Standing Up To Rush Limbaugh

One of the most polarizing men in America is at it again. But this time one of the victims of his latest smear job is standing up to the bully in an essay on Salon.com.

Valerie Kaur and her dad used to be Rush Limbaugh fans. No more.

"In mid-May," she writes, "I played an Iraqi prisoner in the opening night of the play Abu Ghraib, an original student production at Harvard University... My father called to wish me luck. Imagine his disappointment when I told him what Limbaugh had said about me in his radio program that day:

"'Here you have these dunces ... at Harvard now doing a playing on the travesties of Abu Ghraib, and you know this is going to get back to the people in Baghdad, the insurgents and this sort of thing. It's just typical. These people hate the country, folks. I'm telling you: There's an anti-American bias in the American left.'"

"My dad, who has voted Republican all his life, was shocked. 'But this is beyond partisan politics!' he said. 'Has he seen the play?'"

"No, and Limbaugh still has not seen the show. Neither... has Bill O'Reilly, who lambasted the play on his television program... "

Abu Ghraib, which has a cast of 15 students, was written and directed by Harvard sophomore Currun Singh. It tells the stories, "of a soldier whose friends were killed in war, of an insurgent filled with hatred for Americans, of the sergeant who turned in the incriminating photographs from Abu Ghraib."

Kaur, who is studying ethics at the Harvard Divinity School, reports that these are "factual accounts."

"My character," she writes, "is based on a real Iraqi prisoner, Huda Alazawi, arrested by American soldiers in December 2003 after she inquired after her missing brother. They detained her at Abu Ghraib overnight, and in the morning they threw his dead body at her feet."

Thanks to Valerie Kaur for her courage in standing up to Limbaugh and O'Reilly -- and to Salon.com for giving her the space to tell her story.

UPDATE: Illinois High School Kids Challenge Rush to Debate.

Nationally syndicated radio demagogue Rush Limbaugh not only picks on college student productions of plays he has not seen, but he picks on high school students he knows nothing about. Kate N. Grossman, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that Limbaugh recently claimed "that Evanston Township High School students 'don't know anything about World War II' and 'they've probably never heard the name Adolf Hitler' because they're so focused on a multicultural curriculum."

"The comments prompted a response Friday from ETHS Superintendent Allan Alson, who wrote in a letter to the Review that Limbaugh 'spoke inaccurately and unconscionably about Evanston Township High School and its students....'"

"Some Evanston kids want to show Limbaugh what they know. They want to debate him on American history." [More]

Let's Fight for Our Right to Disagree

This essay had started out as round-up of recent news about the struggle against theocratic trends in the U.S. It still is, but thanks to the approach of Memorial Day, I have rewritten it in light of the sudden realization that the wise words of some vets more than 25 years ago, influenced me in ways that I never fully understood, until now.

On this Memorial Day weekend, I want to recall and thank the men and women of my parents' generation who fought in World War II; those who never came home, and those who did -- especially those who tried to find something out of their experience of the horrors of war to help the society to which they returned to understand the value of what we have. Some of them taught me a lesson that informs my life and my work to this day. I believe that in their way, they were seeking to honor those who did not come home. And I want to join in honoring thier sacrifice.

Like many of my generation, I opposed the war in Vietnam. There were painful divisions in our country over that war that linger on today. But there were some who supported the war -- WWII vets, men I hardly knew -- who said something to me that has stayed with me all these years. I no longer remember thier names, or maybe I never knew them in the first place, but I will never forget what they said: "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight for your right to say it."

There was no question in my mind that they meant exactly what they said. But it has taken me these years for the full impact to hit me -- as it did last night as I started to write and the tears streamed down my face.

This essay is my Memorial Day tribute to them, the sacrifices they made, and the honor and wisdom of their words that helped shape my life. They stood for an idea of America that is America at its best. I hope that I may do justice to them.

Here are three stories about the ongoing fight for people to believe and to speak freely in America.

Rob Boston, writing at The Wall of Separation (the blog at Americans United for Separation of Church and State) reports that the Air Force is scrambling to recover from revelations that the United States Air Force Academy has apparently engendered a domineering evangelical Christian culture on campus, resulting in rampant religious supremacism and toleration of hate speech, among other attacks on the civil and constitutional rights of cadets. The good news is that Air Force seems to be acting decisively and has issued a remarkable statement:

"'Senior leaders, commanders, and supervisors at every level must be particularly sensitive to the fact that subordinates can consider your public expressions of belief systems coercive. Using your place at the podium as a platform for your personal beliefs can be perceived as misuse of office. Where, when, and how you espouse your beliefs is important. Use your best judgment, and show your Airmen the respect you want to receive.'"

The Air Force also affirms that personnel and their families have the right "to hold to any belief system they choose.... This includes respecting an Airman's right to align with traditional religious views as well as his/her right to not align with any specific view."

Here is the part that nails it for me: "We have the honorable privilege of upholding a Constitution that both protects each American's right to freely exercise their religion and forbids the government's establishment of religion. Commanders are responsible to create conditions where those tenets flourish simultaneously, limited only by the requirements of good order and discipline and military necessity."

These are all the right words. But Members of Congress are intent on ensuring that the the Academy lives up to them. Let's encourage the Air Force and Congress to continue to do the right thing.

But while religious bigotry may get cleaned up at the Air Force Academy, what to do about Cale J. Bradford the state judge in Indiana who has ordered two parents not to discuss their faith with their child?

The Indianapolis Star reports, "An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to 'non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.' The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth." The ACLU is representing the parents in their appeal. Legal scholars interviewed by the Star think getting the order reversed should be "a slam dunk."

"Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University. 'The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment,' Snyder said. 'Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side.'"

Chuck Currie has the story of how over 800 students, faculty and alumni of Calvin College recently took out a full page ad in the Grand Rapids, Michigan newspaper in response to the planned commencement speech by President George Bush. Their statement read in part:

"By their deeds ye shall know them, says the Bible. Your deeds, Mr. President--neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment, and misleading the country into war--do not exemplify the faith we live by... Furthermore, we urge you to repudiate the false claims of supporters who say that those who oppose your policies are the enemies of religion."

Commenter Greg (scroll down past the original post), has the text of another ad -- which also appeared in the Grand Rapids Press. This one was signed by 140 Calvin College faculty staff and emeriti, who declared in part: "...we understand that no single political position should be identified with God's will, and we are conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration."

"As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq."

"As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor."

"As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees."

Jesus Politics has more on the courageous Calvin College protestors, as does Bruce Prescott at Talk to Action: "David Crump and the other dissenting professors at Calvin College have given hope and encouragement to a lot of other evangelicals who are tired of being lumped together with the right wing," Prescott writes. "When so many Christians do little more than give lip service to a faith that risks everything for Christ, thanks for having the courage to put your faith in action."

On this Memorial Day weekend, let's resolve to fight for those who are persecuted for having different views, whether they are Jews, Lutherans and atheists at the Air Force Academy or Wiccans in Indianapolis. And let's thank and honor the evangelical Christians at Calvin College who had the courage to confront, with great civility, a cowardly president who goes to exraordinary lengths to appear in public only with those who agree with him.

I can think of no better way to honor those who fought that we might be free to disagree.

United Church of Christ Debates Marriage Equality

There is a big conversation going on in the United Church of Christ about same sex marriage. The issue will be on the agenda of the liberal Protestant denomination's biennial conference in Atlanta in July. As might be expected, some are for it, some aren't, and some want to study the issue. As might also be expected, some people have strong views on the subject and are likely to leave the historic church. Some already have.

