When the Unnamed Speak, People Start to Talk
Frederick Clarkson printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:48:45 PM EST
It was bad enough when Mark I. Pinsky recently took to the op-ed page of USA Today to smear four Jewish writers who have had the temerity to write critically and well about dominionism and related matters -- comparing their work to historic anti-Semitic smears including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Then Jim Wallis chimed in last week, accusing unnamed liberal writers of engaging in thought crimes against evangelicals.  His charges were as unsubstantiated as Pinsky's, whose essay he praised and linked to.

Some of us who figured to be among the unnamed decided it was time to speak, perchance to be heard.  So we wrote an Open Letter to Jim Wallis asking that he please stop mischaracterizing our work and that he rethink and renounce his endorsement of Pinsky's outrageous smears.  I am pleased to report that our modest effort has helped spark some discussion in the greater blogosphere.

Greg Metzger explained why he signed onto the Open Letter to Jim Wallis. Among other things, he wrote:

I found it astonishing to read Pinsky assert in the nation's most read newspaper that she [Rachel Tabachnick] is part of a Jewish cabal that portrays the entire evangelical movement as "dark conspirators trying to worm their way back into political power at the highest levels."

Could Jim be any clearer that he sees a serious attempt being made to  "misrepresent, manipulate and malign" his "Bible-believing and Jesus following" evangelical Christianity? One would expect Jim to clearly identify who he thinks is guilty of this extremely serious offense. But instead of identifying the people himself, and engaging the critics themselves, he leaves it to the above-mentioned Mark Pinsky and his article in USA Today. He claims Pinsky's article will help the "millions of evangelicals [who] feel stuck and almost invisible in the middle of that political and cultural battle", precisely because of what he sees as the excellent way that Pinsky responds to the diabolical critics clueless about the true nature of evangelicalism, the only one of which Pinsky ever refers to specifically being Rachel Tabachnick. And yet if Jim is only worried about people who portray evangelicals as a monolithic right-wing group, then why is he so worried about what Tabachnick is saying? After all, making distinctions between mainstream evangelicalism and the New Apostolic Reformation is a key component of the entirety of Tabachnick's work and one of the things I have most admired about her efforts. In fact just days ago I did a blog devoted to a plea she had made to evangelical leaders in the wake of Pinsky's article, a plea I never thought Jim Wallis would need to hear:

"It is time for those evangelicals who do not want others to lump them together with the NAR and their activities, to quit attacking the messengers who are warning of this threat to religious pluralism and separation of church and state. Attacking the messengers will only add to the perception that other evangelicals support the Dominionist agenda of the NAR. Denials and suppression of this information will only help advance the steady march of the NAR into more communities, churches, and denominations."

Rob Boston continued over at the Wall of Separation with reasons of his own.

Wallis and Mark Pinsky, a former religion writer at the Orlando Sentinel, have accused us of fomenting hysteria.

Our open letter sets the record straight. Those of us who write about the Religious Right are not overreacting. Nor do we, as Wallis and Pinsky seem to think, believe that all evangelicals are theocrats. Indeed, we know that the theocratic wing is a minority - but we also know that a minority can have influence far beyond its numbers.

Alan Bean writing at Friends of Justice, wondered, "How do we explain this unseemly assault on the Talk to Action people?"  He thinks Wallis and Pinsky are both "trying to ingratiate themselves to mainstream evangelicalism by appearing to defend the faithful against their cultured despisers."  And therefore they would rather "publicly cudgel a silly straw man into submission" than engage in honest discussion.  

Bean concluded:

"I'm glad Sojourners is keeping the teachings of Jesus alive on the fringes of the evangelical world, but that doesn't justify ignoring the threat implicit within Dominionism or taking cheap shots at dedicated journalists who believe the public should understand that threat."

that Christian Dominionism comes from two basic things- one, an interpretation of the biblical texts that speak to dominionism (Old Testament conquering of pagan peoples) and evangelizing the whole world (New Testament mandates) which were written at a time where the concept of separation of church and state did not exist, and two, the innate desire for power and control. This presents a problem when one tries to convince the religious right of the errors of their ways based upon their interpretation of the texts because they naturally see that as an attack on their beliefs. It is not surprising that they are finding ways to fight back and using other Christians to do so. I am sure as more people read and hear about and discuss Christian dominionism, these people will use every nasty trick in the book to maintain their hold on our political and governmental systems. We see this time and time again with the legal arms of dominionism (Liberty Counsel and Alliance Defense Fund).

