Patrick Campaign Cuts Through the Lazy, Hazy Days of Summer

"In so many ways, I have lived the American Dream," Deval Patrick told the MA state Democratic convention in May, "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."

Since then, the story of his rise from poverty on the South Side of Chicago to the corridors of power in Washington and corporate America -- and his vision of public service and reengaging citizens in public life -- has inspired people across the Commonwealth, and mobilized an extraordinary volunteeer base. He has a long way to go in gaining general name recognition, but there is no question his campaign is gaining momentum.

Patrick is certainly the talk of the Massachusetts blogosphere. Sometimes the mainstream media pays attention the gubernatorial campaign as well. And sometimes, the coverage is almost as inspiring as the candidate.

Attorney General Tom Reilly, the campaign front runner, spoke to a gathering of Democrats in the Berkshires recently -- but according to several accounts I have heard from people who were there, the place was swarming with Patrick volunteers -- visible in their bright green campaign tee-shirts. Whats more, the roads leading to the event were teeming with enthusiastic Patrick supporters holding signs. Word has it that the Reilly folks seemed rather dispirited. Blogger Nohomissives has an account.

This episode was reminiscent of the way that Patrick supporters were so strikingly visible at the Democratic State Convention in May -- it was clear that the Patrick campaign had utterly out-organized the supposedly unstoppable, richly-funded Reilly. But it was also evident that Patrick's campaign was not all signage and tee-shirts. Patrick outshone Reilly from the podium with a speech that electrified thousands of convention delegates who cheered and gave him a standing ovation.

The Berkshire Eagle also reported on the event, but made no mention of the extraordinary presence of the Patrick campaign at the event.

Fellow blogger Margie Ware, a Patrick supporter and a member of the Democratic State Committee has a somewhat different take on the Berkshires event than what I have heard from others. After hearing Reilly's speech, she thinks that Reilly is becoming a better campaigner -- although she credits Patrick for the improvement. Patrick supporters should take note, she says. An interesting string of comments followed.

On July 30th, Patrick's hometown newspaper, The Milton Times published remarkable profile by Gail Osgood that details the 49 year old candidate's personal story and offers insight into his insurgent, uphill campaign for governor.

"In 1956, Deval Patrick was born in his grandmother's bed in a tenement in one of the toughest black neighborhoods in the South Side of Chicago. Today, the Democrat from Milton, hopes to become the state's first black governor and the first Democratic governor since 1990."

"Mr. Patrick.... is in the midst of an edgy, grassroots campaign, which focuses on rebuilding a sense of community in the state, and engaging people in citizenship. His is also a hopeful message, about beating the odds and restoring faith in the state's civic leaders. He brings a fresh perspective, excitement and an enthusiasm to politics that many say hasn't existed in quite some time...."

"According to [state] Sen. Brian A. Joyce, there is no question Mr. Patrick has an uphill battle leading up to the primary. He's not a current office holder, he's not tied to interest groups of any particular political doctrine and, of course, he doesn't have the $3 million war chest like that of Att. Gen. Reilly's. However, Sen. Joyce said, as long as Mr. Patrick has sufficient money to be competitive -- he has a hugely committed volunteer-base that grows each week across the state and contributions are steadily rising this early on -- he believes he'll win."

"'Deval is a bright, principled and kind person,' said Sen. Joyce. 'He would be an extraordinary governor.... His perspective includes experience growing up in a single-parent family, rich with love but poor with material possessions,' he continued. 'He would bring an interesting and broad perspective.'"

"Mr. Patrick and Sen. Joyce have been friends and neighbors for years. Sen. Joyce said he's proud to be one of Mr. Patrick's first and strongest supporters."

"'I guess in politics you meet a lot of people who can be affable and smooth, yet you have a sense that behind closed doors, they kick the dog,' said Sen. Joyce. 'Deval is the most genuine individual you'll ever meet. What you see is what you get. There's no pretention and there's no hiding values.'"

"'It's been a long time since any of our political candidates or leaders have inspired people,' said Sen. Joyce. 'I do believe he has the ability to inspire people, both in and outside of government. I think he has the ability to, like a JFK, get people interested in having a civil discourse on issues that impact daily lives.'"

Meanwhile, The Boston Herald recently ran an insightful account of the youthful energy at Patrick campaign headquarters:

"The secret weapon of Deval Patrick's campaign for governor is the energy and enthusiasm of 27 young interns from across America who mix hard work and high spirits as they try to make history in Massachusetts."

"You sense the mood the minute you enter the headquarters of the state's first-ever serious black candidate for governor, in a sub-basement off Milk Street in downtown Boston...."

"Patrick largely attributes what he hopes will be a rise from ghetto to governor to his family, especially his late grandmother, Sally Wintersmith. He treasures her stories of defying Jim Crow laws in her native South. She would go into segregated restaurants and if management agreed to serve her, she'd signal other members of the family to join her. Once when told she could only eat in the kitchen, she replied, 'I don't even eat in the kitchen at my own house.' And stalked out."

"With that kind of pride and pluck in his blood, no wonder Patrick is attracting so much youthful energy that makes his headquarters hum."

There is no question that the campaign has energy and action all over the state. Not only is the scrappy insurgent campaign raising what Sen. Joyce called "sufficient" funds, but a formidable statewide volunteer base is getting established early. Two days ago, nearly 50 people packed a the theater of a small school in Northampton for the first meeting of campaign volunteers from the western part of the state. I was there and can say that the group there was as impressive a collection of campaign veterans and enthusiastic neophytes as you will ever see. At the Northampton meeting, state field coordinator Nancy Stolberg noted that campaign has coordinators for each county and numerous state senate districts and cities and towns. Door-to-door canvassing has already begun in the city of Arlington to introduce the candidate, and get people thinking about the upcoming governor's race.

Some campaign's are long on hope and short on strategy, resources and organization. I can say that this campaign is not one of those. Deval Patrick's campaign is certainly long on hope -- and not just for electoral success -- but showing people that there is hope in politics and effective government; showing people that "grassroots" is not just a slogan invoked by those who know the mechanics of politics, but sometimes seem to forget what politics is for.

Deval Patrick is not even close to a household name. And except in Massachusetts, he has attracted little attention in the blogosphere. But I think, based on having met the candidate, listened to his speeches and the Q&A that followed on several occasions; observed the campaign up close, and based on my personal knowledge of many of the campaign's key volunteers, at least in my part of the state -- Deval Patrick's race for governor of Massachusetts will be one of the most talked about, reported on and influential races for any office anywhere in the United States in 2006. He is progressive, prochoice, pro-marriage equality, antideath penalty -- and he has a good shot at being the next Democratic governor of Massachusetts.

The Candidate and the Bloggers

MA democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick continues his conversations (aka the blog blitz) with political bloggers around the state. This time, he called up Michael DeChiara, of Wonk NOT! whose blog is devoted primarily to matters of framing, in the manner advocated by linguist George Lakoff.

Here is an excerpt from DeChiara's account of the conversation:

"Deval said that he wants his campaign to re-inspire people to see ourselves as citizens. This is a powerful statement and I am in agreement here as well. He used a powerful example (which was also a totally great frame!). He said that when he was working in Washington he'd see young people come down in the spring and visit the national monuments. Beyond the external "cool" clothes and attitudes, you could see the ones who were impressed deep down by the philosophy and values reflected in the monuments and institutions. He used for examples the writings at the Lincoln memorial, being in the Rotunda of the Capitol or on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

"My wife and I took our 9 and 6 year olds to DC this spring, and my nine-year old took pictures of all the inscriptions of Lincoln's speeches. And then to stand on the monument steps, overlooking the Reflecting Pool where the March on Washington took place, standing above an inscription that read "I Have a Dream" -- this was deeply moving for her (and me)."

Deval Patrick is an unusual candidate. He talks with people. He listens well. "That willingness to listen," DeChiara says, "separates him from 99% of the politicians. It also signals that while he's clear what he thinks, he's open to considering various perspectives and new information. How refreshing."