(And yes, the UCC is that church -- the one that produced the God is Still Speaking ads that were rejected last year in a frenzy of censorship by NBC and CBS.)

The renowned Pastordan, the unofficial pastor of The Daily Kos and other precincts around the blogosphere -- and a UCC minister -- has published a detailed report on the UCC's internal debate at BooMan Tribune. This is a must-read for anyone interested in the politics of same sex marriage.

"...if the "pro" resolution passes," writes Pastordan, "it will cost the UCC in division and lost revenue for the national church.... What can you do?"

"Well, if you're not a member of a UCC church, not much right now. We're not a terribly hierarchical denomination; a letter-writing campaign pressuring the higher-ups will probably get you a lot of sympathy and agreement, but it's up to the body to vote on this. You could toss the national church a few bucks, or write and let them know that you'd think about joining a mega-cool denomination that approved of SSM, but I ain't telling you to."

"No, for right now, just keep us in your thoughts and prayers, and get those itchy typing fingers ready for this summer. 'Cause you know that every right-wing loon and his Senate sockpuppet is going to be denouncing us as Exhibit 1A in the decline and fall of the American Empire... "

GOP Theocrat vs Moderate Showdown in Florida

One of America's most militant antiabortion activists plans to launch a primary challenge against a longtime moderate Republican leader of the Florida State Senate. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and "spokesman" for the parents of Terri Schiavo was publicly asked by two locally prominent Republicans to challenge incumbent Jim King in the GOP primary. The announcement came in a series of press conferences in Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. Terry says he will run if he can raise $15,000 in the next three weeks. But given the high profile announcement, it seems likely he will run no matter what happens.

The Associated Press reports that "King is one of the nine Republicans who helped block a bill in the last legislative session aimed at keeping Schiavo alive.... King, who has served in the Legislature since 1986 and was Senate president in 2003 and 2004, did not return phone calls Thursday for comment. He has said he would run for another four-year term in 2006, his last chance before term limits would block another run."

Terry who has a knack for news, is a Christian nationalist and a theocrat and one of the most polarizing men in American politics. Jim King epitomizes the moderate, business wing of the Republican Party. He has been a top leader in both the Florida House and Senate. The race will likely be one of the highest visibility races in the nation and throw into sharp relief the difference between the theocratic Christian Right and and mainstream Republicanism. Among other things, King is pro-choice, was a leader in promoting death with dignity legislation in Florida, and is a supporter of public education.

There is much I could write about Randall Terry, (and I did in my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy) but as the campaign begins, it is worth noting that in the 1990s, Terry was a national leader in The Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party) and in a 1994 op-ed in The Washington Post, went to far as to denounce Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition as "the mistress of the Republican Party." Now that Terry is a wannabe Republican office holder, it will be interesting to hear how he explains that one.

News of the Massachusetts Blogosphere

"What the Bloggers are Saying," is the title of a sidebar to the cover story about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick in this week's Valley Advocate (also The Springfield Advocate). These papers cover the cities and towns of the Connecticut River valley from Vermont to the Connecticut border.

Staff writer Andrew Varnon spotted a trend that has converged with the Patrick campaign: "In the past year," he writes, "Massachusetts has developed its own miniblogosphere. It is still rather nascent, but there is a core group of bloggers emerging who are concerned with state politics. And to these new bloggers, Deval Patrick has almost a 'rock star' status. All of them are talking about him."

This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a newspaper has reported on the existence of the informal network of MA political bloggers. We sprouted up independently, but eventually discovered each other. We often discuss and link to interesting posts on each others blogs -- and in so doing we have built a considerable statewide readership. This trend will continue as we write about the governor's race. This will be important in part because, as Deval Patrick learned when he made his recent campaign swing through western Massachusetts, The Berkshire Eagle, the largest paper in the region has a policy of not covering the race until this November. (I wonder if Eagle readers know about that? I wonder if they would think its a good idea?)

The North Adams Transcript, however, thought someone running for governor and visiting their corner of the state was worthy of a story. So did blogger Michael Wilcox. So did blogger Noho-missives.

Kudos to The Valley Advocate for a fair and interesting profile of Deval Patrick and his campaign -- and for being the first to report on the MA political bloggers.

What Can the Left Learn from the Right?

I think there are a lot of things the Left can learn from the Right -- which has been doing most of the political innovation and best organizing in the U.S. over the last quarter century.

One place the Left can look to for some lessons is The Leadership Institute. Founded by conservative movement activist Morton Blackwell, it has been teaching young conservatives how to be campus activists, journalists, and provocateurs for a generation. Progressives have never bothered to even try to match the Institute -- leaving the field of well organized campus activism largely to the Right. Its not that there are not some good organizations of the center and the left that do some training, its just that they are not so focused, funded, and effective.

Anyway, there is an excellent and important article on Salon.com based on reporter Jeff Horowitz's experience attending a Leadership Institute training. The article is so full of valuable insights, I think it is one of the most important articles anyone will read or write about politics this year.

The Leadership Institute, Horowitz reports, is "a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) charity, drawing the overwhelming majority of its $9.1 million annual budget from tax-deductible donations. Despite its legally required 'neutrality,' the institute is one of the best investments the conservative movement has ever made. Its walls are plastered with framed headshots of former students -- hundreds of state and local legislators sprinkled with smiling members of the U.S. Congress, and even the perky faces of two recently crowned Miss Americas. Thirty-five years ago, Blackwell dispatched a particularly promising 17-year-old pupil named Karl Rove to run a youth campaign in Illinois; Jeff Gannon, a far less impressive student, attended the Leadership Institute's Broadcast Journalism School."

"Over the last 25 years," Horowitz continues, "more than 40,000 young conservatives have been trained at the institute's Arlington, Va., headquarters in everything from TV makeup for aspiring right-wing talking heads to prep courses for the State Department's Foreign Service exam. Classes are taught by volunteers recruited from the ranks of the conservative movement's most talented organizers, operatives and communicators."

"The Leadership Institute has succeeded," Horowitz concludes, "in part, because it's had little to no competition from the left." That has started to change. The Center for Progressive Leadership has recently been launched as an answer to The Leadership Institute. The Center's web site says it is "the first national political training institute dedicated to building the next generation of progressive political leaders. Through intensive training programs for youth, activists, and candidates, CPL provides individuals with the skills and resources needed to become effective political leaders."

Meanwhile, Horowitz raises many interesting questions about the efficacy of the Left's political and electoral organizing on many fronts, for example: "Chris Stio, an institute staffer who directed the Bush-Cheney field operations in northeast Michigan, warns his students not to buy into second-term crowing about America's irrevocable slide into conservatism. 'Enough people were yelling and screaming about the president that if they'd actually picked up the phone book and started calling, they might have won,' he says. 'They went to concerts, they bashed the president, but they didn't work. If enough people had, maybe we'd have a different president. The election was not inevitable. And too many think it was.'"

There is much to learn from The Leadership Institute -- not that other sectors of society should ape their style and their tactics. First, we should understand what their tactics are -- such as deliberate provocations intended to upset and throw liberals off balance; rigging student referenda; and so on. Second, we should be planning to create training institutes of our own, although the Center seems to be a good start. But more importantly, we need to develop a culture of learning about politics and citizenship instead of reusing the same old ineffective tactics in the same old ways year after year.

It is long past time to talk about these things. Fortunately there is a diary on The Daily Kos summarizing the article and leading to discussion. When Talk to Action's phase II goes live in a few weeks, it will be the place for exactly the kinds of focused and thoughtful conversations and debatees we need to have about tactics and strategy, the lessons we can learn from the Right, and what works and does not work in response.

