Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    Salon.com

    "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism"

    Across the United States, religious activists are organizing to establish an American theocracy. A frightening look inside the growing right-wing movement.

    Editor's note: This is an excerpt from senior writer Mic e Goldberg's new book, "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

    By Mic e Goldberg

    May 12, 2006 | A teenage modern dance troupe dressed all in black took their places on the stage of the First Baptist Church of Pleasant Grove, a suburb of Birmingham, Alabama. Two dancers, donning black overcoats, crossed their arms menacingly. As a Christian pop ballad swelled on the speakers, a boy wearing judicial robes walked out. Holding a Ten Commandments tablet that seemed to be made of cardboard, he was playing former Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore. The trench-coated thugs approached him, miming a violent rebuke and forcing him to the other end of the stage, sans Commandments.

    There, a cluster of dancers impersonating liberal activists waved signs with slogans like "No Moore!" and "Keep God Out!! No God in Court." The boy Moore danced a harangue, first lurching toward his tormentors and then cringing back in outrage before breaking through their line to lunge for his monument. But the dancers in trench coats -- agents of atheism -- got hold of it first and took it away, leaving him abject on the floor. As the song's uplifting chorus played -- "After you've done all you can, you just stand" -- a dancer in a white robe, playing either an angel or God himself, came forward and helped the Moore character to his feet.

    The performance ended to enthusiastic applause from a crowd that included many Alabama judges and politicians, as well as Roy Moore himself, a gaunt man with a courtly manner and the wrath of Leviticus in his eyes. Moore has become a hero to those determined to remake the United States into an explicitly Christian nation. That reconstructionist dream lies at the red-hot center of our current culture wars, investing the symbolic fight over the Ten Commandments -- a fight whose outcome seems irrelevant to most peoples' lives -- with an apocalyptic urgency.

    - - - - - - - - - - - -

    On November 13, 2003, Moore was removed from his position as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court after he defied a judge's order to remove the 2.6-ton Ten Commandments monument he'd installed in the Montgomery judicial building. On the coasts, he seemed a ridiculous figure, the latest in a line of grotesque Southern anachronisms. After all, Moore is a man who, in a 2002 court decision awarding custody of three children to their allegedly abusive father over their lesbian mother, called sexuality "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated," and argued, "The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle." He's a man who writes rhyming poetry decrying the teaching of evolution and who fought against the Alabama ballot measure to remove segregationist language from the state cons ution.

    To the growing Christian nationalist movement, though, Roy Moore is a martyr, cut down by secular tyranny for daring to assert God's truth.

    It's a role he seems to love. The battle that cost Moore his job wasn't his first Ten Commandments fight. In 1995, the ACLU sued Moore, then a county circuit judge, for hanging a Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom and leading juries in prayer. As Matt Labash recalled in an adulatory Weekly Standard article, "The conflict's natural drama was compounded when the governor, Fob James, announced that he would deploy the National Guard, state troopers, and the Alabama and Auburn football teams to keep Moore's tablets on the wall."

    That case reached an ambiguous conclusion in 1998, when the state supreme court threw out the lawsuit on technical grounds. By then, Moore had become a star of the right. Televangelist D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries raised more than $100,000 for his legal defense fund, and Moore spoke at a series of rallies that drew thousands. His right-wing fame helped catapult him to victory in the 2000 race for chief justice of the state supreme court.

    Moore installed his massive Ten Commandments monument on August 1, 2001, and from the beginning, he and his allies used it to stir up the Christian nationalist faithful. He gave videographers from Coral Ridge Ministries exclusive access to the courthouse on the night the monument was mounted, and on October 14, D. James Kennedy started hawking a $19 video about Moore's brave, covert installation on his television show.

    As the controversy over the statue ignited, Moore's fame grew. At rallies across the country, he summoned the faithful to an ideal that sounded very much like theocracy. "For forty years we have wandered like the children of Israel," he told a crowd of three thousand supporters in Tennessee. "In homes and schools across our land, it's time for Christians to take a stand. This is not a nation established on the principles of Buddha or Hinduism. Our faith is not Islam. What we follow is not the Koran but the Bible.This is a Christian nation."

    By the time he was removed as chief justice, Moore had sparked a movement, and his monument was an icon. In the days before officials came to cart the Commandments away, hundreds flocked to Montgomery to rally on the courtroom steps. Some slept there and imagined themselves the nucleus of a new civil rights movement.

    Thomas Bowman, a bearded Christian folk singer from Kentucky who wears a knit Rasta hat, wrote an anthem called "Montgomery Fire" celebrating the demonstrations: "We had love in our hearts that no man could ever remove / but with the whole world we watched as they hauled the Commandments away." When I met him a year later at First Baptist, he referred to the protesters, romantically, as the "ragamuffin warriors" fighting for God against the atheist state. During the controversy, he said, he'd felt the Lord's call, and driven six and a half hours from Louisville. In Montgomery, he met others like him, who'd felt compelled to take a stand against secularism.

    "The opposing side, the anti-God side, the do-whatever-you-want side, the judicial side, just kept pushing and pushing and pushing for the last forty years," Bowman said. "They keep moving that line back." Finally, he said, God called on Christians to defend themselves.

    After the Commandments were removed, a group of retired military men from Texas who called themselves American Veterans in Domestic Defense spent months taking the monument -- now affectionately called "Roy�s Rock" -- on tour all over the country, holding more than 150 viewings and rallies in churches, at state capitols, even in Wal-Mart parking lots. Moore also found powerful supporters in statehouses and in Congress who proposed laws to radically restrict the power of federal courts to enforce the separation of church and state. In solidarity, another Alabama judge, Ashley McKathan, had the Ten Commandments embroidered onto his robe. Christian homeschool catalogues offered copies of a video led "Roy Moore�s Message to America." When Moore suggested he might run for Alabama governor, state polls showed him with a double-digit lead.

    A few days before Bush's second inauguration, The New York Times carried a story headlined "Warning from a Student of Democracy's Collapse" about Fritz Stern, a refugee from Nazi Germany, professor emeritus of history at Columbia, and scholar of fascism. It quoted a speech he had given in Germany that drew parallels between Nazism and the American religious right. "Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics," he was quoted saying of prewar Germany, "but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas."

    It's not surprising that Stern is alarmed. Reading his forty-five-year-old book "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology," I shivered at its contemporary resonance. "The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith," he wrote in the introduction. "They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness."

    Fascism isn't imminent in America. But its language and aesthetics are distressingly common among Christian nationalists. History professor Roger Griffin described the "mobilizing vision" of fascist movements as "the national community rising Phoenix-like after a period of encroaching decadence which all but destroyed it" (his italics). The Ten Commandments has become a potent symbol of this dreamed-for resurrection on the American right.

    True, our homegrown quasi-fascists often appear so absurd as to seem harmless. Take, for example, American Veterans in Domestic Defense, the organization that took the Ten Commandments on tour. The group says it exists to "neutralize the destructiveness" of America's "domestic enemies," which include "biased liberal, socialist news media," "the ACLU," and "the conspiracy of an immoral film industry." To do this, it aims to recruit former military men. "AVIDD reminds all American Veterans that you took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies, 'both foreign and domestic,'" its Web site says. "In your military capacity, you were called upon to defend the United States against foreign enemies. AVIDD now calls upon you to continue to fulfill your oath and help us defend this nation on the political front, against equally dangerous domestic enemies."

    According to Jim Cabaniss, the seventy-two-year-old Korean War veteran who founded AVIDD, the group now has thirty-three chapters across the country. It's entirely likely that some of these chapters just represent one or two men, and as of 2005, AVIDD didn't seem large enough to be much of a danger to anyone.