To me the best tactic against all this is to forget the theological issues with them and just stick to the argument that they are WRONG because this is the United States of America and we have separation of church and state.  That involves educating the public on the tradition of separation of religion and government and WHY IT IS IMPORTANT, continuing to challenge violations in courts, and of course, jumping right on this stuff and calling it out when it happens. It sure would help if the courts could get their heads straight on all this too.

I am encouraged lately that large media outlets have been talking about this and inserting an awareness of this issue into the national mind set. Continuing to cultivate relationships with people like Rachel Maddow would be beneficial and it would be great if someone like Jon Stewart would interview a Talk to Action writer. Sending him a copy of Pinsky's article just might spark his interest since he is Jewish.

I personally think that USA Today should apologize for printing slander. In the meantime, those who signed the letter to Wallis should modify that letter to address Pinsky directly and have it printed on the Faith Forum page that USA has every Monday.  

by monarchmom on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:32:58 AM EST

that top staffers of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, each of whom has done a great deal of writing about dominionism and related matters, signed the Open Letter. AU is one of the leading organizations dealing with litigation and media in this area.  Understanding and writing about domionism and related matters and other areas of civic action are not mutually exclusive concerns. Indeed, they are necessarily related.

Theology remains important, as are other aspects of understanding the various elements of the religious right. In my -- and I think all of our views here, knowledge is important, and willful ignorance on the part of too many otherwise smart people, including leaders, retards all of our efforts to support the values and practical policies related to separation.  

Efforts to silence any and all of us by the likes of Pinsky, Wallis, and whomever else shows up, will not work. But of some ongoing concern to me is the silence among other writers, and groups and individuals that one would ordinarily think would take an interest in such things.  

by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:56:11 AM EST

very familiar with AU and its work.

I am not quite clear what you meant to say in your second paragraph. Are you saying that discussing the theological differences between the writers at Talk to Action (or "liberal" Christians in general) and the religious right (Christian dominionists) is important from a general public educational standpoint, or important in specifically challenging their views and actions in order to convince them that they are wrong? Or both?

Which writers, groups and individuals are you referring to that you feel are not taking an interest in Christian dominionism and should be?  That would help those of us out here who are trying to "get the word out" on church/state issues.

by monarchmom on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:36:01 AM EST

liberal vs. conservative theology on this site, although it gets mentioned in passing from time to time.

My point is that taking an interest in theology is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with it, but understanding its role in animating people's ideas and actions. Ignorance of these things can retard good reporting, scholarship and political strategy.  

As for what is being ignored here, I am referring to the attacks on those of us who write about dominionism and related matters, which Bill Berkowitz has previously described as a not so stealth campaign to silence critics of religious extremism.  If there are groups and individuals who profess to be concerned about such things, one might think that they would be concerned about efforts to silence those of us who have specialized in credibly reporting on these things.   But one might also be wrong about that.

by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:08:34 PM EST

If Americans United or the few other big nonprofits which support separation of church and state had the funding for it, they'd probably do just what you suggest (a national education project.) Meanwhile, let me say that if Talk To Action writers had not taken a specific interest in theology, the current uproar over the New Apostolic Reformation might not have happened (yet.)

by Bruce Wilson on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:29:44 PM EST

Wallis believes he is a player in national politics. Rachel quotes sources....comparing that to the Protocols is a huge leap from reality.

by wilkyjr on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:37:50 AM EST
in national life.  Exactly what his role is, can be harder to explain.  But it is his national prominence that is part of the reason the signers of the Open Letter took the time to write. His views matter and influence others.

