There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five separate studies, the research is not about dominionism denial per se. But the findings tend to support the experience many of us have had -- in which people do not want to know what the religious and political right thinks and is doing, even when they arguably have a strong self interest in better understanding the strengths and weaknesses of formidable opponents. The research also helps to explain that ever-strange and stirring stew of dominionism denial and the wider pooh poohery about the ongoing reality of the strengths and resilience of the Christian Right.

Science Daily reports that people anticipate that what they would hear from opposing views would "induce cognitive dissonance."  

This suggests that for some journalists, academics, think tankers, and political professionals -- that cognitive dissonance may also have to do with anticipating being confronted with the fact that that they have been wrong about a lot of things, and in some cases, for a long time.  

Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has been an ideological catalyst for the contemporary Christian Right.

That is one of the reasons why I am looking forward to reading the new book by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Frances FitzGerald, The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America.  The book has received mixed reviews according to a discussion of those reviews by Richard Ostling, a retired writer for the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today.   But in her new book, FitzGerald apparently discusses the theocratic dominionism of the late R.J. Rushdoony and the influential Christian Reconstructionist movement he led.  

This has apparently alarmed Ostling.    

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 Catholic Right organization involved primarily in advocacy at the UN.) Three years ago, Correnti’s boss, Austin Ruse, said that women’s studies faculty “should be taken out and shot.”

Ruse launched into his eliminationist broadside as he guest-hosted a show on American Family Radio in 2014. His remarks so horrified the not easily horrified conservative Christian broadcaster that he was fired and banned from further appearances.

But Lisa Correnti and Austin Ruse rode out the crisis. -- FC

Austin Ruse doesn't understand why people were so upset when he said on a national radio program that university leaders "should all be taken out and shot."  Ruse was reacting to reports that a Duke University freshman had launched a career in porn, partly to pay for her college tuition.  The Catholic Right leader who heads the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) blamed less than one semester of exposure to women's studies for the freshman's choice of part time jobs.

Ruse initially apologized for his violent outburst, claiming, "I have dedicated my life and career to ending violence."  But as I reported at the time, Ruse had nothing to say about the threats of violence and death against the student, (whose stage name is Belle Knox) about whom he pretends to care.  While Ruse is still whining about the episode - he also still has nothing to say about the ongoing threats against young Belle Knox -- who is nevertheless bravely continuing her college education at Duke.

In any case, Ruse's latest comments demonstrate that when he made his original apology -- he didn't really mean it.

Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek common ground can sometimes be just that. Other times, as we have seen too many times, it is a tactical deception. It is always good to be both open and wary. - FC

Focus on the Family says they now want to work with abortion rights organizations to reduce the number of abortions. Taken by itself, it would appear to be a remarkable change of approach by the fiercely antiabortion house that Dobson built -- but a few minutes on the Focus on the Family web site suggests that Focus on the Family is acting in bad faith.

Religious freedom is one of the central issues of our time. Arguably, it a central issue in any time, and every time, at least in the United States.  The country was founded with a very deliberate approach to promoting a permanent culture and constitutional protection for religious pluralism and separation of church and state, partly in order to preserve this historic advance in democracy and human liberation.

Somewhere along the way in the 20th century, what we now call the Christian Right gathered in sufficient ideological coherence and political capacity to create a theocratic movement that most of us thought could never happen here. Nevertheless, here we are, as the Christian Right has made religious freedom the centerpiece of its contemporary politics.

The theocrats of the 18th century  enjoyed benefits of a unified church and state, such as existed in colonial Virginia.  One of the reasons for and results of the American Revolution was to dismantle that power structure in the name of religious freedom.

Sometimes my fellow progressives forget that the anti-colonial war of liberation that was fought primarily along the Eastern Seaboard in the 1700s, was supported by persecuted religious dissidents such as Baptists and Presbyterians.  I have published an essay in The Public Eye that seeks to address some of this, titled Religious Freedom is a Progressive Value.  

