How do we open the eyes of folks on the Religious Right?
dscribner printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 11:17:40 AM EST
Having come from a background in the Religious Right, I have a lot of friends who still hold to that worldview.  I want to educate them, but I'm not always sure of what to say.
I found Talk2Action.org a few months ago, and it's been very enlightening and eye-opening.  I can't say that I agree 100% with every comment that I've read, but I have learned a lot about the dominionist movement, and it has really given me a sense of two things:  1) how big and dangerous the dominionist movement is and 2) how ugly and scary the religious right looks to people who aren't on the right.

Now I want to share some of what I have learned here with my friends who are part of the religious right, but I'm not sure how to procede.  In fact, next month I'll be guest-teaching in a Sunday School class at the fundamentalist church that I attended some years ago. 

This is a church that takes a very strong and public stand against gay marriage and the kids in the youth group faithfully attend the BattleCry conference every year.  How, I wonder, can I open their eyes to the unhealthy political agenda of the right without simply alienating myself from them?

I really liked Chris Rodda's recent video on the "Monumental" movie.  I think she did a great job of speaking to the claims of the movie and providing evidence to dispute those claims, but she did it in a way that wasn't mean-spirited or condescending.  I feel like I can point people on the right to her video and show them that the story that they're hearing from the theocrats isn't accurate.

And I have found here several good resources that deal with Reconstructionism which will come in handy when I hear folks talk about "returning America to its Christian roots."

I'm less sure of how to respond to some of the other activities that my friends in the religious right do.  Long before I found this website, I have been urging my friends on the right to rethink the notion that the GOP is the "Christian Party" and that gay marriage is a something that Christians should fight against.  And I have tried to add some perspective to their foxhole mentality and to help them see that while fundamentalists are a minority and America is becoming increasingly diverse and tolerant, this doesn't mean that they are under attack nor do they need to have an "us vs. them" mindset.

I have been promoting ecumenicalism and compassion-based service.  But I'm not sure what to say to them about evangelism and missions.  Many of my friends, including the kids at the church I'll be visiting, feel strongly that evangelism and mission is a critical part of their faith.  It would be useless to tell them to stop evangelizing or to stop engaging in missions.  But I wonder what I can say to them so that they might do evangelism and missions but do it in a way that won't either (1) contribute to the dominionist, political agenda of the theocrats, or (2) alienate people who don't agree with their conservative theology.

I hope this post doesn't seem like the work of a troll.  I'm 100% on board with the need to keep church and state separate.  And I'm deeply troubled by the relationship between the GOP and the theocrats.  My concern is how do I help to open the eyes of people on the right to the political picture without attacking them or alienating myself from them.

If anyone cares to comment, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. 



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
How do we open the eyes of folks on the Religious Right? | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
Not likely (5.00 / 1)
People have been trying to talk to members of the Religious Right for years.  Unless you find, as a person I know calls it, the "magic key", it's an exercise in futility.  You're running into literal programming that drowns out any logic, scientific evidence, common sense, or anything else that doesn't fit their worldview.

All you'll do is either make yourself a target for conversion attempts, or piss them off and make yourself a target for violence and hate.

I suggest you read the second half of this blog entry, a friend of mine talks about trying to talk to them (the whole article is good):  http://dogemperor.livejournal.com/122878.html

by ArchaeoBob on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 02:01:41 PM EST

Perhaps we're discussing different groups (none / 0)
ArcheoBob, I'm wondering if we're speaking about different groups. When you say that members of the Religious Right are unable to cope with logic, evidence, common sense and differing opinions, how big of a circle are you drawing? Are you talking about the theocrats and their followers, or are you speaking of conservative, evangelicals in general? The group I'm speaking of (i.e. Bible-believing, conservative, evangelicals who usually vote Republican because of their positions on social issues) are not necessarily all theocrats. But I worry that they many of them are easily convinced to vote or in other ways support the theocrats without really intending to. I agree that evangelicals, like all people, have a hard time accepting things that don't fit into their worldview, but I wouldn't say that the worldview of all evangelicals is anti-logic or anti-reason. Many of my friends are very bright, reasonable people who want to protect themselves and advance their own their social agendas (like everyone else) but they don't seem to understand the bigger picture and the political agendas that they're supporting. As I think more on this topic, and read through Bob Altemeyer "The Authoritarians" (thanks, PastorJennifer for forwarding that!) it seems to me that the "magic key" to communicating with them is to understand them and to speak to them from points of reference within their worldview. As MLouse's comment impolies, perhaps I should talk to them about the charity work they do and help them to see that it could be more effective if it they could keep it from becoming manipulative. And, as Christian777 pointed out, it might be good to point them toward Christian leaders and pastors and to Bible passages that support a non-combative and humble approach to interacting with secular society. Personally, I don't think the answer is to try to get people to stop being fundamentalist. I think, instead, it is to help them define what it means to be a fundamentalist and help them think through what things they may want to hold to fundamentally (e.g. their theology) and what thinks they might hold to more tangentially (e.g. their politics).

by dscribner on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 04:02:41 PM EST
Parent
Sorry no paragraph breaks. (none / 0)
I'm not sure why the paragraph breaks don't show up after I hit "submit". Sorry about that. I know it makes it harder to read.

by dscribner on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 04:04:53 PM EST
Parent
Paragraphs (none / 0)

I wrestled with this for a couple of days, then had a good idea. I tried to use html tags to get paragraph spacing, which seems to work. I'm not convinced that it's the best way to handle this, but it does seem to work.