But as I think about all this, I would like to add that although some may like to think so, Wallis's statements were not just off hand, ill considered remarks made on the fly when distracted, tired or ill. Or somehow an exception that can be ignored in light of everything else he says and does.  His words were carefully chosen and their meaning considered before they were published. They went through and in house editorial process and were sent to the Sojourners national email list, and were also published in a national news forum.  

I'm sure readers here will understand that we are not interested in debating the relative value or other views of the life and work of Jim Wallis. Many of us appreciate much of what he has said and done, while many of us also take exception to some of it. Sometimes strongly so.  But our views about these things are irrelevant.  None of these things excuse him from his unsubstantiated attacks on us, or his endorsement of the despicable and at least equally considered words of Mark I. Pinsky.

by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:16:55 AM EST

I understand the very real desire to keep things as civil as possible, and in relation to both Pinsky and Wallis, I've read a lot of bending over backwards to keep it that way. Very noble. What I've not read is a calling out of Dominionist bloodlust and cowardly self-inflicted victimization.  

Dominionists call out different groups of people (Gays, Immigrants, Pagans, Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Jews, Atheists, etc) who when added up consist of everyone in America who is not an idolater of a book. They seek various punishments, from imprisonment to the death penalty for the targets of their McCarthy-like hit-list for no other reason than having the gall to think for themselves.


Dominonists are in envy of other people's faith, because they know they have none themselves. To have faith within yourself, it doesn't matter if the world around you reflects that same faith. However, if you have none, but lust for it, must make the world around you look the way you wish you could feel. A doomed effort to be sure.

Dominionists need to be reminded of Rev. 20:12 where it says people will be judged by their "works," not their faith. If their works are centered around hate, envy, lust and vengeance, they will be judged accordingly.

Then again, that argument only works on those who actually have a faith of their own.

by Stacey Tallitsch on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:23:54 PM EST

I have no doubt that some dominionists lack faith. But how does one demonstrate that?  Hypocrisy is one thing, but there''s no precise yardstick for measuring faith, only externals; are words and actions consistent with espoused doctrine and principles?

Back to your point, I think it is fully possible (if very misguided) to be so enthusiastic about a belief system as to want to forcibly impose it on everyone else.

by Bruce Wilson on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:38:03 PM EST

a point that I was trying to make about the pitfalls of arguing theology to counter dominionism. Revelation is a book that dominionists who believe that there will be an apocalypse scenario use regularly to justify certain political attitudes and actions in the Middle East. They can point to passages, just as you did, to bolster their view. So what parts of Revelation should be paid attention to, and which parts should be ignored? When you take this path, it comes down to both sides cherry picking things from the texts and arguing over who has the chosen the right passage to focus on, and which passage accurately reflects what being a Christian is all about. There are plenty of stories and passages in the biblical texts that support their views of harsh punishment (as you mentioned) or their harsh views of certain groups of people (as you also mentioned), so I think it is pretty much a no win situation to suggest they need to focus on one particular passage and then judge the quality of their faith level on top of it. They will simply throw the same accusations back in your face and continue doing what they are doing to erode our Establishment Clause protections.

by monarchmom on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:27:49 PM EST
People have been arguing bible verses for a very long time. This was not my point, nevertheless, as an intellectual argument or even a theological debate, you are correct. But, you can't have an intellectual argument with bullies or a theological debate with willful ignorance.

The very core of Dominionist theology is that they are at war. And, like it or not, they are at war with you and I both. I recognize this while others ignore it at their own peril. It only takes one defining moment to bring all our fears to fruition with Dominionist theocrats. They are master opportunists always on the lookout for that moment to seize control, that Constantine leader, or moment itself.

However, there is one thing in our favor. The Dominionists are clearly unbalanced, and when your opponent is not balanced, you use their own strength against them.