    Still, it's worth noting that thousands of Americans nationwide have flocked to rallies at which military men don uniforms and pledge to seize the reins of power in America on behalf of Christianity. In many places, local religious leaders and politicians lend their support to AVIDD's cause. And at least some of the people at these rallies speak with seething resentment about the tyranny of Jews over America's Christian majority.

    "People who call themselves Jews represent maybe 2 or 3 percent of our people," Cabaniss told me after a January 2005 rally in Austin. "Christians represent a huge percent, and we don't believe that a small percentage should destroy the values of the larger percentage."

    I asked Cabaniss, a thin, white-haired man who wore a suit with a red, white, and blue tie and a U.S. Army baseball cap, whether he was saying that American Jews have too much power. "It appears that way," he replied. "They're a driving force behind trying to take everything to do with Christianity out of our system. That's the part that makes us very upset."

    Ed Hamilton, who'd come to the rally from San Antonio, interjected, "There are very wealthy Jews in high places, and they have significant control over a lot of financial matters and some political matters. They have disproportionate amount of influence in our financial structure."

    We were standing outside the Texas Capitol building on a sunny Saturday morning. A few hundred people from across the state had turned out for the rally, which began at 10 a.m. Three or four men in military uniforms sat with their wives on chairs at the top of the Capitol steps. Next to them sat an old man dressed as Uncle Sam in a tall Stars and Stripes top hat, a red, white, and blue suit, and a pointy white beard. Four other men supported tall, coffin-shaped signs labeled with the names of objectionable Supreme Court rulings.

    The crowd was full of teenagers who'd come on church buses and families with young children. A white-bearded man in a leather biker vest dragged a ten-foot-tall cedar crucifix painted red, white, and blue. One woman wore a T-shirt with a photograph of Moore's monument. Another held a handwritten sign saying:

    Ban Judges
    Not God
    God Rules

    Rick Scarborough, one of the headline speakers, called for a "million Roy Moores" who will "stand up, speak up, and refuse to give up." A former football player at Stephen F. Austin State University, Scarborough is a thick man with white hair, black eyebrows, and a surprisingly high voice. In recent years, he's positioned himself as a comer in the Christian nationalist movement, riding church/state controversies to ever higher prominence. In 2002, he left his post as pastor of Pearland First Baptist Church -- where he had mobilized members of his flock in that Houston suburb to try to take over the city council and school board -- to form Vision America, a group dedicated to organizing "patriot pastors" for political action. The same year, Jerry Falwell christened him as one of the new leaders of the Christian right. The courts that martyred Moore are Scarborough's bête noire, and as 2005 progressed, he emerged as one of most vehement right-wing denunciators of the federal judiciary.

    Also speaking was John Eidsmoe, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force who wore full military dress. A professor at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, a Christian school in Montgomery, Alabama, Eidsmoe has authored a number of Christian nationalist books including "Christianity and the Cons ution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers," which argues that Calvinism inspired America's founding do ent. He's a proponent of a Confederate doctrine called interposition, which holds that states have the right to reject federal government mandates they deem uncons utional. "Implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance," he wrote in a manifesto led "A Call to Stand with Chief Justice Roy Moore."

    When the speeches were finished, the four black-coffin signs were knocked down and four white doves were released from behind them, to awed gasps and cheers from the crowd. Moore's monument sat on the back of a flatbed truck parked several yards away. An American flag flew on one side. On the other was a flag with a fierce-looking eagle perched upon a bloody cross.

    Roy Moore and Rick Scarborough are Baptists, D. James Kennedy is a fundamentalist Presbyterian, and John Eidsmoe is a Lutheran. All of them, however, have been shaped by dominion theology, which asserts that, in preparation for the second coming of Christ, godly men have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society.

    Dominion theology comes out of Christian Reconstructionism, a fundamentalist creed that was propagated by the late Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony and his son-in-law, Gary North. Born in New York City in 1916 to Armenian immigrants who had recently fled the genocide in Turkey, Rushdoony was educated at the University of California at Berkeley and spent over eight years as a Presbyterian missionary to Native Americans in Nevada. He was a prolific writer, churning out dense tomes advocating the abolition of public schools and social services and the replacement of civil law with biblical law. White-bearded and wizardly, Rushdoony had the look of an Old Testament patriarch and the harsh vision to match -- he called for the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, and unchaste women, among other sinners. Democracy, he wrote, is a heresy and "the great love of the failures and cowards of life."

    Reconstructionism is a postmillennial theology, meaning its followers believe Jesus won't return until after Christians establish a thousand year reign on earth. While other Christians wait for the messiah, Reconstructionists want to build the kingdom themselves. Most American evangelicals, on the other hand, are premillennialists. They believe (with some variations) that at the time of Christ's return, Christians will be gathered up to heaven, missing the tribulations endured by unbelievers. In the past, this belief led to a certain apathy -- why worry if the world is about to end and you'll be safe from the carnage?

    Since the 1970s, though, in tandem with the rise of the religious right, premillennialism has been politicized. A crucial figure in this process was the seminal evangelical writer Francis Schaeffer, an American who founded L'Abri, a Christian community in the Swiss Alps where religious intellectuals gathered to talk and study. As early as the 1960s, Schaeffer was reading Rushdoony and holding seminars on his work. Schaeffer went on to write a series of highly influential books elucidating the idea of the Christian worldview. A Christian Manifesto, published in 1981, described modern history as a contest between the Christian worldview and the materialist one, saying, "These two world views stand as totals in complete an hesis to each other in content and also in their natural results -- including sociological and government results, and specifically including law."

    Schaeffer was not a theocrat, but he drew on Reconstructionist ideas of America as an originally Christian nation. In "A Christian Manifesto," he warned against wrapping Christianity in the American flag, but added, "None of this, however, changes the fact that the United States was founded upon a Christian consensus, nor that we today should bring Judeo-Christian principles into play in regard to government." Schaeffer was one of the first evangelical leaders to get deeply involved in the fight against abortion, and he advocated civil disobedience and the possible use of force to stop it. "It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority," he wrote.

    Tim LaHaye, who is most famous for putting a Tom Clancy gloss on premillennialist theology in the Left Behind thrillers that he co-writes with Jerry Jenkins, was heavily influenced by Schaeffer, to whom he dedicated his book "The Battle for the Mind." That book married Schaeffer's theories to a conspiratorial view of history and politics, arguing, "Most people today do not realize what humanism really is and how it is destroying our culture, families, country -- and, one day, the entire world. Most of the evils in the world today can be traced to humanism, which has taken over our government, the UN, education, TV, and most of the other influential things of life.

    "We must remove all humanists from public office and replace them with pro-moral political leaders," LaHaye wrote.

    As premillennialists grew to embrace the goal of dominion, they made alliances with Reconstructionists. In 1984, Jay Grimstead, a disciple of Francis Schaeffer, brought important pre- and post-millennialists together to form the Coalition on Revival (COR) in order to lay a blueprint for taking over American life. Tim LaHaye was an original member of COR's steering committee, along with Rushdoony, North, creationist Duane Gish, D. James Kennedy, and the Reverend Donald Wildmon of the influential American Family Association.

    Between 1984 and 1986, COR developed seventeen "worldview" do ents, which elucidate the "Christian" position on most aspects of life. Just as political Islam is often called Islamism to differentiate the fascist political doctrine from the faith, the ideology laid out in these papers could be called Christianism. The do ents outline a complete political program, with a "biblically correct" position on issues like taxes (God favors a flat rate), public schools (generally frowned upon), and the media and the arts ("We deny that any pornography and other blasphemy are permissible as art or 'free speech'").