Dobson's Choices

James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family doesn't like the filibuster deal. He wanted the GOP Senate majority to end the Senate rule that allows members to filibuster presidential judicial nominees that they find to be extreme or unqualified. Dobson wanted to pack the federal Appeals courts with Christian Rightists -- and President Bush was all too happy to nominate them. That moderate Republicans were willing to buck Majority Leader, Sen. Bill Frist(R-TN) as well as the president on the so-called "nuclear option," (ending the filibuster rule) should send a clear signal that the Senate will not destroy all comity and deliberative sense, and use raw majoritarianism to impose its will.

At issue were seven nominees viewed too extreme by the Democrats (and probably some Republicans) who had been threatened with a filibuster. In the deal, the Democrats agreed not to filibuster five, and reserved the right to filibuster the other two, and any future nominees only under "extraordinary circumstances,'' the definition of which is left open to interpretation. (Blue Mass Group has the whole memo of understanding among the 14 Senators.)

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," Dobson said. "Only three of President Bush's nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals."

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness," Dobson continued. "That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

As usual, Dobson engages in demagogic and revisionist versions of history. In fact, Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist were never threatened with filibusters, and any Senator could have filibustered their nominations if they had chosen to do so. (There are alot of people who wish some Democrats had had the courage to do so.) But Dobson not only lost some of his choices for the federal bench. He may have blown some political capital with his high handedeness. His lobbying campaigns, including ads targeting Senators in their home states, rankled not only liberals but conservatives.

USA Today reports: "James Dobson: Who does he think he is, questioning my conservative credentials?" Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said in an interview. Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, criticized Lott for his efforts to forge a compromise in the fight over the judges. Lott is still angry. "Some of his language and conduct is quite un-Christian, and I don't appreciate it," the senator said.

The Los Angeles Times, detailed the deal and its implications: "For their part, Republicans agreed not to lend their votes to the drive, led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to change the rules of the Senate to prevent future Democratic filibusters... During Bush's first term, Democrats filibustered 10 of the president's 52 appellate court nominees, complaining he had chosen conservative ideologues without consulting with the minority party. Bush resubmitted seven of the filibustered nominees, and Democrats said they again planned to block them... As part of the agreement, two of Bush's nominations - of William Myers to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and of Henry Saad to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Detroit -- would remain stalled. The other five filibustered nominees, including Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown -- would proceed to a floor vote. Owen's vote was expected Tuesday."

Of course five of the previously too egregious seven candidates will go forward for a vote by the full Senate, where there is a good chance that they will be confirmed. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is targeting Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor for defeat when they come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Will Senate Showdown Open Door to Theocratic Judges?

A few weeks ago, top leaders of the Christian Right distinguished themselves by claiming that those who oppose some of President Bush's judicial nominations are opposed to people of faith, even anti-Christian. This rhetorical campaign culminated in a rally for religious bigotry led by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council which was Orwellianly titled "Justice Sunday."

The insulting claims outraged Christians and members of other faith traditions who opposed some of the president's extreme judicial nominees -- and placed into sharp relief the attitudes and intentions of the Christian Right and its allies in Congress.

At issue of course, was the effort by the GOP majority in the Senate to end the filibuster, a tactic that allows the minority to block votes on nominations and legislation that they consider to be particularly eggregious. The issue comes to a head this week, and all sides are making a final effort to influence Senators to take thier side in the final showdown.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a good summary report on whats at stake. It concludes that the current fight "... has everything to do with what type of country we’ll leave the next generation. Will it be a multi-faith republic where people of all faiths (and none) live together in peace thanks to the separation of church and state or will it be a quasi-theocracy where the Religious Right has been handed the power by federal courts to meddle in everyone else’s lives? We must make every effort to see that it is the former, not the latter."

FaithfulAmerica.org -- the advocacy arm of the National Council of Churches (NCC) is urging mainstream Christians to speak up and to speak out.

The NCC is urging people to "SEND A MESSAGE to your Senator saying the filibuster is NOT anti-faith and that preserving it is an important way for every voice to be heard. We must never allow social and religious fundamentalists of any faith to silence the voices of those holding different beliefs."

The Interfaith Alliance is holding various events in Washington, DC over the next few days.

Click here to take action in support of the filibuster.

The key swing votes in the Senate are said to be Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner of Virginia, Mike Dewine of Ohio, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

For more on mainstream religious responses to the filibuster battle and the nominees at issue, check out this report by Chuck Currie.

The Weakest Link

How one looks at the strengths and weaknesses of any worthy opponent has everything to do with the strategy one adopts in any struggle. The principle is the same whether the matter at hand is a military battle, a business plan in a competitive marketplace, or even sizing up an opposing little league team. (Strong pitching? Weak defense? Power hitters? Good running game?) Like any movement, the Christian Right has its strengths and weaknesses. Any competent counter-strategy, locally or nationally, has got to have at least a back-of-the-envelope analysis, grounded in facts, and presented in calm, rational language.

One of the key ingredients in the ideology of the Christian Right is the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. And somehow this intention of the Founding Fathers has been thwarted by (pick one) -- liberals, judicial tyrants, the ACLU, secular humanists, all of the above.

This idea is tremendously powerful. It asserts that "the Christians," (however one may define Christians), are the intended rulers of the nation, because that's what The Founding Fathers, and by extension, by implication, the Constitution sought to accomplish. In some versions, God intended that America be a Christian nation. Its a powerful piece of political and religious mythology that feeds into another powerful myth -- that Christians are persecuted in the U.S. The effect is to make people feel that something has been unustly, unrighteously taken from them and that that something must be "restored" or "reclaimed." Its a powerful narrative and it flows quite naturally from the mouths of D. James Kennedy, David Barton, Roy Moore, Pat Robertson, and many more. There is a large industry of text books, seminars, speech and power point presenters that inform and popularize the movement. Christian nationalism is integral to the political events sponsored by the Christian Coalition and it is a recurrent theme on Christian television and radio.

But for all of the work that has gone into crafting this narrative, and as popular a notion as it is, there is a problem: the facts of history do not support the myth of Christian nationalism. This is one of many aspects of the Christian Right that has been largely ignored and has gone largely unanswered by the rest of society during its march to power.

I have written about this over the years, but since this turned out to be one of the main topics when Dr. D. James Kennedy and I appeared on the NPR interview show Fresh Air recently, arguably the issue is now on the national agenda, or at least pretty close.

To some, the question of whether America was founded as a Christian nation, may seem academic, and perhaps even unimportant in the face of the urgent affairs of state in Washington, DC and elsewhere.

But I think that it is very important and deserves our urgent attention. The reason is that Christian nationalism is a powerful ingredient of the political and religious identity of the theocratic Christian Right. It is a powerful, quasi-religious myth that helps to animate their politics. It helps to prop up their attack on the separation of church and state and the idea that Christians, (only of the correct sort of course), should be our elected and appointed government officials -- among other things. What if many members of the voters who support the Christian Right realize that they have been had? That history does not support Christian nationalism? What if the rest of us, who support religious equality and separation of church and state are able to gain the upper hand in the telling of our story as a nation? It is a story that can be told by all of us, in our lives, in our writings, in our communities, in our medida.

There are many flaws in the argument for Christian nationalism, mostly because of lack of evidence. Advocates for Christian nationalism resort to two main tactics. One is to cherry pick quotes from various of the founding fathers (often out of context, sometimes fabricated), that tend to support their view. The other is to cite the Declaration of Independence, which invokes the "Creator." Much is made of the Declaration for this reason. Given the importance of the Declaration in our history, and the way we revere the document, it is a shrewd choice. But the Declaration does not prove what D. James Kennedy sought to use it to prove -- that America was founded as a Christian nation.