You confuse the bully with their own theology, and bully the ignorant with their own hypocrisy. The result is a very bizarre sensation Dominionists are not used to, called "shame."

by Stacey Tallitsch on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:38:02 PM EST

this whole situation is almost as serious as a war. I'm not convinced that engaging in a war of biblical passages or trying to "shame" them by cherry-picking the "good" parts of the biblical texts makes a dent in most of them. Especially if you are a believer too. I say this because you are essentially doing the same thing as the dominionist- using the texts to justify your view, which traps your arguments into a catch-22 type box.  The point is not WHAT they believe, it is the fact that they think it is OK in America to take those beliefs and insert them into government for the purposes of control and proselytizing. We could just as easily be dealing with Jewish, Muslim or Mormon dominionists and we probably would not get into a text quoting war with them in order to convince them they are wrong. We would simply tell them to take their beliefs home and into their institutions and leave government alone.  I know there are those on this site that would disagree with me on this, but the religious right and Christian dominionists are not wrong in their interpretations of the bible etc. as the bible backs up almost all of their opinions (except abortion).  They are wrong about the parameters set a long time ago when this country was founded on what they can and can not DO with those beliefs. That is the basic premise of separation of church and state. I prefer to tell dominionists "I don't care what you believe, but you can not make those beliefs part of a government that is meant to protect and serve ALL the people."  Of course, most of the time I just feel that if the country continues to experience the growth of the category of non-believers (now at 16% and the fastest growing groups in the country), the public's impatience with this dominionism nonsense will put a damper on their power mongering. One can only hope...

by monarchmom on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 09:33:48 AM EST
But, telling a zealot "you shall not pass" their vision of an apocalyptic utopia does nothing but harden their resolve.

Ancient Rome once fought a Germanic tribe called the "Berserkers " who were real froth at the mouth crazy in battle. While Rome won every battle against them, Rome suffered huge casualties at each engagement. One Berserker could take out eight seasoned Roman soldiers. The math was such, eventually Rome would lose because they were losing men faster than they could replace them. They decided to force their POW Berserkers to teach Roman soldiers how they fight, and how to win in a fight against them.

As it turned out, the first thing Rome learned was that the only thing Berserkers really feared was dying at the hands of their religious version of a demon. So Roman soldiers dressed up as animal demons. Also, Berserkers never fought in the dark, because that's when those demons would come out. So Rome attacked at night, but only in small groups. This created such a paralyzing fear in the Berserker psyche that when they fought the Romans on a real field of battle, they choked. Psychological warfare was born.

What you write about the right way to confront Dominionists is a valid form of fighting, and will win every battle on a level field. However, this is not reality. Looking at what the social engineers have done to abortion rights in just the last year should be tell you that the war is being lost. They have all but lost the rhetorical fight, that much is proven by C. Peter Wagner distancing himself, from himself. At least to the general public. However, they are now using stealth politics behind closed doors and backroom deals to get their agenda passed. AKA Gorilla Politics, to quietly change laws and then leave it up to you and me to battle the state, not them.

Also, I know what Gandhi said about "eye for an eye", but you should know something about me.  I'm from Chicago, someone pulls a knife on me, I pull out a gun. They pull out a gun, I pull out a machine gun.  That's the Chicago way. I'm not narcissistic enough to believe I'm better than anyone, even a Dominionist. However, I do what it takes to be the last one standing when I'm attacked.

I now live in Louisiana and about twice a week will get a knock at the door from a different group of Evangelists trying to save my soul. I calmly tell them, "I respect your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion, but the end of my driveway is where your First Amendment right ends, and my Second Amendment right begins." They usually leave pretty quickly and think long and hard about knocking on my neighbor's door.

by Stacey Tallitsch on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 11:54:33 PM EST

current interpretation of the Second Amendment, and I'm also not a fan of gun ownership for "home protection".  Your tactic is not one that I admire.