    In a 1988 letter to supporters, Grimstead announced the completion of a high school curriculum "using the COR Worldview Do ents as textbooks." Since then, there's been a proliferation of schools, books, and seminars devoted to inculcating the correct Christian worldview in students and activists. Charles Colson accepts one hundred people annually into his yearlong "worldview training" courses, which include meetings in Washington, D.C., online seminars, "mentoring," and several hours of homework each week. "The program will be heavily weighted towards how to think," Colson's Web site says. It's intended for those who work in churches, media, law, government, and education, and who can thus teach others to think the same way.

    Those who don't have a year to spare can attend one of more than a dozen Worldview Weekend conferences held every year in churches nationwide. Popular speakers include the revisionist Christian nationalist historian David Barton, David Limbaugh (Rush's born-again brother), and evangelical former sitcom star Kirk Cameron. In 2003, Tom DeLay was a featured speaker at a Worldview Weekend at Rick Scarborough's former church in Pearland, Texas. He told the crowd, "Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world. Only Christianity."

    Speaking to outsiders, most Christian nationalists say they're simply responding to anti-Christian persecution. They say that secularism is itself a religion, one unfairly imposed on them. They say they're the victims in the culture wars. But Christian nationalist ideologues don't want equality, they want dominance. In his book "The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action," George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote:

    "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
    But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
    It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
    It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
    It is dominion we are after.
    World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less...
    Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, ins utions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

  2. #2
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    Part 2 New Atheists

    Salon.com

    I don't believe in atheists

    Foreign correspondent and intellectual provocateur Chris Hedges explains why New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists.

    By Charly Wilder

    March 13, 2008 |
    Chris Hedges

    To listen to a podcast of the interview, click here.

    To subscribe: Click here to add Conversations to iTunes or cut and paste the URL into your podcasting software:
    Salon Conversations
    Many charges have been leveled at foreign correspondent Chris Hedges over the years, but shrinking from conflict isn't one of them. Hedges spent nearly seven years as Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, covered the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and was part of the New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of global terrorism. He took on the American military-industrial complex with his books "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "What Every Person Should Know About War," and provoked the rage of the Christian right by likening them to Nazis in last year's "American Fascists." Hedges now cements his reputation as an intellectual provocateur with the charmingly led "I Don't Believe in Atheists."

    While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left -- con uously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens -- outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic.

    Though Hedges, a Harvard seminary graduate and the son of a Presbyterian minister, considers himself a religious man, his quarrel with the New Atheists goes beyond theological concerns. In "I Don't Believe in Atheists," he accuses Hitchens and the others of preaching a fundamentalism as dangerous as the religious fundamentalist belief systems they attack. Strange bedfellows indeed -- according to Hedges, the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society today.

    Hedges spoke to Salon by phone from his home in New Jersey.

    You say that "I Don't Believe in Atheists" is a product of confrontations you had with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. How did those debates inspire the book?

    In May of 2007 I went to L.A. to debate Sam Harris, and then two days later I went to San Francisco to debate Christopher Hitchens. Up until that point, I hadn't paid much attention to the work of the New Atheists. After reading what they had written and walking away from these debates, I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right. I found that in many ways they were little more than secular fundamentalists.

    Although I come out of a religious tradition -- I grew up in the church, my father was a Presbyterian minister, I graduated from seminary -- I've spent my life as a foreign correspondent, mostly for the New York Times, and I have a pretty hardheaded view of the world. I certainly understand that there is nothing intrinsically moral about being a believer or a nonbeliever, that many people of great moral probity and courage define themselves outside of religious structures, do not engage in religious ritual or use religious language, in the same way that many people who advocate intolerance, bigotry and even violence cloak themselves in the garb of religion and oftentimes have prominent positions within religious ins utions. Unlike the religious fundamentalists or the New Atheists, I'm not willing to draw these kind of clean, ins utional lines.

    A lot of people would find it counterintuitive that you would go from your last book, "American Fascists," which was a scathing critique of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S., to writing against atheism. Do you see these as connected projects?

    I do. I didn't start out that way, because these guys were not on my radar screen. I think a lot of their popularity stems from a legitimate anger on the part of a lot of Americans toward the intolerance and chauvinism of the radical religious right in this country. Unfortunately, what they've done is offer a Utopian belief system that is as self-delusional as that offered by Christian fundamentalists. They adopt many of the foundational belief systems of fundamentalists. For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress -- that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That's fundamental to the Christian right, and it's also fundamental to the New Atheists.

    You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are ulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

    Don't you think that a belief in perfectibility or progress may be necessary for people who devote their lives to big endeavors, like, say, developing vaccines? Americans especially are known for big dreams. It seems like to lose the idea of progress would be a kind of defeatism.

    Well in science, one does have progress, because science is based on what can be proved and disproved.

    But you say in the book that the Holocaust, because it was framed as a modern project and an outgrowth of technological advance, was that kind of scientific progress, as well.

    Well, I wouldn't quite say it that way. I would say that the fascist agenda was Utopian, and that it adopted the cult of science. That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem.

    The Enlightenment was both a curse and a blessing, because it was really a reaction to the kind of supers ion, intolerance, bigotry, anti-intellectualism of the clerics, of the church. But it also ended up with the Jacobins, [who said] well, if we can't make certain segments of the society "civilized," as we define civilization, then they must be eradicated, in the same way that you eradicate a virus.

    I write in the book that not believing in God is not dangerous. Not believing in sin is very dangerous. I think both the Christian right and the New Atheists in essence don't believe in their own sin, because they externalize evil. Evil is always something out there that can be eradicated. For the New Atheists, it's the irrational religious hordes. I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. Both Hitchens and Harris defend the use of torture. Of course, they're great supporters of preemptive war, and I don't think this is accidental that their political agendas coalesce completely with the Christian right.

    So you think that Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are just shills for a neocon agenda?

    Well, Dawkins is a little different, because he's British. But looking at our own homegrown version of new atheism, yes. Hitchens and Harris do for the neocon agenda in a secular way what the religious right does in a so-called religious way.

    You say at one point in the book that the New Atheists, "like Christian fundamentalists, are stunted products of a self-satisfied, materialistic middle class." But I wonder what you would say to someone like Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, a victim of genital cutting who fled her faith-based homeland for the secular West, when she says that the secularism of Western society is better than the religiosity of her native Somalia?

    It was better, for her.

    She doesn't qualify that. She says it's better.

    Well, she's speaking out of her personal experience, and it was better for her. I mean, look, I covered conflicts in Africa, in the Middle East, and in Central America, where Western society rained nothing but death and destruction on tens of thousands of people, which is of course what we're doing in Iraq. So, is Western society -- American society -- better for Iraqis? And I think part of the problem is people who create a morality based on their own experience, which is what of course the New Atheists and the Christian fundamentalists have done.

    You believe new atheism has emerged in reaction to religious fundamentalism, but I wonder if you also see it as a reaction to a kind of cultural relativism and multicultural mind-set that a lot of people perceive as weak and self-destructive, in its tendency to sympathize with enemies.

    Well, "enemies" is a pretty loaded word.

    Let's say al-Qaida -- those whom we can with few qualifications say are in an antagonistic relationship with the West.

    Well, I've spent a lot of time in Gaza with Hamas, with people who have an antagonistic relationship with the West. Cir stance, fate, nationality, geography create different reactions, and if I had been born in Gaza, especially given the horrific Israeli assault at the moment in Gaza, and had stood by for 60 years while the outside world ignored the injustices committed against the Palestinian people, who knows how I'd react? I think people who start dividing the world into us and them fail to have empathy.