The Declaration, written in 1776 was a revolutionary manifesto, a political document used to rally people to rise up in revolt against the king of England. But the Constitution makes no mention of God or of Christianity. In fact, the only mention of religion in the Constitution is to state in article 6 that there will be no religious tests for public office. What this meant was that one's religious orientation would not be a factor in determining criteria for public officials. By logical extension, it also meant that religion would be irrelevant to one's status as a citizen. It meant that for the first time in the history of the world, we would have a nation based on religious equality.

The Constitution was written and signed by many of the same men who wrote and signed the Declaration. If they had wanted to include God and Christianity in the nation's charter, they certainly could have done so. But they didn't, and for very good reasons. And this is the problem faced by the Christian nationalists. The Constitution and everything about its history and development belies the assertions of the Christian nationalists. They did not invoke God or declare a Christian nation, it starts out simply, "We the People of the United States" -- no deities, no higher law. There would only be what "we the people" decided would be our laws and our governing principles, and how they would evolve over time. And thats why the Christian Right invokes the Declaration to anchor their argument. They have nio choice -- the Constitution does not suppor thier argument. Their argument is that weak, and they are that desperate. So far, they have pretty much gotten away with it.

The Christian Right of the 18th century opposed ratification of the Constitution when it was sent to the legislature for ratification. Part of the opposition centered on the lack of acknowledgement of God and Christianity in the Constitution. The Christian Right of the 18th century didn't like the Constitution when it was written -- and they don't like it now. So they pretend.

It is long past time for a more concerted effort to challenge the Christian Right on its misrepresentations of our history. I talked alot about Christian nationalism and what's wrong with it in my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. (I also highly recommend The Godless Constitution, by Isaac Kramnick.) We have to challenge a form of historical revisionism that the late theocratic theologian R.J. Rushdoony called "Christian revisionism."

We do not need to start from scratch. The battle has been underway for some time. Just today, blogger Bruce Prescott links to a story in the Houston Chronicle that details how mainstream Baptists are taking on Christian theocrat Rick Scarborough. "I think he's a very dangerous man," said [David] Currie, also a former pastor and a devout Baptist, in a recent interview. "That whole 'Christian nation' movement is attempting to undermine the absolute strength and genius of this country, and that's the First Amendment.... To make judges a religious issue is ludicrous."

Let's step into the fray. Let's start to see ourselves as part of the story of our nation -- and not allow the Christian Right to twist our history in support of their contemporary theocratic agenda.

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

More Fresh Air

If you missed the broadcast of the program featuring Terry Gross's conversations with Rev. D. James Kennedy and me, you can listen to the archived show online. You can also order tapes, CDs and transcripts.

Welcome Fresh Air Listeners!

If you heard my interview on Fresh Air, and are visiting for the first time, welcome! (If you are a regular, welcome back, as always.)

I write often about politics and religion, but I also write about state politics in Massachusetts and make occasional forays into other matters that capture my interest. But if you are here because you are interested in my work on the religious right, here is a sample.

Religious Equality in America

New York Conference on Theocracy a Big Success

I'm told that my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy can sometimes be hard to get these days. But I know for certain that the best place to get it is here.

On Fresh Air, On Wednesday

I will be a guest on the National Public Radio show, Fresh Air with Terry Gross on Wednesday, May 18th.

"Is the division eroding between church and state? And should it? We talk with minister James Kennedy of the Presbyterian mega-church Coral Ridge, founder of the Center for Reclaiming America. Also, Frederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy."

Kennedy was, in 1973, one of the leaders of the conservative schism that became the Presbyterian Church in America. Here is a piece I wrote about Kennedy in March on this site.

For a sneak preview of my side of the argument, see my recent essay, Religious Equality in America.

To find out where and when you can hear the program in your area, here is the station list and program schedule. Times vary.

Please forgive my voice, I was coming down with a cold when we taped the interview.

Deval Patrick's Western Swing

No, thats not a Texas dance band. Its how MA Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick plans to spend Saturday, May 21st. He's coming to the western wing of Massachusetts -- making appearances in North Adams, Pittsfield, Northampton, and Greenfield.

This is his first visit to this part of the state since he electrified the MA Democratic Platform Convention in Lowell last weekend with his oratory. Here is what two western Mass bloggers had to say about the speech:

Noho-missives declared: "I'm biased, but I think the story of the convention is the emergence of Deval Patrick as a genuine star in the Massachusetts Democratic party. I was helping with floor activities and was visibly a supporter (wearing the neon t-shirt that was visible from any part of the arena) -- after he spoke, many fellow delegates came up to tell me how much they liked the speech.... Patrick fit in very well with Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, both gifted orators."

Michael Wilcox says, "reading it on the screen won't evoke (unless you were there) the visceral reaction produced by his delivery to an arena in which thousands of people were screaming, "yes, we can!"

Deval Patrick's Speech to the MA Dem Platform Convention

Here is the speech that brought Democrats to thier feet in Lowell, and people have been talking about ever since.

May 14, 2005

Tsongas Arena Lowell, Massachusetts

Thank you for that warm welcome. Thank you...

Thank you, Phil, for that generous introduction. And thank you fellow delegates for your warm welcome.

As Phil told you, I have been blessed with many opportunities: to serve my community as a lawyer and a volunteer; my country as a senior government official; and the customers and employees of two big companies as an executive.

In so many ways, I have lived the American Dream- because I got a better chance in Massachusetts. And I was taught that success is not what you get, it's what you give. So, I am running for governor because I want a better chance for you and everyone else in the Commonwealth. [More]

News from the Blogospheric Firmament

Just a quick welcome to two recent arrivals to the left of the Massachusetts political blogospheric firmament.

Lynn, a friend from The Daily Kos, now has her own place, Left In Lowell.

Patrick Abegg, a leader in Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, has just launched Cape Ann Dem.

I will be visiting them often.

Three Blog Reports on the MA Dem State Convention

Undoubtedly there will be much more from the blogosphere and the morning newspapers about the goings on at the Massachusetts Democratic Platform Convention. But here are three fresh-from-the convention reports.

.08 Acres and a Donkey reports that of the three men seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor "Deval Patrick... got by far the biggest reaction from the crowd. He really brought the house down and the standing ovation he got at the end of his speech was made up of more than just his volunteers -- not so with the other candidates. Neither Reilly nor Galvin can compete with him when it comes to oratory -- he is on a completely different level. Neither my wife nor the other delegates sitting in our area had heard him before and all were extremely impressed; one even said that "he's our Obama". After his showing today, I would be extremely surprised if he couldn't get the 15% of the delegates he needs at next year's nominating convention to get on the ballot."

He also reports that "Contrary to what anyone might tell you, there was no controversy regarding the equal marriage rights plank, and in fact all the focus on it in the media over the past week or so has been completely overblown. There was no one taking signatures to remove it from the platform -- and there were people taking signatures for just about everything -- nor were there any protests that I noticed."

Charley at Blue Mass Group agrees about Patrick's speech: "This is straight from my scrawled notes: "BIG APPLAUSE. PARTIAL STANDING O. Enthusiasm!" If he has name recognition problems in the statewide polls right now, that sure wasn't evident in Lowell this morning. His signs were everywhere, and his people were very visible, wearing neon-chartreuse t-shirts.

On Bill Galvin: "His stump speech, frankly, sounds like a small-market truck commercial. Paraphrasing: To win, like the Patriots, we need teamwork. And teamwork means a great QB. We've got to get our state moving again. What happened to Massachusetts? We used to be a leader. We will be again with the right leadership. I know the problems of this state, and I know how to fix them.

"Oh, thank goodness, it's all settled then! The response to Galvin's speech was as wooden as its conception and execution."

On Tom Reilly: "...I don't envy him for having to follow Patrick. He was greeted with warm but not fervent applause. He seems to be positioning himself as the candidate of the acceptable, electable middle: We will not waste tax money, we will grow the economy and jobs. Especially striking was his emphasis on reaching out to independents -- that they need to be listened to, not lectured to. People who are struggling to send their kids to college, young people who are considering moving away because of the high cost of housing -- these folks used to be Democrats. These are our friends and neighbors.... There is a nugget of real compassion in Reilly's speech that could be expanded -- I hope he does so. If he finds his inner Bill Clinton, he could actually be a decent candidate."

Blogger Orient Lodge -- Aldon Hynes a Democrat from Connecticut was the only press-credentialed blogger at the event. He has a detailed report on how the chair of the convention stifled debate and claimed there was no time for anything more than an up or down voice vote to both the charter and the platform. The ploy was met with loud calls for "new leadership" from the floor.

"I spoke with quite a few different people about the events. People close to the chair argued that he would never do anything improper to get his way in a vote. They talked about the importance of getting business done quickly so that people wouldn't need to stay all day and leave out of boredom. I questioned how this related to making new people feel welcome in the party and staunching the flow of people out of the party. They justified the action saying that people had been given adequate opportunity to express their opinions already, yet had no suggestions about how to make people feel more welcome."

"Others were less charitable, Hynes continues. "Some leaders in the party refused to say anything other than that they could not comment. They seemed to view the event as a damaging fiasco and recognized that nothing is ever truly off the record.... Those who were opposed to the charter revisions, however, were livid. Some compared the chair to Stalin. Others compared him to Bush."


I was an elected convention delegate, although I was unable to attend. I had studied the charter changes in advance and would have voted against some of them, (all of them if necessary). In my view saving the substance of a "platform convention" til the end when people are eager to go home, and then ramming-through controversial changes to the charter by lumping them together with the platform strikes me from this distance as epitomizing some of both the appearance and substance the party's problems.

I will post more convention reports of interest, if any come my way.

What Exactly Happens When the State Becomes the Church?

What happens when church merges with state? What happens when government agencies promote one religious view over another? What happens when one version of Christianity is promoted over another by government agents?

Look no further than the United States Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, Colorado where conservative evangelical Christianity is aggressively promoted, conflated with the mission of the Air Force, cadets of other faiths are frequently insulted and forced to choose between mandatory academy functions and their religious holidays, and now a Lutheran chaplain has been fired for daring to criticize the culture of religious bigotry, and religious supremacism protected and enforced on campus.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been on the case for months, and so now are major newspapers in the nation.

The Washington Post, for example reported that "Amid a rising chorus of complaints about preferential treatment for evangelical Christians -- and command pressure on non-evangelicals -- among the 4,000 cadets, a Pentagon task force is visiting the Colorado Springs campus this week to study the religious atmosphere and propose possible remedial steps." But the fired chaplain, Capt. MeLinda Morton has not been asked to brief the taskforce.

The Post continues that surveys of cadets and alumni, "have shown that some students said they felt a heavy and sometimes offensive emphasis on evangelical Christianity, with praise for cadets who pronounce their 'born-again' status and insults aimed at Jews, Roman Catholics and non-evangelical cadets.
One staff chaplain reportedly told newly arrived freshmen last summer that anyone not born again 'will burn in the fires of hell.'"

"'Such slurs have been heard for decades on the campus, according to Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, a 1977 academy graduate who said he has repeatedly complained to the Air Force brass about the 'religious pressure' on cadets. 'This is not Christian versus Jew,' Weinstein said. 'This is the evangelical Christians against everybody else.'"

"The Air Force's new attention to the issue stems from an earlier scandal at the school in which female cadets said commanding officers ignored or played down numerous cases of sexual assault by male students."

"As part of its response to the sexual assault charges, the academy asked a team from Yale Divinity School to visit the campus during the summer training for incoming freshmen."

"'We were asked to study the quality of cadet-centered pastoral care,'" said Yale Prof. Kristen Leslie. 'What we found was this very strong evangelical Christian voice just dominating. We thought that just didn't make sense in light of their mission, which was to protect and train cadets, not to win religious converts.'"

"Morton, who was executive officer of the squadron of 16 chaplains at the academy, said she shared the concerns expressed by the study group from Yale."

"'The evangelicals want to subvert the system,' Morton said. 'They have a very clear social and political agenda. The evangelical tone is pervasive at the academy, and it's aimed at converting these young people who are under intense pressure anyway.'"

This is what happens when church and state are merged. Government officials will use their positions to promote their religious and religiously-informed political views; they will punish and purge those who disagree; and they will persecute those in the weakest position who do not go along. They feel justified in doing so, because they claim that their religious views require them to do so.

Similar justifications were made in years past to justify institutional racism and second class citizenship for African-Americans. Racial supremacy is no longer in fashion. But religious supremacism is on the rise -- promoted by leaders of the Christian Right and their allies in Congress and the White House.

Let's keep the spotlight on the outrageous conduct of the religious supremacists at the Air Force Academy. Religious bigotry by agencies and senior officers of the federal government must be condemned in no uncertain terms, and a culture of religious equality maintained.

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

Rise to the Occasion

The level of conversation in the media is rising regarding the Christian Right. One good example was a recent interview, on the nationally syndicated radio program, Democracy Now!, with Amy Goodman, titled The Christian Right and the Rising Power of the Evangelical Political Movement featured an interview with journalist Chris Hedges and Rev. Joseph Phelps, of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, who hosted a counter event to the Christian Right's rally for religious bigotry, Justice Sunday.

Here is some of what was said:

Phelps: "...it's obvious that they're trying to get out a very clear message. And the message, it seems to me, is a message of domination. Of trying to conflate the Bible and the Constitution and create a whole new entity, which many of us fear would be a form of religious right theocracy."

Hedges: "Christian America... this is an America where people like you and me have no place. And you don't have to take my word for it, turn on Christian broadcasting, listen to Christian radio. Listen to what they say about people like us. It's not a matter that we have an opinion they disagree with. It's not a matter of them de-legitimizing us, which they are. It's a matter of them demonizing us, of talking us -- describing us as militant secular humanists, moral relativists, both of which terms I would not use to describe myself, as a kind of counter-militant ideology that is anti-Christian and that essentially propelled by Satan that they must destroy."

Phelps: "Well, in their system, women -- they will talk a game about women having, you know, an equal role, but it's a silent role. It's a silent role. They can't speak in Church. They can't teach any children over then about the age of 10. So, that's part of the problem here is they're unwilling to talk. They're unwilling to talk with their own women. They're unwilling to talk with the fellow Baptists like me, like you. I have tried to enter into dialogue for years with Dr. [Albert] Mohler, with others in our city. They're not interested in dialogue, because, in their construct, they have the answer."

Phelps raises an important point. There is much talk about the need for dialog. And dialog can be a good thing. But what about those who are not interested in dialog? What about those who are interested in power and domination? It is certainly important to dialog with those whom we can -- but we must also to rise to the occasion and counter the drive for power by the theocratic Christian Right which has been in high gear for about 15 years.

Thanks to Jesus Politics for calling attention to this program.

Debunking Christian Historical Revisionism

Evangelist Franklin Graham (son of Billy) said recently on Fox News that "The National Day of Prayer goes back to the Continental Congress with George Washington, when he set aside a day of prayer." Graham apparently went on to invoke the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, and that evangelical Christians are somehow carrying forward the true intentions of George Washington.

But, Jonathan Hutson reports at Talk to Action, the new blog devoted to discussing the Christian Right and ways of most effectively opposing it, that Graham is misrepresenting what Washington said and what he meant. "In fact," Hutson writes, "President George Washington used his first proclamation of a national day of prayer and thanksgiving to take a preemptive slap at anyone who might try to hijack the holiday for their own sectarian purposes."

I wrote the other day, "If religious equality is to survive in our time, I believe it is necessary for us to reclaim our history and stand up to the historical revisionism of today's theocratic Christian Right." Reclaiming our history was one of the three main themes of my speech at the recent conference on the theocratic Christian Right in New York a few weeks ago.

Hutson's debunking of Graham's slippery invocation of Washington and the founders is exactly the kind thing we need more of, and that we are committed to doing at Talk to Action.

Religious Equality in America

I posted an essay today at the Rockridge Institute's online conference Spiritual Progressives: A Dialogue on Values and Building a Movement. Discussions today focus on such matters as religion and politics and separation of church and state. The conference is ongoing, May 9th-May 20th.

Here is my contribution.

How to deal with the matter of religion and public life was one of the central questions facing the framers of the Constitution as they invented a new nation. (I have written about this on my web site and in my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.)

For 150 years, the colonies had, for the most part, been little theocracies, run by different established churches. The framers knew well the problems posed by religious supremacism, although they certainly did not call it that in those days. They understood what can happen when religions wield state power. And they knew that in order to bind together the potentially fractious new nation they needed to inoculate it against the ravages of religious bigotry and worse -- the religious warfare that had wracked Europe for a millennium.

What did they do? Well, in the first place they made no mention of God in the Constitution. What they did do, was to put in Article 6, a key phrase, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Cornell University historian Issack Kramnick details the history of Article 6 in his book The Godless Constitution.)

What this meant was that for the first time in the history of the world, religious orientation would not be a consideration as to one's qualifications for office. By logical extension, this also meant that one's religious identity would be irrelevant to one's status as a citizen. This clause, set in motion the disestablishment of the churches, by making religious equality the law of the land. It was a radical idea, and it passed overwhelmingly and with little debate. When the Constitution was sent to the state legislatures for ratification, the absence of mention of God and Christianity in the Constitution led the the Christian Right of the day to fight ratification. They lost.

While it was deeply significant that Catholics, atheists, Quakers, and Jews would enjoy equal status as citizens in the United States along with Protestants of various sorts, they key was that people had the right to believe differently. Religious freedom, as we think of it now, is the right of individual conscience. In terms of our role as citizens this is perhaps best framed as religious equality. I believe that when we are grounded in this history and are able to articulate this history and its contemporary meaning, progressives will own the moral and political high ground in the public debate with the theocratic Christian Right.

The First Amendment built on and clarified the implications of Article 6. But what Article 6 did was to establish the right to believe and to think differently without having to answer to a state sponsored religious orthodoxy. The right to believe and therefore to think differently, is a necessary prerequisite for speaking freely and worshipping freely. It is this right to believe differently that is the foundation for every advance in civil and human rights in our history.

It is also the historical fact of our right to believe differently as enshrined in Article 6 that unravels the false claim that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation." Indeed, it was Christians, members of established churches, who wrote the Constitution and who ratified it in the state legislatures. In that sense it was Christian political leaders who believed so deeply in the need for religious equality that they disestablished their own churches.

If religious equality is to survive in our time, I believe it is necessary for us to reclaim our history and stand up to the historical revisionism of today's theocratic Christian Right.

PR, Murder, and Constitutional Democracy

During the recent drama surrounding the life and death of Terri Schiavo, it was striking the way that some of the most militant leaders of the antiabortion movement, notably Randall Terry and Fr. Frank Pavone became close advisors of Schiavo's parents, the Schindlers. What the Schindlers may not have known, is that another man whose counsel they accepted, had also been a media advisor to Paul Hill -- a man who advocated the murder of abortion doctors. (This fact was, however, undoubtedly well known to Pavone and Terry.)

Columnist Bill Berkowitz reports that Gary McCullough who is a public relations consultant for Christian Right and antiabortion groups, also served as one of the spokesmen for the Schindlers.

As I reported in my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, McCullough served as a media advisor to Paul Hill in the early 1990s, when Hill's group "Defensive Action," was arguing that killing abortion providers was "justifiable homicide."

Hill himself went on to murder a doctor and his escort. He was executed by the state of Florida for his crimes.

But that was not the only relationship McCullough has had with the violent wing of the antiabortion movement. McCullough and his Washington, DC-based Christian Communication Network have also served as a liaison and a funding conduit for Prisoners of Christ, a support group for antiabortion activists who been convicted of such crimes as murder, arson, and kidnapping. Some of the convicts were members of the violent, antiabortion Army of God.

Here is part of what I reported about this in Salon.com in January 7, 2002. At the time, I was looking into the relationship between Prisoners of Christ and the Christian Right long distance telephone service, LifeLine. The parent company is called AmeriVision.

"AmeriVision says it has donated over $50 million to its "partners" in the 10 years of its existence. One of those partners is Prisoners of Christ -- whose address is a private postal box four blocks from the White House. This reporter called LifeLine in December as a prospective customer and was told that LifeLine had cut checks averaging between $40 and $50 a month to Prisoners of Christ since May of 1996, and that the money flows to a Washington D.C. public relations group called Christian Communication Network headed by Gary McCullough -- the longtime principal of Prisoners of Christ. (McCullough's group maintains a web link to the Prisoners of Christ site.) When Salon called McCullough for comment about the LifeLine connection, he said, "We are a small potato in that pie and I prefer not to comment," then hung up. When Salon contacted LifeLine again for an official response, we were told that under the privacy rules set forth by the Federal Communications Commission, they "cannot give out customer or donor information."

(If you are not a Salon.com subscriber, to view the whole article, you will need to get a "day pass" and then search for my article, "Our Own Terror Cells." Obtaining a day pass simply means watching a short advertisement.

McCullough's web site no longer mentions Prisoners of Christ, however the web archive "Wayback Machine" shows (at the bottom of the page) the link to Prisoners of Christ in October 2001, for anyone who would like to see for themselves.

Since my report on Salon, the Prisoners of Christ list as it was then, is no more. (Domestic terrorists and their apologists have gone out of fashion since 9/11.) However, a similar list of violent offenders is still maintained by the Army of God.

McCullough's Christian Comunication Network continues to operate as a Washington, DC-based PR and consulting firm.

Meanwhile, the issue of how best to describe the various elements of the Christian Right has become an issue, and the role of Paul Hill and a number of antiabortion militants epitomizes the matter. For example, the label "extremist" is widely, loosely and often inaccurately applied to various individuals and sectors of the Christian Right. However, if the term applies to anyone, it ought to apply to Paul Hill and the members of the Army of God, who are truly extremists -- people who have taken extreme action to further their arguably extreme political and religious goals.

But Chip Berlet, writing on the new blog site, Talk to Action, has a post discussing how problematic the use of the word "extremist" and "extremism" can be.

"Ultimately, the concept of 'extremism' is of little value in studying prejudice and ethnoviolence," he writes. "Sociologist Jerome Himmelstein argues the term 'extremism' is at best a characterization that 'tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels,' and at worst the term 'paints a false picture.' Often, analysts use the term 'extremism' in a way that implies that ideas and methodologies are always linked. This is not the case."

Berlet goes on to note that "people and groups that promote supremacy, prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, and hate..." are also sometimes "people and groups that use intimidation and violence against a targeted group or individual based on their perceived identity." Using this kind of language, he says, "teaches people to see the dynamics of societal oppression..." which he sees as vital to comabatting these oppressions.

However, he notes that when we resort to labels like "extremist" we are then allowing people to be dismissive of "ethnoviolence as caused by not-like-us 'extremists' from hate groups." And if Himmselstein is correct, we are obscuring more than we are revealing about those whom we label as extremists. I believe that this kind of one-size-fits all approach to political language is reductionist. It fails to help us distinguis between fact and propaganda, insight and characterization, description and smear job.

Paul Hill and many others in the theocratic Christian Right are religious supremacists. They have targeted those who disagree with them, with "intimidation and violence." We don't need empty characterizations like the term "radical religious extremist" (invented by a PR firm to characterize a wide swath of Christian Right and hate groups) to describe the views and actions of Paul Hill and other antiabortion militants -- whose activities comprise a continuum of organized intimidation.

But it is also important to note that many of the people whom McCullough has represented are overt or covert theocrats -- as committed to the overthrow of constitutional democracy as we know it, as they are to ending the constitutional right to abortion (as I detail in Eternal Hostility.)

It has been my experience over the past ten or fifteen years, that it has been difficult to talk with people about the wider problems of the theocratic Christian Right, because the conversation too often bogs down on what to call "them." There is no one word or phrase that will cover all occasions.

I think that it is far more important that whatever words we use -- that we know what they mean, and use them well.

Talk to Action

Friends, we have been talking in circles for years while the theocratic Christian Right has gained a vastly disproportionate role in public life -- and has even become the dominant faction in the federal government. Part of the reason for thier success is that they have worked hard and done well. Another part of the reason is that the rest of us, the vast majority of the population that does not agree with its theocratic agenda and intolerant attitudes towards others, have not done as good a job as we should have, and could have, in response.

Well those days are over. It is time to start turning talk to action. Towards that end, some friends and colleagues and I have launched a project to do just that. We call it Talk to Action.

We started out wondering, what if there was a place where you go to could have a considered conversation about what to do about the Christian Right? And what if it was a place that sought to model civil discourse on the web instead of flaunting incivility? And... what if in that place, arguing about theism vs. atheism was off topic -- way of topic -- because we face an imminent threat to constitutional democracy, and we just don't have time for that? What if someone facing a Christian Right school board takeover in their town wanted to find like-minded people who had faced the same problem? What if you found that the tactics employed by some of your allies were ineffective at best? ...wouldn't it be great if there was a place you could go to talk about stuff like that?

Well, that place is being built. The ground has been broken, the foundation has been laid, and you are invited over for the grand tour.

We are already posting on our temporary blog site -- while we develop a site that is organized much like The Daily Kos, (using "Scoop" software) to be able to manage wide-ranging conversations in this field. I don't know exactly when our Phase II will be ready. But I think it's fair to say that it's Coming Soon!

Today is a great day to come over for a first visit. Chip Berlet, a leading expert on the religious right, and Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates, has an thought provoking post on the problem of labeling and demonization -- of conservative Christians. He feels some of the name calling by Democratic aligned interest groups over the past decade has been offensive and counter productive. "I think it's time to stop using phrases such as 'religious political extremist' and 'radical religious right,'" he declares. "A lot of my friends and allies use this language, but what are friends for if they can't tell you when they think you are wrong? I also think that we should be asking folks in the Christian Right to stop pasting labels on those of us who are liberal or progressive. I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon."

Come on over to Talk to Action and find out why Chip thinks these labels are the wrong way to go.

Meanwhile, I want to stress that allof us know that web-based conversation is not a panacea. But we also think we are onto something. If you think you might agree, read on.

We have written an initial statement of purpose, which is posted on the Talk to Action site. Here are some excerpts:

"... we are launching a project which will empower the strength that lies in community -- an internet website which will provide a national meeting place, a commons where all concerned about the Christian Right's march towards dominion can meet, debate and strategize, learn, and be catalyzed to action. With your help, we will bring the revolutionary ability of internet group discussion websites to allow citizens to find information, strength, and common cause on our website."

"We will reach out to and welcome all who share our concerns. However, we do not seek to merely foster conversation. That is necessary but insufficient. It is not enough to know about the theocratic Christian Right -- if we hold our values to be important; if we value constitutional democracy, we need to turn our conversations into action; we need to talk about what kinds of actions to take, how to make those actions most effective, and how to fuse those individual actions together in campaigns and coordinated strategies.... Fully in that spirit, we do not view this effort as in any way a replacement for the fine work of many organizations already working to educate about, and counter the religious right. Rather, we seek to provide a site that will enhance the work of all of these groups -- a place where all of us may converse and strategize with one another. We can help people in remote locations with their struggles; inform each other of important developments around the country; and break down the barriers of issues, religion, institution, and levels of knowledge or political sophistication that divide us and make it difficult for us to develop common understandings and ways of communicating that strengthen our efforts."

"This project is just beginning, and like any worthwhile activity it will take time, planning, and concerted efforts to fully realize the vision. If you would like to be notified when we reach our next stage of development, or if you have knowledge and skills to contribute to the effort, please send us an email."

Or just come over and cheer us on: Talk to Action.

When is a Religious Organization, Not a Religious Organization?

When is a religious organization, not a religious organization?

The answer is when the ABC advertising department (for political or financial reasons) chooses to ignore the obvious.

The ABC television network refused to accept advertising from the mainstream protestant United Church of Christ, citing a policy of not accepting ads from religious organizations. However, it opted to run ads on prime time from Focus on the Family, the largest Christian Right organzation in the U.S. The United Church of Christ, noted the discrepancy, perhaps more politely than I did , in reporting on this. In response to the UCC's criticism, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewall told Kevin Eckstrom of Religion News Service, "The network doesn't take advertising from religious groups. It's a long-standing policy."

It appears Ms. Sewall and the rigorous enforcers of ABC's ad policy didn't read -- or simply ignored -- the Focus on the Family "Mission Statement" -- conveniently located at the top of thier web site:

"To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family."

But just in case anyone thinks they didn't really mean that, the next item is Focus on the Family's "Guiding Principles." The first sentence states: "Since Focus on the Family's primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes, we have firm beliefs about both the Christian faith and the importance of the family."

Here is the first sentence of what the UCC web site has "About the United Church of Christ": "Welcome to the United Church of Christ -- a community of faith that seeks to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed."

If we compare the statements of the two groups, would we say that either one of them is not a religious organization? By the standards of the ABC advertising department, if Focus on the Family is not a religious organization, then the United Church of Christ is not a religious organization either -- and ABC should apologize and accept their advertisements.

Pat Robertson's Free Pass

If someone in public life says anything the least bit unusual, especially if they are a liberal or a Democrat, the media are all over it. But if you happen to be Pat Robertson, you get a free pass.

This past Sunday, on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopolis, Pat Robertson, founder of The Christian Coalition, claimed that the threat posed by the federal judiciary is "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

Does Robertson really believe, as he had written in his recent book, Courting Disaster, that judges pose "the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?"

Robertson: "George, I really believe that."

The Christian Right's propaganda campaign is coming to a cresendo, as Christian Right political and religious leaders, "whip-up," as MoveOn.com put in a letter to members today, "an intense fear and hatred of American judges -- including comments from Republican congressmen and senators intimidating, threatening and even justifying outright violence against judges."

MoveOn wants to take out television ads demanding that House and Senate leaders disassociate themselves from Robertson's demagogic and crackpot claims. Sounds like a good idea.