I'm going to go into a bit more detail, but this will require me to put paragraph tags into the body of the text - and unless I do something about it, that will itself put in extra paragraphs where they're are unwanted.

So, wherever I have put <q> or </q>, you must substitute a "p" (without the quotation marks!) - keeping the "/" mark to differentiate between the opening and closing tags.

If you want to be all up to date with this, then use pairs of paragraph tags - put <q> at the beginning of every paragraph, and </q> (note the extra character in there) at the very end of the paragraph. Put it straight after the last word of the last sentence, and then hit the "Preview" button and see if you've got paragraphs. If the result is uneven, make sure that have an exactly equal number of <q> tags and </q> tags.

I presume that you could use paired or to get bold and italics. I know that you can get a paragraph set up as a quotation by using the blockquote tags in place of the paragraph tags. Just put the word "blockquote" (still without the quotation marks) and "/blockquote" inside those angle brackets.

Sorry if this is much more detail than you need, but best too much than to little - and others might find it easier to read this post rather go the whole process unaided.



by Northumbrian on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 11:07:47 PM EST
Parent


Check his link (none / 0)
Dscribner
I think he is talking about the Assemblies of God and other dominionist groups. If you follow his link to dogemperor provided in his post you will get a look at the tortured background he has escaped from.
It's a little bit over the top compared to your run-of-mill conservative xian bunch.

by PastorJennifer on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 04:47:24 PM EST
Parent
Depends again (none / 0)
My wife and I were thrown out of a conservative Episcopal church because we are American Indian, and the last time we set foot in one, we were told (1) that I couldn't call myself a Christian and accept evolution, and (2) Gays needed to be killed by stoning (by a recognized and highly placed lay leader).  That was the evening that the rector had brought in the "Intelligent Design" people to give their spiel.  We'd already had real problems because of race and hostility because of poverty (and disability) and that evening was the last straw.  It's becoming far more commonplace, and there is a reason why.

The "over the top" churches are exporting their attitudes, behaviors, and control to the others.  They train people to do so... when I was in the Assemblies I hung out with the people being so trained (with specific training to go after specific denominations - for instance to infiltrate the Episcopal church and I knew a couple that I think were being trained for the United Church of Christ).  That was over 30 years ago, and recent information clearly supports that the training hasn't stopped.  That they've been successful - all you have to do is think about how things have changed in the last three decades AND about the splits and attempts to split churches.

I think it could be said that there is almost a spectrum... from churches who aren't steeplejacked and likely to never be steeplejacked, all the way to the NAR and Reconstructionists.  The further to the right, the harder the programming and the more difficult it is to communicate (and the less likely you'll get through their programming).


by ArchaeoBob on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 08:42:30 PM EST
Parent

The Episcopal church? (none / 0)
I'm surprised to hear that you were thrown out of an Episcopal church for your views. The Episcopal church has been one of the most progressive denominations in recent decades.

They began ordaining women as priests back in the 70s, and by the early 90s there were already churches accepting gay couples. The church officially condoned same-sex relationships in 2000.

I definitely agree that churches fall on a spectrum. I imagine it to be bell-shaped with the majority of churches falling closer to the median.

by dscribner on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:16:10 PM EST
Parent
Steeplejacked (none / 0)
Entire dioceses of the Episcopal church have been steeplejacked, and while the one around here isn't officially gone over, it is unofficial and the churches have been (I've heard of one exception).  There is one bishop in a diocese in the country who has gone whole-hog into the "spiritual warfare" stuff and pushes the extreme right ideology (maybe more than one, but I remember reading about him).  

With an AoG ersatz "university" in the area and an overwhelming presence of dominionists of all flavors, it's difficult to keep the steeplejackers out (unless you're either some church they absolutely despise or you are very diligent and careful).  

I don't remember the details very clearly (and I may not be 100% accurate), but I'm pretty sure that this diocese voted to defrock and excommunicate any priest that took part in any ceremony involving gay people, including marriage or ordination.

If you're a  lay person, it's frowned on but I don't think they voted to punish lay people for doing anything like that.


by ArchaeoBob on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:30:28 PM EST
Parent


Not the norm (none / 0)
The Episcopal church you described is not the norm for the Episcopal church.  I suspect that particular group has joined the exodus.  I belong to the Episcopal church, have belonged to a number of them over the years.  I have never met up with one like you describe. They would have kick me out too.

by ABCPsych on Mon May 28, 2012 at 07:36:05 PM EST
Parent
I know the Diocese (none / 0)
As I am also in Central Florida I know that the Episcopal Bishop that just retired was among the most virulent  on the far right, but made sure that he was replaced by a fellow traveler with the same ideas and less infamy. And yes it is far from the norm, and shoved away at least two others I know of who could not stand the bigotry.

by FreeDem on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:46:19 AM EST
Parent




Oh, yeah... (none / 0)
Big difference between myself and Dogemperor.  She grew up in it, I was "recruited" in college (via "missionary dating"/"Flirty Fishing").   Even though I was only in that "church" for around three years, the damage they did was so severe that many of my memories of that period were repressed until a couple of years ago - even as to the specifics of how they caught me.  I had a massive flashback a little over two years ago, and it all came back - a friend of mine was talking about the missionary dating and I remembered.

I've helped people who had the same sort of problems out of the Southern Baptists (different, but the same level of control for them), and from other groups as well.

by ArchaeoBob on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 08:49:06 PM EST
Parent



Depends (none / 0)
Do they believe that the Bible is literally true?  If so, then they're very likely to fit the mode I'm talking about.  Do they believe that they have to enact laws to make other people obey their idea of morality (such as no coverage of contraceptives or banning abortions)?  Ditto.  If they indicate in any way that they believe that they have to "return America to its Christian roots" (or whatever), you're probably not going to make any headway.  Theocracy, whether de jure or de facto is essentially one of their goals.