    Are you saying you might be a jihadist, if you had that upbringing?

    I spent so long in war zones that I think we don't know what we would do under repression and abuse -- you know, if somebody killed my father. That's the brilliance of the great writers on the Holocaust, like Primo Levi and [Bruno] Bettelheim. They understood the humanity of their own killers. That line between the victim and the victimizer is razor-thin. We all carry within us the capacity for abuse, and I think that's the most disturbing lesson you walk away with when you cover wars. We're all capable of evil, under the right cir stances, and very few of us are immune.

    If we're afraid to privilege Enlightenment values, don't we run the risk of sanctioning religious rituals that discriminate against women and minorities?

    But I would never argue that! I mean, I think genital mutilation is disgusting. I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't think that if you live in Somalia, it's fine to mutilate little girls. There is nothing wrong with taking a moral stand, but when we take a moral stand and then use it to elevate ourselves to another moral plane above other human beings, then it becomes, in biblical terms, a form of self-worship. That's what the New Atheists have, and that's what the Christian fundamentalists have.

    A lot of the book is devoted to making this comparison between Christian and what some call secular fundamentalists, but you are pretty hands off when it comes to fundamentalist Islam.

    The only reason I go after Christian fundamentalists and New Atheists is because they're here and I'm an American. Fundamentalism -- whether it's Hindu fundamentalism or Jewish fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism -- is the same disease. Karen Armstrong has explained that brilliantly. Fundamentalists, no matter what their religious coloring -- bear far more in common with each other than they do with more enlightened members of their own religious communities. I'm an enemy of fundamentalism, period. And if I'm not going after Islamic fundamentalism in this book, it's because what I've tried to do is talk about these two very dangerous ideological strains within American society, although the New Atheists are peddling this under the guise of enlightenment and reason and science in the same way that the Christian right tries to peddle it as a form of Christianity.

    I want to go back to what you see as the ultimate threat of the New Atheists and the Christian right. You voice concern in the book that these two groups of fundamentalists are going to gang up, "to call for a horrific bloodletting and apocalyptic acts of terror..."

    It's a possibility. I mean, I covered al-Qaida for the New York Times. There wasn't an intelligence chief who I interviewed who didn't talk about another catastrophic attack on American soil as inevitable. They never used the word "if." They just used the word "when," and if this kind of rhetoric, which is racist, is allowed to infect the civil discourse -- whether it comes from the Christian right or the New Atheists -- toward Muslims, who are one-fifth of the world population, most of whom are not Arabs, then what I worry about is that in a moment of collective humiliation and fear, these two strands come together and call for an assault on Muslims, both outside our gates and on the 6 million Muslims who live within our borders. And that frightens me, that demonization of a people -- turning human beings into abstractions, so that they're not human anymore. They don't have hopes, dreams, aspirations, pains, sufferings. They represent an unmitigated evil that must be vanquished. That's very scary, and that is at the bedrock of the ideology of the New Atheists as it is with the Christian fundamentalists.

    I wonder if by calling people racist and imperialistic and illiterate, you run the risk of not being taken seriously by those you most want to reach.

    I'm not really interested in the impact. I'm interested in explaining as honestly as I can, regardless of the consequences, what I see.

    Do you think the new atheists are similarly uninterested in their impact? It seems that what the New Atheists write and say is somewhat a performance.

    Well, not Harris. Harris is just intellectually shallow. Harris doesn't know anything about religion or the Middle East. For Hitchens, it's about a performance, and that was true when he was on the left. He hasn't changed. It's all about him. It's all about being a contrarian. He reminds me of Ann Coulter, he's that kind of a figure. He's witty, and he's funny and insulting. You know I debated him, and in the middle of the debate he starts shouting, "Shame on you for defending suicide bombers!" Of course, unlike him, I've actually stood at the edge of a suicide bombing attack. That kind of stuff is just ... it's the epistemology of television. They make a lot of money off it, but it's gross and disgusting and anti-intellectual and not at all about real discussion.

    Do you think Hitchens really believes what he writes?

    I think he's completely amoral. I think he doesn't have a moral core. I think he doesn't believe anything. What's good for Christopher Hitchens is about as moral as he gets.

    Do you worry that Hitchens and some of the other so-called liberal hawks have the advantage of charisma, that they are better able to seduce an audience?

    We had over 1,500 people at the debate at UCLA, and I think that the people who came liking Sam Harris left liking Sam Harris. I don't think that they heard a word I said, and it's just insulting ... I've debated Christian fundamentalists, and it's the same. I can get up and say, look, I grew up in the church, I went to seminary. No, I'm part of the forces of godless secular humanism that are trying to destroy Christians, and they just repeat it like a mantra -- half of their audience which came to hear them hears it, and the same is true of the New Atheists.

    So why ever engage in these debates? You make it seem pretty futile.

    Well, I've only done two of them. Is it futile? I don't know. I think if one is given a public platform or a voice, he should use it.

  3. #3
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    Salon.com

    The holy blitz rolls on

    The Christian right is a "deeply anti-democratic movement" that gains force by exploiting Americans' fears, argues Chris Hedges. Salon talks with the former New York Times reporter about his fearless new book, "American Fascists."

    By Mic e Goldberg

    Jan. 8, 2007 | Longtime war correspondent Chris Hedges, the former New York Times bureau chief in the Middle East and the Balkans, knows a lot about the savagery that people are capable of, especially when they're besotted with dreams of religious or national redemption. In his acclaimed 2002 book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," he wrote: "I have been in ambushes on desolate stretches of Central American roads, shot at in the marshes of Southern Iraq, imprisoned in the Sudan, beaten by Saudi military police, deported from Libya and Iran, captured and held for a week by Iraqi Republican Guard during the Shiite rebellion following the Gulf War, strafed by Russian Mig-21s in Bosnia, fired upon by Serb snipers, and s ed for days in Sarajevo with deafening rounds of heavy artillery that threw out thousands of deadly bits of iron fragments." Hedges was part of the New York Times team of reporters that won a 2002 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting about global terrorism.

    Given such intimacy with horror, one might expect him to be aloof from the seemingly less urgent cultural disputes that dominate domestic American politics. Yet in the rise of America's religious right, Hedges senses something akin to the brutal movements he's spent his life chronicling. The le of his new book speaks for itself: "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." Scores of volumes about the religious right have recently been published (one of them, "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," by me), but Hedges' book is perhaps the most furious and foreboding, all the more so because he knows what fascism looks like.

    Part of his outrage is theological. The son of a Presbyterian minister and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, Hedges once planned to join the clergy himself. He speaks of the preachers he encountered while researching "American Fascists" as heretics, and he's appalled at their desecration of a faith he still cherishes, even if he no longer totally embraces it. Writing of Ohio megachurch pastor Rod Parsley and his close associate, GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell, he says, "[T]he heart of the Christian religion, all that is good and compassionate within it, has been tossed aside, ruthlessly gouged out and thrown into a heap with all the other inner organs. Only the s , the form, remains. Christianity is of no use to Parsley, Blackwell and the others. In its name they kill it."

    I first met Hedges at last spring's War on Christians conference in Washington, D.C., where Parsley, a wildly charismatic Pentecostal who loves the language of holy war, electrified the crowd. ("I came to incite a riot!" he shouted. "Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons! Lock and load!") It was shortly before the publication of my book, and as Hedges and I spoke, we realized we had similar takes on our subject. Both of us relied on Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarian movements in their early stages, and on some of the concepts that historian Robert O. Paxton elucidated in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism." But where I, anxious not to be seen as hysterical, tried to treat these ideas gingerly, Hedges is unabashed and unsparing. His rage and contempt for the movement's leaders, though, is matched by sympathy for its followers, because he understands the despair, the desperate longing for community and even the idealism that often drives them.