Patrick's Summer Blog Blitz, Cont.

Deval Patrick's latest interview with an MA political blogger is at Left in Lowell.

Patrick's summer blog blitz in many ways epitomizes his blend of traditional and innovative approaches to politics and public policy. He is campaigning, but he is actually having conversations with people. "... [B]ringing the bloggers into this conversation is key," Patrick said. "There are lots of new ways that people have of talking with each other, not just talking at each other."

Lynne says that like other bloggers who have interviewed Patrick, she plans to contact Tom Reilly and William Galvin, Patrick's ostensible rivals for the Democratic nomination for governor. And she plans to talk to local politicians and elected officials as well.

Here is the quote that Lynne highlights from her Patrick interview:

"....The way in which we have to rebuild our sense of community, in neighborhoods in cities and towns across the state - has got to be top of the mind for anybody who's serious about leading this state, because much of the leadership we have had has helped this notion penetrate that we, each of us, is in this on his or her own. And that's wrong. You know, personal responsibility includes shared responsibility, and we haven't had leadership in my view for too long now that is willing to call up the question of what shared responsibility entails, and I think it's time for that. And that is not a platitude, that has something to do with how we practically live our lives, and how we practically make public policy decisions.... So I'm trying to bring that theme forward not just not for purposes of the campaign, but to help alert people to the way I want to govern. And why it's so important that we govern differently."

Ignorance Ain't Bliss

For years, a number of us who have studied the evolution of the Christian Right have been concerned about how difficult it can be to have thoughtful conversations about the Christian Right and its various components. Simple ignorance about this large and complicated, religious, cultural and political movement is part of the problem. How can people discuss what they don't know much about, or really understand? And of course, what this movement asserts is rightfully concerning and actually frightening to many.

Over the years, as various sectors of society have struggled to come up to speed about the Christian Right in its many manifestations, the discussion is often reduced to semantics and "messages," in short, what to call "them?" Some forcefully assert that "they" are not "real Christians," and therefore we should not use the term. Some think that analogies to fascists and Nazis make sense. Others think that using manufactured, focus-grouped terms like "religious political extremists" is smart politics. Still others insist that the most important thing is that we offend no one, particularly "people of faith."

It is difficult to talk about the substance of politics, tactics, and strategy -- when people are not well-informed, and cannot get past such basic issues of language.

In several essays at Talk to Action and in comments in the media, Chip Berlet has urged people to stop using "labeling" and demonization tactics that he thinks have proved ineffective and even counter productive. We will be discussing such matters in more detail when we launch the "scoop" based interactive version of Talk to Action (modeled on The Daily Kos, among others) in the next few weeks.

In 1997, I talked extensively about matters of knowledge, language, framing and strategy in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.

Here are a few excerpts about language issues:

"Serious criticism often requires strong words. But to have a chance at prevailing, such things must be said with the person-to-person persuasiveness that comes from knowledge and conviction. Anything less leaves one open to the charge of religious bigotry. Worse, sometimes the charge may even be true."

"While it is possible that 'theocratic' is not the kind of word or concept that will be widely understood, or play well in polls and focus groups, it is at least necessary for political leaders and journalists to understand this element, lest political analysis be skewed or dumbed down."

"While it is essential to respect people's beliefs, confidence in one's own commitment to and knowledge of the meaning of religious freedom allows one to distinguish between religious bigotry and fair criticism and to defuse the charge -- the Christian Right's skillful exploitation of such matters not withstanding. There is no one word or phrase that will resolve these concerns."

"...progressives and moderate have been scattered by a continuing debate over what to call their opponents... Demonization is a two-way street... sometimes it adds a B-horror movie excitement to the normalcy of politics. Whatever the outcome of the political struggles of the day, people still need to live in the same communities when it is over. This does not mean that debate and political mobilizations need to be meek and mild -- only that those who would speak for democratic values need to effectively and forcefully speak for those values, in ways that demonstrate those values in action."

I offer these excerpts by way of saying that this discussion has been going on for a long time. From where I sit, I think that progress has been made. But I also think we have a ways to go.

These matters will take on heightened importance as we contend with "Justice Sunday II" in a few weeks, and in the run up to the 2006 elections.

A Progressive Reformer for MA State Senate

Whether its a race for the state legislature or for Congress, in most places most of the time around the U.S. -- incumbents rarely lose. That makes special elections to fill unexpected vacancies, a rare opportunity to change the composition of legislative bodies.

There is one such special election going on to fill the unexpired term of the late Charlie Shannon for the Massachusetts State Senate, 2nd Middlesex District, that includes all or parts of Medford, Somerville, Winchester, and Woburn

There are four candidates currently in the home stretch of a hotly contested Democratic primary that will be held on August 30th. The candidates are Governor's Councilor Michael Callahan of Medford; former state Rep. Joe Mackey of Somerville; state Rep. Paul Casey of Winchester; and Rep. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville) -- the apparent frontrunner and the favorite candidate of progressive reformers. She has racked up a remarkable list of endorsements including the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus, Massachusetts Nurses Association, Democracy for America; numerous education, environmental, labor, gay rights and women's organizations; many current and former statehouse colleagues and former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich.

"Pat Jehlen is the kind of principled, progressive Democrat we need in the State Senate," said Reich. "She has spent her adult life fighting for education funding, better jobs, affordable healthcare, and a fair playing field for working families. She has been a leader on child labor issues, raising the minimum wage, and boosting local aid to help cities and towns."

Jehlen is unequivocal on other key issues as well: "...I support equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. I support a woman's right to choose, and increased access to family planning options. And I oppose the death penalty in any form."

She is an advocate for clean elections and reform in the Democratic Party, which she says "will be stronger if it embraces new activists -- especially with such a groundswell of new progressive energy in recent years -- and I support efforts to ensure those who are fighting for progressive values are welcome at the table."

The winner of the Democratic primary is expected to face Republican Bill White, a Somerville alderman in the general election on Sept. 27th.

Jehlen's latest endorsement comes from Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, (PDM) -- by the unanimous vote of the nine-member Statewide Coordinating Committee. (Full disclosure: I was one of the nine.) PDM is a statewide, grassroots organization that grew out of Robert Reich's 2002 campaign for governor. It now has five chapters and a number of organizing committees at varying stages of development, and a statewide network of experienced activists dedicated to electing progressives to office. PDM was also active in a special election for state representative last spring.

"A four way primary election a few days before Labor Day means that voter turnout is almost certain to be low," wrote PDM statewide chair Peter Dolan in an email to members. "A new State Senator could be chosen by a relative handful of Democratic primary voters."

Its an aphorism of politics that endorsements, like lawn signs, don't vote. So when PDM makes an endorsement it wants it to really mean something. Reflecting PDM's strategy of targeting resources and volunteer help where they are most needed to take advantage of opportunities for progressive pick-ups in the statehouse, Dolan urged PDM members to contact the Jehlen campaign directly -- or PDM -- to participate in planned PDM-sponsored campaign activities.

Note to progressive reformers: Unexpected vacancies occur all the time. Expect the unexpected.

Talk to Action in the News

Talk to Action is getting some media traction -- and we haven't even graduated from our temporary site to our planned, fully interactive site, modeled on such interactive political blogs as The Daily Kos.

First, Z Magazine mentioned Talk to Action in its recent report on a major conference on challenging the religious right.

Then, the prominent, Boston-based gay newsweekly Bay Windows profiles Talk to Action contributor Chip Berlet and his vision of his, and Talk to Action's, niche in the contentious political blogosphere. Here are some excerpts:

"Berlet, who co-authored Right Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort and edited Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash has joined with a host of other veteran right-wing watchdogs like Frederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy to create talk2action.com, an umbrella site for likeminded folks that will link to his online musings."