I find it easier to tell them that I am an atheist who has thoroughly read the whole bible and the history of Christianity and would be glad to share my knowledge with them and discuss the biblical texts. They ususally decline.

by monarchmom on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:47:45 AM EST

     I suppose I should join the discussion at this point.
     First, I need to correct my friend Jim Wallis on one point: I am definitely not a "secular liberal." I am a committed, more-than-three-days-a-year-at-synagogue, left-wing Jew, without apology or qualification. And a "Daily Show Democrat," with all that implies: single payer health care, all troops home now, against the death penalty, tax the wealthy, etc., etc.
       As for the concern about my focus in the USA Today op-ed on writers with Jewish backgrounds, that is my fault. The back story is that the piece was originally conceived for a progressive, Jewish audience - an "inside the family" discussion. After all, the title of my book is A Jew Among the Evangelicals. When I decided to offer it to a broader audience I should have edited accordingly. So, mea culpa on that one.
     And, while I'm on the subject, I have great respect for the work of Barry Lynn, Rob Boston, Joe Conn and Chip Berlet - most of whom I have worked with over the years.  
      Having said all of this, I stand by the point of the piece. The exigencies of politics/academics/journalism/fundraising notwithstanding, this is about a need for a boogeyman, particularly in an election year.  I maintain these theological doctrines are numerically marginal and their influence on any serious GOP presidential candidates tenuous. I seriously doubt that more than five percent of the suburban evangelicals who form the bedrock of the demographic would recognize the bizarre tenets of the New Apostolic Reformation; that figure might bump to the 10-15 percent range for Dominionism.
      And exactly how much influence are these doctrines likely to have on a Romney White House, in light of recent reminders about how some evangelicals view Mormons?

by Mark Pinsky on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 07:27:39 PM EST
Having just spent two days at the 2011 Values Voter Summit in DC I assure you that Christian Nationalism in the form of Dominionism is hardly marginal. Major Republican Presidential hopefuls pitched to the audience of over 2000 committed conservative activists. Jews are given revocable full citizenship in the Christian nation they envision. You still owe us an apology.
_ _ _

Chip Berlet: Research for Progress - Building Human Rights
by Chip Berlet on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 08:29:48 PM EST

You are correct the number of Dominionist, radical evangelical theocrats is small. George Barna of Barna Research, the premiere Evangelical pollster has placed the actual number of 4% of American population who belong to what he calls a valid "Bible believing" church. Code for "Dominionist."

That is a small number of people, unless you also recognize that it's also roughly the same number of Gays and Lesbians in the country. I don't think it would be a fair assessment to say that the Gay community has "very little influence" based upon their numbers.

And, just a little coinky-dink, 4% is roughly the same number of Americans who call themselves Jews. Are you suggesting that you belong to a group that has little or no influence on the body politic?

by Stacey Tallitsch on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:16:17 PM EST

You seem more than willing to play ignorant of the huge numbers of far-right representatives who are already influenced by the NAR and similar outfits, in D.C. and in many state houses.

I'm sure Hagee and others on the Christian right are very grateful for you covering for them. Nice work.

by trog69 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:46:28 PM EST

 I paint what I see at the grass roots of Sun Belt evangelicalism, the national conference notwithstanding. I'm still waiting for a response on how much influence the NAR, Dominionists, etc., are likely to have in a Romney White House, much less a second term Obama White House. In either outcome, a lot of alarmists and conspiracy theorists may have some 'splainin' to do, or a lot of free time on their hands after next November.

by Mark Pinsky on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:43:53 PM EST
     I have no doubt -- and in fact agree, as I have myself written over the years -- that the aims of these groups are what many of you have found. What I question is the threat level, which in my view has been way overhyped. In this, I understand that careers, support and influence are part of the equation. Alas.

by Mark Pinsky on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:57:25 PM EST
Mark assumes that Romney will win the GOP nomination.

Many of the dominionists he thinks so insignificant will not vote for a Mormon.  In their minds, LDS is a cult.  

The pastor of First Baptist Church is only firing the first salvo.  There will be many more.  Southern Baptists will not vote for a Mormon.

I say wait and see if anyone can win the GOP nomination without the Southern Baptist vote.

by Mainstream Baptist on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:32:31 AM EST

the films of the goings on at the last Republican Convention could tell that Romney hasn't a snow ball's chance in hell to get the nomination. The only reason they nominated McCain is because he took in Palin, and he cozied up to Hagee.  In interview after interview of convention delegates by reporters just walking the floor, the issues of dominionism were very evident in their comments.

by monarchmom on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:44:10 AM EST

in many ways that you would really pooh-pooh the effect of Christian Dominionism on our political system. It is not the numbers that count, but the particular paths of power that are being influenced. John Hagee, for example, has incredible influence with Bibi Netanyahu and people like Joe Lieberman on the US side in terms of our foreign policies regarding Israel. But the best example of all in terms of a small group having decades of influence and continued power in Washington is illustrated in Jeff Sharlet's book, The Family.