    Hedges spoke to me on the phone from his home in New Jersey.

    Let's start with the le. A lot of liberals who write about the right see echoes of fascism in its rhetoric and organizing, but we tiptoe around it, because we don't want people to think that we're comparing James Dobson to Hitler or America to Weimar Germany. You, though, decided to be very bold in your comparisons to fascism.

    You're right, "fascism" or "fascist" is a terribly loaded word, and it evokes a historical period, primarily that of the Nazis, and to a lesser extent Mussolini. But fascism as an ideology has generic qualities. People like Robert O. Paxton in "The Anatomy of Fascism" have tried to quantify them. Umberto Eco did it in "Five Moral Pieces," and I actually begin the book with an excerpt from Eco: "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt." I think there are enough generic qualities that the group within the religious right, known as Christian Reconstructionists or dominionists, warrants the word. Does this mean that this is Nazi Germany? No. Does this mean that this is Mussolini's Italy? No. Does this mean that this is a deeply anti-democratic movement that would like to impose a totalitarian system? Yes.

    You know, I come out of the church. I not only grew up in the church but graduated from seminary, and I look at this as a mass movement. I give it very little religious legitimacy, especially the extreme wing of it.

    You say they would like to impose a totalitarian system. How much of a conscious goal do you think that is at the upper levels of organizing, with, say, somebody like Rod Parsley?

    I think they're completely conscious of it. The level of manipulation is quite sophisticated. These people understand the medium of television, they understand the despair and brokenness of the people they appeal to, and how to manipulate them both for personal and financial gain. I look at these figures, and I would certainly throw James Dobson in there, or Pat Robertson, as really dark figures.

    I think the vast majority of followers have no idea. There's an earnestness to many of the believers. I had the same experience you did -- I went in there prepared to really dislike these people and most of them just broke my heart. They're well meaning. Unfortunately, they're being manipulated and herded into a movement that's extremely dangerous. If these extreme elements actually manage to achieve power, they will horrify [their followers] in many ways. But that's true with all revolutionary movements.

    The core of this movement is tiny, but you only need a tiny, disciplined, well-funded and well-organized group, and then you count on the sympathy of 80 million to 100 million evangelicals. And that's enough. Especially if you don't have countervailing forces, which we don't.

    If there's a historical period that's analogous to the situation we have now, it would come close to being the 1930s in the United States. Obviously we're not in a depression, but the situation for the working class is very bleak, and the middle class is under assault. There has been a kind of Weimarization of the American working class, and there's a terrible instability in the middle class. And if we enter a period of political and social instability, this gives this movement the opportunity it's been waiting for. But it needs a crisis. All of these movements need a crisis to come to power, and we're not in a period of crisis.

    How likely do you think a crisis is?

    Very likely. The economy is not in healthy shape. I covered al-Qaida for a year for the New York Times. Every intelligence official I ever interviewed never talked about if, they only talked about when. They spoke about another catastrophic attack as an inevitability. The possibility of entering a period of instability is great, and then these movements become very frightening.

    The difference between the 1930s and now is that we had powerful progressive forces through the labor unions, through an independent and vigorous press. I forget the figure but something like 80 percent of the media is controlled by seven corporations, something horrible like that. Television is just bankrupt. I worry that we don't have the organized forces within American society to protect our democracy in the way that we did in the 1930s.

    Since the midterm election, many have suggested that the Christian right has peaked, and the movement has in fact suffered quite a few severe blows since both of our books came out.

    It's suffered severe blows in the past too. It depends on how you view the engine of the movement. For me, the engine of the movement is deep economic and personal despair. A terrible distortion and deformation of American society, where tens of millions of people in this country feel completely disenfranchised, where their physical communities have been obliterated, whether that's in the Rust Belt in Ohio or these monstrous exurbs like Orange County, where there is no community. There are no community rituals, no community centers, often there are no sidewalks. People live in empty soulless houses and drive big empty cars on freeways to Los Angeles and sit in vast offices and then come home again. You can't deform your society to that extent, and you can't shunt people aside and rip away any kind of safety net, any kind of program that gives them hope, and not expect political consequences.

    Democracies function because the vast majority live relatively stable lives with a degree of hope, and, if not economic prosperity, at least enough of an income to free them from severe want or instability. Whatever the Democrats say now about the war, they're not addressing the fundamental issues that have given rise to this movement.

    But isn't there a change in the Democratic Party, now that it's talking about class issues and economic issues more so than in the past?

    Yes, but how far are they willing to go? The corporations that fund the Republican Party fund them. I don't hear anybody talking about repealing the bankruptcy bill, just like I don't hear them talking about torture. The Democrats recognize the problem, but I don't see anyone offering any kind of solutions that will begin to re-enfranchise people into American society. The fact that they can't get even get healthcare through is pretty depressing.

    The argument you're now making sounds in some ways like Tom Frank's, which is basically that support for the religious right represents a kind of misdirected class warfare. But your book struck me differently -- it seemed to be much more about what this movement offers people psychologically.

    Yeah, the economic is part of it, but you have large sections of the middle class that are bulwarks within this movement, so obviously the economic part isn't enough. The reason the catastrophic loss of manufacturing jobs is important is not so much the economic deprivation but the social consequences of that deprivation. The breakdown of community is really at the core here. When people lose job stability, when they work for $16 an hour and don't have health insurance, and nobody funds their public schools and nobody fixes their infrastructure, that has direct consequences into how the life of their community is led.

    I know firsthand because my family comes from a working-class town in Maine that has suffered exactly this kind of deterioration. You pick up the local paper and the weekly police blotter is just DWIs and domestic violence. We've shattered these lives, and it isn't always economic. That's where I guess I would differ with Frank. It's really the destruction of the possibility of community, and of course economic deprivation goes a long way to doing that. But corporate America has done a pretty good job of destroying community too, which is why the largest growth areas are the exurbs, where people have a higher standard of living, but live fairly bleak and empty lives.

    In the beginning of the book, you write briefly about covering wars in Latin America, the Middle East and the Balkans. How did that shape the way you understand these social forces in America? What similarities do you see?

    When I covered the war in the Balkans, there was always the canard that this was a war about ancient ethnic hatreds that was taken from Robert Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts." That was not a war about ancient ethnic hatreds. It was a war that was fueled primarily by the economic collapse of Yugoslavia. Milosevic and Tudman, and to a lesser extent Izetbegovic, would not have been possible in a stable Yugoslavia.

    When I first covered Hamas in 1988, it was a very marginal organization with very little power or reach. I watched Hamas grow. Although I came later to the Balkans, I had a good understanding of how Milosevic built his Serbian nationalist movement. These radical movements share a lot of ideological traits with the Christian right, including that cult of masculinity, that cult of power, rampant nationalism fused with religious chauvinism. I find a lot of parallels.

    People have a very hard time believing the status quo of their existence, or the world around them, can ever change. There's a kind of psychological inability to accept how fragile open societies are. When I was in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, at the start of the war, I would meet with incredibly well-educated, multilingual Kosovar Albanian friends in the cafes. I would tell them that in the countryside there were armed groups of the Kosovo Liberation Army, who I'd met, and they would insist that the Kosovo Liberation Army didn't exist, that it was just a creation of the Serb police to justify repression.

