too.

They tended to be sycophantic and eager while not in power, but autocratic and even abusive once they got control.

I've learned recently that they've expanded the training of their "Ministry" students to ways to attack religions and movements they don't like... to the point of even how to approach a table or booth set up by what they consider "The Enemy" and prevent others from gaining access.


by ArchaeoBob on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 04:54:47 PM EST
Parent

Rick Scott's approval rating is the lowest amongst all current governors (37%). Governing as an extreme conservative is very different from riding the Republican wave to election victory.

The USA is a very conservative nation -- probably the most conservative democracy in the world -- so it's no surprise that right-wing conservatives win elections (especially in wave years) and implement right-wing policies, but I have met enough conservative Americans to know that these conservative policies can be implemented and approved of by conservatives who have no time for dominionism or religious right objectives in general, and that will increasingly be the case as the younger generation grows up.

I believe that right-wing conservatism is and will be a disaster for the USA -- it's already brought about some dreadful economic policies that had driven the nation's finances to the brink, and the bad news is that very little has been done to reverse those policies so far. Inasmuch as these policies are being supported by voters who also vote social conservatism, then clearly the religious right can help cause much mischief (I have never denied that).

However, the goals of dominionism and reconstructionism -- to transform America into a society run along Old Testament Biblical lines -- will never be more than a fringe cause in the USA.

by tacitus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:48:06 PM EST
Parent

If so, why are they winning?  Why are almost all of the Republican candidates either dominionist or Mormon (which can be argued to be close to dominionism)???  Why is it that the dominionist goals (banning of abortion, destruction of women's rights, erosion of civil rights for minorities - especially religious and sexual, etc.) are being pushed in every "conservative" legislature and supported by every "conservative" politician?

It's not that they think these things are popular.  THEY WANT THEM.  Look to what Rick Scott has been pushing!

You're starting to sound dismissive of the dominionists - are you going to predict the death of the movement?  How many many times have we heard that one before?

Plus I need to add that the dominionists are true believers.  They BELIEVE what they preach.  I'm also getting quite sick and tired of the "They're just using the religious nutcases" line.  Palin was a true believer.  Bachmann was a true believer.  Perry is a true believer.  If they go to the church, they belong.  Those churches do NOT allow dissent of any kind.  You should know that by now.  One of the biggest mistakes is thinking that people just cannot believe this stuff unless they're mentally deficient, thus the leaders MUST be faking it.  Sorry, Charlie, but there is no inverse statistical relationship between intelligence (or mental capacity) and membership in a dominionist church!  (Granted: brainwashing does reduce one's capacity.  But the raw ability is still there, if even dormant.)

Don't start dismissing dominionists and their power (and close proximity to taking over the country)... otherwise you serve their purposes.

by ArchaeoBob on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:16:47 AM EST
Parent





On your (unsupported) accusation of "paranoia",  I'd note the rise of the Faith Based Initiative, the hundreds of millions of Federal dollars now flowing to Liberty University, and the fact (which Rachel Tabachnick and I have produced an entire documentary about) that corporate tax dollars in many US states now flow to Christian private schools that (like Liberty University) teach revisionist history, Young Earth creationism, and "Biblical economics." These are not allegations - they are trends.

In terms of political influence -- Rick Perry's ties are nothing new, except for being so blatant. Peter Wagner's apostles have already seen a politician whom his movement claimed as its own picked as a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States.

Sarah Palin was so deeply enmeshed in Wagner's movement that it would be accurate to say she emerged from it. It was, I suspect, for this reason that in the Fall of 2008, Sarah Palin's longtime friend Mary Glazier released a prophesy suggesting that in the future an unfortunate death would enable Sarah Palin to advance to an even higher place of national leadership. Glazier put out two versions, the first more suggestive even than the second--which was sanctioned by Wagner's ACPE.

John McCain's health was always a question in the 2008 race, and Palin was clearly vigorous. Had he won, she would have stood a fair statistical chance of ascending to the presidency. Now, it's clear that Palin has since proved to be a disappointment to the apostles, but it's also reasonable to assume that, had Sarah Palin become vice president, Wagner's apostles would have enjoyed a certain level of influence within a McCain administration--and even more influence under a "president Palin".

Now, the dominionist religious right has always been an energized and politically organized minority, but history has shown that well organized minority factions within democracies can project and achieve political power, or even political dominance. New Apostolic Reformation leaders claim they can achieve dominion with a movement that is just 4-5% of the overall population.

But on your statement that "I just saw a news article which said that more high-school only educated Christians are dropping away from the churches than college education ones"--this strikes me as indicative of the sort of assumptions professional pollsters seem to bring to bear on the task of obtaining metrics about religious belief and affiliation in America.  

The problem is that new expressions of Christianity have arisen over the past several decades, and the very idea of identifying as a Christian is becoming, in some quarters, anathema - seen as being under the sway of the "religious spirit". C. Peter Wagner's movement has played a major role in this, by demonizing denominations as being under sway of the "religious spirit", the spirit of legalism and pro-forma faith, and by popularizing the idea that the early church was not "Christian" at all, because the earliest "Christians" did not identify as such - they were  merely followers of Jesus. It is becoming vogue to self-identify not as a Christian, or a member of a church or denomination, but as a follower of Jesus.

Polls and surveys I have seen do not seem to have questions which acknowledge these changes - they're polling and surveying the old-paradigm Christianity that was predominant decades ago. So, I'm generally dubious about the numbers game.

by Bruce Wilson on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 10:17:15 AM 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 (5 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 (4 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 (0 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 (4 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 (6 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 (0 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 (2 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 (4 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 (3 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 (2 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 (1 comment)
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 (6 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 (6 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 (7 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 (21 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 (5 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 (6 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 (6 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 (8 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 (5 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 (3 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 (5 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 (3 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 (2 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 (13 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 (5 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 (7 comments)
Central Florida Sheriff Preached Sermon in Uniform
If anyone has been following the craziness in Polk County Florida, they know that some really strange and troubling things have happened here.  We've had multiple separation of church and state lawsuits going at......
ArchaeoBob (2 comments)
Demon Mammon?
An anthropologist from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the god of this world is Mammon. (Or, rather, The Market, as depicted by John McMurtry in his book The Cancer Stage of......
daerie (2 comments)
Anti-Sharia Fever in Texas: This is How It Starts
The mayor of a mid-size Texan city has emerged in recent months as the newest face of Islamophobia. Aligning herself with extremists hostile to Islam, Mayor Beth Van Duyne of Irving, Texas has helped......
JSanford (3 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.