Or maybe you would like to look into the terrible hold that this "minority" has on our military.  Go interview Mikey Weinstein at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation if you want details on that.  The steady take over of our military establishments by fundamentalist Christianity is astounding and mostly occured under the radar.  

Another example of a stealth religious take over of US institutions is the steady rise of Catholic Hospital systems, which now own one in six hospital beds in this country, and are forcing the restrictions of their theology on patients all over this country and openly calling hospitals under their management "ministries".

In the United States, because of our Constitution, religions have learned that they can not take power the old fashioned way- by simple conquest. They have learned how to manipulate our democracy to take power in subtle, but equally effective ways.  It is the job of the people at AU, FFRF, and many other groups who work at maintaining our concept of separation of church and state to keep a constant watch on and expose these stealth efforts whereever they exist.  Christian Dominionism and all the groups that fall under this type of theology have huge amounts of funds and at least two legal arms that they use to constantly beat at the wall of separation.

You are wrong about the amount of influence and power that they have. They certainly ARE "dark conspirators" and there is overwhelming evidence that they have already damaged our democracy. Our country has had to battle this stuff since the ink dried on the Bill of Rights, and it's only because of writers like Rachel Tabachnick, who also has done an excellent job of chronicling the move of public school funds to religious schools through vouchers, that we have been able to hold on as long as we have against theocracy.

I read your article, and just the comparison to the work of these writers to the "protocols of the Elders of Zion" was over the top.  While I often criticize writing and comments that go after the dominionists for their theological beliefs, I have rarely seen the kind of bashing that would even approach supporting that analogy.

So, in my view, you DO owe the people at Talk to Action and AU an apology.  And you owe it to the rest of us to do a better job of finding out what is really going on.

by monarchmom on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:40:39 AM EST

How about a look from an outside perspective? Until the McCain campaign, the religious right (and boy oh boy, does it have more power than the LGBT community) was much more subdued on the national scene than it had been during previous decades; but it was obvious that Sen. McCain was not going to win the red states without seriously changing himself and his principles, and choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate was obviously done because of her public religious values conforming to far right charismatic Christianity. In Canada, people don't believe me that there are any Christians concerned with social justice, peace, and people here and now in the US. The writing and messages on Sojournor's and Friends of Justice and theology that I've been led to read has convinced me that those who call themselves Evangelicals have felt callings to all kinds of positions on their lives in the political world we all live in--like every Christian of course has to do. But the kind of Evangelical Christian that Jim Wallis speaks for is rather rare--and when you look at the number of Evangelical Christians in the United States, you can perceive their effect on government policy. I just think knowledge about who's saying what is most needed right now. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, they say; unfortunate that your editorial for your Jewish community paper got published by accident without any editing.

by arachne646 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:55:09 PM EST

that Adam Lee (Daylight Atheism) who just moved his blog to Big Think has also blasted Jim Wallis for his comments on people who write about Dominionism.  The article is titled "The Blinding Fog of Religious Moderation".  

by monarchmom on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:55:01 AM EST

It is concerning to see respected figures in the public sphere like Mark I. Pinsky and Jim Wallis attempting to delegitimize thoughtful, well-written critiques of their beliefs. By failing to provide concrete evidence to support their claims and instead relying on unsubstantiated accusations,  real estate agency Miami they undermine the very fabric of civil discourse. This type of discourse is not only unproductive, but also damaging, and has no place in our society. It is important that we hold our public figures to a higher standard and encourage meaningful dialogue.

by isabelladom on Tue Mar 28, 2023 at 06:17:30 AM EST

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 (198 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)
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 (157 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 (330 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.