"A bunch of us are trying to organize a response to the Christian right that focuses on being respectful of their right to hold beliefs, but challenging those beliefs," Berlet explains. "Which is basically an argument against labels like 'religious political extremists' or 'radical religious right...'"

"Berlet is clear that while he may be looking to make nice with the right, he's not looking to placate their political views, or even find common ground in the great progressive/right wing divide. 'I think it's a balancing act,' he says of his blogging style. 'It recognizes what the first amendment means when it talks about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. [That] means that I have to acknowledge that people on the Christian right have an absolute political right to hold certain views. But what I want to argue is that there's a way to challenge the content of those views that is not dismissive and disrespectful of people of faith.'"

"While interested in respecting the first amendment Berlet is not about conceding the rights of people targeted by the Christian right. 'I'm not interested in giving an inch on gay rights or women's rights or reproductive rights or immigrant rights or the science of evolution,' he explains 'I'm not interested in finding a common ground with people who reject the basic message of constitutional law in the U.S...."

The Bluest State Gets Bluer

Here in Massachusetts, only about 13% of the registered voters, register as Republicans. And despite huge efforts and lots of money in the last legislative elections, Republican Governor Mitt Romney was unable to increase the number of GOP legislators in the statehouse, and the Dems still have vetoproof supermajorities in both houses.

As it now stands, Romney's popularity is declining, he can't move his agenda in the legislature, and he is thinking about bailing and running for president -- which adds to his unpopularity. Things are not looking good for Republicans in 2006 in MA.

Kristen at the MA political blog The Fray, reports that two GOP office holders in the town of Greenfield in western, MA have seen the writing on the wall.

Timothy F. Farrell president of the Town Council, and H. Peter Wood, register of deeds have become Dems. "Wood had been on the fence for quite some time, and often supported Democratic candidates as a Republican. Farrell had also long considered the change."

The Springfield Republican reports that
Wood said

"Republican state administrations the past 10 years had never contacted him for an opinion on any issues affecting Franklin County."

"Farrell, who comes from a family of Democrats, said he had been thinking about making the party change for some time, and earlier this month promised his grandmother on her deathbed he would do so, three days before her death."

"'She said it's about time,' he said."

BiCoastal Interactive Blogging News

If you like big political blogging communities like The Daily Kos and Booman Tribune, and your politics lean left, then you will probably like the brand new My Left Wing, the blogspring of veteran California blogger Mary Scott O'Conner.

Meanwhile there are fresh posts at Talk to Action, which is based in Massachusetts (if one can say that about a place in the blogopshere), and soon to be a big interactive site too.

For all the media hoo ha about progressive Christians "finally" finding their voices, Chip Berlet observes, "We have had our voices all along, thank you."

And Bruce Prescott is brimming with outrage at the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Prescott, (who is really in Oklahoma) thinks Roberts has demonstrated "extreme insensitivity toward the rights of religious minorities." He calls Roberts the "champion of majoritarian religious privilege." He adds: "When the hubris that demands special privilege is coupled with the obsequity that grants it, it inevitably creates enough outrage at such injustice that the privileged become despised and the privileges are rejected. Those who think justices like Roberts will be good for the church are mistaken."

Deval Patrick Lights Up MA Blogosphere

Democratic candidate for governor of Massachussetts, Deval Patrick is lighting up the blogosphere this summer.

Patrick's summer "blog blitz," so dubbed by sco at .08 Acres and a Donkey, is an innovation in Massachusetts politics, and a recognition of the growing importance of bloggers in public life. Sco thinks "Patrick's reaching out to us here on the Internet is a reflection of his campaign's focus on youth outreach -- after all, Internet users taken as a whole tend to be younger than the general population."

I think its also true that we have a very politically interested and thoughtful bunch of bloggers here in Massachusetts. Patrick was asked good questions in the first round of blogger interviews, and he gave interesting answers. What's more, the bloggers have clearly done their best to report their conversations honestly and fairly.

This time David Eisenthal of the The Eisenthal Report who writes about "politics, public policy, and culture, with particular emphasis on western and central Massachusetts" questioned Patrick, who is running as progressive, reform candidate for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Mitt Romney in 2006.

Among other things, Eisenthal reports, "In discussing public corruption in Springfield and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, Patrick took the opportunity to criticize rival Democratic candidate and state Attorney General Tom Reilly, saying 'I can't tell you of a single anti-corruption investigation by our Attorney General anywhere in Massachusetts.' Patrick feels that the state Attorney General's office is well-placed to be able to take the lead in such investigations, because it is more insulated from political pressures that face local District Attorney's offices."

Lynne at Left in Lowell interviews Patrick next week.

Theocrat of the Week

This week, we at FrederickClarkson.com have conducted a diligent and thorough national search to find the most qualified nominee for Theocrat of the Week. We are proud to announce that we have found that person: Karen Stewart, the Mississippi state director of Bethany Christian Services.

Stewart captured the attention of Our Judges by making national news with her dramatic micro-demonstration project to show Catholics what sectarian protestant theocracy looks like.

Bethany, an evangelical protestant adoption agency, receives funds from the State of Mississippi through a "Choose Life" vanity license plate program advocated by antiabortion groups, many of them Catholic. Unbeknownst to the advocates of this program, using choose life program funds would be limited to those who choose a life that is evangelical and protestant and, umm, not Catholic.

Bethany routinely declines to allow Catholics to adopt children, because, as Stewart put it in a letter to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger newspaper, "It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany's state director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."

One Catholic couple that Stewart turned away asked their priest about the Bethany Statement of Faith. The Clarion-Ledger reports that the priest told them "it did not conflict with Catholic teaching."

But wait a minute! Should a Catholic priest get to determine for a state-funded evangelical Protestant agency whether the evangelical Protestant Statement of Faith is consistent with Catholic teaching?

Our question is moot, of course, because Stewart did what a good theocrat does: She interpreted the state-funded Statement of Faith and made a decision. That's why Stewart is our Theocrat of the Week.

We here at here at FrederickClarkson.com feel that this micro-demonstration project is particularly notable because there are those who think that all Christians, and all creedal statements are the same. Karen Stewart has made clear that there are important distinctions -- and that state-funded religious agencies will act on them. We are glad that this matter is now clarified. (Jews, Muslims and heaven forbid, Unitarians would have known better than to seek to adopt from a state funded evangelical Christian agency. No doctrinal interpretation to be done there!)

Of course, if Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Seminary was making these decisions, things might have gotten complicated. The Wikipedia listing for Mohler states that even tho he told talk show host Larry King, "I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel...and indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office," Mohler maintains that much of Catholic doctrine is compatible with his views. Hmm. So if one parent was a Catholic and one a Southern Baptist, maybe that would pass the Mohler test for adoption.

But we digress.

We also admit we find this whole area rather confusing.

Its a good thing there are people like Karen Stewart who know how to make theocratic decisions.

One matter that in no way affects our selection of Karen Stewart as Theocrat of the Week, nevertheless warrants attention. Our Judges think that Bethany Christian Services should update the About Us section of its national web site. It states in part: "Headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Bethany is a not-for-profit, pro-life, Christian adoption and family services agency. Bethany's support comes through reimbursement for services, and from gifts received from individuals, churches, corporations, and foundations..."

In the interests of transparency and full disclosure, please add: "the State of Mississippi."

Thank you.

A Bright Light of Hope in a Dark Time

Some colleagues and I have been posting essays at a temporary group blog site about aspects of challenging the theocratic Christian Right. We call it Talk to Action. We have also been laying the groundwork for a far more ambitious version -- and now we need your help.

We are ready to take the leap to an interactive site modeled on The Daily Kos and Booman Tribune. These sites have proven themselves to be unusually conducive to wideranging online political conversation. Our goal is to create a place where the pace is slower and the tone is more considered; a place where people who share our concerns can come to strategize; share research, news, and stories; network; find allies and useful resources. There is no place on the internet or anywhere else in society to do this.