    You saw the same thing in the cafe society in Sarajevo on the eve of the war in Bosnia. Radovan Karadzic or even Milosevic were buffoonish figures to most Yugoslavs, and were therefore, especially among the educated elite, never taken seriously. There was a kind of blindness caused by their intellectual snobbery, their inability to understand what was happening. I think we have the same experience here. Those of us in New York, Boston, San Francisco or some of these urban pockets don't understand how radically changed our country is, don't understand the appeal of these buffoonish figures to tens of millions of Americans.

    But don't you feel like the tipping point is still quite a way off? Speaking personally, when I've read about totalitarian movements, I've always imagined that I'd know enough to pack up and go. That would seem to be a very premature thing to do here.

    Well, most people didn't pack up and go. The people who packed up and left were the exception, and most people thought they were crazy. My friends in Pristina had no idea what was going on in Kosovo until they were literally herded down to the train station and pushed into boxcars and shipped like cattle to Macedonia. And that's not because they weren't intelligent or perceptive. It was because, like all of us, they couldn't comprehend how fragile the world was around them, and how radically and quickly it could change. I think that's a human phenomenon.

    Hitler was in power in 1933, but it took him until the late '30s to begin to consolidate his program. He never spoke about the Jews because he realized that raw anti-Semitism didn't play out with the German public. All he did was talk about family values and restoring the moral core of Germany. The Russian revolution took a decade to consolidate. It takes time to acculturate a society to a radical agenda, but that acculturation has clearly begun here, and I don't see people standing up and trying to stop them. The Democratic policy of trying to reach out to a movement that attacks whole segments of the society as worthy only of conversion or eradication is frightening.

    Doesn't it make sense for the Democrats to reach out to the huge number of evangelicals who aren't necessarily part of the religious right, but who may be sympathetic to some of its rhetoric? Couldn't those people be up for grabs?

    I don't think they are up for grabs because they have been ushered into a non-reality-based belief system. This isn't a matter of, "This is one viewpoint, here's another." This is a world of magic and signs and miracles and wonders, and [on the other side] is the world you hate, the liberal society that has shunted you aside and thrust you into despair. The rage that is directed at those who go after the movement is the rage of those who fear deeply being pushed back into this despair, from which many of the people I interviewed feel they barely escaped. A lot of people talked about suicide attempts or thoughts of suicide -- these people really reached horrific levels of desperation. And now they believe that Jesus has a plan for them and intervenes in their life every day to protect them, and they can't give that up.

    So in a way, the movement really has helped them.

    Well, in same way unemployed workers in Weimar Germany were helped by becoming brownshirts, yes. It gave them a sense of purpose. Look, you could always tell in a refugee camp in Gaza when one of these kids joined Hamas, because suddenly they were clean, their djelleba was white, they walked with a sense of purpose. It was a very similar kind of conversion experience. If you go back and read [Arthur] Koestler and other writers on the Communist Party, you find the same thing.

    This is a question that I get all the time, and you've probably heard it too: Do you think Bush is a believer, or do you think he and his administration are just cynically manipulating their foot soldiers?

    I think he's a believer, to the extent that this belief system empowers his own arrogant sense of privilege and intellectual shallowness. When you know right and wrong, when you've been mandated by God to lead, you don't have to ask hard questions, you don't have to listen to anyone else. I think that plays into the Bush character pretty well.

    I think there are probably other aspects or tenets of this belief system that he finds distasteful and doesn't like. But in a real sense he fits the profile: a washout, not a very good family life -- apparently his mother was a horror show -- a drunk, a drug addict, coasted because of his daddy, reaches middle age, hasn't done anything with his life, finds Jesus. That fits a lot of people in the movement.

    What do you think of the argument, exemplified by David Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith," that this administration has duped the Christian right and hasn't really given them much in exchange for their support?

    It's given them a lot of money. It's given them a few hundred million dollars. I wouldn't call that nothing.

    Kuo's argument is that Bush promised $8 billion for the faith-based initiative but that there was actually very little new funding. What's missing in what he says, I think, is that while there was little new money, there was a massive effort to shift money that was already appropriated from secular social services to evangelical groups. But if you believe, as Kuo apparently did, that compassionate conservatism really meant helping the poor, then Bush hasn't really done anything to further it.

    Well, [Bush] never wanted to help the poor. That was just to sell us on a program -- he didn't have any intention of helping the poor.

    Did you start out to research this book with the intellectual framework that comes from Hannah Arendt and Karl Popper in mind?

    Yes. I studied a lot of Christian ethics, a lot of Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, that's how I was formed, so when I covered conflicts as a foreign correspondent, the peculiarity of my education made me look at those conflicts a little differently. I was always very wary of utopian movements because I had it pounded into me that utopianism is a dangerous phenomenon, of the left or the right. I was very critical of liberation theology because it essentially endorsed violence to create a Christian society. The way that I articulated that was really through writers like Popper and Arendt. I needed Karl Popper and Hannah Arendt to get a lot of the despotic movements that I was covering, to give myself a vocabulary by which to explain these movements to myself. Even when I teach journalism classes I tend to make them read "The Origins of Totalitarianism" because I think it's such an important book. I've read the book seven or eight times.

    When did you see its relevance to the Christian right?

    Because of my close coverage, or close connection with movements like Hamas or Milosevic, or even some of the despotic movements in Latin America like Efra�n R�os Montt in Guatemala, I'd already been conditioned to smell these people out. And then of course coming out the church and coming out of seminary, the combination was such that as soon as I came back from overseas, I had a sense of who these people were. There was a strange kind of confluence from my experience as a reporter and my academic background that came together and gave me a kind of sensitivity to the Christian right that maybe other people didn't have immediately. I don't know how much it's apparent, but it's an angry book.

    That's very apparent.

    Good. My father remains the most important influence on my life, and he was a Presbyterian minister, a devout Christian. I quote H. Richard Niebuhr saying, "Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people." I wouldn't describe myself as particularly pious but I certainly would describe myself as religious. And when I see how these people are manipulating the Christian religion for personal empowerment and wealth and for the destruction of the very values that I think are embodied in the teachings of Jesus Christ, I'm angry.

  4. #4
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    After reading "The Heretic" I decided this forum could use a good discussion on the nature of the culture war, not on the theology of either side, but of methodology, the leadership, and the conflict as a whole.

    One thing that essentially gets forgotten about with the religious right and the new left, is that both camps are trying to move this country somewhere-- i think the term conservative is especially useful in obfuscating the religious right, which is not fighting a war of attrition to keep America the same, its fighting an offensive war with its "enemy" (real or imagined) to fundamentally change American society.

  5. #5
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    After reading "The Heretic" I decided this forum could use a good discussion on the nature of the culture war, not on the theology of either side, but of methodology, the leadership, and the conflict as a whole.

    One thing that essentially gets forgotten about with the religious right and the new left, is that both camps are trying to move this country somewhere-- i think the term conservative is especially useful in obfuscating the religious right, which is not fighting a war of attrition to keep America the same, its fighting an offensive war with its "enemy" (real or imagined) to fundamentally change American society.
    it's medieval, archaic, and bordors on radical, like some muslims.

  6. #6
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    it's medieval, archaic, and bordors on radical, like some muslims.

    ?

  7. #7
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321

  8. #8
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    954
    The culture wars have always existed in some fashion in all societies and they will continue to exist.

    There's no point debating it. We must simply accept it as a basis of human societies.

  9. #9
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    After reading "The Heretic" I decided this forum could use a good discussion on the nature of the culture war, not on the theology of either side, but of methodology, the leadership, and the conflict as a whole.