It is time to once again note the preposterous-but-malevolent claims that there is a War on Christmas. The annual revival of this repulsive anti-Semitic tradition begun by Henry Ford is carried forward today primarily by the Christian Right and the dour propagandists at Fox News.

But fortunately, even these provocateurs cannot not drown out authentic and beautiful celebrations of those who seek to honor and enjoy Christmas in all of its dimensions.

One of the challenges in writing about the Religious Right and what to do about it is the matter of terms and definitions. That's why I revise and update this post from time-to-time

From the earliest days of Talk to Action, we have written about how unfair labels and terms of demonization are not only inaccurate and opposed to basic standards of scholarship and journalism -- but conflict with the basic values of all people of good will. (They tend to be politically counterproductive as well.) The purpose of this post is not to go over all that again, but simply to highlight some useful resources on basic definitions and usage for those who are interested in trying to get it right.

There is a misguided effort underway to not use the term "alt-right."  The effort, currently led by the Center for American Progress, claims that using the term somehow helps provide PR cover for racists.  It would be nice, but there is rarely a one word solution for anything. That's why this campaign is a non-starter that will be ignored by almost everyone. This major report on the Alt-Right and its founder, by Sarah Posner in Rolling Stone is a good example of just how ignored this campaign will be.  Sensible discussions of the term are busting out all over.  Slate had a good discussion titled "There's No Better Term for the Alt-Right Than Alt-Right."  Another approach was outlined by scholar Matthew Lyons, (Co author with Chip Berlet of the book Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, which has turned out to be an important scholarly handbook for our time). Lyons writes:

We are moving into a bleak period, when understanding the forces opposing us will be more important than ever. That means exposing supremacist ideologies in all forms and guises, but it also means developing a political vocabulary that lets us make distinctions, rather than treat all enemies as one undifferentiated mass.

In light of the controversy, the Associated Press has updated their Stylebook.  

   

"Our guidance on when and how to use the term "alt-right," including: avoid using it generically and without definition."

 

This is, of course true of all such terms. Never use them generically, and always define them so the reader can understand what the writer actually intends.  This is one of the reasons why at Talk to Action we have sought to avoid labeling and demonization.  

A refresher on dominionism will probably come in handy over the next little while. -- FC

I am pleased to report that the task of getting the low down on dominionism may be becoming easier for scholars, journalists and activists. There have been four important works of scholarship published in the past year that taken together, are a game changer in what is becoming a sprawling (and often tendentious) conversation across the past half century and across much of our religious and political culture.

I was interviewed by the Free Speech Radio Network on Tuesday, election day.

Here is the transcript:

    After more than a year and a half of presidential campaigning, Election Day has finally arrived in the U.S.  With the popular vote looking much closer than projections for the electoral college spread, the divisiveness and acrimony has highlighted deep social and political rifts in the country. Some say the outcome will benefit the Christian Right -- irrespective of who wins the White House.  FSRN's Shannon Young spoke with Frederick Clarkson, Senior Fellow at Political Research Associates a progressive, social justice think tank in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Download Audio

    Shannon Young: Frederick Clarkson, you've said that the 2016 election will be a win/win for the Christian Right. Explain what you mean by that.

    Frederick Clarkson: If the Trump-Pence ticket wins, they will be viewed as kingmakers because polling has shown that conservative evangelicals have been his most loyal base of support, much to many people's surprise. And, of course, Mike Pence is by far the most conservative Christian leader we've had as part of a national ticket, ever.

    But if they lose, they go into resistance mode, which is where they are very strong. They can really rally against Hillary Clinton and build their movement - engaging in fundraising - in much they way that they did during the previous Clinton's administration. And I think that we'll probably see a strong rise in armed militia movements and other extreme expressions, as well. So, for a social movement on the scale and virulence of the Christian Right, it's a win-win day.