Thats why Talk to Action will be so exciting. We can engage large numbers of people in thinking creatively about, talking about, and acting on the problems posed by the theocratic Christian Right in ways unimaginable only a few years ago. Imagine a rolling, creative, action-oriented conference on the Christian Right -- of the sort we all wish there were more of, but rarely take place.

My Talk To Action colleagues include Joan Bokaer, founder of Cornell University's Theocracy Watch; Dr. Bruce Prescott, a veteran of the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention and a leader of Mainstream Baptists; and Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates. And these are just a few of the extraordinary writers, thinkers and activists who have already come on board or will be joining us soon.

While we will be rich with expertise, the strength of Talk to Action will be the national community of readers and participants who are engaged in these central struggles of our time. We know the interest is there, and that Talk to Action will enhance and bring visibility to the efforts of the organizations and individuals already working in this general field.

Well, thats the short pitch. Please give us a hand in getting this pioneering project off the ground. All you have to do is hit the "make a donation" button in the left column at Talk to Action.

Keeping Cool

The Dominionists are coming! The Dominionists are coming!

Some contemporary Paul Reveres of the internet write breathlessly about the Christian Right as if the advocates of theocracy have all but won. They conflate a sense of urgency about the situation or concern about the "agenda" of the Christian Right, with the inevitability or even the imminence of victory. I am writing this from the perspective of over twenty years of researching and writing about the Christian Right -- and up front I want to say -- don't believe everything you read. As the song goes in West Side Story: "stay cool, boy."

Has the Christian Right gained great political power? Yup.

Should we take it seriously? Yup.

Do we have a lot to learn? Yup.

Is it over? Far from it.

One more quickie Q&A.

Does this movement have a theocratic political agenda? Yes they do, although most of its leaders deny it, and certainly most conservative Christians would not agree with the more theocratic or "dominionist" elements. They have, however, been sold on a form of historical revisionism that claims that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation," and that this legacy has been stolen -- stolen! -- by those who would betray God and the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. This is a powerful myth. And it is but one element of why the Christian Right is the best organized faction in American politics.

But politics is about many things, and it is always in motion. Many people have a tendency to freeze certain perceptions about political realities in thier minds -- hence the danger of getting the notion of the power of the Christian right fixed in one's mind such that one cannot see outcomes other than a Christian theocracy and a looming inquisition. The truth is that this is the stuff of B horror movies.

Well, OK. There is also The Handmaid's Tale. (Margaret Atwood's novel is much better than the movie.) But whether this tale of a future corrupt theocracy is a warning or a prophesy is entirely up to us.

But there are reality-based ways of evaluating the Christian right. And there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of years acquiring the kind of knowledge that will be useful in this time.

Meanwhile, let's consider that the polls are way down for the GOP -- and that the Christian Right that has bet everything on electing Christian Right pols via the Republican Party and that they may be in for a drubbing in 2006.

But whatever the next elections may hold, the doomsaying style of thought, analysis and writing about the Christian Right, can be deeply discouraging to the point of actually diminishing the capacity of opposing political forces to win elections. Can those who feel all is already lost be able to imagine victorious political and electoral outcomes? Can they participate in civic life with imagination and what John F. Kennedy used to call "great vigor" if they feel hopeless and defeated?

This kind of problem is not new, it just takes on different forms anc character in the age of the blogosphere. In my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, I devoted a whole chapter to the tendency in political and journalistic circles to treat the Christian Right as either a juggernaut or a joke. (There is less of the latter these days, but a good bit more of the former.) I particularly dissected the way that the media hyped and exaggerated the strength and power -- first of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organization and later Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Its not that these organizations were not strong and important at the time of these articles, its that they were not nearly as strong as reporting often made them out to be, and they had weaknesses that reporters often did not dig enough to see.

One of the key Christian Right strategists of the era, Colonel Donor (his name, not his rank), later marveled about this. "It was true," he wrote of the late 1970s and early 1980s, "that the Christian Right... was viable and growing; but the media consistently gave the few national Christian Right organizations credit for larger budgets, more memberships, and more 'muscle' than actually existed. Memberships and financial strengths were routinely inflated by both the media and the Christian Right organizations themselves. But the media needed a good story in 1980," he continued, "and the emergence of the Christian Right seemed to be as good as any."

There are many players on the Christian Right, just as there are in any other sector. It can seem overwhelming to take it all in. It can be even harder to discern what is important from what is not. Thanks to the Bush administration, we all know the consequences of "flawed intelligence." And while we know that there is a vast difference between errors and lies, what Colonel Doner is talking about above -- is lies by Christian Right leaders that were printed as fact by the media. (And lets not get huffy about the mainstream media here, the alternative press was not immune from these kinds of errors.)

So lets keep a cool head. (And I say this as someone who is running a fever and gulping chicken soup as I write.) There are many pitfalls in understanding and evaluating the Christian Right in all of its manifestations.

Here are a few pointers from my experience.

Don't confuse the agenda with the outcome.

Consider the sources of whats reported, and who is doing the reporting.

Don't be afraid.

As Franklin Roosevelt said in his first inaugural address: "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

In short, let's not pyche ourselves out.

Let's learn the things we need to learn to understand, and better contend with formidable opponents.

Let's stay cool.


This is the second in a series of essay based on themes taken from Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. The first was "The Dems Could Take a Cue from Jefferson."

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

Fresh Items @ Talk to Action

Regular readers of this site know that I am involved in developing a project called Talk to Action.

It will be a fully interactive site devoted to challenging the theocratic Christian Right in its many manifestations. I will have more to say about this in the next few days.

Meanwhile there is good stuff being posted on the temporary Talk to Action blog. Two fresh posts are indicators of the kinds of things we will be writing and talking about. Check 'em out. Comment if you like.

Joan Bokaer, the founder of Theocracy Watch considers the status of the church-state separation in the wake of the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner who provided the pivotal vote in the recent Ten Commandments cases decided by the court. Bokaer zeros in a a quote from one of those cases.

O'Conner wrote: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

Pastordan, a minister in the United Church of Christ, writes:

"...you may have heard about a recent attack on a UCC church in Middlebrook, Virginia. The interior was trashed, the walls were spray-painted with hateful, homophobic epithets, and the vandals attempted to start a fire with the congregation's hymnals. The attack came days after the UCC's General Synod approved a resolution affirming same-sex marriage.

As I say, you may have heard about this--as long as you don't rely on news outlets geared to conservative Christian churches.

I've checked. So far, there's been no report on the assault from the Christian Bible Network, none from the Christian Post, nor from Persecution.org or Voices of the Martyrs. The websites of Albert Mohler, Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are all silent. Christianity Today's Weblog, which carries news of just about everything happening in the Christian world, has yet to carry the news. Nor has Agape Press, which picks up within days stories of persecution--no matter how minor--against Christians around the world."

So I have to ask: why not? Why this silence?

Where is the outrage?"

Joan and Pastordan will be regular contributors when we launch the fully interactive Talk to Action site.

Theocratic Cure-all

File this under 'this is what theocracy looks like."

What happens when faith meets a reality that is not included within its world view?

One answer is to try to cure it with evangelism; and then pass off the evangelism as medical science; claim victory; move on. This is what is going on in the area of so-called "reparative therapy," a bizarre profession created by operatives of the theocratic Christian Right to cure homosexuality through conversion.

Reparative, or "conversion therapy" claims that homosexuality can be "cured," and that "faith-based" approaches can do the job. Major medical and psychological organizations think its bunk and potentially harmful. But since a teenager named Zack went public and described the abusive and patently bogus alleged therapy at an ex-gay boot camp in Tennessee, government agencies are taking a closer look as is the media -- notably, Salon.com which has a 4-part investigation that ought to help crystallize the debate.

Salon reports that reparative therapy is "according to virtually all mental health professions, wrong, bizarre and potentially dangerous."

"'I can give you a short answer of where reparative therapy fits in with the modern mental health profession: It does not," says Dr. Douglas Haldeman, president of the Association of Practicing Psychologists, a group affiliated with the American Psychological Association. "These theories have been discredited for years.'"

"Despite their dubious scientific and therapeutic standing, reparative therapy ministries, some of which accept kids and operate like a cross between churches and boot camps, largely function without oversight and licenses."

Calculated Compassion: How The Ex-Gay Movement Serves The Right's Attack on Democracy by Surina Khan is pioneering study of the various ex-gay ministries and the general subject of therapy through evangelism. It was published by Political Research Associates, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and, Equal Partners in Faith.

The study examines ex-gay ministries in the wider context of the agenda of the theocratic Christian Right. The executive summary of the report reads in part:

"Tolerance and pluralism are bedrock principles of American society. Yet, as this report shows, the ex-gay movement and the Christian Right are attacking these principles and furthering a divisive political agenda which offers fundamentalist Christian dogma and heterosexuality as the only acceptable norms. Challenging the leadership of the ex-gay movement is essential if equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, are to be defended. To be effective, such a challenge must take into account the broader theocratic agenda of the Christian Right which the ex-gay movement is being used to promote."

It is worth pointing out that the repackaging religious belief and evangelism as science is not unique to ex-gay ministries. This is also what is happening with the Christian Right's strategy of attacking the teaching of evolution in the public schools: disguise creationist beliefs by repackaging them as a scientific theory: "Intelligent Design."

Currently, the Christian Right feels the need to be fairly covert. The law and public opinion are not on thier side in most placees, most of the time. For two decades they have generally had the advantage that their opponents have often vastly underestimated the Christian Right in its many manifestations. But that is changing, even as the Christian Right has been emboldened since George W. Bush came to power.

A thorough debunking of ex-gay, repartative therapy is long over due. It may be happening now. If so, there is much to learn from how the mainstream religious, scientific and medical communities address the matter -- not to mention the media and public officials at all levels.

A Black Baptist Minister Takes on the Theocrats

Much has happened in the wake of the first Justice Sunday, a national rally for theocracy led by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and James Dobson of Focus on the Family in April. The showdown over the nuclear option came and went. Several judges the theocrats liked were confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Religious progressives have begun to organize. And now, with more federal judgeships up for consideration, including at least one opening on the Supreme Court, Justice Sunday II is planned for August 14th in Nashville.

I wrote a bit about all this yesterday. And today I found an analysis of the first Justice Sunday, titled "On the Brink of Theocracy," written by Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The Religious Coalition "is an alliance of national organizations from major faiths, affiliates throughout the country, and the national Clergy for Choice Network, Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, and The Black Church Initiative. While our members are religiously and theologically diverse, they are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive choice as a basic part of religious liberty."

Here are a few excerpts from Veazy's analysis, but it is worth reading the whole thing -- and spreading it widely. This is a time when some democrats are making noises about abandoning Roe vs. Wade. It is a view not shared by thousands of mainstream religious leaders who are prochoice, prosexuality education, and certain theocratic demagogues not withstanding, obviously pro-faith.

"Progressives who think warnings about 'theocracy' are an exaggeration should take a closer look at 'Justice Sunday: Filibustering People of Faith,' Veazy wrote. The event was "beamed into conservative churches across the country: a political rally from a large, comfortable mega-church in Louisville, with a middle-class audience listening with rapt attention to political operatives who self-identify as religious leaders-and at the bottom of the screen, streaming video with the photos, names and phone numbers of targeted U.S. senators. The visual message was clear: the church is dominant over the state and senators should toe the line on eliminating the filibuster and confirming Bush judges or pay the price."

"There is a right way and a wrong way to engage religious voices in the public square. I believe "Justice Sunday" reflects the latter and highlights several disturbing trends... As a Baptist minister for more than 40 years with a profound respect for religious freedom and pluralism, I fear it will get worse. In fact, I think we are teetering on the brink of theocracy and the Christian Right could conceivably use the battle over the judiciary and weakening support for reproductive rights to push us over the edge...."

"One of the "Justice Sunday" speakers, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary... believes there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible -- his -- and he equated the inerrancy of his interpretation of the Bible with the inerrancy of the Constitution, based on his biblical beliefs. In bringing the Bible and the Constitution together, fundamentalists like Mohler are moving toward mainstreaming their biblically based interpretation of the Constitution. Judges would be held to the standard of biblical teachings, as interpreted by fundamentalists. I don't doubt the sincerity of Mohler and other fundamentalist ministers who share this view that the Bible is literally true and they alone know what it means, but they are on dangerous ground when they then suggest that they alone also know what the Constitution means-and that anyone who thinks differently is anti-Christian. Christians have strong differences of opinion on the meaning of scriptures and most of us don't want to see a particular brand of Christianity held up as the only real Christianity. We certainly don't want a particular brand of Christianity enacted as the law of the land."

"Reproductive justice is an issue on which they hope to divide and conquer progressives."

"In my view, the intensifying battle over the courts has brought progressives face-to-face with the need to take a firm stand on the morality of reproductive rights. Not only must we overcome the polarization generated by the Christian Right, we also must find a way to come together in compassionate concern for women and families. Speaking as a minister, I believe that the realities of women's lives must be included in any vision of a moral society that honors individual dignity and worth. I believe that women, and men, cannot live in dignity and equality if they cannot render for themselves their most intimate family decisions."

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

Rally for a Theocratic Judiciary

The Christian Right has always sought cast their opponents as "opponents of faith," "anti-Christian," "secular humanists," and more recently, "secular fundamentalists." But the tactic has moved to center stage in Washington politics as the battle over the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court heats up again.

The theocratic Christian Right, this time led by the Family Research Council are portraying opponents of President Bush's judicial nominations -- as well as the Supreme Court -- as opponents of "people of faith" in announcing Justice Sunday II, a rally for theocratic judicial nominees to be held in a church in Nashville on August 14th. The rally, led by such veterans of the Christian Right as James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly and Chuck Colson will be simulcast to churches and they hope on cable networks.

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and the principal organizer of the event told The New York Times that the rally will focus on "the court's hostility toward religion and Christianity in particular."

The nadir of the Christian Right's rhetorical assault on the religious character of their fellow Americans was the first Justice Sunday in April. At the time fliers for the event claimed that those who oppose the Christian Right's most extreme judicial nominations were "against people of faith."

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion of liberalism," Perkins wrote on the Family Research Council web site. "For years, he continued, "activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedom."

The ugly attack on the religious faith of the opponents of the theocratic right, drew outrage and sparked a mobilization in response.

The New York Times editorialized against what they called Bill Frist's "religious war":

"Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts.... Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions."

Numerous editorial writers and columnists agreed.

I wrote at the time: "The Christian Right has framed it's battles as against the supposed religion of "secular humanism," but this was always a straw man. It was and is a war of agression being waged by a certain coalition of rightist Christians who hold to overlapping notions of Christian theocracy. They share a common cause in their desire to demolish the wall of separation between church and state, and to be able to utilize taxpayer money and public institutions and infrastructure to build their movement to a position of unassailable and permanent power in the United States."

Once again, the theocratic Christian Right is making a big show of conflating the notion of "people of faith" with membership in he Christian Right of the Republican party. The rhetoric is a tad less strident, but the message is the same.

But the preach-fest of last time has been replaced with a more dramatic production, that will include three country music stars. Notably Lee Greenwood, the singer-songwriter best known for his patriotic hit, "God Bless the USA." This song has been an anthem at Christian Right rallies for years, and no doubt it will be the emotional highlight of what we can expect will be a carefully choreographed program.

Like last time, religious leaders who do not share the theocratic agenda of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and his allies can be expected to be outraged. The first to speak out was the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance:

"Here we go again!" Rev. Gaddy said. "And, this time the imagery and the implications of the message advanced by leaders of the religious right are more offensive, sacrilegious, and undemocratic than those so integral to Justice Sunday I."

"Right now, the most serious threats to the fundamental rights and liberties in our nation are not coming from a lack of God's interest but from a small group of religious right leaders who have assumed the mantle of national religious authorities and seek to impose on the whole nation and its constitution their particular views on religion, the courts, politics, and justice."

Its my sense that the Christian Right's power is cresting, and that with the fortunes of President Bush and the GOP plummeting in the polls, if they want to get more theocrats nominated and confirmed to the federal bench, they will have to pull out the stops. This is just the beginning.

Debunking Christian Nationalism, Cont.

Marci Hamilton, a constitutional lawyer has a fine commentary on Alternet in which she attacks the bogus history undergirding Christian Nationalism, one of the ideological building blocks of the theocratic Christian Right. She is understandably concerned about the clout the Christian Right will exercise in the selection of a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Here is some of what she wrote:

"This country was not founded on a single religious viewpoint, as the far right would have it, but rather on a wide diversity of religious beliefs. The current far right believers are reminiscent of the Puritans who settled what would become Massachusetts and who established their religion as the religion of the colony (and then the state). The Puritans believed in the right to believe whatever one wanted, so long as dissenters left their cities and communities. They believed in a religious culture controlled by the majority. Rhode Island was founded because of the Puritans' rank intolerance."

"Many of the dissenting Christians in Massachusetts were Baptists, whose charismatic preachers, including the Revs. Isaac Backus and John Leland, preached the separation of church and state. Backus declared that the "notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever" while Leland called established religions, 'all of them, anti-Christocracies.'"

"Yet, far right Christians today, many of them Baptists, have no respect for disestablishment principles. They are intent on removing barriers between government and religion, and, in fact, making government the servant to religion. They want their religious messages on courthouse walls, their theology in the science classrooms, their prayers in public schools, and their values to mandate constitutional policy. They even argue that Protestants are a majority and therefore have the right to have the government deliver their religious messages. This is their agenda for the next Supreme Court Justice."

I learned by reading the tag line on Hamilton's piece about her new book -- which sounds like a must read. Here is a bit more about it from the publisher's web site:

"God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law challenges the pervasive assumption that all religious conduct deserves constitutional protection. While religious conduct provides many benefits to society, it is not always benign. The thesis of the book is that anyone who harms another person should be governed by the laws that govern everyone else -- and truth be told, religion is capable of great harm."

"This may not sound like a radical proposition, but it has been under assault since the 1960s. The majority of academics and many religious organizations would construct a fortress around religious conduct that would make it extremely difficult to prosecute child abuse by clergy, medical neglect of children by faith healers, and other socially intolerable behaviors. This book intends to change the course of the public debate over religion by bringing to the public's attention the tactics of religious entities to avoid the law and therefore harm others. God vs. the Gavel will bring much-needed balance to the contemporary, heated debate about religion and its role in society."

Tip o' the hat to Jesus Politics for alerting me to the post on Mainstream Baptist about Hamilton's article on Alternet. These blogs are increasingly important sources of information and analysis in the struggle with the theocratic Christian Right.

Theocrat of the Week

Our Judges here at FrederickClarkson.com have been toiling, sometimes late into the night, seeking that certain someone who meets the High Standards of Theocrat of the Week. We were, as always, richly blessed with candidates. But we are pleased to announce our Theocrat of the Week: U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA).

Santorum surged ahead of the pack by sticking to his guns in blaming liberals for the worldwide scandal of serial child rape and abuse by priests of the Catholic Church, and the decades long cover-up by bishops and other higher ups. "While it is no excuse for this scandal," he said three years ago, "it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

The Boston Globe -- the newspaper that broke the story of the scandal and won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, asked Sen. Santorum about his comments -- and he repeated the charge: "'The basic liberal attitude in that area.... has an impact on people's behavior,' Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol."

"'If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston].... that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way,' Santorum said."

It will take a broad theocratic coalition to smash the wall of separation between church and state and -- Catholic priests and leaders are integral to its success. Its smart to shift blame for serial child rape by priests and cover-up by bishops to the liberals and stay on message -- even if it risks Santorum's reelection campaign for the Senate and his possible bid for the GOP presidential nomination. Santorum is a Loyal Theocrat to be willing to sacrifice his career for The Cause.

Indeed, his response outraged Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) who went to the Senate floor and stated:

"Rick Santorum owes an immediate apology to the tragic, long-suffering victims of sexual abuse and their families in Boston, in Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania and around this country. His outrageous and offensive comments -- which he had the indecency to repeat yesterday -- blamed the people of Boston for the depraved behavior of sick individuals who stole the innocence of children in the most horrible way imaginable... Boston bashing might be in vogue with some Republicans, but Rick Santorum's statements are beyond the pale."

Does Santorum really still believe what he said? Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory wanted to check. "'It's an open secret that you have Harvard University and MIT that tend to tilt to the left in terms of academic biases,' said Robert Traynham, [a]... Santorum aide. 'I think that's what the senator was speaking to.'"

"Of course," McCrory writes. "The whole thing is MIT's fault. Why didn't we realize this sooner? Maybe the Globe should give its Pulitzer Prize back because it failed to get to the root cause of the scandal: Cambridge-based rocket science professors."

But in the face of the backlash and ridicule, Traynham is already backpedaling -- and risking Santorum's coveted Theocrat of the Week award. The Associated Press reports that Traynam says "his boss recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston, but all over the country.... [and that Santorum] 'was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously.'"

MA Bloggers Interview Dem Candidate for Gov

Deval Patrick is the progressive democratic reform candidate for governor of Massachusetts. He has been waging a remarkably successful uphill climb against the party front runner, Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has spent years raising money for this campaign. The conventional wisdom had it that Reilly had raised so much money he would be unstoppable and scare off all competition. But Patrick is a different kind of candidate and he is running a different kind of campaign.

Patrick is reportedly raising enough money to be competetive -- but he is also making smart use of the resources he has -- for example by being the first candidate for statwide office to be interviewed by bloggers. Here are a few highlights of the Blue Mass Group accounts by Bob, Charley on the MTA and David from thier recent conference call interview with the candidate.

David: Deval has a convincing and -- dare I say it -- inspiring vision both of why he is in this race and of what he will do if he wins. He is extremely articulate and well-informed on a wide range of issues; he is not afraid to say things that he knows will irk some people and probably even lose him a few votes; and yet he comes across neither as an overbearing know-it-all nor as a politician staking out a position for the sake of staking out a position, but rather as someone who truly believes that government can serve the people of this Commonwealth better than it's been doing for the last bunch of years. I was impressed.... Deval has a vision of his campaign and a message that I think will resonate with a lot of Massachusetts voters -- not just the 'progressives' or the 'liberals' or the 'activists,' but everyone who wants not to hate politics and politicians. He's also plenty charismatic, and plenty smart."

Charley on the MTA: "Why talk to blogs? Like a good writer, Patrick moved from general to specific: He spoke of running 'a different kind of campaign', one that appeals to people's optimism and sense of shared destiny, instead of relying on money and endorsements. People who are turned off by the screaming-heads style of modern politics communicate through alternative means: That means us, and you.... but his speaking style, his optimism, his emerging command of the nuts-and-bolts of policy, and his nice-guy charisma actually remind me of Bill Clinton... Patrick's got the political-romantic thing in abundance -- and he certainly seems capable of grasping all manner of policy particulars. I'm optimistic that we'll see the ambitious rhetoric fleshed out a bit in coming months."

Bob: "The candidate, unique among his rivals, is making respectable use of the internet: he has reached out to the blogosphere, and built a decent website that includes Meetups and an on-line donation form. He promises his own blog in the fall. Reilly's site, by contrast, is a frame-filled hack that flashes a security warning to would-be contributors and offers nothing more than an email form to potential volunteers.

"...Patrick demonstrated the affability, approachability, and results-oriented focus that propelled him to senior positions at the Justice Department, Coke and Texaco, and leading Boston law firms. Whether he will triumph in the clannish, some say thuggish, world of Massachusetts politics remains to be seen."

[UPDATE] .08 Acres and a Donkey also has an interview:

"Patrick seemed to get that the purpose of these blogs was to let people feel they have a stake in a candidacy and that for such things to be useful, communication needed to be two-way. He noted also that he had been criticized in some circles for asking voters' opinions on issues (as if a politician could have too much input from the public) and told me that he wanted 'to accord the voters of MA the respect of asking people for their insight, and their common sense.'"

"I think it's this last point that really draws people to Patrick's candidacy in a way that other politicians can't, or won't. While other candidates may try to pick out the center and hope that's where the votes are, Patrick is actually asking people what's important to them, and taking what he hears into account. Even the very fact that he contacted a number of Massachusetts blogs to talk about issues shows that he's interested in hearing from a variety of people."

From Talking Heads to Talk to Action

In April, some will recall that there was a major conference in New York called Examining the Agenda of the Religious Far Right. Z Magazine has just published an article about the conference titled "Taking on the Christian Right" that will be of interest to many. (The conference organizers, by the way, have produced a one-hour DVD of the conference which they will make available soon.)

The Z piece also mentions Talk to Action, a project that I have launched with a number of colleagues. We have been posting on a temporary blog site while preparing a far more ambitious interactive site that will function much like The Daily Kos and Booman Tribune.(If you are not familiar with these sites, give one or both a try. If you are able to participate in either of those, you will be able to participate in Talk to Action. TTA will be easier.)

Meanwhile, my Talk to Action colleague Scott Isebrand has a fine inaugural post on his new Religious Right Watch blog site. Scott picks up on the theme we have been stressing regarding the need to reclaim American history from the bogus version peddled by Christian nationalists like Dr. D. James Kennedy and David Barton.

Isebrand succinctly concludes: "...the governing document of the United States, our Constitution, nowhere mentions God. The Constitution demands that there will never be religious tests for public office, and Jefferson's ideals of the separation of Church and State were embraced by the day's thinkers."

"But this is no longer the case. These concepts dear to Jefferson are not self-evident any longer. They are not embraced by the majority of our nation's Congressmembers, our President, or many judges. They are in danger of being forgotten and replaced by something altogether different, something anathema to the rational citizen."

This is the kind of thinking and writing that will help to change the terms of debate in America. If you had to prove to an otherwise informed, but open minded person that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian Nation, how would you do it? Isebrand sources some of his post the excellent book, The Godless Constitution. I also try to answer this question in my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. What are the simplest, best, and most convincing ways to make the argument? How would you tell the story of how the framers of the Constitution approached matters of religion? This is something that I expect we will be discussing a great deal (among other things) when we launch the interactive version of Talk to Action.

Short Shorts

On my way out of town for the day, here are a few items worth noting.

Sneak Preview: Religious Right Watch a new blog by Scott Isebrand, officially launches on Monday.

"This web project is essentially a blog," he writes, "but, in addition to its regularly-posted news, narrative, and commentary, RRW will offer helpful resources, such as a glossary (just what is the difference between an Evangelical and a Fundamentalist, anyway?) and links to important perspectives and information concerning the Christian Right."

Scott, one of my colleagues in the Talk to Action project, has assembled an excellent set of resources -- key organizations, blogs, and background readings. He has picked well among the many, and for that reason alone, makes Religious Right Watch an important resource to bookmark. I am looking forward to his posts.

Bruce Prescott, another TTA leader, flags a report about and appearance by Richard Land of the Southern Baptists Convention on televagelist D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Hour. Land continues the war against the judiciary, claiming that the U.S. is now run "by the judges" and "for the judges," who violate the original intentions of the founding fathers "under the guise of separation of church and state."

In case you haven't already seen it, Max Blumenthal has a chillingly hilarious report in The Nation about the secret report commissioned by Ken Tomlinson chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on alleged liberal bias in public broadcasting.

"The Mann report," Blumenthal concludes," may be one of the strangest documents ever produced by the federal government; however, it is not totally without value. Though it may be botched as an indictment of liberal media bias, it inadvertently offers an unfiltered glimpse into the recesses of the conservative mind."

Chuck Currie flags a local newspaper editorial on the arson and hate graffiti at a United Church of Christ congregation in Staunton, Virginia yesterday. Currie writes: "The words are strong and are a gift to all that have been touched by this story."

Extinguish the Fires of Hate

Hate crimes and violence in America go on all the time. The latest outrage is directed against a Virginia congregation of the United Church of Christ -- whose General Synod endorsed gay marriage this week. Here is a report on that -- and a few others from the past few days.

Thanks to blogger and UCC seminarian Chuck Currie for alerting the blogosphere to a vicious hate crime. Someone set fire to a UCC church in Viginia today. A local newspaper reports that "The outside of the church was vandalized with anti-gay messages and a declaration that United Church of Christ members were sinners. The graffiti's message appeared to be a reference to the national church’s decision earlier this week to endorse gay and lesbian marriages. The United Church of Christ's General Synod voted Monday in Atlanta to approve a resolution that is accepting of gay and lesbian marriages but is not binding on local congregations. A member of the congregation discovered the graffiti Saturday morning when he stopped by to mow the grass. He went into the church building, and when he opened the sanctuary there was still a small fire."

"I have no idea," Currie writers, "whether or not the congregation at St. John’s Reformed UCC were in favor of the resolution passed by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ supporting gay marriage or not. That is irrelevant."

"It is tragic that whoever committed this hate crime did so because they were misled into believing that supporting legal equality for gays and lesbians is sinful. It simply is not."

"The rhetoric of the religious right and their allies in the political right, Currie continues, "who claim that homosexuality is a sin -- must take some of the responsibility for the increase in hate crimes such as this one. Albert Mohler, the prominent Southern Baptist leader, has even compared legal and legislative decisions in support of gay marriage to the attacks against the United States on September 11th. People hear that kind of hateful preaching and believe they are acting as faithful Christians as they torch churches or beat up gays."

The United Church News further reports that "two other churches in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley were vandalized near the time the United Church of Christ's Stillspeaking Initiative began running television ads welcoming all people, including gays and lesbians."

Contributions to help the church can be sent to:

St. John's Reformed United Church of Christ
1515 Arbor Hill Rd
Staunton, Va 24401


The Associated Press is also reporting that two, apparently unrelated black churches were burned and heavily damaged in Tennnessee, as was a mosque in Indiana. The latter is being investigated as a hate crime.

Meanwhile, a clinic in Palm Beach, Florida was closed following a serious arson attack on Monday. The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinal reports that the arson follows a similar attack last year at this time. Terrorists often pick symbolic dates for thier crimes. In this case, the Palm Beach arsonist torches clinics on or about the fourth of July. Domestic terrorism aimed at abortion providers has been going on for a long time, inflamed in part by the rhetoric of the leaders of the Christian Right, in much the same fashion that hate is directed against others.

Hate crimes and domestic terrorism take many forms. Sometimes that hate is directed against people because of their race, thier religion, their sexual orientation, or for excercising thier constitutional right to receive or provide reproductive health services to women.

It is time to extinguish the fires of hate.


[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

Dems Could Take a Cue from Jefferson

When I published Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy in 1997, some thought using the word "theocracy" was a bit out there.

Times have changed, and the word has entered mainstream discourse as Christian Right political leaders have made tremendous gains, and have been bolder in surfacing their theocratic intentions. What is remarkable to me is that much of the book remains quite fresh and relevant. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. One of the main points of the book itself is that the struggle between theocracy and democracy is one of the central themes of American history.

I plan to base several pieces on material from the book over the next few weeks. But first I want to tell the story of the title of the book, since not everyone knows it.

In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was the Democratic candidate for president. And of course it was well known that he would do all that he could to continue the process of the disestablishment of the official churches that had been set in motion by the ratification of the Constitution. So in the course of the campaign, Jefferson was vilified by the established clergy and the media outlets associated with the Federalist Party. They ran a character assassination campaign aimed at his religious views. Because, when he was president Washington's ambassador to France he hung out with the philosophers of the Enlightenment, so he was labeled an "atheist" and a "French infidel" and of course, "anti-Christ." And so on.

Jefferson scholar Charles Sanford wrote: "Numerous sermons were preached warning if Jefferson was elected he would discredit religion, overthrow the church and destroy the Bible." When the news came that Jefferson had been elected, people in New England actually hid their family Bibles, certain that agents of Jefferson would come to seize them.

Jefferson did not answer the many public attacks on his religious character made during the campaign, believing that it was useless to argue about such things in the newspapers. In fact, Jefferson was a religious man. He was a member of his local Anglican church, although theologically, he was an early Unitarian.

But in a private letter to his friend Dr. Benjamin Rush, he discussed these attacks, which he understood were central to the meaning of religious freedom, pluralism and religious bigotry in the young nation. He wrote in part, "I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." This sentence is so central to Jefferson's thought, career and legacy that it is engraved inside the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC.

Today's Democrats could probably take a lesson or two from the founder of the party. He didn't pander to the Christian Right of his day, and he won the presidency twice.

The Family Research Council Chickens Out

It comes as no surprise that the Washington, DC-based Christian Right lobby -- Family Research Council (FRC) has a difficult time respecting other people's religious traditions. It was the FRC that declared that those who oppose President George Bush's nominees for federal judgeships are "against people of faith" in connection with the Christian Right's widely denounced "Justice Sunday" event in April.

Anyway, this week, in response to the United Church of Christ's stand endorsing marriage equality in the church and in the nation, the FRC unsurprisingly took exception. What was surprising was their line of argument and thier failure to harshly denounce the decision in the way they normally denounce homosexuality in general and marriage equality in particular:

"Ironically, this historic Congregationalist denomination, whose New England churches played a role in the American Revolution, also violated their democratic traditions in the vote of their 884-member General Synod. 'If we had put it to a vote of the people in the pews, it would have failed overwhelmingly,' declared the Rev. Brett Becker, a spokesman for more conservative churches in the UCC."

And what does Becker's opinion (Becker was a sponsor of a competing, losing resolution) have to do with democracy? The United Church of Christ's General Synod voted for this resolution by about 80%. The delegates to this body are elected. Whats more, the resolution they passed is not binding on individual congregations because the polity of the UCC respects the right to difference. Had the Synod passed Becker's resolution would the FRC claim that the vote was a violation of the denomination's democratic tradition? Not likely.

Let's look a the question of democracy in Christian denominations a little further. When was the last time any of the pronouncements of Southern Baptist Convention or the Catholic Church were put to a vote of the entire membership? (How, for example, do we think that the Pope's encyclical on birth control would fare in a plebiscite? How about the Southen Baptist Convention's doctrine that women are to be in submission to thier husbands?) In fact, there is no Christian denomination -- or any major religious grouping I can think of that puts such matters to a vote of their national membership.

The UCC, as the Family Research Council acknowledges, has a democratic polity. What they don't mention is that the UCC has none of the doctrinal police tactics conservatives use in other denominations to enforce their views.

What stands out to me in all this is how muted the Christian Right has been in response to the UCC's clear and strong stand in favor of marriage equality. From where I sit, I see two related reasons for the Christian Right's overall silence on this, and for the FRC's strained and ineffectual response.

One is that the UCC's endorsement of marriage equality demonstrates that there are many Christians who support this, and that the UCC's institutional weight and moral authority is more considerable than many may think. You can hear the fear in the FRC's statement.

Indeed, the descendants of the of the Pilgrims and the Puritans have a long history not only of democracy, but of advances in social justice that were ahead of their time -- such as ordaining the first African-American as a minister in 1785; and ordaining the first openly gay minister in 1972.

And as the UCC writes in its list of "firsts," in 1853 Antoinette Brown was "the first woman since New Testament times ordained as a Christian minister, and perhaps the first woman in history elected to serve a Christian congregation as pastor. At her ordination a friend, Methodist minister Luther Lee, defends 'a woman's right to preach the Gospel.' He quotes the New Testament: 'There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'"

The other reason the Christian Right is uncharacteristically silent in the face of this historic development is that they do not want to draw any additional media attention to the UCC and UCC president Rev. John Thomas -- because they want to define Christianity as representing only their point of view. Quick to denounce marriage equality and homosexuality in general, they are afraid to take on the authentic voice of the oldest Christian tradition in America, a tradition that profoundly informed the development of democracy and representative government in the United States.

This is a signficant retreat by the Christian Right. Just as their claim that the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation is bogus, they have no standing to criticize the democratic polity of the United Church of Christ. And in the wake of the overwhelming vote of the General Synod and unequivocal language of resolution, the silence of the Christian Right suggests that they understand the weakness of thier position in the face of strong, clear and credible Christian opposition.

Theocrat of the Week

This week, we at FrederickClarkson.com, sought to recognize the person who epitomizes the Christian Right's use of the Declaration of Independence to justify their contemporary views.

The Declaration was, of course a political document used to rally people to rise up in revolt against the King of England. In doing so, the signers invoked the "Creator," whom they described as "Nature's God." Naturally, Christian Right leaders love to emphasize the part about the "Creator" -- it sounds like the God of the Book of Genesis that created the heavens and the earth. But sometimes they mumble when they get to the part about "Nature's God," because, well, it sounds kinda neo-pagan or maybe even environmentalist.

But we digress.

Our Theocrat of the Week is AMann, a blogger at the far-right MassResestance.com, a virulently anti-gay blog affiliated with the Article 8 Alliance. (This Massachusetts-based organization distinguishes itself by seeking the removal of the majority of justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who voted in favor of marriage equality last year. They especially don't like Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.)

To explain how AMann riveted our attention, allow us what may seem like an interminable digression and restatement of stuff we write about all the time around here.

Christian Right leaders such as Pat Robertson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and of course, David Barton claim that the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation. When making this claim, they frequently cite the Declaration of Independence because it invokes the "Creator" as the source of rights, and therefore, well its obvious, America was founded as a Christian Nation. Dr. Kennedy brought this up when we were both guests on the NPR program Fresh Air with Terry Gross recently. (What follows is adapted from my reply.)

The Constitution makes no mention of God or of Christianity. In fact, the only mention of religion in the Constitution is in Article VI which proscribes 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 and by logical extension, the citizens. Instead of a Christian Nation, we have a nation based on religious equality.

If the framers of the Constitution had wanted to include God and Christianity in the nation's charter, they certainly could have done so. (Indeed, some of them were also involved in that Nature's God episode.) But they didn't -- and for very good reasons. This is the conundrum for the Christian Nationalists. Thwarted at every turn, they have been desperate for a Founding Document on which to hang thier hat. The Constitution, the document on which we base our laws, has been no help (Article VI, the First Amendment). Of course the Declaration doesn't actually support their argument either, but at least it mentions the "Creator" -- even though there is that pesky less-than-Orthodox part about "Nature's God."

All of which brings us around to our Theocrat of the Week -- AMann -- who earns the title for staying on message and invoking the Declaration as support for his position even though it is completely irrelevant.

Here is the key quote from his Award Winning blog post:

Monday, July 04, 2005

Thank God for Independence Day

Happy Independence Day!

The Declaration of Independence states that GOD gave us our human and civil rights; they were not invented or granted by courts or rulers. And it states that we, the people, hold the power He gave us through our consent; the ultimate power is not held by the courts, Empress Margaret of Massachusetts, or the senate president."

(For those not up on the details of Massachusetts politics, Empress Margaret refers to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court. The reference to the senate president, is that it is up to the senate president to call constitutional conventions of the legislature to consider amendments. On the agenda this year is a vote on an amendment that would ban same sex marriages and legalize civil unions. If it passes this fall, it will be sent to the voters for ratification.)