    One thing that essentially gets forgotten about with the religious right and the new left, is that both camps are trying to move this country somewhere-- i think the term conservative is especially useful in obfuscating the religious right, which is not fighting a war of attrition to keep America the same, its fighting an offensive war with its "enemy" (real or imagined) to fundamentally change American society.
    This is such a complex issue. I think for the time being, the nexus between religious conservatives and the captians of industry who use them to consolidate power has been broken. Part of that is because of the illegal immigration issue. Part of that is because the pet issues of the religious right never got resolved. Part of that is because the evangelical church is starting to move away from the model where it ran like a business with customers.

    But, I also see late-20th-century conservatism itself on the wane, in favor of other kinds of right-wing ideologies. None is sufficiently ascendant to take control of what used to be the Republican coalition. The proto-fascist ideas are definitely in the mix, but I don't think one can say with any certainty that they are the inevitable winners. I don't think Mike Huckabee, the RR darling this time around to the degree there was one, is not exactly a budding fascist. However, the degree to which Huckabee demonstrated the power of Christian iden y politics among the RR could be enticing for somebody looking to exploit it again.

  10. #10
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "accept it as a basis of human societies."

    cultural wars a "basis of human societies"? Not true in the USA, and not true in Europe.

    The Christianofascist supremacacists are just as fringe and freaky and invented as Scientology. They and their "wars" aren't the basis of US society, which must struggle to maintain the rule of law and the supremacy and sovereignity of the individual vs lawless, fascist ins utions perverted and subverted by the Repugs, capitalists, neo- s, the corps.
    Last edited by boutons_; 03-13-2008 at 12:40 PM.

  11. #11
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    the collective ignorance of america is being herded like cattle. even he can't see any recourse in this direction. the numbers of the despaired are too great. they're ripe for picking. i grew up in belfast. i know what he's saying. this mix of religion, politics, enlightment and the struggle for power is the perfect solution to explain ones behavoir and actions as being noble in it's results.

  12. #12
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    This is such a complex issue. I think for the time being, the nexus between religious conservatives and the captians of industry who use them to consolidate power has been broken.
    I think it's premature to assume that that link has been broken, but instead of being predictive, it would be much more interesting to figure out how such strange bed fellows came together in the first place.

    Part of that is because of the illegal immigration issue. Part of that is because the pet issues of the religious right never got resolved. Part of that is because the evangelical church is starting to move away from the model where it ran like a business with customers.
    It would seem much more likely that the Evangelical movement would embrace illegal immigrants, if for no other reason than the humanitarianism intrinsic to Christianity, I always thought it was the blue collar workers that voted Republican on national security and more historic ethnic reasons (i.e. the rural white southern voter) that were revolting on illegal immigration.

    Also, from my perspective, granted this is an outside perspective, the evangelical church is becoming more incorporated; the proliferation of mega churches, televangelism, and the pastoral brand (for things such as books, audiotapes, etc.) make the church seem like bigger business today than I ever remember in my lifetime.

    But, I also see late-20th-century conservatism itself on the wane, in favor of other kinds of right-wing ideologies. None is sufficiently ascendant to take control of what used to be the Republican coalition. The proto-fascist ideas are definitely in the mix, but I don't think one can say with any certainty that they are the inevitable winners. I don't think Mike Huckabee, the RR darling this time around to the degree there was one, is not exactly a budding fascist. However, the degree to which Huckabee demonstrated the power of Christian iden y politics among the RR could be enticing for somebody looking to exploit it again.
    Huckabee is always the first person I think of when contemplating the religious right of late, because he seems to be the embodiment of a shift in the movement toward economic social liberalism.... I don't see this as a particularly genuine change though, as I highly doubt Huckabee's responsibility to the poor demonstrated an ability to overcome the deeply entrenched fiscal conservatism of the conservative movement (thus his fair tax, promises to provide additional tax cuts, etc.)

  13. #13
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    954
    "accept it as a basis of human societies."

    cultural wars a "basis of human societies"? Not true in the USA, and not true in Europe.

    The Christianofascist supremacacists are just a fringe and freaky and invented as Scientology. They and their "wars" aren't the basis of US society, which must struggle to maintain the rule of law and the supremacy and sovereignity of the individual vs lawless, fascist ins utions perverted and subvreted by the Repugs, capitalists, neo- s, the corps.
    What are you talking about? Religious fundamentalism and subsequent non-religious, progressive movements have been locked in a cyclical ebb and flow since the founding of this country. It's the defining characteristic of US history and politics.

  14. #14
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    What are you talking about? Religious fundamentalism and subsequent non-religious, progressive movements have been locked in a cyclical ebb and flow since the founding of this country. It's the defining characteristic of US history and politics.
    I think you're getting sucked into the old paradigm concocted by the new left in the 60s. and that is attempting to use Marxist dialectics for culture politics....that debate doesn't get anyone anywhere

  15. #15
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    I wonder sometimes exactly what "Christian fundamentalism" denotes in a political context. In Europe, anybody who believes in the historic doctrines if Christianity is a "fundamentalist." In a theological sense, a fundamentalist is one who concurs with the 90 chapters of The Fundamentals. Sometimes it means a dispensationalist. Sometimes it means any right-wing Christian active in politics. Sometimes it means any right-wing Christian who believes his vote should be based upon his personal values, even when thsoe personal values are informed by faith. Sometimes it means someone who thinks we should bomb abortion clinics. Sometimes it means someone who believes the moral and philosophical underpinnings of American government are rooted in the Judeo-Christian moral and philosophical tradition. Sometimes it means a Christian Nationalist. Sometimes it means a Dominionist. Sometimes it means Christian Reconstructionist.

    Sometimes I qualify as a Fundamentalist, and sometimes I don't, depending on the definition. Sometimes the Fundamentalist is somebody who I virulently oppose.

    The word gets used as a pejorative so often that it has lost its precision of meaning.

  16. #16
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    I wonder sometimes exactly what "Christian fundamentalism" denotes in a political context. In Europe, anybody who believes in the historic doctrines if Christianity is a "fundamentalist." In a theological sense, a fundamentalist is one who concurs with the 90 chapters of The Fundamentals. Sometimes it means a dispensationalist. Sometimes it means any right-wing Christian active in politics. Sometimes it means any right-wing Christian who believes his vote should be based upon his personal values, even when thsoe personal values are informed by faith. Sometimes it means someone who thinks we should bomb abortion clinics. Sometimes it means someone who believes the moral and philosophical underpinnings of American government are rooted in the Judeo-Christian moral and philosophical tradition. Sometimes it means a Christian Nationalist. Sometimes it means a Dominionist. Sometimes it means Christian Reconstructionist.

    Sometimes I qualify as a Fundamentalist, and sometimes I don't, depending on the definition. Sometimes the Fundamentalist is somebody who I virulently oppose.

    The word gets used as a pejorative so often that it has lost its precision of meaning.

    According to these articles, the term is more correctly reserved for Reconstructionist, Dominonist (i thought they were one and the same) and Christian Nationalist (again i think this is synonymous with the other two) ideologies.

    I think the rest of your examples either fall under the umbrella of one of the three, or the branding of those individuals as fundamentalists has more to do with leftist cultural politicking than precision.