One point to consider is if they support the separation of church and state.  If they  don't, you're not likely to have much luck.

This blog IS about dealing with dominionists.  That means anyone involved with the NAR or the Reconstructionists, and based upon the sort of things posted here that could include anyone who supports the 1% and social stratification (with the rich/elites/clergy at the top).  That would include the ultra-conservative Catholics.  These other non-NAR non-Reconstructionist groups may not be dominionists per se, but they are using religion to maintain some form of the status quo (maybe even amplifying it) and if so, probably support dominionist causes.  In the case of people like that, they might or might not respond.  It depends on how steeplejacked their churches are.

There are also ultra-conservative (fundamentalist as compared to dominionist) groups who are not theocratic in any way, although they also use the brainwashing/thought control/programming.   You're not any more likely to make headway with them, but since you're not one of them you're suspect anyway (they do tend to be even more isolated from and suspicious of people in general).


by ArchaeoBob on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 08:11:49 PM EST
Parent

Focus! (none / 0)
AB:
This isn't always about you. It would helpful if you would stay on topic. The original thread was started by someone who wanted advice about communications with social conservatives...

by PastorJennifer on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:33:11 AM EST
Parent
Uhhh... (none / 0)
The topic is about talking and trying to reason with dominionists.  People have asked that question many times and it never works - unless you happen on, as it's been called, "The Magic Key" (usually something that they're already aware of at some level and causing great cognitive dissonance).

If it's just "social conservatives"... what does that have to do with dominionists?  If they're trying to force their religion on others and bring about theocratic rules or theocracy... then they're dominionists.

I also don't see why you've decided to attack me personally.  It's not about me, it's about dominionism and how to fight it.  I'm commenting and sharing my point of view/experiences which are directly related to fighting dominionism, and if that's not acceptable, then why have this blog???

by ArchaeoBob on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:21:42 PM EST
Parent

You have a good point. (none / 0)
Perhaps this isn't the best forum to be discussing my question.

But I do think that there is some blurring of the lines between the dominionists and other evangelicals. My hope is that with all of the good info and comments I've been getting here, I'll be able to speak to the evangelicals I know and make them aware of the dominionist movement, and then help them to move away from that.

And, by the way, I am VERY GRATEFUL for all of the comment and resources here! This has been really helpful for me! I especially found Bob Altemeyer's book and Dogemperor's blog informative! Wow!

by dscribner on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:35:06 PM EST
Parent
Hard to talk to the close minded (none / 0)
They "know" they have it right, they believe god said it an they are unmovable on that. The only chance you have is with those that are doubting or are new to it an their ways haven't been set in concrete yet. But then they want their integrity to survive living in a freer space with so many "Pagans" an "heathens" out there who aren't converted to their "true" Dominionist Christianity. Though the end product is the overthrow of what is left of our Republic an replacing it with some kind of theocratic corporate state.
The various groups in coalition an parallel operations have disagreements but they also agree on more among themselves than with the rest of us. An some of them have been steeple jacking more than just churches. But universities, corporations, an the like as part of their 7 Pillars project.
Can't find the "Godly Exceptionalism" article.

by Nightgaunt on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 07:28:59 PM EST
Parent




Yes, yes, and no. (none / 0)
The folks I'm referring to, I think, represent a pretty large segment of the Christian Church. They're Bible-believing evangelicals who aren't particularly political. Yes, they believe the Bible is literally true (in the gospels, epistles, and history, but they would say that it's figuratively true in the poetry and prophetic books.) And they feel that they have a moral obligation to get out and vote their conscience when it comes to social issues. But, no, I don't think they want end the separation of church and state. They feel like they are a minority, and they wouldn't want non-Christian teachers trying to teach theology or read scripted prayers in school.

If anything, they would argue that they want separation of church and state to continue, but that they would want atheism to be regarded as a religous belief and kept out of the classroom.

I haven't done any great survey on this, but my guess is that most of them would favor some kind of a don't-ask, don't-tell policy when it comes to the philosophical questions of what caused the Big Bang and whether or not it was random chance to intelligent design that gives us the eco-diversity and bio-diversity we have today. But I think they're resigned to the fact that evolution will be taught in schools to some extent.

I should mention, however, that I live on the West Coast. Bible belt evangelicals may not feel quite so resigned about that.

by dscribner on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:30:42 PM EST
Parent
Well... (none / 0)
The historical part of the Bible has errors too.  Serious flaws, actually.  For instance, the towns destroyed by the Israelites... one town didn't exist at all during the time period in question (not before and not for a long time after if I remember correctly).  Others existed, but weren't destroyed within the time frame in question, but before or after.  Some were destroyed by earthquake but not by war (there is a difference and it can be determined).  I don't have the reference in front of me right now (the book is at school on my shelf), but they're from a highly respected authority on ancient Biblical archaeology - and the book is accepted by the real Biblical archaeologists (not the "prove the Bible" ones).

Even with that being the case, you could point out that their morality may have been distorted by what they'd been taught... for instance bring up the Jewish thinking about fetuses in Jesus' day.  Or the problems with the words translated into the "gotcha" scriptures used against GLBT people.

The problem is actually a lack of true Biblical scholarship... a lack of understanding of how the Bible came to be, it's history, the problems inherent in translation, and so on.

They might be also surprised to learn that scientists get as upset at the people who claim that science disproves religion as we do at people who claim that religion disproves science (exception being a few militant atheist scientists).  Science cannot disprove or claim to know what brought about the Big Bang or predict the outcome of, for instance, evolution.  They've abandoned or forgotten the philosophy of science when they do so.  If they claim it can be done... just mention Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to them.  That should quiet things down.

What needs to happen is for students to be taught science and what it is and what it isn't... for instance the principles such as trying to find a physical explanation for all phenomena.  If it cannot be explained to satisfaction (theory), the most that can be said is "undetermined" or more appropriately "unknown".

I agree that atheism doesn't belong in the classroom any more than religion does... people need to take a hint from the topics in question and keep it a non-issue.  At the same time, however, if religion makes claims based on "science" and it's disproved, that is valid to be taught.

Hope this helps a little.  Their reaction will probably be related to how close to being dominionists they are... the closer, the less likely they'd listen.

by ArchaeoBob on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:54:28 PM EST
Parent

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (none / 0)
Before you try mentioning Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle better have a good idea what it says.

***In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known.*** (Wikipedia)

It does NOT say, "Scientists don't know anything for certain - and particularly they can't predict the future."

There is no reason why scientists can't try to understand what brought about the Big Bang. There are scientists who believe that it can't be done, but there are those who think it might be done (look at Wikipedia stuff of superstring theory and "branes" if you want to see just how far out real science can go).

As for predicting "the outcome of Evolution", that's a little like saying you can't predict "the outcome of Conflict." Not of any given fight, but of Conflict in general, between humans or animals or planets or aliens, for any reason or none at all, in times past present and future. Evolution is a description of the way life operates, not a program.

by Northumbrian on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:57:16 PM EST
Parent
So if scientists were to (none / 0)
So if scientists were to come up with an explanation for how the universe might have created itself without the help of a creator, do you think science teachers should be allowed or required to teach that explanation in the classroom?

Wouldn't that -- public schools teaching that the universe had no creator -- violate the separation of church and state?

by dscribner on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:44:30 AM EST
Parent
Mechanisms (none / 0)
"So IF scientists were to come up with an explanation for how the universe MIGHT HAVE created itself without the help of a creator, do you think science teachers should be allowed or required to teach that explanation in the classroom?"

Yes - at least if it were a well-established explanation, and appropriate to the age and scientific background of the class. Not if it were something they'd dreamed up when reading online forums. With a well-established scientific basis they would not be explaining WHY the universe might have been created, just how.

The parallel with human life is instructive. Scientists managed to figure how human life is created - down to a detailed description of the processes of meiosis and mitosis.

Biology/anatomy teachers are required to explain how life is created, without having to pass any judgement on whether God is or is not involved. No good science teacher says, "This is how the body of a new human being is involved, and I don't think is has a soul is involved and we can leave out this God bit entirely."

And I don't think that a science lesson would be the place to say, "After the fusion of sperm and egg, God puts a soul in the resulting body. This action of creating a rational human being from a small group of cells proves that God exists."

Look at it another way. Suppose a student of this biology class wanted to say, "You have missed out the important question of the question of when this new entity becomes a person, with civil rights," then a good teacher will say, "That is an interesting question for you to discuss in some other place. Right here we've got enough of the biology curriculum to get through in a limited time."

Teaching something without bringing God into it, isn't preaching atheism. Think of learning to drive, being taught basic arithmetic or or getting the skills to make your own computer. None need to have God attached to the lesson for the lesson to be informative.



by Northumbrian on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 10:46:01 PM EST
Parent
Thought provoking! (none / 0)
Well put and a very thought-provoking answer!

I hope it never comes to that. I remember my experience in high school science class when my teacher went to great lengths to explain to our class that human life came into being without the help of a creator or a designer and then riduculed the notion that some people believe the things they hear in church about it.

At the time (20 years ago) I thought he was out of line. These days, I'd say he had crossed the line from lawful teaching of science to an unlawful advancement of a religious idea.

These days, after so much controversy on the subject, I doubt many science teachers would be so careless with their words on the matter.

by dscribner on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 10:08:02 PM EST
Parent
That he had! (none / 0)
While some may bristle at this, atheism is as much a religious ideology as Christianity.  Most of my colleagues get uncomfortable with things like that because that is pushing a religious viewpoint.

Neutrality is best, although I also have found that it is a good idea to say that one can still be Christian and accept that evolution is fact in the discussions of the topic.  (Which isn't promotion of Christianity, it's actually the counter of the "Good Christian" teachings which demand a binary either-or stance, and the truth.)

Invariably, some student will say something like they don't want to abandon their faith or religion in order to accept science.  I've heard of people insisting that they do - and people who insist that science is bogus because it denies a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Neither stance is valid or acceptable in the science classroom.


by ArchaeoBob on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 12:41:01 PM EST
Parent

Atheism fails as a religion (none / 0)
Typical attack seen it before. NO gods, no holy books, no holy anything. Just Nature. Respect it don't worship it.

by Nightgaunt on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 07:32:24 PM EST
Parent





I know what Heisenberg's principle is (none / 0)
and it's corollaries.  I understand it far better than you may realize.  A random event cannot be predicted (although there may be certain parameters that limit the outcomes).  Since all chemical reactions start at the quantum level, there is always an element of uncertainty (albeit small in many instances).  Genetics and mutation - cannot be predicted because of that fact.  Read Dr. Kenneth Miller's book (Finding Darwin's God) if you want to understand more from an evolutionary microbiologist's point of view.

You cannot prove that God doesn't exist or that the universe wasn't created, just as it cannot be proved that God does exist.  If you try to go there, you are leaving science behind and starting to spout a religious point of view.

So let's just leave it at separation of church and state, OK?  Not atheism - it is better to be neutral to all religious beliefs and ideologies (and philosophies).

Oh, and if you knew anything about scholarship, you wouldn't quote Wikipedia, except maybe as an illustration of popular knowledge and understanding.  Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to real scholars.  Try writing a paper for college using Wikipedia as a source and you'll learn it's not accepted.  (I learned that lesson.)

by ArchaeoBob on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:39:21 PM EST
Parent

Wiki (none / 0)

Well, I'm cautious about Wikipedia, and would hesitate to use it is a scholarly context. I've used it before to help students find non-controversial information. I have this argument regularly with those trying to instil scholarly attitudes into humanities students.

They say that Wiki is a poor source. I point out two things. Firstly on matters scientific Wiki is, these days, not a bad place to start - if you can understand the article at all.

I draw to your attention a study made as far back as 2005:

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. (source cnet.com)

Secondly, when it comes to online sources, Wiki is way more useful than many others. I know that Real Scholars are trying to persuade students to use authoritative sources - such as Scholarly Tomes. They don't even want "popular" science or history used, just the latest half-readable books referred. I also know that many students can't be bothered or can't find or can't understand the Scholarly Tomes. Denied Wiki, they just went to seriously unreliable online sources.

So I told them to use Wikipedia to try to get basic facts, but to be cautious about getting balanced historical judgements from there. But then I was teaching at a much more basic level than the Real Scholars.

There are probably better places to find an authoritative summary of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but the Wiki was, by and large, accurate and pithy - which is why I decided to use it, rather than spending an hour trying to locate something else more respectable, but probably no more useful.



by Northumbrian on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 11:43:58 PM EST
Parent
(SIGH) (none / 0)
Off topic, but it's things like that which we have to get students to NOT do.  Some never learn, and end up wondering why their grades aren't as good as they think they should be.  Well, if you use sources like Wikipedia, you're going to get the wrong answers.  (Unless they've finally fixed it - look up "provenience", and compare that to the completely different word "provenance".  You'll find that the public sources like Wikipedia and answer.com give the wrong answer - the one for provenance.  People have been after them for years to fix that, but I understand it still isn't corrected.)

We give them the good resources (or direct them to where they can find them)... I find your description of legitimate sources "latest half-readable books" offensive and highly suspicious.  I've got a personal library full of them.  Yeah, some are a bit heavy, but they're accurate.  It's good for a student to get a book that requires them to think and even look up words.  You can't spoon-feed people information all the time, and that also is a quick way for misinformation (if not downright lies) to get in.  It also doesn't help them to learn to think (or learn to teach themselves).

I also think you're avoiding the point - that my usage of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is valid in the discussion.

by ArchaeoBob on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 02:06:08 AM EST
Parent






question for clarification (none / 0)
Are these the religious right (which I think of as being politically active) or Bible-believing evangelicals who aren't particularly political? maybe I'm just defining these terms differently. Also, are you trying to open their eyes about dominionism and the NAR or talk them out of spreading their faith?

by Christian777 on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 08:24:14 PM EST
Parent
Another question (none / 0)
"religious right (which I think of as being politically active)"

A question you should think about as well:  Are these "Religious Right" people trying to force their idea of morality and practices on others?  Are they trying to ban abortion?  Are they trying to "return prayer to the schools"?

If so, how can others tell them from the dominionists?  The goals are similar if not the same.  (I'm asking how we can tell the difference - abortion or school prayer are not open for discussion.)

It becomes a problem when Christianity is turned from something meant to work on the "inner person" into something that works on the "outer person" - in other words, dictating actions instead of being a motivation for doing the right thing from the inside (and that means NOT trying to control the actions of others).  You cannot change the Other's inner person by forcing them to behave like you... and based on the hypocrisy I constantly see from the "Good Christians", their inner person remains wicked and sinful even as they try to force others to be like themselves (maybe even to the point of being hypocrites too?).  Oh... and I see a lot of NON-Christian (and REAL Christian) folks who by their actions and everything about them, their "inner person" is not wicked and sinful.  People DO have a tendency to doing good and doing the right thing too, you know.

Part of the problem with "Political Christians" is that they view everything from a religious standpoint and not a cultural or scientific one.  In fact, they regularly do things that go against science or try to impose religion on culture (as anthropologists understand culture).  That's why their ideas fail so often.

by ArchaeoBob on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 10:21:28 AM EST
Parent

Politically active, but not dominionist (none / 0)
Yes, I think that's a great question you ask. What is the difference between a dominionist and an evangelical who opposes abortion and who wants to return prayer to schools?

As I see it, school prayer and gay marriage are the watershed issues. Insisting that people in public school should have to listen to prayers is dominionist. And forbidding gays from marrying because some people feel that homosexuality is a sin is dominionist.

But I don't think that opposing abortion is, in itself, a dominionist activity. Pro-life folks truly believe that they are fighting to save innocent lives. As a society, how can we tell those folks to sit down and shut up just because we don't agree with them? True, they are trying to control people in so far as they are trying to outlaw abortion, but they are not doing it for the sake of control, but for the greater good (as they see it) of preserving life. It's analogous to wanting laws that prohibit domestic violence or child abuse.

by dscribner on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:01:34 AM EST
Parent
Anti-abortion is tied to dominionism. (none / 0)
They don't like abortion, that's one thing.  Everyone has opinions.  If they try to do something about it, that's getting into dominionism territory (forcing their religion on others).  

As the saying goes - their freedom ends where someone else's nose begins.  They ARE doing it for control... controlling the decisions of women and if like usual, without regard to their situation or personhood.

(Let's be careful and remember site guidelines...)

by ArchaeoBob on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:49:26 PM EST
Parent

Legislation = control (none / 0)
All legislation seeks to control behavior. Using your logic, it would be wrong to pass laws against domestic violence, child abuse, or attempting suicide. I don't disagree with your point of view, but more thought needs to be put to the reason behind it.

by dscribner on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 09:59:05 PM EST
Parent
Already considered (none / 0)
There is a difference between laws forcing a religious ideology on others, and laws which promote the common good.  Laws that promote the common good take into account scientific research regarding their impact on society (or they should) - religious laws do not take into account science or anything that doesn't support them (ditto for their supporters/backers).  Many of the existing laws are common sense... for instance, if there were no laws against murder, society would fall apart.  If there were no laws against theft and using deception to get something for nothing, people would have every reason not to trust another (and again society would fall apart).  The attempts to ban abortion and birth control (the reality is that they cannot be separated) would have no positive effect on society, and indeed would have a negative effect.  This is just one example of where laws passed for religious reasons are not in the same category as those passed for the common good.

I know "Good Christians" will insist that the law is for the common good, but anyone who doesn't follow their narrow and blind ideology are very likely disagree, and as in the case of the anti-abortion and anti-birth control laws, it can be shown that they would be detrimental to society and clearly to individuals (women).  I'm not going to argue that point - only mention it.  The scientific research is "out there" and solid.

I might also remind of the site rules - abortion and birth control are not up for debate.  I replied because there is a difference between religious-based laws (which only actually help those who practice the religion by giving them preferential treatment) and those which are for the common good.  The reality is that when people try to force something based upon their religion on others, it is repressive and wrong.  If the law being passed is based on the common good, it's more likely to not be repressive except maybe to the outlaws... the sociopaths.

by ArchaeoBob on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:41:09 AM EST
Parent









Check George Lakoff's Work (none / 0)
Altemeyer has good work on the Authoritarian personality and if the person would test as high scoring on the authoritarian scale, it would be very difficult to get them over it. However not all people who call themselves conservative would be high scoring. George Lakoff postulates two concepts of a family (and thus define "Family Values") that most people focus one one or the other depending on circumstance.


The authoritarian extreme Lakoff calls "Strict Father"(SF) and the Jesus, MLK, Gandhi extreme Lakoff call "Nurturing Parent"(NP). I have seen many however who do follow NP values but call them conservative, vote that way, and believe that Liberals think and act as no sane person of any politics would. By starting out with what Jesus actually said (like the Golden Rule), supporting NP values it is not hard to walk that into policies, and from that the rest should fall in place.

by FreeDem on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:31:16 AM EST
Parent



There is no easy solution. (5.00 / 1)
The advice I would give is not to take a direct or confrontational approach in any aspect as it will be seen as an attack and will send who ever you are dealing with into a foxhole mentality. That said it is impossible to win hearts and minds without someone thinking you're the devil incarnate, just give them the least amount of ammunition possible. Secondly never under any circumstance try to engage with a hostile group, they will drown you out and feel as though they have won all while reinforcing the herd mentality. Thirdly use seemingly unimportant but thought provoking questions, if you can get them to think, you've won half the battle. An example might be to ask them if they consider themselves a new testament christian or an old testament christian. This does two things, one it gets the mind thinking, and two if they say old testament without hesitation or doubt, you know you can't convince them without an act of God.

by Hirador on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 04:10:54 PM EST
Good thoughts, Hirador (none / 0)
I especially like your third suggestion -- asking thought-provoking questions.

I might try something like this: "When I was younger (and in my church now), we always had a sense that we were a minority living among a secular majority, and our challenge is to be so loving and pure that non-believers notice that we're different. These days it seems like a lot of Christians are lot more focused on politics and trying to change the secular society. What do you think changed?"

And hopefully the conversation will allow me the opportunity to highlight the fact that when Jesus called us to be "the light of the world" it was a challenge to offer love, hope, and warmth, and not a call to build battle-field fires.

by dscribner on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:09:19 PM EST
Parent
That's a good one. (none / 0)
It's good and non-confrontational, but it is a bit to easy for an overtly devote person to argue that Christians need to get involved in politics for some reason that only makes sense if you believe in divine intervention. I don't have many good questions, but the one I would go with is to quote romans 3:10 at them, explain that everything they fight against has existed since the beginning of time and God has yet to kill us.

by Hirador on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:35:52 PM EST
Parent



Bob Altmeyer's book Authoritarians (none / 0)
Dear dscribner:
You can get a free copy of Bob Altmeyer's book here:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
He is a psychologist whose primary subject of study is authoritarianism. He does an interesting job in making the connection with the conservative mindset and the Christian evangelical mentality.
The last chapter deals with the question of how to communicate with them.
Basically he suggests finding common ground and not butting heads directly on the issues you can't agree on. It's all a question of how you frame the conversation. But in the end he doesn't seem to hold out a lot of hope that you can convince them through argument because it's not a feature of their psychology to be receptive to ideas that are disconfirming... They especially don't want to hear that they are being played for suckers.

However he offers the following advice:

1. They want to be normal!
If they realize that most people do not think like they do they will tone down their position.

 2. Seek out projects you can agree on. Some Xians are becoming concerned about the notion of stewardship rather than exploitation of the environment for example. Altmeyer's suggests working on a local clean up project. This helps tone down the us vs them rhetoric.

3. Encourage kids to get into higher education in a mainstream uni. Nothing fixes the fundi mindset better than a liberal education.

He offers other examples of ways to shake the fundie-conservative mindset, but these are long term strategies. Altmeyer's doesn't see any alternative unfortunately.


by PastorJennifer on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 01:47:36 PM EST


possibilities for mission work (none / 0)
If you have the opportunity to suggest channels for mission work, you might try steering the young folk toward an organization like Brethren Volunteer Service or Mennonite Central Committee. They are theologically conservative but honestly service-oriented, not manipulative, and they work with great respect for the indigenous wisdom in whatever country they are placed. For the more adventuresome, Christian Peacemakers Teams do extraordinary work.

A book that I have heard to be highly recommended regarding ethical mission work is "When Charity Destroys Dignity" by Glenn Schwartz. I've not had a chance to read it yet myself, but people whose opinions I value have said that it is asking important and necessary questions.

I second what Pastor Jennifer said regarding starting from common ground. That's critical for making any headway, I think. Good luck.

by MLouise on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:21:58 PM EST

opening eyes (none / 0)
John MacArthur has said, "America's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics." That's a good place to start. And then delve into Scripture with regard to spreading the gospel and Christian living among nonbelievers. (Luke 24:47, 1 Peter 2:12) The religious right are not the first ones to mistake Jesus's mission on earth as a political one.

by Christian777 on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 11:31:53 AM EST

know scripture, sow doubt (none / 0)
I was discussing this topic recently and we came to the conclusion that you can tell the person that no one knows everything and there is a slight possibility that they may be wrong about a few things.
Indeed, if they in fact have so much truth, why doesn't everyone believe them? Why are there so many other interpretations who also claim to be true?
You might consider, if they take the Bible literally, to ask them questions about literal interpretations of symbolic passages. For example, Daniel 7:23 speaks of a beast devouring the earth. Where would it stand while enjoying this planetary morsel? Obviously, a symbolic passage. Then it usually not hard to make the connection that if some of the bible is symbolic, then it all cannot be taken literally.
Try to get them thinking. They will either run to their preacher or start to think more for themselves.

by COinMS on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:09:39 PM EST

know scripture, sow doubt (none / 0)
I was discussing this topic recently and we came to the conclusion that you can tell the person that no one knows everything and there is a slight possibility that they may be wrong about a few things.
Indeed, if they in fact have so much truth, why doesn't everyone believe them? Why are there so many other interpretations who also claim to be true?
You might consider, if they take the Bible literally, to ask them questions about literal interpretations of symbolic passages. For example, Daniel 7:23 speaks of a beast devouring the earth. Where would it stand while enjoying this planetary morsel? Obviously, a symbolic passage. Then it usually not hard to make the connection that if some of the bible is symbolic, then it all cannot be taken literally.
Try to get them thinking. They will either run to their preacher or start to think more for themselves.

by COinMS on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:10:13 PM EST
I see what you're saying (none / 0)
Thanks for the comment, COinMS, but I'm not sure that literalism is exactly the problem with the folks I'm talking about (conservative Christians who aren't really part of the dominionist movement.)

These folks know the bible pretty well, and they understand that the bible has different genres of literature. They're likely to say, "yes, but the fact that some parts are symbolic doesn't mean that none of it is literal."

I think I might have better luck by referring them to the stories and passages of God's people living under secular rule (e.g. in Egypt, Daniel and Esther during the Exile, and the early church) and how the response was always one of humility, submission, and appealing to authority -- rather than trying to seize authority.

Also, I think I'll challenge them not to believe everything they hear about "The Armor of God." That passage in Ephesians is about fighting against temptation, discouragement, and guilt -- not about grasping for political power.

by dscribner on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:58:48 AM EST
Parent
That being the case... (none / 0)
maybe bringing up where dominionism is leading them (because where do they get these ideas in the first place?) might help.

by ArchaeoBob on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:23:37 PM EST
Parent
Expln to them it is danger 2 them as evangelicals (none / 0)
You can explain it to them how dangerous dominionism is to them as evangelical Christians, that once dominionism is in control, it will seek to destroy and purge anything that does not fit within it. Dominionism is a threat to them AS CHRISTIANS, and it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The current seperation between church and state ensures that anyone in America can express what religious views they want without fear of being persecuted, and honest debate about religious doctrine takes place in this manner. The right leaning evangelicals need to see what is going on in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other places where Wahhabism, extreme Shiism and theocratic ideals as espoused by The Muslim Brotherhood have been taking hold. The Muslim Brotherhood's motto is ""Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!" They need to know that Rios-Montt had direct links to dominionism- do they want such death squads operating in America? (see http://antipasministries.com/html/file0000105.htm for information about neopentecostal death squads in Guatemala). Evangelicalism in this country was anti-domionionist. Isaac Backus, Roger Williams, and John Leland are names that come to mind. Even Brannon Howse, who is conservative as one gets, posts on his website anti-dominionist articles (http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?arti cleid=6457)

by zowie on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 02:40:57 AM EST
Parent
I'm not so sure (none / 0)
that I agree with the idea that evangelicalism is anti-dominionist.  From my point of view, there is a spectrum between Real Christianity (as I know it - internal only) on one end and dominionists like the NAR and Reconstructionists on the other.  Evangelicals would be clearly to the right of center on that scale.  Most evangelicals operate under the idea that Christianity is supreme and thus must be spread, instead of being "Good News" of God's love and only shared (as Mother Teresa is supposed to have said: "witness always, speak only when absolutely necessary).  Thus you have the denigrating attacks on non-Christians and some really dirty backhanded tricks to try to get people to convert (such as missionaries making sure that their targets get bad seed while they get good seed - and then telling the people that their refusal to convert is why God is angry with them and showing it by denying them the food they need to avoid starvation - and then offering food in exchange for church attendance and conversion).

Evangelicals as a general rule refuse to see the good in other religions.  Real Christians do not.  Part of my own belief system is that the Creator tries to reach out to every person in a way he or she can understand... trying to encourage growth in the right direction.  I see God's "hand" in every religion I've encountered, to some degree or another - while recognizing that I also have my own perspective on God (the elephant metaphor).

The way I see it is fundamentalism is evangelicalism focused like sunlight through a lens, and dominionism is fundamentalism focused by a huge and very powerful lens.


by ArchaeoBob on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:29 AM EST
Parent






I know I'm late to this discussion... (none / 0)
but as a former member of a "high commitment" group descended from a well-known campus cult I empathize.

One of the things I've found in all my research in my former group, one which was intricately tied with the rise of the Religious Right as a political force, is that the way the Religious Right in general views the "Great Commission" as a political call to action was considered highly controversial in American Christianity several decades ago.  There are even a few distinctives that can be traced directly to them.

Example:  America's Providential History, a mainstay "text" among Christian home schoolers?  Well, its authors wrote it while they and the Providence Foundation were still part of Maranatha Campus Ministries.

If Maranatha existed today, I guarantee it would not have been labeled a cult.  Too mainstream now.  Every Nation, the group descended from them kind of wears that label based on things that I and others posted online between 6-8 years ago, but I don't know that if we started that now we'd get much traction.

I am discouraged when in my previously healthy church I start hearing things not just from the congregation, but increasingly from the pulpit.  I'm sorry, I'm not going to agree in prayer that the Supreme Court reverses the Affordable Care Act to stop the spread of socialism.  That's not Christianity, not religious in general, that's politically astroturfed duckspeak.  There is so much cr*p being sent to pastor's mailboxes, directed to them online, in publications... what we here call "steeplejacking"... but it's not only overt, it's stealth through the mind, through the email inbox...

What can I do?  I can disagree.  Not attack, but not assent either.  I can still stand firm in my faith, which no one can deny is Christian, and present alternatives.  Arguing won't work.  It doesn't work with cult members and it doesn't work with those increasingly being inculcated with cult doctrine.  But being an alternative, still reaching out, still maintaining relationships, still being a witness to my faith, but not buying in either, hopefully can keep a few others from going off the deep end into this stuff.  I still, one by one, see members of my former group finally come out.  It sometimes takes time.  It sometimes takes a lot of time.  But if all they hear, all they see, are those who parrot and reinforce the cult line, then it's much more difficult.

These are all political tactics couched in spiritualized language, hardening into religious dogma.  And they have a fairly recent source.  And occasionally someone questions it and wants to know what the source is.  When that happens, I'm there.

by ulyankee on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 09:32:26 AM EST

I would suggest (none / 0)
that you also organize with others who recognize the threat posed by dominionism, to resist the takeover.  I've mentioned before that steeplejackers are specifically trained and sent out in teams, and there are two basic ways to fight them (both are necessary).

One is to expose and openly resist them at every opportunity.  If you know someone comes from a dominionist church and they start pushing their crap, speak out (and watch for the silent partner/partners... they're the really dangerous ones).  Unless they realize that people are on to them, they always work in multiples of two - in pairs and groups of pairs (they consider it a biblical mandate).

The second way, which is important, is to organize with others and provide an alternative viewpoint which is open and spoken in the church.  If they start preaching against President Obama's law to reform health insurance, speak out and show how Christian that law really is.  If they start preaching against abortion and birth control, show how cruel and heartless towards women that thinking is.

Beware if you do so, however... they DO get violent and are inherently sneaky and underhanded in their actions.  They work from the darkness, trying to keep their real actions hidden.


by ArchaeoBob on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 11:02:23 AM EST
Parent



Send them to sites such as (none / 0)
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com - the one stop website for Evangelical Christians who absolutely hate Dominionism and see it for what it is- Fascism with a Christian makeup. Who said a person can't be Evangelical and not be opposed to theocratic and fascistic tendencies in the Christian Church? This website even links to Talk2Action several times. ----- http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/christianfascism.html . http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/dominionismexposed.html

by zowie on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 01:37:25 AM EST

Maybe Cizik's new organization could be of help? (none / 0)
I'm a newbie posting here, though I've been using this site for months as a valued source for a series of articles I've been writing on dominionism for a freethought discussion board.  One of the organizations I ran into during this research is Richard Cizik's new group, The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, that he formed after being forced out of the NEA.  You might find something useful there.

http://newevangelicalpartnership.org/

Since I'm not an Evangelical (not even a Christian, for that matter), I can't really assess the group regarding evangelicalism, but my impression is that they are NOT dominionists.  I'm sure if I'm mistaken, someone here will step in to provide further info (at least, I hope so)!

by sarai on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 02:52:51 PM EST


How do we open the eyes of folks on the Religious Right? | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (375 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (203 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (111 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (251 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (65 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (177 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (109 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (216 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (166 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (164 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (180 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (331 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (149 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.