But isn't it amazing how the punditocracy, or for that matter, religion and political reporters are so silent when Pat Robertson says kooky and truly extreme things, even on a national public affairs program? Why does Robertson get a free pass?

Imagine what would happen if a progressive political and religious leader, let's say Rev. Jesse Jackson said something like that.

I think its time to confront the news media on thier double standard.

Change is in the Air in Massachusetts

Maybe its just that its Spring. The bright yellow forsythia are out everywhere, the leaves on the trees are coming out, and the 2006 race for governor of Massachusetts is really interesting. Arguably, the campaign has been going on for a long time now. But that feels like a good thing. Because change is in the air -- and change has been a long time in coming.

A lot of times in electoral politics, campaigns seem like forever. They never end; people wish they were over; they get tired of hearing about it. I know I have felt that way. But this year, I sense that people understand that politics is being reinvented -- at least in the Democratic Party. Much is at stake. The GOP has won the governorship four times in a row. We needn't dwell on the many problems the Democrats have had -- except to say that they are solving them.

One important element this year is that one of the greatest obstacles is no longer in the way. Tom Finneran, who got elected as Speaker of the House with the votes of the GOP caucus, is no longer speaker. Rightly or wrongly, Finneran came to symbolize to many, what was wrong with state government. To some he symbolized an antidemocratic style of leadership with his authoritarianism; to others he symbolized the attitude that anyplace in the state west of Worcester was Wyoming; he also came to symbolize the patronage-laden old boy network that seemed to make government cost a lot more than it should -- and get a lot less done for the money; he came to symbolize the Democratic Party itself, as its highest ranking official -- which was disastrous for the Democratic Party. But now he is gone, as are a number of his loyal supporters in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democratic primary race is getting interesting. Deval Patrick, the 48 year old, African-American, former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Clinton administration -- is catching on with Democratic activists statewide. He is new to electoral politics and carefully studying issues that are new to him before jumping in with a list of prefab policy positions. And he is actually listening to what people have to say. (Isn't that refreshing?) That said, he is also unequivocally, prochoice, pro-marriage equality, and anti-death penalty. As an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he worked on death row cases. He knows the way the system can fail justice.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has spent the past several years running for governor, remains the front runner and has raised a lot of money -- but he has not captured people's hearts and imagination, and many Dems worry that whatever his record and his views, he cannot win. So many Dems are looking for an alternative. Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi wrote yesterday that Reilly's candidacy is "the toughest case Tom Reilly will ever have to prove."

"I see old-time politics that's getting us nowhere," Patrick told 300 people who packed the Cape and Islands Democratic Council's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Hyannis. "It's time for a change and I want to be that agent of change," he said, according to The Cape Cod Times.

But like anyone else, Patrick will have his challenges. He has spent much of his career so far, working for major corporations, most recently as General Counsel for Coca-Cola. While at Coke, he successfully defended the company against charges that it was complicit in the murder of labor activists at an unaffiliated Coke bottling plant in Columbia. Internally, he pushed for an independent investigation of the whole matter. The CEO at the time agreed. When the CEO reneged, Patrick resigned. Still, a lot of progressive labor activists have questions -- and Patrick says he has answers.

The situation in Columbia has been of great concern to students and labor activists at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in recent years. We can expect that all this will be aired when Patrick addresses the Amherst Democratic Town Committee on Monday, May 9th at 7pm at the Jones Library (the public library in Amherst). The event is free and open to the public.

ABC's Double Standard

If you are a mainstream religious denomination like the United Church of Christ, the ABC television network will reject your good-spirited ad about tolerance and inclusion. If you are theocratic Christian Right organization they will not only accept your ad, they will air a program based on your organization's child-rearing dogma. "The show was all about Focus on the Family principles," according to Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family regarding the prime time ABC feature "Supernanny."

Max Blumenthal tells the whole sorry story, and suggests contacting the Federal Communications Commission to complain. A lively flurry of comments follows on his blog.

Meanwhile the United Church News reports that "In an Associated Press story (May 2), Focus on the Family's president and CEO, Jim Daly, said the spots were an attempt by his organization to offer 'faith-based' advice on parenting, despite the fact that ABC executives have twice denied recent similar requests by the UCC to purchase network time as part of its national advertising campaign."

"Focus on the Family is clearly a religious organization," the Rev. Robert Chase, director of the UCC's communication ministry, told United Church News. 'Here's yet another illustration of how a particular narrow agenda makes up the rules as they go along, while another religious viewpoint cannot even purchase time on the people's airwaves to proclaim an all-inclusive message."

"In December and March, the three major networks denied a purchasing request by the Cleveland-based UCC. NBC and CBS rejected the UCC's 30-second ads as 'too controversial.' ABC, however, sidestepped the fray by maintaining that it has a blanket policy against all religious advertising... Focus on the Family may be using a non-sectarian come-on, but what kind of assurances can ABC provide that Focus on the Family's follow-up literature is respectful of all faiths, respectful of non-traditional families, respectful of the non-traditional families, respectful of the one million kids that have same-sex couples as parents?"

A fair question -- to which I suspect ABC has no answer.

I also suspect they really don't care -- and I am not sure the best way to make them care.

NY Conference on Theocracy a Big Success

This past weekend a big conference titled Examining the Agenda of the Religious Far Right was staged in New York. Over 500 people participated including numerous reporters and several documentary film makers. Conference participants heard an unusually diverse range of critical perspectives on the religious right. I was honored to be among the speakers -- but I spent alot of time in very worthwhile listening.

Those who wanted to be there, but were unable to come, will be pleased to learn that the conference sponsors plan to edit the conference down to an hour-long film, which they plan to broadcast and make available on DVD. A book based on the main conference presentations may also be in the works. Those who would like to know what I said, can check out these blog posts (here, here and here) which provided much of the substance of my talk.)

An unexpected highlight for me was meeting novelist Kurt Vonnegut, who was among many notables who had come to hear as distinguished, smart and often inconoclastic a bunch of journalists, authors, activists, and academics ever assembled to talk about this subject. Nothing quite like it had ever been done before. We can only hope that it will be done again and again, and all over the country.

A report on the conference by columnist Ellis Henican was featured on page A2 of New York Newsday on Sunday. "There's plenty of anger and exuberance and outrage in the room," he observed. "This is New York, after all, where skepticism is always in style. But [Chip] Berlet might be onto something... something that could actually work in the battle against religious extremists, by whatever name: Don't insult them. Engage them. And don't back down."

"The group... gathered for the weekend at the CUNY Graduate Center on West 34th Street. They're some of the brightest minds and shrewdest strategists among people who look with alarm at the collusion between Christian evangelicals and Republican politicos. The word theocracy keeps coming up."

The Washington Times, the famously unprofitable pet project of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a longtime advocate of theocracy himself, described the event as a gathering of "Secular humanists and leftist activists" who were maybe engaging in "conspiracy theories."

The conference was unique in a number of ways. It was not focused on single issues, although many were discussed. It was not sponsored by an organization with a particular institutional interest or point of view to promote or justify, although several presenters were affiliated with institutions that specialize in this area. It was open to fresh and interesting perspectives, and did not insist on unanimity or conformity. It was mostly about information and analysis, but it also emphasized ideas for action -- something the attendees made clear they wanted more of.

Rev. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, speaking at the opening session on Friday night, offered a quote that stayed with me. He said "we are the prophets, the disciples and the leaders we have been waiting for." People came looking for answers, and they got some. But Edgar is right. As citizens, it is up to us to determine the outcome of the central struggles of our time.