    Our two most vitriolic words are fascist and fundamentalist, so it's not surprising to find both scattered throughout those articles

  17. #17
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    954
    I think you're getting sucked into the old paradigm concocted by the new left in the 60s. and that is attempting to use Marxist dialectics for culture politics....that debate doesn't get anyone anywhere
    Why not? Understanding the culture wars from a historical perspective makes us understand that we aren't treading new ground here. The Puritans were a fundamentalist reaction to the perceived lax religious code of the Church of England. Growth and success in the colonies encouraged the immigration of non-religious entrepreneurs/merchants/etc whose primary interest was financial opportunity rather than religious opportunity. Along with the shift in immigrant dynamics came the science-inspired, but not always science-based, Enlightenment. Later, as a reaction to the Enlightenment, the Colonies experienced the religious fervor of the Great Awakening in the 1730s-40s. We've had subsequent progressive/religious cycles resulting in the Revolutionary War, the Second Great Awakening, the rise of the Industrial Revolution, the Third Great Awakening, the Progressive/Socialist Movements, the rise of religion in the '50s, the Counterculture in the '60s, the Fourth Great Awakening, and so on....

    This stuff ain't new.

  18. #18
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    I think it's premature to assume that that link has been broken, but instead of being predictive, it would be much more interesting to figure out how such strange bed fellows came together in the first place.
    The MM believed that since social-progressive values were foisted upon the public in a top-down fashion through the courts, especially abortion, traditional values could prevail in the same fashion. Thus, it would be necessary to elect politicians that supported traditional values who would appoint the right judges. And so was born the alliance with the Republicans.

    It would seem much more likely that the Evangelical movement would embrace illegal immigrants, if for no other reason than the humanitarianism intrinsic to Christianity, I always thought it was the blue collar workers that voted Republican on national security and more historic ethnic reasons (i.e. the rural white southern voter) that were revolting on illegal immigration.
    In case you didn't notice, there are a lot of racist white evangelicals. The rural white southern voter usually is also a member of the local Baptist/Pentecostal/Name It-Claim It church.

    In the past generation, evangelical Christian concern for the poor has waned in favor of the Christian investment group, the Christian principles of executive management, and the Christian foolproof strategy to increase your sales. This leads to the next point...

    Also, from my perspective, granted this is an outside perspective, the evangelical church is becoming more incorporated; the proliferation of mega churches, televangelism, and the pastoral brand (for things such as books, audiotapes, etc.) make the church seem like bigger business today than I ever remember in my lifetime.
    A prominent evangelical church last year, which unofficially leads a lot of the modern non-denominational megachurches, released the results of a study last year showing that abandoning the traditional Christian principles of evangelism in favor of slick corporate marketing, and focusing the church upon meeting every wish, comfort, and desire of the attendees instead of challenging attendees to become members who commit their time and resources to helping their neighbors, actually does not succeed in making effective Christian disciples, but rather makes extremely self-indulgent people who show up on Sunday to clap and sing, and eat some donuts, and drink some coffee, or tea, and/or juice, and get a motivational speech, but then go home and live their same indifferent, materialistic lives.

    This is starting to create a paradigm shift where churches actually will expect members to hold one another accountable to act like Christians. As part of that, more than a few evangelical leaders have noticed that the values that don't seem to work in having any meaningful sort of Christian life do happen to be the values of the American corporate business culture. This is provoking anew some contemplation about alignment of values.

    Huckabee is always the first person I think of when contemplating the religious right of late, because he seems to be the embodiment of a shift in the movement toward economic social liberalism.... I don't see this as a particularly genuine change though, as I highly doubt Huckabee's responsibility to the poor demonstrated an ability to overcome the deeply entrenched fiscal conservatism of the conservative movement (thus his fair tax, promises to provide additional tax cuts, etc.)
    "Fiscal conservatism" is headed our way whether we like it or not. Unless you happen to have $54 trillion laying around? But that's another issue.

  19. #19
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    "Fiscal conservatism" is headed our way whether we like it or not. Unless you happen to have $54 trillion laying around? But that's another issue.
    I was referring to more the buzz word than the pay as you go standard, maybe there is a better way of putting it now, but it has been for quite some time that fiscal conservative is the buzz word for "cutting those damn social programs for those lazy poor people"

  20. #20
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    The FFs, the Federalists, the Declaration Indepedence, the Contsi ution make it clear that separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of the US, as is the freedom to worship whatever you want to worship.

    ie, the US form of govt is secular, not theocratic.

    This puts the freaky, fringy Christianofascist supremacists on the outside. From time to time, they make more or less noise and trouble, infiltrate their theocratic seditionists into govt, but the tension THEY CREATE isn't fundamental to US culture.

  21. #21
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    The FFs, the Federalists, the Declaration Indepedence, the Contsi ution make it clear that separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of the US, as is the freedom to worship whatever you want to worship.

    ie, the US form of govt is secular, not theocratic.

    This puts the freaky, fringy Christianofascist supremacists on the outside. From time to time, they make more or less noise and trouble, infiltrate their theocratic seditionists into govt, but the tension THEY CREATE isn't fundamental to US culture.
    Ok.... I think you're missing the point of this thread Buotons

  22. #22
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    According to these articles, the term is more correctly reserved for Reconstructionist, Dominonist (i thought they were one and the same) and Christian Nationalist (again i think this is synonymous with the other two) ideologies.

    I think the rest of your examples either fall under the umbrella of one of the three, or the branding of those individuals as fundamentalists has more to do with leftist cultural politicking than precision.

    Our two most vitriolic words are fascist and fundamentalist, so it's not surprising to find both scattered throughout those articles
    Christian Reconstructionists are extremely rare. They believe in reorganizing society as an absolute theocracy under Old Testament law, including things like stoning adulterers and banning cotton-blended fabric. They also do not believe in bringing about their worldview by force, so far as I know. They just believe that one day the American people will wise up and adopt a Bronze Age legal system.

    Dominionism/Kingdom Now: This primarily is the group liberals -- and the rest of us -- should be wary of. It comprises a small, but influential, group within Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. Their vision is to create a society where a small group of "Christian" leaders rule as despots, controlling all wealth while ordinary people are their serfs, and where all "evildoers," meaning everybody who is not a Pentecostal or Charismatic in submission to the leaders of the movement, is imprisoned or killed. These are the American equivalent of al-Qaeda. Pat Robertson is one of them.

    Christian Nationalism is a blending of Dominionism/Kingdom Now with white supremacy.

    These people don't much run in Republican circles anymore; you're more likely to find them in the Cons ution Party.

  23. #23
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    I should point out that the "Name it, Claim it" prosperity gospel heresy in the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is influenced by Kingdom Now theology. The underlying principle is that only Christians, or more specifically Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians, deserve material prosperity on Earth, because they are God's chosen. The difference between the NI/CI-er and Kingdom Now follower is that the former believes God will give him material prosperity, while the latter believes he is supposed to take it from others by force.

  24. #24
    Purrrrrrrrrrrr Holt's Cat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    4,203
    This is such a complex issue. I think for the time being, the nexus between religious conservatives and the captians of industry who use them to consolidate power has been broken. Part of that is because of the illegal immigration issue. Part of that is because the pet issues of the religious right never got resolved. Part of that is because the evangelical church is starting to move away from the model where it ran like a business with customers.

    But, I also see late-20th-century conservatism itself on the wane, in favor of other kinds of right-wing ideologies. None is sufficiently ascendant to take control of what used to be the Republican coalition. The proto-fascist ideas are definitely in the mix, but I don't think one can say with any certainty that they are the inevitable winners. I don't think Mike Huckabee, the RR darling this time around to the degree there was one, is not exactly a budding fascist. However, the degree to which Huckabee demonstrated the power of Christian iden y politics among the RR could be enticing for somebody looking to exploit it again.

    The conservative movement was at its best when it was about reducing the scale and scope of government. When that became a theological movement much was lost.

  25. #25
    Orange Whip? Orange Whip? Viva Las Espuelas's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    19,497
    radicals of any faith are scary. none are untouchable.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •